AvalonXQ's page

Organized Play Member. 1,926 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 1,926 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

What feats would you suggest adding in their place?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm putting together a one-shot adventure where the players are pregen monsters without any equipment. The monsters are getting tweaked from their native stat blocks, but the biggest change is probably in their feats.

What feats would people recommend I trade out on the following monsters, and for what feats should I look at instead?

Bleeding Critical, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Critical Focus, Improved Critical (longsword), Improved Disarm, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword)

Elder Air Elemental

Blind-Fight, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Flyby Attack, Improved InitiativeB, Iron Will, Mobility, Power Attack, Weapon FinesseB

Adult Silver Dragon
Flyby Attack, Hover, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lighting Reflexes, Multiattack, Power Attack, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (bite)

Noble Efreeti
Combat Casting, Combat Reflexes, Deceitful, Dodge, Improved Initiative, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (scorching ray), Toughness

Flyby Attack, Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus (ray)

I'm planning on putting this item on a boss NPC my players are likely to encounter sometime soon.. wanted to get ideas on its GP value.

"Soul of Draco"

This jeweled necklace is uncomfortably warm to the touch. When worn, it becomes intensely hot, dealing 1.ire damage per round to the wearer until removed.

Each time the wearer casts a spell with the fire descriptor, she is temporarily sheathed in flame. If she is hit with a melee attack while casting the spell, the attacker takes 1d6 fire damage and must succeed a Reflex save (DC same as the spell) or catch fire (1d4 damage each round until a successful Reflex save negates). For a number of rounds equal to the level of the spell, the wearer gains cold vulnerability and doubles any fire resistence. Melee attacks by the wearer during this period also deal fire damage and ignite the target as above.

After wearing the necklace for a week, the user gains the additional ability to summon a phantasm only he can see of a noble efreet. The summoned efreet is always the same creature and is familiar with the wearer's conduct while wearing the necklace. If the efreet approves, it will lend the wearer its considerable knowledge in the secrets of fire. i

We've gone over this several times before.

Magic vestment provides an enhancement bonus to armor. The armor then provides an armor bonus to the character's AC.

Mage armor also provides an armor bonus to the character's AC.

The armor bonus from clothes or armor enchanted with magic vestment will not stack with the armor bonus from mage armor.

Some questions.

What happens if I cast a deceptive silent image? Does it take two will saves to first believe the spell is real and then disbelieve it?

If I cast a deceptive stone shape, does it turn the stone translucent?

How about a deceptive creation spell -- is the created item (otherwise nonmagical) now translucent and hollow, and if so does it have a magical aura to it?

Does casting a deceptive charm spell on a creature mean that the creature's allies have to make a will save to believe the creature is charmed?

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Two readings:

"At 1st level, 2nd level, and every four levels thereafter, a master of many styles may select a bonus style feat without meeting its prerequisites. Alternatively, may select the Elemental Fist feat, but only if he meets its prerequisites."


"At 1st level, 2nd level, and every four levels thereafter, a master of many styles may select Elemental Fist as a bonus feat without meeting its prerequisites. Alternatively, he may select a style feat. He must possess the Elemental Fist feat if the style feat includes it as a prerequisite, but does not need to meet any other prerequisites of the style feat."

Personally, I read it the second way.

KainPen wrote:

step 3

suprise round if any (in the case I am suggesting the rogue decided use to delay or ready as his standard action instead of attacking or move or casting spell)
step 4
initiative order highest to lowest(but because the rogue decided to use delay or ready he can jump in at any point he wants and his init in this case before the guard goes thus the guard is flated footed full attack sneak)

When you choose to delay, you "then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act." This means that when you do choose to take your action, it's still your surprise round action -- which means it's a single-attack action rather than a full-attack action.

Not only that, but by delaying into the next round, "you do not get your regular action that round." So your initiative count will be higher but you don't get a full attack until round 2.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty clear that the purpose of the surprise round is to give a benefit to alert creatures and allow for ambushes outside of the initiative system.

It's also pretty clear that the initiative system is supposed to represent your primary method of gaining priority in combat, and that catching your opponent by surprise is only supposed to give you the advantage of a free standard action, no more.

There's not any straightforward way to "game" combat timing in order to get a full round of sneak attacks from stealth and surprise, and this is clearly intentional.

