thanks again, I agree with much of what you said here.
Despite situational modifiers, however, the point is that the stealth bonus of said sniper in the open is not affected by their skill ranks, dex, gear, etc. which require cover or concealment, unless they have HiPS. HiPS, through some unspecified magical effect, makes these bonuses apply when they shouldn't. Special senses certainly prevent (visually based) cover or concealment from working, and although they don't "normally" need to make checks, their description allows that there may be circumstances in which perception checks need to be made. So it isn't absurd to require checks for unfavorable conditions (like loud ambient noise, strong smells, etc.) in the same way that one might make distracted players make perception checks against the distant sniper in plain sight against the sun.
So, if special senses aren't completely infallible, and are subject to at least some of the same limitations of normal senses, how can HiPS overcome the requirement for cover/concealment for normal senses but not special senses, unless it is visually based?
Logically, abilities that negate the need to make a Perception check to notice creatures automatically bypass Stealth. Hence, HIPS has no effect against creatures with these abilities.
Thanks, but it still isn't obvious to me. Aren't creatures in plain sight automatically perceived by individuals with normal senses without the need for perception checks? Cover or concealment is normally what allows stealth checks. As I read the special senses rules, it seems that they are just indicating that normal concealment doesn't allow stealth checks, as the special senses aren't visual (as far as I am aware, non-visual cover/concealment has yet to be defined other than silence and strong smells). HiPS is a Su ability that allows such checks even when they shouldn't be allowed.
I tend to agree with your RAI interpretation of the mechanic of the Su version of HiPS (recruiting shadows, or something). the trouble is that if this is the way that it works, true seeing should be effective as it negates all "normal and magical darkness".
EDIT: I guess the point I am trying to make is that special senses should only be immune to HiPS if HiPS is strictly visual in nature. If that is the case, I think True Seeing should work, RAI. Otherwise, HiPS should work against all types of senses.
I can appreciate the OP incredulity about apes and weapons in RL - they can stand, but not for long, and they walk awkwardly on two legs. But, I would allow it (and have done so as a GM in a 3.5 game). It isn't any worse than a cohort, even with the much stronger apes in that version.
So, if you are going to get away with this as a PC, I would say forget about MWP (greatsword). You would get far more mileage out of simple weapon proficiency (which nets you a lot of decent choices including: longspear, morningstar, crossbows, sickle). you might even get away with sharing a shillelagh spell on a quarterstaff!
also, armor proficiency is not necessary, just go with armor with no acp, like mithral shirt or mwk studded. heck, go nuts and throw in a mithral buckler.
the final thing is to use a skill rank to teach it sign language. 3.5 had drow sign language for this purpose. not sure what PF has to offer. of course, the master would have to learn as well, and the party would be well served to do so as well.
Reading the posts, it seems like people are pretty confident that HiPS only prevents automatic detection versus normal senses, but not against special senses (e.g. scent, tremorsense, blindsight/sense). is this actually RAW? HiPS allows stealth checks even when being observed. Wouldn't other senses also fall under "being observed"? I don't see anything in the HiPS description to actually limit it to normal senses.
the HiPS description is frustrating because it is so vague, and the wording seems to imply that it operates by creating a kind of visual concealment, even though this isn't actually stated directly. I suspect this is why there are many threads debating without any obvious resolution whether it works vs darkvision, true sight, etc.
if you are going druid and 3.5 material is in, there is a great racial substitution level (1st level) for halflings in Races of the Wild which would give you bonuses for riding, more skill points (and class skills) and useful spontaneous casting.
otherwise, druid is a still a good choice for a mounted character, and you could start with a wolf, then switch to leopard (for climb speed) or cheetah (for speed) at 4th level. Also keep in mind that larger mounts can be made smaller with reduce animal - hours per caster level.
Me, it'd combine the swarms into one super swarm and let their new HD determine damage.
this seems like a good solution to the potential abuse of multiple summon swarm spells which might if it is straight stacking, while giving some benefit to multiples.
imagine an army of 3rd level clerics or druids, heck, even 20 would give 20d6 per round, but why stop there? plus it forces multiple saves with a duration of concentration. infinitely scaling damage, no save, no SR. Of course, it is dicey where they will end up after the initial summons, and there are defenses: DR 10 or so would give virtual immunity, flight/levitation (for rats or spiders), incorporeality, wind wall (or other wall spells) or blasts would stop them if there is time to cast beforehand. Still, this seems like it is an unusually effective 2nd level spell for a swarm of mook casters even against (unprepared) high level opponents.
