I had never thought about it before, but how do people handle Charging with an Unarmed Strike against a target with greater Reach? Is that two AoO opportunities, or just one?
I'm having difficulty understanding the RAW for Overrun. Looking at past threads, it seems there is general consensus that Overrun+Charge is not clearly defined, nor is there much clarity with respect to AoOs from movement surrounding the Overrun itself.
This is what I think is supposed to happen:
Overrun is effectively a full-round action, where a combat maneuver attack may be taken at any point during your movement. During an Overrun attack, you may move up to your Movement Speed with no benefits or penalties. Alternatively, you may Charge, assuming all pre-reqs are met, allowing you to move up to 2x your Movement Speed, and receive +2 ATK, -2 AC.
Since Overrun is a full-round action, it serves as a single action for provoking AoOs. An enemy can only take a single AoO against someone using Overrun, regardless of how many squares they move through that would provoke. This also includes the AoO from the combat maneuver itself.
If you have Improved Overrun, you do not provoke an AoO against the target. Moving through threatened squares of other enemies provokes as normal.
If you have Improved Overrun, the target cannot step aside.
So a character/monster with Improved Overrun could OverCharge (assuming Charge pre-reqs are met) a target from up to (Move*2) – 5’ (you cannot stand in an occupied square), and continue moving in a straight line. Alternatively, that character/monster could OverMove a target from up to (Move – 5’) away, and move in any direction afterwards. In either case, the character/monster provokes no AoOs from the target of the Overrun.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with this spell is its level. A first level spell should not grant "best friend" status for any duration, let alone hours. If the target fails their save, it almost always results in them being removed from combat (worst) or switching sides (best). Not even Color Spray is that good. And Charm Person has great uses outside of combat, too, while Color Spray does not.
...The real question is not "will it increase your DPR" though. It is "will it help me kill my enemy." You need to consider how many attacks it will take to kill the enemy without power attack, vs how many it will take you with it....
I completely agree with this. I would love to see a spreadsheet that says you have an X% percent chance of killing the monster in 2 rounds, a Y% chance in three rounds, etc, etc. It may be that DPR doesn't change for power attack but it does increase that X% chance of killing the monster in 2 rounds. That would be nice to know. However, no one has figured out a spreadsheet that will give you this.
It wouldn't be terribly hard to configure a spreadsheet to give you this information, provided you knew how many hitpoints the target had remaining.
I've yet to meet a DM that would provide such information, unless the targets death was a foregone conclusion if you hit at all (e.g. it has ~1 HP left).
I was recently building a level 4 Summoner and discovered that the crossover point was the crit-range of his weapon (2H Elven Curve Blade). So if the character needs less than an 18 to hit, Power Attack it. If an 18 or 19 is required, don't use Power Attack. And obviously if you need a 20 to hit without Power Attack, you might as well Power Attack anyway!
The water of the river didn't save Esiador from arrows.
No idea who Esiador is, or how many archers were firing at them. What are you looking to get out of these rules? If you watch the Myth Buster's episode mentioned above, I think you'll quickly realize that injuring anyone with a mundane arrow that is underwater is pretty much impossible. And obviously striking someone that is even partially submerged in water is presenting a much smaller target (full cover).
It certainly makes sense, given the nature of D&D, that a feat would be available to negate such cover, as a poster above suggested. This would allow the heroes to do heroic things like reliably hurt them with ranged weapons while they are in water.
The rules do breakdown a bit when discussing the use of a reach weapon against a target that is treading water that is also attempting to attack back. That's about the only time I think the existing rules breakdown.
First of all, water should not even provide cover mechanically; it should provide CONCEALMENT. Cover should be a solid surface (trees, statues, walls, etc), whereas concealment should be anything that obscures clear vision. If you're simply on the surface of water relative to others on land, you do NOT have a solid barrier that provides ANY kind of cover; therefore, you should have CONCEALMENT. Being submerged under water should be TOTAL CONCEALMENT, not total cover.
If you fire an arrow into water from 20', after about a foot it will be moving very slowly. Here's the reason in relatively plain English: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080611121239AAAEAkB.
I thought all of Paizo's content was OGL? Isn't it all up on d20pfsrd and Paizo's own PRD? If so, I'd think you could just print out the relevant pages from either of those sources. Or does PFS have some very explicit language that prohibits this?
There are certainly some edge cases (e.g. spear fishing) where the rules break down. But those rules are attempting to model firing an arrow or throwing a spear into water -- properly aiming at a target submerged more than a foot or two is extremely difficult. And even if your aim is true, after more than a foot or two, too much force is lost to moving through the water. This is why "Freedom of Movement" is essentially required.
