Bladeace's page

30 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.




Hello,
am I right in thinking that rogues can't take 10 on use magic device checks even with their advanced rogue talent that allows them to take 10 on skill checks? I thought I should double check before discounting the option.
Thanks!


If someone has a 9th level spell they can cast as a spell like ability does this count for getting feats?

The feat in question is 'epic spellcasting' (from the 3.5 epic handbook).


Hello, I’m playing a rogue and I just hit level 8. I’ve been having the problem that the party’s druid, monk and barbarian are vastly out damaging me.

I’ve got weapon finesse, two weapon fighting, 18 dex and a +2 dex belt as well as two +1 short swords (I’m hoping to add D6 elemental damage to each of these soon – when I get the funds).

So I’ve got two attacks with each at +10 (+4BAB +5Dex +1enchantment) to hit (+11 when flanking) and doing 5D6 damage for each attack (+1 from the short sword enchant, but no additional from strength).

The barbarian just left the party (his character has been building towards alcoholism and depression for a while now and it has succumb), so his damage doesn’t matter I guess.

The monk does his flurry of blows and gets five attacks (including his ki point attack though – but he has been using this most of the time), three of these attacks are at +13 to hit (not including flanking or anything) and two are at +8 to hit. Each of these attacks does D10+D6+6 damage.

As this compares to me, each of his attacks does an average of 15 damage if it hits and each of mine does an average of 18.5 damage. However, I get only two attacks and they are at +10 to hit while he gets three attacks at +13 AND two attacks at +8.

I compare even worse to the druid who also has pounce so he can do it on the charge (as well as a host of druid spells of course) and an animal companion which is also doing a lot of damage. I don’t have the druids numbers to hand, but he is doing more damage on average (even factoring in miss chance – he has good to hit). Later on I may be able to get the exact numbers off my druid friend, depending on if the specific numbers matter.

Now, that isn’t to say my rogue doesn’t have some other advantages (I have fast stealth), but the druid especially has more ‘out of combat’ advantages then I do. But any ‘other’ category advantages I have should also be measured against the fact that my damage is sneak attack damage with very significant restrictions while their damage is something they can do to pretty much anything.

I guess what I’m asking here is if this problem is common, or if it may have something to do with me building my rogue incorrectly or them building their characters especially well. If this is a common problem then perhaps some info on if I catch up at later levels would help. However, if this is a problem with my rogue build I will post up more details on what I’ve chosen exactly.

Overall, because of the significant restrictions on when you can sneak attack I feel that when I can sneak attack I should be doing the most damage. Certainly not less anyway.


Hi guys, this is something I'm planning on using for a campaign I'm DMing. These spells make a lot of sense for the particular background I'm using, but I thought others might like to take a look. Interested in any feedback.

Force spears
A branch of offensive magic spells developed to be used by low level magic users to combat targets with magic resistance or immunity. The caster creates a dense spear of air and throws it at the target, releasing all magic from the spear before it hits its target but leaving the spear with penetrating force.

Force spear 1
School: evocation (force); level 1 sorcerer/wizard
Casting time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S
Range: Medium, 100ft +10/level
Target: 1 creature
Duration: Instantaneous.
Saving throw: none; Spell resistance: No (can affect creatures immune to spells).
Make a ranged touch attack against one enemy within this spells range. If you hit this spell deals 1d4 piecing and force damage per caster level to a maximum of 5d4.

Force spear 2
School: evocation (force); level 2 sorcerer/wizard
Casting time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S
Range: Medium, 100ft +10/level
Target: 1 creature
Duration: Instantaneous.
Saving throw: none; Spell resistance: No (can affect creatures immune to spells).
Make a ranged touch attack against one enemy within this spells range. If you hit this spell deals 1d4 piecing and force damage per caster level to a maximum of 10d4.

Force spear 3
School: evocation (force); level 3 sorcerer/wizard
Casting time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S
Range: Medium, 100ft +10/level
Target: 1 creature
Duration: Instantaneous.
Saving throw: none; Spell resistance: No (can affect creatures immune to spells).
Make a ranged touch attack against one enemy within this spells range. If you hit this spell deals 1d4 piecing and force damage per caster level to a maximum of 15d4.

Force spear 4
School: evocation (force); level 4 sorcerer/wizard
Casting time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S
Range: Medium, 100ft +10/level
Target: 1 creature
Duration: Instantaneous.
Saving throw: none; Spell resistance: No (can affect creatures immune to spells).
Make a ranged touch attack against one enemy within this spells range. If you hit this spell deals 1d4 piecing and force damage per caster level to a maximum of 20d4.