To my knowledge they haven't quite figured out how to take this away from monks yet.

So, for now, yes. Expect an errata soon, though, that Haste doesn't stack with Flurry of Blows. I don't know why; they'll find a reason.

Ha! Beat you by 7 seconds!

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you harvest only female vestiges, would that make you a "binder full of women"?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Some call me Tim wrote:
Essentially, when both are surprised they end up just standing there. So they guy who is light on his feet doesn't dodge out of the way. The clumsy oaf just stands there--he doesn't suddenly get clumsier and throw himself on the enemy's weapons.

This is it exactly. The guy who doesn't dodge at all (+0 to AC) has the same AC whether he knows about the threat or not because he responds the same way -- by just standing there.

The rules say:

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

And the spell says:

A creature that interacts with the glamer gets a Will save to recognize it as an illusion.

There's some GM discretion involved, but they don't get a saving throw unless they "interact with the glamer" -- which in this case probably means touching a part of you that is disguised and should therefore feel different than it does.

Until then, it's a flat +10 to a disguise check.

What book is the giant crab spider from?

Every monster that I've checked with a camouflage ability has the explanation for that ability in its own entry. Which monster are you looking at that does not?

Wave Strike wrote:

Prerequisite: Weapon expertise class feature or Quick Draw, Bluff 1 rank.

Benefit: If on your first turn of combat you draw a melee weapon to attack an opponent within your reach, you can spend a swift action to make a Bluff check to feint against that opponent.

1. Yes, because you can draw a weapon as part of a charge (although it limits your charge distance).

2. Feinting itself only works with melee attacks. So although you technically could draw the dagger and feint as a swift action, throwing the dagger wouldn't benefit from your feint. (Although if you drew another weapon and made a melee attack on your second round, the feint would actually benefit that attack).

Spell type doesn't come from the spell itself, but from the class casting the spell.

All cleric spells, even those from a domain, are divine spells when the cleric casts them.

According to the 3.5 SRD, a long jump attains a quarter of its length in height. So a jump of 40 feet or longer (a jump check of +40 or more) would be 10 feet off the ground, which would be outside of the threat range for creatures Medium and smaller.

So, I would say yes -- in the right situation you can basically jump entirely over your foes, avoiding AoOs.

I have always played with the rule that you can always "take 1" on a skill check -- that is, if you will pass the check even if you roll a 1, there's no reason to make the check at all.

Ravingdork wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
It depends on how you interpret "the closet target that lies in that direction." In the stricter interpretation, you'd only attack the cloaker if you roll a 1. If you roll a 2 or an 8, there aren't any targets "in that direction," so you resolve the attack against the wall or nothing at all.
Except that if I rolled a 2 or an 8, then the closest target is the cloaker.

If you rolled a 2 or an 8, there isn't a target "in that direction." The cloaker isn't southwest or southeast of you; it's due south of you.

There are no targets in the direction of the 2 and 8 squares, so you hit nothing.

It depends on how you interpret "the closet target that lies in that direction." In the stricter interpretation, you'd only attack the cloaker if you roll a 1. If you roll a 2 or an 8, there aren't any targets "in that direction," so you resolve the attack against the wall or nothing at all.

Incidentally, I'd spend the gold on a muleback cord as soon as you can afford it. If you're currently under medium encumbrance, a muleback cord is guaranteed to eliminate that encumbrance.

The answer to your question is no -- it works just the way you think it works.

The Rules wrote:

Armor Check Penalty

Any armor heavier than leather, as well as any shield, hurts a character's ability to use Dex- and Str-based skills. An armor check penalty applies to all Dex- and Strength-based skill checks. A character's encumbrance may also incur an armor check penalty.

Shields: If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, both armor check penalties apply.

Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dex- and Str-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for non-proficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.

Sleeping in Armor: A character who sleeps in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. He takes a –2 penalty on Str and Dex and can't charge or run. Sleeping in light armor does not cause fatigue.

The only time the extra penalties apply (adding the ACP to your attack roll and ability checks) is when you are wearing armor for which you are not proficient. Obviously that's never true when you take a check penalty due to encumbrance; there's no armor for you to be proficient or not proficient with.

So there's no need to have armor proficiency unless you're actually wearing armor.

