Do you have a rules citation on this? Unfortunately this might seem like it is intuitive (and I wouldn't have an issue with it) but I would wager a great deal of GMs would disagree with the logical flow here.
A reasonable solution but the person I was referring to has maintained his percentage of going first wins of 55% for over 4000 professional matches of magic.
Sure, and like you say this is perfectly reasonable in the realm of statistics.
However, assuming a causal link from past randomly generated data is, while very human, a statistical fallacy. It's certainly possible to be 'lucky' -- the man who wins the lottery is 'lucky', but his odds of winning the lottery in the future do not change because of that past 'luck'.
Similarly, the player may have a fantastic streak of dice rolls and that is perfectly resonable, but that does not predict how he will continue to roll in the future.
Undone almost has it but not quite.
It's not always confirmation bias, magic, or whatever. Stats state that a small number of people will deviate 1 SD from the norm and a tiny amount 2 SD's. He just happens to be rare.
While this is true, the mistake is to assume that past results are an indicator of future random luck. It's perfectly believeable for a player to have a strong set of very lucky rolls --- but assuming no other factors e.g. dice weighting are involved this player is no more likely to continue this streak than anybody else.
The correct response is to do nothing or, at most, swap his dice.
Wouldn't you then lose the +2 fort with the latter option? Why would you ever choose this? The payoff (temporary HP lost first) is not nearly as significant. It feels like a false choice.
Wait, does this mean thrax doesn't think I can wield a small greatsword as a one-handed weapon in my off hand? How is wielding something in your off-hand not 'as a one-handed weapon'? Hell, even the rules use the same language as the feat: "For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon"
Wait wait, how does any of thrax's argument make sense? I seems to boil down to:
"You can wield it as a one handed weapon except not in these arbitrary circumstances"
A more thorough reading of the thread makes me think that Thrax has invested so much into the argument that he isn't willing to back down. Instead he throws out the same already refuted arguments and quotes sections of rules that actually reinforce the opposite viewpoint.
I think it's important just to say to everyone that sometimes when arguing with people who are too invested, the real objective changes from convincing them to convincing onlookers that the invested person is no longer being reasonable. I reckon the thread has managed that pretty well by this point, so don't feel too frustrated Chess/fret and others!
"Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Outsiders not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Outsiders are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor."
So, demons that are wearing armour in their statblock are proficient with armour. Otherwise they could spend a feat or get class levels.
Yargoyle AKA Endarire wrote:
However, a fireball Heightened to level 5 behaves in all ways as a level 5 spell.
This argument is somewhat self-defeating. You can't use magical lineage to reduce a spell's level below its base spell level. If a heightened level 5 fireball is in all ways a level 5 spell, then magical lineage cannot reduce it lower than a level 5 spell as per the FAQ. If it isn't in all ways a level 5 spell, the claim that heighten is then applicable to e.g. FCB is not strong enough on the basis of this argument alone.
Regardless, I would not expect this interaction to slide past the DM at any table, and never at a PFS table.
Well, the glaring question is: do the players *want* more of a challenge? Have they complained that things are too easy? Or are they acting as a prepared, cohesive team and reaping the rewards?
It's pretty normal for optimised parties to waltz through APs as they are written for a 'newbie friendly' party composition. If the monster challenges really are inappropriately weak and the players are getting bored, I suggest starting by including an extra one or two monsters in the encounters and then ramping from there. You can also substitute monsters in some encounters for equivalent higher CR creatures very easily, as long as you think about what would fit thematically.
There are also some situations in that AP where you would expect monsters to repopulate or counterattack if players retreat.
I wouldn't make a habit of introducing scenarios or monsters designed specifically to mess with the players. As you mention that just stinks of adversarial DMing.
No, they are not necessarily more damaging than archers, but as far as ranged tanking and DPR is concerned, archers are kind of borked too.
Doesn't this admission make your original post somewhat disingenuous? It seems to me like you could replace 'gunslinger' with 'archer ranger', 'archer fighter', 'archer slayer', 'eldritch archer', 'archer inquisitor' etc and still have exactly the same post. Why single out the gunslinger? Shouldn't the thread be called 'Are ranged PCs balanced in combat?'
Now that NN has gone from 100% of an argument to 100% funposting, I will now also have some fun, posting. This thread is now 100% about taking class fluff as rules!
Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death.
Sorry, you're a barb, you made a battleplan so I have to strip you of your power.
Regardless, sorcerers live and breathe that which other spellcasters devote their lives to mastering, and for them magic is more than a boon or a field of study; it is life itself.
It appears your sorcerer has just walked into an antimagic zone! Let me look up the suffocation rules for you....
While many warriors strive to perfect their art, spending all of their time honing their skill at martial arms, others spend as much effort dedicating themselves to a cause.
You spent too long time training as a Cavalier, so i'm going to have you lose your powers.
Arcanists are the shapers and tinkers of the arcane world, and no magic can resist their control.
The arcanist takes control of your summons, no save! What? It's written right in the rulebook!
Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents.
Wow guys, rogues are actually the greatest class in the rulebook! We missed this line all along! Any situation, just pull an item, spell or ability out of your hat and refer to this line -- because you are prepared for everything!
The GM's role is to run the game, guide the players, and create a fun experience.
Just coming in from left field to say: it's everyone's role to create a fun experience.... and, while the GM guides the players, the players also have a duty to guide the GM, especially if they lack experience.
A failure to adapt to criticism is a big cause of terrible GMs. We've all experienced some bad ones. Nothing wrong with a player going 'Hey, that information is not useful. Perhaps something about their saves? That'd make me feel more like my skill check is contributing'.
"As a full-round action while raging, the barbarian can lift and hurl an object up to one size category smaller than herself with both hands or two size categories smaller with one hand as an improvised weapon with a range increment of 10 feet."
It's not an attack action. Vital strike does not work with it.
So you know, this is completely incorrect. When you have your eyes closed you still have visual sensation. Try poking the side of your eye when they are closed and you are in complete darkness: you'll see you can still produce visual sensation just fine. In fact, many of the completely blind people I have worked with still have visual sensation, oddly enough, due to spontaneous retinal activity. One of the most complained about aspects of Retinitis Pigmentosa are the bring flashes of visual sensation that sweep across their lack-of-vision.
This still seems to support the claim that 'sightless' in this case means 'without functional eyes/vision'. An ooze definitely cannot have a sensation of sight and nobody would argue colour spray effects oozes. However, a man standing in a dark room, even magically dark, still has the sensation of sight -- there's just not much to see... Until you produce a sensation for him.
"While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell"
This is the bit that would be contentious.
Note that if the spell is willing target only, it cannot be used on the barb.
However, I can't find any text that would suggest an unwilling target is treated as an opponent or must be touched via an attack roll with a harmless touch spell that doesn't restrict to willing targets (say, mage armour). The closest is:
"You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell."
So I guess a barbarian can't be touched as part of a group of targets?
Given the ambigous wording of touch spells and attacks I might expect a GM to rule that they do require a touch attack, however. I can't find any precedent for it but it wouldn't be an unreasonable houserule.
It's just telling you not to apply the +2 strength/-2 dexterity for the size increase from small to medium on top of the adjustment listed here, that's all. I'm not sure what the confusion is. If the object increased in size again above medium you would adjust the strength/dex as appropriate (+2/-2).
No attack roll needed. Touch spells become close spells as per the metamagic text, not ranged touch attacks Only touch attacks become ranged touch attacks... which CLW isn't unless used on an enemy.
Concealment from blur, invisibility etc are irrelevant if you aren't rolling to hit. For verisimilitude, you can assume that the target moves into the path of the beam, just like they would move into the path of the hand for a touch. Note that you still need a target.
Diego: touch spells are not the same as touch attacks, which have an independent (but related) set of rules. Touch spells become touch attacks when used on an opponent, but that doesn't make them touch attacks when not used on an opponent.
Mage armour et al. Are basically identical. You would not need to roll to hit with mage armour using reach metamagic unless you were trying to mage armour an opponent.
"A figment spell creates a false sensation."
Doesn't this contradict your conclusion? The spell is creating a 'false sensation' in the minds of the opponents.
Both directions have odd rules ramifications. I'd probably have to apply it by case, but looking at most 'pattern' spells, I think having blindness make the target immune is most sensible (do you still get a +1 bluff to feint with dazzling blade against an opponent who can't see you? Probably not.) --- although I don't see any issue with a ruling that area of effect patterns probably pierce things like blindfolds, low light levels etc if you're in the effect.