This is something I am currently trying (in a more primitive form as I have only recently expanded it out into what you see below) in a group I have just started GMing for.
(However, I cannot claim credit for the core idea - which originated from a group discussion)

The Proposal:

During levelling from level 1 to level 20 in pathfinder you gain 5 attribute points (one every 4 levels starting at level 4). Using these 5 attribute points you could raise an 18 to a 23(1) which is the equivalent of an additional 26 points(2) of ‘point buy’(3). I propose that these 26 points be given out spread over all levels and as ‘point buy points’ instead of a simple ‘+1 to an attribute’.

The allocation would be as follows(4):

Levels 2-4 grant 4 points, spread with one point gained at levels 2 and 3 and two points gained at level 4.

Levels 5-8 grant 5 points, spread with one point gained at levels 5, 6 and 7 and two points gained at level 8.

Levels 9-12 grant 5 points, spread with one point gained at levels 9, 10 and 11 and two points gained at level 12.

Levels 13-16 grant 6 points, spread with one point gained at levels 13 and 14 and two points gained at level 15 and 16.

Levels 17-20 grant 6 points, spread with one point gained at levels 17 and 18 and two points gained at level 19 and 20.

Partial stats would be dealt with simply, although a slight amount of book-keeping would be involved here(5). The points would have to be spent upon level up and in the cases that they can’t purchase a full extra stat they would purchase the appropriate proportion of a stat. For example hitting level 2 and investing your point in strength, which you already had at 15 (before racial modifiers) would only net you half a point of strength which would do nothing(6) until you invested the rest of the required points into that stat and raised it to a natural number.(7)

1: Remembering that wishes/books can only grant 1-5 stats so there is an advantage to having a 23 even if you cannot raise it any further through stats gained from levelling you can push it up to an even number higher then you could otherwise attain via use of tomes or wishes.

2: Assuming that the cost of stats continues to rise at the rate used for stats from 14-18 (which is 4 points to move from 18 to 19, 5 to move from 19-20, 5 to move from 20-21, 6 to move from 21-22 and 6 to move from 22-23). Racial modifiers are not considered, as with the standard point buy method.

3: However there is the significant restriction that these points cannot be spread which means that in all cases that they are not raising the highest possible number that you could have they are granting significantly less point buy. Insofar as my proposed method of redoing those stats should seek to not change the existing ‘balance’ this is a very large weakness in my proposal. However, I would contend that as the most powerful characters (full progression casters) tend (when min-maxed) to gain the most from spending all that they can on their main casting stat. Because of this I would argue (not here though, it is too wide a subject) that this particular balance alteration caused by my proposal has a positive effect on the ‘lower tier’ while enabling the higher tier to gain relatively more from non-optimal choices and so is a positive balance change.

4: The allocation is not even (which would be 1.36 ‘point buy points’ per level) so that the link to the current 1 attribute point per 4 levels is carried over. That one attribute point, if used optimally on the highest possible stat that you could have, is worth an increasing amount as levels go on (as outlined in footnote 2). If you prefer a more even spread based method I would recommend 1 point at every level with an additional point at levels 4, 8 and 12 and two additional points at level 16 and 20.

5: This could easily be recorded on the sheet to the left hand side of the attributes section. In the case of players with varying abilities to manage book-keeping I would recommend the DM having a single page in his folder/ect devoted to this task where he can record everyone’s choices and tell them when they have gained an attribute point. The GM doing this book keeping would also introduce the possibility or altering the amount of point-buy given (to taste) and not actually telling the players how much of it they have, you would instead only ask them what ability they think their character may have improved upon as a result of his adventures.
The racial stat modifiers chosen (in the case of human/half-orc/half-elf) would also need to be remembered as these are not considered when spending point buy points.

6: Some GMs may wish to take advantage of the now possible fractions of stats. This could be done as simply as allowing them to decide ties in cases of opposed checks or in many more complicated ways as decided by the GM. I will not touch on this here, or state that I condone doing so, as this is a separate branch of house ruling that could be involved, complicated and controversial.

7: This system could also be used to alter the base point buy used over time. You could have your PCs start with a 10 point buy and tell them that over the first 10 levels (for example, the actual level and point buy raise used is up to the DM and group to decide) they will be raised to a 25 point buy. The 25 points would be spread out (evenly or otherwise, up to the GM) over the first 10 levels and be given to the players in addition to those points they gain from the system I have just proposed. There is also the possibility of telling them that they could ‘earn’ their way up from 10 point buy (to a max of 25 or lower, usually) by doing particular things or by acquiring particular magical elixirs (or whatever, the possibilities are immense).


