Creative Director
|
Heh... honestly, I kinda wish we'd just dumped double weapons entirely from the game. They're a bit too awkward and goofy, and I still have a nagging feeling they're only in the game because Darth Maul looked pretty cool in the previews to "Phantom Menace" with his double lightsabre...
Heh... honestly, I kinda wish we'd just dumped double weapons entirely from the game. They're a bit too awkward and goofy, and I still have a nagging feeling they're only in the game because Darth Maul looked pretty cool in the previews to "Phantom Menace" with his double lightsabre...
I've thought double weapons were lame since Neverwinter Nights (which was my first introduction to 3rd edition.) But I despise the most recent Star Wars movies as well...I guess I'm just a hater :)
Zo
Heh... honestly, I kinda wish we'd just dumped double weapons entirely from the game. They're a bit too awkward and goofy, and I still have a nagging feeling they're only in the game because Darth Maul looked pretty cool in the previews to "Phantom Menace" with his double lightsabre...
Well, they may have been inspired by Darth Maul, but then you realize it models the famous quarterstaff pretty well. And that leads to other things. But yeah, the orc double axe, the double flail, and even the double sword are a stretch.
But yeah, the orc double axe, the double flail, and even the double sword are a stretch.
Not as much of a stretch as some might think. Currently (possibly to change with the Adventurer's Armory) the closest thing to a three section staff (mind volume, not a great video) is the dire flail. I have a feeling that there have been more examples of double weapons in fiction, film and video games before Phantom Menace... But I can't think of where right now.
But yeah, the orc double axe, the double flail, and even the double sword are a stretch.Not as much of a stretch as some might think. Currently (possibly to change with the Adventurer's Armory) the closest thing to a three section staff (mind volume, not a great video) is the dire flail. I have a feeling that there have been more examples of double weapons in fiction, film and video games before Phantom Menace... But I can't think of where right now.
I almost edited out my reference to the dire flail; I was thinking of depictions I have seen where it is a staff with three chains and spiked balls at both ends. That is unwieldable. But a double flail, like a three section staff makes sense; although I think the power of the flail that makes it into the dire version is talking bigger. I would be inclined to make a three section staff do staff damage but have a special quality like for disarming or something.
I was really thinking of all the bladed double weapons. The reason the staff (and the staff lightsaber) work well is that they have round (i.e. universal) striking heads. A theoretical "double mace" might work as well. Some real weapons that are usable double ended have blades, but always at one end with the other end a either blunt or stabbing head.
It's really the orc double axe that gets me. I've tried to picture a practical "double axe" but I just can't see it working. Certainly the image we are treated to in the 3.5 PH is laughable.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There are differences between first printing and second printing regarding this sentence:
page 184 (from physical book, first printing - August 2009):
"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round."
page 184 (from PDF, second printing - November 2009):
"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC for the same round."
Since the Acrobatics skill (page 90) show the following rule on both the first and second printing,
"Special: If you have 3 or more ranks in Acrobatics, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively instead of the usual +2, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC when taking the total defense action instead of the usual +4."
I strongly believe that this was an omission in the second printing of the Rules.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
The wording for Bullrush states:
Is the intent that if making a Charge Bullrush you can benefit from all attack bonuses relevant to your weapon? (but not if you can't Charge) I'm guessing this ISN'T the intent to allow weapon bonuses sometimes, so if that's the case, the wording should probably be more along the lines of Over-Run's: .
To follow up on this, it seems many people are surprised that Sunder is now listed as an ATTACK ACTION (i.e. specific Standard Action) (though in place of an attack, so benefitting from weapon bonuses), as opposed to completely attack-subsitutable. I don't know if that is Errata or not, but since a bunch of people were very surprised by that (this late after the release), I thought I'd mention it in case the use of "attack action" WAS in error.
