Artemis Entreri

Brogue The Rogue's page

Organized Play Member. 551 posts (552 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 551 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yeah, this would definitely completely outclass Extend, so there's no question that it would have to be greater than a +1 spell level.

Great finds so far. Thanks everyone!

Does anyone else know of any other spell chains that use this format?


My players want to research a metamagic feat that will allow them to increase their spells' duration by a step (i.e., from rounds per level to minutes per level). I'm *fairly* certain this metamagic feat doesn't already exist in the Paizo-published rules, so I have a two-part question I'm hoping people can help me with.

1) Does anyone know if this exists as a third party published feat somewhere?
1b) I am familiar with the old 3.5 homebrew Lasting Spell, but it seems to be extremely homebrew and has, well, a rather uncertain provenance.

2) Does anyone know of any spells that do this? For example, a maybe there's a 7th level invisibility spell out there that lasts for 10 minutes per level that implies that it's a 5-level increase move from minutes per level to 10 minutes per level?

My goal here is to try to gather enough sources of material to reconstruct a likely baseline for what this effect should be so that I can give this to the players and also make it as balanced as possible, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks. :)


Saldiven wrote:
the Far Challenge class feature in the archetype does not include a line that says it counts as the Cavalier "Challenge" class feature, just that it replaces it.

Resurrecting this thread instead of starting a new one, as well, because I have the exact same question and some information that wasn't addressed on this topic.

I feel like the above quote wasn't properly addressed, even if it is a bit of a nitpicky reason to prevent it, but a line jumped out at me while I was reading far challenge that made me really reconsider whether far challenge should work with the base order bonus.

Quote:
If this challenge ends because the target hits the luring cavalier with a melee attack, this challenge changes to the effects of the normal cavalier challenge, and gains any order benefit the luring cavalier has.

Am I crazy, or does this seem to strongly imply that Far Challenge does *not* grant order bonuses? Especially when considered with Saldiven's original statement?


willuwontu wrote:
On Archives of Nethys (aonprd), if you go to each deity, it lists the spells specific to that deity.

Awesome. That'll do.

Thanks a ton. :)


TLDR: Does anyone know where I can get a listing of spells that can only be used if you worship a specific deity, and the requirements for them?

I like reading: My players have been using a spell called Mighty Strength that I just found out has some odd requirements that aren't listed at all in the PRD. I'm hoping to track down all such spells so I can get a better understanding of whether or not these deity-specific spells are powerful enough to actually warrant these requirements, or if I can just let the players use the spell as is, or modify them in other ways for the players to use them, etc. etc. Anyone have any info on where I can find a complete listing?


I may have been sleep deprived off my mind, but I once recall reading about an item that allowed a spellcaster to prepare spells of a spell level not normally accessible to them (for example, an 11th level spellcaster preparing 7th level spells). I'm trying to find it again and cannot, for the life of me.

I think I recall the item having very specific limitations, such as losing spells if you left the item's area of effect or duration. I also think it was an incense of some kind, though searching that term doesn't seem to bring up the item I think exists.

Has anyone heard of this item?


Generally agreed, Dave. As mentioned, I don't have a problem creating my own system; I was just hoping there was a good one already in existence so I could save the time. I was really expecting there to be a decent system already made.


I'm not a huge personal fan of a lot of how ultimate campaign does Mass stuff, and after looking through a number of companion books, that does seem to be the method of the moment. Brother Fen, if you reveal anything interesting in that compendium you mentioned, I'd be interested in hearing it, otherwise, I've started just making it myself. More time consuming, but I suppose in the end it'll have all the things I want. I'm honestly just really surprised there isn't already an effective system around.

Thanks, everyone. :)


We're actually using those rules, but in that book plunder points are stated as being given out by the GM essentially when they're needed, rather than a roll-based system that helps determine if the PCs are successful in their pirating attempts.


Unfortunately, the downtime rules are very similar to the profession rules, and, as Brother Fen stated, don't garner the riches necessary to keep a crew of a hundred pirates happy.

On the other vein of thought, me simply ruling that things work out either gives the players no way to improve their fleet (if I rule they make the bare minimum) or gives them no incentive to optimize their pirating franchise (if I give them a lot).

@Adjoint I scanned through the militia rules but didn't see anything about generating funds. If you're familiar enough with the text, can you give me a page number of heading?


Background:

Spoiler:

I'm a GM running a pirate campaign for players, and said players have gotten to the point where they have their own small fleet of ships that they're actively using for purposes of piracy.

The first few times that the players were able to run down merchant ships were great fun for everyone, but past that it's devolved into a rather monotonous and repetitive series of events, since most merchant ships can't put up a fight against them, and I can't have all merchant ships be traps, tricks, or idiots. As a result, I'd like to only resort to ship combat when the players are in a fight with actual value, i.e., something that furthers the story, or a fight that is actually a credible threat, rather than just running down another merchant, but I'm at a loss as to how to properly account for this in the abstract.

Question:
Does anyone know of any rules for piracy and plunder that allow players to simply make weekly rolls to determine how much plunder they obtain?

Caveats:

Spoiler:
We only very briefly considered using the craft/profession rules, but they're just horrendous. The players have seven ships and a crew of over a hundred to feed and pay, and even adjusting the profession rules by several orders of magnitude doesn't really work too well.

Ideally, I'd love to somehow use the player's profession sailing checks, but also their levels and the levels of the crew to properly represent their ability to locate, chase down, and either kill or intimidate crew into giving them their valuables. Any thoughts?


Interesting. We've never thought of this. It seems....cheap. But yeah, thanks, this'll work.


Anyone have any idea as to the potential balance issues behind adding the option for the "Attacker," during "Round 3" of a grapple to use a full round action to perform a full attack, per this flowchart?

http://www.tenebraemush.net/images/1/17/Grapple_flow_chart_A.pdf

I'm especially concerned that it would open PCs up to taking too much damage.

Thanks!


I was not aware that Infusion Specialization did not apply to his metmagic stuff. I thought those were considered infusions. We'll make the according adjustments. It looks like his default is going to be an empowered water blast.

The kineticist does not have any stat items. He opted for a different route with some of his gear, purchasing the more expensive items up front in the expectation that it would be easier to get the more common items later (the character just started). I know this lowers the stats a bit, but I was mentally accounting for that, and the character's performance on the previous session isn't entirely explained by a simple loss of +2 to dex and con. It is, however, solved by the huge loss of Elemental Overflow, so I'm pretty happy, now, with where he's at. I'm going to speak with him and see if he's aware of the ability.

