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

wraithstrike's page

28,295 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 28,295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:
Using the same stats as your 2HF, a 2WF dual falcata fighter is doing DPR of 600 vs AC36.

1. A falcata will have even more penalties if used in the off-hand since it is a one-handed weapon. A falcata wielded in 2 hands would do more damage.


nope.


1. What do you do if nobody wants to play a divine caster?<--Rhetorical question

2. I would give the PC's a built in healing mechanic. That way you don't have to create a new magic item in place of the wand, and nobody is ever forced into a healing role if they don't want to do it.


OK. I think it is done. If anyone has questions feel free to ask.

Link to stealth rules


Shadowlord wrote:
Wraithstrike wrote:
As of now I am undecided as to whether or not I should require total concealment for someone to hide if they are being observed by eyesight

So earlier I posted some stuff against concealment alone granting a Stealth check. I may have interpreted too strictly. It may or may not change how you want your re-write to go, but it's at least some extra info to make the decision.

I saw that, so I am going to change my final decision also. It still irks me from a realism point of view, but stealth has enough problems with true seeing and blindsight etc etc so I guess I can be nice. :)


There are other good spells, but you can't really run the cleric well without good spells unless you have a party that is suited for those spells, so the question that also needs to be asked is "who is the cleric traveling with?".


Another factor is that TWF is another -2 to attacks, and once you get to enemies with higher AC's the two-hander pulls farther ahead. A fighter that goes TWF is not going to match up DPR-wise.


Isn't celestial armor a specific armor with no rules on exactly how improving it would work?


I think it uses your BAB for the DC by my interpretation.


If Wotc wanted to sue they could so it already. They have stronger reasons than "per encounter" right now.


Balacertar wrote:

I can't agree. From Ability Score Bonuses in Appendix 1:

"Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply +1 bonus to..." it actually asumes an ability score increase exists, it states "ability score increases", and it does not state anywhere that there is no STR increase. By that sentence if there is no increase, then there is no statistics bonuses, be them temporary or permanent. This entry in the rules have been discussed before and shall be understood as a guide and a mechanic to speed up things, and a barrier to daily uses temporary gain. You can read the resulting FAQ here:
paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9quz

Witha temporary stat bonus you get the modifier BUT your actual score does not increase until 24 hours have passed. The shadow drains your actual(permanent) ability stat so bulls strength won't help. That rule is to prevent switching out stat boosting items at will.


The text does not say the creature actually has to be able to go.up to another size category. It is only providing an "if" statement so it should work by RAW and RAI.
The giant template on the other hand might not work because the monster is supposed.to increase in size and there is no size for it to actually go to.


Nothing wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

@ nothing:

If someone moves 5 feet or 50 feet you would not know where to drop glitterdust if they successfully made the stealth check because you would not know where they were. Most likely they would move more than 5 feet so it would likely take some metagaming to know they did not move far unless the room was really small.
I would not consider centering an AoE on the last square someone was seen in before disappearing as metagaming, but to each their own.

I guess it is just a difference in play style. Most people that gi invisible when I play will not stsy in the immediate area.


thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Actually the 5 foot step is not moving fast by the rules. There should not be a penalty at all, assuming you are trying to follow the rules.

@ nothing:
If someone moves 5 feet or 50 feet you would not know where to drop glitterdust if they successfully made the stealth check because you would not know where they were. Most likely they would move more than 5 feet so it would likely take some metagaming to know they did not move far unless the room was really small.
I do agree with warning a player up front about anything that might cause a problem. I also agree that one attack a round is not really all that effective, and that PC would likely be ignored.

After how many rounds of the guy attacking multiple times, circling his opponenet a little bit, disappearing, then attacking again next round would it stop being metagaming to guess that he hadn't moved far this time?

The point of doing the 5' step is so you can full attack and not be limited to 1/round.

I was only talking about going invis not continually attacking the same person.


Lord Twig wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Maybe calling upon such things is mentally strenuous. Suddenly figuring out how to become a good grappler(improved grapple, greater grapple, weapon focus(grapple), in less than 30 seconds might not be an easy thing to do. <---Why it can not be done all of the time.