Either way, I think it points out the extreme confusion that still persists over the actions needed for each maneuver, which PRPG supposedly was trying to simplify/clarify, and I think emphasizes the value that could be offered by a 'mini-table' summarizing the action(s) needed for each maneuver as well as their ability to benefit from weapon bonuses. I've already made a mockup of such a mini-table which I hope to deploy onto d20pfsrd (at least once some confusion over Trip is cleared up): here, but if you feel it would help convey the maneuver rules to PRPG players, please use the idea! :-)
There are differences between first printing and second printing regarding this sentence:
page 184 (from physical book, first printing - August 2009):
"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round."
page 184 (from PDF, second printing - November 2009):
"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC for the same round."
Since the Acrobatics skill (page 90) show the following rule on both the first and second printing,
"Special: If you have 3 or more ranks in Acrobatics, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively instead of the usual +2, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC when taking the total defense action instead of the usual +4."
I strongly believe that this was an omission in the second printing of the Rules.
Well the SRD definitely agrees with the first printing. I am not sure why Paizo would change this. It would mean that if you were denied your Dex bonus to AC, you would continue to benefit from the Defensive Fighting bonus. I'm not sure you should though.
As to your last point, I can't see why or how that ONE word would be omitted from a text that is already worked up into a publishing PDF, and was previously verbatim from the SRD. Rather, I would say that they meant to change it, but forgot or missed the reference under Acrobatics.
I just don't know why.
Barbarian Power: Animal Frenzy states you use Full BAB -5 and half STR bonus when using it in addition to a Full Attack action. I assume that means Iterative Attacks specifically, so during a Natural Attack Full Attack should it just be treated as a Primary weapon according to it's type (Bite)?
Likewise, when used in conjunction with a Grapple it seems like it's basically functioning like Grab (i.e. melee attack + 'free' Grapple attempt). The text is silent on this, but should the normal Natural Attack rules apply here, i.e. using Full BAB and fulL STR bonus according to it's weapon type (Primary/Bite)? The Feat doesn't really cover this directly, but it would nice if it at least said it just used the normal Natural Attack rules and the "-5/half STR" was clearly just a useful example of how those rules apply in combo with ITERATIVE attacks.
Also, it says you can use the Bite ability in conjunction with a Grapple when "maintaining or break[ing] free from a Grapple". It seems to me that REVERSING a grapple is also within the intent of the rules here (i.e. just not when ESTABLISHING a grapple), but reversing would be excluded by the RAW. Personally, the imagery of a Barbarian purposefully STAYING in a Grapple somebody/something else initiated is what the class is about, so I'd like to see that work by the RAW. :-)
This is from a thread about "base speed" in relation to Jump:
I'm 99% sure "base land speed" means the same as "land speed." But it applies to your land speed at the time you make the jump. You wouldn't get the bonus when you're standing still.OK, to clarify your statement, are you saying the Jump check bonus is based off whatever your base speed is (base land speed, or base swim speed if a swimmer was swimming up to jump out of water, etc), INCLUDING enhancement and other bonuses? In other words "base" in this context has no correlation to "natural" or "without bonuses" speed, but simply corresponds to how far you can move with one Move Action?
Also, I'm not sure about this "wouldn't get the bonus when you're standing still" because jumping without a running start is already severely penalized. If you really do lose any base speed bonus when Jumping from a stand-still, that really needs to be included in the Jump test itself. Below is the section of the Jump text describing the penalties for not having a running start:
Are these portions describing the exact same thing, or are they different (and you are doubly penalized, i.e. standing jumps are only 1/4 the distance)? I'm guessing they ARE superfluous, but how they are worded is very confusing, especially since once DIRECTLY halves the distance you jump and the other in-directly halves the distance you jump by doubling the DCs.The base DC to make a jump is equal to the distance to be crossed (if horizontal) or four times the height to be reached (if vertical). These DCs double if you do not have at least 10 feet of space to get a running start.
For a running jump, the result of your Acrobatics check indicates the distance traveled in the jump (and if the check fails, the distance at which you actually land and fall prone). Halve this result for a standing long jump to determine where you land.
