Beldhyr's page

17 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


I've actually run across a druid villain before, it was interesting. In fact, there was one villanous druid and her husband, who didn't know what was going on.

This also reminds me of a running gag in our games...all druids are evil and practice necromancy.

Sorry, back on topic. I don't know if there are any rules to cover controlling such massive hordes. But he's a villain, so he doesn't need to follow all the rules. Give him an item (attuned to the deity, therefore evil, or perhaps with negative soul-corrupting side effects. i.e. Something to prevent the players from picking it up and controlling hordes). Or, allow him to work with the animals via handle animal/diplomacy, due to a corrupting influence of Anogetz in the area (some form of blight/sickness that makes the animals susceptible to aggressive suggestions). When it comes down to the actual game, the animals acting as assassins/spies or as individual combats will be their own CR and not factor in to the villain's CR. If the villain is crafted around controlling animals, those animals need to play a significant role in the final fight, or your villain will be handicapped, since his feats and spells will be expended on animal control.


I haven't played a wizard in Pathfinder yet. They were my favorite class in 3.5, but when it came down to dealing damage to one target, I often felt underclassed.

Perhaps this was due to the DM's style, but fights were frequently done 1-on-1, toe-to-toe with the tank, rogue behind. We played to 20+, and the rogue could always outdamage me. Disintegrate landed for full damage once; that same round, the rogue exceeded that damage. Everything we were fighting--huge dragons and the like--had high Fortitude saves. While other classes had to exchange things in order to take a prestige class, Wizards invariably gained a set of abilities and lost nothing.

In fact, after a while I determined that my best bet, particularly in a long fight, was to use Time Stop to buff 2 spells/round, then conclude with Nightstalker's Transformation (like Tenser's, but a FR variant that made the caster more rogue-like than fighter-like).

Now, I'm sure that my wizard wasn't "optimized" to the standards many have. I had a very thematic spell selection. And fewer things in PF require XP expenditure--my wizard was nearly 2 levels behind the rest of the party after a while from crafting magic items.

However, in our last Pathfinder game, our dual-wielding fighter was outdamaging the wizard, except in situations where opponents were grouped up and susceptible to a particular energy type.

Many 3.5 supplements went a long way in assisting casters, particularly with more options for spells that bypassed saves and feats that gave abilities without expending those few precious spell slots (the lowest of which were quickly given over to buffs/utility, because the DCs stayed so low). I was disappointed to lose them. School specialization abilities go a long way to correcting the inherent weakness of low-level wizards, but in PF, the wizard progression stayed basically the same, while fighters received nearly double feats.

Now, I find these message boards and hear constant complaints that Fighters and Rogues are underpowered.

It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trikk wrote:
karkon wrote:

Pathfinder came out in 2009 right? 36/19=1.8 characters lost per month?

Either you are playing in a lot of games or you are not doing something right.

A skilled GM can easily kill 2 characters/month. That's just ½ character per session if you play once a week.

That is not skill.


There are instances when they're quite useful. Staff of Fire can be effective for a priest with the Fire domain (particularly when fighting cold-vulnerable creatures).

Recharging was never much of a problem when my character had a staff. I mostly just recharged during downtime or travel time.

It is this section (in my opinion) that makes them difficult:

Quote:
Each morning, when a spellcaster prepares spells or regains spell slots,

Change it from forgoing a spell for the day to simply "imbuing" a spell slot of the appropriate level at any given point. Staves aren't getting recharged by the sun, and there's nothing different about that spell slot at the beginning of the day than at the end of the day. Allow a caster to drop an unused spell of the appropriate level whenever they want (i.e., before setting up camp for the night), and they fully justify their price for versatility.


I'd let it happen only in two cases:

1. The sorcerer was fire-themed. (Which wouldn't make sense, since she has no fire spells. So, if it were a fire-themed wizard who didn't have any fire spells prepared, perhaps.)

2. The sorcerer had another element-based spell she could use, rather than a force spell. Electricity would make sense. Cold or Acid would not make as much sense, but I'd at least allow some limited energy substitution to reward creativity. Spellcraft check to manipulate the spell.