An eidolon gains the ability to push creatures away with a successful attack. Select one type of natural attack. Whenever the eidolon makes a successful attack of the selected type, it can attempt a free combat maneuver check. If successful, the target of the attack is pushed 5 feet directly away from the eidolon. This ability only works on creatures of a size equal to or smaller than the eidolon. Creatures pushed in this way do not provoke attacks of opportunity. This evolution can be selected more than once. Its effects do not stack. Each time an eidolon selects this evolution, it applies to a different natural attack. Source: Advanced Player's Guide
So which is it? Does this apply to a Type of attack (e.g. all Bites, Slams, Claws, etc), or to a single natural attack?
Other evolutions (e.g. Reach) are much more explicit, and clearly apply to just a single natural attack, but this one contains language for both type and individual attack.
Instead of packaging them up in this manner, I'd rather shift them to Traits.
Even as traits, however, the cost to use one of these metamagics is too great. Coupling this with auto-granting of Heighten might be enough to make the metamagics see use.
There's more...? OMG - I gotta find it. If I do - I'll post!
I feel slightly humbled that people still wanted to read these. I'll post the consolidated copy that includes Kressle, the Fort, and the Stag Lord's encounter with a certain vengeful river Wraith. It was a submission to a Pathfinder fiction contest with segments to bridge the different vignettes. I was pretty bummed it came in like 90th after all the honorable mentions, but I love the characters and if it helps others running the Kingmaker AP, I'm pleased to repost it.
Wow, I really enjoyed reading these. I really wish I had found this before my players had interrogated Kressle. I think I'm going to create a new character to be what Kressle should've been.
So the player is asking you to create a rule to "nerf" his character? If he wants to be weaker, he can just stop using the combinations.
It's not like this is the ONLY powerful, or even MOST powerful, feat combination.
I don't understand the player's motivation here. If you DO house rule this combination, I would be very suspicious if the player decided to change builds or characters shortly afterward.
a) (This may be more a RP thing) You assume the animal would know what being an animal compnaion entails? What if he didn't. Maybe he thought it meant just getting extra food, or that is was like a BFF thing, not a master/pet relationship.
The animal doesn't "know" what it entails. It's an animal, and has 2 INT. The relationship goes BEYOND master/pet -- ANY character can take Handle Animal and have a pet that will fight in combat. The Nature's Bond relationship is much closer to BFF, and I believe it is even more profound than that -- i.e. a soul mate relationship.
If the animal in question is not 'latching' to the Ranger, the bond does not form. In the case of animals, I don't think there's ever been a question that the Ranger could NOT befriend an animal and form that relationship. What you have created is not really an animal -- so it isn't doing what animals do.
I think, given the personality you have granted this "animal", that it is not going to 'latch'. If it DOES 'latch', it should be a true Animal Companion and a contributing member of the party. Not some beggar that just hangs around for a regular meal.
noretoc wrote:
b) Can an animal refuse an animal companion Bond?
An animal, by RAW, can't refuse anything with a successful Handle Animal check. That's what Handle Animal does. You have created an "animal" that's not really an animal. You've already indicated you're fine with departing from RAW here, so why would any other aspect of RAW matter? We're completely in the realm of GM fiat right now. Do whatever you want, no rule is going to agree or disagree with what you decide. However, you should tell the player where this is headed, because I imagine he thinks the monkey behaves like an animal, and thus will respond to Handle Animal and training like the rules say animals do. Nothing in the rules indicate an animal will go insane because of proper training. Now, this response might be plausible if, say, the Fighter with CHA 7 and no ranks in Handle Animal was trying to train an animal and failing miserably.
The bond is not going to change the animal's disposition.
However, the fact that the animal accepted the bond clearly indicates that it a) respects the Ranger, and b) wishes to assist the ranger in all things. Now the bond is a two-way street, but did the Ranger/Player know and understand the monkey's moral convictions ahead of time? I can't imagine the Ranger/Player would have requested the monkey for an AC if he believed using the monkey in the way the game expects you to use an AC was going to make it insane.
I guess what I don't understand here is why the monkey would become an AC if it did not want to do everything in its capacity to assist the Ranger, in any way it could. This includes combat. Based on this NPC's "personality", it would never have agreed to be an AC.
I believe a Ranger would know how the training would effect the monkey pretty quickly (they're essentially like the dog whisperer guy, but with every animal). Even if he's some sort of retarded Ranger who is given no real affinity with animals, there should be a lot of signals that the monkey isn't taking to the "Attack trick" training. Since this is probably one of the bonus feats the player chose to grant upon gaining the AC, the monkey's personality shift to crazed should be made apparent immediately.
