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. 745 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 745 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sczarni

Alright, I've read a bunch of the threads on this and realize first off that anything to do with a 4 armed PC is essentially "home brew."

So the question(s) I have are:

Kasatha race - 4 arms.
Multi-armed, 3 are considered off hand.

Multi-weapon fighting (MFW) replaces Two-weapon fighting (TWF).

Now:
Normally a person is at -6/-10/-10/-10/etc... for however many limbs they can attack with without any feats.

TFW - Normally, a person gets -4/-4. Reduced to -2/-2 with light weapon in offhand.

MWF - The three or more armed person gets -4/-4/-4/-4/etc.... -2/-2/-2/-2/-2/etc... with light weapon(s) offhand.

The "replace" I take to mean "uses this in place of" = is equivalent, but just for 3+ arms.

So then comes the problems with ITWF and GTWF: Do you get an attack with the off-hand weapon? Yeh, ok. But if they have 3 off-hand weapons, is it three more attacks (all at -5, so -2/-2/-2/-2/-2/-7/-7/-7). And then, of course there is GTWF - -2/-2/-2/-2/-7/-7/-7/-12/-12/-12.

I don't really see any reason not to run it this way, though it does kind of involve a bunch of dice rolling. Of course, RAW, there is no "IMWF" and "GMWF", so the argument would be that you'd only get one extra attack from each feat, so -2/-2/-2/-2/-7/-12. Which might also be fine.

I know I've read the threads where "THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED" - LOL. But seriously, has it? If the RAI is clear that multi-armed persons are supposed to take feats (with less DEX NEEDED, I would add) that give off-hand additional attacks, it seems like all their off-hands would get said benefits. RAI.

Clearly RAW doesn't address this as I think they discovered real quick what a huge can of worms this is for their "5 attacks" attempted limit.

Keeping in mind that a character wouldn't get IMWF until BAB +6, it would mean +4/+4/+4/+4/+1/-1/-1/-1 at 6th level (earliest). BAB +11 for GMWF, meaning +9/+9/+9/+9/+6/+4/+4/+4/+1/-1/-1/-1... or something like that. 12 attacks at level 11, instead of a two armed person's 6. 3 main arm/normal BAB, and 9 for MWF, IMWF, GMWF. Really just 6 extra attacks because they have two extra arms which are each getting three extra attacks as off-hand. If you are inclined to limit it to MWF + 2 more attacks (for IGWF & GTWF), they end up with 8 attacks.

Also, if you added in the IMWF and GMWF feats, would you keep the DEX two points below, as MWF did compared to TWF?

Would you rule that ITWF and GTWF had "equivalent" feat versions as IMWF and GMWF? Yes? No? Why not? Again, I understand this falls into the "homebrew" realm a bit.

(ps. I realize that any ruling coupled with the PC getting Multiweapon mastery would be devastating as well - that would be the monster feat to "find" if I were a player with even just MWF)

Sczarni

So a Mind Blank Mantle 1/day would be a good addition to "invisible musketeers" elite kill squads.

Command Word activated x1800
Level 8 spell
Caster Level 15
/(5/1) (1 per day)

= 43200 gp

Aligned/class restricted: 30240 gp (self-crafted = 15120)

Sczarni

Does any divination penetrate Mind Blank?

Spoiler:
The subject is protected from all devices and spells that gather information about the target through divination magic (such as detect evil, locate creature, scry, and see invisible). This spell also grants a +8 resistance bonus on saving throws against all mind-affecting spells and effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to gain information about the target. In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn't detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all.

Just curious, as it seems like this works against everything in the book(s).

Sczarni

Rogar Stonebow wrote:
maouse wrote:

Silly question perhaps. Is a Nine-section whip a whip: insofar as it gets 15' reach? I don't see as it does (other than the description saying it is a whip). Seems like it would be 8 1/2' long (1 foot sections) with 1 foot being the handle.

Anyone have a "better description" of this item and its "whip" characteristics? Or is it simply as described, and thus having no reach?

Also, is there a "reach" style whip that does more damage than 1d3? or 1d4? TY in advance.

the point of the whip, is to trade damage for great range. The fact that you can potentially get aoo at 15 feet is pretty awesome.

Whip master build/idea Level 1 Fighter/human = 3 feats

+1 BAB, proficient, weapon focus (whip), CE, D
+2 BAB Whip Mastery - lethal & nonlethal
+3 Doesn't matter, relearn to SA at 4th level
+4 SA, BAB, CE, D, M, SA, Dex 13, Int 13 - WWA 1 attack vs all in reach at full BAB; no bonuses or extra attacks

+5 BAB, WF(Whip), WM, Improved Whip Mastery +5 feet reach, grabbing unattended, grappling hook
Weapon Training(Ex) Flails
+6 Lunge +5 reach, -2 AC
+7 Doesn't matter, relearn to Improved Critical(Whip) at +8
+8 IC(Whip), BAB, WF(Whip), WM, IWM, No drop on fail disarm/trip; grapple

So at 6th level any human fighter can get 25'... And whirlwind attack at this range as well. Seems pretty nice for large quantities of foes. Non-human fighters could probably do better damage, and somewhere in there I don't thing fighters get proficiency with whips, but otherwise pretty nice. (perhaps a trait grants whip proficiency?)

It isn't very useful for range, but melee is decent enough. (sorry for using abbreviations for skill prerequisites)

Sczarni

ProfPotts wrote:

Yes... if just 'being drawn unerringly toward beating hearts' is enough to justify for Sneak Attack damage on its own, then why doesn't my Fighter get Sneak Attack damage using the thing? Or my 1st level elderly Commoner granny?..

... But yes, it could just be bad wording.

I'd agree, it basically just means "it aims for center mass" so you don't miss. Mostly, center mass isn't a critical location (as stated, it is one of the best defended locations). Arm pits, hamstrings, joints, necks, and soft targets like eyes, ears, noses, palms, pressure points and kneecaps are critical locations.

