|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Since the x rules only mention summoned monsters, wouldn't we apply the "if it doesn't specifically say" rule against the GM? The rules on summoned critters DON'T mention gates, so you get full xp on gated monsters.??? We seems to apply this logic everywhere else in PF.
Unless there is a rule specifically saying you don't get xp for gated monsters, you do. There is a rule specifically for summoned, so you don't.
ps. A gated monster is a fully functional additional foe, so of course you should get xp.
I am attempting to make a spellslinger, but are they seriously broken or what? Some of the enhancements from magic bullets only apply to melee weapons, so what gives? Additionally, do these enhancements work on spells cast through the firearm? Such as "seeking" allowing you to target invisible targets with spells (thus breaking "that rule") by hitting the right square?
Lots of questions like this arise from this class. Do you only get the enhancement from the magic bullets? Or can you use a normally created +5 firearm and get that bonus? Can magic bullets give an already magic item a bonus combination greater than +10?
Any help/discussion would be appreciated. Thanks.
Rogue or Bard skill monkeys: bring intimidate/performance feats/flat footed foes/and sneak attacks (which can be stacked with sniper goggles and greater invisibility to ensure death to the opponents). Bards are particularly good at making every knowledge roll with a take 10 and no effort per se. Rogues are better if specialized in a subclass, granted, or crossed over slightly into a spell casting class.
In fact, most classes are best with a dip here or there. That's the nature of the game, I guess. It's not a "mundane" world, after all.
One moving greater invisibility spell caster/other archer/rogue/etc... can probably down the ranger if your intent is to kill them. 8th level is spell level 4, so there you go.
Now, if the ranger is the one who has gone greater invisible... well he will dominate combat.
I don't know exactly what their build is, but I had a rogue with a composite bow doing this sort of thing for 4 flaming arrows a round (3 sneak attacks at 4d6, so 22d6 total) with a +4 composite bow (+16), pbs +4 (within 30'). Something like that. So while not quite 280, it hit 152 max nicely. If they had known about sniper goggles the encounters would have taken place after a round of running away or something most likely.
Anyway, being able to pump out 140+ damage is possible even with the "weak" rogue class at level 8. (3 8d6 spells do 24d6 = 144 damage - so a "fast" spell and two more (one via a staff/weapon and one cast) and mages can do in the same neighborhood of damage).
The Archive wrote:
This one kills people in PFS, so I have heard...
Can you find an example of a "penalty to damage"? That is part of the problem. Quote?
I found: silver bullets and sickened, etc... so yeh. OK. Those spell out a "penalty to damage rolls" (not damage result, mind you).
The logic you are using is flawed. Penalties are reductions, not all reductions are penalties.
Well, that is the question, isn't it? In my original post, I asked if DR and other things that reduce damage, pursuant to the Damage rule in question, count as penalties.
Then I asked if they fit the definition of a penalty; a numerical reduction in a statistical score or check.
Then I asked, if they don't fit this definition, because a damage calculation isn't a statistical score or check (which, honestly it seems like it is not either).
Then I asked; if damage isn't either of these, why mention a penalty at all in the damage section?
Working backwards, and presuming "penalty" was used in the damage section because damage is a "statistical score", I surmised that ANY PENALTY in the damage section meant "any numerical reduction" in that "statistical score." Thus DR, as a numerical reduction, counts as a penalty to damage.
While the logic may be suspect, as "all numerical reductions might not be penalties" - "any penalties" in the damage section would indicate "all numerical reductions" in the penalties definition. Though I see your "logical point", I hope you see how it came about "backwards" given that there is no reason to mention penalty in the damage section, much less "any penalty", if they only meant one kind.
Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
So again, no, you didn't "fix that."
It most certainly is part of the hit resolution. What? You just hit and say "I did five" and then the GM applies "five damage"? No. The GM reduces the damage from the attack which hit to less than one (0). Per the rule, this attack, which was reduced to zero, should do 1 non-lethal damage. It doesn't say "only penalties from the attacker" anywhere. It says "any penalty" - which means penalties (numerical reductions) from any source, should apply. Including a numerical 5 point reduction from DR. The attack did (0) damage to the person, not 5. When the attack is over, the person takes 5? No. The attacked person takes 0. After all penalties are applied.