If they are superfluous, it seems like a good amount of space could be reclaimed by just cutting out one of them.
Uncanny Dodge/ Invisibility/ Flatfooted issue: thread
File under "Half-done changes from 3.5 that nobody can quite figure out what is ultimately intended".
Within the dense text explaining how Combat Maneuvers function, we see the text:
If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
This info really seems like it should be located within the Stunned condition description itself:
Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).
Why not just say "takes a -2 penalty to AC (-6 to CMD)" (or only -4 to CMD if they aren't supposed to stack, which they effectively do by RAW).
Splitting a condition's effect into AC/attack mods (-2 penalty to AC, +4 for those attacking that creature) just seems bizarre, and splitting up that info in different sections just further exacerbates that, besides making it likely that either part will be over-looked. In any case, you STILL need to go look up what stunned does, just for the -2 AC penalty. Consolidating the info would basically save an entire sentence, as well as streamlining the Maneuver rules which are apparently still confusing for many people.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
As noted in this thread, an Earth Elemental, being a creature with Burrow speed and the Earth Subtype, gains Tremorsense as a special ability (Bestiary, page 311), and so basically has no detection problems while earth-gliding.
Bestiary, page 311:
"Earth Subtype: This subtype is usually used for outsiders with a connection to the Elemental Plane of Earth. Earth creatures usually have burrow speeds, and most earth creatures can burrow through solid rock. Earth creatures with a burrow speed possess tremorsense."
The problem arises with the various Elemental Body spells (and consequently Shapechange and Wild Shape), since the description of Elemental Body I says:
"Earth elemental: If the form you take is that of a Small earth elemental, you gain a +2 size bonus to your Strength and a +4 natural armor bonus. You also gain darkvision 60 feet, the push ability, and the ability to earth glide."
Not speaking of the push ability (the Bestiary Earth Elementals do not have a 'push ability' at all, only a bonus Improved Bull Rush feat), the problem is the Earth Glide abililty, which is highly hindered without any Tremorsense to allow the caster to 'see' while underground.
The fact is that, since those spells do not change the type/subtype of the caster, they do not grant him the Tremorsense ability (usually gained by Earth Elementals through a combination of their Burrow speed - which the polymorphing spells grant - and their subtype - which the spells do not grant), and so we have blind Wizards/ Sorcerers/ Druids which stumble into the ground, not even sure where the 'up' and the 'down' is...
Although I do not really suggest to allow a simple 'Elemental Body I' spell (or a 6th level Wild Shape) to make a character gain Tremorsense (a Druid would gain it at 6th level, too much early !, a Wizard at 7th level, and a Sorcerer at 8th level), I hope that an additional errata would allow at least the Elemental Body III to make a polymorphed caster to gain Tremorsense (Druid= 10th level, Wizard= 11th level, Sorcerer= 12th level); alternatively, allow any Elemental Body spell to gain Tremorsense, but ONLY while earth-gliding.
Otherwise, a drunken Sorcerer could easily reach the molten core of the planet and kill himself without even knowing he was moving on the wrong direction !!!
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Posted to another thread:
So on your Answer, If say my druid was wild shaping in to an Elemental or a plant yet get none of the traits of it type or subtype either, would I be effected by spells that effect Elementals or Plants or even Animals? I ask because on thing in the druid class made me ponder this.
Why would a druid be effected by Blight? It's a spell that only effects plants and a druid wild shape isn't a plant since it gains no traits of the creature including it's type and weakness.
Taking 10 on Knowledge checks and Bard ability:
There seems to be no direct restriction on taking 10 on Knowledge checks (like there is for UMD), yet a Bard ability says you can take 10 on them. Either A) you really can't Take 10 on Knowledge checks, except the only way one is supposed to know that is by implication of a class ability in a less-played class, or B) you CAN take 10 and all the Bard ability does is evade the "no Taking 10 while distracted" restriction, though since it doesn't use the phrase "even while distracted/etc", there is a misleading implication that the ability to Take 10 on Knowledge checks generally is itself novel. Either way, the rules need to be clarified to consistently support the intention.