Quote:
If you have an NPC that hates fighters. The fighter decided he wants to make her a cohort. Should you suddenly make that NPC like fighter, just so you don’t make the fighter’s feat less powerful??
I think this illustrates the entire problem you're having -- if an NPC hates fighters, it isn't really logical for them to become a fighter's cohort! The GM just says "No, that NPC won't become your cohort", and that's the end of the conversation. And that's just a cohort, which is a much weaker association than the Nature's Bond class feature. I see the Nature's Bond connection as akin to a soul mate. That's how it's portrayed in fiction -- I've never seen/heard it shown as a master/slave or employer/employee relationship.
Can't say I'm surprised to hear the OP feels the Ranger is his "problem player". Based on responses, I don't see how this could be interpreted in any way other than as a means to annoy and demonstrate control over said player.
If your goal is to cause the player to find another DM, I think you're going down the right path.
I don't imagine any player would find these 'roleplaying' opportunities fun, when directed at them. Sure, it's hilarious to see someone else messed with, especially if you don't really like them. That's the only way I could see the other players finding these monkey antics amusing after the Ranger has been allowed to use it for his class feature.
So here is one to ponder. my PC have found a monkey in their travels. a little spider monkey, who I threw in for some comic relief. Said monkey has been hanging around with the fighter and ranger, cause they give him food, and he likes the sound of laughing, so he does things that makes the party laugh. (or tries, in his limited way). Now the ranger turned 4th level and want to take the monkey as an animal companion. Even though it is not on the list, the rest of the players say "let him do it" so I do.
Now, the ranger wants to put the ability bump up for the monkey in his int. Make him a tiny bow, and get him the martial weapon prof in bows. Add in the rangers fav enemy is humans, and he has turned the monkey into a little killer (as in role, not ability).
Well, here is the thing. Now that the monkey is intelligent, and was really based around making people laugh, I think he may not like being a human hunter. Is it appropriate for an animal companion with intelligence to defy his master. Handle Animal wont work, though diplomacy might keep him friendly. Still, I cant see him liking what the ranger is asking him to do. What happens if the monkey doesn't want to be an animal companion, now that he is smart enough to make decisions? Thoughts?
Why do you want to ruin the player's fun? They liked the NPC you introduced, and want to give it a larger role. From the outside looking in, I'm not seeing any reason to arbitrarily decide the monkey has a conscience and is morally opposed to defending and aiding his new best friend.
If the monkey takes on this role, what's the downside? You have a happy and engaged player who has a marginally useful animal companion. If the other players don't see a problem with it, I see no reason to make one.
Quote:
it is not an issue of balance, or of the level he can do this at. It is more an issue of, should the ranger be able to shape the personality of a companion, that already had a personality, just by making him a animal companion.
Sounds like this is just a control issue. You created an NPC, and you don't want the player to redefine it. Or do you apply this level of moral conviction to all of your NPCs? Keep in mind, INT 3 is still extremely stupid -- I honestly don't think it would have the ability to contemplate that something was 'wrong' or 'right'. I'd say you have to be at 5 or 6 INT to do that.
If you want to get very technical, the ability to use any part of your body for unarmed strikes is a monk class feature, not a feature of Improved Unarmed Strike, so you'd be using your fists for punching.
If you're going with strict OGL/Paizo rulings, yes. But WotC cleared this up in this Rules of the Game article, describing that an Unarmed Attack could be made with any free appendage that does not possess a natural weapon. Just about anything can US with their feet/knees.
RAI, I don't think IUS was intended to be allowed with Natural Attacks at all. Flurry of Blows explicitly denies their interaction, and FoB is really just TWF specifically for IUS.
I take this back. It is quite clear that IUS is intended to work with Natural Attacks under normal circumstances:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack.
US was called out explicitly as working with Natural Attacks. Why the Monk was denied this with FoB is confusing to me. Looking into this only solidifies my opinion that Natural Attacks/Unarmed Attacks are implemented horribly.
Alternatively, the problem could be iterative attacks. If these didn't exist, there'd really be no confusion. If only there was a good, simple way to replace them without substantially reducing the power of the full BAB classes.
Unarmed attacks and IUS do not interact with Natural Attacks in any way differently than any manufactured weapon. I think rather, that the RAI behind flurry was that you couldn't flurry a natural weapon, but that it didn't affect your usage of them. That's not how it got written, however.
Yes, I know. I indicated that when I said "RAW, I think that is the case".
