Chovesh's page

For a homebrew pathfinder campaign, I wanted to get your opinion if the changes to the Seamantle spell, turning it into a Treemantle (wood element) spell are balanced.

Seamantle

Is the below balanced with regards to the 8th level spell Seamantle? (It would only be available to druids and those of the Wood School of magic.)

Treemantle
Duration 1 minute/level
DESCRIPTION
You sheathe yourself within a leafy pine tree up to 30 feet high that fills your space and which bends as if violently blown by the win. You can see, hear, and breathe normally within the Treemantle, but attacks against you are treated as if you were behind a wall of thick branches equivalent to several inches of wood. You gain improved cover (+8 cover bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) against foes that do not have freedom of movement effects. 30 points of fire damage (absorbed by Treemantle) will reduce this improved cover to normal cover until the end of your next turn. The cover granted by the Treemantle does not enable you to prevent attacks of opportunity or make ANY Stealth checks. Magical attacks against you are unaffected unless they require attack rolls.

As you are sheathed within a living tree, neither you nor the mantle can be grappled as the pine needles surrounding you bend and deflect all attempts at grappling.

========

1) I think that replacing the fire dispelling ability with the protection from targeted mind affecting affects (including beneficial ones) is a close trade off, although not "perfectly" balanced.

2) I think that gaining protecting from two less common elements (electricity/sonic) while giving limited reduced protection from fire is a fair trade off. The inability to use ANY stealth is a part of the balance.

Your thoughts?

Aberration creature has thorns with poison that does 1d4 damage, DC17, requires consecutive 2 saves, duration 2 rounds. Player are poisoned when they hit it.

QUESTION #1:
If they pass the first save, they get no damage that first round. Correct or not?

"Making your initial saving throw against a poison means stacking does not occur—the poison did not affect you and any later doses are treated independently."

QUESTION #2:

Round 1
Hit #1: DC17 - Saved - no stacking (DOSE #1)
Hit #2: DC17 - Failed - doses stack (DOSE #2)
Hit #3: DC19 - Saved - no stacking (DOSE #2) - 3 rounds duration instead of 2 rounds
Hit #4: DC17 - Saved - no stacking (DOSE #3)

Round 2
Dose #1: DC17 - Saved - Poison ends (no con damage was ever take from this dose).
Dose #2: DC19 - Failed - one more round to go, one more save required, all new hits add onto the DC19 and increase the duration.
Dose #3: DC17 - Failed - Poison ends (con damage occurred only in the 2nd and final round)

Is this correct?

In a recent dungeon crawl my PC wanted to summon and send an air elemental to detect and set off traps so that we knew what we were looking at. The party had already taken a beating, had used numerous spells and healing, and had a few members with negative levels.

Several party members objected strongly saying it was immoral to send a "sentient" (although summoned) creature to scout and possibly trigger traps, and that it was the equivalent of torture.

I'd heard of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) and of a group opposed to exactly that by with the same name, but PETSA? People for the Ethical Treatment of Summoned Elementals?

Then to my surprise, they argued that it was morally OK to summon one to fight when you needed it. Even though here too it would be painfully destroyed (for 24hrs) while you use it to "defend" you (specifically they said "to keep you from dying"), and while it probably held ill will for you for disturbing it.

Part of the argument used was the "How would you like it if you were jerked from your home and subject to having to be injured or temporarily and painfully destroyed? Such that if they ever met you in the future, they would hate you for subjecting them to this?" But somehow the fact that summoning them unwillingly to save you from dying (even though they would get painfully destroyed and probably want you to die for simply having disturbed them in the first place) was considered to be different and acceptable.

I just didn't get it and still don't. And the more they tried to explain it to me, the more clear it became that I simply didn't get it. That it was somehow ethically wrong to summon an elemental from another plane to save the life or limb of a creature that would die permanently if they screwed up versus a trap.

1. I first tried arguing that it was morally better to pseudo-sacrifice a sentient air elemental against a trap than to buy a dog and run him over the same traps. (I think they agreed with this one, but it didn't change their POV.)

2. I then tried arguing that bringing a sentient creature into a fight that it didn't want to fight was then also as bad under their reasoning. They disagreed, and I just didn't get it. Apparently subjecting a random sentient stranger to violence to spare your life or to make it easier for you to kill another creature (possibly a sentient one) didn't make a lick of difference.

So I come here to ask the community their thoughts, as I've thought about it some more and concluded the following:

1. Using shards of their reasoning, I've since concluded that bringing a sentient creature to fight for you is actually worse (or "more evil") than sending it to check and trigger traps, possibly being destroyed for 24 hours until it re-formed on its native plane.

a) As Golda Meir once said, "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but we cannot forgive them for making our sons kill their sons." Forcing a creature to harm another creature that it had no interest in harming, no connection to, and no prior knowledge of, would therefore be an evil act, even a form of "gladiatorial" torture.

b) Summoning a creature to "fight for you" (to save your life) generally ignores the fact that you are using it while out there being a murder hobo trying to kill things and take their stuff. The summoned creature may even wish you ill, but has to fight and become pseudo-lethally injured for you, yet receives no compensation and no XP. This is the equivalent of saying, "I'd like steak for lunch. Here, take this knife and go up against the bull, and when you're done, I'll finish him up and have my Rib-eye for lunch (and all the XP) while you simply get to go home with the memories of being traumatized by completely unexpected violence."

