Not sure if this is listed yet or not, but I know my group didn't know about it. I didn't even know about it till looking at d20pfsrd.com.
"A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature."
Getting to 1k posts and you guys haven't listed one of the first things I noticed !
As a low level wizard, scribing scrolls into your spellbook costs a lot less than in 3.5 where it was 100gp per spell level. Now you can expand your library at low level without using your entire wealth. At higher level, the cost catches the 3.5 value.
from d20PFsrd
Spell level(SL) and costs (C)
SL--- C
0---- 5 gp
1---- 10 gp
2---- 40 gp
3---- 90 gp
4---- 160 gp
5---- 250 gp
6---- 360 gp
7---- 490 gp
8---- 640 gp
9---- 810 gp
-edited table-
-Jelly
|
Getting to 1k posts and you guys haven't listed one of the first things I noticed !
As a low level wizard, scribing scrolls into your spellbook costs a lot less than in 3.5 where it was 100gp per spell level. Now you can expand your library at low level without using your entire wealth. At higher level, the cost catches the 3.5 value.
from d20PFsrd
Spell level(SL) and costs (C)
SL--- C
0---- 5 gp
1---- 10 gp
2---- 40 gp
3---- 90 gp
4---- 160 gp
5---- 250 gp
6---- 360 gp
7---- 490 gp
8---- 640 gp
9---- 810 gp
-edited table-
-Jelly
It cost a lot less to learn a spell from anther wizard too. in 3.5 it was spell lv x caster lv x20 120 for a 2 lv spell. In pathfinder its half the cost to write it in your book 20 for a 2 lv spell.
You can take some free actions outside of your turn other than speaking.
Snap Shot: Can a character with Snap Shot (page 119) and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?
Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.
—Stephen Radney-MacFarland, 10/13/11
That you can actually create a viable character without a 20 in your prime stat.That's crazy talk :p My 3.5 PH and my Core rulebook for Pathfinder clearly agree, 20 or nothing! You need to read the errata for both books ;)
You's both wrong! Twenty-two's the ways to going!
Here's one that carried over from 3.5 but I never noticed till reading the pathfinder rules.
You can add the half-dragon template to dragons. When I noticed this I tried to look up stuff on it and found stats for a Half-White Copper Dragon in Wizard's 3.5 archives.
Introducing...the half-again blue dragon! XD
|
Yar.
The Temple Sword is a monk weapon.
Monks are automatically proficient with it.
Monks can Flurry of Blows with a Temple Sword (even while gripping it with both hands)
Monks still only gain 1x their Strength modifier to damage when doing this in a Flurry of Blows.
Power Attack is based off of Base Attack Bonus and Handedness. NOT how much bonus strength damage you are doing.
Thus a monk two-handing a Temple Sword and performing a Flurry of Blows while using Power Attack will gain the two-handed bonus from Power Attack (-1 to hit for +3 to damage, plus an additional -1/+3 per 4 BaB), while still only gaining 1x their strength modifier to damage.
~P
The part about the monk still only gaining 1x their Strength bonus to damage can't be correct. The key to this is the use of a word not present in the 3.5 version of FoB, but is in the Pathfinder version.
When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus × 1½ or ×½) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands.
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
A monk in Pathfinder applies the full bonus when using a weapon two-handed. Which means they actually do get the 1½ as opposed to just the Strength modifier when wielding a weapon in both hands. This important to note because this distinction is made in the 3.5 version of unarmed strike.
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.
This part is unchanged from 3.5 to Pathfinder, but it makes the monk the only class to be able do their full Strength damage with an off-hand strike without the need of a feat (Double Slice in this case), even though RAW the monk has no unarmed off-hand attack.
|
|
Speaking of Maze spell, if you're stuck in one and use the generally underwhelming "Monstrous Physique" spell to turn into a minotaur, lo and behold, the minotaur's 'natural cunning' is the quality that makes it immune to maze, and you get that...goodbye maze! (If you, um, are a transformer type who keeps this spell handy, of course.)
To be precise Monstrous Physique III or IV to get Natural cunning.