Temporary/ "Permanent" Stat Bonuses/ Items
There is a conflict between how Stat boost Items work (after 24 hours they become "permanent") and how Stat boosts in general work, which require a "24 hour duration" to gain effects granted by "permanent bonuses". The "duration" wording means that a 24+ hour duration spell/effect begins causing the "permanent" bonuses IMMEDIATELY upon activation. I'm pretty sure that such spells and items are supposed to work identically ("permanent" effects kicking in after 24 hours), so the "permanent" bonus rule should probably be Errata'd to more closely match the items' description.
FYI, the choice of "Permanent" to denote what actually is "24+ hour duration" can be very confusing, since the very title suggests that qualifying bonuses become permanent.
Maneuver Attack Substitutability:
To add to the maneuver action-type topic,
The CLEAR explanation of 'in place of an attack' does actually appear in a completely separate location from the Maneuver rules, as a FOOTNOTE to the Actions in Combat Table. Most people looking up Maneuvers are not going to think to look there, and most people looking at the Actions in Combat Table probably aren't going to hone in this specific foot-note to begin with.
Why does this even belong in that table at all? Just say 'varies based on maneuver' and leave it at that, even BARRING attack-substitutable maneuvers the maneuvers still vary in action-type (attack or standard as well as attack-substitutable), so why put the attack-substitution info here? This info should be removed from the table footnote and integrated with the general explanation of Maneuvers, so 'in place of an attack' maneuver descriptions have a concrete, clear reference as to what that particular phrase means, which the maneuver text goes 90% of the way to explaining, yet fails to make directly clear.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Conflicted Error:
Page 212
Transmutation - Polymorph
"When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor bonuses, which cease to function)."
"Shield bonuses" have been omited? (Either that, or the "Wild" special armor property as described on page 464 is incorrect by referencing its effects on shields:
"The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen."
Heh... honestly, I kinda wish we'd just dumped double weapons entirely from the game. They're a bit too awkward and goofy, and I still have a nagging feeling they're only in the game because Darth Maul looked pretty cool in the previews to "Phantom Menace" with his double lightsabre...
+1
I have always thought the same as well. There was never a demand for them, nor did I think there was a need for them. (Although the quarter staff is the only weapon that benefited from such a rule-set). I thought the orc double-axe was completely out of character for orcs -- I still do.
*sighs*
There's a typo on the 'Repairing Magic Items' section:
Repairing Magic Items, page 459:
"The make whole spell can also repair a damaged (or even a destroyed) magic items—if the caster is high enough level."
It should read 'repair a damaged (or even a destroyed) magic item'.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Also, in the description for Craft Magic Arms and Armor, it states:
"You can also mend a broken magic weapon, suit of armor, or shield if it is one that you could make. Doing so costs half the raw materials and half the time it would take to craft that item in the first place."
The wording was identical in 3.5 D&D, but the meaning of the word "broken" has changed in Pathfinder (in 3.5, a broken magic item is destroyed and useless, but in PFRPG a "broken" magic item is just damaged). So perhaps "broken" should be replaced by "destroyed" or "broken or destroyed" (if the intent was not to change the feat).
Any news on the offical Errata yet?
Any news on the offical Errata yet?
It should come out when the next printing of the Core Rulebook comes out, which is Real Soon Now.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I don't know if this has been reported yet,
but alot of the Class Abilities like for Sorceror Bloodline '1st level attack powers' are listed as Spell-Like, but don't have any specific spell they're based on. The rules for SLA's seem to assume any SLA is based on a normal spell somehow... Since SLA's otherwise function as a spell being cast, like provoking and needing a Concentration check, not having a source for a Spell Level is a pretty signifigant issue. Either all these SLA's need to be given a reference spell or spell level, be converted to Supernatural Abilities (which don't provoke/ need Concentration), or there at least needs to be some standard way to 'derive' a Spell Level for these things, so people know what to do with the Concentration checks that they are supposed to use.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
My answer from another similar question on another thread:
When one (be it Paizo or whoever) introduces new Spell-like abilities that don't mimic an existing spell, it's the book's responsibility to indicate what spell level that ability is. I argued for a LONG time that we should avoid creating spell-like abilities that don't mimic existing spells for pretty much this exact reason, but I obviously lost that argument.
