Elf Archer

Benjamin Trefz's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 98 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 9 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Message sent and looking forward to another great PFS at GenCon!

The Sleeping Dragon wrote:

Let me begin by saying that we came across this very same problem, the rules on this can be a bit hazy, but this is how we finally ruled it at my table.

A player, specifically a paladin, was holding a dispel evil charge, which was to be used must be a touch attack. Now the paladin wanted to specifically use this charge on 1 of the enemies on the field and hadn't initially anticipated there to be several. Now here's where we get to the meat and potatoes.


I might be wrong, but I think Dispel Evil might be a bad example here. If I recall correctly, the spell is a bit abnormal from a normal touch spell. It has a specific duration and the caster can choose to discharge the spell for an additional effect that ends the spell. If that isn't the case, the spell seems a bit more strange than I originally thought (seeing as how it has that additional effect on the caster...)

Another wrench in that plan is that Summoners can't add the flight evolution to their eidolon until 5th level. A one level dip wouldn't get you a flying mount.

GeneticDrift wrote:

Can some one explain how the feat works? Does it work against ranged attacks, do I have to be adjacent to both target and attacker?

The feat only mentions being next to the target, but aid another needs you to be by the enemy... I'm very confused and would love to "parry" arrows.

Thanks for all the advice. if it matters I am asking for my new PFS Lvl1 fighter.

Based on the reading of the feat and action, I would say that the feat would allow you to add +2 to your ally's AC by spending one of your Attacks of Opportunity.

There is a possibility a GM might rule that you need to be adjacent to the enemy as well, but I think this is a case where the specific overrides the general:

The Aid Another action, says (in addition to the normal +2 to attack or AC vs specific opponent) that it can be used in other ways.
Bodyguard says that you must be next to the ally, not the opponent (like general Aid Another says). This adds a requirement you wouldn't normally have.
So this is one of those extra "Aid Anothers" that you get the ability to do with taking this feat. +2 to Ally's AC for one specific Attack, so long as you are adjacent to the Ally and have a remaining AoO. Oh, but you do still need to hit that AC 10, it does say "attempt", it isn't automatic (just nearly that way at higher attack bonuses).

I originally posted this in the product discussion, but I thought it might be found faster here. This is the link to the Original Post, although I have copied it below.

Zaister wrote:

I have a question regarding the imp companion. The book states the following:

Princes of Darkness, p.45 wrote:
Class Level: This is the diabolist’s class level plus her highest caster level. This does not stack with class levels that grant an animal companion.

This reads like the class level is actually figured into the level for the companion twice, as it is included in the "highest caster level". For example, say a character is wizard 5/diabolist 5. That means that his caster level for wizard spells is 10 due to the fact that it is increased with each diabolist level. So, taking the book literally would mean, that the imp was calculated as if his class level was 15. This gets problematic once the total passes 20, as the table does not go that high. A wizard 10/diabolist 10 would have an imp at class level 30 in theory.

I am assuming that by "highest caster level" the book actually means "highest caster level in other classes than diabolist". Then it would make sense.

Am I correct or have I overlooked something here?

My friend and I were discussing this same ability with the same sort of confusion. My friend took a look and noticed a different wording in the "Spells per day" class ability of the Diabolist as opposed to other Prestige Classes. It seems that the ability doesn't mention an increase in caster level along with the spells per day.

This seems to imply that while the Diabolist gets increased spells per day as if they had leveled up, their spells don't benefit from a higher caster level (and thus are less powerful). This would make it so the Imp's "Class Level" being Diabolist + highest caster level would actually be just right...

But that seems like a strange thing to do for an otherwise Caster PrC.

So I guess the question is, was the different wording in the "Spells per day" entry on purpose? or was it an accident?

Zaister wrote:

I have a question regarding the imp companion. The book states the following:

Princes of Darkness, p.45 wrote:
Class Level: This is the diabolist’s class level plus her highest caster level. This does not stack with class levels that grant an animal companion.

This reads like the class level is actually figured into the level for the companion twice, as it is included in the "highest caster level". For example, say a character is wizard 5/diabolist 5. That means that his caster level for wizard spells is 10 due to the fact that it is increased with each diabolist level. So, taking the book literally would mean, that the imp was calculated as if his class level was 15. This gets problematic once the total passes 20, as the table does not go that high. A wizard 10/diabolist 10 would have an imp at class level 30 in theory.

I am assuming that by "highest caster level" the book actually means "highest caster level in other classes than diabolist". Then it would make sense.

Am I correct or have I overlooked something here?