The list of possible abilities is so large that it don't seem to be an underwhelming spell to me.
The potential flexibility of the spell is impressive.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
@Blayde MacRonan:
Incorrect. You are making two mistakes - you're misinterpreting the word "full" while simultaneously failing to read the entire sentence together as one thought.
"Full" means "the complete amount" or "100%". Off-hand attacks normally deal 50% while 2H attacks normally deal 150%. Neither is "full"; one is less, the other is more.
The rule you quoted says:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
When a sentence in english says "do X to all, whether A or B" where A and B are circumstances that would normally change things, the sentence means that you do X regardless of circumstances - you do X for A, and you do X for B. It's the same X.
The monk's unarmed strike removes the damage variation based on which hands you're using. It does not change only one end of the spectrum. If it did, it would say something like "full strength bonus on off-hand attacks" (the only thing changing from normal), rather than specifying "an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands". The rule clearly states that both circumstances are handled the same way.
If you still disagree, make a thread in the Rules section and watch what happens.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
@Blayde MacRonan:
Incorrect. You are making two mistakes - you're misinterpreting the word "full" while simultaneously failing to read the entire sentence together as one thought.
"Full" means "the complete amount" or "100%". Off-hand attacks normally deal 50% while 2H attacks normally deal 150%. Neither is "full"; one is less, the other is more.
The rule you quoted says:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.When a sentence in english says "do X to all, whether A or B" where A and B are circumstances that would normally change things, the sentence means that you do X regardless of circumstances - you do X for A, and you do X for B. It's the same X.
The monk's unarmed strike removes the damage variation based on which hands you're using. It does not change only one end of the spectrum. If it did, it would say something like "full strength bonus on off-hand attacks" (the only thing changing from normal), rather than specifying "an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands". The rule clearly states that both circumstances are handled the same way.
If you still disagree, make a thread in the Rules section and watch what happens.
I respectfully disagree with both your assessment and your definition of the word "full." If it was truly the developers intent to limit the monk in the fashion that you're implying, then the wording would have remained the same as the 3.5 entry under FoB, where it states that the monk only gets their Strength bonus but does not get the 50% off-hand or the 150% two-handed.
Full adjective, -er, -est, adverb, verb, noun
1. completely filled; containing all that can be held; filled to utmost capacity: a full cup.
2. complete; entire; maximum: a full supply of food for a three-day hike.
3. of the maximum size, amount, extent, volume, etc.: a full load of five tons; to receive full pay.
4. (of garments, drapery, etc.) wide, ample, or having ample folds.
5. abundant; well-supplied: a yard full of litter; a cabinet full of medicine.
In this instance, they're using the second definition - complete; entire; maximum. Which means that the monk is not limited on the off-hand (their complete Strength bonus) and gets the maximum bonus two-handed (150%) during the flurry when using weapons. If you look back at my post where I quote both the 3.5 FoB and the Pathfinder version you'll see the difference. 3.5 specifically states that the monk does not get half Strength for off-hand weapons nor does it get Strength and a half for two-handed weapons during a flurry. Pathfinder removed that limitation by stating that they get full Strength for both which means they get their Strength bonus on the off-handed weapon and 150% for two-handed use. What you're talking about limits the flurry of weapons as it did in 3.5 when the intention is to not do so.
We could argue this further but it serves little purpose and I do not wish to derail this wonderful thread any further. If the consensus is to not include this, then that's not a problem as far as I'm concerned.
Haven't seen anyone mention this one.
Touch Spells in Combat:
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Thus, if you are smart, the cleric no longer needs to make a melee touch attack against a friendly target to heal them, and can also stay back 10 feet, and when needed, cast a cure spell, move up and touch the friendly fighter, thus not worrying about having the cure spell interfered with.
|
Came across a few good ones this weekend I thought I'd relate:
A couple on saving throws first:
1. If you cast targeted spells at your opponents, you know which ones succeeded on their saving throws (and, by extension, which did not), but you haven't got a clue on successful saves against effect and area spells (p. 216-217 CRB).