3. Ok, maybe 3 cases. The caster aligns herself along some iron object to cause the force missile to scrape along it, producing sparks. Spellcraft check to manipulate the spell. Or, the spellcaster casts the spell in a way to deal no damage--essentially miscasting the spell to miss, and instead to spiral into a stone or iron object. Again, spellcraft, perhaps a to-hit roll, no damage or item breakage.

But that's a long shot, and perhaps provides too many options for creative use for sorcerers? After all, spell selection is supposed to be limiting.


A swarm would definitely allow you to identify what square the invisible foe is in.

As was mentioned earlier, a flying swarm wouldn't necessarily reveal the outline of the opponent.

A crawling swarm would not necessarily provide a complete blanket around the foe. In fact, the swarm might not even get higher than the enemy's knees, in which case, the 50% miss chance makes perfect sense.


DanQnA wrote:
First, what's the consensus around here on clerics trying to be a fighter? What about if the cleric's character concept was completely against buffing?

When I played a cleric, I was reasonably proficient with melee, but I found that casting a spell or channeling energy was almost always a better choice in any given round than swinging my scimitar. When not swapping spells for heals, I used things to debuff: Doom, Bestow Curse, Prayer, etc. Anything that lowered saves was great; anything that lowered attack, damage, or Strength was incredible.

DanQnA wrote:
Second, what sort of things can you do to mitigate combat casting, as her health isn't awesome and she might want to heal/cast in combat.

Combat Casting is generally all you need.

DanQnA wrote:
Third, she's trying to use damage spells as a Positive Energy cleric, I'm guessing that's kind of gimped?

Damage spells aren't "gimped" for a positive energy cleric, necessarily. It just means she can't drop spells for Cause Wounds.

Wait, wait, wait...what is she focused on, again?

It sounds like she's trying to:
a. Tank, i.e. absorb damage.
b. Heal. She's a positive energy cleric, after all. I assume the party's main healer?
c. Nuke.

...all at the same time. There's nothing keeping a cleric from doing all of these things to some degree; my cleric used Fireball and Wall of Fire quite frequently as domain spells. But he couldn't quite blast as effectively as the wizard. He never really got around to melee, there was too much to do that was more effective. Heals, of course, he was ridiculously good at, simply by being a cleric.

For a "tanking" cleric, consider:

-Shield Other: Can be used to make Channel Energy more efficient, if someone else is under attack.

-Command: Use to control the battlefield. Keep opponents away from the casters by making them "approach." Note that the target can take no other actions, so even if you command a foe to take a 5-foot step toward you, that's all he can do. (And if it's more than 5 feet, his movement provokes.)


The only specific restriction for stacking resistances is with spells. Specifically, Resist Energy/Protection from Energy do not stack with each other or with innate resistances.

1. This is a quantifiable value of benefit, and is not a bonus type. Such quantifiable benefits from multiple class/race sources usually stack, particularly abilities from multiple classes (See Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge). It's not the same as an armor bonus or enhancement bonus; such restricted bonuses always apply to a d20 roll or its target number (I'm sure there are exceptions, but nonetheless....).

2. A specific exception was made for spells. If they did not stack, the sentence would have been phrased "Energy Resistance from multiple sources, such as spells, does not stack."

3. In fact, it probably would sound something like this, substituting "Energy Resistance" for "Damage Reduction": "If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation."

It is, of course, possible that this was merely an oversight, as 3.5 did not allow nearly as many ways (that I'm aware of) to get energy resistance, so stacking never really came up.

However, I would view this like any cumulative bonus from classes and levels, such as base attack and saves.


truesight wrote:
Anyone got some advice for staying alive in PFS melee with really bad AC?

This is a topic in and of itself....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PRD wrote:


Bane: A bane weapon excels against certain foes. Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus.

Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.

No. You cannot transfer +2 enhancement bonus from the Bane ability to AC.

Just because you're standing beside a demon doesn't mean your bane weapon is "active" and has +2 to its enhancement bonus. The additional +2 only works "against" that foe, meaning attack and damage rolls against that foe.


Dennis P. wrote:
Can an undead creature be effected by a fireball?

