|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I was just going over rope tricks, and one option is to throw it and entangle someone. Now, this would grant the limited movement version of entangled, where a person can move. Does the rope travel with them? Or does it stay in the location it was thrown (like a spell would)? Since it is NOT a grounded object (like the spell's roots or a web), wouldn't it move with them until escaped? Which leads to the next question, which would be - how would one escape the entangled condition (besides making a save versus the spell version?)? Attacking the rope is the only way I can see to do this. Anyone else want to weigh in on it? Thanks!
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Yeh, I get that alignment and subtype are not the same. And alignment subtypes are what grants the ability to bypass DR/alignment. And most humans are made of human, and most elves are made of elf, etc... humans are not made of "good stuff from beyond". Got it. Thanks.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Yeh, I am getting to the whole "alignments" are not the same as "aligned subtypes"...
double checking other character's eidelon... noting the "as if they had the subtype" which indicates they don't actually have it.
And after reading more of the subtypes can say yes: most humans are made out of human (subtype) not good (or evil or whatever). Thanks for the clarification between alignment and subtype (which grant the abilities I was questioning).
OK. Now I know the common answer is probably "if it doesn't say, then it isn't so."
But here is my question: are unarmed strikes aligned?
I know a sword, beat metal/rock/wood, doesn't have an inherent alignment, and must be enchanted with one via magical forging. This is easily understandable. And it has a cost. And to do this, you also have to have the item be magic to begin with (+1 or better, then add holy or whatever).
My question is whether there is an "unmagic" aligned quality to people with an alignment? I mean, in theory, they "detect" as their alignment, thus they are aligned. So are their bodies aligned? And as such, can they bypass DR/alignment something has?
Are alignments magical enhancements only? Or are they inherent properties of aligned persons/entities? Does the DR/alignment only apply versus weapons, or against said alignment generally?
Scratching my head a little, because I don't see how a LG Paladin can hit with a neutral (non aligned, actually) fist, if otherwise his fist, alone, sticking through a door, would detect as LG.
If there is any actual FAQ on this, or some semblance of a reasonable explanation (like "weapons have to be magically enchanted to have alignments... even if those weapons are people who are aligned, but that alignment means nothing and doesn't count" isn't that reasonable, so please do explain)? (and do try to avoid the "no, simply no." argument as well)
"All creatures have an alignment and alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items."
"A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that matched the subtype(s) of the creature."
----this last quote (from UMR) indicates that characters, which have an alignment (subtype?), can use that alignment against DR/alignment with both natural and wielded weapons WITHOUT any enchantment. ------
OK. As I understand it, when using a regular firearm, you do "B and P" with a subnote of 2, meaning that it counts as BOTH B and P damage (and takes the path of least resistance). That is all well and good and explained with regular firearms.
My question is in the description of Mortars and 6 inch guns (and grenades and some bombs). In the description of these they say they do 6d6 or 8d6 of B, P, AND S damage to 30(ish) feet aoe. So my question becomes, since it is specifically described as doing 8d6 B, and 8d6 P, and 8d6 S (if you delineate it that way per proper English rules) - do these weapons actually do realistic damage (24d6 - which is a huge explosion - 1st level people are DEAD almost guaranteed at 24 damage). Or are they more "wimpy" at 8d6 (like a little "pop" which could potentially not even kill a 1st level person with any HD (seriously, 8 damage, what a dud).
I prefer to think the specific rule (and lack of a subnote 2 on these) means they do the more damage. However, I can see the argument for the "non-lethal" interpretation as well (but then why describe the damage in the description at all?). Thoughts? Clarification from the game designers would be nice. Not that I expect to run into a Numerian siege horde any time soon, but it could happen, I guess.
(ps. the reason I'm even looking at these is because of a Lucky Halfling, Wild Child Brawler, Holy Gun(2), Farstrike Monk(2), Technologist Gunslinger, Sniper Slayer who was considering strapping a mortar or gun to his platemail wearing turtle ... all to use explosives in melee and use the Lucky Halfling to give the turtle the save it needs to use the resonating wayfinder's evasion to both avoid all damage (base save for the combo of classes at level 7 is near 20)- yeh, silly, just having fun and came across a relatively serious question - oh yeh, did I mention the turtle was going to take Ally Shield so the Brawler could use a move action to use his 28 AC once in a while?).