As for the RAI behind flurry, what leads you to believe that the wording in flurry resulted in something unintentional? There is a single sentence in Flurry about natural attacks, and it is broken up into two distinct concepts, both of which seem pretty explicit:
Flurry of Blows wrote:
A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks
Why do you think the part before the comma was intentional, and the portion after the comma was unintentional? It's been this way for a long time, before Pathfinder came along, and was repeated in this article by WotC
The rule was definitely intentional. I'm not certain it's justified, but I'm too lazy to do all the math to find out.
Though, what about a Monk 1/Ranger 19 (natural weapon)... Full TWF, Multi-Attack, and has the monk unarmed ability...
Would it then be...
+17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2, +17/+17/+17
RAW, I think that is the case.
RAI, I don't think IUS was intended to be allowed with Natural Attacks at all. Flurry of Blows explicitly denies their interaction, and FoB is really just TWF specifically for IUS.
As others have noted, natural attacks are natural attacks, and, as such, cannot be used with iteratives or TWF.
That aside, it seems reasonable and balanced that a high level character with access to natural weapons could use one of those natural attacks with iteratives.
Things get complicated if you throw in Improved Unarmed Strike with a creature that has natural attacks. For example, a Weretiger Monk 8 with Multi-attack can use IUS + their natural attacks for Foot (+6)/Foot (+1)/Bite (+4)/Claw (+4)/Claw (+4)
You might also grapple a vampire if you could trick it into going near a stream and immerse it in water for three rounds (=dead vampire).
The Vampire could and should go to mist form before the third round. The only way this really would work is if you bullrushed the Vampire into a stream/river and got it to 33% or less before its turn. At the start of the Vampire's turn, it would take the damage and be destroyed before it could turn to mist.
As a general rule, I think any Vampire encounter should be heavily foreshadowed prior to level 10, or be introduced in a short encounter where the Vampire is scripted to depart on their own. Surprising a party with a Vampire in a do-or-die scenario below APL 10 is probably a recipe for frustration, and quite possibly a TPK.
So it's just a matter of poorly worded rules text. The ONLY way a vampire is destroyed when at 0 hitpoints is if it's immersed in running water. There are other ways to destroy a vampire (staking/beheading and sunlight), but hitpoints have nothing to do with those strategies.
I'm still a bit confused with respect to the Vampire. Here are the snippets that are unclear, to me:
Vampire Defensive Abilities wrote:
If reduced to 0 hit points in combat, a vampire assumes gaseous form (see below) and attempts to escape.
OK, so when exactly does this happen? Immediately? Meaning, as an immediate action?
Vampire Weaknesses wrote:
Reducing a vampire's hit points to 0 or lower incapacitates it but doesn't always destroy it (see fast healing).
Fast Healing wrote:
Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediately.
Regardless of whether the Vampire goes Gaseous immediately or not, it is clear that a Vampire can go negative from a single strong attack. This text would suggest that a Vampire can actually be killed in this manner, after reviewing Fast Healing. No sun, stakes, or beheading required.
Am I interpreting all of this correctly? If a Vampire is sent to -CHA before they go gaseous, they're dead?
The XML for this attack is shown below, so adding a "HL Custom XML" import mechanism would help with this.
I haven't got around to writing an importer for the new HeroLab custom for a couple of reasons:
1) It's a bunch of work, and the improvements would not be huge, assuming I actually do it correctly. There's more information in the custom export file than I am able to use.
2) The current import allows users to pull directly from the .por file, so you don't need to open HeroLab to get an export.
Importing from a different PC Gen file, OTOH, is more appealing because my current PC Gen import is not nearly good enough.
Any thoughts on opening the source up?
Looks like another binary comparison is required in CombatManager.MainWindow.LoadPartyFiles, to properly recognize it and call CombatManager.MainWindow.ImportFromFile to generate a CombatManager.Monster through an updated Monster.FromFile that handles the custom XML by calling Monster.FromHeroLabXmlFile(doc).
With the DTD being handed to us by Lone Wolf, it's pretty easy to gen an XSD and then use xsd.exe to gen up a HeroLabXmlChar class. Then just add another Monster constructor that takes a HeroLabXmlChar class and pulls out whatever info it wants.
Just as an initial thought, picking through the source with Reflector.
bite (turtle) +0 (1d3-4/x2), or unarmed strike +0 (1-4/x2) space 2.5 ft; reach 0 ft.
I'll have to check this out - I'm certain the (1-4/x2) will not be processed correctly because it's not formatted like a die roll. It would need to be 1d4 instead of 1-4.
I think he means that his turtle is actually doing 1 minus 4 damage. Could he just make it 1d1-4?
Yeah, the turtle does effectively 1d1-4, and sure I can modify it by hand, but the above is how Hero Lab spits it out.
