If you are an Eidolon, you use what the Evolution says, not what the Universal monster rules say.
Is that an oversight in the RAW? Or did they really mean to give the eidolon that ability? (smacks lips and thinks about next gaming session...)
Search Posts
BC doesn't work for eidolons. However, you could talk to your GM to ask if he'd make an exception/houserule to allow you to do so. We were running through an AP with a 3 man team, and the BC-ed eidolon based on a 1-level summoner dip has really increased the survivability of the party.
Dervish Dancer feat, and the Agile weapon property. I believe the feat is called Dervish Dance (from the Inner Sea guide). Dervish Dancer is a bard archetype from UC. Dervish Dance is limiting in terms of weapon choice. +1 to Agile weapons - they are great (expensive at lower levels though).
The APs are generally designed for a minimum of 4 players. So having them level up faster is not really an issue. Also remember - you can always make combat harder without upping the CR by improving your NPC/monster tacticals. The other thing that you could do is slow down the experience level progression - if you're using Fast, go Fast-Medium (slower than fast, faster than medium) instead.
The Magus is meant to be a melee focused class. Spell Combat requires one hand free (even for a spell without somatic components). By RAW, I don't think a bow would qualify, although using a crossbow one-handed might. Spell Strike could work with a ranged touch attack, but you would not be able to use it in concert with Spell Combat. Stepping out of the RAW box, I think this could be a fun class to play with a bow focus - just come up with sort of reasonable explanation to how the Spell Combat ability works with bows. Maybe even get your DM to help you with it.
I suppose that to really find good answers consistent with the post I linked to - you'd have to ask JJ himself. He...James Jacobs has a different view regarding this issue. Your questions are quite insightful. The reason I liked JJ's explanation is that it was consistent with this line from the Bestiary that reads: "An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence. " Which is really hard to interpret in game, but seems to be in line with JJ's comments.
James Jacobs has a different view regarding this issue. I suppose that to really find good answers consistent with the post I linked to - you'd have to ask JJ himself. He usually gets back to you on the same day if you post on the Ask JJ thread.
James Jacobs has a different view regarding this issue.
I suppose the answer to this question is sorta contingent upon the amount of treasure/loot that the players will have access to over the course of the campaign. You could price feat slots based on the level that the PC was at. Maybe a multiplier similar to the pricing for scrolls/wands. Or even better, tie it to the Character Wealth By Level table in the CRB. Something along the lines of a % of the wealth figure for a feat slot. So if your % factor is say 20%, then for a 4th level feat slot, you'd charge 20% of 6000GP (from the CWBL table) = 1200GP. Also, if the core issue here is feat slot scarcity, then you could just give people feats for free. Lots of GMS give away free feats such as the Vital Strike feat chain (at the appropriate levels), Weapon Finesse, Point Blank Shot etc.
(DC 15 heal check or healing him of damage). Or the Stabilize spell (if for some reason the party is tapped out on healing spells/channels but have loaded the orison).
Hey - role playing combat is fun. Once your players get real comfortable with things - try this too!
Probably not - but the real point of my suggestion was to not have it be a flat bonus but rather a bonus based on the weapon damage die. Ideally you would throw in part of the strength bonus as well. In reality, rolling iterative attacks shouldn't take that long, particularly if you are rolling against the same target (or targets with the same AC). Just roll the attack rolls all at once. Then total up the damage and add it all up. For example, that's what I do when running a rogue - otherwise between iterative attacks, TWF as well as regular and sneak attack damage dice - it would get out of hand.
Or you could simply say that the Vital Strike damage rules come into play - just to let the damage be proportionate to the type of weapon. Otherwise a dagger would deal out the same amount of extra damage as a greatsword penalizing the martial types.
Or you could simply say that the Vital Strike damage rules come into play - just to let the damage be proportionate to the type of weapon.
If a fighter with a melee attack of +7/+2 makes a trip attack with his second attack, does he get his full CMB or CMB -5? More specifically, what I wanted to say was that - it's not really a penalty as much as it's a lower bonus.