2. In a fantasy and possibly semi-medieval world filled with fantastical, violent, and dangerous beasts, where life is often "Nasty, Brutish, and Short" the sort of modern day value systems about "sentient creatures" is wholly misplaced and very absurd. {I should probably mention here that in my second Pathfinder campaign, a different group overcame a dragon that had sought them out to destroy them, but when beaten and captured, this large dragon would not explain its complete enmity for our group that it had attacked. One player then voice this opinion that it was wrong/evil to kill this again unconscious creature because it was sentient. Thankfully the rest of the group strenuously and reasonably objected to this position, pointing out that it was a "marauding monster" and the fact that it was sentient was absolutely irrelevant. It was clear he had a hard time grappling with this concept, but when pointed out the fact that it was not a sentient humanoid, he seemed to be a bit mollified.]

3. Shouldn't the spell "Enslave Random Creatures" (A.K.A. Summoning Spells) have an "Evil" descriptor? Or at the very least, have a minutes or 10 minutes per level duration "if they are not called upon to fight or do not suffer being attacked?" A sort of "You have to clean the outhouse and take out the dirty laundry for 60 minutes, unless you get attacked by the Otyugh living there, then you have to fight for your life, limb, and 24hour existence for the next 60 seconds."

4. Shouldn't most compulsion spells, (not a including charm type spell, because they clearly and presently "want" to do good things for you) be considered evil as well, especially since they are often abused to cause injury or misfortune to a compelled sentient creature? This being the equivalent to involuntary slavery of the "Enslave Random Creatures" Spell?

5. To be fair, in my own campaign, I may introduce a situation where if one player is effectively traveling 100mph, in a burning aircraft, with both arms broken, at 1hp, and 10' above the ground just before the plane makes an "uncontrolled landing," I'll ask the player if his PC is either has A) "his life flash before his eyes,"" or B) if he has this very deep feeling of "I don't want to be here!" If the answer is the latter I'll simply let him have a large negative circumstantial bonus to his Will Save (maybe a -10 circumstance penalty due to his high level of distraction and stress) against a "regional" spell affecting his particular section of the prime material plane; a spell cast from another plane seeking to summon a creature of his type. Since he would be the one that most meets the conditions that makes it possible for him to be the one summoned (over ALL the other creatures in his section of the prime material), he'll be the summoned creature, with full health, having to fight and be possibly killed on behalf of another creature that he has no knowledge of or interest in. If he succeeds, he'll come back to the material plane someplace safe in his original condition (cured of all lethal poisons/diseases), and if he dies in the fight, then he'll come back 24 hours later to someplace safe, but fully healed. Not that I'm making a particular point on how a weak first level spell might be able to reach across the planes to bring forth and compel a creature to willingly fight for you, it is just that it might be hilarious. As would be the reverse, an adventure hook started by trying to find a severely wounded guy who disappeared in a vicious fight that occurred but only 12 hours ago. (A guy who miraculously appears nearby after the party spends 12 hours searching for him, and tells of a waking up with memories of a rather bizarre albeit violent dream that he's having trouble remembering fully.)

Clearly, Jonathan Swift I'm not, but since I OBVIOUSLY still don't get it. Perhaps someone here would explain it to me so that the position of the rest of my party seems reasonable and fair to me so that I will actually "get it."

On behalf of all but one other in my party (who agreed with me), I thank you.

I'm about to start my first PFS game Thursday and I'm thinking of a doing a build that is Unarmed Fighter at Level 1 and then becomes a goliath druid.

The Primal Ancestry feat requires being a member of the Primordal Ones (Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Andoran, Birthplace of Freedom).

QUESTION
How do I accomplish this within PFS since it shows that the Primal ancestry feat is legal for play?
(http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/about/additionalResources)

Do I have to be a druid first, or can I simply start out as a non-druid member?

I'm thinking about joining a Pathfinder Society game this Thursday for the first time.

I've decided upon a Human Unarmed fighter build at L1, which then switches to the Goliath Druid (growth domain) for the next several levels.

QUESTION:
When looking at the unarmed fighter in UC it says the Unarmed fighter can take any style feat without meeting all the prerequisites. I'm interested in taking the "Snake Fang" style feat even though I wouldn't be able to use the feat until I got "Snake Style" at level 3 (earliest) as "Snake Fang" can only be used when using "Snake Style."

Is there something I'm missing that says I can only take the starting feat of the feat chain? If so, where is it?

Thanks!

druid wild shape is a polymorph magic
If a fire elemental is chosen it gets 20 fire resistance.
the spell "energy resistance" is an abjuration magic

The resistance of the abjuration is granted to whatever is targeted, while fire elementals has the flames from polymorph protecting them.

Do I used to resistance is from different sources stack?

During a full round action such as the Withdraw Action, can one move full speed, slow down to half speed to tumble (i.e.) and then pick up their speed again?

I had thought you break it down to the equivalent of two move actions, where you set your speed as either half speed, or full speed. One player insisted that as a base 30', he could go 10 squares, by simply speeding up again in the middle of a move.

Previously in my campaign I would not allow the throw anything feat to be used on Nets which were a 'Weapon' as opposed to an 'Improvised' weapon.

"Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. "

I've now reversed my decision based on two factors.
1. While the feat "Martial Weapon Proficiency" applies to a single weapon, the feat "Simple Weapon Proficiency" applies to all simple weapons.
2. It would be reasonable to argue that a normal 'Fishing' net, a clearly non-weapon item, could be used to entangle, and that a bed sheet could entangle or temporarily blind an opponent, where the Escape Artist check for a bedsheet would be much less as there are no holes/gaps to catch on anything like a net is apt to do.
3.