The XML for this attack is shown below, so adding a "HL Custom XML" import mechanism would help with this.
Spoiler:
<melee><weapon name="Bite (Turtle)" categorytext="Melee Weapon" typetext="B/P/S" attack="+2" damage="1d3-4" crit="20/x2" useradded="no"><description>A creature's natural Bite attack.</description><wepcategory>Melee Weapon</wepcategory><weptype>Bludgeoning</weptype><wep type>Piercing</weptype><weptype>Slashing</weptype>< /weapon><weapon name="Unarmed Strike" categorytext="Melee Weapon, Unarmed Attack" typetext="B" attack="+2" damage="1-4" crit="20/x2" useradded="no" quantity="1"><weight text="" value="0" /><cost text="" value="0" /><description>A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).</description><wepcategory>Melee Weapon</wepcategory><wepcategory>Unarmed Attack</wepcategory><weptype>Bludgeoning</weptype></we apon></melee>
Wow, this app is awesome! Thanks for the hard work, Kyle. I'll definitely be using this at my next session, instead of Hero Lab's tactical console.
One thing I did notice, however, is that some of the attacks imported from my portfolio files don't show up under the Roll context menu. The recurring theme when I see problems are "weapons" that include a set of parens before the "crunch". For example, I have a turtle familiar with this:
bite (turtle) +0 (1d3-4/x2), or unarmed strike +0 (1-4/x2) space 2.5 ft; reach 0 ft.
No Roll options show up for that character. I also have an issue with a custom weapon I created to fix a Hero Lab error. The weapon text is:
As an aside, have you considered throwing this up on codeplex or google code? I'd love to help write an improved Hero Lab importer, now that Hero Lab is capable of exporting the majority of information in usable XML. For example, you'd have access to the Spells Memorized, not just Spells Known, all the Skills data, etc.
If you're looking for additional features to implement, below are a few I came up with while playing with the application.
Auto Name Generator (bonus points for racial flavor) (r-click in name box for Auto-Generate context menu option)
"Clickable" weapon descriptions in the Party/Monsters area, to roll attacks without having to navigate the context menu
Set selected character when you click inside the Name text box
Option to create custom "Dice" buttons in the Dice Roller area that roll a formula with a single click
Minimize buttons on the Current, Selected, and Monster DB splitter headers to shrink them in a single click
Apply "Augment Summoning" feat (and others added in UM) to a monster
I don´t get it... If you like to do this, don´t you already know how it plays out?
Or are you saying you THINK you like to ban those spells but have never done so?
It's never really come up before, so I don't know how it plays out.
Every time I start a campaign, I go through the books and decide what I want to explicitly allow, ban, or tweak before character creation even begins. So far, nobody's yet played a Druid, even though I've resolved to ban these spells from selection if someone had decided to run a Druid.
Could be no one is playing a Druid because you've implemented these restrictions. Druids already have a rather weak spell list to go with their weapon and armor restrictions (it's why most Druids focus on wildshaping). And the animal companion is often marginalized by GMs that grant PCs ridiculously high stats (the AC is designed to play with 15 PB PCs... anything over that is marginalizing ACs/Eidolons/etc.)
While charm person is in effect, you can make contested charisma checks to force the subject to do something it wouldn't ordinarily do. There's no limit to the number of requests for the duration of the spell (1 hour/level). If suggestion can't even do that much, it's a bit of an oddity that it's a higher level spell.
Yeah, that one seems overly powerful compared to every other 1st level spell in my opinion.
If it didn't include the "force subject to do nearly anything if you win an opposed CHA check" wording, I think it'd actually be level appropriate. Then it is just granting you some number of auto-successes on Diplomacy rolls to get a creature to Friendly, which seems on par with other 1st level spells.
At 3rd level (Suggestion), it should include the "opposed CHA", thus allowing you to get a subject to do things it generally wouldn't (like attack other friends).
At 5th level (Dominate Person), there's no opposed CHA check at all, and you order the creature to do what you please.
For those that might like to see what the Sage said about it in 3.5 see the rules of game article, "Enchantments (part two)." His basic rule of thumb was "a suggestion should be something that the subject might decide to do on his own if the circumstances were appropriate or if the subject shared the caster's point of view."
That guidance would suggest that the sky's the limit, more or less. If the caster would do it, so would the subject. It's a "two sentence" Dominate Person, where those sentences can include any number of directives, limited only by the "Golden Rule".
It's an interesting idea, but let's parse the unintended consequences.
One big problem with the so-called 15-minute workday is that the non-casters feel like they are waiting around for the casters to get back to work. Lengthening prep time will exacerbate that, not solve it.