The Archive wrote:
Penalties on the damage roll are things belonging to the creature that attacked.
Only? Really? Please enlighten me to where it says this ANYWHERE? That would definitely convince me I am wrong. But so far, RAW, have not found it ANYWHERE. A link / quote would be nice. I quoted the definition of a "penalty" and nowhere in that part does it mention an "originates only from the attacker" vibe. It says "any numerical reduction." Which indicates to me that the attacker does not need to be the origin. ANY source that reduces it (the damage check/ statistical score) = a penalty.
There is no mention of damage reduction functioning as a penalty in the damage reduction entry. Even if it had implied it, words such as "negated" would have no place there. If it doesn't mention it, it doesn't exist. Anything else beyond that would be a house rule.
" For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic." Is 5 a numerical reduction? Yep. Is a penalty a numerical reduction? Yep.
"Attacks from weapons that are not of the correct type or made of the correct material have their damage reduced," Numerical reduction = a penalty to damage? Yep.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Good to know where it came from. Explains why it is ignored RAW (because it never applied like that in 3.5).
I guess from what I see the "penalties" don't have to originate from the attacker only. When you resolve damage, any numerical subtraction from damage would count as a penalty (per the definition of penalty). So when you apply the "end damage", if it less than 1 (ie. completely negated by DR or resistance), per the rule, you should apply 1 point of non-lethal damage.
I don't know if this is what the PFS devs meant to do, but it certainly seems to be a logical understanding of the rule as written.
If intent were still to only apply to STR damage modifiers, then it would still have been there in PF (one would think). The PF devs wanted it to apply to all damage modifiers, it would seem. So, does DR subtract 5 damage? Yep.
I know its an interpretation that isn't popular (even I, as I have said, have never run it this way/ever noticed what the rule actually states). I do think it is more logical to use the non-lethal damage rule (especially for damage reduction) against large quantities of foes. If fifty people attack you, I don't care if they can cut you, they can still beat you down... one would think. I know DR is a "special ability". And maybe that shouldn't be the case (maybe you can laugh off attacks forever, from everyone not attacking with magical weapons). Seems like the way the people run it has more to do with what Damage Reduction says, so I guess I should look there.
If you hit someone, regardless of damage penalties, you do 1 point of (non-lethal) damage. Yes, if you do 1-5 non-lethal, that is 1 non-lethal, even with 5 DR. Just like if you do 1-5 lethal, that becomes 1 non-lethal (ie. you don't break the skin).
My point being that DR does not mitigate non-lethal damage (completely), as when it is a penalty that reduces (damage REDUCTION) the damage done to less than 1, the defender takes 1 point of non-lethal damage, per the (highly ignored, but there) rule.
"all my penalties" - see, this right here is the problem I have. All of us GMs have always added that "my penalties" crap. Where does it say "only my penalties apply to damage" ... um. No. Damage is resolved to a creature's HP after all penalties, not just "mine" (the attacker's). It also requires you to resolve defensive penalties to damage, such as DR and resistances.
most ignored rule in any game I've played: encumbrance.
I use encumbrance all the time. In fact, I have often checked over a sheet and laughed at someone trying to carry 400 pounds of gear. Then I have asked if they are really going to go adventuring with it all... then I ask how. Then I make them drop stuff (no 2000' of rope for you!). Then I ask for the modified character sheet. And I check it over again. Then, if possible, I copy it prior to gaming so the butthurt player doesn't just write in some crap they need on the fly and try to "pass it by" me. I might also mention to them Bags of Holding are available for the relatively reasonable price of about the same as their magic weapon (if any).
Yeh, I do encumbrance like that (unless all the players are well under their thresholds or are Dwarves).
For the record: found the definition of "penalty" - Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
So that opens up that can of worms: Is damage a check? Or a statistical score?