So the best way to estimate what a spell-like ability's level is if it doesn't say in the description and it doesn't mimic a spell is to just look at what level the class gets the ability at and assume it's the highest-level spell that one could cast at that level.
Thus: an aberrant sorcerer gains acidic ray as a spell-like ability at 1st level, therefore that SLA is effectively a 1st level spell. The fey sorcerer gains fleeting glance at 9th level, and since the highest-level spell that sorcerer could cast is 4th at 9th level, fleeting glance is equivalent to a 4th level spell. And so on.
My personal preference would be, of course, to turn all of those into Supernatural abilities.
|
Creative Director
|
As for the errata... we still haven't announced its release date. But it should be pretty soon. Today's more or less the last day of 25-hour-work-days to get the APG out the door in time for Gen Con, which means that after we recover from the last few weeks/months we'll be able to turn our attention to other things like errata releases and FAQs and doing laundry.
Thanks for the info.... Hopefully all those are given Spell Levels in the next Update.
(it's doubly wierd these SLAs don't have Spell Levels when Supernatural Abilities like of the Paladin's DO have Spell Levels)
It just gets messy when you consider PrCs and the like where different characters could have different max Spell Levels when they gain the same PrC level/ SLA. (i.e. Wizard->Cleric->MysticTheurge->Cleric)
Thanks for clarification, though.
On page 46 of the Pathfinder core rules, my pants have a stain please fix
If you're so excited by the rules on page 46 that you're staining your pants, it might be a good idea to change game systems. And your shorts, while you're at it.
|
Creative Director
|
...It just gets messy when you consider PrCs and the like where different characters could have different max Spell Levels when they gain the same PrC level/ SLA. (i.e. Wizard->Cleric->MysticTheurge->Cleric)
Thanks for clarification, though.
Spell levels don't change according to class level, though. They stay the same.
Spell levels don't change according to class level, though. They stay the same.
But a Full Sorceror gaining SLA X at Class Level 10 would have a different max Spell Level than one who took Sorceror 5 - Arcane Archer 5 - Sorceror 5. That's easy enough to just treat as the Spell Level the ability is normally gained at (single-class), but if any PrC's have SLAs without Spell Levels it isn't really all that clear because there's many ways to a PrC. Anyhow, including the Spell Levels fixes it, so I cross my fingers.
|
Creative Director
|
Spell levels don't change according to class level, though. They stay the same.But a Full Sorceror gaining SLA X at Class Level 10 would have a different max Spell Level than one who took Sorceror 5 - Arcane Archer 5 - Sorceror 5. That's easy enough to just treat as the Spell Level the ability is normally gained at (single-class), but if any PrC's have SLAs without Spell Levels it isn't really all that clear because there's many ways to a PrC. Anyhow, including the Spell Levels fixes it, so I cross my fingers.
Still doesn't matter, since the effective spell level should be calculated as if by a single-classed sorcerer for ALL sorcerers. Even if you gain your 9th level sorcerer SLA at 14th level because you took 5 levels "off" to take a different class, that particular SLA remains the same SLA as if you hand't taken those levels off.
|
My answer from another similar question on another thread:
When one (be it Paizo or whoever) introduces new Spell-like abilities that don't mimic an existing spell, it's the book's responsibility to indicate what spell level that ability is. I argued for a LONG time that we should avoid creating spell-like abilities that don't mimic existing spells for pretty much this exact reason, but I obviously lost that argument.