The title pretty much says it all. If a hapless PC shares a square with multiple swarms at the end of the swarms' move, do they take the listed swarm damage only once, or separately for each swarm?
I am not having much success finding a clear answer in the PRD. creeping doom summons several swarms, and the damage doesn't stack, but this might be just a balancer for the spell, not something for all swarms. OTOH, swarm damage is a function of hit die, so it would seem that piling more HD (in the form of other swarms) might mean more damage.
the above threads go over lots of concerns about game balance (especially Dex to weapon damage).
I will just add my experience with this in game. I used a feat which allows dexterity to replace strength for melee weapon damage for any finessable weapon, with the only prerequisite being weapon finesse, and the only restriction being no two-weapon fighting. It really didn't unbalance things in my experience, just gave a different style of character, which was better defensively but weaker offensively than existing strength based melee builds (taking into account lost feats) or archery builds.
another interesting tidbit came to my attention recently: didn't weapon finesse used to be restricted to a single weapon (like weapon focus) in 3.0? funny how consistently overrated this kind of feat is...
Going back to the OP, I don't see the paradox. That is a chaotic character, and given the indifference to Good/evil, CN by default.
the main issue is that the PC in question primarily embraces chaos, entropy, randomness, freedom, chance, etc. easy.
as pointed out by kaeyoss, dedication isn't necessarily lawful. The monk alignment restriction aside (with which I disagree, btw), it doesn't make sense unless all clerics are lawful (dedicated to a deity). If one takes that thinking too far, fighters should all be lawful because they are dedicated to particular weapons, same for rangers (favored enemies, combat style), all prepared casters need to have a routine of study/prayer, bards have their favored performance types and are dedicated to acquiring knowledge, etc. dedication to law and order (or something similar) is lawful, not dedication itself.
as for whether intention is part of the alignment equation? it has to be, but it isn't sufficient. To illustrate using the rules: going back to the point of animals and vermin and neutral because they have no intention (read free will). This might lead one to believe that intention is the only component to alignment. However, mindless undead are evil, even though they can't have intention. Why? maybe it is because they are the product of evil forces, maybe it is because their "instincts" involve evil acts (as opposed to the more survival based instincts of vermin and animals), or maybe it is just about playing for team evil. The point is that it is possible to be evil (or any other alignment) without meaning to be in the objective alignment system of PF.
The Dex to weapon damage thread particularly goes over a lot of the fears concerning game balance with a feat like this.
I like the dervish dance feat, which would work well for duelists, but won't help monks or rogues. Adapting the feat to other weapons helps for other classes (as was done with surgical strike). I used a more permissive homebrew feat (one which allows dexterity to replace strength for melee weapon damage for any weapon, with the only prerequisite being weapon finesse, and the only restriction being no two-weapon fighting). It really didn't unbalance things in my experience, just gave a different style of character, which was better defensively but weaker offensively than existing strength based melee builds (taking into account lost feats) or archery builds.
I really don't think these kinds of feats are overpowered or unbalanced, but they do need some limits (two weapon fighting being the main offender). high strength characters still have the easiest time of things in combat and come out several feats ahead.
It looks like the mite adds his racial levels to his Vermin Empathy. Thus, only racial levels count towards it. Whether or not that stacks with the Wild Empathy of druids or rangers, I guess is up to you.
Thanks for the reply, your take on it seems very sensible.
This last point would really make the race pretty ineffectual vermin controllers, though. Sure, most vermin have serious cha penalties, but even so, a mite that maxes their Cha (16) will only have a +8 modifier without any real opportunity to advance this ability. against a indifferent vermin with 2 Cha, that succeeds 85% of the time but against unfriendly it is only 60% and hostile 35%. Given that the vast majority of vermin encounters will be aggressive, that isn't really viable, unless it stacks with wild empathy, as you say.