Sorry, didn't actually respond to this part. To me the whole idea is a bad one...

So the Brawler can rapid-fire, and even shoot two arrows at once, then later be able to bend someone into a pretzel with grappling, but then can no longer rapid-fire arrows because they are "too tired". But not too tired to grapple a giant into a pretzel again!

What? How does the Brawler explain that to their fighter companion?

Fighter: "You were so good with a bow earlier. What happened?"

Brawler: "I started grappling and I forgot how. But don't worry, I will be able to remember again tomorrow! Or maybe I can become good at tripping people, but then I won't be able to grapple or shoot a bow fast."

Fighter: "And why is that?"

Brawler: "Because balance..."

But really, all of this flavor problems will be forgotten after a group sits around for a few hours waiting while the brawler player tries to figure out what feats he wants for the next 15 minutes.

I agree with your first reply but for this one I think you missed what I was trying to say.


I skipped a few post so my point may have already been made.

It is not likely to have a lower level leader for reasons already mentioned especially in an evil nation.

However it is possible for an aristocrat 5/bard 2 to be in charge, but only if he is protected by someone or something higher in fantasyland. Maybe he is part of some evil organization and he lets it slip that if any harm comes to him the organization will come after whoever does it. Maybe it is rumored that some evil dragon/outsider/etc is associated with him. Beyond that, that is not much reason why someone is fantasy land is not going to gun for him.

What works logically in novels, and what works logically due to game mechanics are far apart in nature.

As for PCs' taking out leaders of nations I have had some that would have done it, if it were not so risky. Others would never do it, but depending on a real life social contract is not good evidence that the game is not better off with higher level rulers.


Darche Schneider wrote:

I misspelled it. Its Esoteric Scholar that states

"Benefit: Once a day, a rogue with this talent may attempt a Knowledge check, even when she is not trained in that Knowledge skill."

That is it. Which according to the RAW of this talent, you can only make even trained knowledge checks once per day.

Clearly it is intended to be

"Benefit: Once a day, a rogue with this talent may attempt a Knowledge check she is not trained in."

Which still is pretty wonk, when you got all these other classes who can do this an unlimited number of times per day. (Bard, Investigator, some random archetypes and prestige classes)

Limiting resources on a martial class is okay up to a point. But there really needs to be some actual thought put into them, especially when a magic class gets the same thing unlimited times per day.

Another big one is with Swashbuckler and their "Charmed Life" vs a paladin's Cha to saves. Because not only is that one uses per day, but it also takes up actions to use.

Yeah, I see what you mean. The rogue talents do need a boost aka they need to get better. A rogue talent allowing them to sneak attack and critical against things that normally can be critted such as elemental would be nice.


What is "Esosentric Scholar"?


Actually the 5 foot step is not moving fast by the rules. There should not be a penalty at all, assuming you are trying to follow the rules.

@ nothing:
If someone moves 5 feet or 50 feet you would not know where to drop glitterdust if they successfully made the stealth check because you would not know where they were. Most likely they would move more than 5 feet so it would likely take some metagaming to know they did not move far unless the room was really small.
I do agree with warning a player up front about anything that might cause a problem. I also agree that one attack a round is not really all that effective, and that PC would likely be ignored.


If your party is level 15 to 17 then I am worried for the lich, not the players.
He is outnumbered, and his SR is only 28.

Heal is a standard action, and if he is healing then he is not fighting unless he quickens a spell(5th level).

I don't know how your players play, but that lich should be smart enough to have some minions.

It is better to have a CR X made of more than one creature than it is to have one creature fighting alone.

So if you have time drop the lich's CR and give him some backup.


JoeJ wrote:


A trained ability to adapt is a great idea. Which means it can be used at will, right? If it can't be, why not? How does it make sense in the game world that the character's training can only be used once per day?

In the real world it can be used at will most likely, but not in the game world "because balance".

Of course many people want the mechanics and flavor to mesh better and they don't like "because balance". I suspect you are in that camp, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Maybe calling upon such things is mentally strenuous. Suddenly figuring out how to become a good grappler(improved grapple, greater grapple, weapon focus(grapple), in less than 30 seconds might not be an easy thing to do. <---Why it can not be done all of the time.