Don't believe it? Have a friend punch you (unerringly) in the chest once. Then have them punch you (unerringly, again) in the ear or nose or eye. The damage difference will be visible. Or if you don't like getting hit, just imagine it. I'd take a punch to the torso any day.

Sczarni

Diekssus wrote:
maouse wrote:

If it were there and just crushed I would say "yes" as its basically a "fabricate" spell to put it back together. After that, of course it is all the same as stated as far as actually raising them.

If it is totally gone, the problem you have is that you might do a minor or major creation spell to make it, but then those bits can't be used for another spell, so the resurrection would fail.

fabricate can only make something of the same material, it does not recreate the original, also it cannot make creatures, dead or alive.

And I was saying that if all his skeletal fragments were there, you could make him another whole skeleton. As a joke, you might even make him a few inches shorter (or mess it up bad by blowing your roll on crafting it). A body, once dead, is an object, per RAW. Since Fabricate is technically level 1, I'd say you have 4-5 more levels of "freedom" in doing this with Limited Wish. "similar spell effects" = not exactly Fabricate, slightly better for this specific casting...

Sczarni

Unless they catch him in the tub, it really doesn't matter. A "tub fight" could be interesting though... hope he has improvised weapon proficiency...

ps. this is why most adventurers never bathed in the past... afraid of RAW cleanliness.

Sczarni

Slendor; I'd go with that contingency spell... as soon as someone materializes in the oubliette, the field triggers. The only problem with this method is that a spell like "mind blank" would mean the trap is not set off, so you might wish to also have it trigger activated by a pressure plate (which would be thwarted by a flying mage). So there would be ways to not trigger it, but generally it would be triggered on arrival. No save if the conditions are met.

Then the next problem you have is: how do you make an anti-magic field permanent? That is a real head scratcher.

Sczarni

It says concealment. Which is 20%. Total concealment is different. Cover is not blocked, even though it is only 20% as well. And Total Cover is not blocked either (as it doesn't allow attacks anyway).

One might discuss the idea that it does only what it says it does: you don't have to roll the miss chance for concealment. Obviously, the person can still be not seen; thus the "proper square" disclaimer. A person in stealth might be hiding (with 20% concealment), and you manage to target the right square.

Now, why this would work any better or worse against an invisible target or a hiding target that isn't seen is arguable. So the "concealment" might just be a "bad wording" - it might have meant to imply all concealment since the second part talks about total concealment (proper square is generally total concealment talk).

In the end, I think it is poorly worded and should apply to all concealment, but only negate the miss chance - and no sneak attack damage is applied (as it does imply both, and intentionally does state, you don't really know where the person is, just the target square).

Sczarni

If it were there and just crushed I would say "yes" as its basically a "fabricate" spell to put it back together. After that, of course it is all the same as stated as far as actually raising them.

If it is totally gone, the problem you have is that you might do a minor or major creation spell to make it, but then those bits can't be used for another spell, so the resurrection would fail.

Sczarni

Silly question perhaps. Is a Nine-section whip a whip: insofar as it gets 15' reach? I don't see as it does (other than the description saying it is a whip). Seems like it would be 8 1/2' long (1 foot sections) with 1 foot being the handle.

Anyone have a "better description" of this item and its "whip" characteristics? Or is it simply as described, and thus having no reach?

Also, is there a "reach" style whip that does more damage than 1d3? or 1d4? TY in advance.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Make them a dwarf (or another race with Slow and Steady), reduce the movement 10', give them Run (x5 speed) - and load up with 18 str, 17 dex. Pile on Dodge, Wind Stance, Lightning stance, and 300 lbs of valuables. Now you have the fastest, safest (basically invisible) transport service short of teleporting.

Sczarni

Deadmanwalking wrote:
....

Deadman, you and I are never going to agree about Rogues... A "properly equipped" Rogue at 130+ feet vs. see invisible = dead mage. At level 11, the goggles and the wand only cost 1/2 the rogue's gold (41k of 82k). So there is plenty for other stuff (like a wand of true strike 750gp). We'll simply never agree on how good/bad the class is. It is fine. Well balanced against other classes that have other abilities. IMHO.

Also, you can go sans items if you get the proper ART/feats (HIPS, Lightning Stance, etc...). And magic items help those with magic a lot less than those without, for obvious reasons. So of course "if everything is better with magic" then the "needing to spend 41k" helps them more - what the heck else are they going to spend it on? Getting the worst gear they can find that doesn't help them at all??? With running and lightning stance a rogue can be out of sight before anyone can follow. Let the pin cushioning begin!

Sczarni

I don't understand why a rogue who can use the same feats and weapons as any other class is so much more horrible than they all are? Add to this a simple flanking maneuver or obtaining invisibility (pretty easy to get) upping their damage by 5 or 10d6 a hit? Why is this weak again? Using a rapier which is one of the highest crit range weapons in the game (sure, almost anyone can)?

Much less if you throw on a cheap pair of sniper goggles (20k for 11d6 each attack at any range? Yes please.) Anyway, yeh, other classes can do things. I really love the Bard comparison, where basically, an arcane caster class is compared to mundane melee classes. Of course "everyone is better with magic." That is why rogues develop the UMD skill.

Well, my 2 cents: if you want the rogue to be "equal" or blow every other class away (except other sneak attack subclasses) - throw them a couple bones: greater invisibility ring/wand/whatever and a pair of sniper goggles.

Wand of greater invisibility: 21k gp, duration 7 rounds ea casting, 350 rounds of greater invisibility. 11th level rogue = 6d6 with 3 attacks (4?). Sniper goggles + Speedy Composite short bow +1, +5 str, maybe acidic or something for another d6. So at range we have a person rolling on 4 attacks, 3 at full BAB (+8) and one at +3. Dealing 8d6, 8d6, 8d6, 2d6 (extra arrow), 8d6 = 34d6 + 25 (plus whatever else they have). Can dealing 34d6+25 damage to something in one round "equal" anything else a typical level 11 of another class can do? 3 spells at 11d6 ea? Ok. Sure. 33d6. Seems pretty evenly matched to me.