Other racial abilities (e.g. SLAs) operate using total HD, why is this different? Not being argumentative, just curious if I missed something in the rules.
Mites (Bestiary) have Vermin Empathy as a racial ability and I was wondering how this works and whether it raises any special concerns should a Mite be advanced, as might happen if a player chose mite as a race for their character (not recommended, I know).
my questions are:
1) what is a vermin's starting attitude?
2) the description of Vermin Empathy seems to indicate a greater degree of control with a successful check than one would get with an animal. Any idea how this would work? What DC would be needed to gain a vermin as a mount, for example? Would handle animal be used to train the mount?
What about getting a vermin (or swarm) to attack a creature?
3) does the vermin empathy check use the mite's HD as a bonus? The stat block implies this (as the mite has a Cha penalty), but would it include all subsequent HD (class levels) or just the racial HD?
PRD description of vermin empathy and wild empathy:
Vermin Empathy
This ability functions as a druid's wild empathy, save that a mite can only use this ability on vermin. A mite gains a +4 racial bonus on this check. Vermin are normally mindless, but this empathic communication imparts on them a modicum of implanted intelligence, allowing mites to train Medium vermin and use them as mounts. Vermin empathy treats swarms as if they were one creature possessing a single mind—a mite can thus use this ability to influence and direct the actions of swarms with relative ease.
Wild Empathy
A druid can improve the attitude of an animal. This ability functions just like a Diplomacy check made to improve the attitude of a person. The druid rolls 1d20 and adds her druid level and her Charisma modifier to determine the wild empathy check result.
The typical domestic animal has a starting attitude of indifferent, while wild animals are usually unfriendly.
To use wild empathy, the druid and the animal must be able to study each other, which means that they must be within 30 feet of one another under normal conditions. Generally, influencing an animal in this way takes 1 minute but, as with influencing people, it might take more or less time.
A druid can also use this ability to influence a magical beast with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2, but she takes a –4 penalty on the check.
I agree that vegepygmy is overpowered, those plant immunities are too much for 1 level, let alone the other features which are pretty good (DR, natural armor, beneficial stats adjustments, natural weapons, electricity immunity). the fluff also makes it unsuited to an adventuring party.
sounds like CR 1/4 is the target they had in mind.
When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn't be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items.
There may be rare exceptions, especially with race-specific items.
Raising this thread as I am contemplating a mixed group of standard race PCs and low CR bestiary races. I know, it isn't recommended, but I am interested in this idea nonetheless. The rule of thumb is to let all players chose at a standard CR.
BUT, what is the CR of standard races, assuming that they take a level of a PC class?
is it CR1/4 (kobold, mite), CR 1/3 (drow, druegar, goblin, orc, merfolk) or CR1/2 (aasimar, hobgoblin, tengu, tiefling, vegepygmy)?
Everflame has lots of hooks for Masks of the Living God, but is set at level 3. However, if you use a fast XP progression and have a thorough party, you should be at or pretty close to 3 after everflame. throw in a few encounters with overland travel and voila, prepackaged fun.
take an ape companion, increase the Int, teach it sign language and get it to take simple weapon proficiency for its next feat. get some custom no armor check penalty light armor (mithral shirt, masterwork studded leather) and go to town.
either that or just take leadership and get a barbarian cohort.
nothing like the old classics. when I played this back in the day we had multiple TPKs. still had a blast, but only recommended for throw away characters!
what projectiles beside arrows and bolts are there?
I think the spell is intended shut down (medium) archers and gases.
so, for the sake of simplicity, I interpret the spell to mean any thrown or projectile weapon that a medium or smaller creature can wield.
I don't think one can "wield" a ballista, trebuchet, catapult, etc.
what about edge cases?
manticore spikes seem to easily fit in the arrow category.
spit missiles seem like they should also be stopped (e.g. ankheg's acid spit, Naga poison spit), but would this also apply to a black dragon's breath weapon? a giant slug's?
what might happen if a PC became large (enlarge person, etc)? I would probably rule that ammunition wouldn't work, but what about a thrown spear, for example?
not that these have ever come up in my games, but now I am curious...