A 5 foot step is "movement", but it does not take a move action. Since it is movement by the rules it is ok.

From the combat chapter:

"The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before..."

Quote:

Take 5-Foot Step

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.

You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can't take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.

You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.


Unit_DM wrote:

So it sounds like my PCs are giving up on the age of worms, turning tail and running back to Diamond Lake after getting licked (2 deaths) by Zyrxog in HOHR.

Any ideas on getting them back on track? I thought I could replace "Champion's Belt" with a new adventure at Diamond Lake but I REALLY think they'll like Champion's Belt.

Anyway, more just venting about my wimpy PCs.

AoW is difficult. I warned my groups about it before running it for them.

The Spire of Long Shadow is really difficult. You may need to hold back when you run it.

I think you should run Champion's Belt. It is a fun adventure, and my group had an easier time with it than HoHR.


JoeJ wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

It looks like it's a dissociated mechanic, which creates a roleplaying problem. Just what is the character actually doing?

You can make up a house rule to associate it with something in the world, but that leads to further mechanical problems; for example, if this is a magical ability, then it shouldn't work in areas of antimagic; or if it represents fatigue, then the character should be feeling the effects of that in other ways as well.

You don't need a houserule to explain how it works. You can just find flavor that makes sense to you.

Flavor has mechanical consequences, so a house rule is necessary. For example, if I say the ability is magic, then it can be detected or dispelled, and it won't work inside an antimagic field. If I decide it's a ki ability, then a character who has ki from some other source should be able to use that other source to power additional uses of this ability. This is something that really should have been done by the devs, not handed off for each GM to rule on individually.

If you make it into ki, or an SLA then you are not creating flavor. You are making a rule. So like I said "flavor(which is not a rule)" does not NOT need a houserule. You are making a rule by adding a mechanic to it. It is always possible to create flavor without adding a mechanic that involves a rule.

As an example the ability to change feats could be flavored as the character being trained to adapt quickly to any situation. <----No rule change needed.

Also the abilities default to EX not SU or SLA's, so the devs have done their part. As for flavor the description says they have an ability to adapt to enemy attacks, which is close to what I just said. Now it does not call out "martial training" specifically, but it makes sense that is what is being referred to.

Maybe you want more flavor for the particular ability than "they are trained to adapt", but that is different from no flavor being provided for it, and it does not require a house rule since it is already EX.

PS: After looking again the book says "Martial Training (Ex):"


No, that is not a misprint.

That "spells per day" chart is how many spells they can cast per day.

That is different from how many spells they can learn at when you first create the class.

Also you get to cast additional spells per day depending on your intelligence. There is a chart for that in the "ability score" section in the core rulebook.


Failedlegend The Eternal Gish wrote:

So uh...how sto start...well, I've been DMing since I was in elementary school so about 20 years now and I'd say I'm an ok DM but I've always been heavily focused on the roleplaying aspect of D&D and so have my players, unfortunately due to moving for college I had to leave my old group behind.

Luckily for about a year or so now I have been DMing for a new group which in general seems to enjoy my DMing but one of the players isn;t much of a roleplayer and is really only there for the combat.

This is a new experience for me and frankly I don't know what to do, don't get me wrong combat happens but sometimes we'll go through 2-3 sessions w/o any and he just sits there looking all bored.

Now I could just increase the amount of combat but the rest of the group likes my combat lite style so that wouldn't work either.

Do you guys have any suggestions for how to keep this one player happy w/o upsetting the other players?

Side-question: Anyone know a good website to find players/another DM for IRL games in Canada (near Toronto)

I used to be that guy, but I paid enough attention to not make it obvious. I did not participate in RP, and I only wanted it to "be over with" so I could kill something.

2 or 3 sessions with no combat would not be my cup of tea even now. Trying to get in at least one combat might work. That should not be too much for them to handle, and it would make the combat player not feel like his time is being wasted.