If I reverse myself, then Bolas, Nets, Grappling hooks, and anything that is thrown becomes useable, as if the person had gotten "Simple Weapon Proficiency" for anything that is thrown. I'm starting to think that this is reasonable, considering how many classes don't even have simple weapon proficiency, and how much of an impact this would have.

That having been said, I would not allow for "Net Adept" which requires proficiency in Net, to be available to someone who simply removes their non-proficiency penalty.

Am I wrong in reversing my previous ruling?
You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised ranged weapon.

Alternatively, one could argue that a lasso, a bola, and a net require a specific skill set.

If a L3 druid works with a L5 mage to create a cap/hat with the following:

100gp +1 skill point perception (as a hat)
500gp Intelligent Magic Item bonus
200gp 11 Intelligence
1200gp L1 spell 3/day (Magic Missile) - from the party mage

Then what level would the CL be for creating this?

I thougth the +1 skill point cap/hat could be made at any CL (DC = 5 + CL).

However, would it be limited to a CL3 for the creator (Druid), or CL 5 (mage who put in the spell that would shoot 3MM).

Can the item be made at a CL 9 so that the MM shoots 5?

Most people take the list price of magic items as a given, but I’m thinking of making a fundamental change to magic items in my world which changes their respective costs.

Economically speaking, when humanoids are going to have magic items made, they are going to go for the best value for their money, and go for the cheapest price, which means that according to most economic theories, most if not all magic items are made with just one restriction regarding (Race, Class, or Alignment) to gain the 30% discount.

New Campaign Rule I’m Considering:
“The ‘Norm’ is for magic items to be created with use restrictions. Over 90% of all magical items created are limited in one fashion or another. The most common restriction (90%) is race.”

It seems to me that the most common restriction that allows the 'most' people to use an item is 'race' unless an area is very metropolitan or mixed.

This way PCs who find magic items have a chance to not only find items they can’t use, but it may require them to actually ‘upgrade’ an item before it can be used.

Many people complain about the 30% discount for items which are ‘restricted’ to use by certain race/alignments/classes. Some argue this is an ‘addition’ to a magic item, while others argue that it is that the item isn’t fully formed. The RAW is the latter interpretation.

But what percentages?
Wondrous Items: Mostly race, but a few would be class specific.
Armor: Mostly class, but light armor probably race
Weapons: Depends upon if Martial weapon or Monk weapon
Wands: Mostly Class or race
Scrolls: Mostly Class or race
Potions: Mostly race.

The downside of this change to my campaign is additional tracking and calculations, but I think the ‘reality’ is that most magic items would be restricted in one way or another, while those that can be used by everyone might be nicknamed ‘Greater Masterwork’ magic items. ;-)

Any thoughts on this change? It is a not so subtle shift in the underlying economics of the world for most players who are not used to it.

RAW indicates that it takes 1 round to activate the spell from the ring since the spell is a 1 round spell.

But nowhere does it indicate that a Concentration check is needed or would ever be needed.

So once I start activating it, can I then take AOO's (via combat reflexes) prior to the beginning of my next round where I would finally become 'large'?

I would think I could, but perhaps I'm missing something.

There is no text about interrupting the spell from the ring, or it failing.

Does my APE animal companion need to get Improved Unarmed Strike before getting Improved Grapple, or are they already considered to have it? (Their unarmed strikes do lethal damage to begin with, and they are always unarmed, unless they have a weapon feat.)

L5 Character with the following progression:

L1 Druid FEAT: Boon Companion
L2 Sorcerer(Sylvan) gains animal companion
- Animal companion level caluclation:
---1) Sorcerer 1 - 3 levels = -2 (but must be 1 minimum)
---2) Druid level stacks with other class levels that have Animal Companions

Therefore Sorcerer is 1(The Minumum)+ Druid Level 1 = 2

And both animal companions are L2.

Some would argue that the Sorcerer based animal companion is still L1, but I don't see the requirement of ignoring the Druid levels, rather I see that the Sorcer Level as Druid equivalent needs to be calculated FIRST and then the Druid level stack on that.

Now if Boon Companion were taken on this second (Sorcerer) companion, then it would be.

Sorcer 1 (treated as 4 levels higher [Sor5]) - 3 = 2 (which is his total character levels anyway).

My question is at the end.

My players recently had to deal with a 'medium forest' encounter which slowed the pace of battle down, prevented easy 5' steps, and where the concealment chances turned a few hits into misses. Also, nearly everyone got +2 to AC as the trees in their squares provided partial cover.

It was certianly a change of pace to dungeon encounters and easy mobility.

Using Excel and VBA, I created a 'mapmaker' for various types of forests to create these types of encounters.

After some thought, I've created a little chart for what I would call "Course Hazards" for traveling in forest.

Course Hazards (Forest)
Player rolls a D6 every 30, on a 1, they inform me they might have encountered a course hazard as they 'discover' their way through the undergrowth of the forest.

2. Bird poops on you.
3. Animal Trail (Draw new path on map through undergrowth)
4. Box Turtle , Frog, or Bird (taking flight)
5. Nettles (if in undergrowth -1 to concentration check)
6. Large Gooey Spider Web(s), Or Gooey Mold/Fungus growth
7. --NOTHING--
8. Slippery mud (acrobatics check)
9. Fallen Log / Stump (Next move costs +1 square, or climb for +1 to attacks)
10. Centipede/Bees/Stinging creatures (-3 to concentration checks)
11. Scampering Squirrel/Mammal
12. Snake (roll to see if poisonous/aggressive)

Only a few have in-game effects. I'm thinking of switching to a 2d8 instead of 2d6 to allow for more things.