2. If you are unconscious you are considered a 'willing' target for spells that require such (ie. shadow walk), but you still get a saving throw as normal against negative effects (think dominate person, slow, etc. (p.567 CRB "helpless").
- A reminder that if you ready an action and it goes off, your initiative count changes and for the rest of combat you go right before the character whose action triggered your readied action (p.203 CRB).
- Finally, spells that have been metamagiced up still count as their original spell level (barring heighten spell, of course) when it comes to using metamagic rods to add a further effect (ie. a maximized and widened fireball (level 3, effective level 9) can still be quickened with a lesser rod of quicken spell (odd, I know) (p.113 CRB).
And a question that's always bugged me if any can help - The core books seem to be extremely vague on what information to give when characters make successful knowledge checks to identify monsters, resulting in widely varied GM results. I know there are some 3rd party solutions but are there any solid guidelines provided by Paizo on what knowledge should be related to characters (because I sure can't find it!)?
|
I'll be checking and adding the new entries to the lists this upcoming week.
Verse, I am currently playing an Inquisitor and the skill Monster Lore made me very interested in your third point. My GM and I decided that we would be playing with the dc listed in the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/knowledge). The dc, listed there, is 10+CR to know common creatures' abilities and weakness; it increases to 15+CR for uncommon enemies.
I don't have the drive to go look for an actual table in the books, but that's what I've been playing with (read: should not be taken as the rule).
1 have to say no on the 1.5x strength while flurrying with a 2 handed weapon. There would be no need to call them out as being the same as a the main handed weapon if the intent was to give them 1.5x strength damage.
|
|
I'll be checking and adding the new entries to the lists this upcoming week.
Verse, I am currently playing an Inquisitor and the skill Monster Lore made me very interested in your third point. My GM and I decided that we would be playing with the dc listed in the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/knowledge). The dc, listed there, is 10+CR to know common creatures' abilities and weakness; it increases to 15+CR for uncommon enemies.
I don't have the drive to go look for an actual table in the books, but that's what I've been playing with (read: should not be taken as the rule).
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.
The problem is what is " a bit of useful information about that monster".
"It is a vampire, an undead monster."or " ... and a typical undead abilities are"
or ".... and he can dominate people, give negative levels and regenerate"
or ".... and he can killed only if ...."
and so on.
Saying of a monster "it has a high AC" is a relevant information? his type is a relevant information (you are already giving a big indication simply stating what kind of Knowledge skill is used).
|
|
The problem is what is " a bit of useful information about that monster".
"It is a vampire, an undead monster."
or " ... and a typical undead abilities are"
or ".... and he can dominate people, give negative levels and regenerate"
or ".... and he can killed only if ...."
and so on.Saying of a monster "it has a high AC" is a relevant information? his type is a relevant information (you are already giving a big indication simply stating what kind of Knowledge skill is used).
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree the knowledge check is vague and problematic.
There exists a spectrum, from the [Knowing about the creature allows you to know it's deepest secrets and how to counter it totally] to [You see it's an Orc]. I looked into this at length. I'm new, but I love rules and I love Inquisitors and this is crucial to the class. Ultimately we decided that it was left vague purposefully -- as the spectrum is not only broad, but exceedingly diverse -- and that the players/DM should decide on a stricture for the dc to be based on.
I am sorry that I brought it up in this thread, as it is exceedingly difficult to monitor and check (as Howie23 knew and mentioned) and liable to be filled with clutter like this post.
I am more than willing to further discuss this topic, but please open a new thread so that I can continue monitoring this one and updating my (publicly available) .pdf/.doc.
The first line on the description of spells and feats is for flavor and should largely be ignored when a ruling question comes into play. Ie: you CAN empower a cure spell. You cannot use shatter to deafen an opponent (Loud ringing noise anyone?) True strike cannot tell you where an invisible opponent will be, nor what action any opponent can take, etc etc
Tiny Hut is an amazing spell to use during battle from a tactical standpoint.
Restoration has a one-minute casting time. So do summon spells.