Once he has two +2 stat items, is using the elemental overflow for another +2 to dex and con and +3 attack/damage, that's a total of +5 attack and +8 damage, which puts him right in line with where I was expecting him to be. So, yes, apparently the memo of the day is "Use elemental overflow" xD

Thanks for the help, everyone. :)


The party is all level 10. I will admit that the kineticist isn't what most would consider ideally optimized, but it's not abysmal.

Quote:
So if this is a physical composite blast, it should do physical damage, so at level 9 (it seems based on the number of d6? That or level 10) we're looking at (10d6+16+Con modifier)*1.5. We'll go with 18 Con, which is very likely a significant lowball. The accuracy can't be right for level 10 unless the kineticist has 10 Dexterity, which seems very unlikely, or has 14 Dex (still seems too low) and is using Deadly Aim, which would add 4 more damage. I will grant that the brawler's +14 also seems a little bit low (and the +14/+12 difference can't be from Furious Focus at level 9, since that would be a +3 difference). Accuracy aside, the damage is going to be 83 for the kineticist, whereas the brawler is 18.5 and can't pull that off even with all four hits...however, this seems to be an empowered composite, which is very hard for a level 9 (or 10) kineticist to pull off.

Physical. It's the ice blast.

I was under the impression that Empower had been clarified as of this edition to only affect the values of the spell that are both variable and numeric, not their sum. I recall this being a sticking point before. Is this no longer the case? I just googled the FAQ, and it looks like there's a part that's crossed out. So is *everything* now increased with Empower? If so, this greatly increases his damage output, so that helps. This can't be right, though, can it? It makes maximize terrible. For the number I stated, 10d6+13, the old empower value is 65.5 on average, the new empower value is 72 on average, and the maximize value is 73 on average.

The kineticist has 14 dex and 16 con.

Isn't an empowered composite guaranteed for a level 10 character? The kineticist has infusion specialization of 2, so anytime he spends a move action gathering energy, that reduces the total burn by 3 points. Empower is 1 point and the composite blast is 2 points. What am I doing wrong?

Shiroi wrote:
Are you hitting normal or touch? Including the bonuses to hit from your burn in overflow?

Ah ha! As mentioned before, I am entirely unfamiliar with this class. I'd never even heard of it before the player asked to use it. The player must have forgotten about this ability. This helps a LOT, and would seem to account for the discrepancy.

Egil Firehair wrote:
Note that a Kinetic Blast (even in it's melee Blade/Whip form) is a Spell Like Ability. As such it penetrates DR as if it were not there, but bounces off of Spell Resistance. Just like a spell.

OK, this is interesting and flies counter what others have been saying. I suppose the line in question is this:

Spoiler:
All damage from a kinetic blast is treated as magic for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction.

Does this mean "as a magic weapon" or "as a spell or spell like ability"? This seems controversial. Do we have a solid ruling?

The damage reduction section states:

Spoiler:
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even non-magical fire) ignore damage reduction.

But the FAQ on the same page states:

Spoiler:
ow does DR (damage reduction) interact with magical effects that deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage?

Although the definition of damage reduction says “The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even non-magical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities,” that’s actually just referring to damage that isn’t specifically called out as being of a particular type, such as fire damage or piercing damage. In other words, DR doesn’t protect against “typeless damage” from magical attacks.

However, if a magical attack specifically mentions that it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, DR affects that damage normally, as if it were from a physical weapon. (Otherwise the magical attack might as well not have a damage type, as it would only interface with B/P/S damage in a very few corner cases, such as whether or not an ooze splits from that attack.)

By this logic, DR would seem to apply to the Kineticist's attack, right?

As for the rest of your examples, they seem to be logically-fueled, rather than RAW-supported. While I generally agree with the idea, it poses problems of its own. It seems that it would be better to simply use the RAW rather than applying an addition filter of spell-based logic. By your logic, a geokineticist is useless on a ship, in the water, in the air, etc. This seems to be a strange requirement for the class. The telekinetic blast goes into great detail about the objects it throws, but earth blast does not. By your logic, should not magically enchanted earth then do bonus damage? Are we stating that it's RAW that earth blast requires nearby earth to use?


Shiroi wrote:
You have worse acc than the fighter, but he needs to hit with iteratives. Use the common DPR math to compare your single hit per turn hitting 80% of the time vs him missing with his second hit 80% of the time and his third and fourth even less often, you'll get the idea. On paper kineticist doesn't look impressive, but in a campaign they're easy to build so they have great DPR, multiple control options, insane dpr with melee infusions, and more utility than most non-casters could ever hope for.

I'm not talking on paper, though. Well, technically, I suppose so, since it is a pen and paper game. But I'm talking about our session, where he was performing consistently worse in both damage and accuracy than the other characters (magus and brawler).

I'm looking at the brawler's character sheet right now, and he seems to have +14/+12/+7/+7, 1d8+14, compared to the kineticist's +10, 10d6 * 1.5 +13. I don't have the magus's character sheet offhand, but he's a harder comparison since he's bursty per day.

Why are your theoretical 80%s and such so vastly different from my actual values?


Think so? My kineticist seems remarkably underpowered compared to the rest of the group. He can't compete in damage or accuracy, he has worse defenses, and his utility is on par with a common fighter. Is the player maybe doing something wrong? Are there some must have items or feats out there of which neither he nor I are aware?


Backstory:

Spoiler:
I have a player that just started up a kineticist, and his first few fights were a little underwhelming. I threw an outsider against the party that had both damage reduction and energy resistance, and after slogging through the AC, DR, and then Energy Resistance, the kineticist ended up barely doing any damage with his composite blast over the course of the combat. I'm a little disappointed at the character's performance, and worried that the player might be a little put off by ineffective he was. So my actual question is,

Actual Question: Are kineticist blasts [that have both a physical and energy type listed] subject to both damage reduction AND energy resistance?

Opinion Question:

Spoiler:
If so, what do you all think would be the balance ramification of changing that, and how would you do it/what would you do?


Awesome, thanks, Shiroi. :)


Ahh, I understand, now. Thanks a ton. :)

Anyone know what happens if you fail a concentration check while gathering power and that puts you over your burn maximum?


Skarm wrote:

Obviously no guide specify that because it is pretty obvious:

YES.

You can only apply an infusion to the kinetic blasts listed in the infusion description.

I'm hopeful that the lack of readable tone due to text rather than face means you didn't say this rudely, but, man, it really came off as extremely condescending and rude. :( Regardless, I'll interpret it as simply helpful. Thank you for the information. I appreciate it. I would also disagree and state that it is not, obvious; since there is an "element" section *and* an "associated blast" section, two sections that have a considerable degree of overlap, the exact purpose of either section becomes unclear.

