Our party in Council of Thieves is at 5th level. We have 2 magic items for the whole party: a wayfinder and a CLW wand.
You must almost have actively avoided some of the bad guys to end up so low on magic items; there should be a magical weapon and a magical armor by the time the party reaches level 3, and several more of each around the time you reach level 5 (either before or shortly after) :)
A 20 on the confirmation roll automatically confirms regardless of the AC, since a confirmation roll is an attack roll, and a 20 on an attack roll always hits.
The two sentences before your quote wrote:
When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a “threat,” meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made.
Almost. You can only get 1 claw attack if the ghoul moves, not two.
Also, note that the "claw -2" and "bite -2" are the same attacks as the "claw +3" and "bite +3"; since natural attacks are always considered secondary when combined with manufactured weapon attacks, they get a -5 penalty when used alongside the scimitar.
If you use claws in the first round, you can still use the scimitar in round 2, but you'd likely have to draw it.
I believe the argument is that since that next hit is a confirmed critical, Butterfly Sting triggers again (since it triggers off a critical being confirmed), and thus lets you pass that crit onwards instead of keeping it for that hit.
I believe there was a ruling at some point that basically said you couldn't make attacks with a freshly-drawn weapon if you'd already used that/those hands to make attacks that turn (and likewise for dropping weapons and making natural attacks with that/those hands).
Can't find it now, though. Maybe it was just a forum post, or maybe I'm imagining things.
Someone please point me to just one developer discussion on this topic, besides the one useless FAQ answer, because I can't find that needle in this haystack. I will be happy to see it, and admit that I could easily have missed it in this heap.
I agree with most of what you said in terms of the rule system and improvement of such, so I'm happy to track down some developer posts for you :)
Hmh. I was ready to be super-excited about this book as soon as I saw the title, but the focus on 20 specific monster types makes me considerably more ambivalent.. Hopefully the book will include new feats and options that are useful for all monsters as well (which is something I've wanted more of ever since 3.0's Savage Species), rather than only having options specific to those particular races.
Also, is flurry based solely on BAB or does it also use the STR(DEX) and size modifiers as any other attack bonus would. In other words, if my monk were a half-orc and large, would I add +1 for size to all the attack bonuses in the chart? Or would it change if the base stat for strength increased enough for the modifier to go up 1 higher? I see that damage changes based on size, but don't see anything about the attack bonus.
You add STR/DEX and size bonuses/penalties as normal; the table only provides the base values.
Large size gives a -1 size penalty to attacks, by the way, not a +1 bonus (Small size gives a +1 bonus).
The Danger value for settlements is explained in the GameMastery Guide:
Danger: A settlement's danger value is a number that gives a general idea of how dangerous it is to live in the settlement. If you use wandering monster chart that uses percentile dice and ranks its encounters from lowest CR to highest CR, use the modifier associated with the settlement's danger value to adjust rolls on the encounter chart. A settlement's base danger value depends on its type.
For the first 5 levels of the table, I was right on - but I did not add an attack at level 6 because, though the monk level causes his BAB to be +6 in this case, it wasn't a "real" BAB. Once I saw in the table that it was added, the number didn't make sense to me at -1, since if its using the monk level +6 to get the extra attack, why is the -5 taken from the "real" BAB of +4, which isn't high enough to get the extra attack in the first place.
The -5 isn't taken from the "real" BAB. The reason it ends up at -1 rather than +1 (and the two initial attacks end up at +4 instead of +6) is because you also apply the -2 penalty for two-weapon fighting.
When flurrying, you do two things at once:
Combined, those two things mean you get a result as given in the flurry of blows column, where all of the maths involved has already been done.
Let me take a few examples:
At level 1, your BAB when flurrying is 1. With the second attack and penalty for TWF, the result is two attacks, both at -1 (BAB +1 -2).
At level 5, your BAB when flurrying is 5. With the second attack and penalty for TWF, the result is two attacks, both at +3 (BAB +5 -2).
At level 6, your BAB when flurrying is 6, which grants an additional attack for having a high BAB. The first two attacks are now at +4 (BAB +6 -2), and the third attack is 5 lower, for a total of -1 (BAB +6 -5 -2).