No, using it as a performance weapon requires you to have EWP (Scorpion Whip). Using it as a whip requires you to have Proficiency in (Whip). And since you have proficiency in (Whip) you can use it as such (Even though it is now only Martial Weapon Proficiency (Whip), and not an Exotic Weapon Proficiency - for you).
Does an eidolon have to take all of its attacks in a full attack action?
Here's the scenario: 4th level summoner with a biped eidolon with an extra claw attack set (so "claws (4)"). It has reach, magic and a damage die step up as well (why not). So the Claws (4) are 1d6 each, considered magic, and have reach 10'. And it has +2 str (19). Yay eidolon monsters!
Now, this particular eidolon carries a big sword or something around for when it has to move in a round. If it moves, it uses the BFW to try a sunder attempt (because 2d6 + 6 for a greatsword, versus 1d6 +4 for a claw)
My understanding here is that the Claws (4) only works on a full attack action.
If the eidolon moves, it has to use a single claw attack (just like a player) as an attack action (versus full round action). Or a single weapon attack.
So the question is, when it doesn't need to move and gets "Claws (4)" or a combination of a melee attack and "Claws (3)"... can it instead take "Claws (3)" without dropping the weapon and not suffering the "all natural attacks become secondary attacks" (-2 and half strength damage? No thanks!). Or MUST a creature committed to a full attack action take all of it's possible attacks? (until it runs out of targets?)
I realize a weapon cord could probably solve this issue (can eidolons use weapon cords? well they have arms). Do weapons and cords and such return with them? Can of worms anyone?
My adopted Ketsune wants to know: What Whips are Whips? The Half-Orcs who adopted her taught her how to drive a caravan, you see...
Caravan Drover (Half-orc)
Now, I would normally say "well, this is just normal whips." But we all know Scorpion Whips can be used as a Whip. So, as a Fighter, she now becomes proficient with those as well, correct?
And then I have to ask about Nine-section Whips, whip swords, Flying blades and Flying Talons, and well, anything that basically Whips. Are they Whips too?
What, exactly, is a Whip? Just a Whip (no prefix) or is anything that is called xyz Whip also a Whip for the purpose of this Trait? Ghost & Spider whip? (immaterial as the spells grant proficiency)
(Also, Whip: S, Flying Talon: P (although?), Uber Scorpion Whip (ignore the inferior write-ups): S ----- So without the Nine-Section Whip, no B).
Whip, training? Whip, enraging?
If anyone knows of any other Whip weapons that might be Whips (regardless of what they are called) I'd appreciate a heads up on them. Various damage types would be nice, though just having the scorpion whip allows an option of materials (adamantine whip anyone? yes please!)
OK, so here is my question:
Tactician A grants Lookout to a party of four people, one of whom is invisible, hiding in plain sight, or otherwise obscured by not being seen.
Say a 6th level party? So 6 rounds of "Shared" Lookout Ability.
Since they are on Lookout, they all get one action in the surprise round is the way I am reading it. Is this correct? It seems to me what is intended (and relatively powerful if you think about it, as only one person needs to succeed on their hide / be invisible).
The only failing being that you all need to be adjacent to one another (but only one person needs to be adjacent to the invisible / HIPs person for this to work as long as they are in "line" or whatever).
The reason I am asking is for the Drill Sergeant Fighter Archetype... not necessarily for a Cavalier. Thanks and I appreciate your replies and opinions on this.
Planes contain more than one hazardous environmental effect. PA states you get immunity from said environmental effectS - not one effect. It means you get immunity to toxic jungles on the plane, it means you get immunity from scorching deserts on the plane, thin air on high mountains, and cold of space, and lack of air under water do not bother you (IMMUNITY).
You also get 20 damage reduced from a single type of elemental ATTACK (things that deal damage directly to you, as opposed to "over time" which is how environmental damage works). So if you go skinny dipping in lava, you take 20d6 on the Elemental Plane of Fire, minus 20 points. OUCH. But you can stand next to the lava all day without breaking a sweat, just like a native. Mmmm toasty!