@LeMoineNoir Thanks a ton. That's very helpful!
Would you be willing to answer a followup question? That description of the categories leaves me confused as to how someone would take some of these abilities. Take the Chain infusion, for example:

Spoiler:
Chain

Element air; Type form infusion; Level 5; Burn 3

Associated Blasts electric

Saving Throw none

Your electric blast leaps from target to target. When you hit a target with your infused blast, you can attempt a ranged touch attack against an additional target that is within 30 feet of the first. Each additional attack originates from the previous target, which could alter cover and other conditions. Each additional target takes 1d6 fewer points of damage than the last (for example, 3d6 becomes 2d6), and you can't chain the blast back to a previous target. You can continue chaining your blasts until a blast misses or fails to deal damage, or until your blast is reduced to a single damage die.

Chain has an element of air but an associated blast of electric. Does that mean you need to have taken both the air blast and electric blasts (and thus be 7th level or higher), but that this infusion can only be used with the electric blast, and NOT the air blast?


This guide has a lot of information, but, sadly, does not seem to answer my questions. :( Specific answers would be much appreciated!


Does anyone know of a guide or FAQ for the kineticist? I'm having some problems understanding how the infusion's levels factor into the class.

Assuming no guide or FAQ already exists, does anyone know the answer to these questions?

1) When you apply an Infusion Wild Talent to a kinetic blast, can that IWT *only* be applied to the elements listed in the "Element" section? Or only to the "associated blasts" section?
2) What do the "Associated blasts" even indicate in terms of the Infusion Wild Talent that lists them?

Thank you!


@Claxon
The sample NPCs (the ones that jump immediately to mind are the CR 8 First Mate and the CR 11 Captain, though I do recall there being plenty more) indicate a much higher typical level for the jobs they describe.

@ Kaliel Windstorm
The cloud can be cast on the ship in such a way that it travels across its length, not its width. Cast from the prow, abaft, that is. Doing so would cause it to cover most of the ship (multiple decks) or all of the top of the ship if there's a single deck exposed to the air. It would thus kill much of the crew not in the rigging. Open doors or cargo hatches could cause it to float in and do more, as well.

The permanent gust of wind is an interesting idea. If we're of the assumption that the GOW kills the cloudkill, it would be pretty effective, but if it kills the cloudkill, chances are decent it'll mess with your sailing if you're sail-powered, so I dunno how feasible that is.

@GinoA
Yeah, I had considered counterspells and dispelling, and that was about the only thing I could think of that would stop it (assuming gust of wind doesn't work; jury's still out on that one). The possibility of counterspells helps curtail it a lot, but it's still a fairly major threat, since the counterspells aren't guaranteed. If there's a sufficient difference in level, the clouds might linger for quite a while. If nothing else, they'd be capable of creating large no walk zones that would help with tactical control. That's a whole other topic, though...

Buffing an army with D&D spell isn't really effective, though, not for most of them, since they're X targets per level. Killing low level dudes is probably often better.

@ Murdock Mudeater
I agree. The idea that the PCs are the biggest fish in the pond, but that it's a really big pond, is silly and unrealistic, to me. That lack of realism, to me, filters over to an unrealistic world and an unrealistic game, and the straining disbelief makes fights less tense and less interesting. Personally. For the record, I also think the APL +10 encounter to show your PCs you're really amazing is even more stupid.

@Goth Guru
Fair point. Noted, and thanks. However, Ravingdork has a good point, too.

@TOZ
Ah, clever, but in this case not completely right. You also die regardless of whether or not you fail a fortitude save if you are a low enough level.

@Kaliel Windstorm
There are techniques for making circles, whether on graph paper or no. ;)

@Malignor
I think that's a little bit overly simplistic, because it's akin to saying that cities have armies because other cities have armies, so conquest is a moot point because everyone has armies, but I think the general thinking behind your post has merit.

@ Everyon
Thanks for the help. This has been really helpful. :)


@Snowlilly
You are right; nothing in the spell says that wind must affect the entire area of the spell. Simultaneously, nothing says that the entire area is dispersed if any part of it is exposed to wind. The part you quoted refers to the "fog" being dispersed, not the spell, not the area, and not the effect. That's where the ambiguity comes in. This is, in act, the argument that was used against me, and I do admit it has merit. It's still my belief that the intention was for the whole spell area to be destroyed by wind, but (see arguments).

Kaliel Windstorm wrote:


So nothing under cloudkill makes any exception to the rule regarding wind dispersing the cloud. As it is "similar to a fog cloud" I would say all fog cloud rules apply other than that a cloudkill sinks, and moves 10 ft per round.
[/quote[
Same deal. THe spell (s) don't specifically state that the entire cloud is destroyed by the wind, only that "fog" is. How much fog? Which parts of the cloud?

Quote:
However, as "a strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round", the line of 60mph wind blowing through the couldkill, would disperse it. per the RAW.

Again, my key query here is, "How much?"

Quote:
There is no rule as written that there is a "sheathe".

Actually, the player that brought this up is right, as far as I can tell. I have only a rudimentary understanding of fluid dynamics compared to him, but there would need to be a protective barrier of some kind around the column of wind preventing those nearby from being affected. Otherwise the velocity profile of the gust of wind would taper off rather than ending suddenly, making the gust more like a cone than a line. It's sort of like when a car on the freeway drives past you at 60 mph when you're standing still. It makes your car shake a bit from the wind of its passage.

However, I think you have a fair point when you say that the spell does not say adjacent creatures are *entirely* unaffected. I suppose it's possible they feel some wind, just not enough to have any game effects. However, without those creatures being substantially affected, it means there isn't enough friction between the gust of wind and the surrounding air/cloud molecules for the entire cloud to be dispersed. It *would* only disperse the area immediately hit by the line.


@Claxon
I am actually, literally astonished to hear that it has been officially decreed (I assume?) that Golarion is a world populated as you described. My reading of the stats thrown on the PRD indicate a vastly different world than that. I feel like that's something they *said*, because that's what they want, even if it's not supported by the actual stats they're throwing out, though I will be the first to admit that my reading and understanding of their lore and literature is far from complete (because I hate hate hate HATE Golarion so much, though that's another topic), so I could just be completely wrong.