My friend and I were discussing this same ability with the same sort of confusion. My friend took a look and noticed a different wording in the "Spells per day" class ability of the Diabolist as opposed to other Prestige Classes. It seems that the ability doesn't mention an increase in caster level along with the spells per day.

This seems to imply that while the Diabolist gets increased spells per day as if they had leveled up, their spells don't benefit from a higher caster level (and thus are less powerful). This would make it so the Imp's "Class Level" being Diabolist + highest caster level would actually be just right...

But that seems like a strange thing to do for an otherwise Caster PrC.

PRD wrote:

Throw Splash Weapon

...To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target ... A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target.

You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. However, if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. You can't target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you're aiming at the creature.

This is directly quoted, but I edited out parts and made things bold to make it a bit easier to see the important points.

Its important to note that it says that it deals damage to all creatures within 5 ft. or adjacent to the target. It doesn't deal damage to each square, so creatures that occupy multiple squares do not take damage multiple times.

So in this fashion, YES, it does function similar to area effects. It is different, however, like you said, and this is why swarms mention both by name when they are taking extra damage from them...

You also can't target an intersection inside of a creature's space (such as a huge or even large creature) in this case you target the creature. The advantage IS that the splash damage does hit more creatures, as it hits all creatures within 5 ft. of the creature (larger creature, more adjacent squares). This can be equally disadvantageous however, happy bombing!

Abraham spalding wrote:

No... casting Regen on someone that is bleeding is like almost instantly growing them a new arm where their last one was cut off -- because that's what the spell does. Also remember that Regenerate the spell is magical healing meaning it ends bleed immediately. In fact so does Blessing of the Salamander.

Honestly remember that it's a heal check or magical healing -- supernatural is magical (meaning channel energy). Fast Healing and Regeneration are both extraordinary.

Actually, by the RAW,
PFSRD, Condition:Bleed wrote:
through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage (even if the bleed is ability damage)

So, it isn't all magical healing. Granted, I agree that it would make sense for magical/supernatural abilities that heal (such as channel energy) to give the same ability. The spell regenerate does cure hit points so it would in fact remove the bleed condition.

As I said earlier, the ability for fast healing or natural regeneration to stop a bleed is purely a house rule. I just think it makes sense for a creature that naturally heals its own wounds over a matter of seconds or minutes to be able to stop a bleeding wound (to a certain degree).

Jon Shelky wrote:
Under the RAW none of the above effects stop bleeding as they aren't spells or a heal check.

I believe you are correct here. Under the RAW, bleed damage can only be stopped through the Heal skill or by spells that heal hit points.

On the other hand, it would also be reasonable for a cleric's channel energy to stop bleed as it is a similar effect as (and in fact directly tied to) healing spells.

The way I have personally run creatures with regeneration/fast healing under the effect of Bleed is that if the regen/fast heal exceeds the amount of bleed then it "heals the wound" and the creature stops bleeding. Do note, however, that the creature still bleeds that round (effectively reducing how much their fast healing applies during that round).

Example: A Quasit (Fast Healing 2) is hit with an ability that causes 1d6 Bleed each round. In the first round, a 4 is rolled, dealing the Quasit four damage, two of which is healed by its fast healing. In the following round, the Quasit continues to bleed (1d6), this time rolling a 2. The Quasit takes the two damage which is immediately healed up by the fast healing.

By the RAW, the Quasit would continue to take 1d6 damage each round (healing 2 back of course) until dead or it manages to find a healing spell or use the Heal skill.
The way I run, however, the Quasit's Fast Healing manages to "close" the wound in the second round because it heals all of the damage done that round from Bleed. This is of course a house rule, one that came about out of necessity when my creatures would continually die fast deaths when the Rogue would Sneak Attack with Bleeding Wound...

James Risner wrote:
Let's meet at the area where hero lab had pc construction computers set up at 2 pm.

I'll be there. We'll figure out stuff from there I guess.

James Risner wrote:

To be clear, this isn't a society module?

Chad Patterson and I are looking for a post con PFS module.

I would be up for a post-con PFS module as well. I was too interested in all of the panels and seminars to get one in during the main portion of the con.

joshua gaines wrote:

Tomorrow @ 6 is when the Meet and Eat starts and I plan on attending that I'm afraid (especially as I have to pick up my GF from work @ 9pm tomorrow). Hope you get a game together though!

I'm also looking at going to the meet and eat. I could play tonight, but it might be too short notice to get something together so quickly.

If people want to meet and grab food, that might be fun, but games are sometimes harder to organize.

I just noticed this wasn't the same thing as the banquet (don't know why I thought that it was). If there's still room, I'll see everyone at the Crab Pot tomorrow.

bugleyman wrote:
Benjamin Trefz wrote:
I'm also here early, arrived yesterday afternoon.

