|
Fair enough, DM Berwick. Thanks for letting us know, and good luck with your projects.
I have a general question that I've been pondering for a while. If a sorceror applies a metamagic feat to a normal one-standard-action spell, it becomes a full-round spell. What happens if a sorceror applies multiple metamagic feats? Is it still a full-round spell, or does it become a one-round (or greater) spell?
I've seen a thread regarding this question, but it never got an answer from an authoritative source. My preference is obviously for the casting-time bump to be only applied once, as it makes metamagic much more useful for spontaneous casters.
This isn't time-sensitive for me, as Origen won't have to worry about applying multiple metamagic feats to spells until 6th level at the earliest.
What about Quicken Spell plus another metamagic feat or feats?
As far as I can tell, applying multiple metamagic feats to a spell still makes it a full-round action, but consumes a spell slot of the appropriate higher level (e.g. a Still and Silent magic missile is a full-round action and consumes a 3rd level spell slot).
In regards to the Quicken Spell feat, I would assume that it overlaps the other metamagic feats, since its specific effect is to reduce the casting time. However, considering it alone consumes a spell slot 4 spell levels higher, it greatly reduces the number of metamagic feats you could apply to a spell and still be able to make it quickened (e.g. a Quickened, Still and Silent magic missile is a swift action and consumes a 7th level spell slot).
|
|
As far as I can tell, applying multiple metamagic feats to a spell still makes it a full-round action, but consumes a spell slot of the appropriate higher level (e.g. a Still and Silent magic missile is a full-round action and consumes a 3rd level spell slot).
In regards to the Quicken Spell feat, I would assume that it overlaps the other metamagic feats, since its specific effect is to reduce the casting time. However, considering it alone consumes a spell slot 4 spell levels higher, it greatly reduces the number of metamagic feats you could apply to a spell and still be able to make it quickened (e.g. a Quickened, Still and Silent magic missile is a swift action and consumes a 7th level spell slot).
That would be my take too. While I'd be reluctant to have a wizard prepare many metamagicked spells, having them as options for a sorceror makes it possible to get more mileage out of the limited sorceror spell set.
Despite the level hurt, adding reach spell plus another metamagic is helpful for some touch spells. For example, a reach, empowered calcific touch is a much nicer option than the spell without metamagic. If you're going to be tied up each round making a touch attack, better to do it at range and for more ability damage.
I am beginning my internship tomorrow, so my posting may be a little off for the next few days until I get myself a little acclimated to my new status quo and other work-related stuff.
Although I believe -or at the very least hope- it will not be affecting my posting after all, I thought I should give you guys a heads up just in case.
Good Luck on the internship there!
And I am working up a post to get us going again.
Thanks for the patience!
DM Berwick
a.k.a. Me.
|
Lets rewrite Isandril post to reflect reality:
[paraphrasing for fun]"Tsk..." Isandril wants to attack the snake but is afraid of hurting its feelings. He brings both of his swords to bear in a pair of successive dramatic poses as he feels Torden's encouragement and Yuuwa's blessing helping him. [Torden and Yuuwa provide a compensatory stage clap of encouragement, wouldn't want his self-esteem to plummet]
Round 2
Main hand:
Melee whiffle (masterwork short sword) 1d20 + 4 + 1 + 1 ⇒ (1) + 4 + 1 + 1 = 7, +2 if flanking
Damage (piercing) 1d6 + 2 ⇒ (5) + 2 = 7
Off-hand:
Melee whiffle (masterwork short sword) 1d20 + 4 + 1 + 1 ⇒ (2) + 4 + 1 + 1 = 8, +2 if flanking
Damage (piercing) 1d6 + 1 ⇒ (6) + 1 = 7
If Isandril is unable to make a full attack because of movement or some other factor, please disregard the off-hand attack. [ummmm... Yeah]
Edit: Un-freakin'-believable...