Tiny snakes, if poisonious, always have an 'attack of opportunity' vs flatfooted PC's, and simply scamper away and reconceal themselves, sort of 'mobile mines' in the forest. (They are effectivly mini-traps that do Dex damage)

Any suggestions as to things I could add or change?

I don't understand the timing rules on this.

Example:
Touch of Law (Sp): You can touch a willing creature as a standard action, infusing it with the power of divine order and allowing it to treat all attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, and saving throws for 1 round as if the natural d20 roll resulted in an 11. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Is it until...
1. The 'end of their next round'
2. The 'end of your next round'
3. One round taken whenever they want (i.e. they can 'hold' it)

If a monk2/sorcerer5 casts chill touch,then on the next round can he flurry of blows two touch attacks?

I've created the following character for Carrion Crown (15 pt buy).

I took Dhampir with a Wildblood "Sanguine" (undead) bloodline to give him the opportunity to heal from eating the blood of freashly dead. (Those who've died less than a minute previously.)

To go with this theme, all other levels he'll take will be monk (Hungry Ghost Monk - who will also vampirically steal Ki) I thought it made for a good theme.

One of the benefits of the single level of sorcerer is that he'll have both Mage Armor and Shield, and with the Magical Knack feat, these will be useful at higher levels and for long battles. And the penumbra cantrip is what makes this build work as he can then prevent himself from being dazzled in bright light.

And here is where it gets interesting:
1. The DM allows for FLAWS, so taking that into consideration, I thought I could take a two sorcer bloodlines (which reduce my spells known by one, and my will saves by -2) and make up for this with two Expanded Arcana feats. This gives me "3" Spells Known.

My third spell is Chill touch. So with the Campaign feat that allows me to cast one spell at +1CL, and that with Sanguine bloodline, Neocromancy spells are +1CL, I can then cast it as a CL3 at L1.

2. The second bloodline, in addition to the variant 'undead' blood line is Empyreal (Celestial based) which turns my casting stat from Charisma to a Wisdom 'based' stat for all sorcerer effects. Of course this benefits a monk build.

3. His main feat is Weapon Finesse, so now his Chill Touch will hit more frequently and do as much damange as a his early monk fists. His weapons are Cestus (a monks glove - "Simple Weapon" cateogry) and a longspear (which a sorcerer can use). This way he has BOTH reach and point bank attacks.

FLAWS
4. The choice of Flaws to take was interesting since being both a version of the Undead and Celestial (Sanguine/Empyreal) means that he is seriously conflicted/messed up (hence the -2 to will save for this dual blood archetype)

Flaw #1" -1 DC to spells
This was simple and really only affected his chill touch. But one would expect that since he has to cast off his wisdom, and has this internal battle between bloodlines, it makes thematic sense. While it is 'possible' he would or could continue as a sorcerer and have other spells, it is EXTREMELY unlikely.

Flaw #2: Possible 'fatigue' after spells
While there was a flaw that meant a failed saving throw put the PC into a 'fatigue' state until 8 hours of rest, this seemed excessive. Instead, I suggested to the DM that he have to make first a Concentration check, and then failing that, a Fortitude check whenever he casts ANY spell. (Including his spell like ability of detect undead.)

If he fails the Concentration check (DC11 for L1 spells) then he is 'fatigued' for 3 rounds and must pass a (DC11 for L1) fortitude save or gain another d3 rounds of fatique on top of it. Fatigue affects both his Dex and Str, which drops his to hit, AC, and damage for betweeen 0-6 rounds. I thought it a nice 'thematic' Flaw.

His stat block is
12 STR
18 DEX
10 CON
10 INT
14 WIS
9 CHR (no longer his sorcerer stat)
This means his concentration check starts at +1 and mostly maxes out at +3 by L3 (via magical knack)
His fortitud save is worse.

We've only played one session, and I'm considering suggesting to the DM that the Fortitude save be "sickened" (-2 to attack, dam, saves, etc) and be concurrent with the fatique status, but I think this may be a little 'too' harsh, but it would represent the 'taxing' nature of his spontaneously casting spells which come from his wisdome while his celestial and undead bloodlines are in conflict.

His history is that after not being able to initially fit into human society, he finds himself as a part of a vampire's court, and is captured (rescued) by a group that includes a Hungry Ghost Monk. His unique attributes (including his not fully developed sorcerers talent) made him a iniquely positioned in the vampires courts (magical knack), which made up for his low overall charisma - for showing elements of 'true' vampirism to eat/heal, even though the creature must have been freshly killed.

The party that 'captured' him, brought him to the professor (start of the campaign path) and in the process he was studied by the professor and befriended by the H.Ghost Monk. He is incouraged by the Professor (Inspired to Greatness trait) to develop his his magical skills (giving him +1CL on Chill touch spells) and eventually chooses to join the monestary of the monk in order to use that as a path into (mostly) civil society.

I figure that he has not yet passed his final 'monk exam' and while having all the attributes of a L1 monk, he dare not use them (LAWFUL neutral) as it would not be honorable or in line with the monks code. But to represent this, I give him the cestus (monks glove) as his primary weapon until he can start using the monks barehanded attack at L2.

The DM like this as it really seemed very good thematically.

We are looking at doing an adventure path, but haven't bought it yet. What is the method for carrion crown character generation? Rolling dice, point buy (and if so, how many points)?

Are the following two scenarios correct, or am I missing a rule.

Scenario #1:
To make a 2nd level wand of a spell he casts, a sorcerer pays half of 6000. (750gp x 2SL x 4CL = 6000) since he has to be L4 before he can even cast the second level spell. This makes a CL4 wand.