(and for the record, I would have ruled exactly opposite of the GM: damage over time is environmental, so level drain over time is effectively environmental and not a direct attack on you - so you are immune, no levels lost over time (just like a native). Negative energy attacks are directed, and thus you could choose to have 20 resistance against it - the "most dangerous plane of all" doesn't sway me much. Space is pretty darn dangerous too. - strict RAW would indicate environmental dangers as only those covered under the environmental rules... but then, how could they cover ALL environments for "made up planes and demi-planes"? I would definitely count something that kills you as a "toxic" effect...)(and 4th level death ward works, but 7th level spell doesn't? naw.... just naw...)
Paul Watson wrote:
Advanced firearms like the revolver target touch out to 5 range increments, rather than just one. That's a pretty big difference.
Yeh, but by x level everyone has a pair of sniper goggles, don't they? I'm thinking ranged rogues... nevermind... lol. It's some sort of scope for pistoleros...
Ah. I sometimes forget people still use XP outside of PFS.
Yeh, running monster campaigns (25 pt build +25 MP monster build) with Mythic added on top... All monsters are max HP (players paid to train their HP too) with no CR changes. Have a Svirfeblin, a Kasatha and a Human Plant (pod person, from Numeria...) doing the Legacy of Fire Campaign.
Spoiler:Thanks for the input, just wanted to "play fair" with my players.
I was debating on giving them XP for killing the undead dwarf (Qilzar) five times, and then convincing him to leave them alone so they didn't have to kill him any more (Diplomacy 50 FTW) - five or six times XP. But this would be silly. But they did kill him a bunch of times. So I was torn. But I think 1x is enough (they still hit level 12... ). It was fun, the clever players Dimension Doored to the roof from downstairs - after several attempts were made. And though the word "notwithstanding" was used (and I got caught up in "is that the contractual use, meaning all these things apply regardless of the first thing we said" or "the standard use is that you can ignore the second thing in favor of the first thing"), I may have mis-interpreted it slightly to mean not what the writers intended, and in doing so I let them "escape" the curse for as long as their dimensional anchor spells lasted - not long - long enough to waste money on a gate scroll and do a cold run on the guy in Kelmarane and try to drag him back to the cursed citadel (they failed - or rather, he made his save). It was fun, and that is what matters. Handed Ezer over to the dragon still trapped, in the end... yeh, they got the dragon's attention... fun fun fun
Once you get rapid reload and all the bells and whistles of the class it is pretty immaterial if you are using a pistol (which you might have to spend a grit on once a session when you roll a 1) or a revolver (which you don't have to spend a whapping one grit on to quick clear). I mean, honestly, the difference is pretty negligible at higher levels.
Pistol: 1d8 (M), range 20, cap1 misfire 1 x4
With rapid reload, each are basically ever full... so the difference is negligible. Also note the description of a Revolver is "a pistol with..."... so there is that.
I'd still go with the GM side of this: if you are playing standard PF world, they are hard to come by, you get THE PISTOL. Techslingers I would note, still get THE PISTOL, and not a revolver or laser pistol, to start.
Why does BAB only apply to weapons? Keep reading page 179... touch attacks (including spells with the "touch attack" descriptor) = calculated as a melee attack or ranged attack (and its modifiers). Ie. Spells = use the same calculation as melee or ranged attacks. Jump to page 185, spells, and we see make a touch attack (see 179 for "to hit" formula). 187 spells? Same as 185, same as 179. I might be omitting the calculations for area spells, but how hard is it to hit a square?
Acid splash, the original question, is clearly modified by BAB, DEX mod, size mods, and range mods. At least. PBS wouldn't apply because it is not a "ranged weapon" - it is a spell, calculating it's to hit as a ranged touch attack, which uses the same (base) formula as a ranged weapon attack. Firing into melee doesn't apply, because it is not a ranged weapon, as already explained: It is a spell, making a ranged touch attack, which simply uses the ranged weapon formula for it's base to hit.
You don't threaten with uncast ranged (attacks) spells, so no AoO would apply anyway, would they? Pretty hard to wield an uncast spell (first part of Snap Shot). Even if it were a free action, it wouldn't be wielded for the AoO because it was not cast until after the AoO was provoked, thus not allowing you to Snap Shot with it in the first place. Kind of like saying "yeh, next Tuesday I will be wielding a sword, so I'll take my AoO now..." - Not gonna happen.