Would doing this screw up game balance a lot? Or would it make combat a little easier for multi-classed characters and not really have a large scale effect?
what Can'tFindthePath said about the mechanics. my 3.5 games have all used fractional BAB and saves for a while now. balance-wise, the BAB is fine, but the good saves get pretty ridiculous with a lot of multiclassing. I find having PCs with really high saves really upsets the challenge ratings in weird ways and I wouldn't make the decision to do that again.
that being said, one of the big attractions of PF for me is how strongly it encourages single class builds. I find it very refreshing after 3.5.
I doubt that allowing fractional BAB alone would tip things back in favor of multiclassing/PrCs, but if is in concert with several related changes, then it is really back to 3.5 territory IMHO.
Thanks. For completeness, are there any other core spells that explicitly do not function in the Outer Sphere for this reason?
I would think anything with the illusion (shadow) descriptor wouldn't work. So at the least shadow evocation and shadow conjuration, shades, project image, simulacrum.
I'm sure I am forgetting some...
edit: review of spell list found no other shadow spells, but a couple of ethereal spells: phase door and secret chest.
the closest official source that comes to mind are the rules for dragonhide armor. I've always found those silly, though. the size requirements alone would make the armor exceedingly difficult to obtain, to say the least.
for houseruling, I would say that you could base the AC bonus using the bison's NA (+8) as a guideline (bison being the closest entry to cattle). and scale proportionately from there.
didn't the 3.5 miniatures game have multiple actions for the boss types (dragons come to mind)? IIRC the number of actions decreased as the creature got wounded. never played that system, so no idea how it works in practice.
I think that there was also an elf paladin substitution level from races of the wild which allowed ranged smiting *in exchange for melee smiting*. I don't think it was generally considered a good trade, but it maybe gives another indication of how big a boost to smite pallys got in PF.
The Bladed scarf really wins the cheesefest. It's even a 2-handed weapon, so theres incrased Strenght and Power attack damage to boot(unless I'm missing something).
Wait, isn't it a light weapon?
PF power attack can be used with light weapons. that one caught me by surprise too, doesn't make too much sense IMHO...
But would a reach and adjacent weapon be even close to as good as archery is currently?
agree that RAW, it is considered one weapon, which is a bit silly.
but, if you make it into more than one weapon, you are back to enchanting several weapons (assuming that you want to be consistent).
as a GM, I would probably let you do it though in light of the crappy weapon quality and also the creativity!
So far I have a Quickbar and a Character sheet. I plan on automating attacks, but I won't be doing any character building features. I definite plan to have spell management. Anything else you would like to see?
hats off to you! good luck on your project.
From the perspective of a GM trying to get a campaign together, my biggest concerns are:
1)understanding how to use the framework. I am finding it slow going getting all of the features of the LM framework to work, and although the forums are helpful, I would far rather have a good help file that holds my hand.
having a single dedicated framework for pathfinder might make it simpler, I hope so!
it would also be very, very helpful to have a few sample tokens to illustrate how the framework is implemented.
2)making tokens for monsters and NPCs.
there are several ways that this could be improved over LM:
- having a macro to "translate" a PF stat block (maybe this exists elsewhere but having it built it would be great)
- the skill system is really tough to edit in line format, a dialogue box would be superior. It might be nice to be able to add custom skills (e.g. I collapse climb swim and jump into a single "athletics" skill in one of my games).
- I really like the idea of macros for adding templates to monsters, so expanding this beyond fiendish would be welcome
there are lots of little picky things, but those are my big 2.
What I want to know is: What spells would you put into it and why? What are some great utility spells from the wizard list? What is likely to see a lot of use in an adventure party?
here are some wizard spells that fit my definition of "utility" (are mainly useful outside of combat) and are likely to be useful most days:
rope trick: always useful for any adventuring party when you are caster level 8 or above. used every day.
phantom steed: if you want this style of wizard, it keeps getting better as you get better
alter self: low level means of getting some useful buffs (swim speed, darkvision, scent, small size gives bonuses to stealth, ranged touch and AC)
dancing lights: several useful effects, cantrip
glitterdust and grease: yes, they are combat spells, but they have so many uses! and the save DC and duration are important
detect secret doors - self explanatory, but maybe better as a wand.