Regardless, my thoughts on the topic are for a world a little less...PC-Movie-Centric, where the PCs aren't the only special snowflakes moving around and aren't being challenged by the only people capable of challenging them. While I described the homogeneous level saturation, I wasn't saying that's what I'm dealing with, simply that if one were to do that, it would be even crazier than what I had thought Golarion was. Imagine, instead, a world between "Golarion" and Faerún, with a level assortment of...maybe a bell curve centered on 6th level or so. The majority of people would fall in the level 8 or below category, but there would be plenty of people capable of doing more than that worldwide. Also, yes, I realize a bellcurve is not an accurate representation of level statistics worldwide, but I don't know how to describe a more accurate curve with words. :) More up on the left side and down on the right, with some squiggles and shady parts. ;)

Quote:

However there is nothing that stops it from also following the poison rules, and it is a poison. By the poison rules you make a save as soon as you come into contact with the poison, and you make a save on your turn.

If you walk through the vapor you will be affected, and holding your breath does not protect you.

If you only had to make a save on your turn then you would not have to make a save upon the initial casting of the spell, and yet the spell says nothing about a delayed save for spell, nor a delayed save to counter the normal poison rules.

I hear what you're putting down, but this isn't actually supported by the RAW. I have some very strict, by the book types in my group, and what you're describing is very much a houserule. A logical and intuitive one, yes, and one that logically follows, but not RAW, nonetheless.

So where, if at all, in the text does it say that simply touching the cloud immediately kills you, even for a brief millisecond of contact? Is that how we interpret the "automatic" part of the spell's text?

Quote:
Was it your turn and were you at any point in the cloud? Moving through the cloud on your turn qualifies, and you're affected by the cloud. Depending on HD it can mean instant death or con damage. The rest is to let you know in happens again if you're still in the cloud.

I'm the dungeon master. It was the party's wizard that used the spell. Killed three encounter's worth of NPCs in one casting, and trivialized an adventure module's boss fight in another. It was glorious, honestly. I was very proud of them. My problem isn't with that particular performance, however, or with any heretofore committed acts, but with how the spell works in general. This is pirate campaign, and I'm struggling with how their next shipboard combat results in anything but mass, instantaneous slaughter of both ships' entire crews in the first round of combat due to this spell. I want to ensure that I have a good handle on how the rules work, how they should work, and how they will work so that the next session runs smoothly with minimal rules lookup. I'm also worried about the campaign coming to a screeching halt due to the group losing their crew after every single fight-worth-mentioning as they pirate the high seas.

Quote:
Remember, this is a cloud of poison-like stuff. It affects you even if you don't breath it in because it states holding your breath doesn't work but poison immunity does. So it's basically some sort of contact poison. If you come in contact with the cloud of poison, it affects you.

But does it affect you if it touches the nail of your pinky finger? Is there a saturation point that must be reached? A certain amount of surface area of skin that must be covered? I know I'm being overly pedantic, but, again, I DM for three engineers who WILL tell me the amount of time real chlorine gas takes to break down someone's body if I pause for a split second because I don't have immediate rulings ready to go.

I get the message you're putting down. I just want to ensure either that it's supported by the RAW as described in the spell, or that it is a logical interpretation of it. I don't care which it is; I just need to know whether it's fact, opinion, or opinion of fact so I can roll it adroitly when the time comes.

Quote:
Sometimes rules have weird interactions and RAW is not god and leads to interesting/weird results if you try to run games by RAW.

I agree with this line most of all, however, it can create a fractious table if half of the group disagrees, especially when it's a life or death situation, or they're just serious sticklers about the rules.

Sorry for being so picky and overly pedantic. Again, I just need these ducks in a row so I can shoot them quickly. Nothing slows a session down and raises tension like arguing rules midsession. ><


The gust of wind actually is sustained for one round.

Spoiler:

Gust of Wind

School evocation [air]; Level druid 2, sorcerer/wizard 2

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range 60 ft.

Effect line-shaped gust of severe wind emanating out from you to the extreme of the range

Duration 1 round

Also, a line is shown in the magic chapter of the core rulebook as being five feet wide, so the line's width is specified.

As for your purview, and your thoughts that the spells don't have a lot of use otherwise, I think that's reasonable. Thank you. :) I'd love to get lots of opinions so I can weigh them all and have a majority decision from many minds. Anyone else have any ideas? :D


Ah, thanks for the clarifications. I had thought it was cast only on a person, not on a space. Knowing that it only has the potential to kill creatures with 6HD or less helps, too. Thanks. :)

Quote:
If you move through the area of the spell effect it affects you, either killing you or causing you to take con damage.

So this part is a bit less explicit. I'll repeat, "a bit less explicit." I see the lines you're reading between, but I feel that many people could treat that as an interpretation. The con damage part is specifically called out. This uses the word "automatic" which isn't quite so loaded a keyword.

Also, you say that moving through it causes you to take con damage. THe spell seems to explicitly disagree with you, which is why I'm having a hard time adjudicating when this effect kicks in.

"in which case it takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud"

Quote:
If a ship goes through the cloud, everyone on the ship that is exposed to the cloud (the cloud wouldn't penetrate closed doors or other parts of the ship so were basically just talking about people on the main deck) would die if below the HD threshold or need to make saves against con damage.

This is the crux of my question. You say this because you took the stance I did that any part of you being in the cloud for a minuscule fraction of a second causes the death part, but, again, I'm not positive that's explicitly stated in the text. Or not. I'm not certain either way.

Quote:
As far as the spell on a regional or world wide level, it's a 5th level spell. That means a 9th level wizard to cast it. 9th level wizards are relatively rare, so not that many people available to cast them.

Ha, not in Golarion. xD Also, realistically, not in a 9th+ level campaign. In order to be challenged, the PCs are going to continually meet people well above this. If one assumes a homogeneous or at least similar saturation of power throughout the world as is concentrated at the PCs' point of existence, well...

I guess this supposes the PCs aren't special snowflakes. I know some people do do that.

Quote:
The spell also can only affect a relatively limited area. It's a 20ft radius spread that lasts for 1 minute per level. At 20th level it would travel only 2000ft over the course of that 20 minutes. So about .4 of a mile. You could damage a city, and kill a lot of people. But so could a lot of other spells too. It would also be relatively easy to avoid if someone noticed it since you could pretty easily get out of the way.

Yeah, but as you saw, this spell would easily cripple seabound commerce. Cast en masse upon an army that is, well, massed (say at the gates or outside the wall) and it would be pretty destructive, too. So while I agree that the level requirements and slow speed and relatively small volume of effect do limit it, I feel like there are plenty of unaddressed parameters that could still be fairly world-altering, yeah?