Do you play Society? Maybe we could get some early games in...

Its been a while since I've played, mostly been running PFS games recently.

If I remember correctly I have a level 9 wizard/monk and level 4 cleric (of asmodeus)

I'm attempting (mostly failing) at trying to get some work done while I'm waiting for the con, but if we arrange a game I might be interested.

I'm also here early, arrived yesterday afternoon.

darth_borehd wrote:

OK, but what about changing archetypes as you advance in levels?

...[Examples removed for brevity]...

Is that legal?

What you are suggesting is most similar to the idea of retraining a character's class levels. An option like that isn't within the rules, but you could ask your GM for the option.

Bear in mind that asking to change as often as you suggest would be pushing things. I suggest that you find an archetype that you like before you start playing...

Pendant of the Stalwart Warrior
Aura strong abjuration and conjuration; CL 15th
Slot neck; Price 50,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
This plain steel pendant hangs on a sturdy chain. While worn, it fills the wearer with confidence in battle, granting a +2 morale bonus on CMD. Once per day, the pendant can be activated as a swift action to grant a greater boon for one hour, or until expend, see below. While the greater boon is active, the CMD bonus granted by the pendant increases to +4. However, the true benefit is a defense against succumbing to damage in battle. While the greater boon is in effect, if the bearer of the pendant falls below 15 hit points, the pendant expends its energy to heal the wearer. This energy heals the wearer as per the heal spell. The pendant also expends this power if the wearer’s hit points fall below 150 points less than what they had when the greater boon was activated. This healing is instantaneous; however, it cannot prevent death from hit point loss or otherwise. Should the wearer’s hit points fall below their Constitution score in a single blow, they still die. After the pendant uses its power to heal the wearer, the greater boon ceases to function no matter the duration otherwise remaining. The pendant must be worn for 24 hours before the greater boon can be used. If it is removed, the owner must wear the pendant for another 24 hours to reattune it to himself.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, bull’s strength, status, heal; Cost 25,000 gp

I understand my item isn't the most interesting thing ever, but I wanted to be sure that I didn't make any glaring mechanical errors. Hoping for some input to improve my chances in the future.

Tiffany as the Harrower

Hi there, I recently got another round of the booster packs to try and see if I could get the last few cards that I don't have. I sorted through everything, and I'm missing two cards in all. I probably have duplicates of all the others but for some reason I still managed to miss Relics of War numbers 13 and 18.

I don't really care about getting all the Foil cards, but I sort of want a whole set of the normal cards, and I'm so close it's scary.

If you have any extras of RoW 13 or 18, let me know what you want and we can arrange a trade.
Email me at StarzMaster (at] aol [dot) com

Bonus points if you're going to GenCon, then we can just trade at the convention and not have to worry about shipping.

I agree, Potions need to be predetermined but scrolls and wands do not. I viewed this as due to the fact that a potion does not require any casting ability. scrolls, wands and other spell-trigger and spell-completion items still require the ability to cast the spells and go through some sort of activity to trigger or complete the spell. This action allows you to choose the specifics.

The caster of a touch spell is allowed to make a single touch attack as a free action during the same round as the spell is cast. This allows a caster to cast a spell, move up to their target, and touch (or attempt to touch) them. However, if you have held the spell into later rounds, you lose that free attempt.

Quatar wrote:
You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action.

This, I believe, was quoted from the book.

The ability to make the one free touch during the same round of casting was added in officially in Pathfinder. Originally in 3.5 you got a free touch as part of the casting. The difference being that you couldn't move between casting and touching before. This has made healing allies a lot safer in the new rules :D

Karui Kage wrote:
Dorkis wrote:

You have a strength of 9 and you hit an enemy with a longsword.

Is the damage 1d8 or 1d8-1?

The description of damage under the strength category (pg. 16) is a little confusing.

1d8-1, with a minimum of 1 damage.

Actually, in Pathfinder it is a minimum of 1 nonlethal damage. If you were to roll a 1 on 1d8-1 which would normally come out to 0 damage, you deal 1 nonlethal damage.

I think it makes sense, you hit, but not with enough force to deal deadly damage. Longsword for instance might only bruise rather than actually slice skin...

I'm not so sure. The universal "school" is very limited, it only has 5 spells total, Arcane Mark, Limited Wish, Permanency, Prestidigitation, and Wish. I think Arcane Mark would work just as well in Transmutation, but the other 4 are spells that aren't limited to just one kind of magic. Permanency can affect a lot of spells and really only extends the duration. Prestidigitation and the Wishes aren't limited to just one kind of ability, Prestidigitation has a multitude of uses and Wish is the ultimate catch-all.