gust of wind, obscuring mist - lots of uses in and out of combat, but better as a wand
wind wall - very useful but situational defensive spell
make whole - this spell is very good if your GM likes to sunder things, or you have a pet construct, other wise probably pass
false life - its utility is that it keeps you alive and you will want to cast it every day at least once
fly and dimension door - so many uses. more than once a day easily
there are some others that may be great or meh depending on your style of play: silent image and unseen servant come to mind.
just a couple of points that haven't been mentioned yet.
on the wizard list, reduce person is a pretty solid buff for your wizard and cheap for a wand (you net +2 to hit on ranged attacks, +2 to AC and +5 stealth) short duration though (1 minute).
there are lots of great wands for UMD, but this strategy will take a long time to pay off if you are talking about getting reliable activation in combat (which is what you are thinking with your familiar, I imagine). You might want to see if you can talk your GM into letting you have access to a spell in the spell compendium which lets you give some of your spell slots to your familiar (6th level spell invest familiar with spell ability IIRC). costs nothing (money or skill ranks, only the spell slot) and works every time, basically doubling your spell output per round.
In this case, I think the pivotal word is "travel". Given the examples listed, it seems that RAI it means creatures traveling. Of course, it is possible to argue that travel could include objects, so you would be justified (if cruel) to deny the players their stored items.
btw, in case you hadn't considered it, forbiddance seems like a more streamlined way to get this spell effect. for good measure, you could double up with the unhallow to get protection from good, or something else!
on further reflection, I think it would be a terrible idea to allow this, as it would set precedent for mithral weapons being considered a lighter weapon category, which could lend itself to all kinds of abuses or entanglements. So mithral weapons could then be effectively oversize for TWF, but otherwise their damage would be nerfed. i'm sure there are lots of other issues that would come up with a bit more creativity.
yeah, I think it is GM call, unfortunately. the default strict RAW interpretation is that it has no effect on effective shield size because it doesn't say that it does, or that damage is a function of weight (even if this is implied by the "light" versus "heavy" distinction).
hmm, well if you made me rule as a GM, I would probably allow the shield to be considered light for bashing/TWF and heavy for AC and item handling restrictions (this last one more for balance than anything).
gotta love the mental roller coaster involved with shadow magic!
my understanding of this ability is that it is mechanically like shadow evocation/conjuration except as noted (converting spells, percentages, etc.).
therefore, the shadowstuff emulates the actual spell (evoking a damage type or conjuring a creature type, etc.), so even though it is "shadow", it is really partly fire from the plane of shadow. so fire immune means no damage whether or not they save. "shadow" is not a damage type as far as I know.
the spellcraft check would identify heightened silent image, as you suggest. I don't think that there is any indication in the rules that this would give a bonus to the save. In this case the NPC making the spellcraft check has no way of being sure that they made the check successfully or that they weren't the victim of deceptive casting (I think there is a skill trick like this). But a GM would be perfectly justified to grant a circumstance bonus on the will save IMHO.
I thought glamered only made the armor appear as regular clothing, not a different suit of armor?
yes, RAW say suit of regular clothing.
however, I can't imagine a GM having a problem with that.
a better solution is actually to have it partially blackened. I'm not aware of any rules for costing, but it shouldn't be much if anything. it wouldn't look entirely like studded, but same basic appearance (black and silver).
Thanks for pointing this out. It is as i figured. I'm playing a Doppelganger Factotum/Chameleon and when i picture the character i see him in studded leather, but casting arcane spells from Chameleon i wanted to get the ASF down without dropping a feat. I can handle 5% ASF, but there's just something about 10% that makes me nervous. Not sure why.
hmm, well, it sounds like outside material is allowed in your campaign.
what about the twilight armor enchantment (BoED/PHBII) basically reduces ASF so that a mithral chain shirt has 0% ASF. If you like the look of studded, you could always get it glamered! :-)
Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. (A longsword can be a mithral weapon, while a quarterstaff cannot.)
so, the rules say no.
but, what is the harm in a houserule?
