thebluecanary wrote:
ah...well, no. it actually does improve your caster level, for all intents and purposes. furthermore, +1 level of existing spellcasting class does a little more than just improve your caster level. it potentially grants acces to higher spell levels and magical knack doesn't do that. that, i would consider broken.to sum it up, magical knack does help you qualify for item creation feats, since, for them you need a certain caster level, which magical knack can help provide ;)
well, as far as i see it, your DM has it right. your talking about quite a bunch of mithral here. should you ever melt that armor down (using your numbers) and make it into actual mithral coins, you'd end up with a lot more than what you've initially paid for the barding (works even better with regular armor).
Is this what is generally considered as RAW and if so, or not, why do so few people know?
normally, acrobatics (tumble) checks are made to avoid AoOs, which you don't provoke if you're invisible. tumbling through a square, though, lets you do something normally considered illegal in terms of rules, namely moving through an occupied square. so you still have to make that acrobatics check. as a GM i might see favorable circumstances for you, depending on the specifics of the situation, and give you +2 on your acrobatics check. i also agree with Nickademus42 on the CMD penalty
stupid me, should have elaborated on what i actually meant :)
and what could be done about the recipient possibly ending up prone. i mean if you (as a medium creature) can get tackled (overrun) by a hafling, would you not expect to end up equally prone after being literally trampled into the ground by said bovine? ...damn, probably should have posted this under "Advice"
actually there's one instance when a creature is not allowed a reflex save against an area effect: prd wrote:
what does that imply ?
oh boy, such a mess and such little response...what a shame. familiars ain't gettin no love here it seems ;) seems your GMs weren't quite thinking straight for arguing that a familiar knows exactly what it's master does carries its own can of worms. but back to the matter at hand: 1) yes. nothing's keeping it from doing so rules-wise. why bother with skill ranks and seperate class skills otherwise? 2) yes. familiars are seperate creatures and can do stuff other creatures can, which includes aiding another. knowlegde skills can be aided on. so, there ya go!
couldn't find anything in the books that clarifies the sohei's light armor proficiency in combination with his other abilities, like flurry of blows or the monks level dependant AC bonus and wisdom bonus to AC.
i keep hearing rogues would lose out eventually. how is that so? going with the archetypes and talents there's a world full of fun (and hurt). -scout and sniper rule big time (they're even compatible) as does poisoner or thug. -bleeding attack used on the right type of foe (lacking opposing thumbs, healing magic, auto-heal abilities or friends who can provide any of those i.e. your good ol' monster) means certain death after your first sneak attack. but don't forget to do the shoe afterwards ;) -minor & major magic can be ridiculously powerful as you can apply empower and quicken SLA to them. quickened/empowered acid splash/chill touch/shocking grasp with some sneak attack on top anybody? -what about dastardly finish, crippling attack (nice with crits), dispelling attack? it's sure nice to have a ton of skills with just one skill rank in them. but better yet to have a ton of skills with max ranks. i mean what's you're disable device/escape artist/whatnot of +10ish gonna help at lvl 15-20? granted, the rogue doesn't lend itself to being played as straight-foward as a fighter. but then again, if you don't like thinking on your toes maybe 4e (rogue) would help. brain: off, attack: on --> damage done i think playing a rogue requires some wits and out-of-the-box thinking in order to get the best out of it. my advice: don't rely too much on numbers and shape situations to your advantage
reefwood wrote:
the rules seem poorly written here, suggesting that it's THE RIDER performing the overrun for all intents and purposes, and your mount merely contributing a hoof. there's only so much abstraction i can take and a little verisimilitude goes a long way. It's the mount doing the trampling, providing weight, muscle and size.an experienced rider should certainly be able to steer his mount so as to trample the target more properly, which could translate into using the riders BA(if better) when calculating CMB for the trample. Trample denies the target the possibility to avoid the overrun and with no feat available to explicitly remove the AoO part, i would just include that with trample.
DrDew wrote:
that makes sense to me, too. a related issue came up in my game a few times. what happens to a held charge on a succeful comat maneuver check like grapple (or just being in a grapple), bullrush, overrun or trip (unarmed)? yet another blind spot so far...
Dosgamer wrote:
You're welcome. Glad to hear it worked out for you. But I doubt your players were all too satisfied ;] By the way, how did you handle the movement issue?
reefwood wrote:
yo reefwood, i guess you're right, strictly RAW-wise, but i think that the rules for trample a very badly written and the reference to overrun does more harm than good. how far can the trampler move anyway? 5ft (rofl), its speed, twice - and if so, does the charge part come in anywhere? from watching countless documentaries i'd say that first of all a stampede of cattle pretty much looks as if they were running and furthermore i just can't get myself to picture a person of medium size NOT to be prone after literally being trampled INTO the ground in such a case. of course, you're not talking about a stampede here, which in terms of rules doesn't do anything except increasing the REF DC for half damage anyway. but my gut feeling suggests that there should be a fair chance for the recipient of a trample attack to go prone due to the attack.
this one's ripe for errata, i'd say. an easy fix could be to have the recipient of a trample go prone when taking full damage from the trample (either because you took your AoO and didn't drop the trampler or you blew your REF save).
the prd says this: A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. i say this: the first and last sentence are in conflict. i think one doesn't accidentally use a standard action by speaking the command word unintentionally. would be pretty silly, since any word "could" be a command word costing you a standard action every time you open your mouth ;) i believe the standard action constitutes "directing" the effect, e.g. making a touch attack, determining targets or what not. after all you surely wouldn't be able to determine those factors when you speak the command word by accident. so what happens when you don't direct the effect? it just goes off with those factors determined randomly i'd say. while effects like fireball could bring about undesirable results, effects where you don't have to make any decisions would just work like they always do. the consequences of this might not appeal to everyone, as it might allow some instant buffing e.g. shield, divine favor etc.
hello there! i don't know if this has been asked before, but does assuming the form of another type of creature, e.g. a bear, by means of a beast shape spell, or wild shape for that matter, actually give you that type (animal in this case)?
[end barrage of questions] ;) |