To quote an old Billy Crystal sketch: "You look Muhvalous" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZl3gGV4H6c
|
|
No worries--for me, anyway. F. Castor is doing exactly what he needs to, but the e-dice are making rude gestures at him, much as they did to Origen in the sea scorpion fight at the beach.
The snake has one attack per round, but that attack's a doozy. I think that Neil had the right idea: We all have a decent chance of hitting, so we should try to use our advantage of numbers to attack as much as possible. Origen will use color spray because it has a good chance to one-shot the snake (60%, for DC 14 and a +1 Will save). Torden's buff--since it bumps our AC and saves as well as our attacks--will help all around.
Fortitude saves against a Constitution-damaging poison will get ugly fast, and from its lethality, I'm assuming it's Constitution-based. At least we have antitoxin and guidance for boosting saves if worst comes to worst. Guidance is a competence bonus, so it should stack with Torden's bardic ability and the antitoxin.
Heh... Yeah, I am notoriously unlucky at dice rolling I think.
No worries, Yuuwa. I rather liked the rewrite.
Due to the death of my graphics card I am currently without a computer. Thus, I will be unable to post for the next few days until I resolve this little problem. Please feel free to DMPC my character until I can get back. Sorry for the inconvenience guys.
I'll be out of town and probably "unplugged" Wednesday through Friday. Please NPC Bran as needed.
I have my computer again! Yay!
Welcome back from the wilderness there F. Castor!
Folks, it's time for me to move on. I hate to leave in the middle of...whatever is going on, but that's what I'm going to do. DM Berwick, thanks for taking over and doing a good job. Bran is yours to do with as you wish.
Good gaming, everyone.
-g-
Well, hedgeknight, I am sincerely sorry to see you go, but thanks for playing anyhow! Thanks for the good gaming, and good luck with your future endeavors!
Thanks,
Me.
If everyone doesn't mind, we shall continue with 5 for a bit, and if you find things overwhelming, we can add another at y'all's request.
You know, between skeletons at my other game and zombies in this one, my poor guys seem to be going up against creatures that are resistant to piercing weapons. Tarnation! :-P
On a slightly relevant note, how is it that a dagger can do either piercing or slashing damage, while a short sword is only capable of acting as a piercing weapon?
I actually agree. There are numerous examples of short swords throughout history that were predominantly used for slashing vs. piercing...or both. Why they chose to make it a piercing-only weapon in D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder is beyond me...especially since they accept that a dagger can be used for both piercing and slashing. Seems like if you could slash effectively with a dagger, you could do the same with a slightly longer short sword...especially considering that the even longer longsword is a slashing-only weapon. Thus, as you go up in size, you start trading piercing for slashing. And yet, the short sword gets screwed in limbo.
In all of my games, I always treat short swords the same as daggers (i.e., P/S). Longswords then go slashing-only. And rapiers are piercing-only.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
|
|
On a slightly relevant note, how is it that a dagger can do either piercing or slashing damage, while a short sword is only capable of acting as a piercing weapon?
I agree that it's a bit weird given the longsword's slashing damage. Perhaps there's a game-balance reason, but I'm not seeing it.
However, assuming RAW for short-sword damage, it might be worth dropping your PCs' primary weapons and using daggers if they have them. The -5 to damage is going to outweigh the average +1 on the damage rolled. Origen has a dagger that he could toss to Jonagher or Torden if needed.
EDIT: But according to their sheets, they both have more daggers than the average pirate. ;-)
Hmm, well, what about using the rules for an improvised weapon to temporarily allow a character to use another damage type? I.e. using a piercing weapon to do slashing damage?
What say you, gamers?
Ok, we are back on.
Thank you so much for the concern and sympathy. It really means a lot.
My parents ended up having to put the injured dog down, and ultimately decided to surrender the other dog to the humane society 'cause they just can't trust him anymore.
Also, my Great Uncle who died, was a veteran of World War II, and he lived an amazing life. Next time you find yourself capable, raise a glass if you can. The U.S. lost a hero.
|
|
Hope that everyone had a good Thanksgiving.