Sczarni

I only introduced Mythic after an entire adventure path. If I had been doing it all along, I think the characters would have been out of hand real real real early. Mirror Dodge (3rd tier) at 3rd-6th level would be way OP.

Now, keep in mind that at about 3rd level the characters took down a giant (an NPC died due to a rock). And they have been doing some relatively epic things since, all the way through the CotCT adventure path (such as passing the tests to get into the sun tribe, etc...). There were even a few monsters high enough CR rating that they would have had about 10 tiers by now (17th level) instead of 3.

I would suggest this: #1 don't let them take the Dual Path feat (as this gives them two abilities/tier and will REALLY REALLY unbalance things). #2 DOUBLE or more all the required tier requirements if starting at low level. Remember, all they have to do to get a "trial point" is kill something 3+ CR higher than their party. Which, honestly, is the end monster in almost every adventure path module... if not 3-4 monsters IN the path module. But if they end up skipping to the end "somehow" then they'd still get a trial point... Don't forget the HP boosts (another reason not to let them get two paths....)

The first in CotCT for example has like 4 CR 4 and one CR 6 enemy. So that would be like 5 trials... BING tier 4. Too much, too soon. IMHO.

Sczarni

CraziFuzzy wrote:
maouse wrote:
Do this fun one: a 20th level "whatever" gets hit with 19 levels of negative energy drain. What are their skill checks and saves? LOL. I was just thinking about this the other night after reading the negative effects of permanent negative levels. You could literally have someone who could not walk and chew bubble gum at the same time without choking on the gum and falling over their own feet and impaling themselves on the ground... lolz.
The negative levels don't actually remove skill ranks, they simply add a penalty to all skill checks. He'd apply a -19 penalty anytime he rolls any skill. Luckily, walking and talking don't require any skills.

Correct. The point being that anything that did require a skill check, they would most likely fail at. Which, if you applied it to a 5' alley (applied like a ledge walk), might result on them looking drunk as they bounce off the walls. God forbid if they actually had to walk over a narrow bridge...

Sczarni

Do this fun one: a 20th level "whatever" gets hit with 19 levels of negative energy drain. What are their skill checks and saves? LOL. I was just thinking about this the other night after reading the negative effects of permanent negative levels. You could literally have someone who could not walk and chew bubble gum at the same time without choking on the gum and falling over their own feet and impaling themselves on the ground... lolz.

Sczarni

FLite wrote:
Ulfen Death Squad wrote:
the messageboards to explode

This is not the message boards exploding.

60 posts in one day is tame.
160 is impressive.
260 is the board starting to explode.... :)

Right.. Post something about how good/bad the Rogue class is if you want them to explode... lolz.

Sczarni

Dragnmoon wrote:
changed it... but originally had a question about it working on thrown weapons....

The point of the "thrown weapons" was to say that a thrown weapon is wielded (OBVIOUSLY) and would get the bonus when it is thrown (and becomes A RANGE WEAPON).

Thrown weapons have to be wielded to be thrown. Ranged weapons have to be wielded to fire projectiles.

Thank you for changing your post and letting us know it is now clear.

Sczarni

You can get a 1 ounce silver piece from a bank for about the price of one Paizo Book. That would be about 3x the size of a coin in PF. (28.4 grams... though most new coins are slightly heavier due to legal reasons). If you cut it up into 3rds, and bang them into rough pieces with Illeosa's image on them you would have some nice Korvosan keepsakes. Note: Doing so is not illegal, but trying to then pass them as currency is.

Sczarni

Well.. in order to get Master Craftsman, you need 5 ranks (not plusses, actual ranks) in a skill. So 5th level. And in order to get Craft Magic Arms and Armor, you need 5th Level Caster.

I am curious as to how you got a 5th rank, actual rank, since nothing on the list you posted says "+1 rank". And at 4th level, then, you can only have 4 ranks in any skill.

Now, you might be able to get the latter with a CL+1 bonus for a spell-like ability, but I didn't see that in your build.

Remember, the item creation feat is the only thing required to make items (that can't be substituted with the +5 DC modifier). And folks can't make spell completion and spell effect items without having the spells (being a class with SPELLS class ability). Usually, anyway.

Sczarni

Abraham spalding wrote:
Touch of Idiocy and Enfeeblement don't do drain but do have more effects than normal for a penalty or damage.

Touch of Idiocy doesn't say damage or drain... it says "penalty" which is neither. It is a 10m/lvl penalty (like a minus to). Not the same thing at all from what I can tell. But a great way to get a stat to 1 before you whammy them with another spell for that last point? I don't know how that would stack... hmmm...

Sczarni

Blakmane wrote:

I think trying to say total concealment is against people but concealment is against attacks takes us back to diego's rather concise post earlier in the thread :-)

Also, where are you getting this pinpoint nonsense from? The invisibility rules? Which are only applicable if you're invisible?

Perhaps better explained:

Total concealment is applied on page 196 to people, to see if they can even attack you. THEN it is applied to attacks to see if the attacks miss you 50% of the time. No place on that page is concealment (20%) applied to people. Concealment (20%) is only applied to attacks on that page.

Warning: only for those who understand what just happened to Blakmane's argument -

Spoiler:
If you are going to start saying concealment (20%) and total concealment (50%) are the same thing, and applied the same, then I am going to say that concealment (20%) and concealment (20%) against ranged attacks are the same thing, and apply them the same way. Awesome! Nice when your logic defeats your own argument.

I was willing to admit, and have, that as GM I wouldn't apply the stealth from "against ranged attacks" to anyone who was not at range, but you made it perfectly clear I should, since all concealment and stealth is applied the same, according to your argument. Now, if instead, we all agree there are different kinds of concealment, which are applied differently, then we can move on. Ok?