Read Magic, however, has only one use, divining the spell scribed on a scroll. The Divination school is for magically revealing information, which is exactly what the spell does. If you choose to prohibit Divination, then you are effectively saying you don't want magical help revealing information, and don't forget it is always possible to determine a spell simply through Spellcraft, no spell needed. Plus even if you prohibit divination, you can always prepare read magic anyway by using up two slots for the day, since most people only prepare read magic specifically for deciphering scrolls, it isn't that bad...

sempai33 wrote:
Thanks a lot ! I'm surprise to read so few update. So "read magic" is really a "divine" spell and not an universal spell? Strange thing.

You're reading that a bit wrong. Read Magic is a Divination spell, it reveals information. Divine vs. Arcane is based on the caster.

And to add, they haven't updated the errata for quite a while.

Jason Wedel wrote:

My experience is primarily with the Hero System. I have a good amount of experience with 2nd edition AD&D, some with 3.0 D&D, and very little with pathfinder.

I am now part of a campeign where everyone is level 10, and I have beenasked to make a character of that level. I worked up the stats on an Arcane Archer (Fighter 6, Wizard 1, Arcane Archer 3). Now I have yet to play him, and we have a "Not played not official" rule meaning I can make changes to him until I play him (Sunday).

What I am trying to figure out is if there are any rules conflicts with what I have chosen for feats and if they work well together or if I am wasting any (The players all like to make efficient characters). The following is from memory so if a name is wrong I appoligise

Improved Initiative
Point Blank Shot
Rapid Shot
Many Shot
Precise Shot
Weapon FInesse
Weapon Focus (Longbow)
Weapon Specilization (Longbow)
Vital Shot

I also have a Longbow +1 Speed

One question I have is how many arrows can I loosen in a round with this build, and what would the damage be on them. Assuming I am using the Arcane Archer ability to grant the arrow the flaming ability

Unless you plan to fight in melee, you could probably exchange the Weapon Finesse feat for the Deadly Aim. By doing this, you could add some significant damage.

With this build, using a full attack action you would end up with 3* shots that fire at full attack bonus -5 (-2 from Rapid Shot, -3 from Deadly Aim) *The first shot is two arrows because of Many Shot, as well as a 4th attack at -10. Every Arrow* (*5 taking into account Many Shot) would deal 1d8+9 + 1d6 fire plus Point Blank if it applies. The Speed on the bow does give you that third attack at the full BAB.
On a single attack action, with Vital Strike (Shot as you wrote, but the feat still works for ranged attacks) you would make a single attack at -3 (from Deadly Aim) and it would deal 2d8+18 + 1d6 fire.

FULL: +10/+10/+10/+5

I'm pretty sure this is right, but I could be wrong on a few details.
I would say if you can, make the bow a Composite Bow that allows for Strength (assuming you have it). I think the Vital Strike is a good choice for backup when you you don't have the option to full attack. Improved Init is a good standby, but not really necessary in my opinion.

A friend of mine has tried a few times to make an account here on the Paizo website, but hasn't been able to finalize the process. He says he has tried a few different e-mail addresses and when he tries to use the same one again it says that it is already used. But he never received a message to confirm the account. It has been, well, YEARS since I made my account here so I don't remember at all what the process is so I can really only help him out by trying to get a hold of people here.

Has anyone else had any experience with something like this?

At this point both my friend and I have emailed customer service and haven't gotten a response. I thought I might get a reply if I posted here, its possible my email got blocked or lost or some such...

Personally, I view this requirement less as an obstacle that needs to be overcome by rules and rolls and more one that requires character roleplaying and DM interaction. When I played a character that was interested in being a chronicler, my DM asked me what I was trying to write about, then had me roll a series of checks. Knowledge- to make sure I knew enough about the topic I was writing, Profession Scribe- to do a good job of writing it down and making a good manuscript in general, Diplomacy- to actually sell the writing.

The biggest part here is that the person needs to pay at least 50 gp. It doesn't say that it has to be worth that much... Technically, if your Bluff and Linguistics is high enough, you could forge an expensive document and then sell it to someone for a high price, this would meet the requirements. So would arranging with someone to be the scribe for an expensive document (or the author) which is later sold for the requisite price. Remember, the requirement for the class does not say that you need to work alone, simply that you author or scribe the document.

I would personally also say that you could quite easily accomplish the task over several weeks, and if you feel you need to oblige by rolls and numbers, then this is a perfectly good way to do so.

This requirement, like many of the other special requirements of prestige classes are less statistical in nature and more for roleplaying and to make sure your character fits the role of the class.