Dust Raven wrote:
Something just occurred to me. Can I use arcane mark to effectively gain an additional melee attack each round for free? Well, not for free really, more like in exchange for provoking an AoO or making a concentration check... but that still sound pretty free to me.

The dozen or so existing threads addressing this exact question seem to have the general consensus of "yes you can."

Search "arcane mark spellstrike" for previous discussion of this issue.

Mage Evolving wrote:

I would say that the 1pt in that case does in fact effect modifiers since if you have a STR of 15 (the mod would be +2).

Just how I would rule it.

And in Pathfinder, that would be a houserule.

The Pathfinder rules make the game easier by no longer having you actually recalculate your stats and modifiers based on ability damage. Instead, you record the damage separately and apply a set penalty. It makes it a lot easier.

666bender wrote:

that is preaty low for medium and upper levels... making poison, trample, burn and such ... kinna useless.

The DC's are equivalent to the spells you'd be casting at that level. Actually, you gain the effect of each level of polymorph spell one level earlier than you actually gain spells of that level. A level 12 caster with DCs appropriate to a level 7 spell is good.


also, are you sure the poison and trample are not STR / CON based?

I'm not 100% sure. The assumption I'm making is that since druid spellcasting is wisdom-based, the spells emulated by the Wild Shape ability are also wisdom-based. This is likely what is intended, but I can't affirmatively prove it based on the rules as written.

The polymorph subschool description says this (always go read this first when you have a question related to polymorph):

The DC for any of these abilities equals your DC for the polymorph spell used to change you into that form.

The Wild Shape description says what spell it "functions like," and the level of that spell will give you the DC.

4th level: DC 13 + Wisdom mod
6th level: DC 14 + Wisdom mod
8th level: DC 15 + Wisdom mod
10th level: DC 16 + Wisdom mod (for elemental or plant; still 15 + mod if animal)
12th level: DC 17 + Wisdom mod (for elemental or plant; still 15 + mod if animal)
I hope that's pretty clear.

Mr. Damage wrote:
Would a +4 Enhancement Bonus from Bull Strength Stack with a +2 Inherent Bonus to Strength since they are both increasing Strength, then? Or no?

Yes. A +2 enhancement bonus to Strength stacks with a +2 inherent bonus to strength.

Now, on to this situation.

Magic Vestment doesn't grant a bonus to AC.

I want to say this again, to make sure you caught it.

Magic Vestment doesn't grant a bonus to AC.

And one more time, because this is the key element in this whole discussion.

Magic Vestment doesn't grant a bonus to AC.

Is that clear enough?

Your armor grants an armor bonus to AC.

Magic Vestment provides an enhancement bonus to your armor.

Thus, when you use Magic Vestment on your armor, it grants a higher armor bonus than it did before, just as the enhancement bonus on magic armor does.

At no point does Magic Vestment directly affect your AC. What Magic Vestment (or a permanent +1 enchantment on armor) does is grant a bonus to your armor. So in the end, your AC increases because your armor bonus increases.

Just to make this entirely clear -- you'll get +3 to Ride whether or not you spend a second skill point in Ride as part of your Ranger level. Your one skill rank, regardless of what class you were in when you took it, is enough to give you the +3 bonus once Ride is a class skill for you.

You can escape being grappled by making a combat maneuver check against the spell's DC. This would essentially mean that the spell's DC is the same as a CMD score rather than a CMB score. Since the DC already includes a "10+" term, adding another 10+ term is probably overkill.

So I would suggest that the DC of the concentration check should be equal to the DC of the web spell plus the level of the spell you're trying to cast.

I still disagree with the interpretation being used for Disguise Self.

The language of the spell is clearly in reference to your current appearance -- up to a foot taller or shorter, fat or thin or in between. So clearly a Kitsune in the form of an eighteen inch long fox could not use Disguise Self to look like a six-foot orc or even a three-foot gnome.

Instead, a creature whose current appearance is of a tiny animal should be able to alter their appearance to any other tiny animal, regardless of their "real" size and type.

concerro wrote:
polymorph rules wrote:
You cannot change your creature type (although you can appear as another subtype)

That's from the Disguise Self spell, not the polymorph rules.

But again, reading the Disguise Self spell as a whole, I stand by my ruling that the Diguise Self spell alters your appearance, not what you actually are.