Anyone know when you die in a cloudkill? What I mean is, the spell reads "These vapors automatically kill...", but are you subject to these effects immediately upon the spell being cast upon you? What if you move through it? Wave a hand through it? What if you're on a moving ship and the movement of the ship sweeps the cloudkill through the entire crew? Does EVERYONE die? Is there a certain amount of time you must be in for this spell to automatically kill you? Do you only die if you're in the cloud on the caster's turn?

Bonus Round: How do you DMs deal with this spell affecting conflicts on a regional or world-wide scale?


At our recent session we had a bit of a snafu regarding gust of wind and a cloudkill. There was some arguing as to how the various rules interfaced, and I think everyone walked away from the conversation a little miffed with the end result upon which we eventually settled.

My question is thus: how does gust of wind affect fog or mist effects, specifically spell-created effects, such as fog cloud, obscuring mist, and cloudkill?

Some background clutter on things we talked about and considered:

Spoiler:

* My long-time belief in how the spell worked was that wind spells were largely the counter to fog spells. That is, gust of wind shredded and dispersed most fog/mist (I'm going to just say fog from now on) effects in a single round, no questions asked, per the line that reads "A moderate wind (11+ mph) disperses the fog in 4 rounds; a strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round." And by this I mean that it dispersed (which I define to mean "removed from existence for the purposes of this combat") the entire fog bank.

The primary arguments against this are as follows:

Argument 1: The wind should only affect the area in which it is present. That is, a line of fog would cease to exist, but the fog as a whole would still be there. In the case of cloudkill, this would mean there would be no effect AT ALL because the fog cloud's movement would then roll the fog through an area and erase the erasure of fog.

The primary evidence in support of this argument is the fact that a gust of wind "must" have a sheathe around the wind column that prevents the wind from affecting cloud in any area but its five-foot wide line, since creatures literally adjacent to the line but not in it are completely unaffected by wind, and fluid dynamics states that this could not be the case. Thus, full dispersion of the could would not occur, since the areas around the column are actually unmoving. P.S., I play with three engineers. xD

Argument 2: The wind has zero effect whatsoever, because the fog effect can exist only in the area specified by the spell. The wind effect is incapable of moving the fog effect outside the fog's area, because the spell explicitly defines dimensions for the created fog. As a result, wind blowing inside the fog will move the fog around, but since the fog cannot leave the area, not even a gap will occur within the fog due to the wind.

Any insight people can give me on this would be appreciated. I understand that this has the potential to be a gray area of the rules, so I would value both hard facts and opinions, as long as those opinions are couched upon the basis of some measure of logic, rather than "I would do this because I feel like it." :) My goal here is to make a ruling that is both as fair and as logical as possible, while being consistent and supported by the ruleset to as great a degree as is feasible.

Thanks a bunch. :)

Some related questions that can use answering:

Spoiler:

* Is the fog that is created nonmagical fog, and thus privvy to the natural laws of physics after it is formed, or is it "forced" to stay in its defined area and unable to be acted upon by outside forces?

* How do you define the line "In addition to the effects noted, a gust of wind can do anything that a sudden blast of wind would be expected to do. It can create a stinging spray of sand or dust, fan a large fire, overturn delicate awnings or hangings, heel over a small boat, and blow gases or vapors to the edge of its range."? Do you consider the highlighted "it" to be referring to the gust of wind, meaning that the gust of wind can blow vapors to the edge of the gust of wind's range? Or do you consider the "it" to refer to the vapors, such that the gust of wind can only blow vapors to the edge of the vapors' range (per the restrictions in the above question)?


That's the thing; I *want* it to be a material substitution. But the proposal of a +1 damage bonus isn't good enough to *ever* take it instead of one of the big three special materials. There's just no reason. You'd be gimping yourself, and that's what I'm struggling with.

I don't honestly like the +1 bonus to attack and damage for any purposes but thematic. I feel that it makes quite a bit of sense for theme, but mechanically, it's too powerful. I suppose the question is whether it's *too* powerful, at least in comparison to the other special materials. Cold iron, silver, and adamantine would still always be better against their respective creatures. This iteration of dragonbone would only be better when not faced with material-based damage reduction.

Pricing it is difficult, but, perhaps it could, again, be compared to the special materials that currently exist. Does anyone have any ideas?


AwesomenessDog: Yes, I'm aware of the core rules for dragonhide. As mentioned in my post, I think it's quite worthless and very lame. Almost never worth having over some other material type.
I like your proposed rules, but they're too powerful, to be honest. That's a huge number and amount of bonuses that makes it hands down better than anything else out there.

Thanks,alexd1976. That was generally the goal. In the end, I've decided to drop the flat armor bonus so that it's not simply better than other armors, and also to lower the price a bit, otherwise it's exactly the same.

If anyone can help me with the pricing, that would be lovely. :)


Aelryinth, you're aware we're talking about a static bonus when the item is *not* enchanted, right?

I agree with your second line. It makes sense to grant the bonuses if/when the item is enchanted. But that wasn't quiiiiite what we were talking about, heh.


Zavas, I'm not saying there aren't ways you can't make it work, just that there is a disconnect that I don't like. If dragon bones do elemental damage, why don't dragon claws do it?


I definitely don't want to go that route. Thank you for the input, though. :)


Hey, all,

I recently made a post about homebrew dragonbone weapons, and I'm looking to do a similar thing with dragonhide armor, because I feel like Pathfinder's version is just horrendously lame.

Here's the same Backstory and Rules of the other thread.

Backstory:

Spoiler:
I've always loved the idea of dragonhide armor having natural abilities beyond simply being tough or energy resistant, and in the world in which I DM dragons are very magical creatures. Since they're also rare, I'd like for dragonhide to be its own special material, similar to adamantine or mithral, with its own bonuses and such.

Put simply, I'd like such armor to be special. They won't be available for purchase to players, generally; they'll only be available to players if they actually slay a dragon (which they recently did).

Unfortunately, I find Pathfinder/3.5's rules on such things to be decidedly lackluster. Balanced, yes. Impressive, interesting, fun, or special? Not really. :\

If any of you are interested, I would really appreciate some criticism on what I've so far created (criticism without needless cruelty, heh). What I have so far is a rough draft that came to me today after reading the entry in the Draconomicon, so I would really appreciate some refinement, especially in regards to pricing.