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

Well, speaking as the person who came up with it (and who does write game mechanics), the "nine lives" mechanic is less complicated than the current scenario you portray as "nothing too complicated."

The current situation requires:

1. Time to do a ritual

2. A charcoal brazier or similar fire source.

3. Hundreds of GP of highly specialized incense which requires a trip to MageMart unless the witch pre-invested in specialized "Summon Your Familiar!" incense gift packs just in case Fluffy got gacked while out in the field.

Shoot Fluffy and toss the witch naked in a jail or on the shore of a desert island (where there is no handy MageMart) and she's going to be a lot more grateful for a familiar who just comes back if it's killed without complicated financial outlay.

Limiting it to 9 times is not just flavor but something to keep the witch from depending on it too much.

The boards ate my post earlier, so I apologize if I'm not quite as eloquent as I would have been :/

The first thing that comes to mind is that if you have a witch and a wizard that are each thrown in jail after having their familiar killed and all their gear taken away, then both of them are equally in the hole in terms of getting their spells back. Except when the witch gets out of jail and manages to scrounge the cash for her familiar, then she has spells. While the Wizard has to start from scratch and rescribe all new spells into a new spellbook.

If you compare the two familiars between the two classes, I think it makes sense the way the did it.
Wait Time before Ritual: Wizard - 1 week, Witch - 1 day; The Witch needs her familiar back sooner, it's how she prepares spells.
Ritual Cost: Wizard - 200 gp/level, Witch - 500 gp/level; The Witch's familiar is more important and therefore costs more.
Ritual Time: Both - 8 hours; That seems like a fairly standard time, you spend 8 hours a day making items, or other daily activities, its basically just saying you devote your day to getting your familiar back...

I thought up an interesting way for the Witch to retain her spells while still including possible loss of spells. I understand their interest in removing some spells, it needs to be comparable to the other prepared arcane caster. If a wizard loses their spellbook they start over, but a Witch has a step up there...

The idea I had is as follows:
When a familiar comes back after the ritual, the Witch makes a Spellcraft check for each spell level they are able to cast, DC 10 (or 15?) + double spell level. With failure, the familiar loses one spell known from that level. If the Witch fails by 5 or more, the familiar forgets an additional spell for each 5 by which the check fails (minimum 1 [or 2?] spells remaining for each spell level).

This would result in possible loss of spells, but not an automatic one, the lower spell levels are more likely to retain spells as they have been known longer and are simpler. I think this would basically represent the Witch's ability to ease the familiar back to life during the ritual.

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Benjamin Trefz wrote:
If I remember, however, spider swarms (which use diminutive creatures) are immune to weapon damage...

Yes, but note that a spider swarm is not immune to the flaming part of a flaming arrow's damage, for instance.

OH WAIT -- it looks like they deleted that bit of the swarm description in the translation from 3.5 to PFRPG, along with the ability to attack using a swarm or a lantern. Double ugh. :-(

IIRC, that "Vulnerabilities of Swarms" section was left out by mistake, and should still apply.

Since swarms take full energy damage according to that section, I'd allow acid splash to affect a swarm.

EDIT: Off-topic, but I just had a great idea. What about an area of wild/super-powered magic where, instead of affecting a swarm, acid splash effected a swarm?

Except that it still lists swarms as taking extra damage from area effects, which would be considered a vulnerability. I'm not sure why they took out the section about elemental damage still affecting them, unless they really didn't want to include it...

nighttree wrote:

I had posted this idea in another thread, but this seems like as good a place to repeat it as any.

I had hoped that the familiar would be a little more in keeping with folklore.

In other words, something more along the line of an outsider, that took the form of an animal while on this plane instructing the Witch.

That way, if the familiar was "killed" it would actually just be banished back to it's own realm until a pre-set amount of time had elapsed, and could then re-manifest to further assist the witch.

In addition, it could a limited number of times appear in its true form, be it a small demon, or a hunky seventeen year old, or maybe something so horrid it was beyond description....depending on just what kind of entity you wanted teaching your witch.

That kind of goes with the idea I mentioned earlier, I like it. But the only problem is that it would require a slight revamping of the way the familiar provides the bonus spells. If it were an other-worldly creature the way you suggest, bonus spells known would more than likely be based on that aspect of the familiar, rather than the animal form that it took.

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

Having the body being a manifestation of the spirit is fine and perfectly good metaphysics for certain cosmologies. But I don't think it should be hard-and-fast if that's not the way someone conceives of things.

An imp possessing an ordinary toad, a magically intelligent toad, and a spirit who has made its ectoplasmic body physically manifest in the form of a toad are all perfectly legitimate familiars, but I think it should be up to the GM and the player which variant they personally want for their character and their game.