maybe reduce the weight of the armor by 1/2 of the difference between leather and studded (17.5 for medium) and decrease ASF by the same amount. oddly, the cost wouldn't be reduced RAW (2.5lbs of mithral would be 1500gp, so go with light armor at 1000gp).
no way should it get the full benefit though, which would make it weigh less than leather, have a higher dex cap and lower ASF!
still better off with a mithral chain shirt for about the same price.
just curious or did you have an application in mind?
thanks for all of the helpful replies, this has been illuminating.
just to double check my understanding: a successful UMD check means that a caster treats the spell in question as being on their list and they use their main casting stat and caster level. For a non-caster, they use the minimum stat and caster level with a successful check?
also, going back to the point made by Ravingdork about the potential importance of the source of the spell. take poison for example, this is cleric 4 and druid 3, which would affect cost of manufacture (and the purchase price), no? In the case of a non-caster, would the choose which spell list to emulate, or be forced to choose the least advantageous?
McStabby still gets to roll Stealth, because McStabby's ability lets him. Our Intellect Devourer (ID) creature just doesn't care.
I think that is a logical conclusion, and a very clear explanation.
it agrees pretty well with my own view. The implication is that HiPS provides some kind of visual concealment, even though this isn't specified RAW. This leaves open an alternative interpretation that it isn't limited to visual senses, and could therefore work against blindsight, etc.
in any case, I would love to hear more of your ideas on the subject when it all comes together!
So given the the language above you get a sort of interesting situation. McStabby gets to roll Stealth. The DD still knows where he is, but he can't see him and has to suffer concealment penalties. Simple as that.
Thanks for delving into it. I am amazed that you found a way to get them to both work.
Just to turn it up to 11, what about mcstabby facing off against an intellect devourer (or another entity with blindsight)? would HiPS work then?
PRD blindsight:
This ability is similar to blindsense, but is far more discerning. Using non-visual senses, such as sensitivity to vibrations, keen smell, acute hearing, or echolocation, a creature with blindsight maneuvers and fights as well as a sighted creature. Invisibility, darkness, and most kinds of concealment are irrelevant, though the creature must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice creatures within range of its blindsight ability.
You are aware that anything other than undead, outsiders, or divine servants (clerics, etc that have an aura as a class feature) don't show up on detect evil if they don't have at least 5 hit dice? That means most serial killers won't even show up, let alone anyone more petty.
EDIT: Not to mention that detect evil is notdetect guilt. One can be evil without ever having done anything evil. Few good DMs would let a player get away with using detect evil as a justification for murder.
Thanks for the reminder about the HD minimum. I am still getting my head around the rule changes in PF. That goes some way towards possible mis-smiting of civilians.
not sure that I share your optimism about how effective (or desirable) GM interpretation or policing of the paladin code is, but I agree that killing someone simply because they register on evil-dar is not good roleplaying of a Paladin.
I like the idea of the paladin engaging in more social interaction and being better at detecting lies (i.e. bluffing) and having a good gut feeling about how trustworthy people are. let's face it, detect evil is pretty unnecessary for most campaigns. The BBEG is the one trying to kill your party. Mostly I see it abused to circumvent perception by constantly detecting for hidden evil (i.e. most stealthy creatures the party is likely to encounter in a dungeon crawl).
It isn't really an issue in either circumstance: bonuses are granted to perception rather than a penalty to stealth.
OK, slightly different scenario, where perception bonuses aren't applicable (maybe). McStabby the assassin is trying to sneak up on Red the dragon disciple who has blindsense. McStabby is within 10' of shadow and uses his hide in plain sight. Normally no perception check would be required for Red as her blindsense relies on non visual cues and so the subject is observed even if invisible or otherwise concealed from vision. But, the hide in plain sight allows stealth checks in the absence of concealment or cover. So, does the blindsense negate hide in plain sight, or vice versa?
If you cast invisibility on a fighter in full plate, and then he walks right past a guard, the invisibility gives him +20 on stealth checks, despite the fact that he'd probably be making a hell of a lot of noise.
A consequence of combining the skills.
Thoughts?
LOL, good one.
hide in plain sight is another weird example. it obviously started as a visual thing, but it allows stealth checks (type unspecified). is it still exclusively visual, or does it apply to move silently, or other senses for that matter?