Spontaneous casters only need 15 minutes to regain their spells, which must be spent meditating (or in the case of bards, singing/performing)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The first line on the description of spells and feats is for flavor and should largely be ignored when a ruling question comes into play. Ie: you CAN empower a cure spell. You cannot use shatter to deafen an opponent (Loud ringing noise anyone?) True strike cannot tell you where an invisible opponent will be, nor what action any opponent can take, etc etc
No.
1) This is not a rule. It is an opinion.
2) It is not valid for all the spell. Again, an opinion.
3) Arbitrating deciding that a section of a spell is only fluff if a very bad idea.
Following your way of reasoning, the "loud ringing noise" of the shatter spell is only fluff, so it can be safely discarded and the spell don't make any sound.
I am more than willing to further discuss this topic, but please open a new thread ..
The idea was to offer the specific rule about the Knowledge skill, and then I added a small comment.
You should look the size of my post when I am really debating a point. :P
Restoration has a one-minute casting time. So do summon spells.Um... I'm looking at Summon Monster I right now and it says 1 round casting time.
Yes, I'm sorry, I was thinking of two different things. I'm gonna get crap for that aren't I?
The 15 minute thing was strictly from the point of view of regaining spells, although I do admit that I didn't make it clear. In my game, I've had to look for that rule on the CRB to show my DM that I could go and do stuff during the 45 minutes I had whilst the Cleric and Paladin were preparing spells.
Finally, I've had discussions with the DM/other players on how spells work because of the fluff description of the spell. Yes, Shatter still creates a loud ringing noise to destroy objects, but any ruling that someone would want to make based on other effects of the spell (such as it being heard from a long distance) are at GM's discretion. The times I've used it, I went by the assumption that since I had to loudly announce the spell (as per the verbal component) anyway, enemies/anyone else would have heard the spell anyway. There was a discussion earlier on empower spell being able to affect healing spells because the spell description said it made it deal more damage.
Also
"3) Arbitrating deciding that a section of a spell is only fluff if a very bad idea."
I'm specifically referring to the very first line in which is tries to give the players an idea of the flavor of the spell as opposed to the actual ruling on it.
In either case, I did said that they should be largely ignored, not always.
|
|
"3) Arbitrating deciding that a section of a spell is only fluff if a very bad idea."I'm specifically referring to the very first line in which is tries to give the players an idea of the flavor of the spell as opposed to the actual ruling on it.
In either case, I did said that they should be largely ignored, not always.
Let look the fist few spells in the core rulebook in alphabetical order:
Acid arrow: fluff
Acid fog: "Acid fog creates a billowing mass of misty vapors like the solid fog spell." absolutely not fluff.
Acid splash: fluff
Aid: the first row is the whole description of the spell. Absolutely not.
Air walk: "The subject can tread on air as if walking on solid ground." It is indispensable to comprehend what the spell do, relevant in the mechanics (you don't need the fly skill, you can use achrobatics). absolutely not fluff.
Alarm: fluff
Align weapon: "Align weapon makes a weapon chaotic, evil, good, or lawful, as you choose." absolutely not fluff.
Alter self: "When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the humanoid type." absolutely not fluff.
So your rule that apply to most spell apply to 3 spells out of 8.
Again, it is not a rule and not even a good rule of thumb.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diego Rossi and Zolthux, I have opened a new thread to cover (and hopefully resolve) the fluff discussion that has appeared in this thread. I look forward to the insight that thread will provide.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Verse, I am currently playing an Inquisitor and the skill Monster Lore made me very interested in your third point. My GM and I decided that we would be playing with the dc listed in the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/knowledge). The dc, listed there, is 10+CR to know common creatures' abilities and weakness; it increases to 15+CR for uncommon enemies.
I'm glad you mentioned that Telodzrum because the dc on creature knowledge checks is something I find myself having to remind people of often, mainly because the above isn't quite correct and the mistake is a very, very common one.
.
The DC for common monsters (goblins, kobolds, etc) is 5+CR
The general DC for monster knowledge checks is 10+CR
The DC for particularly rare monsters (like the Tarrasque!)is 15+CR
.