If yes (to either), what is a "numerical value that are subtracted from" them? Damage REDUCTION subtracts the number from each attacks... so DR would count.
If no (to both), why mention "penalty" in the damage section at all?
If damage reduction doesn't reduce your damage, why do you have to roll damage at all?
Think about that.
If I roll d6 versus DR5/- then what happens? I have to roll to see if I do enough damage to get past it (a 6). That damage starts at 6, and 5 is subtracted from it. You didn't roll a 1, and ignore the DR. You did 6-5 = 1 point.
So in the event that you roll a 1-5, what happens? You have 5(or less) - 5 = 0 (or less). Thus, you incur the damage of 1 non-lethal hit point, per they ignored rule, anyway. Why? Because the "penalty" from the DR reduces the damage to less than 1.
Example of application: A group of 100 archers fire at a 90 HP creature with DR 10/-. Every GM I have ever seen will say "this does nothing to the 90 HP creature, even if they all hit." Per the rule (which, incidentally, is the FIRST SPECIAL HIGHLIGHTED AND BOLDED PART OF DAMAGE, as important as adding your STR Bonus, or Getting your multiplier right, etc...) if all of them hit, the creature would be knocked unconscious by the force of 100 arrows (which didn't penetrate its skin, but did knock it out).
Which, is an interesting "never been applied" rule. Eh? The obvious discussion here is "what is a penalty" - is it only from the attacker themselves (as the d2-3 example theorizes) or is it ANY penalty (such as DR and resistances and negation abilities) to damage (where you still hit, which wouldn't count cover and concealment rolls)?
To say an ability that has "reduction" in its name doesn't "reduce damage" but instead "just makes it zero" is sort of silly, IMHO. I know that GMs have never really looked at this rule this way, which is why I pointed it out. Is it being completely ignored? Or applied right (to only attacks which negate themselves out like d2-3 attacks)? Seems like they wouldn't have to bother telling you that d2-3 does a minimum of 1 point elsewhere if they meant it did 1 point of non-lethal damage.
Right. Absolutely. And the "ignored rule" says that if damage is completely negated (less than 1, and zero is less than one, right?), they take one point of non-lethal damage. Thus why I say it is THE MOST IGNORED RULE. I don't think I have EVER seen it applied in ANY situation. Because most GMs (me included) say "oh, well, you didn't take any damage from that because of xyz" and completely ignore this rule.
If they sipped acid they would say "ow ow ow" - so if they "type" fits? But that is a "type of damage" question. What "type" is "scalding" - does it appear anywhere else? Is it acid(earth type)? No. Is it wind(air type)? No. Is it lightning(electrical type)? Is it loud(sonic type)? Well, there are only "five types" of elemental damage. So, in theory, the "absurdity" is to call it "untyped" just because it is "scalding". That implies "heat" which isn't any of the other four types of damage.
Does a red dragon take heat damage in the desert? Nope? The same "logic" applies, doesn't it?
Ah yes, but what about this: Damage Reduction: If damage reduction completely negates the damage from a called shot, the called shot has no effect. If hit point damage does get through, the called shot has normal effects. Damage reduction does not reduce any ability damage, ability drain, penalties, or bleed damage caused by the called shot.
So it is a "reduction" and something that "negates" damage... is "reduction" = a penalty to damage? What is a penalty if not something that reduces it? If it doesn't reduce the ability drain, penalties, or bleed damage - then does it negate the 1 non-lethal hit point from this "ignored rule"?
Wonder how many GMs actually apply this rule for DR/-, Damage Reduction, and anything else that mediates damage (such as a hit that is "absorbed" by a percentile ability).
Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.
I don't think I have ever, nor ever had a GM keep track of this unless it was purposefully applied. And consider this for a rogue/sap master that must do non-lethal damage with an attack... can they then apply that non-lethal damage feat to the target with DR/-?
"A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one." Which begs the question: does that mean they can basically "see" them with their nose, negating the concealment?