I would agree, I don't think it should necessarily be something that is set in stone. But then again, I also think that Wizard Familiars should be the same way. There are multiple "theories" as to where familiars come from, are they summoned, created, or simply house pets that the wizard "bonds" with, all viable options.

I'm a bit leery of the "nine lives" idea; it just strikes me as something that was thought up quickly and without much thought. No offense to whomever originally suggested it, but it’s basically just running with the "cats have nine lives" trope to an extended degree. Using it would also introduce a completely new and unfounded mechanic, and one that seems wholly unnecessary. The Witch performs a small ritual, burning some incense and other materials and *poof* the familiar is back, same as the wizard, nothing too complicated.

Along a similar line as the other worldly spirit possessing an animal thing, someone mentioned earlier about the animal simply being a spirit's manifestation on the material plane. I like that idea, it removes the "evil" connotation of a creature forcefully controlling an innocent animal while still giving the familiar the otherworldly feeling and explanation as to why they dissapear and come back.
I think that the cost of re-summoning the familiar is harsh enough. Making them come back with less spells is nearly a slap in the face. Other than losing the spells when the familiar dies and comes back, I rather like the mechanic.

And I don't think it can be stressed enough, losing the familiar in a combat doesn't instantly make the witch horribly weakened. The spells are still prepared, they don't lose them, it just makes it take slightly longer to prepare them the next time. Which is a perfectly reasonable consequence of letting your beloved magical companion come to harm.

Thinking about it, I think the reason they included the spell loss for familiar death is because technically it is possible for a wizard to basically need to restart their spellbook as well. For wizards it is even harder, if they lose their spellbook the only thing they can possible do is quickly scribe the spells that they still have prepared and then start from scratch. In that respect, Witches are getting off easy. But as has already been discussed, Wizards losing their spellbooks is not something that comes up hardly ever, and it still isn't a living breathing target.

I read it the same way you do. The arrow has to be non-magical to begin with. The Arcane Archer nocks the arrow which enhances the arrow normally by the class ability. Then firing the arrow from a magical bow will further enhance it where applicable.

This means that an Arcane Archer who normally enhances an arrow as +1 Shocking, using a +3 Flaming Bow, would fire +3 Flaming Shocking Arrows. Shocking from the class, +3 and Flaming from the bow. The magical enhancement that the Arcane Archer gets doesn't stack with the bow.

Seems fairly straightforward to me.

aptinuviel wrote:
I just finished a playtest session with a level 5 Witch and their familiar nearly died. A single fireball from an equal level caster dropped it right to the ground. The witch had a decent amount of hitpoints (32, with a 14 Con), so it's not like the familiar's hitpoints were exceptionally low compared to the average expected witch's familiar. The caster rolled an almost exactly average fireball (19 damage, whereas 17.5 would have been average). The familiar rolled a 9 for their save, so not *exceptionally* low, but still missed the DC of 17 by a wide margin.

I'm not seeing why the familiar went down. The witch had 32 hit points, this means the familiar had 16. The fireball dealt 19 damage, which means the familiar took 9 damage, even with failing the save because of Improved Evasion. 16 - 9 = 7hp means the familiar is still conscious. The master had 32 hit points and assuming they also rolled average for their save (getting maybe a 15?), took 19 damage, leaving them at 13 hit points.

Except for when rounding ends up making things go wrong in the player's direction, assuming that the familiar and the master make the same number of saves, they should fall unconscious at the same time from area affects. The only other exception was mentioned more recently, and that is area effects that don't allow for Reflex saves, which I will admit are bad, but also much more rare.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From what I can tell, it must be two separate statements. Spells that have a target of "You" don't have a limitation of creature type. In the listing of spells, the place where it determines what sort of creature can be effected is the target line. For example, Charm Person (Target: one humanoid creature) vs. Alter Self (Target: You).

This is a bad example of what you may want to cast on your companion, but it shows how the first sentence and the second sentence cannot be talking about the same thing. A spell with the Target of "You" does not also have a target of "humanoid creature".

I would go with hogarth on the interpretation of the "swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures". Thinking about it, I believe that is for the effects of a hold monster spell or similar effect, while it specifically mentions mind-affecting spells in the same statement if I remember correctly. Any spell that requires an attack roll could simply be treated as a weapon for the purposes of determining its effects. If I remember, however, spider swarms (which use diminutive creatures) are immune to weapon damage...

EDIT: the line about a specific number of targets mentions by name the disintegrate spell. Therefore, it seems for the purposes of swarms, any spell which requires you to pick a single creature to target (either for an attack or for an immediate effect) would be ineffective against a swarm.