My goal was to lengthen it so much that resting after every other fight was not a reasonable option, ever. Right now, casters push for 15-minute workdays because the downtime is frequently a non-issue story-wise. It begins to feel forced and repetitive, if every adventure has a 'timer' on it. I'd rather that most adventures did not have a timer, and that using a timer was a part of the plot, and not a power-balancing mechanism.
Quote:
One approach is to implement advantages to martial characters that require the same prep time. That way, even if you still have a short workday, at least everyone is on the same schedule. For example, I wrote a feat called Battle Adaptation that lets martial characters re-spec a few combat feats with a night's rest and an hour of preparation. It definitely lends some parity to the pacing of the martial and caster PCs.
I like the idea, and I'll take a look at that, but I'd rather not institute a feat tax on the non-casters for what amounts to a balance adjustment.
Reducing the amount of healing resources available, while increasing natural healing, would also shift the pacing such that martial characters were more in line with casters. But this does nothing to fix the 15-minute workday, and, most likely, would only exacerbate the problem.
The only solution to the problem that I see is to eliminate the usefulness/need of a single night of rest. Right now martial characters get virtually nothing, while casters get everything. If casters got a lot less (took a long time to memorize one spell), this would get us closer. Not sure if there's any way to keep the existing system in any recognizable form while removing the need for resting entirely.
Quote:
Enemy caster response means keeping at least one clever enemy caster alive. He should be known to the players, but their information should be incomplete. The players should notice the scry sensor now and then. Any smart caster PC is going to have to hold spells in reserve to deal with this.
That's what's in my toolbox to combat the 15-minute workday, I hope it is helpful to you.
These things just prompt casters to want to rest earlier and earlier, in my experience. If the caster has to have something in reserve, they just want to stop fighting after the first battle, instead of the second.
Ultimately, the GM can do whatever he wants to enable or disable the 15-minute workday, but I'd rather eliminate it entirely.
The Problem: The 5-minute workday is a frequently discussed issue that tends to tip the scales of power towards full casters, namely Wizards, Sorcerers, Witches, Clerics, Druids, and Oracles. The generally accepted solution is for events to conspire against the PCs in such a way as to prevent this from happening. This solution promotes an adversariel relationship between the GM and players, and is not always conducive to the story line, ruining versimilitude.
Solution: In previous versions of D&D, this problem was mitigated through lengthy memorization times. I believe it took a high level caster days to restore their full complement of spells. This was unsatisfactory from a gamist point of view, because Wizards had no more (fewer?) spells, but those spells were substantially more powerful than in recent editions.
What about reverting the system back to the old memorization times (or similar), but granting casters more spells? What if it took multiple days, instead of an hour, to restore a full complement of spells? I'm thinking something along the lines of a caster regaining two or three spells per day under normal adventuring circumstances.
The difficult part here is finding a balance between preserving the Wizards flexibility, versus eliminating the need for artificial reasons that casters are unable to take a break. It's much easier, from a storyline perspective, to explain why a week long break is too long to still proceed, versus an 8-12 hour break.
Is this an idea worth pursuing? Do others have better solution ideas/implementations, that don't drift too far from the general D&D/Vancian spellcasting system?
Most people seem them as weak because they (1) don't know what the heck they are doing or (2) don't care to spend the time to find the really good combinations that beat out traditional spells like fireball.
Most people see them as weak because they are weak. There's like two valid, powerful spells in that 'combination archive', followed by a slew of illegal, horribly underpowered, or questionably legal spells.
The Words of Power system does a handful of things well, a bunch of things poorly, and the rest not at all. Based on the sidebars in UM, it appears the system was designed as a precursor to 'modern' spellcasting, and not really a viable alternative method. Just like there are precursors to modern medicine. No modern day teacher is going to pull out a 16th century textbook, and I don't think it's intended for a 'modern wizard' to teach his pupils from a 'Words of Power' manual when the art has made advances in virtually every aspect.
I really hope more Words are released, to bring the alternate spellcasting method closer in power to standard spellcasting. As it stands now, it's largely a waste of space in UM.
Sunshadow dont take this the wrong way but I would not run for that group i have over the years had to cull people with that mind set. Had one guy who would tell me the monster was dead because its MM entry had x hp and they had done x+12 on the last attack. Instead of penalizing everyone else i gave him a chance to tone back on such things and enjoy the RP aspect when he didnt i had to replace him.
Balance is a complicated topic, but I would agree with that player if the following were true:
1) the party characters were built using 15 point buy
2) the party characters were close to WBL guidelines
3) the monster only awarded XP per the MM
If the above three were true, I'd be pretty irritated as a player that the monster didn't die.