How about a -2 circumstance penalty, but only if it's not absurd (i.e., using a mace to do piercing damage)?Hmm, well, what about using the rules for an improvised weapon to temporarily allow a character to use another damage type? I.e. using a piercing weapon to do slashing damage?
Just to clarify in case that it matters, I don't have any problem with short swords being slashing/piercing weapons for future melees. I was proposing this as an alternative to using the standard improvised-weapons penalty. "Improvised weapon" to me suggests a broken wine bottle or a chair, and I think that a short sword would be easier to use.
It's amusing that we're desperately fighting for our life against zombies and skeletons, which are normally just cannon fodder. Assuming that he doesn't drown, someday Origen's Pathfinder colleagues will tell this tale to embarrass him. ;-) "He was so green that he couldn't even cast a magic missile, so he tried to escape by jumping into the sea."
Well, following up on what Eric said:
If the general consensus is that perhaps a penalty to "to hit" would seem to represent more using something that it was never intended to do (i.e. wine bottle mentioned) then perhaps not a penalty on the roll, but a reduction in damage?
There will be some penalty for using a weapon in a way that it was not designed, but I am pretty flexible on what that is. I want it to be meaningful, so as not to make the various weapons with their different damage types redundant, but I also recognize that a weapon can be used in ways that it was not designed for. I am quite familiar with the concept, as I was a soldier myself.
|
|
I agree that a blade is meant to pierce and slash. Does a rapier have an edge or is it all a sharp pointy end. If a short sword cannot be used as a slashing weapon, wouldn't it therefore be considered a "bludgeoning" weapon? Somehow I think not. Having been sliced open by not very sharp but edgy pieces of metal, I understood why farmers/sheet metal workers used gloves.
Hmmm, OK I've rewritten this post several times, waxing eloquent and esoteric, but thought it would be presumptous, putting on airs, if you will. So I will simply state: Sharp edge=potential use as slashing weapon, no matter original intention of maker.
My opinion: The shortsword should mimic the dagger...i.e., both piercing and slashing. The longsword should just be slashing. And the rapier should just be piercing. That's the primary method in which they're used. In addition, there are many historical shortswords that were primarily crafted as slashing weapons...at least equal in number to the shortswords that were crafted as piercing weapons. And if the rules are going to allow a dagger to be both, I don't see the problem with declaring the shortsword capable of the same thing. We're talking about the difference between blade lengths of up to 1-foot to 2- to 2-1/2 feet.
As far as houseruling a weapon being used to produce a different type of damage suffering either a penalty to hit or on damage, I'm not in favor of that. Either the shortsword can do slashing in addition to piercing, or it cannot. That's all we need to decide. And, if it can't, I can live with that. Jonagher still has a dagger.
|
|
As far as houseruling a weapon being used to produce a different type of damage suffering either a penalty to hit or on damage, I'm not in favor of that. Either the shortsword can do slashing in addition to piercing, or it cannot. That's all we need to decide. And, if it can't, I can live with that. Jonagher still has a dagger.
To clarify again: I think that piercing or slashing makes sense for the shortsword with no penalty, just as it does for the dagger.
But if DM Berwick prefers to assign a penalty for balance or other purposes, that's okay. If so, I'd suggest that the penalty should only be -2 to hit and nothing to damage, assuming that the shortsword in question has both an edge and a point.
|
|
On a related note: A human using a dagger does slashing or piercing damage.
A halfling with the same strength (he's a bruiser) has a small shortsword, which is very dagger-like in size, shape, and damage done. However, it can only do piercing damage. Why?
Of course, if a shortsword does piercing or slashing damage, the same analogy can be drawn for a halfling with a small longsword. How would it be different? And if so, why can't longswords do piercing damage?
Perhaps it's just based on the way that such swords were apparently used historically. That's fine. A line has to be drawn somewhere, or anything with a point and and edge is an S/P weapon.
My first thought is to house-rule something.
I sometimes get really comfortable doing just that.