Now if brings in a wizard to cast the same spell when he makes the wand, there should be no 'penalty' and the wand should be half of 750 x 2SL x 3CL = 4500. The wand is CL3 (from the wizard who cast it at CL3)

Scenario #2:
Using the following,
A) Rod of Extend, lesser
B) L2 Spell (invisibility) - cast by a Wizard as CL3
C) Wand made by a L7 sorcerer with craft wand feat.

The wand would be half of the cost of...
750 x 3SL (metamagic boost) x CL3 = 6750
and have a duration twice as long as normal for a CL3 wand.

At what point do monsters get to overcome the "+3" armor enhancement "Invulnerability" (DR5/magic)? Is it HD, or does it specifically have to say in the stat block that their natural attacks are considered magical? (Obviously energy effects overcome DR).

Thanks!

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

I'm not sure I understand this phrase "denied a Dexterity bonus to AC"

Does this mean a 12 dex (+1) creature in a net gets -4 to its dex and is denied the 'positive' bonus of +1 (as it is now -1)? Or that since it has a dex bonus of -1, there is no sneak attack.

I'm about to run the encounter, where upon travelling to a small village because villagers spotted a tunnel when doing maintenance on the local well, the adventurers find that it isn't a tunnel at all, but a 5' grotto that looks like it could be a tunnel entrance. A bit of a letdown for the PC's.

Nevertheless, upon arriving to town they learn that there is not just one wedding, but three; and as a part of the celebrations, there are various contests, including a hastily arranged wrestling contest that will consist primarily for the locals and those who have traveled to attending the wedding. This is an opportunity for players to use the Combat Maneuvers to win a contest, a little money, and maybe a sash or medal.

Afterwards, there will be a series of boxing matches (non-lethal damage) where a local cleric will 'heal' all non-lethal damage between rounds by channeling positive energy. A monk will be the judge (and no monks are allowed in this tournament, for obvious reasons). The two PC's I expect to participate are an L2 Fighter (2-weapon fighter), and an L4 Bard. No magic assistance is allowed, and it will be an elimination ladder format.

I'm planning on tweaking the combat rules so that I can run the wrestling matches for the fun of the players.

A wrestler has a choice of 4 primary actions at the start of the match:
1. Demoralize (Intimidate)
2. Feint (Bluff)
3. Ready an action (can be bypassed if feint is successfully used by the opponent).
4. Take an action (move & standard) (initiate a grapple or trip)

I'm not sure if I should:
1. Simply award a win for the pin
2. Award victory upon pushing opponent outside a circle (pin, followed by a move action and then +4 to attempt by the defender to break the pin when being forced outside the circle using the 'move defender to "Hazardous Location"' rule.)
3. Use a point system: 1 point/Trip, 3 points/Pin

I'm also thinking of putting a time limit on each match of 2 or 3 one minutes matches (10r/turn), or to make each match 30 seconds (5 rounds), but with 3 of these rounds per match.

Any thoughts suggestions?

The parents of the various parties are putting up small purses, with buy-in at 4sp, and winner getting 20GP, 2nd place 5GP, and 3rd place getting double his entry fee. Not much for L2 and L4, but they are visiting a small village.

#1 If I grapple someone, and maintain the grapple (as a standard action), I have 3 choices.
1. Move
2. Damage
3. Pin

But what about knocking him prone with a Trip?

For example:
I decide not to attempt (as a standard action) to maintain the grapple, and instead, I use the Trip Maneuver as my standard action. I would have started the maneuver while in the grappled condition, which is my reasoning.

If I succeed on the trip, he's no longer grappled, but only prone. And as a move action, I can draw a weapon in preparation for when he tries to stand up.

#2 If he's prone, and I have a weapon, and his standing up represents an AOO, I can then initiate a grapple as my AOO (and drop the weapon I'm wielding in the process). However, being prone gives an attacker a +4 "Melee Attack" (while a Combat Maneuver is in place of a "Melee Attack". So it does not seem that I would gain any benefit from trying to grapple a prone defender as his loss to AC is not specifically defined as being Dexterity based.

Yet it also states regarding 'Miscellaneous Modifiers' that "Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD" So it's CMD should be 4 less, (meaning it is a 'wash' if I try to grapple him with one arm instead of two, as this gives a -4 penalty to the one-armed attempt).

#3 If an ally has someone else grappled, and I try to trip the opponent, then his CMD goes down by -4 (dexterity loss). Yet it also says, A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple.

Now is a "Combat Maneuver Check" only something made by the attacker, or is it something that 'happens' and would apply if one of the two involved has this penalty? (Effectively, combining the DEX and CMC Penalty would give a -4 to CMD (-2 & -2). Which strangely enough, is equal to the penalty to AC of a prone character. (His -2 to CMChecks never applies to a grapple or escape attempt, but would seem to apply to Trip Attempts.)

#4 So now the opponent is prone AND grappled. He is -4 to Dex, -4 to AC, and -2 to Combat Maneuver Checks. This represents a -6 to his CMD to resist a pin.

#5 The prone and grappled opponent wants to stand up. His -4 penalty on attack rolls for being prone would not apply. (I guess he's able to better use his feet since his back is on the ground.) However, would he have to break the grappled condition first in order to stand up? (He's not pinned.) Or would his standing up, which triggers an AOO, somehow, and I can't find it, allow for another grapple (and even a pin) attempt? Since you are 'unarmed' (unless using one hand for the grapple) it would seem that when he stands up, (unless you have improved unarmed attack) you would not be able to do anything as your 'melee attack' such as initiate a grapple or somesuch.