I don't see why there is a confusion with "ranged attacks" and "ranged weapon attacks." Ranged attacks = all ranged attacks, including all spells which have a range and you roll a d20 to hit with. Ranged weapon attacks = all ranged weapons (a category of weapons), which, if specifically stated in a spell description, also may apply to that spell (a spell might be treated as if it were in the ranged weapon category).
What's the confusion? I read the first and last pages of this and just scratched my head as to why there is confusion.
I was wondering what the rules are for killing foes who "re-spawn" or "reform" 2d6 minutes, 2d6 hours, or 2d6 days later is ran by most people here. Do you award XP for every time the players kill the being which re-spawns? Do you only award XP after they have completely vanquished it? Do you let your players XP farm it (Silly GM, no biscuit)?
I mean, technically, they are defeating the foe, even if they are not destroying it. Kind of like driving a foe back to its original plane of existence is not killing it (and it might return, and they'd get xp for defeating it again, right?).
So how is it ran? What is RAW, versus RAI? Do people ignore RAW due to the whole "XP farming" opportunities these creatures present? Or do they ignore RAI and let their players level 20 levels overnight (with a fast re-spawning low level easy to kill mob that can't hurt them)?
Of course, since spell components require 10,000 gp worth of diamonds rather than any sort of weight scale, and supply and demand being what it is your fabricate trick puts such a glut in the diamond market that you'll need a dump truck full of diamonds to cast anything....
Well, at 10.45gp a whack... that is 1000 castings, and 50 tons of coal. In Golarion that's a lot of work...
It falls into the mineral category. You're compressing coal into diamond, so at 20th level, you're compressing 20 cubic ft, of coal into a diamond of equal value. It's going to take way longer than how you've described it, Maouse. In fact, it'd be a lot easier to be a 20th level Alchemist with a Philosopher's Stone Discovery.
20 cu' at 20th level. Mineral right. So 10x as long/ 10.45gp diamonds... Fabricate Magically Instantly changes raw materials to finished products. Doesn't take any time at all... because... MAGIC.
Pizza Lord wrote:
But a pile of Adamantine takes a heck of a lot of heat to make a sword... Your reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. Guess we have different ideas of how a "finished product" gets "finished" with magic.
25,000 GP of coal exceeds the volume capacity of the spell... lolz... nice try though. (NO WISH FOR YOU! LOL)
Seriously, I might allow it. But I would do the math (volume of coal cost = diamond value - note, usually coal is delivered by the gross ton in train carts (in modern worlds) at the price of about 1 cent a pound (a hamburger paddy size chunk maybe)).
LOL. For kicks... http://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/weight-to-volume
Which tells me that a 20th level casting amounting to 200 cu' of coal would be 4750 kg of coal. Or roughly 10450 pounds (5 tons). A Pound of Iron is 1sp. But coal is probably 10x cheaper. So you got a diamond worth 10450/10(iron)=1045/10(for coal)= 104.5GP. If you use cheaper coal, you get cheaper diamonds... and there probably isn't "more expensive" coal anywhere in Golarion.
You're welcome! lolz.
Spoiler:Yeh, I got it. I was reading the passage as the +10 was limited by Character Abilities and Spells "cast around the weapon" instead of "in the weapon." My mind is correctly clear on this now. I brain farted that weapons can add Character Abilities and hold Spells too. And it is (only) these (in the weapon) that affect the cost, + limit, et al of said passage on page 468.
"Character Abilities" is listed as one of the sources. So yes, Haste is a Character ability... equivalent to speed (+3)... However, after re-reading it, I comprehend that it is referring to Character Abilities and Spells "held within the weapon" and not "exerting external force on the item".
In other words, disregard this entire thread if you wish. They mean the character abilities a weapon might impart to the wielder (such as granting the Feat to use it, granting some knowledge skill, or similar such effects found elsewhere but never mentioned by price... figure it out) or the spells the weapon may be able to cast (cost determined as if it were a wondrous item, totals not to exceed 200,000 gp for one magic weapon; including costs for plusses listed and special abilities imparted to wielders and spells the weapon can cast).
Thanks guys and gals.
"plus special ability bonus equivalents, including from character abilities and spells"
The comma indicates sources of special ability bonus equivalents. The presiding English would indicate that "special ability bonus equivalents" are listed on the chart... .oh and COMMA, also come from character abilities and spells (cast as temporary bonuses to the item at various times). Since spells nor character abilities are on the chart... The SOURCE of these can be from places other than the chart.