So the best way to estimate what a spell-like ability's level is if it doesn't say in the description and it doesn't mimic a spell is to just look at what level the class gets the ability at and assume it's the highest-level spell that one could cast at that level.Thus: an aberrant sorcerer gains acidic ray as a spell-like ability at 1st level, therefore that SLA is effectively a 1st level spell. The fey sorcerer gains fleeting glance at 9th level, and since the highest-level spell that sorcerer could cast is 4th at 9th level, fleeting glance is equivalent to a 4th level spell. And so on.
My personal preference would be, of course, to turn all of those into Supernatural abilities.
Please don't. Supernatural abilities bypass Spell Resistance (p. 221).
I'm uncertain if this is an errata or an intentional rule.
As noted on this thread, Extra Channel is the only 'Extra XXXX' feat that does not specifically say that it can be taken multiple times (and so, it seems that you can only take it once). The 'Special' entry only mentions the ability for Paladins to benefit from the feat itself only for Channeling.
Conflicted Error: [...]
And we have Page 463
Table 15–5: Shield Special AbilitiesWild
-----------
Conflicted Error:
Page 555
This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time.
Page 555
While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die.
Touch of idiocy
With a touch, you reduce the target’s mental faculties. Your
successful melee touch attack applies a 1d6 penalty to the target’s
Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. This penalty can’t
reduce any of these scores below 1.
This spell’s effect may make it impossible for the target to cast
some or all of its spells, if the requisite ability score drops below the
minimum required to cast spells of that level.
The description of the additional effect isn't phrased as a modification, but rather as a reminder. Which makes it look like missed holdover text from. Either remove it or rephrase it. : Unlike normal ability penalties this spell’s effect may make it impossible for the target to cast some or all of its spells, if the requisite ability score drops below the minimum required to cast spells of that level
I don't know if this is errata or FAQ
A bard cannot have more than one bardic performance in effect at one time.
At 7th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a
move action instead of a standard action. At 13th level, a
bard can start a bardic performance as a swift action.
Does "one bardic performance in effect at one time" mean at the same time or during the same round/turn?
|
Creative Director
|
I don't know if this is errata or FAQ
A bard cannot have more than one bardic performance in effect at one time.
At 7th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a
move action instead of a standard action. At 13th level, a
bard can start a bardic performance as a swift action.Does "one bardic performance in effect at one time" mean at the same time or during the same round/turn?
This is a FAQ... altough since I've only ever heard this question this once, it's more of an AQ than a FAQ.
A bard can only have one bardic performance in effect at a time. The ability to start a new performance as a move and eventually as a swift action lets a bard switch performances faster, but whenever a bard switches performances the previous one ends.
Edit:
This is a FAQ... altough since I've only ever heard this question this once, it's more of an AQ than a FAQ.
LOL, yes you are probably right.
Thanks for your answer James.
What I really love with the Pathfinder bard is the versatility of the design. I just love the rounds per day mechanics. That why I want to know if "have more than one bardic performance in effect at one time" means you could have two bardic performance active the same turnas long as they are not active at the same time.
Perhaps a stupid question.
So does this mean that a level 8 bard, could:
round 1) start Dirge of Doom as a move action + cast spell
round 2) maintain Dirge of Doom as a free action + cast spell as a
standard action + switch to Inspire Courage as a move action.
or
round 2) maintain Dirge of Doom as a free action + cast spell as a
swift action (using a rod) + switch to Inspire Courage as a standard action + move
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The bolded lines pretty much deal with Zark's question directly.
Starting a bardic performance is a standard action, but it can be maintained each round as a free action. Changing a bardic performance from one effect to another requires the bard to and A bardic performance cannot be disrupted, but it ends immediately if the bard is killed, paralyzed, stunned, knocked unconscious, or otherwise prevented from taking a free action to maintain it each round. A bard cannot have more than one bardic performance in effect at one time.
At 7th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a move action instead of a standard action. At 13th level, a bard can start a bardic performance as a swift action.
