Corren28's page

If you touch yourself with this ability you are treated as undead. If a rival cleric says "I'm going to channel negative energy to harm living creatures", you aren't targeted because you're treated as undead. Yes, you are still a living creature. You breathe, sleep, eat, laugh, cry, and create great works of art, but as far as positive and negative energy effects go you're undead. If someone is targeting living creatures then you're not a valid target for the effect.

The costs are the same as in the regular game and the +1 enhancements are on the always available list as well if I'm not mistaken. The PFS restriction comes into play when you start looking into multiple enhancements or +2 or higher enhancements. If you don't have the fame or chronicle sheet making it available then you cannot take advantage of the enchantment.

They're on a time crunch to save a little girl

I disagree. It's all about efficiency if they're on such a time frame. How big is this bridge they need access to? If you allowed them to freeze water with RoF, even large quantities instantaneously, how are they going to use it as a bridge? Obviously you can't throw water over a ravine and freeze it into a bridge. You'd have a bunch of pieces of ice falling to the bottom. If you freeze the ice on the ground and try to maneuver it into place you have one of two problems. Either the ice is light enough to move but too weak to support your weight or it's sturdy enough to support your weight but too heavy to move.

Also, see the above mentioned note about achieving higher level spell effects with cantrips. If they state they're willing to spend whatever time it takes to make this "Wall of Ice" remind them of their time crunch.

Without actually being in the game and knowing the circumstances, environment, resources available, dimensions of said obstacle they're trying to bridge, etc., I can't really offer up potential solutions for them, but cantrips aren't really designed for this kind of utility. They just aren't strong enough.

I assure you, this was not started in jest. I have a player who is very rules lawyery and not very good at accepting, "I'm the GM, and so the final arbiter of the rules" who wants to use this combo with a Tetori monk to grapple enemies at range. I started this thread as a way to detail exactly why this would not work for him.

He was even trying to say that he could headbutt someone and then carry his head around just fine. :/

Let him do it. Let him enchant his amulet and headbutt someone at ranged by firing his head across the map like a rocket.

As soon as he does collect his character sheet and inform him of his suicide. His character is now decapitated and is dead. Imho, if he tries to pull the whole "It doesn't say I'm dead when I'm decapitated anywhere in the rules. I'm only dead when I hit -x hit points" crap, you should kick him out of the group. It sounds like he's one of those players who spends more time finding technical loopholes within the rules than actually playing the game. Most of the time those types turn out to be @#$holes.

No, you cannot take 20 when trying to hide an item on your person because the opposed rolls are made when you are frisked or searched. If your GM wants to give you a bonus to your roll for taking so long to conceal your weapon I could get behind it, but as for the actual skill check, that is made when you are searched and you're allowed one roll.

Likewise with your stealth check. If you want to "prep" then the GM may give you a bonus to your roll, but you aren't hiding over and over and over again until you aren't seen. When your prey enters the area the two of you make opposed rolls and the outcome is determined. You don't get to make roll after roll after roll.

I think I know what the issue is. Skylancer is interpreting the action thusly: An in-game round is equivalent to 6 seconds of in-game time. CdG is a full-round action, meaning it takes 6 seconds to complete. Invisible character begins round next to a helpless defender. PC declares he is making a CdG. The invisibility spell reads "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature." CdG is considered an attack, but is not immediately resolved like a typical attack roll, therefor there is a full 6 seconds for enemies to react because the attack takes so long to make. Sky, this is my interpretation of your side of the argument. If I'm incorrect I apologize.

Personally, I'm of the other school of thought. A CdG is still just a single attack, and the actual "attack" portion of the action is resolved instantaneously. It is my opinion the CdG was made a full-round action for two reasons: One, because the very idea of a CdG suggests you take the time to carefully place your strike to hit a vital artery, pierce a major organ, etc. and that takes more time than just sticking someone like a pig. Two, game mechanic balance. If the CdG was not a full-round action you would have teams of rogues and casters lined up along the edge of the battle, the casters trying to incapacitate enemies and the rogues waiting to sprint out and stabby stabby.

My interpretation of the CdG is that 3 seconds are spent lining up the strike and another 3 seconds actually making the attack, just like always, and the actual event of the blade striking home is what breaks the invisibility.

This is all RAI, obviously.

Increased Threat Range Sometimes your threat range is greater than 20. That is, you can score a threat on a lower number. In such cases, a roll of lower than 20 is not an automatic hit.

See how you guys are? Gonna make me go and read and learns stuff and eat my own words.

I stand corrected. :P

Round One:

Paladin moves up to enemy, drawing his weapon as part of his move action, and gets one attack.
Ranger draws his bow as a move action, and gets one attack.

Versus

Round One:
Paladin moves up to enemy, drawing his weapon as part of his move action, and gets one attack.
Ranger (who had his bow in hand all day) gets off three attacks from the back of his mount.

Your examples are spot on. What you're describing here, as others have already pointed out, is the advantage of being an archer. There is no reason the archer HAS to put his bow away while he's adventuring or travelling. There also is no reason anyone else HAS to put their weapons away while they're travelling.

This is not an uncommon trend among PCs. When your life is filled with danger and uncertainty, you tend to be a little paranoid outside of town, and often times, even in town. If your goal in all this is to strip the Ranger of his ability to make a full attack on round 1 I would beg you to reconsider because I personally feel you're looking at this backwards.

If the party is being attacked, they don't need to run to the NPC. The NPC is coming to them. I would suggest a standard marching order placing the melee characters in front of the Ranger and have the melee characters ready an action (if necessary) to engage the enemy once the enemy has moved within melee range. The melee characters have no need to waste a move action to get to the fight, the fight is coming to them, and when it does, EVERYONE gets a full attack action on their first go against an enemy who is already weakened with arrow wounds.

My issue would not be with your Ranger taking so many attacks on round one. My issue would be with why the rest of your PCs aren't.