At level 8, your BAB when flurrying is 8. At this level, the monk also gets another additional attack, representing the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat. The result is a total of four attacks; two at +6 (BAB +8 -2), and two at +1 (BAB +8 -5 -2).
[Edit: For Tsuto's flurry specifically: When flurrying, he has a BAB of +3 (2 for his monk levels, plus 1 for his rogue levels). Since he has Weapon Finesse, he adds DEX to attacks instead of STR. The result is two attacks at +4 (BAB +3 -2 TWF +3 DEX).]
The FAQ being referenced herein says nothing of the sort.
Part of the FAQ in question says "Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action." That's a fairly clear statement that VS can only be used as part of a regular attack (and not, for instance, as part of a full-attack action).
The developers have, in the past, acknowledged that this is an area of the rules that could be clearer. They've also stated that the NPC Codex tactics blocks suggesting the use of Spring Attack alongside Vital Strike were erroneous.
[Late edit: By the way, I agree completely with your observation regarding rules pertinent to a particular situation needing to be hunted down all over the rulebook. That's one of the major things I hope Paizo takes steps to prevent if/when they create another version of the Pathfinder game.]
The Upasunda has IG as a bonus feat (which means prerequisites are ignored), so that wouldn't count for the argument.
Leaving only the Siyokoy.. Since that creature has grab already, IG doesn't provide much of an improvement (only a +2 bonus on top of the +4 bonus it would normally get). I'm guessing the author of the monster feels similarly to me; that the grab ability should function as the prerequisite for the grapple feats (although personally I would have it function as IG in terms of qualifying for Greater Grapple, rather than giving the creature both grab and IG).
It's technically not the same; with RBA, you are charging, while with "As One", only the mount is charging (although with the recent discussions regarding mounted combat, I'm not sure these are different any more).
I agree it might be simpler to use RBA for the ability, but considering the previous ability grants Mobility while mounted, it's thematically appropriate to grant Spring Attack.
Edit: And considering the point the above posters made regarding movement (straight line vs not straight line), it's different, too.
(Interestingly, while "As One" says you can use the ability to qualify for feats with Spring Attack as a prerequisite, the "Sand Storm" ability doesn't say the same for Mobility; since all the feats that require SA also require Mobility, this seems like an oversight).
Also, as an aside, it's a bit annoying/confusing that there's both a "horselord" archetype (for cavaliers) and a "horse lord" archetype (for rangers), as well as a "horse lord" trait. I really wish Paizo would stop using the same (or virtually the same) name for different things.
2) Maybe it only counts racial hd then? In that case the zombie lord presented has 2 racial hd. That's a CR 1/2 normal zombie, +1 equals CR 2. CR 2 plus CR increase for 3 levels of monk should be CR 4, but again that's not the listed CR.
This method would work if you assume that increasing CR 1/2 by 1 adds up to CR 1 (either as a result of 1.5 being rounded down to 1, or by increasing to the next higher fraction) rather than to CR 2 (as the latter would indicate a starting CR of 1).
Sure, which was always the case. If you think I'm advocating giving a regular monster a +1 to an ability score because it already has 4 HD, then that's not at all what I'm saying; I'm only talking about advancing monsters.
Consider the scenario where an adventure has a monster that has already been advanced (say, to 6 HD), and for whatever reason you want to advance it further (presumably because your PCs are a higher level than the adventure assumes). With the 3.5 system, you would give that monster a +1 to an ability score if you advanced it to 8 or higher (and again at 12), but not if you advanced it to 7.
With the PF system, you don't know whether you should give that monster an ability score increase at 7, 8, 9, or 10, since that differs based on the base monsters number of HD. So, you must first look at the base monster's number of HD before you can properly apply the ability score increase. If it started at HD 1 or HD 5, then you should not give it an increase until HD 9. If it started at HD 2, then you should not give it an increase until HD 10. If it started at HD 3, then you should give it an increase already at HD 7, and if it started at HD 4, then you should give it an increase at HD 8.
In other words, the PF system complicates the process.
Which is silly, in my opinion, as that means that if you're advancing an already-advanced monster, you must also refer back to the original version of the monster in order to see what the "base HD" was. When adding +1 at each HD divisible by 4, you don't need to do that.