Have you ever DMed? When there are five brains working on a problem that one person came up with, they can provide challenges and surprises constantly, and coming up with something that will hold up to that level of scrutiny requires having tools in at your disposal that sometimes bend the rules enough to keep them on their toes. It has nothing to do with "DM vs players.' It has everything to do with having enough tricks up your sleeve to keep the players from becoming pure rules lawyers at the expense of your own fun.
How does 'bending the rules' stop people from becoming 'rules lawyers'? Seems like that's a great way to spawn rules lawyers. When everyone follows the rules, there's no lawyering required.
The best way for a GM to stop a rules argument is to a) know the rules, and b) talk to the players about the rules. GMs obfuscating and changing the rules is how rules lawyers are born. If you indicate before each session (preferably 24+ hours) what "new" rules are going to be encountered, you'll see much less lawyering going on.
As for challening the players -- just pick a higher CR, if you want a greater challenge. Why change the rules?
Specifally related to Knowledge skills -- the skill points essentially represent a specialization in that area. Someone with ranks in Kn:Whatever has spent time studying the topic. The only way there's any justification in denying a player knowledge after a successful Kn roll would be if the monster has never been seen before (or not in recorded history). And that ought to be a pretty rare occurrence.
Are these appropriate effects for a 3rd level spell?
Most of them are, yes.
Hold Person is a 2nd / 3rd level spell. Taking a combatant out of the fight on a failed save is entirely in line with other 3rd level effects.
Hold Person grants a save every round. Suggestion does not. And it lasts for hours, not rounds or minutes like Hold Person. No other 3rd level spell removes combatants for hours with no subsequent saves, as far as I'm aware.
Quote:
Making them switch sides is beyond this spell's capabilities, IMO.
-Kle.
Earlier you suggested having them use Aid Another against their former allies was within the spell's capability. Did you change your mind?
As for Suggestion "Flee" == Command "Flee", Command lasts a single round. Suggestion lasts for hours (a more verbose version of "Flee" could be used, such as "Flee the country" or "Return to your home"). Extended Command "Flee" only lasts for 2 rounds. Cause Fear has a HD limiter (< 6) and lasts rounds. Fear is a 4th level spell, and also lasts rounds, although it is a cone instead of single target.
I suppose this is just a problem with enchantment and illusion spells in general. Their power level varies greatly from GM to GM, and there are few examples indicating their limitations or intended uses.
Certainly there are far more 'believable' suggestion phrasings. The component I'm trying to ascertain is what should the power level of this spell be?
On a failed Will save, should this spell be able to take a combatant out? Effectively SoD in many respects. I thought Pathfinder's intent was to get rid of the SoD-style effects, and grant repeated saves on most SoS?
On a failed Will save, should this spell not only take a combatant out, but convert him to the other side? This is even WORSE than SoD.
Are these appropriate effects for a 3rd level spell?
So, as the title indicates, what's the general opinion on the limits of "reasonable" and "obviously harmful"? Is this a spell that is really intended for the battlefield?
Example battlefield suggestions:
"Protect Me"
"Flee"
"Trip/Overrun/Grapple/etc your ally"
In my opinion, "Protect Me" and "Flee" have proven to be exceptionally powerful suggestions for a mere 3rd level spell. Even with the Will negates save. At any level, this spell has a good chance of changing the outcome of a battle more so than any other equal level spell.
You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.
The suggested course of activity can continue for the entire duration. If the suggested activity can be completed in a shorter time, the spell ends when the subject finishes what it was asked to do. You can instead specify conditions that will trigger a special activity during the duration. If the condition is not met before the spell duration expires, the activity is not performed.
A very reasonable suggestion causes the save to be made with a penalty (such as -1 or -2).
I'm still mulling over the disadvantage. I like the idea of a shower of sparks surrounding the character during times of stress/unease.
Firestarter: You find your powers manifest themselves uncontrollably during times of stress or unease. During combat, all adjacent squares are affected by Spark (DC = 10 + 1/2 CL + CHA modifier). Objects held by the Oracle are automatically affected. Add Spark to your list of spells known. At 5th level, add Burning Disarm and Produce Flame to your list of spells known. At 10th level add Flame Strike to your list of spells known. At 15th level add Fire Storm to your list of spells known.
By the way, what's the definition of a Fine object? I can't seem to find specifics on dimensions of any size category. The closest I've seen is 1/16th size of Medium, which would mean ~4" x 4" x 4". I imagine, for purposes of the spell, paper, rope, clothing, dry wood, etc are all flammable.