I'm in agreement with Komoda/Skylancer here. In casual English, you would never, for example, say "man this room is dark, I'm completely sightless".
+1 for colour spray works just fine in darkness.
Also, be careful with the idea that the [light] descriptor means those are the only types of spell that generate light. This leads to some breaking of verisimilitude IE fireball not being visible in a dark room.
I can't find any mention of take 10 only being applicable to rolls you make, only that it is applicable to skill checks you make. Regardless of who is rolling the dice, the player's character is making the skill check.
Thus, disguise is perfectly valid option for take-10. The counterargument has no basis in the actual rules and so is (terrible) houserule material. It's also nonsensical: why would a completely metagame component (who is rolling the dice) determine a completely in-character decision?
Or to put it another way: I have DMed for a visually impaired player before, who wasn't interested in rolling the dice. I rolled his dice for him. Does that mean he can't take 10 anymore?
Da Brain wrote:
There's nothing interesting about this interaction. For every skill rank in linguistics, you gain knowledge of an additional language. If you already have full ranks in linguistics, you aren't gaining any more by putting on the headband. You get no extra languages other than the +INT ones. Only the third PC gains languages for extra linguistics skill ranks.
A slightly more interesting question would be: what if a 5th level PC has 2 ranks in linguistics and puts on a headband that gives linguistics? It gains 3 ranks so gets 3 languages of the predetermined set... but what 3? What if he has some of those languages already but not others?
The stealth rules in the CRB are an atrocious mess, so you're unlikely to get a solid consensus.
The most relevant part of the rules is this:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
It is very unclear whether finding cover or concealment negates the requirement to be unobserved when using stealth. However, consider the following possibility: a man moves to hide behind a solid wall of glass. He has total cover, but he is still completely observable. Would you allow this man to make a stealth check? I would argue that if you say no, then blur and the like is in a similar position: they don't prevent you from being observed, so do not allow stealth regardless of the concealment they grant. However, this is a complex issue and my logic is not watertight (I'm assuming cover and concealment would follow the same train of thought, for one). I don't think someone who ruled the opposite (say, by arguing that blur makes a target more difficult to observe) is necessarily wrong.
Mostly this all stems from how arbitrary the idea of 'observation' is and how poorly hide and move silently were integrated into the pathfinder ruleset for stealth (stealth was already a bit shakey in 3.5 to begin with).
Note that regardless of how you rule this, as soon as the blurred movement ends, your stealth ends. Thus, you could not use this to e.g. get sneak attack on a target.
There's already a way to do this in-game. A simpler homebrew would be to allow for awesome blow to be substituted for normal attacks in a full attack action.
I'd drop the idea of losing your weapon entirely. The game combat system is far too abstract for that.
I'd also drop the idea that the game is in any way trying to be 'realistic'. It's not. It's modelling a high-fantasy novel where the heroes survive impossible odds and do superhuman feats.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
You missed one.
*move and attack normally for the duration of the spell.
The comma makes it clear this is includes, but is not exclusive to, spells.
It's not a natural attack, so it doesn't have to be a 'generic' natural attack - It's neither because it isn't a natural attack. It is only treated as a natural attack in a very specific set of circumstances. Assuming primary OR secondary would massively complicate the issue because these classifications come with a whole additional set of baggage attached.
You're still stuck on this idea that is has to be labelled. It doesn't any more than a longsword needs to be labelled a primary or secondary natural attack. The rule exists so that feats which boost your natural attack (or spells like magic fang, although yes that one works on unarmed anyway) can also apply to your unarmed strikes. You could do the same thing with a longsword, or any manufactured weapon, by changing a few words. It does this just fine without needing to be primary or secondary.
It is a natural attack for very specific purposes. That does not include actually attacking, so primary/secondary status is never relevant.
"Is Unarmed Strike primary or secondary" is a false dichotomy. "Neither" is a perfectly valid answer, because the Unarmed strike is only treated as a natural attack for effects - it does not actually become one.
You basically answered your own question. The monk's unarmed strike isn't actually a natural attack, and so you can't apply the one natural attack = primary logic to then assume the monk's unarmed strike can count as a primary natural attack for other effects --- only that it can functional as a natural attack more generally. Additionally, given that monk unarmed strikes are getting 1.0x strength not 1.5x I don't see any precedent to allow for 1.5x power attack at all.