How large of a stone(/or another material if better bang-for-buck) could you buy for 10,000g?

In a 'standard' situation I guess...the city is large but not massive, but on the other hand the guy has the blessing of the king which helps.


If a wizard has prepared some cantrips and then loses his spellbook can he still cast the cantrips he had prepared no matter how much time has passed?

Or does he have to have prepared cantrips that day to be able to cast them?


Hello,
I am new to pathfinder (was playing 3.5 off and on for the past 3ish years with a group of mates and we moved over to pathfinder around a month ago) and I will be DMing a campaign starting this Saturday. This will be my first time GMing a campaign (although I have DM’d one off sessions before, although only a couple of times). I’m sure I’ll be all over these boards this week as I look for feedback for my material and house-rules.
For now I want to ask for some input on a house rule to the ‘Master Craftsman’ feat. I have independent motivations for something like this based on my campaign, but for now I’ll leave those out as I think that this change is a fair change to the feat without my campaign specific considerations. However, I’m basically here looking to see how people feel so if you disagree please put a post in!

What would you think of the following house rule?

Master craftsman: +2 competency bonus with X crafting skill and you can use either craft magic arms and amour or craft wondrous item when creating items of the type appropriate to X crafting skill.
Pre-req: 5 ranks in the appropriate craft and a purple hat that has been worn on a monkey for at least seven consecutive hours*.
Now it is still a lot worse than the caster version (it only applies to a part of the feat like now and as discussed in this thread: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/craftingMagicItemsQuestion) but you sink only a single feat into it instead of multiple. I think that this is fairer. In addition you don't have to wait until level 7 to get it, though you still have to wait until later then a caster.

Keen to hear feedback, I know it won’t fit some campaigns (who want to, for 'fluff' reasons keep crafting to the wizards/ect) but from a balance point of view I think casters get quite enough without having to make the non-casters take two feats, a skill AND still not be able to use all of the crafting feat.
Basically, I can’t see any reason to make it take two feats when it’s already considerably worse because of other considerations.

Thanks for any feedback!

*Note: as a final note, I’m thinking I’ll drop the purple hat requirement… Maybe…


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I have taken the master craftsman on my rogue (my craft skill is weapons) and I have also just got the 'craft magic arms and amour' feat (just hit level 7.

I just want to check I understand this right, does this allow me to now craft magic weapons?

I assume yes, but am I also right in thinking that if I wanted to craft magic amour of bows I would have to not only take the appropriate craft skill but also the master craftsman feat for them.

This is how I think it works... but this would mean I would require four feats and (high) ranks in four skills in order to make full use of my feat 'craft magic arms and amour'. I understand that there is an element of 'well non-casters should have a hard time making magic items here' but shouldn't the requirement of a skill (casters use spellcraft - but they are taking that anyway) and an extra feat already cover this?

If I've understood things right here I'm feeling a little shafted... If I haven't understood things right thank you very much for setting me right :).


Hello, I'm wondering if anyone has compiled a 'basic' random encounter table that includes the basic creatures?

Basically I'm looking for all the creatures in the Bestiary 1 sorted into both their CR and their usual habitat. I'm away they are already separated into both of these separately (there is a list for them by habitat and a separate list for them by CR) but before I combine the two I thought I'd check if someone else has.

Failing that, is there any 'bland' random encounters tables setup and available on the website? I have my own ideas I'd like to add to a random encounter table so I don't necessarily want a complete one - just one with the basics so I can stick to just adding the 'fun stuff'.

If this doesn’t exist, should I perhaps post up what I create so others can go over it? Is there a player made section of this website where such a thing could eventually be added up for people like me?

P.S very new to pathfinder (incase that isn't obvious!), I only just purchased all the pdfs last night. Thanks for any help, I'm sure I'll be back for more discussion!


I came to this site to buy the hard cover core rule book, I was at the checkout and had my credit card out.

Only to find the cost (in US$) not the 50 I expected to spend, but 97!

The postage charge was only a few dollars less then the book. Very confused I went to find out how much it would cost for me to send the same package - under $20.

Why does the 'handling' part of 'shipping and handling' apparently cost more then the shipping part?

Disgusted, I am now leaving this site and will not even be purchasing the PDFs.