Unless we are thinking about "it grants you xyz FEAT" and "you can cast xyz spell 3/day"... Which cost "something" (up to the GM) in the scheme of +10 total bonus.
That makes more sense than just ignoring these two sources of "equivalent special ability bonuses". But then what is the cost (in +1 to +10) to have a weapon cast Haste 3/day before striking? (I know they exist, as we've run through Falcon's Hollow).
I guess you do it up like any other charge/day item and add the cost... not to exceed 200,000. Alright that makes sense.
You overlooked the "Character Abilities and spells" portion... That is my original point... we all overlook that part... because we've never read it "like that." Haste on a weapon versus "speed" is the same effect (+3 bonus equivalent on a weapon) whether it comes from a Character Ability, Spell, or Weapon Property. See the point? It counts as +3 towards the +10 limit the weapon can have (even if only temporarily because it is a 3/day SP/SU ability or a spell). The key here is the word "equivalents"... and then the SOURCES of the equivalents being MANY that are mostly (well, two: Character Abilities and Spells) overlooked.
Enlarge person I might overlook, even though I am pretty sure there is an equivalent + effect you can add to a weapon to increase it's size category one step (magically - namely +2 for IMPACT from Ultimate Equipment).
As per the Core rulebook page 468
a single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including from character abilities and spells) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.
The "important to me" part is the much overlooked "including from character abilities and spells" - Because, if I read this correctly, this means that a weapon with a +10 total bonus cannot be affected by Haste, Lead Blades, Enlarge Person, Magic weapon +5 bonus (if it is say +1 enhancement with +9 other random bonuses).
This sword would not be affected by a character casting haste on himself (character ability; he can still take another attack, just not with this weapon), nor could it be affected by the Holy Sword (or similar) spell.
So anything that added extra dice of damage to the weapon also wouldn't work... though rider spells would. And anything that "mimics" any of the normal weapon abilities would not work either (such as haste).
Of course, if you are running around with a +10 effective weapon, you probably aren't worried about this little "rule" that most people (including me) have probably overlooked several dozen times.
OK. So I have a player who is asking about the fine effects of the following:
Gravity Clip and Lead Blades don't Stack.
And since Impact is basically Lead Blades made permanent on a weapon, I'd rule they don't stack. (though the oversight on Lead Blades doesn't mention it doesn't stack with itself, RAW error 101)
HOWEVER... Enlarge person + Titan Fighter (not Mauler) + Lead Blades effect = Gargantuan weapon category damage?
M wielding Large. Large wielding Huge. Huge weapon doing Gargantuan size damage? (6d6 with great sword or great axe)
Seems legit, and even get's a 10' reach for cleave/great cleave... 15' if they get lunge...
Do I have that correct? Is there another effect that stacks for size category or weapon damage category that we missed?
29 strength and a Brawler level... Take your lumps... when it gets time to lop off the finger, have your mage do the old "pres-digit-ation" (pun intended) missing finger trick your uncle, no doubt (everyone has one of those uncles, don't they) shows you every time you stop by. "Look, my thumb's not attached!" (left thumb folded down, right thumb in it's place, move right hand across top left finger) and hope you make your BLUFF roll swapping it for a bit of Dwarf jerky...
(maybe try grappling, if you get initiative it might just work?)
How about you just beat them up? Take your lumps. Regen lost appendages if you lose? Enjoy that tasty Ogre Thumb if you win...
As for the detection - if they are specifically casting "detect magic" on the pit, while you fight: anything that doesn't say (EX) next to it has a magical aura. Both (SP) and (SU) are magical effects (and thus can be detected). Smite Evil (SU) glows like the sun to a "Detect magic" my friend... As does Lay On Hands (SU)...
Milo v3 wrote:
I wasn't saying it was evil. I was stating that there is a Lawful Evil alignment that is still LAWFUL, and that a Lawful Good Pali continually breaking the laws of a land simply to "get to the evil quicker" would step one towards "not caring about law" towards NG... and thus, not be a goodie two shoes law abiding goodie goodie. Yes, there is a wide line between lawful good and lawful stupid, I know, and as this player has stated, he is not necessarily a classic Paladin, which is fine. I was joking anyway. A good example of a Paladin who isn't a goodie two shoes would be a "Enlightened Paladin" archetype that barely even has to be LG in their actions to qualify as "keeping the code"... which they write themselves.