Next question - does concealment require nobody watching to roll stealth? Raw - Nope. You can roll stealth if you find concealment (20%). No qualifier on the observed nature of that concealment (20%).
Next question - can I roll stealth with any kind of concealment? Per RAW - yes. Though, again, I would apply it only to ranged people in this instance, and that would be RAI, I think.
Even if only against ranged attacks? Per RAW - yes. Concealment (20%) is enough to roll stealth and it doesn't designate any qualifiers.
Does this stealth apply against everyone in the area who might observe you? RAW, it does. RAI, obviously not. Logic test would be helpful here.

To simply say "nope, you can't roll stealth" or "nope, stealth doesn't apply to anyone if you do get to roll" is to basically say "don't bother taking that feat that does absolutely nothing." (20% concealment against an attack which never comes is nothing, right? whereas 20% concealment against a kind of attack, use the concealment as you can use concealment you tricky wind stance person = something) I think RAI was to give you concealment, not just a 20% ranged miss chance. The feat needs to be changed if so, though. While they are at it, they can clarify the "1 round" - does this end before my next attack? yes or no? ie. If I did my standard action first, then used this, does it last until after my next standard action? Just to be clear.

The "pinpoint" was an earlier discussion of the Wind Stance's description (not its effect).

Spoiler:
Your erratic movements make it difficult for enemies to pinpoint your location.
If applied, infers that it requires the same DC as Invisibility to "pinpoint" someone's square with just 20% concealment. No, it was not "hard RAW". It was descriptive interpretation, and presented as such, unless one is invisible. Sorry if you missed those posts. Yes, I should have said (and went back and changed it) that persons with invisibility (granting total concealment) have to be located. per page 563.

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:
I'm considering upgrading this to, "who does concealment effect unless otherwise stated? can you have temporary concealment(only during specific instances but not others, and does not count over a period of time)? Can concealment only apply to actions or non-sentient-objects(such as traps), if specified? and what forms of concealment grant the ability to stealth?"

Yep. With so many "types of concealment" and conditional qualifiers this all really needs to be addressed better. Also, is 20% concealment of any kind enough to roll a NORMAL stealth roll (against anyone who might be observing you). Are the examples of how to get a stealth roll after "you can't get stealth if observed" ways to become "unobserved"?

The answers to these questions from Paizo would be great.

Sczarni

Blakmane wrote:

Funny thing is, you explicitly CAN get concealment 'against people'. It's used in the line below when talking about total concealment. So maouse's only remaining central premise just... doesn't exist to begin with.

I'm beginning to think there's some concealment going on in this thread too... and the foliage isn't the only green part...

First, we can see two things by way of this "against you" portion of total concealment. #1 total concealment (50%) is an improved form of concealment (20%). So above, where it says "concealment" they are talking about (20%) concealment to roll stealth (unless in bright light).

Does the feat give concealment (20%)? Yep. So RAW, as seen here, definitively supports taking a stealth roll.

My point isn't invalidated by this portion, in fact it is supported. I never said that it CAN'T be applied to persons. I pointed out that regular concealment (20%) isn't applied to/against "persons." RAW. Total concealment IS, and also states what attacks it works against. Granted. But again, even total concealment is applied against attacks, after being applied to "you." Attacks have a 50% miss chance. Not people. The reason it is applied to people is because they get a 100% miss chance if they don't roll a perception (20) to find your square. Which means they have to make a roll opposed to... ding ding ding... stealth if moving and using stealth(basically), opposed with their perception. But a person who doesn't use stealth while having invisibility to grant total concealment still gets a base 20.

Sczarni

Runelord Apologist wrote:
In order to determine whether Stealth can function, concealment has to be meted out on an individual basis; for each character, you either have concealment from them or you do not. As you said yourself, concealment is only applied versus a melee or ranged attack. Wind Stance asks, as part of its function, whether the attack made is ranged or melee. If no attack is being made, this is a nonsense question, as there is no attack for the ranged or melee property to be assigned to. Stealth does not care about the type of the attack, but Wind Stance does, and if an attack is not being made which can be declared a ranged attack, Wind Stance will never grant you concealment against any individual.

This is the complete HOOEY I am trying to correct. It is taking the "effective against" and saying that because there is nobody to effect, it doesn't work. Wrong. AS pointed out with Shield and Anti-Magic spells... the ability works regardless of an "effective against" component. Concealment granted against anyone = stealth roll. You agree that concealment is granted. Then I get a stealth roll.

Stealth roll works against whom? Anyone who might notice you. That is RAW. Not "ranged attackers only."

I started out agreeing that as a GM I would probably only apply the effects of the stealth vs. anyone at range. And I probably still would. But the RAW makes it clear that this is NOT RAW. RAW, the stealth roll, that we all agree one gets, applies against ANYONE who might observe you. That is RAW.

Concealment = never applies to a person. Concealment grants Stealth, which applies to persons who might observe you. By your rationale, concealment would never work, against anyone (per 195/196 it is NEVER applied to "people", only attacks). Ever. So by following your rationale, stealth would never work against anyone's attacks, ever, because concealment never blocks "people" - only their ranged or melee attacks (and melee are resolved the same way as ranged attacks). Which is 100% backwards and wrong.

Sczarni

If the pit doesn't have a "bypass mechanism" then, in theory, it must be disabled/disarmed/set off before going further. I would rule that since DD is a "learned only" skill, the only option someone without this skill would have would be to set off/trigger the trap once they found it.

Or go completely around it as if it were a hazard. But this means you aren't going to avoid a magic trap (ever, most are proximity - by time you see them you are in the proximity and setting them off) and most mechanical traps will end up killing (well, figuratively) you.