I still stand by my previous statement though, if it would prevent the party from being wiped out, I would allow something to deal damage rather than let them simply be wiped out...

That looks like it is probably a typo. You are right, an invisible creature should not take get a -40 to the DC to Perceive it. In the spell Invisibility, it explicitly gives the creature a +40 to its Stealth check if it doesn't move...

It seems like you pretty much answered your own question. The trick is to ignore the name of a spell and simply look at the effects. Swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures and take extra damage from effects that affect an area. Acid splash is a single target spell, no area of effect. Ergo, Acid Splash has no effect on the swarm.

Now, if the group is having a particularly hard time (as I imagine a 2nd level group would against a swarm of Diminutive creatures), you could give them a little help by allowing the cantrip to affect the swarm. At most, I would allow it to do normal damage. The spell isn't designed to be able to affect more than one creature, but as a splash of acid it might catch a number of spiders when it hits.

There are 3.5 stats for a Giant Gecko in the very first issue of the Pathfinder Adventure Paths (AP #1 Burnt Offerings). Its stats are closer to that of a Leopard, and I wouldn't recommend using horse stats as they are not the most dexterous of creatures.

But even so, there are not many creatures that could serve as a mount that qualify as animal companions. The thing I would be asking as a DM is, why does your cavalier have a lizard mount? If the answer is anything close to "because it would be better in a dungeon we're going to go into" I wouldn't give the player the leeway.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

That was in another FAQ, or maybe it's own thread. Anyhow being a D8 it gains 4 per level/HD so 8+con mod at level 1 and 4+con mod there after(

Edit: Yep he says so here, 4.5 rounded down

The 4.5 x HD Rounded down would mean that every even HD gained would give an extra hit point effectively, as you do not round each hit die first before adding it to the total. This is the standard format for NPC hit points in the PRPG, so it makes sense to use the same system for the Animal Companions.

DCironlich wrote:

In my 20+ years of playing, I've only seen one Wizard familiar die in a game...and that was a Quasit who decided to scout out in front of the party.

Frankly, I don't see why the Witch's familiar will be any different. Do what every other spellcaster with a familiar does: stick it in the bag of holding or in a familiar pocket.

This "problem" is being overstated, and seems to be driven by "thought exercises" not play-testing.

I don't have quite the history of playing, but I have to agree, familiars are pretty good at surviving. With Improved Evasion and decent saves, they generally survive the area of effect saves without taking a scratch and at most they take half damage (which if the master fails the save they effectively take the same amount of damage proportionally). More often, I have seen the master die from an explosion or whatnot, and the familiar is sitting there undamaged.

Nowhere in manacles does it say that it causes a person to be helpless. It says that they "can bind a Medium creature" (or other size if you get the right manacles) which refers to the same sort of action as binding a creature with rope.

In my opinion, any time a creature has the ability to move at all they cannot be considered helpless. As an example of what helpless means, specifically the ability to perform a coup de grace, if a person can move at all it throws off the ability to perform the action against them. For example, if you are trying to kill a creature by crushing its head with a warhammer (a la hammer/bell ring at a carnival) but they can shift their weight slightly at the last minute and move even a little bit... well, that throws off the kill attempt.

Even a person fully bound could still move slightly as long as they aren't tied to something (think a person wrapped up in something hopping around...). Yes, they should be seriously hindered, but that's what the grappled and pinned conditions do, and yes, tying up someone with rope works like the pinned condition, flat-footed but not helpless.

Now, someone tied to a chair, chained to a wall, etc. I would be completely comfortable saying they are bound and helpless, it's all about circumstances. But basic manacles, which only bind your hands, do not prevent a person from defending themselves or simply running away...

Ryumaru Mori wrote:

So, I was reading through some of the books today, and I noticed something; one being in Rise of the Runelords where it mentioned the Dominant (MM66, Plot & Poison xx). I have the Beastiary, and didn't see it in there, and I'm not finding Plot & Poison on the Pathfinder section of the site.

Also, are there any more statted up races I'm missing? I noticed Orc, Aasimar and Tiefling in the Beastiary, but was wondering if there's a book I'm missing which might detail some stuff like Drow, etc.

You aren't missing a Pathfinder Book, but sometimes Paizo references books printed by other companies, they are quite fond of some of the Green Ronin books. Plot & Poison is a book published by Green Ronin in 2002. In the first two RotR adventures they used a few things from the Book of Fiends and the Tome of Horrors and cited so on the Credits page at the beginning of the book. It took me a bit, but I found the citation in the book you are referring to as well. It is at the end in the OGL text.