Rules:

Spoiler:
Ideally, what I want out of this is the following:
1) It should be thematically appropriate. I chose to go with dragons' natural magic-ness due to DR and their energy type, but other themes could work, too.
2) It should be special/fun/interesting and have the potential to make the players actually want it more than adamantine, mithral, or whatever else is out there.
3) It should be mechanically and logically sound. I play with three engineers...
4) Ideally, I would like for it to be cost appropriate. This is harder and thus more fluid than the others. I don't mind making it overly expensive if necessary to maintain points 1 and 2, but it would definitely be ideal it was 1, 2, 3, AND affordable along the lines of other special materials, keeping in mind that slaying one dragon nets the potential for multiple weapons and that dragons already have a lot of treasure for their CR...

Dragonhide Armor

Spoiler:

Armor of most types can be crafted from the scales, hide, and bones of a dragon. Crafting such armor requires a DC 30 Craft (Armorsmithing) check and requires the choicest scales from a dragon’s hide. Any such armor crafted from dragonhide is always masterwork and has an armor bonus one higher than normal. In addition, the armor itself remains immune to energy damage of the same type as the breath weapon of the dragon that supplied the hide. If such armor is magically enchanted at a later point, it grants additional bonuses – for each +1 enhancement bonus that the armor gains, it grants energy resistance 2 (of the same energy type as the breath weapon of the dragon that supplied the hide) and DR 1/magic to the wearer. These bonuses stack with any other energy resistance and DR/magic that the _armor_ may later gain through enhancement, but does not stack with other sources of energy resistance, as normal.

A dragon’s wings and the soft scales of its underbelly can be crafted into a fine leather that is sufficient for making padded armor, leather armor, or hide armor. Dragonleather has 2 hardness and 10 hp per inch of thickness, plus an additional amount of hardness equal to the damage reduction of the dragon from which the leather came.

The rest of a dragon’s scales are hard and tough as steel (or tougher, in the case of some dragons). Such scales can be used for making scale, splint, or banded mail; breastplates; full or half plate; or even light or heavy shields. Dragonscale has 8 hardness and 20 hp per inch of thickness, plus an additional amount of hardness equal to the damage reduction of the dragon from which the leather came.

The amount of dragonscales that can be salvaged from a single dragon’s corpse varies based upon the dragon’s size, as detailed below. Harvesting the scales of a dragon requires a DC 30 survival check ( or a DC 25 profession check directly related to skinning) and magically enchanted skinning tools. In lieu of magically enchanted tools, a light or one-handed magical blade can be used at a -2 penalty. Attempting to skin and separate the parts of a dragon without a magical weapon forces a -4 penalty on the check. Failing this check reduces the usable number of harvested dragonscales to the next lowest size category. Failing this check by 5 or more reduces the usable number of harvested dragonscales by two size categories.

Dragonhide Armor
Dragon Size|Dragonleather|Dragonscales|Shield
Tiny|1/4|1/8|1/8
Small|½|¼|¼
Medium|1|½|½
Large|2|1|1
Huge|4|2|2
Gargantuan|6|4|4
Colossal|8|6|6

The number in each column corresponds to the number of suits of medium-sized armor that can be crafted using a slain dragon’s corpse. Fractional numbers indicate that only a size smaller than medium can be made (though dragonhide could be saved up from multiple dragons to craft a larger armor than normal – in this case, the youngest dragon’s hide determines the magical properties overall). ½ indicates a small creature, ¼ indicates tiny, and 1/8 indicates diminutive. Dragonleather refers to padded, leather, studded leather, and hide armor. Dragonscales refers to scale, splint, or banded mail; breastplates; and full or half plate. Shield refers to light or heavy shields. Columns are cumulative, not exclusive. That is, a single large dragon can craft two suits of dragonleather, one suit of dragonscales, and a single shield.

It is worth noting that dragons do not look kindly upon those that slay their kin and kind.


Quote:
Yeah, I know he's not trying to be so egregious as to make them +30, but the point is valid: there is no way to evaluate or critique (as the thread requests) items in a campaign where nobody, players or GM, has any interest at all in balancing anything.

You are exactly correct, DM_Blake. This is why I need a worthwhile pricing. I track treasure given out to the PCs and adhere to the treasure per encounter tables (on an aggregate over the adventure, rather than per encounter), and try to keep them within 15% of a prorated value of their WBL guideline (based upon their percentage of the way through their level), so assigning these items a gp value is important. And while the players will *likely* not be able to buy these items at any point, they absolutely can sell them. The reason they wouldn't be able to buy them is because of the high demand and low supply. This would work in their favor if they choose to sell them, and rightly so.

The group is very lax on how they separate treasure, so the other point about divvying up treasure doesn't really concern them, as much, but the rest of your points are on the nose.


DM_Blake wrote:

This doesn't work very well, I'm afraid.

Yeah, I saw and considered this same problem, but I wasn't sure how to address it because the flat damage boost seemed to be the best and most logical bonus I could come up with.

Quote:


If the price doesn't scale with the benefit, then whatever price you assign it (say, 10,000gp flat price for example) means it's overpriced at low values (+1 weapons) and underpriced at high values (+3 or +4 weapons).

Agreed. That's the problem I"m having with this iteration of the item. As for the problem with energy weapons, since they're generally a weak enhancement, I had less a problem with just making them better, but, again, I do see your point.

Quote:


Some ideas might be:
Increase damage die
Decrease effort (handedness)
Increase hardness/HP (you already did this one)
Bypass DR/Hardness
Always confirm a critical hit without rolling (a risky one indeed)
Apply static energy damage even if not enchanted at all
Apply bane effect against creatures of opposite energy type even if not enchanted at all
Reduce the cost of enchanting these weapons

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Some of them might be quite...

These are really good, and very helpful. Pretty much just what I'm looking for. Let's kick these around and address them one by one.

* Increased damage die
I like this one, but I think it runs into the same scaling problems you mentioned before. For smaller weapons, the return is marginal. For larger weapons (especially d8 and higher), the return is much greater. However, if prices for dragonbone weapons are delineated based upon handedness, this might not actually be an issue, and would solve the problem readily. It also has the benefit of reducing the value of high threat weapons (very marginally) compared to high dice weapons.

So how would this work? Flat increase of one size category to the damage die, instead of the +1 attack and damage I originally proposed?

* Decrease handedness
I always worry about playing around with this particular facet, since it messes with things like weapon finesse, power attack, and the like. I feel like damage die increases are neater.

* Increase Hardness
I did already do this, but I only did it from "human" bone to "steel" (roughly). I'm not opposed to establishing that dragonbone is stronger than steel, but I wonder what value that would really have in combat. Players that are paranoid about their weapons being destroyed (which is staggeringly difficult, even when I purposefully change ooze/babau/etc rules about bypassing hardness, can simply have an invulnerable weapon with adamantine. If this is the sole point of interest on the new special material, I can't see it really drawing in interest.