Keep in mind, setting off a trap can be done in several ways with more than 20 pounds of weight (pressure plates). Of course, the person seeing them may not know this because they aren't trained. But if you are feeling like a nice GM you can have them sacrifice 20+ pounds of gear every trap to avoid the effects. Otherwise, per the RAW, you need someone who knows what they are doing. Think of it as "bomb disposal." Yeh, anyone can see the bomb. But they might not know how to disarm it. And playing with it might set it off. Better know what you are doing when you mess with them.

ps. there is a reason they are called "traps" and not "cute little devices that might hurt you if you don't see them."

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:
actually spring attack and vanish seem... pretty good for survival.

Yep, a moving invisible rogue is a lot more trouble than a stationary one... (and greater invisibility is solid if they don't have see invisible or some sense that sees you)

Sczarni

Those are the base prices. CL * SL * 2000 or * 1800. These are further increased by: Uses per day in the case of those items. Duration of spell (multiplier) and (material component cost * 100) in the case of the continuous or unlimited items.

The differences in the *2000 versus the *1800 is what kind of activation it has, basically.

Command word items are * 2000 for a couple reasons: A person with UMD can "figure out" the command word and use the item without any further UMD checks (or at least a plus to them). They tend to be x/day items, so they replicate spells per day. So the cost is a little higher.

Use-activated and continuous are a little cheaper because they: actually aren't because of material cost * 100 cost (for items with material costs). Don't have the method of activation written on them. Only replicate long duration spells anyway (continuous).

For instance, you would not have a continuous "true strike" item. For two reasons: A GM would limit this to a x/day. And the spells which are "self" only are supposed to cost even more (2,4,10x is what they advise you in another book). These are supposed to be "caster only" spells so that a fighter type doesn't get to "never miss" or whatever the benefit is.

As always; new magic items must be passed by your GM. Of course, when you "happen across" a 200k +4 dancing icy burst rapier (disguised as a fan from CotCT path) it is a nice day. Throwing it into a scabbard of keen edges is a good cheap way to add that quality to it (you couldn't make a +4 keen dancing icy burst weapon, as it would be +11 total). Asking your GM if you can sell it for 100k and make a +5 Dancing Defending rapier seems like a legit question... lol. Again, put into the scabbard of keen edges for that +11 boost...

Sczarni

Blakmane wrote:
As an aside, you could use vanish after your charge in the surprise round to gain a little bit of survivability. Your opponent will know what square you are in (as you would have no way of moving out of it after charging) but you'd be getting a sweet 50% concealment. If the opponent tried to move away you could smack him with a sneak attacked AOO and then do the vanish trick in round 1 again just like you described.

Or... if you vanish then move, they have to find your square all over again first before they get the 50% concealment applied... which is better IMHO. (its only a DC 20 perception, but low perception monsters can miss this early on pretty easily, which results in a 100% miss chance as they hit a different square)

Sczarni

Polar Ray (8th level Wiz spell) - am I correct in finding that this is the only offensive spell in the Core Rulebook that actually does DRAIN a statistic? Wow.

Ressurection/Clone/etc... do drain damage under conditions. Energy Drain doesn't even do drain damage (unless you miss a fort save the next day)- and that is level 9 anyway.

Anyone have examples of other things that cause "drain" such as poisons or something?

Sczarni

Thank you, I found the descriptions on page 554-555; and unless I am mistaken, an INT boosting item after 24 hours now gives you skill points... I thought they didn't.

Spoiler:
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration
greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.

Mostly I was looking to see if dropping someone's stats would cause them to lose feats and/or in the case of STR, carrying capacity. Nope. Unless it is drain. Thanks again.

Sczarni

EvilPaladin wrote:

My 2 cp is this:

The feat gives concealment against ranged attacks. So you can stealth to avoid ranged attacks. And then can use sneak attack[and any similar abilities] against said ranged attack. Unfortunately, the ranged attacker can still see you, so you he can still target you, as he is not a ranged attack, and his ranged attack is the only thing that gets the concealment. And even more unfortunately, IIRC, objects are immune to precision damage. So yes, you can use stealth v. ranged attacks, however it doesn't really help you to do so.

Except, as previously discussed, concealment NEVER applies against a person (p 195-196) and is only discussed RAW as applied versus a ranged or melee attack. So this line of "defending a non-RAW position" falls flat when you take that into account.

If you get a stealth roll, you apply the results of the stealth roll to whom it applies, not to whom you got the concealment from. This is the entire "problem" we are discussing. If you get a stealth roll from concealment (which all RAW supports) - in this instance, to whom does it apply to? The camp that says "look at the feat and apply the skill to the same people" has a valid argument for discussion. It isn't at all supported by RAW, though.

But yes, I grant it is valid observation of other mechanics to be inclined to say such a thing. A feat grants an AoO, and you can only apply the AoO on the person who drew it. But then there are feats that allow a skill use that applies to everyone the skill applies too as well. Such as Acrobatic where all your acrobatics/fly rolls get a bonus.

Sczarni

Runelord Apologist wrote:

Having concealment is not a binary condition. You can have concealment against one person while not having concealment against another (depending on, for example, where you and other characters are standing in a cloud of obscuring mist). Wind Stance does not grant you concealment as an absolute against all characters. It grants concealment for one condition only, against ranged attacks. If someone is not making a ranged attack against you, you do not have concealment against them.

To use your example, Shield grants a +4 shield bonus to AC. A shield bonus is ignored by touch attacks. If someone attacks you with a touch attack, you cannot claim to have a +4 bonus to AC against that attack, because the bonus Shield grants is of a specific type which does not affect touch attacks.

Similarly, Wind Stance grants 20% concealment against ranged attacks. Concealment against ranged attacks is not the same thing as de-facto concealment.