No, an undead creature can be effected by Create Undead. An undead creature can, however, be affected by Fireball, as the previous posts clarify. :p


Profpotts wrote:
I imagine the response to these questions is 'the Feats work as written'.

So, they work poorly and in an overly complicated manner.

Profpotts wrote:
there's really nothing wrong or even particularly complicated with the text, or how the Feats are applied.

Are we reading the same feats? This is a complicated and unclear mechanic.

Profpotts wrote wrote:
The point of the Net Adept Feat is to allow the net to be used as a melee reach weapon - that's what the Feat does. That doesn't change the other functions of the net (no damage, inflicts the entangled condition, targets touch AC), just how you get to use it against your foes.

No, it doesn't change how you use it against your foes at all.

A melee reach weapon has a max range of 10ft. and a MINIMUM RANGE of 10 ft. Nowhere does it specify that the net (like the whip) is an exception.

Except now you're making a melee attack (STR modifier) against a target's AC (the Net description specifies a "ranged touch attack." I would presume this attack roll is undone by making it a melee weapon.)

The concept behind the feat is the gladiator-style fighter with a net in one hand. That's great! That would imply that the fighter is holding onto the net since it's a "melee" weapon. Except nowhere does it specify that. It just changes it to the mechanics of a melee weapon. You could already keep a hold on your net by a "trailing rope."

Consider this:
1. If your opponent is 10 ft. away, you can use a melee attack so you don't provoke. Yay! Oh wait, your opponent is 10 ft. away.
2. If your opponent is 5 ft. away, you can...wait, you have to make a ranged attack, since as a "melee reach" weapon, you can't attack adjacent squares. You still provoke. And you take a penalty for an unfolded net, because the feat specifies that you don't take penalties for an unfolded net in melee.
3. If your opponent is 10 ft. away, and another opponent is 5 ft. away, you can attack the one who is 10 ft. away without provoking. Um. Yay?

ProfPotts wrote wrote:
Net and Trident is a sideways step, if you like, as it allows you to use a net as a thrown ranged weapon (as a net is normally used) and to use a light or one-handed melee weapon at the same time as part of two-weapon fighting. Although I doubt it's a rule used much by most groups, technically , according to the two-weapon fighting text in the combat chapter of the Core book, you can TWF with melee weapons, or TWF with thrown weapons, but nowhere does it say you can mix-and-match those two options. Net and Trident allows you to do so, and also gives you a nice damage bonus against entangled opponents.

So when attacking an adjacent foe: You still provoke when you use your net. You still take a -4 penalty if your net is unfolded.

Somehow, I doubt these feats are at all working as intended.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I noticed another oddity. Because it's specified as a melee reach weapon with Net Adept, that would mean you can NOT attack adjacent foes. Note the Reach weapon quality and the Whip description. You could still presumably attack adjacent foes as a ranged attack (and still provoke).

--------------

Proposed Rewrite
I plan to bring this up as a house rule with my GM. I want to play these feats, but they're kind of obnoxious and ambiguous. I doubt the devs will notice this thread at this point, and the 3 people posting in it are probably the only three interested in using nets. :p

Net Adept (Combat)
You have trained to use the net as a melee weapon.
Prerequisites: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (net), base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can treat a net as a one-handed melee reach weapon with a 10-foot reach, though attacking with a net is still a ranged touch attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use your net against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes). Further, you take no penalty on attack rolls for using an unfolded net, and you can use one full-round action or two move actions to fold a net.
Normal: A net is a ranged weapon that imposes a –4 penalty on ranged attack rolls if it is unfolded. Folding a net takes a proficient user 2 rounds.

This means that:

  • you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking with your net.
  • you threaten all squares within 10 feet with your net. You can take attacks of opportunity to entangle with your net.
  • you can attempt to disarm with a net.
  • you can dual wield a net with another melee weapon.