I'm of the opinion that a paralyzed creature that is under the effects of a fly spell can still fly around (since a paralyzed creature "can take purely mental actions" and "using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking"). Assuming that's the case, what penalties would you assign to such a creature? It seems to me that the creature wouldn't count as helpless (since it isn't "completely at an opponent's mercy"), nor is it fully paralyzed (since it isn't "unable to move"), so I wouldn't treat it as having a Dexterity of 0. On the other hand, it can't fully use its Dexterity to avoid attacks (or dodge spells), so some sort of penalty seems in order. What do you think?
Fly is a type of movement... "A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act." You are replacing the "act" for the "move" and applying it as if "move" doesn't exist in the paralysis definition. You are changing "mental action" (only action allowed) for "move" (still can't move)... but while you can take mental actions, you still cannot "move"... ie. Fly.
No. You may not FLY, DIG, TUNNEL, WALK, RUN, TELEPORT, or otherwise MOVE while paralyzed. Per RAW anyway. You'd be suspended in air, paralyzed, waiting for someone to move you/hit you/whatever normal people do with paralyzed, unmoving, un-acting, still THINKING persons. (ps. wind can move a flying paralyzed person who fails (because they can't make them) fly checks)
The only exception I might (probably) make to this would be a thought activated User Activated spell item which moved you somehow, without having to move (Dim Door wouldn't work well).
The only other way that I can think of is to get a prestige class that adds to your "effective caster level for determining spells per level" without actually adding to your spell class level (totally). Thus a 5th level Caster 10th level Prestige could cast spells as a 14th or 15th level Caster class... But, really, that is sort of the same as being 14th or 15th in the class (sort of, depending on prestige class).
Looking for moral support for the following:
Have a player with Titan Fighter (not Mauler) using an oversized two-handed sword. He keeps bringing up that he thinks it is "unfavorable" that he doesn't get reach with it, since it is most probably 10' long.
I have explained to him the fact that a normal 8' sword doesn't give you reach, and what would 2' more do?
I have explained to him that a medium creature fights with a reach based on its size, thus to not overextend themselves and suffer sudden death when a person ledge walks up his 4" wide blade with an acrobatics check and face stomps him...
I have explained that swinging a sword at full arm extension would result in a lot longer swing and thus allow attacks of opportunity against the one wielding it, while they attempt to follow through on their power attack for the other 10 feet of an extended swing (10' swing goes through 5 squares instead of 3... depending on the whole "diagonal reach" issue also inherent to Pathfinder). And there is no way to effectively fight without a weapon designed to do so at that range because the weapons not designed to do so are too big and bulky (and thus don't have "reach" in their description, regardless of size).
I have explained that the FEAT which allows him to use a 2-H oversized weapon lets him break the basic rules of physics, and he should be happy with that. Since the FEAT doesn't say he gets additional reach, he doesn't... because that is not how the FEAT breaks the rules for him.
Still not happy after this and several other explanations because, apparently his SCA experience trumps my Fencing training. I know you don't extend yourself without risk of injury... he claims that he'd be fine with a large weapon... I know better... because I've seen saber, foil, and other fights... and you get hit A LOT with BIG SLOW WEAPONS. I also know that LUNGE is a taught skill, and not an automatic function of the size of the weapon you wield (did I mention I have actual Fencing training?). I've tried to explain this and he simply doesn't want to accept it as anything other than "a stupid Pathfinder rule."
So we've (the other players) have just said "yes, it is just PF, it is the game, let's move on." I on the other hand have stated that he won't accept it simply because he doesn't want to... not that it doesn't make sense. Explained five different ways... "Yes. It is just PF. It is the game. Not you. Let's move on."
UGH. Thanks for listening and any input regarding this would be appreciated. But no, I am not going to argue with people that "he should get added reach" when he has a consort (just hit level 7) that can cast Enlarge Person on him... (another eventual suggestion I gave)
I don't get why some say you need to close your eyes to ignore a mirror image. To me, striking a foe with mirror image should be just like striking a foe with invisibility that you have pinponted. I can't see the foe clearly, but I automatically know where he is, so all he has is a 50% miss chance from total concealment, protection agains precision damage (I think), and every time you swing, if you don't hit the real one, see if you hit the mirror image's AC to destroy one of the charges.