Answer is "no." If you read the scent ability, they just have an easier time pinpointing the invisible person (and don't need to roll perception). The person is still invisible (50% concealment), just automatically pinpointed.
As a simple "race" build, I wanted to add "Plant" subtype to the "Human" subtype to essentially create a race of plant humans.
No problem, 10 RP, and that leaves them at 19, which is under the 20 I am limiting the campaign to. However, I kind of wanted them to be more like "Pod People" from "Attack of the Pod People" (movies). So for one RP I developed this ability and was looking for some input to see if anyone had any better idea or wording for it.
Special Reproduction (1 RP):
On a successful special coup de gras attack, the Pod Person can instead reproduce another of its race. The process takes 8 hours, and the remains of the original person are completely replaced with an exact copy with the following changes: Adds Plant subtype, Alignment changes to true Neutral, and gains the Special Reproduction ability. The reproduction is innately non-hostile towards everyone and everything until it has further contact and reason to be aggressive, but otherwise possesses all memories, skills, and levels of the copied entity. Any "hatred", "hated enemy" abilities or statuses are removed (but favored enemy abilities remain). If interrupted (either the copy or copier is harmed) before the process is complete, the reproduction fails and the copy dies. The victim can be raised as its normal type during the time it takes to copy it, effectively interrupting and ending the copy process. The copier is considered prone during this time unless the process is interrupted, at which time it reverts to regular status (when the copy dies).
Because it takes a special attack (coup de gras) and 8 hours to perform (applying "prone" to the character the whole time) I feel the 1 RP is fine. Obviously it isn't going to be done "easily" and is also "easily" interrupted (if known about). I feel this really adds the whole "Pod People" feel to the race (and any new subtype race combinations that occur from it). Golarion beware, the pods have landed...
I am starting a 20 point, 20 RP campaign using any prebuild races (20 RP or under) or any prebuilt with a template applied (still under 20 RP - so like a Plant Human would be 20 RP).
I was carousing the books and am wondering if I might just play a Svirfneblin monk. I would like to take a monk subtype that doesn't have diamond body at level 11 (because the Svirfneblin already gets better). Also, one that would use Dex and Wisdom for damage instead of strength would be a bonus. Of course Charisma based stuff is straight out. Any help with a subtype would be great. +3 AC to start, with +2 saves (+6 poison), SR 11+CL, and dex and wisdom bonuses seem to make a decent monk, no?
The other thoughts for characters were a Kasasha whip master of some sort (fighter maybe, maybe rogue/bard).
The last choice being a plant human sorcerer or wizard (just because a druid is to obvious).
Ideas for these sorts of combinations are welcome. As would any other racial builds. I tried to start something once before like this and it was immediately "out of control" as the "races" were more designed as "how to maximize a class they are going to be" than a "race." So I am hoping to avoid that sort of thing again.
Yeh, entirely up to the surviving spouse. Talk to them about it and what THEY want to do. Grief is a weird thing, and I would expect at some point the spouse will cry in the middle of an adventure in the future. Be prepared for that as well, as it might be a night ender. Don't get mad at them if it happens and invite them back, but talk to them about maybe doing something else if something triggered the grief.
Never going to be the same. The closest I have come to this is gaming with divorced spouses (where we played with both of them before). Its a little weird, but not really the same at all.
Generally, unless you are being secretly poisoned, you notice when attacked. Even with secret poisoning, you notice that you aren't quite right. For the most part, after you figure this out, a simple divining spell could deduce the problem. A heal check might also notice the damage somehow (like sucker marks or whatever) followed by knowledge checks to see what happened/what did it/what was done.
I came to the conclusion that traps are effectively "eventually beatable." Anyone who spends the appropriate skill checks in the two areas becomes a master disabler. And, well, if they begin a life of thievery, can even become a Thief of Legend, disabling traps as they go off! As it should be. The ToL means that even if the take 10 means failure, they can still stop the trap. So even if you make a trap 30 points above their skill level, eventually they will still be able to beat it.