I lay it out this way to make clear that in Pathfinder, by far most of your knowledge checks should be 10+CR (p. 100 CRB, same on d20PFSRD). In the early game you'll likely hit some 5+CR types, but you shouldn't be hitting DC 15+CR checks until you're facing incredibly rare, legendary creatures like the tarrasque, princes of hell / demon lords, or other such singular enemies.
The number of times I've tried to identify something like a vampire, purple worm, ice devil, etc and been told the base DC is 15 and had to point this out has resulted in my trying to spread this knowledge far and wide.
I did not know that Verse. Thank you.
That makes Exploit Lore marginally less useless :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
When did they ever need to make a touch attack to heal a friendly target? A touch attack assumes the target is trying to avoid the touch why would a friendly do this?
Thus, if you are smart, the cleric no longer needs to make a melee touch attack against a friendly target to heal them
Wouldn't surprise me if that was one of those weird things that existed in 3.0/3.5 and was rightfully left out of Pathfinder. But I wouldn't know.
I'm pretty sure there's something about voluntarily giving up AC for "attacks" for this kind of scenario. Either way, the spell is harmless so there would be no reason to try to avoid it.
|
|
Wouldn't surprise me if that was one of those weird things that existed in 3.0/3.5 and was rightfully left out of Pathfinder. But I wouldn't know.When did they ever need to make a touch attack to heal a friendly target? A touch attack assumes the target is trying to avoid the touch why would a friendly do this?
Thus, if you are smart, the cleric no longer needs to make a melee touch attack against a friendly target to heal them
It was a fairly logic requirement if you were in combat. You had to hit touch AC to cast a touch spell upon someone fighting.
@Telodzrum
You should correct the notes about the Empower feat in you document, it has been FAQed the other way:
Empower Spell (page 122): If I use Empower Spell on a spell that has a die roll with a numerical bonus (such as cure moderate wounds), does the feat affect the numerical bonus?
Yes. For example, if you empower cure moderate wounds, the +50% from the feat applies to the 2d8 and to the level-based bonus.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/08/11
@Verse
I cited the relevant rule a few post ago, but your table is much more readable than the PRD quote, where the 5+ part for common monster is hidden in the middle.
But, I would add that when a character receives stat damage, it only matters in increments of 2. Meaning a stat of 16 getting a penalty of -1 doesn't do anything. Most people think it modifies the stat direct, but in actuality, its just that every 2 damage gives a -1 to all things related to that stat. I see people miss that all the time. Including my group, regularly. The same is true for stat penalties.
I see this mentioned more than once in the thread, but don't find it in the Ability damage and drain section... can someone point me to the source?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, I would add that when a character receives stat damage, it only matters in increments of 2. Meaning a stat of 16 getting a penalty of -1 doesn't do anything. Most people think it modifies the stat direct, but in actuality, its just that every 2 damage gives a -1 to all things related to that stat. I see people miss that all the time. Including my group, regularly. The same is true for stat penalties.I see this mentioned more than once in the thread, but don't find it in the Ability damage and drain section... can someone point me to the source?
Franz, it's in the Glossary under "Ability Score Bonuses".
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#ability-score-bonuses
I totally forgot about that rule for our "Kingmaker" game!
Franz, it's in the Glossary under "Ability Score Bonuses".
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#ability-score-bonuses
I totally forgot about that rule for our "Kingmaker" game!
Thanks. (I blame it on the search function not pointing me to the correct place.)
However, as a GM, if a druid's player kept dismissing animal companions for convenience, I would probably his his/her deity or Mother Nature herself visit them and have the druid explain, in character, why doing that was not a callous and selfish action.
See I don't see this as an issue. I see actually retaining the animal indefinitely and sending it into situations where it coudl get injured or killed as more callous and selfish. "Sure, send the animal in to check for traps, where you fear to tread." I don't think releasing and re-acquiring a new one would be any issue, if roleplayed properly. I can see where it could be abused, but I tend not to use divine intervention to discourage PC actions.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Carryin a medium and heavy load limits the character's max Dex bonus and incurs an ACP. Most people I play with didn't realize there is one and the suprised look on their face as they try to jump a 10ft gap carrying their normal gear plus 200lbs of misc loot is hilarious.