As I was trying to illustrate - nothing in the game is a binary condition. Everything has exceptions. You cast anti-magic shield and guess what, the person without any magic doesn't care. You cast shield, and guess what, the person using splash, area effect, or touch attacks doesn't care. You have concealment conditional on ranged attacks, and guess what, melee attacks don't care. But that doesn't mean you don't have an anti-magic field, or a shield, or concealment. Concealment against xyz is still concealment... there are no "defacto" types of concealment in the section on page 196 that say "only concealment versus melee allows a stealth roll." There is no wording that says "concealment against ranged attacks is not real concealment." Nowhere is this RAW. Concealment (of any kind) allows a stealth role, per page 195, 196 and 106. You don't need total concealment (invisible). ANY concealment is what you have to accept when it says "concealment" without a conditional modifier on page 196. 20%, 50%, against melee, against ranged, against pooh bears, against magic, against touch attacks, against splash attacks... doesn't matter. It counts. Roll Stealth.

Note: p172. In bright light you need cover (again, any cover) or invisibility to roll stealth. Not full cover. Any cover. Cover from ranged attacks, cover from melee attacks, cover from splash attacks... any cover. (noted exception, soft cover specifically says it doesn't allow a stealth roll as well I believe). A full wall (full cover) or a small stack of debris (1/2 wall or even a box to hide behind - partial cover). Either lets you roll stealth. Non-qualified = both/all. Exceptions to the general rule (soft cover) are specifically spelled out. Now, do the same experiment with Blur, Tower Shields, and Wind Stance... do they specifically say you can't roll stealth with the concealment they offer? Nope. So you can.

Sczarni

Do characters lose the ability to use a feat if their stats fall below the requirements for the feat?

Say you get attacked by a strength drain that drops you from 17 to 12 strength as a fighter with the power attack Feat. Since you no longer meet the 13 required str, can you still use the feat?

I know this would add an extra layer to combat confusion... but am curious if these are supposed to apply "immediately" or not?

Likewise, if someone with stunning fist feat drops below 13 dex or wis, do they lose the ability to use the feat.

19, 17, 15, 13 dex feats? Temporary negative levels that drop you BAB vs BAB +x feats?

Sczarni

Vanishing Move (Su): When you wish to not be seen, you aren't. As a swift action, you can make yourself invisible until the end of your turn. This effect ends if you do anything other than move. If you expend one use of mythic power when using this ability, it instead acts as .greater invisibility using double your tier as your caster level.

Turns the regular invisibility into greater for 1 MP. A good upgrade for any Rogue / Ninja / sneak attacker.

Sczarni

....people walking around with "Kick Me" signs in Azlanti on their backs...

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could find a spell that grants the benefit, then use the formula to create a general item cost from there.

Anticipate Peril (1st level) could grant a +5 bonus IF the device could be constructed at a higher caster level (generally this isn't allowed, but with certain feats is). The base for this would be:

Continuous with use - Spell level 1, Caster level (1-5), times 2000.
Plus the cost of the materials x 100 (0 gp). Times 2 for 1 min / level.
So a +1 would be 4,000, +2 would be 8000, +3 12,000, +4 16,000, +5 20,000. This costs more if not slotted in a slot location. And would be a LOT cheaper if you made it a use/day item.

As GM I'd give someone a +5 init over a +5 sword any day of the week... given that it is replicating a level 1 spell (that isn't even "Self" only like true strike) it seems like a good gold sink. Also, that is one of the restrictions on these devices, by the way - you should not allow them to replicate "self" only low level spells, or if they do, jack the price up by 2x, 4x or 10x because these spells are designed to be more powerful CASTER ONLY spells.

Sczarni

Diego Rossi wrote:

Using some incomplete source, maouse?

Wind stance wrote:
Benefit: If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks.
It say very clearly against what you get concealment. Only ranged attack. Not against any form of observation.

Why is reading the sentence, written in plain English, using an incomplete source.

"If you move more than 5 feet this turn" = qualifier.
"you" = target
"gain concealment" = benefit.
"for 1 round" = duration.
"against ranged attacks" = effective against.

The qualifier is not that "there have to exist people who it is effective against or you can't move five feet." In fact, you gain this benefit against all people it is effective against that might exist, no matter if you see them, if they exist, if they are 320 feet from you, if they cast a ranged attack through a gate.... whatever.

This is not like a spell that REQUIRES a target. It is like a spell that provides a defense. You don't lose the +4 AC bonus simply because someone doesn't attack you when you cast Shield, for instance. And you don't have +4 AC only if you are attacked. No. It grants a benefit (+4 AC) to the target (you) which is effective against (unless otherwise stated) all attacks. Simply because there might be an attack to which it might not apply (area affect spells, splash effects... etc...) does not mean you don't get the +4 AC bonus (benefit... ie. in the former's case = gain concealment, which per RAW allows a stealth roll). IF you move more than 5 feet, you gain concealment. The fact is that no spell or ability protects against everything. Warping it backwards and saying that if you aren't attacked by what it is effective against you can't use it is a poor reading of a simple sentence. IMHO. You could then make an argument that if someone casts anti-magic field and there is no magic around the spell fails because there is no magic to work against. No, the spell is up and running and waiting for any magic. Just like the concealment granted here is up and running and waiting for any ranged attacks.

The fact that any time you gain any kind of concealment you can roll stealth, is really what needs to be addressed by a FAQ. Because if it didn't say that in three different places (RAW) we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it does say it in three different places. If you gain/find concealment, you can roll stealth. Clearly RAW. In three places. If you gain concealment, though, it doesn't mean everyone loses sight of you? That is the question from the "nu-uh" side. But the entire sentence in Stealth that says if you are observed you can't use stealth is in "obvious error", since the basic function of stealth is to not be seen when being in a place that is observed. But it is there in RAW too. But the RAI for that is that you can't re-use stealth after you have been seen/broken stealth. Also, that one sentence would prevent anyone working in a group to ever use stealth, as their partners would be observing them unless they did the whole "cover your eyes and count to ten" thing... which is silly.