Game is designed that way. Game is designed with very few traps above DC37 (some 43s I've seen in a module). 27 with take 10 is pretty easy in a high level campaign where you start with CL Ranks, +3, + any feat, racial ability, magic item, etc... that gives a bonus. Now you are at 30 easily, like you said.
Why would you want to punish someone who on a normal day can spot and do the impossible (40 is near impossible, 50 is basically supposed to be impossible)? (ps. 40 perception is seeing right where an invisible person who is not moving is (as long as they aren't using stealth))
As far as "time to disable" - there are many abilities that drop the time down and down and down... until it becomes a move or swift action (with a thrown weapon, so it can be done at range even).
(ps. the three rogues in my high level campaign just stole every mage's spell books in Egorian - from every mage under level 15... without getting caught or setting off a trap... because, well, they are just that good at gather information, stealth (with greater invisibility), perception, and disable device) - pps. they made Mantles of Mind Blank prior to the endeavor.
Spells per Day:
When a new arcane trickster level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in a spellcasting class she belonged to before adding the prestige class. She does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained, except for additional spells per day, spells known (if she is a spontaneous spellcaster), and an increased effective level of spellcasting. If a character had more than one spellcasting class before becoming an arcane trickster, she must decide to which class she adds the new level for purposes of determining spells per day.
When one is say multi-classed as a Vivisectionist Alchemist 3 / Sorcerer 1 / Wizard 3 / Druid 1 / Cleric 1 (or some other combination of spellcasting classes) - can a Arcane trickster add the "level" to the spells per day to any of the subclasses they had prior to the prestige class? It doesn't note that the "level" boost only applies to arcane spell classes they had prior, so is this able to be applied to Divine spell casting levels?
I'd drop 5 skill checks into Dance and dip to Shadow Dancer for a level to get HIPS within 10 feet of dim light. (free invisibility, basically, as long as they don't have Darkvision)
Why? A darkness spell/day item is much cheaper than a greater invisibility one. So until you can do the other, do the first. Just my 2 cents (a wand of darkness, for instance, is like 4500 gp for 50 charges, or 150 per scroll (30 charges equivalent) - a 4th level spell wand you might as well buy a x/day item instead, cost wise).
The only real issue I see is that you started as an Elf instead of something with Darkvision, but oh well. At least you have some sort of low light vision. I play a lot of my rogues Human, and additional levels dipped into ShadowDancer solve the light issue too.
Don't forget Shadow Strike for those dim light conditions as well... (might ignore if Darkvision is achieved, as most 20% concealment will be dim light)
Just things to think about if you start to have flanking issues.
People who don't know what a sneak attack affects simply haven't read enough of the rules, FAQs, and threads about it.
Its there, just read. No, precision damage does not apply to non-precision attacks like AoEs and auto-hits. (Unless you have the arcane trickster ability, and then it only applies to one person hit, not everyone effected, per FAQs).
Surprise Spells: At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.
Note: even with the AT 10th level ability, it still has many many limitations to what and how it can be applied. One could argue that only a precision damage spell could be added to with the poor poor wording on this ability. ("the additional damage is of the same type as the spell - ie Precision damage!")
niteowl24, additionally, precision damage can be added at any range with sniper goggles or improved sniper goggles... check them out. A must for any precision damage based ranged attacker. Generally, sneak attack is a type of precision damage limited to 30 feet... ninjas can add 10 feet increments with ninja tricks... I don't know of many other precision damage feats that indicate range limits, but I am sure there are 1 or 2. Goggles are the schniznits.
One has to presume that "a high degree of craftsmanship" means that you make a crafting roll... and go by the results. Since it says in ENTIRETY "You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship." - That implies "you CAN make articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship, if you make your required (to make them) Craft check."
Why is this debated?
Mithril, Adamantine, etc... are all masterwork items and can be Fabricated with the proper raw materials. So why would the "magic" of the spell have a harder time with other mundane materials like wood and iron? Silly notion.