This standing up part while prone seems to need a little bit of work.

If you check my math in the five cases above, please let me know if you find any errors in the reasoning.

I'm planning on letting my PC's enter into a wresting competition and want to make sure I have the rules.

Mechanical Traps
"To determine how much progress a character makes on building a trap each week, that character makes a Craft (traps) check. See the Craft skill description for details on Craft checks and the circumstances that can affect them.."

Using the craft system, it seems that traps cost 1/3rd for the "raw materials"

If you fail a check by 4 or less, you make no progress this week., If you fail by 5 or more, you ruin half the raw materials and have to pay half the original raw material cost again.
CR1 is DC 20.

I have skill focus(3), Class Skill(3), 1 rank, a +2 for int, and +2 for gnome, and +2 for MW artisan tools

I need to roll a 7 (+13) to make progress in a week.

My 'average' roll is 23, meaning I will probably average (if no losses) 23x20sp in progress, or 46gp/week for 21.74 weeks of work.

I can either sell the trap for 1000GP, making 777gp/22 (35gp/week), or for 500gp, making 177gp/22 (8gp/week). It isn't clear to me which I can use.

HOWEVER, since there is a 10% failure rate (Rolls of 1-2), I would expect that in 22 weeks I would lose half my material a total of 2 times, for a total of 333gp (5x166.5) that I'll need to spend in addition to my original 333gp..

In the 22 weeks of work, I would expect a 20% chance (3-6 on a d20) of making no progress, so this would add approximately 4 weeks,

So I add 4 weeks of no progress and two weeks of failure and a loss of materials, so it becomes a total of 28 weeks to make a CR1 trap.
(1000gp-666gp)/28= 11.9gp/week

Now, if I have an assistant, with at least a +9 skill modifier (after adding MW tools), then if he rolls a 1, then he gives me a +2 bonus to my roll, which prevents me from ever losing material, and I average 50gp/week, for 20 weeks, but have to add 4 weeks of no work accomplished, so 24/weeks.
666gp/24weeks = 27.75gp/week or 177/24= 7.375gp/week

Since the 1st level spell, "Casters Fortune" lasts 'per day' then a 7th level caster would be needed each week for 70gp (unless you had a 10 day week), unless it was possible to have it cast on the 'last day' of the week.

It seems that while 1000gp x CR sounds mathmatically simple, I don't see it working all that well as a measure. Low level characters will be completely unable to make a CR1 trap for less than what they can buy it for.

While a handy haversack requires a 5th level spell to create and is 2000GP, would a backpack (or a belt for that matter) cost the same, or cost less?

It seems that tripling your carrying capacity is worth 800-1000gp when campared to the sheer volume carried (and lack of adjustment to your carrying capacity) that a handy haversack offers.

With the demand from laborers, wharehouses, etc, I would think that this item might require a CL4 caster with the wonderous items creation feat, as he might normally cast it for 8hrs at a time, and 3 times in a day, is 24 hours. Yet this doesn't quite follow the formula for creating items, altough the Haversack sets the example, and that is at least 3 times as useful (especially for retrieval) as a Ant Haul Haversack.

Questions and theories regarding pricing for this anyone?

While a L3 sorcerer cannot cast Scorching Ray, I would think that when fifth level and NOT having it as one of his inherent spell, and while using a scrolls of Scorching Ray (CL3 - from a wizard), that he would or should be able to set the CL of a wand that he creates from it at CL3.

The source of the spell is CL3 (via the scroll) so he shouldn't be able to boost the strength/level of the spell when he can't cast it innately.

Am I correct?

The gnome holding the torch.

Torch: 20' radius for normal light, 20' more for dim light.
Gnome:
1. Sees double the range of normal light, 2x20' (i.e. 0'-40')
This 40' is an area where there is no concealment from dim light, obviously

2. Sees double the range of dim light, 2x20' (i.e. 20'-60')
This 40' area would normally provide concealment, however since the 20'-40' range is treated as 'normal' light, then only creatures in the 40'-60' band would be treated as being in 'dim light' and recieve the 20% concealment bonus.

I think this is correct. (Am I correct?)
The way it is worded might othewise indicate that for the gnome it is 0'-40' as normal light, and 40'-80' as dim light, which I think is wrong.

Dancing Lights is an extremely powerful spell, but it never seems to be used correctly.

Couple of assumptions first:
1. As a part of moving Dancing Lights the caster 'knows' where they are.
2. Either the Dancing Lights can move through solid objects, or they can't.
a) If they can move through solid objects, then send 2-4 of them into a room at 20' distance from each other (10' radius spell) and move them about to determine how big the room is. The changes in light levels will give away when they went 'through' a wall or something. By using both your knowledge of where you are moving them, and the light that it is being cast at the entryway for the room, you will get an idea of the room and major contents in the center of the room.
b) if they cannot move through solid objects, then you will know when they stop and cannot move. However this implies that they can be stopped, held, etc. The spell describes them as winking out if they go beyond the casters range. but no mention of 'entering' and object.
Even if they are stopped, the trick is to have two pairs of lights 5' apart and rotating about one another at various speeds (maximum of 100' per round). As soon as one pair hits an object and stops, I get a reduction in the flickering that comes from them rotating at 100'/round about each other like a police car light.