How long are your sessions normally?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Improving overall plot cohesion, fixing errors on statblocks, improvements/additions on continuing the AP past book six. I think the 32 player companion book should cover that. If they do a hard back, they may as well do a RotRL type deal and give us the entire AP with fixes/improvments in it.


Burrowing creatures are assumed to be in the ground or above ground. If a GM lets them strike without fully coming out then I think the partial cover is a fair house rule.

Maybe running them similar to incorporeal creatures striking from inside a wall is a good idea.


Samy wrote:

People don't play more than one or two APs?

But fine, I admit defeat. If 4/4 respondents right from the beginning think it's a bad idea, I guess you're right.

I guess I'm the only one who would buy this.

There are too many AP's most of us don't own or will never get to run. I would rather pay for a 20 for a book that iomproves upon a specific AP that I do own. The book would fix plot issues, and maybe make it a little easier to fun to 20.

But the idea of only getting 12 pages per AP would not work IMHO. An AP such as RotRL might only need 12 to 20 pages, but something like Serpent's Skull or Second Darkness would need at least 20 pages.


The brawler counts as a monk for the purpose of qualifying for feats. However, he does not gain unarmed strike damage dice that counts as monk levels because his unarmed strike damage does not call out the monk class.

However if you are not asking for PFS I see nothing wrong with allowing it to count the brawler as 3 levels higher for the purpose of unarmed strike damage dice.

He is treated as a level 1 brawler and a level 3 monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

(without the power attack house rule it becomes)

PA: +16/+16/+11/+11/+6 2d8+23 first, 2d8+21
Ah I see you think that is a house-rule (really was curious with what you meant by that). It is not. The minutia is boring. The rules forums would be more likely to indulge in that. I'm sure cases can be made for both rulings, it's just irrelevant because at the end of the day the GM will rule it how he or she wants to because the actual rules are whatever the GM says and no amount of rules lawyering should change their decision.

The rules are what are in the book. The rules for "a specific group" are what the GM says they are which makes them houserules.

And if for no other reason than people should use the same terms, when in the forum "house rules" = changes made to the system for your enjoyment, and the "rules" = the official rules per RAI.

In addition "house rules" is not a bad term. We all have house rules, and anyone who gets upset about it is being way too sensitive.

What is flamebait/annoying is ignoring the standard definition of something, when you know what everyone else means. No I am not accusing you of this. I am just informing you so you don't become the "wrought" guy.

Short version: We had a poster using words but he used them as his group used them, instead of how most people understood them, and was surprised that nobody knew what he was talking about.

So when we say "house rules" it does NOT mean "you are doing it wrong", it just means you are not using the rules as intended in the book.

At best(not that I think this will happen) people will just say "your rules...." or some similar phrase which basically still amounts to "house rules". There is no need to come up with a new phrase that means the same thing as an old one however.

edit: In my 5+ years here I have never seen anyone get upset about the term "house rules". I have also never seen it on any other site. It is quiet common here. So even if there is some site where it is a problem, it is not the case here.


I would rather have perception as class skill if the brawler does not already have it. The person up front does not need to be ambushed.


Nope. I don't give any abilities other than the typical size changes and bonuses that come with that.


JoeJ wrote:
graystone wrote:
"Artemis Moonstar wrote:
I can understand resting for HP... But when entire parties are resting because people are out of x/day (this includes x/rounds, x/anything, x/etc), despite having good HP and casters still have a handful spells left... Totally breaks my verisimilitude.
For me, it'd "breaks my verisimilitude" that in a life or dead situation you wouldn't go into it with the best possible chance to survive. That'd mean regaining resources whenever possible. Without a good reason to 'push on', it only seems reasonable. It might not have the 'thrill' of an epic story but it's closer to reality.

Smart characters would do that if they could, but how do they arrange for the rest of the world to wait on hold while they rest up?

What do you mean? Give an example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:

My major problem with uses per day isn't so much the fluff (of which I shall keep my opinion on it close to the vest, though it seems to differ from many in this thread)... It's the gameplay consequences.

In short.. It reinforces the fifteen minute work day. At least from what I've experienced. I know very few who would actually want to be the truly epic big damn heroes that continue on despite being tired and worn out.