Because if you read the spell... that is not how it works... You THINK you are hitting him, you are trying really hard... avoiding the normal "miss chance" with concealment. But WHOOPS! you saw the wrong "him" and hit "it" instead. You missed. Care to strike another image?
Closing your eyes is the way to go. 50/50 - as if they only had one image to begin with... with a slight negative... opening and closing your eyes is a free action, so it can be done before attacking and after attacking so you get your normal defenses as long as they don't "immediate action" your miss (and then it is still debatable).
So, in short... if a creature has cast Mirror Image, you are better off if you close your eyes (if there is one duplicate, you have a 50% chance to miss... if there are more, you have up to a 80ish % chance to miss - why take the worse odds?).
If you have blindsight (which is an improved version of blindsense, a non-visual location ability), you can ignore this figment (and honestly, don't need to "blink your eyes closed for a split second while attacking" - because that would be silly).
If you cannot see a figment (an illusion which is not actually there, but visually appears present) you can walk right through it... Verified by several "traps" in dungeons.
OK. So I've had a monk played by others, and am now looking at things for myself, and I noticed one particular thing lacking anywhere in the Core Rulebook... namely - WHAT THE HECK IS CONSIDERED A MONK SPECIAL WEAPON?
I mean, in theory, the weapons listed on the Monk template are all monk weapons... but are they monk "special" weapons?
The main reason I ask is for clarity's sake (nowhere do the books define these weapons).
The secondary reason I ask is because my understanding is that if the list of weapons on the Monk template is "the list", then a spear becomes the #1 monk weapon of all time for Monk levels 1-7 (does 1d8, can be used with FoB as if it were a light weapon (that is to say, the FoB says you only get -2/-2 with "monk special weapons" - regardless of size/type/etc...), and wielded as if you had 2-x of them in your hands, and has a 3x crit multiplier instead of a 2x for Unarmed... and if you lose it/it gets sundered, you still have unarmed).
Thoughts? Answers? For now, I am probably going to run it as "all monk weapons listed under Monk are "monk special weapons" - since, otherwise, why would they have any training in them?
Can a wizard, who is level 10, say, scribe a 9th level scroll like Gate to their spell book (providing they roll high enough)? Apparently this is a yes.
Now, with the spell understood (but un-castable due to the level requirements) and in their spell book, can they scribe a new scroll with that spell on it?
I understand Magus must both understand and be able to cast the spell to scribe the scroll... is there any such limitation on straight Wizard class characters?
Can they just get a bunch of high level spells and bring them into their spell books and (not PFS game) pump them out for folks to use (UMD) in their group?
The cost to write down per page is "in a spell book." So that should answer the question... Scribing scrolls has a different cost. As would scribbling them on rocks and pet unicorns.
PFS a spell book is a spell book is a spell book (you aren't allowed to alter the appearance of items per PFS dogma). Home games; absolutely. Make yourself a 36"x36" spell book of "massive whacking" that you can use as an improvised melee weapon. Why not. (Mechanically, it would do the same as a standard "spell book" you used the same way)
I am in the group of "if they did something stupid in character" then they met a good death. I don't get hung up on pieces of papers with numbers on them much. Maybe because I've been playing now for almost 40 years. One death is a tragedy. Twenty is a statistic.
Now if the GM is being a behind and intentionally making everything a character does a "life or death" decision... screw that, find another GM. But that doesn't sound like the case here.
Again, if it was an honest part of the adventure and you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time... well played.
Well, I haven't looked at Unchained yet, but I know an invisible ninja throwing things at close range can be pretty devastating at low levels I don't know what Devilkiller's 1-9 ninjas did, but apparently "hide" was not in their wheelhouse). I mean, level 1 = 1d2+1d6+dex bonus every round, level 3, 1d2+2d6+dex bonus, l5: 1d2+3d6+DB, l7: 1d2+4d6+DB, l9: 1d2+5d6+DB... and that is if they just stay invisible the whole time, and only throw one throwing star... add moving to flank instead and you can dish out 2-3x the damage, or use a bow for a few more d6 and a point blank range damage bonus all the way up. Monks really ramp up at level 4 and 5 (with an extra attack for a ki point). So yay! Now they get 3-4 attacks with their 1d8 strike... um... ok... I'll still take the invisible ninja with 3d6 extra sneak attack damage every attack... who never gets hit because he's invisible... And, honestly, a +5BAB visible fighter can't really be that much better than always hitting flat footed AC's while invisible, can it? Anywho....