It's also far easier to remember that you need to do something with abilities at 4,8,12,16,20 HD, since that's the same points you'd do that for PCs. I really can't understand the reason for the "per 4 additional HD" method.
Hm. The "1d6 damage per racial HD" part is pure PF, since the 3.5 version had a flat amount of damage. I was answering in terms of the save DC, as I forgot that PF changed the damage part :)
I believe one of the Paizo developers stated once that creatures with no racial HD would indeed get no breath weapon from the template, but I couldn't find the quote when I searched.
Most abilities don't specify "racial only", so they should count for all HD. The Half-Dragon template specified "racial only" also in 3.5, by the way.
Another (probably noob-ish) question about monsters with class levels. Do they get favoured class (FC) bonuses for both their racial HD levels and for levels in one character class? In other words, are they in effect like half-elves when it come to FC bonuses?
Creatures don't get favored class bonuses for racial HD. They're not classes, after all :)
Be aware that all natural attacks get a -5 penalty when used in combination with manufactured weapon attacks, since they're automatically considered secondary.
So, you'd have two sword attacks at +6/+1, and all the tentacle attacks and the sting attack would be at +1. Since the rules say to go from highest to lowest, you should begin with the sword attacks. Personally, though, I'd let you make the attacks in whatever order you wanted.
Yes, you simply add everything from the class onto the monster.
In this case, you'll add +10 BAB, +7 Fort save, +3 Ref save, +7 Will save, +10d10 hit points (with 10*CON), +10*(2+INT) skill points, and the class features and spellcasting for a 10th-level paladin. In addition, you'll add 5 feats for gaining 10 HD, and a total of 2 ability score points for reaching its 20th and 24th HD.
In addition, the rules say to add +4/+4/+2/+2/+0/-2 to a monster's stats when you give it class levels. This change represents changing from a 3-point-buy (the default for monsters) to a 15-point-buy (the default for NPCs with regular class levels).
Be aware that the finished planetar paladin will be approximately a CR 26 monster.
One possible reason for the discrepancy is if the CRB errata in question was fairly recent, and if it was after the last Bestiary errata. In which case, it won't be updated for the doppelganger (and presumably other creatures with change shape) until the next Bestiary errata (which will come when the current printing is close to sold out).
I wasn't aware that there had been errata, but yes, it does seem like it has been overlooked. That said, considering turning themselves into others is really all the doppelganger has going for it, it might be that they decided that it should still have the additional bonus.. If so, it should be specified as an additional racial bonus, of course.
It says you should divide the material component cost by the number of charges used for one casting of the spell, so the first method is correct.
...must provide any focus the spells require as well as material component costs sufficient to activate the spell 50 times (divide this amount by the number of charges one use of the spell expends).
So then its fine to use animate dead, since the results are judged on their own. I'm really not sure what you are trying to argue here.
Yes? Why do you suppose I disagree with that?
In the first reply to this thread, I stated that casting a spell with the (evil) descriptor doesn't automatically make you evil..
What I'm arguing is your statement that the alignment system is wonky, and your example situation. In particular, I'm saying that when applied properly, it isn't so wonky that wiping out villages with good spells would be an ultimately good act.
Whether is a spell is an act of X or Y alignment isn't based on "possible results".
No, and I never said it was. I'm saying the results will be judged on their own, regardless of the method. The caster is in full control of how he uses his spells.
You are trying to say that an act of good is an act of evil, which does not compute.
When did I say that? I said "casting the spell" may be a minor act of good. But "wiping out the village" is a major act of evil. They're not the same act. You can easily cast the spell without wiping out the village (for instance, by leaving the village before casting it), meaning the two are separate. The second is only a result of the first because of the caster's decision to perform the first act in such a way as to make it so.
If you use a holy weapon to massacre a dozen paladins, you've performed an evil act, regardless of how "good" the weapon was.
That's the effect of the spell that counts as minor good. If what you are saying is true then the spell can't be good in the first place, since it's discriminatory by its very nature.