I am sure the those heroes wanted to rest also, and they will if given a chance. If you read a novel where someone is fighting on fumes it was because they had no choice, not because they thought "Man, if I fight with nothing left I will look really cool".

Quote:


I can understand resting for HP... But when entire parties are resting because people are out of x/day (this includes x/rounds, x/anything, x/etc), despite having good HP and casters still have a handful spells left... Totally breaks my verisimilitude.

Define "handful".

If you mean 7th level casters and they still have 3rd level spells then I don't know why they are resting barring very extreme cases. If they are level 15 and they only have a few 3rd level spells left then I understand, but a 15th level party can normally take on enough fights to not call it a "15 minute work day" before they are pushed to 3rd level spells.

Quote:


I can get the tactical advantage of fighting the BBEG at totally topped off everything... But there's no effing thrill to the story when the heroes plow through a dungeon, rest for a few hours inside said dungeon, then go off to fight the final boss as pristine as the day they left town!

That depends on how tough the BBEG is. Personally if they end their last fight right outside of his door/entrance before resting he would know. If they take too long to show up he should know and adjust accordingly. Resting right before a boss fight can be blind luck if the players dont know where he is. However the boss should have plans in place to deal with such things.

Quote:


And usually, due to how most of these 'Boss Fights' are designed, these fully fresh characters often trounce said boss... Because there's nothing in the module that states the boss would rather harass them while sleeping, than sitting in his sanctuary wringing his hands evilly and twirling his mustache.

That is a GM problem. Unless you are in PFS you are not bound to what is in the books. Many people run home games and still fall prey to this. I have had bosses change locations, and I don't mean in the same dungeon if they had too. Give your BBEG a preferred place to fight, but he does not have to have a mandatory place to fight.

Quote:


Don't believe me? I've seen it, I've been in parties that do it. Several times. One of my worst groups would practically boycott and derail the game until they got to do it, which is not a good experience for a new GM (who was only doing it because none of the usual GMs wanted to, despite only having been playing for a year beforehand), which made her vow never to GM again, mainly due to the fact, that they vehemently argued with very raised voices they 'Should' be able to ONLY so the casters can re-prepare their spells, and the barb can get rage rounds ("By not letting us sleep, you're just trying to pull a TPK!"). After only ONE and a HALF combats at level 2 (they retreated, and the nature of the dream labyrinth prevents things from leaving their assigned rooms).

It's why I've started to shake off the rust and DM again. There's nothing more of a buzz kill to me than having the psyched momentum grind to a freaking halt just so the barbarian can sleep and be pissed off tomorrow. Fortunately, those who I DM for (though that number is small) happen to agree with me, so though I'm not a player, I'm getting the BDH feeling through DMing for them ^_^.

I have no problem with Use Per Day features. I find them to be rather fun to use, and depending on what they are, rather thematic... It's the game play attitude that they enable that upsets me.

I believe you, but you have to set a tone of actions having consequences. It seem the problem here is players expecting to have their way. Even if you remove the x/day mechanic they would still arrive with full power. I never tell players they can't rest, but a lot can happen in 8 hours. Also at low levels there is a good deal of resting, but at higher levels PC's are able to take on more combats. That is just part of the game. I personally like to start PC's at 3rd to 5th level when I run homebrew games, which I have not done in a while. I have started AP's at 3rd before, and it worked out pretty well.

With regard to your resting players, there is a difference between them knowing bad guys might bother them if they sleep in enemy HQ, and the GM saying "No you can't rest because I said so". The former is something they should expect to deal with. The latter is something I would not like as a player either. Even if the bad guys don't assault them because they boarded the door they should be on alert, and be more grouped up than normal, depending on the situation.


JoeJ wrote:

It looks like it's a dissociated mechanic, which creates a roleplaying problem. Just what is the character actually doing?

You can make up a house rule to associate it with something in the world, but that leads to further mechanical problems; for example, if this is a magical ability, then it shouldn't work in areas of antimagic; or if it represents fatigue, then the character should be feeling the effects of that in other ways as well.