I'd say ninja is a decent option. But I always have played just "straight up" rogues from the book. I mean, take Merisiel for instance... I think when my son played her (because we had no lvl 5 characters) she was +19 acrobatics... tumbled past everything... only one mob posed a problem (and that was because we were under water holding our breath) and took three tries to get to flanking position. The "regular" players at our table kept sighing and going "tumbling never works" ... and like I said, with the exception of one mob, it worked every time! So don't worry about the nay sayers, and just have fun.
Gronk de'Morcaine wrote:
Ok, I can see why in PFS they would be unpopular. Unless you have a very small pool of players, you won’t know who you are going to be with at the table so they probably won’t have the matching abilities.
Hmmm... I could joke about some GMs ruling that Stealth Synergy doesn't work per RAW (if you are seen, you can't roll stealth, thus a skill that says you have to be within sight of an ally... lolz) - but for this, it certainly seems like an advantageous skill to have in the entire party. I can't explain why people wouldn't do this other that they actually didn't want to make a sneaky party.
As for the "saves" one: I can easily see why everyone would NOT do this. Namely, that almost immediately as soon as combat starts nobody should be within five feet of each other, lest you submit yourself to every kind of AOE attack imaginable. While this would grant a +3 in a party of 4 people it drops to +0 almost as soon as combat starts, the "rogue" moves to flank (no longer close to anyone in his party), the mage backs up to cast (no longer close to anyone), the fighter and ranger take their positions too... and you go from a +3 to a +0 before the second spell goes off... Naw, I'd rather have a +2 all the time.
They stack in the sense that you move to the next worse condition. You are never shakened and frightened. You move from one to the next. Since you no longer have the previous condition then the previous condition's penalties do not apply, and the rules directly state that you if you have one condition that it becomes the next one. They do not say that if you have one condition that you additionally gain the next one.
Correct, page 563 explains it. PS. please keep in mind Fear effects are (almost always?) mind affecting effects.
My book has them all listed separately... with "a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks." - each listed in the description of each one...
Saying "it is like shaken" doesn't delete the -2 from that condition's description. Which is to say "it doesn't say "you get the same -2 as from shaken, plus blah blah blah."" - It says if you are frightened, you get a -2 (separate from the -2 in shaken's description).
Kind of like nauseated and sickened don't have any common effects. Even though they are basically "more severe" forms of each other.
ps. I completely rule as GM exactly how you claim, but apparently the OP has stated everyone he asked said "they stack." And, honestly, I can see an argument for that (if you are under the effects individually).
the PRD (as opposed to what it says in the book, which makes it look like each condition carries an added -2) makes it clearer I think... http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#fear
RAW, the effective -2's would not stack, as you can only suffer one effect - and you would be "stacked" to the next one pursuant to the "becoming even more fearful" in the book. So our "original thinking" is correct on this. The "stacking" means that you follow page 563's rule on "more fearful"... so yeh, whack them twice and they become more fearful, unless it is an ability that has a "maximum fear level" like demoralize under Intimidate (demoralize under "stares" and such do stack since they don't say they are limited to extending the duration like demoralize under Intimidate does).
The effects are the effects.
So if you only get panicked, you only suffer those effects. If you get panicked and shaken, you get a double whammy. They don't "stack" unless you are under their effects. So no, if you get panicked, you don't get shaken, frightened, and panicked in one shot. You just suffer the panicked condition (-2, run, can't fight). HOWEVER, if three spell casters/attackers hit you with three different effects, one which makes you panicked, one that makes you frightened, one that makes you shaken... well, you'll probably die in the nearest corner... (-2, run, can't fight)... and if another couple guys whammy you with sickened and nauseated, you're really boned (-4, only 1 move per turn, run, can't fight)
You're probably thinking of them as negative bonuses from the same source (fear) - since bonuses from the same sources aren't supposed to stack, they don't. And honestly, as a GM, I usually just use the "worst" fear condition (so I think like you do - it is a fear (negative) bonus, so it doesn't stack with itself.