I really can't see how one is imagining a way to get around the blatant ban on having more than one effect active at one time. If you want to keep up the previous effect (say, penalizing opponent Saves), cast a Spell, THEN drop the previous Performance and start a different one, that would be 100% legit by the RAW. Having two effects simultaneously is never allowed, though.
The text I hilighted in blue is somewhat mis-leading, as I believe the intent is for 'switching to a new song' to use the same action as starting a new one does (since this is what you are doing, stopping one effect and starting a new one), but the rules for 'switching' specifically say it takes a Standard Action. Since starting a Performance is already specified to be a Standard Action until modified at higher levels, it may be better to just say "stop the previous performance and start a new one" without re-specifiying the action type. And/or clarify that the 7th/13th level Move/Swift Action also applies to (ending and) changing a Performance type.
No I'm not trying to "get around the blatant ban on having more than one effect active at one time."
The way I read the rules, "A bard cannot have more than one bardic performance in effect at one time." is all about you can't maintain one Performance and then add another one, but you could higher levels, "keep up the previous effect (say, penalizing opponent Saves), cast a Spell, THEN drop the previous Performance and start a different one"
For now, my GM says no. I just would like to find out what RAI is.
As my above post says, I'm 99.999% sure that you could indeed do that. Your original examples crucially left out the dropping of the original effect part. But what you just wrote lines up with what I suggested in my last post.
Tell your DM that "at one time" does not mean the same thing as "in the same round". You can draw a weapon (Swift), move, and attack somebody in one round, but you are not drawing the weapon "at the same time" as attacking somebody. Same applies here. In your case, an enemy COULD ready an action for when you stop the first effect before you can start the new effect, just as they could ready an action if you moved into theat range before you attack.
But this is definitely far from Errata territory now... ;-)
[...]
But this is definitely far from Errata territory now... ;-)
Yes but, "Changing a bardic performance from one effect to another requires the bard to stop the previous performance and start a new one as a standard action" isn't,.. if they really mean that changing a bardic performance from one effect to another takes the same time as starting a bardic performance.
So is Changing a bardic performance from one effect to another still a standard action at level 8 and at level 13?|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
So does this mean that a level 8 bard, could:
round 1) start Dirge of Doom as a move action + cast spellround 2) maintain Dirge of Doom as a free action + cast spell as a
standard action + switch to Inspire Courage as a move action.
or
round 2) maintain Dirge of Doom as a free action + cast spell as a
swift action (using a rod) + switch to Inspire Courage as a standard action + move
Yup.
Thanks James. :-)
It's Saturday, shouldn't you be out enjoying a beer?
|
Creative Director
|
Thanks James. :-)
It's Saturday, shouldn't you be out enjoying a beer?
Nope!
1) I don't really like beer. If you had said mead or raspberry wine or mojitos or even specific beer like Guinness, then your suggestion would have more temptation for me. ;-)
2) I have to get "Lords of Chaos" written; it took a big hit getting everything else back on schedule and as a result ended up being the Gen Con sacrifice. That means that while everything else is caught up, I get to scramble to finish design on it ASAP.
I hope you have lots of coffee and cakes...or whatever you like.
Thanks James. :-)
It's Saturday, shouldn't you be out enjoying a beer?Nope!
1) I don't really like beer. If you had said mead or raspberry wine or mojitos or even specific beer like Guinness, then your suggestion would have more temptation for me. ;-)
2) I have to get "Lords of Chaos" written; it took a big hit getting everything else back on schedule and as a result ended up being the Gen Con sacrifice. That means that while everything else is caught up, I get to scramble to finish design on it ASAP.
Guinneas is a stout! Eireann go brach! Tá mé lán broid i mo deoch náisiúnta!
It's so filling people used to have it for lunch! :D
Or feed it to pigs!
|
Guinneas is a stout! Eireann go brach! Tá mé lán broid i mo deoch náisiúnta!
It's so filling people used to have it for lunch! :D
Or feed it to pigs!
It's not even really good stout, just passable stout. Now, give me a good solid ale from These people or one of these and your on to a winner...