Even a single torch (or 4 lights together) that sweeps the room back and forth by traveling through each and every square to determine how the light changes as it comes out the doorway will work in terms of determining where walls are. And if the light gets 'behind' a figure that is standing there looking at it (or looking for a Fey in the room that might be invisible and trying to screw with them...), then the shadows might show up near the entrance to the room. Basically I'm repeating the experiment that physicists used to discover the structure of things like atoms and molecules by shooting things in and seeing what happens. I send in torches, and know where they 'should be' and look for effect from the light they give off. Any columns in the room should introduce repeatable flickering in the doorway. If a figure moves, then I cannot repeat the flickering by repeating the same pattern that gave me the initial flicker.

Obviously this will not work for big caverns, but for smaller rooms, it should be enough to give the general dimensions as well as significant features like columns or standing bodies. If I have the lights move about in various patters that test light coming from various locations in the room, I should be able to gain a lot of information, especially if I've practiced this trick many times before, and especially if I control the lights and therefore know their locations (to determine the dimensions of the room).

Clearly, determining the size of a 40'x40' room as well as 'major features' inside takes a considerable amount of time. It could/would confuse anyone who is not familiar with either Knowledge(dungeoneering) or Knowledge(Arcana) that this is one of the uses of this spell. But the long time it takes also works in my favor, because anyone inside is likely to get impatient, unless they know we are coming AND know who we are. So the large amount of time it takes for me to move the lights around in various patters to see how the light in the doorway flickers, based on my knowledge of the location of the dancing lights, also works in my favor if I can be patient.

Weird magical effects, whether they are supposedly by mischevous Fey, or seem to be an attempt to distract right before an assault, will certainly alert anyone inside the room, and possibly get them to react. It is the time 'after' the lights have been gone, that those inside might realize that nothing is coming (or that it already came and left.)
The next step is to either use Ghost Sound, or even better, Message the residents with a high pitched sylvan accent. With Ghost Sound, having a couple of high pitched voices speaking/whispering/giggling in Sylvan, or even the pitter patter of a little horde with "Bring the water bladder and put it over the door" or "Keep the caltrops under your shirt, only throw them in front of them when they start moving" should be enough to trigger occupants to react (or limit their mobility when we actually enter a room).

With Message, the target or occupant of the room need not know where you are to reply to you. A message of "You have no idea how many times I've gotten Gnolls to leave out a few coins so that 'we' don't start playing all sorts of invisible pranks. A few Copper is good, unless you have a really nice mug or comb you don't need. Do you have any extra large feathers? Leave it in the doorway, and step back. Or else I get to show you my best tricks!"

And at night, Dancing Lights is like a trip flare that simply pops up randomly, backlighting anything moving towards you.

So what am I missing? Or should I say, why are so many people totally missing the advantages of this spell?

Are sorcerers somehow restricted in the use of scrolls? Must they always use Use Magic Device even for scrolls they themselves wrote?

I have a sorcerer with the Scribe Scroll feat. Do I have to make a skill check to use it using Use Magic Device?

I just figured it out, and it makes a lot of sense.

"Great Cleave" (and maybe Whirlwind Attack) allows him multiple attacks.

Think of this scenario:
After the cleric casts his Bless spell, and the Bard does his bardsong, the mighty 18 Str fighter with his +2 Spiked Chain is has enlarged by the party wizard.

Now the mighty fighter runs into the middle of a crowd of 12 enemy. On either side of him, they are 3 rows deep, at 10', 15', and 20' away from him.

Using Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave, he hits the first, which allows him to hit the second, which allows him to also attack the third, which may allow him to get all the way to an attack against the 12th.

And while not all combats involve hordes, having an enlarged fighter with a spiked chain and great cleave means he's goign to be hitting everything withing a 25' radius from his center as long as he doesn't miss.

Sure, he could use a pole arm with reach, but that doesn't allow him to hit the 32 squares immediately next to him.

It makes the S.C. the "Must Have" weapon for Great Cleave fighters, even if they aren't enlarged.

I no longer have a problem with the S.C. being nerfed since they've changed the way cleave works.

from P.549 of the PFRPG rule book, second paragraph.
Can I have some examples please?
Is it a spell they can't cast, or a CL that is too high?
What can be built without a prequisite?

After reading through many of the complaints about Spiked Chain and Reach, since it made for a very powerful combination under the old rules, I've come to the conclusion that nerfing it was indeed a mistake for the following reasons:
1. Improved Trip or Disarm is now a +2 bonus and not +4.
2. No "Two Handed" weapon bonus of +4 to Disarm
3. Large Size provides a +1 bonus and not +4.

These three changes more than compensated for the overstrenghted nature of the Spike Chain Combat Manuever combos that some players disliked, even though many players enjoyed using the Spike Chain to create a 'specialist class'. It also took away the 'threat' that PC's might encounter from an NPC who weilded it.

Therefore my conclusion is that nerfing the spiked chain was a extra step that made what many considered a broken weapon (because of the feats associated with it) completely unecessary as many of the problems that made it broken were eliminated when the feats and size modifiers were changed.

Do you disagree with my conclusion (or have a different spin on it), and why

Uh oh.

Anyone know of any other weapons that still allow for reach and nearby?

If S.C. is nerfed, then why bother taking it? You had a spend a feat to be proficient in it.

Anyone know what new feats are in the book that weren't in the Beta? It's the new feats that interest me the most. ;-)

Have you ever had to reach in to your bag and pick up a wooden "Clue by 4" and hit your players over the head with it when then didn't notice the obvious plot hook?

In 3.5 a two handed weapon added +4 to disarm attempts, while certain weapons like a Flail/Spiked Chain added +2 to disarm.

Two handed weapons also prevented AoO's when usign either Trip/Disarm. I didn't find or couldn't find references to these two things in the Beta.
Have these two things been removed?