The ways to re-roll stealth are listed after that nefarious sentence. Find cover. Find concealment. Bluff to move to someplace unobserved (with or without cover or concealment) - note, this implies that gaining cover and concealment MAY BE OBSERVED when you find them. There are no other qualifiers on the "find cover or concealment" - no "in an unobserved spot", no "full cover or full concealment." In two more spots, we find that using any cover or concealment allows a stealth roll. Again, no qualifiers of "full", and obviously partial allows one to be observed... and even full concealment allows one to be observed (pinpointed) in a square and attacked (though full cover blocks attacks that are not area attacks). Unfortunately, these two spots are a little nefarious as well, as they say USING cover and concealment allows a stealth roll. Not gaining, having or finding it. Using might imply "having", "gaining", "finding", "throwing it at someone"... who knows. But generally, combining it with the Stealth description we have to say RAW says you can USE it if you FIND it. Is "gaining" it the same as "finding" it? Is "having" it the same as "finding" it? That would be the semantic discussion that is left. If found, can use, is RAW. 100%.

Sczarni

Runelord Apologist wrote:
The issue is that, while Wind Stance can grant concealment, it does not always grant concealment. The feat has a trigger condition (If you move more than 5 feet this turn), an effect (you gain 20% concealment), a duration (for 1 round), and a conditional (against ranged attacks). If the conditional is not met - that is, if you are not being targeted...

No. You gain concealment. It clearly says "you gain concealment" and then says for what conditions it applies. You gain (find) concealment. The IF is placed BEFORE the gaining of the condition, not after it. IF you move more than 5 feet, you gain concealment. How long, and against what are not part of the IF statement.

It does not say "If you move more than 5 feet and are being attacked by range, you gain concealment for 1 round." The only IF qualifier is "if you move more than 5 feet." The effective against is "ranged attacks" - this is not part of the "if" statement. You gained the concealment against something, you can roll stealth. The GM will apply that against all ranged attacks (whether they happen or not is immaterial).

Also: I would note that with Blur, you only get to roll stealth when it is cast. Why? Because technically you are not gaining concealment every round. You have it already. So when you first cast it, you gain concealment. Fine. Roll Stealth. But if someone sees you after that (because, say, you attack them), you can't re-roll stealth every round just because you have concealment. It wouldn't work in dim light either, right? If you attacked, even with continued dim light, stealth would end. Without finding concealment (again) or cover (anew), you couldn't re-roll stealth. Making a move action to a different area of dim light would grant a roll, though, in mechanical theory.

Sczarni

Why no sniper goggles for 20k? Means you can sneak attack at full range or get +10 damage (5d6) within 30 feet (on every sneak attack).

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/magicItems/wondrousItems.html#_ sniper-goggles

Well, he isn't really a ranged type rogue. But in the next few levels you might want to consider investing in something like this (hand crossbow only requires one feat (rapid reload) to use max BAB/attacks every round... but if you go through the shortbow path you can knock out another few points with a composite bow (with strength a little higher))

Sczarni

Cap. Darling wrote:

I think no. But i also think the feat is kinda poorly written and that it should have been miss chance.

And finally i think it should have been against both melee and ranged. That would have given the fast, mobile combatant somthing nice.
But i dont think the feat gives HIPS.

HIPS doesn't end in 1 round...

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:
maouse wrote:


Also, is there a FAQ on blur's concealment somewhere that specifically outlines what everyone is claiming regarding it's use?
I've actually looked at blur, it actually effects people ability to sense you. This is normal concealment like being in low light vision, so it's valid salad.

Yeh, I searched for an actual FAQ on this... nothing. So if it grants concealment... and there is no specific statement regarding it... then report to page 196, 197... where it says TWICE:

"Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check."

"Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check."

Seems like they meant it so much they put it in twice... three times if you include Stealth on page 106. "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding (gaining) cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth (meaning; they lose the ability to observe you). If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10
penalty because you have to move fast. (meaning they momentarily lose the ability to observe you because you bluffed them)"

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:

I've already argued the corner case.

I've also said the following:

even if you do get to roll stealth against the ranged attack(everyone in vision must make an opposed perception), if anyone else is observing you and not effected by the concealment, they're watching you with one of his senses and therefore you cannot stealth.

That statement "you can't roll stealth if ANYONE is watching you" is silly and facetious. How does any party of 2 or more people EVER roll stealth? They both close there eyes and give each other full cover? Or do both people, while they can see each other, roll stealth (you just said they can't)?

Much less a group of 4 or 6 people doing it... "Everyone close your eyes and count to 10. On 10 we all roll stealth, ok?" Silly. Of course you can make a stealth roll while being observed. You just can't use it against an enemy who is observing you without cover or concealment or moving to a place they can't see you (bluff and move to unobserved spot).

Against anyone who was observing you when you rolled, your roll doesn't count. So, basically, your friends can see where you are hiding if they were watching you start to hide. Heck, they might even follow right behind you at 5'... is the claim that only the last person in the line of 2, 4, or 6 people the only person who can use Stealth? Because in every game I ever played it is usually the first person in the line who is using stealth. With everyone else right behind them. Looking forward. And knowing when he stops... magically, apparently.

Sczarni

Bandw2 wrote:

I thought of this more, (dealing with effects other than wind stance which I do believe could be worded better) and stuff like Tower shields and Bluff don't have the "lasts for one round" thing. These end the moment they finish their stealth action, so if they are no longer in a position for concealment They're instantly visible again(tower shield have you point out a specific edge of a specific tile). This can be used to escape but not well for assault.

Frankly Wind stance, as i've mentioned to Maouse, comes down to whether or not the concealment applies to anything other than ranged attacks by extension, and I believe this is blurry enough where we need clarification, even if it's just to put to end the ~% chance or so the wording does support it.

Well, for assault, the shield holder has cover, so if there is some section on "attacking from cover" that gives someone some sort of bonus or negates the opponent's armor bonus, then it might help just to do this. Again, defeated by a 5' step in melee. For ranged, though, it might make a good defense for a rogue with ranged throwing of something.