I couldn't find any rules on the matter. It is up to your discretion.
However, your magus really isn't asking much to have the weapon resized. Your caveat, in my opinion, is far too strict - he may as well just buy a normal sized spear in that case for all the good it does him. It would be more honest to simply tell him 'no' in this case.
I would simply let him resize the spear and adjust the damage dice as appropriate. This presumably comes up a lot in golarion after all.
Yes, it technically works, and isn't even all that powerful - note that DMs may rule against you to prevent this combo as there are some unwritten rule shenanigans with 'hands' that (although they don't really apply here) are vague enough that a GM *could* apply them here if they wanted to shut you down, even in PFS.
So, I recommend checking with your GM first. Considering it's a bit of an odd-duck mechanics wise it shouldn't be tooo surprising if he says no.
If you search for 'readying an action outside of combat' you will see a great deal of threads talking about it.
My take: A big part of the issue is that in the transition from 3.5 to pathfinder, a vital sentence was lost from the ready actions text: "Don't allow players to use the ready action outside of combat." (presumably implying you also shouldn't use them outside of combat yourself).
Initiative is absolutely the right call to make here. If they were sneaking up on an enemy, weapons at the ready to attack as soon as the enemy showed signs of noticing them, they would probably get a surprise round. If both creatures are aware of the other, it's a normal combat scenario. If the swarm beats their initiative, it strikes quickly before they have a chance to react.
Otherwise you get in the ridiculous situation where everyone is constantly readying actions every round outside of combat.
"When you cast the spell the entire pile disappears into the cloth, replaced by a highly accurate, sewn picture of the pile from whatever angle you wish."
It's an extradimensional space.
Also, have a think about what the D means in 3D and 2D. There's dimensional shenanigans going on here any way you slice the cake. Bag of holding is not compatible with this spell.
Actually, looking at the extradimensional space section example, even though they aren't compatible, that probably only causes the bag of holding to no longer be accessible when it is in the cloth. So, it may not really matter. Depends whether your GM rules the bag of holding overrides the treasure stitching or vice versa. I don't think the rules are clear enough to distinguish.
Portable hole shenanigans depends on whether 'deactivated' means all interactions or just the ability to remove items. The answer to your question is the same as the answer to this one:
If you bring a bag of holding and a portable hole into a rope trick, do they still cause the rift?
My answer would be no, they are inactive --- but the rules are silent as this is such a corner case.
You have an arcane caster and a melee bruiser with a bit of divine clout. It would help to also know how the arcanist is built (CC, damage, summoning?)
From a quick think, a skill/stealth monkey who can also hold the front line would be useful (slayer, bard, skald, hunter?) as would a full divine caster (druid, cleric, oracle).
Archer works fine in emerald spire - there are some enclosed bits but also enough opportunity for arrow spam.
Can you ask the 4th party? That would help you a lot.
From the 'combining magical effects' section of the PRD:
For challenge evil, the latest challenge would probably override the first as per this text:
"Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."
Although I admit it is ambiguous.
Mental control is very clearly spelled out, however:
"Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys."
I'd probably ask the players if they would prefer option 1 or 2 and then rule appropriately for the rest of the campaign.
Not using spells can actually be a huge limiter and doesn't necessarily make the spell weaker - it's almost as common for the closest target to be an enemy and this prevents the confused target from casting anything at all 75% of the time. Allowing spells also prevents a wizard from rushing in and getting into an awful position if they are off to the side, so there is no clear-cut 'better for the PCs' ruling here.
I would defer to the player for spell selection, as long as it is an attack.
option 3-4 make no sense to me at all. It says 'attack' not 'make an attack action against'. Anyone claiming they can drop their weapon or obviously pull punches (e.g. cantrip instead of scorching ray) will be getting a very stern look.
My Self wrote:
Is this for PFS?
"Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act."
So, in PFS you're just fine, and there's no precedent outside of PFS either. Mechanically speaking, good-aligned characters perform necromancy just fine.
Thematically this may cause huge issues with your campaign, mind.
Given that this combo is vanishingly unlikely to come up in your game, It was less about the carrot and more about the dagger, to be perfectly honest. I have a pet peeve for spontaneous DM houserule nerfs, especially when the ability isn't even arguably too powerful.