Changes:

  • Specified that the attack roll (ranged touch attack) does not change. There's no reason for this to change. Dex makes more sense than Str, and it makes sense that a whip should be a touch attack. The only time Str makes more sense than Dex is under Net Maneuvering (Drag or Reposition), and that's handled with a Combat Maneuver check anyway. (It is possible that the original designer of the feat intended for the attack roll to be unchanged, but it is ambiguous.)
  • Borrowed whip text, to make explicit that you can attack adjacent foes. The reason most reach weapons can't attack adjacent foes is because they have a long haft; there is no reason you can't attack an adjacent foe.
  • Removed melee from the last sentence. You take no penalty on (any) attack rolls with an unfolded net.

Net and Trident (Combat)
Your skill with lighter weapons allows you to wield one alongside your net.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (net), Net Adept, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: When dual-wielding a net with a light or one-handed melee weapon, you gain a +2 bonus on damage rolls and on attack rolls to confirm a critical hit against an opponent entangled by your net.

This means:

  • the bonuses are self-explanatory.

Changes:[/i]
  • Removed the nonsense about wielding as a ranged weapon. It didn't actually do anything given the changes/clarification of Net Adept. While it may seem that this renders the feat underpowered, a damage bonus of +2 is fairly significant (compare Weapon Specialization).

Net Maneuvering & Net Trickery
These two received marginal clarifications, but I noticed in going over them that the trip ability seems backwards. With Net M. you can trip in place of entangling, while with Net T. you can trip someone already entangled in your net. Redistributing the benefits of these two feats might make sense. It would certainly make the phrasing simpler.

It would also make more sense because of the drag and reposition maneuvers that you gain with Net Maneuvering. These maneuvers are accomplished by manipulating someone who is entangled in your net; it makes more sense to learn how to trip someone in your net than out of your net at the same time.


Blackbloodtroll, I just noticed your comment:

"Does the net need to be folded to attack with it in melee? If not, then it may be worth it to have a returning net."

A returning net should, by all rights, fold itself on return. The rules don't specify this anywhere, but the net is such a weird exception that they wouldn't. Ask your DM, or if you're the DM, make it a house rule. :P


"Net Adept allows you to use a net as a one-handed melee reach weapon. Among other things, this lets you use a net without provoking, use certain combat maneuvers with your net, and keep a hold of your net when you use it. You can also use an unfolded net in melee without penalty and fold it quicker."

1. Where is the rule that says you can't use your net without holding on to it as a ranged weapon? Net Maneuvering implies that you can still have a hold on your net by a trailing rope.

2. If you can disarm, trip, etc. with a melee reach weapon anyway, Net Maneuvering was clearly designed with an unclear understanding of the rules.

"Net Maneuvering lets you trip and disarm with a net. You can disarm with a melee weapon anyway, but this gives you a +2. This feat was probably conceived before the change to trip. I believe weapons with the trip quality now get a +2 to trip. If this is the case, it would make sense to adjust this feat likewise."

Exactly. It doesn't "let" you disarm if you already can. Maybe it lets you disarm as a ranged attack?

"You can also drag and reposition an entangled foe. Normally, you can only drag and reposition within you natural reach, so not only can you add you bonuses with the net to your roll, you can also do it from any range."

What bonuses? (Unless you are referring to the penalties to Dex from entanglement.)

"Also, if you entangle a foe, you can make a trip attempt. With Net Maneuvering, you have to have the net in hand to trip with it (as you would with any weapon), also, if you trip with a net, you didn't attack, so you can't entangle. This lets you trip, in place of an attack, from any range after you entangle them, so it's different from Net Maneuvering."

It does not specify that the trip attempt is in place of an attack. It is a normal trip attempt. This implies that the trip attack from Net Maneuvering cannot be done to someone already entangled in the net.


The following are notes on the phrasing of the individual feat descriptions.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Net Adept
"You can treat a net as a one-handed melee reach weapon with a 10-foot reach. Further, you take no penalty on melee attack rolls for using an unfolded net, and you can use one full-round action or two move actions to fold a net."

The folding seems like a superfluous side benefit, until you realize that this feat is giving you the option of a second way to use the net that is NOT always better. I might have assumed that using a net as a melee weapon involved a melee *touch* attack, but that would make the first benefit of Net & Trident completely superfluous.

-----

Net & Trident
“You can treat a net as a one-handed ranged weapon, allowing you to wield a light or one-handed melee weapon and still make ranged attacks with your net.”