While they use information from these books, for the most part they don't require you to have those books. From what I've seen they do a good job of reprinting the rules they are referencing so that you shouldn't need the book.

Hope this explains everything you needed.

When in doubt, you could always give the target partial cover (+2 AC) instead of normal cover. This could represent the possible difficulty of firing from around the corner while still benefiting from its cover. I found it rather nice that Pathfinder has an explicit rule for the partial cover, this would be a great place to use it.

On the note of the "border" text, they may be meaning that since the line drawn from corner to corner coincides with the border of the wall, it would provide cover. They could also be referring to possible lines of effect that don't occur in a square (like a wall of force which only has a "border").

This is where the partial cover would come in. According to the rules, the creature has cover, the line is on the border (This is all hypothetical I'm not saying definitely one way or another). However, more than half the creature is not behind the cover (In this case all but a tiny portion of the creature is out in the open), therefore only partial cover is given.

I'm running a game where the party fighter took quick draw at level 1, he uses spears mostly and has been using the feat to be able to quickly alternate between a normal spear, and a longspear (so he can easily move between reach and no reach).

What most people are overlooking, is that this allows the character to put away the weapon rather than dropping it. At level 1 when you can't afford too many weapons, it is a lot easier to hold onto your weapons rather than dropping them, especially when you are standing in melee the whole time and needing to pick up a weapon from the ground would be dangerous and not worthwhile.

frequently the battle consists of the fighter starting out with his longspear out and setting it to the charge, then once the enemy closes the distance he can hold the line, and not move back. Move action to put the longspear away, free action to draw the spear, and standard action to attack. At higher level, once he has more than one attack, he will be able to take advantage of drawing the weapon and full attacking in the same round, but for now he is taking full advantage of the feat he chose.

James Risner wrote:
Benjamin Trefz wrote:
As a DM I would allow a person to "upgrade" Flaming to Flaming Burst.
I probably would too, but it doesn't make it by the rules. RAW you can't change anything, only add.

By the RAW, Flaming Burst is defined as: "A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also..."

and it goes on to talk about what it does, all the while referencing and using the base flaming to describe the added effects of the burst part.

It isn't explicitly stated, but it definitely seems like the RAI... and if not, it definitely falls under the DM's discretion to say yes. I don't know of anyone that would claim that Flaming and Flaming Burst aren't related. Under the Item Creation rules, the only change for creating one over the other is +2 CL and the extra +1 enhancement which relates to costs.

Jam412 wrote:
If this book happens, please put a smaller map in the book. I really felt disconnected from the world, not having one. Also, I would much rather have a bigger updated version than just a reprint with the new rules.

+1, While the Poster map is nice, it isn't practical to use for quick reference. There isn't a smaller version of that map anywhere in the book, which makes it hard to determine things like country locations in relation to each other.

This would also give a good chance to update the map with the locations for the adventures, I'm curious to see where all of the printed modules and AP's are located.

In the game I'm running, I've allowed Wondrous Items to resize. Granted, so far the most things have changed is from Small to Medium so it isn't much of a stretch. They were also fighting mostly goblins so I thought it would make just as much sense for the items to have been sized for Medium creatures but they were wearing them anyway :D

I don't allow armor and weapons to change size categories, that is a bit much of a stretch. Things will alter to make the armor comfortable and conform to the user, but it won't change from Small to Medium or anything...

I would say for the most part use best judgement, if a person were to wear the item and only minor changes would need to be made for it to fit properly, go with it. A cape for instance is just a piece of cloth, I could see small characters just pinning up the excess length to make it fit better (or just have a trail after them depending on their preference)...

I like the group rule of: point at the intersection, done. You don't get to fiddle around and make sure that you get exactly what you want. This has the accuracy of magic while still factoring in the ability of the character (or Player) to perceive where exactly they want something. For a spell like Fireball, this makes even more sense, since the spellcaster is shooting a little orb and then it explodes in the 20 ft. burst, it's a lot harder to imagine the 20 ft. radius than it is to target a specific point in space.

James Risner wrote:
paul halcott wrote:
If you have a magic weapon and you want to add a special property to it, can you?

You can add anything, but you can't change anything.

So you can't change Flame to Flaming Burst for instance, but you could add Flaming Burst.

As a DM I would allow a person to "upgrade" Flaming to Flaming Burst. Flaming Burst functions as Flaming except with added effects. So upgrading a +1 Flaming Weapon to +1 Flaming Burst should be possible in my opinion. It would be fairly rediculous to need to make a weapon +1 Flaming, Flaming Burst... that would cost as much as a +4 weapon and have the same effects as a +1 Flaming Burst that only costs as much as a +3?

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>