You don't need a houserule to explain how it works. You can just find flavor that makes sense to you.


The idea of a one shot one kill archery would be reliant upon a SoD ability . It won't be done with damage.


The rules don't specifically say the arrow would hit the invisible wall that is in front of the invisible person. They do.say that total cover means there is no line of affect. Therefore it is safe to assume that whatever is providing total cover is what the arrow hit. You are free to come up with your own flavor but the rules are consistent.


Charender wrote:

As a general rule, you can only gain a bonus from a particular stat once no matter how they are typed.

Gaining wis and dex to damage, yes.
Gaining dex to damage twice, no.

That rule does not exist.


How much casting is he planning to give out.

4th level spells like rangers or paladins

6th level likes bards and inquisitors

or full 9th level spells


Nefreet wrote:
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
If there is something that many people agree is incorrect on d20pfsrd.com, just let us know so we can quickly correct it!
Yes, the templates that Gilborn linked just above your post are in error. They show creatures threatening an extra 5' on the diagonal, which is not how reach works in Pathfinder.

Which template?

I saw

-xx-
xxxx
xxxx
-xx-

If it was

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

with the X's being the threatened areas then diagonals would be threatened.

edit:I see the ones at the bottom(below the "Natural Attacks Damage by Size" chart) now. They should be similar to how the ones for spells are. Yeah those need to be fixed.


stealth rules sans chart:
Stealth
(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.

Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.

You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Medium +0, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or gaining total concealment allows you to use Stealth, even if the creature is observing you*. However if you are not being observed the you can use concealment as opposed to total concealment to use stealth.

*Cover and concealment are relative, so you may be able to stealth against one creature, but not against another creature. As an example if a creature has blindsight and you are within the range of its blindsight then you can not stealth against it, even if you have concealment.

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.

Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.

Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving to avoid being pinpointed. Use the chart under invisibility in the glossary to determine how additional modifiers will affect your stealth bonus. The same chart also applies to your stealth check when not invisible. As an example if you are speaking in a normal voice it is a -20 to your stealth check. If you are speaking within the hearing range of another creature then it may not be possible to use stealth against them as you would be observed by their hearing. Whispering imparts a -5 modifier, to your stealth check, and your allies may need to make perception checks to hear you. The enemy may also make perception checks to hear you. If they can hear you whisper however, and you have already used stealth against them successfully it only gives them your direction but it does not pinpoint your location unless they can beat your stealth DC.

For those wondering why blindsight only cares about total cover:

Quote:
Blindsight (Ex) This ability is similar to blindsense, but is far more discerning. Using nonvisual senses, such as sensitivity to vibrations, keen smell, acute hearing, or echolocation, a creature with blindsight maneuvers and fights as well as a sighted creature. Invisibility, darkness, and most kinds of concealment are irrelevant, though the creature must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice creatures within range of its blindsight ability. Unless noted otherwise, blindsight is continuous, and the creature need do nothing to use it. Some forms of blindsight, however, must be triggered as a free action. If so, this is noted in the creature's description. If a creature must trigger its blindsight ability, the creature gains the benefits of blindsight only during its turn.
Quote:
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you.

suggested house rule:
If you feel as though requiring total cover makes it too difficult to use stealth, then having a -5 penalty apply to the stealth DC could be used to emulate the idea of hiding while someone is observing you.

PS2: If there are any other questions let me know. I want to get this part finished before adding a chart. It will be the chart in the invisibility section, and the chart in the perception area for anything that would apply to stealth. I think they match up already, but if there are any rules conflicts I will try to go with whichever one is more consistent.

PS: Transparent cover is still cover, so blindsight does not work through closed windows.


Reach weapons don't have the clause that 3.5 did however if the person is moving from 15 feet to 5 feet they still have to cross that 10 foot barrier to movement should still provoke.

This is supported by the rules because the rules reference distance not squares when determining how provoking should work for movement.

Quote:
A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it.

Also those templates on you put a link to all account for diagonol squares so by using them a large creature with reach would not threaten a diagonol square.