The real question is: does the "first round of combat" include the "surprise round"? The semantic argument being that the "before" includes all times before they have acted, the flipside of which is "in the first round" (only) qualifier part.
These semantic discussions being, of course, for folks who can't relate RAW with RAI.
Addendum on the "USE ACTIVATED" - sometimes it is command word. Sometimes it is just willing it to work. Since the Boots says "command" in the description, it can be implied that they are command word activated unlimited use user-activated items. Page 458 describes the differences. But they are definitely not continuous, since they aren't always making you levitate.
Hopefully the next FAQ set will sort all "precision damage" into a damage type. Thus ending the questions of "what is it", "does it have to say", "does it get blocked by any concealment", etc...
Suffice to say it does need to be described as precision damage to be precision damage. Otherwise it would be "un-typed" damage.
As far as weapon training: Fighters' = nope, not precision (it even adds to CMD, which is an obvious give-away that it is not precision). Ninja and Rogues actually give Weapon Focus feat - which is actually only on TO HIT, so no damage of any type from that weapon training.
Weapon specialization does not say it is precision, so it isn't. Unless someone can find a copy of text which says it is. It doesn't even describe it as a "more precise" hit. You just do extra damage with that weapon. Ie. you hit harder, not better.
"as if she had cast levitate" means it has a duration. As per the spell. Continuous use items are things like "headband of vast intelligence." You wear it and it gives a benefit the ENTIRE TIME it is worn. The Boots are use-activated (specifically Command Word activated), not continuous. They are, however, an unlimited use item (you can do it "at will"). But yeh, every so often you have to roll UMD (if needed) to re-use the item, per the spell's duration.
SL2, CL4 x1800, unlimited charges (100 times material cost = 0 + 2x base cost), 1min/lvl multiplier (x2) = 57,600 gp.
Honestly, it is only 7500 gp because someone didn't follow the formula and considered levitate to be a pretty "useless" spell. Take any other 2nd level spell and make it "at will" and the cost will be closer to the real calculated cost. (Or as I tell my players all the time, "no, you can't have a "true strike at will pair of boots for less than 7500 gp!"")
Whenever you use Vital Strike, Improved Vital
Strike, or Greater Vital Strike, multiply the Strength
bonus, magic bonus, and other bonuses that would
normally be multiplied on a critical hit by the number of
weapon damage dice you roll for that feat.
Extra damage from sources that wouldn't normally be
multiplied on a critical hit isn't multiplied by this feat.
Str Bonus = multiplied.
In other words;
Can't think of many others off the top of my head atm. The REAL question is - can you use this with a directed spell that does 20d6 "damage dice"? (they can score a critical, after all) Think about having ANY of those bonuses multiplied in that case... lol. (I know, it RAI means x2, as would be the damage dice multiplier for a directed spell, but RAW it says "weapon damage dice" which might be argued as "spell damage dice" since the spell is the weapon... it should really read "multiply by the multiplier for a critical hit"... RAI)
Imagine a directed touch attack in the scenario of "RAW" - 20d6, Str bonus, Dex bonus, Int bonus (possibly), ... all multiplied by 20? naw...
Fabricate + Raw materials = easy markups for master crafted items... even at 50% (sale price).
ANY crafting is PFS illegal, so why did that even come up?
Another thing you can do is take engineering and get ahold of a Lyre of Building - using dirt to make mansions! All you need is the property rights and you can make about 18-20 mansions a day (well, 1/wk) with a few decent Fort Rolls (12-16 without a decent Fort). Let's face it, 25 for masterwork is NOT HARD to hit, even at level 5 (when you could afford a lyre). Rent them for 1000gp a month? Even 100 gp a month. Didn't cost you anything, after all. Repeat every week until you have a nice steady residual income.
In answer to the original question: all crafted and found magic items are sold at half price (crafting cost basically) - unless you have feats, skills, or abilities that let you make money on the deal. Be glad you don't have to go to a REAL pawn shop where you'd only get 10-25% value. Also, there are some campaigns/modules where you meet merchants, that if properly influenced, buy at slightly higher prices.