A player in my new campaign is interested in playing a Flame Oracle, but isn't pleased with the current Curse options. After discussing the player's concept with them, their suggestion was something akin to Charlene from Stephen King's "Firestarter".
One idea we came up with was that anything easily flammable (paper/scrolls, rope, twigs, etc) held by the character for more than a single round bursts into flame.
What do others think? To much of a hindrance? Not enough? If the above is "just right", what benefits would be appropriate? The Haunted curse grants some low levels spells, so some suitable ones might be:
Spark
Produce Flame
Flaming Sphere
Heat Metal
Firefall
Flamestrike
Firebrand
Firestorm
Another possibility would be the abilities granted by the Elementalist Wizard or Sorcerer or Fire Domain options.
My wife suggested using felt on felt (high co-efficient of friction), which has turned out to be very effective. We purchased ~$20 of felt, and created a felt tablecloth. I've also backed 20 of the tiles with felt (still a lot more to go). They're still lightweight, easy to position, and now stay where I lay them.
This isn't a project for the impatient, though. I've spent about three hours on it now, and I'd guess I have another 3 or so to go.
So I love the artwork and the ability to switch the map cards around to generate different variations within each pack's theme, but I'm a vexed with how easy they shift around the table. Has anyone come up with a [relatively] inexpensive means of maintaining their versatility while improving their stability?
I've considered using CHA to augment the cost of items in game, but (CHA/10)% hardly seems worth the trouble of tracking. Not knowing your game, maybe every gold piece does end up mattering, but in my experience, after level two players throw handfuls of gold around as tips.
CHA_MOD% might be enough, but I still don't think it's worth the effort.
In my upcoming game, I'm planning to use the Plot Twist Cards, and am considering using CHA MOD to augment how they work (I haven't received the cards yet to make a determination).
Has anyone looked into converting the Tome of Battle classes for Pathfinder? Skills are relatively easy to convert and low impact, but what about the impact of increased feats?
Maybe, by relating Charisma with PC fate (or luck, as someone pointed before) is a good start, perhaps adjusting rewards (something like 5% x Cha modifier applied to WBL and XP). Just a thought.
I think 5% * CHA_MOD is a bit much, but CHA_MOD% bonus to XP might be enough to discourage dumping it (or at least apply some minor penalty), while a minor enough boon to avoid overpowering Sorcerers and Oracles.
Modifying treasure is much harder, as it's quite meta to apply gains to specific characters when the entire body of treasure is being split across the whole party.
As for modifying the cost of items only affecting the party's face -- I suppose if the GM allows one character to handle all mercantile activity. That isn't particularly believable, however. I could see the party face accompanying every character on their shopping trips (which would work like aid another), but it doesn't seem likely that every character would just hand over a list with their purse.
And when it comes to acquiring the raw components for magical item crafting, I think it's fair to say that the character creating the item has to be present as describing exactly what's needed isn't something that can be easily written down and understood.
I'd like to implement something that makes Charisma as important as Strength in a game that adheres to the encumberence rules.
I think the encumberence rules are a nice balance to STR, which prevents most characters from dropping it to a 5, or even a 7. Just to carry around a large Bag of Holding necessitates a 10. Unless you expend spell slots for Ant Haul. So you can play a weakling, but there is some cost associated. STR based characters don't generally get that much extra out of being able to carry a lot.
I'd like to find a similar balance for Charisma. A minor to moderate inconvenience if you dump it and do nothing to mitigate the effect, and only a moderate benefit with extremely high values.
At first glance, I like the Action Point idea, but I'm not thrilled about Sorcerers and Oracles having so many more action points than every else. They'd almost always have double the points of other classes. Additionally, in order to incorporate Action Points, some combat streamlining has to be removed (e.g. rolling damage with attack rolls).
I also like the idea of Charisma impacting interaction with NPCs, but I want something more than just GM fiat.
What about the Charisma modifier impacting the base price of everything? So a 5 Charisma character would pay more to buy or create items, and a 20 Charisma character would pay less. The most important piece here is defining price alterations that don't get out of hand, as mid and high level Sorcerers could easily have Charisma above +10.
If you're 'allowed' to treat the natural d20 roll (for which you must have already rolled the dice, otherwise it does nothing) as 11, then you cannot get less than 11 [edit - unless you want to]. You roll the dice (the natural d20 roll) and are then 'allowed' to treat it as 11. You may choose not to.
I think the bolded text is the beginning and end of your confusion.
I don't see anything in the text that says "if you wish, you make discard your attack roll and use '11' instead", or anything remotely like that.
You either take the 11, or take your chances and roll the d20.