The confusing part of this feat is that you can already dual-wield a net with a melee weapon. Using the melee attack rather than the ranged attack will not provoke. Using the ranged attack will still provoke, but will bypass AC from armor (as it is a touch attack).

“When you use your light or one-handed melee weapon to attack an entangled opponent, you gain a +2 bonus on damage rolls and on attack rolls to confirm a critical hit.”

As stated, this feat grants these bonuses against any entangled foe, not just those entangled by the wielder's net.

-----

Net Maneuvering
“In melee, you can use a net to trip or disarm opponents instead of entangling them. You gain a +2 bonus on disarm checks made to use a net in this way.”

The feat description superfluously specifies “in melee.” This implies (incorrectly) that the trip and disarm attempts can only be made within 5 ft., which can be done without this feat. OR, it implies that the attempts can only be made when using the net as a melee weapon rather than a ranged weapon.

The feat description sounds like Trip attempts were meant to have the +2 bonus, but did not due to a typo.

“Further, if you have an opponent entangled in your net, you can attempt to drag or reposition that opponent as long as he is within your net's reach or you control the trailing rope on your net.”

This implies use of a “trailing rope.” Can this rope be longer than 10 ft.? There are no rules (that I'm aware of) that involve using a trailing rope attached to a net.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of issues:

1. The feats are phrased poorly.

Even if the rules are all functioning as intended with these feats, I should not have had to spend an hour sorting them out across three books and two forum threads.

2. The mechanics are complicated.

Flip-flopping between ranged touch and melee reach attacks is unnecessarily convoluted. The maximum range (10 ft.) doesn't change, and the effect doesn't fundamentally change.

3. Some of the feats' effects should be unnecessary.

Generally, feats should not say, "You can..." but rather, "You get a bonus to...." If someone is entangled in my net and I'm still holding onto my net, I should not need a series of multiple feats to perform a drag maneuver, even if they're 10 feet away. Reposition, sure, that takes manipulation, but not drag. Nets should provide a bonus to trip attempts within 5 feet even without a feat. I can understand limiting trips and disarms 10 feet away to a feat. As stated, nets offer no bonus to any trip attempts (apart from the Dex penalty for entanglement).

4. Some of the effects are ambiguous.

E.g. Can I trip or disarm an opponent who is already entangled, or does my net need to be free for those attempts?


What else is still confusing? Everything. This entire line of feats is poorly written and poorly executed. The actual bonus/advantage that one receives is obfuscated under technical jargon, and desperately needs a rewrite. The bonuses/advantages themselves are unnecessarily complicated with obscure rules.

Ok, so. This is a summary of what I have managed to untangle:

--------------------------------------------------------------

Net (Proficiency; no feats):
Ranged touch attack to entangle. -4 penalty for unfolded net. Provokes.
2-handed ranged weapon, or can be wielded 1-handed with another thrown weapon.

Net (with Net Adept):
Ranged touch attack to entangle. -4 penalty for unfolded net. Provokes.
Melee attack to entangle (not a touch attack). No penalty for unfolded net.
2-handed ranged weapon, or can be wielded 1-handed with another thrown weapon.
1-handed melee weapon, can be dual-wielded.

Net (with Net Adept & Net & Trident):
Ranged touch attack to entangle. -4 penalty for unfolded net. Provokes.
Melee attack to entangle (not a touch attack). No penalty for unfolded net.
1-handed ranged weapon, can be dual-wielded with a thrown or melee weapon.
1-handed melee weapon.
+2 damage & critical confirmation with melee weapon when dual-wielded, used as a ranged weapon, and target is entangled.

Net (with Net Adept & Net Maneuvering):
Ranged touch attack to entangle. -4 penalty for unfolded net. Provokes.
Melee attack to entangle (not a touch attack). No penalty for unfolded net.
CMB to trip within 10 ft.
CMB to disarm at +2 within 10 ft.
CMB to drag or reposition an entangled foe within 10 ft.
2-handed ranged weapon, or can be wielded 1-handed with another thrown weapon.
1-handed melee weapon.