So if you are polymorphed and therefore appear as an animal, Disguise Self can make you look like a different animal of similar size.

As to the specific question being asked, Disguise Self is changing your appearance. Clearly a polymorphed creature has the appearance of its targeted form. You should therefore use the polymorphed form rather than the base form when making modifications using Disguise Self.

Animal Growth wouldn't work regardless, since:

Polymorph Subschool wrote:
You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.

If your Wisdom score is a lot higher than your Strength, you might consider the guided weapon quality.

I don't believe undead are immune to the nauseated and sickened conditions.

If I'm correct, a threnodic instrument of agony should work as normal against undead.

Looking at the entry, he is wearing +3 chainmail. The AC is calculated correctly based on this.

With a dex that high it would make more sense to wear something like +3 leather armor, but I'm sure the chainmail is thematic.

Armor limits your maximum dex bonus to AC. I assume from the "+9 armor" that he must be wearing heavy armor with a max dex of +2.

And incidentally, a 25 stat has a modifier of +7. The formula is half minus five.

Kimahri was a character in Final Fantasy X with the ability to copy abilities from enemies. You could also essentially send him down any other character's path to learn their abilities. So he's essentially an emulative character.

My recommendation would be either Chamelion or Spellthief from 3.5. If you want to stick with PF, the only class I can think of with the right flavor is the sandman bard's abilities.

One less ambiguous way to amend the wyroot description would be as follows:
When a weapon constructed of wyroot confirms a critical hit, it absorbs some of the life force of the creature hit. The wyroot weapon gains 1 life point. The life force absorption itself does not further harm the creature hit.

Nicos wrote:
sawtooth sabres need EWP,so you still need to spend a feat. if you need a feat to twf with the two sawtooth sabres why not a feat to twf with any two one-handed weapons?

You could easily say the same about many of the exotic weapons. Why bother with a bastard sword; why not just spend a feat to let you wield two-handed weapons in one hand without penalty?

How do we know Drizzt doesn't just accept the extra -2 penalties?

I think havoc was saying that he didn't read the wyroot weapon's effect as negating the normal damage from the critical hit -- just as failing to inflict any additional damage.

LazarX wrote:
The rules are specifically built to prohibit this because it's in the category of maneuvers that are too good to truck out without action cost. You can not quicken Enlarge Person because the base spell has a one round casting time. So actually it can't be done either way. Similarly you can't quicken any of the Summon Monster/Nature spells for that reason.

Actually, the FAQ has clarified that spells with a one-round casting time are elligible to be quickened.

I guess my question is, why doesn't a rod of lesser metamagic (quicken) do the job she's looking for?

#1 and #2 both work. You either have to wait until one or more of the negative levels is gone, or heal one or more of the negative levels directly after raising the character.

Jiggy wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
If there are problems that would arise from treating the unarmed strike as one weapon, I have yet to see them.
Problem: Someone trained in hitting people with his fists can attack more rapidly if he holds a sword in one hand than if he has two fists available.

Answer to problem: "Attack" is an abstraction that doesn't equal "swing." Two punches and a kick may be equal to a single "unarmed strike" just as two sweeps and a thrust may be equal to a single "sword attack." So the ability (or lack thereof) to get multiple unarmed strikes as part of low-BAB TWF does not necessarily mean that the person's actual punches are particularly "slow."

blackbloodtroll wrote:
No, the trait states the obvious rules inherent to all natural attacks used in a full attack, with weapons.

It doesn't say "with weapons;" it says when used in a full attack. There's nothing wrong with the rules giving you a bite as a secondary natural attack.

CalebTGordan wrote:
Tandriniel wrote:
And if someone could possibly smack a ray of enfeeblement on the BBEG, then I think we are good to go :-)
Imagine an Empowered Maximized Limp Lash. A -9 penalty to all three physical ability scores each round!

Actually it would be a 1d3+6 penalty.

Feed an ingested poison to a swarm to have the swarm suffer the effects of the poison. I'd definitely allow it.

The only real question here is, does a projectile shot from a Seeking projectile weapon gain the benefit of the Seeking property?

One person on this thread has said, no, essentially seeking is thrown weapons only.

The rest of us say yes.

1 to 50 of 1,926 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>