Perhaps this time, we should let the wisdom of the game developers speak, and let's just leave it as it is printed. Does it make perfect sense? No, I don't think so.
I think that there are great arguments for and against both sides here, but perhaps we should leave well enough alone.
Please excuse my lack of posting tonight. I found out I am down yet another grandfather, and just need a night with the family.
Thank you for your understanding,
Me.
Condolences mate. Take care and take your time.
|
|
On a less important note, my firm is merging, and as a result, they're tightening up their online usage policies. Although I think that this game might still be permissible, I'm not sure, and I'm not eager to skirt the line too closely. That means I'll probably only be able to post in the late evening Pacific Standard Time, at least after January 1.
I'm not planning to drop out of the game, but I'll re-emphasize my willingness for you to delay Origen's action or act for him when he's holding up the game, whichever seems like the better option.
Just wanted to pop in and let y'all know that I am still here, and that I am dealing with the fallout from the memorial/funeral. Sometimes these things get way too involved...and then the family politics certainly don't help.
I should be able to post tomorrow.
See you then.
Me.
Thank you for your kind words!
I do certainly game with some outstanding people!
I don't care what anyone says...y'all are good folks!
I completely understand with the work situations, and what not. No worries. We will get back on track, and get moving along here.
Thank you once again.
Me
DM Berwick, Please pardon the threadjack.
If you're still interested in joining my Kingmaker game let me know in the OOC thread and I can work you in as soon as you're ready.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Been checking on the game from time to time - sorry for your losses DM Berwick. May the good Lord give you and your family some peace and comfort in the days ahead.
|
|
Hope that you're doing okay, hedgeknight. We'll try not to let Bran become dinner.
Because we'll need to make at least another set of checks, I was just waiting to let Isandril, Jonagher, and Yuuwa roll theirs first. Might as well lead with the people who have the best odds of getting the roll that we need.
Also, I'm not sure if we need one more roll or 1 + (number of successful opposed rolls). I thought the latter, but I'm not sure.
Sorry for the absence. I have been struggling with the mechanics from the Gamemastery Guide, and I have been trying to figure out where I want this to go to drive plot forward.
All of this being made harder by my general sense of melancholy and depression from dealing with a bunch of negative family stuff.
I hope to do my best to not let all of this affect game in the future.
Let us continue, shall we?
|
|
Sorry for the absence. I have been struggling with the mechanics from the Gamemastery Guide, and I have been trying to figure out where I want this to go to drive plot forward.
Don't worry too much. You have a lot on your plate, and it's a busy time of year for everyone. I just finished my last final on Friday myself.
That said, I'm ready to push on whenever you are.
("Code," Yuuwa? Isn't it more of a set of suggestions? ;-) )
|
|
Santa has to make a acrobatic, stealth and perception check vs the kids stealth and perception check. This is followed immediately by a diplomancy check by the kids for the cookies and milk bribe. If successful, on Christmas Day, both parents have to make a fortitude roll to get out of bed and make a bluff or performance check for "surprised face with obligatory OOOhhhAAAaahhhh Santa musthave put you on the nice list."
I was trying to come up with a whitty rhyme about how much ISP's suck sometimes, set to the stylings of "The Twelve Days of Christmas" but honestly....they don't deserve the effort.
We are back online now, and back in business.
|
|
Santa has to make a acrobatic, stealth and perception check vs the kids stealth and perception check. . . .
No problem. Any negative circumstance modifiers for the bright red suit would be outweighed by Santa's skill ranks in Stealth. After all, it's not as if 20 is an auto-success for skill checks. :-)
|
|
tapping on PC screen Is this thing on? I just had a most wonderful day[/sarcasm] Looking for a little RPG to brighten the day but alas, it looks as desolate as the midwest cornfield in December. I hope DM Berwick is merely cozy in his Tartan Snuggie with a cup of hot Cocoa waiting for Mr Sun to chase away the frost and has not absconded to warmer climes.
I am good now that I posted something.
Thank you and good night.