Unless you are in PFS it is easier to go with the 3.5 ruling which most GM's seem to use. That allows for diagonal squares to count as threatened.


Ascalaphus wrote:

Why does blindsight block stealth, even if you have cover/concealment?

I mean, I understand how blindsight helps against concealment by darkness or fog. But suppose you're hiding behind a shrubbery hat grants concealment?

Blindsight is blocked by total cover not by partial cover.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Having this in an organized, easy to be presented to DMs, and players, would be awesome.

I will do that.


Full round if added spontaneously.
Standard if prepared IIRC


Seranov wrote:
If they errata the Warpriest AC bonus to not stack with the Monk one, I hope they change it from Deflection to a Dodge bonus. Kinda lame that a Monk can use a Ring of Protection but the Warpriest can't.

I have not read over the entire class, but why cant they use rings of protection?


Trekkie90909 wrote:

Could you link me to something which supports your assertion about sources?

In this case the bonus type is the same "unlisted," but yes if one AC bonus said "deflection," and the other said "bonus to AC (untyped). You are right they would stack. That is not the case, hence the discussion.

They are not the exact same, and one says the source is from a deity, which further obfuscates things. Su vs Ex are ability types though, not sources so they don't factor in.

Sources are not defined so I can't give you a general rule, but I can provide an example.

Mirror image is an example. You can't keep casting mirror image spells to get more images. The images are not the source of the bonus. The spell is the source of the bonus. If you keep casting it you just get the highest number of images rolled.

Just because something(feat/class features/etc) provides an ability mod bonus to something else that does not mean feats/class features/etc stop becoming sources.


Traskus wrote:

Okay, as the title of the thread says I am new to GMing and I have already found that it is an entirely different beast sitting behind the screen than on the player side of it. I've come across a few situations in this that I really had no idea how to respond as a GM to some of their ideas.

My group of four players (myself included) has decided to run through Rise of the Runelords together and switch off GMs for each book so no one has to GM for the entire campaign. I drew the first book (Burnt Offerings) and before I go any further I feel that I should place a warning that there may be some spoilers ahead.

Two situations, in particular, come to mind. The first is in the Catacombs of Wrath part of the first book. The party allowed Erylium to escape from the initial encounter (which they had gone to almost immediately) and she later ambushed them in the room with Koruvus. With all of her spells activated the PCs were struggling to lay a hand on her. The Paladin who had used smite on her earlier couldn't even seem to hit her. After several rounds the Rogue takes down Koruvus and I mention that Erylium seems to be about to flee. On the initiative the Paladin decides to remove his cloak and attempt to grapple/entangle Erylium in it.......

The second involves a more absurd scenario at Thisletop. The group had already killed the druid and his animal companion before fighting the other group of goblins and taking one of them alive. While the Paladin was away from the table ......

For the cape situation I would not have allowed him to break the rules. It seems like he used the cape to get extra reach. It is likely made of cloth and not substansial enough to grapple someone with as if they were using hands. If you insist on the rule of cool, then applying a -6 to -8 penalty would have been in order. You already take a -4 penalty for grappling with one hand. I am sure that one hand trumps a flimsy cape.

For the second one I would have waited for the player to come back to the table since his character may have objected to the situation. If the paladin(character) had walked off that would have been different.


Trekkie90909 wrote:

The question would be "same source as in class ability," or "same source as in the thing which provides the bonus (wisdom stat)."

I choose the latter because I think it's more in keeping with the intent of the rules. You are free to interpret it otherwise.

In either case we're looking at an untyped bonus, and that particular segment of bolded text.

EDIT: I'd also point out that Su vs Ex is just an ability type, not an actual source for the ability. Since they're otherwise just "AC Bonus" I'd tend to rule that they don't stack anyways, but that's an interpretation.

The source(class features, feat, trait, magic item, etc) is what provides and dictates the bonus type. The number in and of itself is not a source. The bonus type and source and two different things.

With one being EX and other being SU they are not the exact same which makes them different, at least by RAW. However I don't expect for this to go unerrata'd. They(PDT) might say they are still the same ability, and therefore don't stack despite one being SU.

1 to 50 of 28,295 << 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.