* Bypass Hardness/DR
This is another thing that adamantine already does, or that special materials in general do. What niche could dragonbone do that would be better?
As a side note, I have thought very often about bringing back DR/+X instead of flat DR/magic....but always decide against it because +X weapons are already better than most special abilities and don't need the assistance. If I did port in that change, dragonbone weapons could be treated as a higher enhancement bonus for DR purposes. But then I feel like I'm changing too much just for this one tiny aspect of the game.

* Always confirm crits
I agree that this is risky. I think I would like to shy away from this. I'm not sure how thematic it is...plus I have a magus in the group and that just makes things silly.

* Static Energy damage (even when not enchanted)
I saw this from the Draconomicon and balked at it. As much as it makes sense from a mechanical outlook, I don't see it as making sense thematically. Dragons themselves don't do energy damage on their attacks. Why should their bones? I'm not arguing - I'm genuinely asking. I'd love to be convinced on this point.

* Bane Effect
This is interesting, but very powerful. I like the concept, and it's pretty strong thematically, but I feel like this makes some dragon bones weaker than others. Fire/cold is obvious. But what do green dragon bones bane against? Green dragons are waterairforest dragons with acid breath. Is that earth? So air creatures? Even though green dragons have the air subtype?

* Reduced enchanting cost
I like this a lot.
I feel like this is thematic (dragons being magical creatures, their bones are more easily enchanted than other things-the opposite of cold iron).
I feel like it's desirable at all levels
I feel like it has its own niche.
The main downside is that, depending on implementation, it could well have a much lower potential power level than other special materials (which can bypass DR).

So how would this be implemented?
* 10% reduction to all costs for better scaling benefits? This would give better scaling and allow for competition with DR-bypassing materials, but could well be *too* powerful.

* Flat 2,000gp reduction to the first enchantment (the inverse of cold iron)? This is kind of neat. It means that all dragonbone weapons are effortlessly +1 weapons, making them naturally magical. The ability could even be rewritten so that this is the case - they start out at +1 weapons, rather than having an enchantment reduction.

_________________________

Thoughts on everything so far? Thanks again for the great input so far, everyone.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
If they can't buy it then price isn't a worry,

Well, price equates, generally, to power. I don't want to give them something TOO powerful, but I do want to give them something good for succeeding at an extremely hard and optional fight.

Quote:
Also since the material is already there, they don't have to pay to make the crafting checks to work it.

Right. They'll just have to make it themselves, or pay someone a premium to do the work using their materials.

Quote:
Your +1 to weapon enchantment bonus is a good idea only if you make it so a longsword +5 isn't now a dragonbone longsword +6,

This is a good idea. I could add in language such that it increases the enhancement bonus, but does not increase it past +5.

Quote:
instead of an extra die, I would make the energy bonus equal to 1/2 (minimum 1) the dragon that it was taken form's age category.

I saw a lot of that in the Draconomicon, but I don't like it. I feel like rolling dice is more interesting and fun, and there's less math and accountability if you just add a die rather than factor in age categories. I feel like there are already enough benefits for killing an older dragon.

Quote:
Otherwise looks pretty good; my only question does a colossal dragon give 1000 ammunition, 20 light weapons, 12 one handed weapons, and 4 two handed weapons or is it subtracted from a total by a ratio? (I think you intended the former but it isn't clearly defined.)

It gives all of them. I basically pulled out my large dragon piece and a medium sized mini and kind of eyeballed how many weapons I thought could be made from their bones, using large as my middlepoint and just moving up linearly from there. I'm not sure how balanced that is or isn't, but, yeah, that age category gives all those items. The idea is that, with all the smaller bones you can make things like arrowheads, and the larger bones can be used to make weapons. With larger dragons, there are more bones that are large enough to make large weapons.

Quote:
Instead of treating it as a higher bonus, perhaps just a +1 to hit and damage, and ability to bypass DR/magic? I know that's a small point, but there's the other benefits that +1 gives.

What other benefits does it give besides hardness and hit points? I'm generally ok with that increase, but I'm not opposed to your change, either. It's neater, in some ways.


Hey, all,

Backstory:

Spoiler:

I've always loved the idea of dragonbone weapons having natural abilities beyond simply being tough or energy resistant, and in the world in which I DM dragons are very magical creatures. Since they're also rare, I'd like for dragonbone weapons to be their own special material, similar to adamantine or mithral, with its own bonuses and such.

Put simply, I'd like such weapons to be special. They won't be available for purchase to players, generally; they'll only be available to players if they actually slay a dragon (which they recently did).

Unfortunately, I find Pathfinder/3.5's rules on such things to be decidedly lackluster. Balanced, yes. Impressive, interesting, fun, or special? Not really. :\

If any of you are interested, I would really appreciate some criticism on what I've so far created (criticism without needless cruelty, heh). What I have so far is a rough draft that came to me today after reading the entry in the Draconomicon, so I would really appreciate some refinement, especially in regards to pricing.

Rules:

Spoiler:

Ideally, what I want out of this is the following:
1) It should be thematically appropriate. I choose to go with dragons' natural magic-ness due to DR and their energy type, but other themes could work, too.
2) It should be special/fun/interesting and make the players actually want it more than adamantine, mithral, or silver (we don't use the rule where enhancement bonus allows you to bypass material damage reductions, so the special material has to be quite good to make up for this).
3) It should be mechanically and logically sound. I play with three engineers...
4) Ideally, I would like for it to be cost appropriate. This is harder and thus more fluid than the others. I don't mind making it overly expensive if necessary to maintain points 1 and 2, but it would definitely be ideal it was 1, 2, 3, AND affordable along the lines of other special materials, keeping in mind that slaying one dragon nets the potential for multiple weapons and that dragons already have a lot of treasure for their CR...

Dragonbone Weapons

Spoiler:

Weapons of any type can be crafted of the bones, teeth, or spines of dragons. Regardless of whether they are tooth, bone, claw, or spine, such weapons are called “dragonbone.” Crafting such a weapon requires a DC 30 Craft (Weaponsmithing) check, and the weapon must be crafted from a single solid piece of dragonbone. Failing this check completely ruins the piece, rather than part of the value. However, such weapons, once created, are automatically masterwork and are considered magical for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction and for striking incorporeal foes (even if they are not actually magical). If they are magically enchanted at a later point, their enhancement bonus is treated as one higher than it actually is for all effects (thus, a +1 dragonbone longsword is treated as a +2 weapon when attacking). Finally, such weapons always have an affinity for energy damage that correlates to the dragon’s breath weapon. If they are later enchanted with the energy or energy burst ability, they gain an extra die of energy damage when activated, and a second extra die on a critical hit (if they have the burst ability).