The real question with wind stance is if you are allowed a stealth roll for ANY cover or concealment. It would be nice to have clarification (though I think RAW is clearly clear about this), if it doesn't follow normal RAW, then they need to say so. Thanks again for the thread.

Also, is there a FAQ on blur's concealment somewhere that specifically outlines what everyone is claiming regarding it's use?

Sczarni

SlimGauge wrote:
Wind Stance does not grant concealment vs observation, only vs ranged attacks. Stealth is defeated by observation. I will be very surprised if you a) actually get a FAQ and b) are told that it works

This is opinion. Stealth is OPPOSED by observation. Moving to cover or concealment, even while observed, allows a stealth roll (RAW). You can start out with a stealth roll, wander down a street where people MIGHT see you, and they might not beat your stealth roll. Then, even if looking in your direction, they WON'T SEE YOU. That is the definition of stealth.

They don't automatically see you when you get within 120 of them. Why do people support these nonsense ideas?

Sczarni

Blakmane wrote:

Obviously I think no, having been part of the intital discussion. 'against ranged attacks' is not an inclusive statement.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
A tower shield should work. Of course any creature with object permanency will know where you're hiding.

If you let tower shields allow for a stealth check, you create this weird situation where they become the best method of stealthing for an in-combat rogue. Also, it creates a whole bunch of other ridiculous rules interactions like being able to plonk down your tower shield in front of an opponent and then have them no longer be aware of your presence.

For example, imagine a well lit, 100ft hallway with no hiding spots and a guard standing on the opposite end looking down towards your hiding space. If tower shield cover allows for stealth, you could run out from the cover, plonk your shield down as your standard action and roll stealth, repeating each turn until you pass the guard safely. The guard would never notice you are there, somehow ignoring the huge shield that keeps being chucked down every turn. Obviously this is pretty silly.

You plunk it down, roll stealth, and they have no idea where you are in the square you are in... and only if the shield is between you and them... and guess what, this is immaterial unless the rogue drops the tower shield and moves, as you can't attack the rogue anyway, because full cover doesn't allow it. However, you can attack the square or use magic against the shield, as normal, which stealth wouldn't help anyway.

A rogue with full cover who can attack you while you can't see them might still get sneak attacks... even without stealth... but this would need to be vented in RAW somewhere. I don't know if it is atm.

The only benefit that the cover + stealth would give is if the rogue drops the shield and moves to continue stealth. Which is completely logical in its effect. Basically, a rogue behind a wall moves... can you see them? Nope. Why would this shield situation be different?

Yes, a Tower Shield (with a single dip into fighter?) is a rogue's best friend, perhaps. Except it takes a standard action and can be defeated by a 5' step...

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for starting this thread. I clicked FAQ.

Here is my reasoning for Wind Stance (and Tower Shields) giving the user a stealth roll:

Per all the RAW, sure it does. Stealth requires cover, concealment, OR not being observed. Not all three.

Additionally, stealth is not "against" anyone until they observe you. Meaning, you can roll stealth whether anyone is nearby or not. You can roll stealth while alone. You can start stealth while the rest of the party can see you, but your enemies can't. Etc...

Concealment specifically states that if you get concealment, you can roll stealth. It does not specify partial, full, against moose, against ranged attacks, against one person, against a group... any time you get concealment, you can roll stealth.

Concealment doesn't state anything about being used against a "person." It is against ranged attacks and melee attacks (per RAW). And melee attacks are resolved / determined the same way as ranged attacks. So the statement "against ranged attacks" really means both against ranged attacks and against melee attacks. Though I conceded that in this instance, it might only apply against anyone who can't attack you with a melee weapon.

Wind stance specifies in the description that it makes you hard to pinpoint. This is a perception roll normally (DC 20) to even tell what square someone is in. Which means, if you accept that as part of the feat, the person moves so fast you don't see where they went. Which is the definition of being concealed... you can't see them clearly/at all.

And that is the logical conclusion I come to based on RAW. As opposed to making up a story that it is somehow the same as Blur (instead of other forms of concealment). Nowhere is RAW does it say it is the same as Blur.

Sczarni

If I cast this spell, and pay for the permanency, to make the demiplane permanent... and set the TIME feature to "timeless" - then are all my future castings of this spell to enlarge the demiplane permanent (timeless) for free?

Also, if I go to this plane, and travel back to the Material Plane, are the spells still permanent that were permanent on this plane (for free, all spells are permanent). Is this a "cheap way" to get all your spells permanent for free?

I go to my timeless demiplane with a 1:600000 round ratio, cast my 600 spells that are permanent, rest, and come back in one round to the Material Plane and kick butt.

(I know as a GM I would make the spells expire when you come back, but purely by RAW, they wouldn't - permanent spells cast on other planes don't expire simply because you go to a different plane (such as other spells which are permanently put on you normally and paid for "properly"))

Sczarni

OK. I think we missed the point of the question a little:

A character can use only one shield to get a shield bonus. OK. No Problem.

The Cover from a tower shield is not a shield bonus, is it?

So can they give cover as a standard action (per tower shield) and if they do - what shield bonus do they get from people who can attack them? Since they are using the tower shield, are they restricted to that? Or can they "plant it" and turn to use a different shield against someone else (say a +5 shield of some other sort, where the tower is only masterwork or something "lesser"?)

Also, you can attack with a third shield as a weapon (no slot). That is a given, right? (and keep in mind it would have to be enhanced for damage/to hit instead of defense).

If I "set" the tower shield, can I use a different shield against someone else, or are shield "used" declared at some point between turns? Weapon usage isn't declared until you take an action... are shields the same way? For instance, if I am carrying three shields, can I declare which one I use to defend which attack (such as using an arrow catcher against ranged weapons and +5 one against everyone in melee, etc...?)/ rules on this anywhere?

1 to 50 of 745 << 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.