And if you use that effect against your enemies in combat, rather than against (presumed) innocents in a village, then the results would probably also be a good act. You're somehow trying to claim that the results of the caster's actions are tied completely to the spell's alignment, which simply isn't the case.
Casting the spell may be a minor act of good. Wiping out the village (regardless of method) is a major act of evil. The first doesn't, in any way, cancel out the second.
Hardcover: 10 RPG-line books, plus the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition, The Inner Sea World Guide, and the 3.5 Campaign Setting.
Softcover: 79 Adventure Path books, 32 Modules, 22 Player Companions, 69 Chronicles/Campaign Setting books (which includes all the map folios), plus the Bonus Bestiary and the Player Character Folio.
I also have some Dragon/Dungeon-related Paizo books, such as the hardcover Shackled City and Dragon Compendium, and the softcover Dragon: Monster Ecologies and Shackled City Player's Guide.
Hm, that's quite a lot :)
Do you think that by interpreting the rules in this way you encourage tieflings and such to the exclusion of other races?
No, based on evidence from 3.5 I wouldn't think this encourages those races to the exclusion of others. We didn't use LA for the aasimar and tiefling, since they seemed about on par with the core races (only slightly stronger, if that, but not worth a whole point of LA), and despite that I think there were only 2 characters played with those races in the 5-6 campaigns I was a part of with that group (either as player or as DM).
I think Paizo's SLAs-qualifying-for-PrCs ruling will do more to encourage those races than granting martial weapon proficiencies for free.. Of course, both of those together could be too much :)
I would say 15, as doubling twice is usually reinterpreted as tripling in PF/D&D rules:
Multiplying: When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.
Do you really think many GMs out there are confused as to "Do tieflings get a free weapon proficiency?" Without the sentence from the ARG? I realize that the intent behind a rule can be hazy at times but on the other hand sometimes it really does seem like if you just thought about something for a bit it is pretty clear.
I wasn't confused. I was, in fact, 100% sure that tieflings/aasimar got weapon proficiencies before Paizo made their clarification, since the 3.5 clarification (published in the 3.5 FAQ) was that they did get them.
Since the actual rules text was the same as in 3.5, and since Paizo didn't change the part about 0-HD humanoids (which, considering it's called out specifically for that creature type, reads like an exception) to instead encompass all the creature types, it would be sensible to assume the rules were still the same. It would have been very easy to change this, too; simply move that section of the Humanoid rules to the top of the Creature Type listings, and change all instances of "humanoids" to "creatures".
Besides, even before I read the 3.5 FAQ and discovered the ruling there, that was how we played the planetouched races in our 3.5 campaigns. As you say, the rules seemed pretty clear :)
If your body is covered with armor, where do your additional arms grow from?
That particular issue aside.. Since crafting armor from a lighter material (such as mithral armor, or celestial armor) reduces the ASF, it seems that the gesture-interference is primarily weight-related and not so much arm-covering-related.
Further, some types of armor don't even cover the arms (breastplate, for instance, only covers the torso), but still have ASF.
The plane shift is part of its "angled entry" ability. The text of that ability should probably have been provided, but it can be found in the regular Hound of Tindalos statblock (in Bestiary 2), as can the text of the "otherworldly mind" ability and the "ripping gaze" attack.
I'm guessing the text of these three abilities was cut from the adventure for space reasons, but some of them are pretty important for running the monster (particularly the gaze attack).
Edit: That makes me wonder how many other creatures with otherwise full statblocks are missing ability-text..
The last question I have is if I use FoB and my actions go as Attack 1 + Attack 2 -> Combat Maneuver, can I use combat expertise on just the combat maneuver at the end?
No. Combat Expertise states you can only use it when you declare that you're making an attack or full-attack (so you either use it for all your attacks or for none of them); you can't wait until the last attack to activate it.
1. No; the penalty and the bonus both apply to all attacks for the round, they don't add up for each attack.
2. The qinggong monk uses her monk level as the caster level for her spell-like abilities, so the barkskin will have a duration of 10 minutes per monk level.
3. No. The ki intensifying weapon ability says you can spend a ki point as a swift action (which then lets you use a combat maneuver as a free action). Since you can only perform one swift action per turn, you can only activate it for one hit.