Dragonbone has hardness 10 and 20 hp per inch of thickness.

The number of dragonbone weapons that can be salvaged from a single dragon’s corpse varies based upon the dragon’s size, as detailed below. Harvesting the parts of a dragon requires a DC 30 survival check (Or a DC 25 profession check directly related to skinning) and magically enchanted skinning tools. In lieu of magically enchanted tools, a light or one-handed magical blade can be used at a -2 penalty. Attempting to skin and separate the parts of a dragon without a magical weapon forces a -4 penalty on the check. Failing this check reduces the number of harvested dragon parts by half. Failing by five or more reduces the number of harvested dragon parts to one quarter.

It is worth noting that dragons do not look kindly upon those that slay their kin and kind.

Dragonbone Weapons per Dragon Corpse
Dragon Size|Ammunition|Light|One-handed|Two-handed
Tiny|15|0|0|0
Small|30|2|0|0
Medium|60|4|0|0
Large|120|8|2|0
Huge|240|12|4|0
Gargantuan|480|16|8|2
Colossal|1000|20|12|4
(Sorry, I don't know how to make this table pretty. :( )

Ammunition +?? gp per missile
Light +???? gp
One-handed +???? gp
Two-handed +???? gp


I DM a setting where dragons are very rare, and I absolutely despise how lackluster dragonscale armor is in 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder.

Does anyone know of any rules out there that anyone else has made for dragonbone weapons/armor or dragonscale armor that don't completely suck? I'm being slightly hyperbolic, there. I'd actually like some really awesome rules.

Thanks oodles. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"The dragon has yet to lose" is not something to be proud of. This isn't a game of Players vs. DM. It's a collaborative game of all players working together to have fun.


Ah, ok, yes, I could see that. Hmm hmmm. Guess it's up to me, then. Thanks, all. :)


Unless there's an FAQ on it, it's a bit of a gray area and it's going to be up to your DM. The spell does not explicitly state how damage is transferred, whether it's transferred magically or magically and physically or what. That means that the interpretation will be up to your DM, but I believe that most people play it such that the caster cannot mitigate the damage in any way. Which would also mean that the damage is untyped, so it would not shut off regeneration.

Again, however, I'm not certain on that. I would definitely suggest talking to your DM, or maybe hoping that someone who spends more time on these boards than I do has a FAQ reference available.


Byakko, I'm not sure I get what you're saying. You've seen it ruled as only one AOO? If so, why? It seems clear to me that it should be two.

As for your third line, are you proposing that there should then be a third AOO?


That's true. I had forgotten about that. Alrighty, then, seems to me that it does provoke two attacks of opportunity. Interesting.


Those look like some pretty good links. I will give those a try. Thanks, all. :)


So I run a game with some players that are pretty good at optimizing, and they make laughable mincemeat out of the delightfully themed people in the NPC codex and elsewhere. I'm wondering if anyone knows of a product out there that is essentially a compendium of combat-optimized NPCs that will actually give well-built characters a challenge. Because, let's face it, Skill Focus (Profession Merchant) makes sense for that NPC, but it's not worth diddly when it comes to combat.

Anyone ever heard of such a thing?


So I'm aware that you cannot "make more than one attack for a given opportunity." The two issues I'm coming up with involve combat reflexes (of course) with trampling and with tiny creatures.

With tiny creatures, or creatures using the trample special ability, an attack of opportunity is triggered either for entering the opponent's space or for initiating the trample attack (which involves entering the opponent's space). Now I know that "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent"... but as the tiny creature or trampling creature moves from the adjacent, threatened space INTO the opponent-with-combat-reflexes' space, does that trigger two attacks of opportunity? One for moving out, and one for moving in?

It's one action, yes, and it is movement, yes, but the rules delineate between moving into and moving out of spaces, and it seems to me that a literal reading of the rules would indicate that this would grant two attacks of opportunity for someone with combat reflexes.

I am not, however, all sure of that. Does anyone have a better idea? have you dealt with this before or gotten a viable developer ruling?

Thanks oodles!

Brogue


I really wish people wouldn't post without reading what's already here...as mentioned, the players will essentially have two minutes of "free time" they can spend on looting, spell memorization, or some similar combination of the two. Fast study would be an aid, but the player didn't take it, so as a suggestion, it's not helpful, plus it's been suggested several times already.

Quote:

At this point I don't really know what you're looking for. There is no by the rules way of the wizard getting all of his spells back instantaneously.

Yes, I was and am hoping for some sort of out-of-the box solution to the puzzle. Just because I'm seeking one does not mean one exists, however. The suggestions I've so far been given are imperfect but usable, and they may have to do. I do greatly appreciate the input of those that helped out and listened to what I was looking for, so far.

Quote:
You do not seem to want to give the wizard scrolls or wands. I suspect the best fit; if you are going to stay by the rules is to allow the wizard to hide for fifteen minutes and prepare a quarter his spells and hope he has a bonded item or some already prepared spells.

I will most likely give the wizard a few scrolls to use in combat. It's not ideal, but I'm not convinced there is an ideal situation. I think people are missing that. As I said, just because I"m looking for and hoping for a solution does not mean there is one.

Quote:

I still think it's perfectly fine to give the wizard some sort of inspired emergency bonus. It's clear you don't want the wizard to have nothing; I agree, that would be boring. But your choices all forms of GM caveat, pick the one the least breaks the verisimilitude and go from there.

That is my other thought, yes. Something small would not ruin the benefit of the magus' ability.

Thanks for the input, Create Mr. Pitt.

Dafydd, I don't like to tell the players what they will or won't be coming up against in the future. Even if I were to run a scenario like this again, in order for their choices to have merit everything has to have value and everything has to be possible. Plus, for a smart wizard fast study is useful every day, as he leaves spell slots open.

The thread has helped a lot. As people have pointed out, he won't be helpless. He still has school powers and cantrips, and if they make it through the fights in this area, they'll be able to push on further that day without resting since he'll essentially be at full strength. I think I will give him a few scrolls of spells he doesn't yet know that he'll have to choose between using or saving to memorize, as well as a low level wand of some sort. That will affect both him and the magus. That should allow the player to still participate in the combats and allow the magus to function at effectively full strength.

Anyway, thanks a lot to everyone that participated. Signing off now for the game tomorrow. Good night.

1 to 50 of 551 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>