The example character in the paizo blog, "Valeros," has a CMB of +17 and a CMD of 34 (which is 10 + CMB + Dex + Deflection)

His CMB is BAB(14) + STR(+3)

So if he has to fight his twin, then:

1. What what is the chance of tripping his opponent?

2. What is the chance of being triped if he fails?

3. What are the aforementioned results if he is Enlarged, but his twin is not?

Now that Sorcerer/Wizards are given the opportunity to attack every round and do damage (Hand of the Apprentice/Various “Rays”) it seems that these casters become ‘range fighters’ like the bow specialists used to be, but with unlimited arrows. (Oversimplification intended).

Although it is true that some Sorcerers have claws instead of range attacks, it seems that there is a constant blurring between classes, (casters having spells that are similar, etc) with regards to melee and being able to do damage every round to an opponent. I can understand the ability ‘creep’ in game design that comes in when you think “if he only had X like the (name class here).” But isn't it easier to do a touch attack as a caster than to use a crossbow (-4 for firing into combat)? By keeping mages 'in' combat in direct damage role once they have exhausted their spells seems to be too much of a blurring into the role of fighters.

The Divination School Ability “Diviners Fortune” seems to go back to the ‘limited’ support roll that mages have once their primary ammunition (spells) is gone. While the “Hand of the Apprentice” makes them fighters at range, but without using touch attacks (yet using their INT bonus to get them back in line with fighters) while the various rays are touch attacks that bypass much of he protection armor provides.

Philosophically, cantrips include several ‘support’ spells that already threw acid/cold, etc, which did minor damage, but now these have become ‘abilities’ for sorcerers and the amount of damage has been increased to d6 as “Bloodline” ‘abilities’. While daze and dazzle were ‘support’ cantrips and well within the ‘support’ philosophy.

My point then, is that it seems that you would think that once they are done with their ‘direct damage’ spells, casters should be put into a ‘support’ role so that they can ‘do’ something instead of keeping them in a ‘direct’ role of directly dealing damage of significance. (This WAS the case when they could either do 1-3 HP from acid/cold, or could dazzle/daze thorough cantrips.)
Therefore would seem that ‘abilities’ like “Hand of the Apprentice” should perhaps do things like “Aid”/”Trip”/”Disarm” (each of which gives the fighters an significant advantage through AoO or bonuses (i.e. Aid)).
Furthermore, the direct damage of the rays (acid/cold etc) that more easily hit off of touch attacks should have either have damaged reduced (unpopular) or have them modified where if they successfully hit there is a chance they do damage to the opponents armor (natural) or cause ‘pain’ which reduces the opponents chances to hit.
Of course the only offset to this is that a caster who is shooting rays at an enemy engaged with his party’s fighter, has a -4 for firing into melee.

I have often thought that a quarterstaff, which can be the height of the body, should be considered a ‘reach’ weapon for the purposes of the ‘aid’ special attack maneuver. It puts the caster out of reach yet allows the opponent to get him in reach by taking a 5 foot step – and this calls for tactical decisions which is a key part of the game.

In conclusion:
Quarterstaffs should be reach weapons for the purposes of “Aid” (or ‘aiding’ a “Trip”)
Hand of the Apprentice should be able to Aid/Trip/Disarm, with Disarm perhaps only occurring for weapons like flail or spiked chain that have bonuses to disarm, and Trip to only those weapons that can trip (like flails).

Also, would there be a benefit from having a Cantrip (or single 1st level spell that is a 12 or 24 hour spell) that lets Hand of the Apprentice wield a larger and heavier two handed weapon as some of these also allow for trip or reach.

I've noticed some things about the "Hand of the Apprentice" of the universal school of magic that gives me a few questions. (I started looking at it since my "Improved Trip" based character who enlarges himself has just been nerfed by the new system, and I'm thinking of rebuilding him into a Socerer1/Wizard3.)

1. If the hand can draw a weapon that the character is profficient, then if the Wizard is proficient with a two handed weapon, is that wielded properly, or can it not be wielded by Hand of the Apprentice? Is the limitation also a 5lb weapon despite some indications that it is not limited in this manner?
(I do point out that the hand is strong enough to take a weapon 30' AND attack with it in the same round, and this represents a lot more than 5lbs of force.) The singular use of the word 'hand' might indicate one handed weapons, but then again it could simply represent an 'invisible force' that allows for the weapon to be wielded.)

2. If using a flail, could it make a trip or disarm attack? (Doesn't seem to be excluded in the text)

3. If my Sorcer1/Wizard3 picked his sorcer spells as Enlarge Person and True Strike, then with a martial (Or exotic) weapon proficiency of a Falchion (or Bastard sword - 6lbs) he could in the following order
A) Enlarge himself and his weapon
B) Give himself True Strike
C) Use Hand of the Apprentice to draw his now 'large' and double weight weapon to make a strike against an opponent with a 15% chance (Crit of 18-20) of 'guaranteeing' a critical hit (since the reroll to confirm the critical hit would have a +20 bonus to it as well). This "Large" weapon (Falchion) would be 2d6+IntBonus as a result.
Is this correct or am I missing something?

4. My character does #3 above after he had already used True Strike to make the his two Scorching Ray spells "automatically" ('other than a 1") hit their touch attacks. Sort of like a Magic Missile but taking two rounds to 'cast' and doing 4d6.
Does this seem a little much? That he basically becomes a 'guaranteed' "hit machine" and is likel to do more damage than a fighter who migh be nothing more than a shield for him? Or am I missing something?

5. It is like a "mage hand" but can draw a weapon, so it gets all the benefits of having a mage hand as well?