20 lbs of weapons - 323 gp
30 lbs of armor - 200 gp
200 lb cask of mead - 400 gp
Look on a players face after getting a acrobatics result of 9 (due to ACP for heavy encumbrance) when jumping 10ft - priceless
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You penalized a player for carrying 200 lbs of mead? What kind of person are you?!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You penalized a player for carrying 200 lbs of mead? What kind of person are you?!
To add insult to injury, the keg broke at the bottom of the alley he was trying to leap over. I announced out loud I was going to penalize him for alcohol abuse... So apparently I am a needlessly cruel individual.
Remove Disease and Remove Curse now require caster level checks to overcome the disease. They are no longer automatically overcome.That's why I love the good old paladin. Sixth level...oh, what's that, a disease...cure disease mercy...
Um, the cure disease mercy functions as the spell. Sorry, but it's not automatic either.
|
|
Logical or not, I don't remember a rule in 3.5 or PF that states it. Do you?Wouldn't surprise me if that was one of those weird things that existed in 3.0/3.5 and was rightfully left out of Pathfinder. But I wouldn't know.When did they ever need to make a touch attack to heal a friendly target? A touch attack assumes the target is trying to avoid the touch why would a friendly do this?
Thus, if you are smart, the cleric no longer needs to make a melee touch attack against a friendly target to heal themIt was a fairly logic requirement if you were in combat. You had to hit touch AC to cast a touch spell upon someone fighting.
1) "It was", 3.5 and before
2) Touch spells require a touch attack, 3.5 and before hadn't a specific exception (like Pathfinder has) so you had to make a touch attack unless the stand still and let himself be touched. But that is very bad in combat as there is no rule that allow you to stand still for A and be a moving target for B.
Pathfinder has made a specific exception for the cure spells so it work differently than before, but that is an exception that change a general rule.
|
|
Druid companions can be dismissed at will and replaced at no cost within 24 hours with ANY terrain appropriate alternative. Yesterday a tiger, tomorrow a combat trained mount, next week a T-Rex...I knew this and have even contemplated using it once or twice in the past four years (I'm pretty sure this was true in 3.5 as well).
However, as a GM, if a druid's player kept dismissing animal companions for convenience, I would probably his his/her deity or Mother Nature herself visit them and have the druid explain, in character, why doing that was not a callous and selfish action.
I might be convinced otherwise, but I would at least have them explain it to their source of power.
This is VERY good to know. I'm stuck without my Triceratops in the middle of a freaking desert, and I kinda based my combat around having a triceratops trained for mounted combat.
|
|
Logical or not, I don't remember a rule in 3.5 or PF that states it. Do you?Wouldn't surprise me if that was one of those weird things that existed in 3.0/3.5 and was rightfully left out of Pathfinder. But I wouldn't know.When did they ever need to make a touch attack to heal a friendly target? A touch attack assumes the target is trying to avoid the touch why would a friendly do this?
Thus, if you are smart, the cleric no longer needs to make a melee touch attack against a friendly target to heal themIt was a fairly logic requirement if you were in combat. You had to hit touch AC to cast a touch spell upon someone fighting.
1) "It was", 3.5 and before
2) Touch spells require a touch attack, 3.5 and before hadn't a specific exception (like Pathfinder has) so you had to make a touch attack unless the stand still and let himself be touched. But that is very bad in combat as there is no rule that allow you to stand still for A and be a moving target for B.
Pathfinder has made a specific exception for the cure spells so it work differently than before, but that is an exception that change a general rule.
3.5 spells with a range of touch require that you touch the target. If the spell is an attack, you make a touch attack. There is nothing that specifies that a non-attacking spell with a range of touch requires a touch attack. Having played 3.5 with 200+ people, this is the first time I've ever heard it suggested that all touch spells require an attack roll. If anyone would like to discuss this further, it is probably best to set up a thread in the 3.5 forum.
Diego, this may be something that comes down to a language matter, not sure.