If a fighter with a melee attack of +7/+2 makes a trip attack with his second attack, does he get his full CMB or CMB -5? Your numbers are right. However, you shouldn't really regard it as CMB - 5. Rather, the CMB itself is based on your BAB which is lower after the first attack in a sequence of iterative attacks. So you have a different CMB - exactly the same way you have different attack roll modifiers.
This one probably needed to be play-tested a bit more and worded more carefully. There should be a requisite alignment indicator in the spell (like with the litany of righteousness), I am not really sure what the duration of instantaneous entails, and I am not sure why it is allowing all attacks against the target a bonus. Once again it allows SR and gives up a swift action, but I agree that this one needs some work. This is really not a problem. It's just a wording issue in the detailed text of the spell. But if you look up the spell in the index - the summary text clearly states that " Allies attacking the target of the spell gain a +5 bonus on damage rolls for 1 round." +5 to damage rolls for 1 round? At that caster level? Have at it, I say.
I hear the cries across the forums: you're gonna neuter my silvanshee? Really!? Yeah well, roll for init!
Improved familiar creatures (beyond becoming familiars who gain HD along with their masters and other abilities as listed in the familiar progression table) do not grant additional benefits like regular familiars to their masters, except for +2 to their Coolness ability score.
I agree. Under normal conditions the 2HD creature would have the LOH ability of an L2 paladin. But the process of converting it to a familiar would trump that.
Also, if you search for the word "stack" on the Combat page of the CRB in the online, you'll find all sorts of relevant mentions.
Oh great Dinosaur with a seemingly excellent dental plan, 1) Why aren't homunculi more common - to the extent that they almost become a purchasable standard accessory at a higher level? What's not to love about having a 2050 GP loyal, flying spy/messenger/scout with darkvision who can telepathically communicate everything it sees/hears to you, and doesn't eat, sleep or breathe? Am I missing something here? 2) If a summoner and his eidolon "share a mental link that allows for communication across any distance", and a summoner's homunculus "knows what its master knows and can convey to him or her everything it sees and hears", can the eidolon and homunculus potentially talk to each other using the summoner's mind as a sort of common resource? thanks!
Are you really sure about that?
One way to deal with Knowledge checks is for the GM to know the Knowledge areas (with modifiers) that all PCs have ranks in. Then when a Knowledge check is required, you ask everyone (or specific PCs) to roll a d20. You then calculate if an appropriate Knowledge check was successfully made. Then you tell the successful player that their PC just happened to remember (typically based on prior experience, knowledge, something they overheard, read somewhere etc) the appropriate Knowledge detail in question. I think this lets you weave the Knowledge check into the overall narrative better than reducing the check to DCs, die rolls and modifiers. This works especially well for monster identification checks. Asking for a Knowledge (Dungeoneering) check gives away the fact the monster is either an aberration or an ooze. But you can conceal that bit of info if required as part of your reveal if you don't identify the specific Knowledge area that triggered the reveal.
+1 for both LoF and RotR. They are both great.
A GM who does not grant maximum HP on the first level for a PC class is violating RAW.A GM doesn't violate RAW. He impliments house rules. I'm not saying the GM can't houserule it. I'm merely saying that the rules are very clear about this. If that was not clear from my post, my bad.
A GM who does not grant maximum HP on the first level for a PC class is violating RAW.
The text of the feat is fairly clear that the monster must be summoned using a summon spell, and that the duration of the enhancement is based on the duration of the spell. An eidolon is not normally summoned using a summon spell (unless, of course, you use the summon eidolon spell). This is critical for game balance as most summoned monsters exist for a short period of time before being dismissed. An eidolon, under normal conditions, is summoned for very large lengths of time. So if Augment Summoning were to work for eidolons, this would effectively be similar to the eidolon possessing a +4 Belt of Physical Might (a major wondrous item worth 40000 GP) for the price of a feat that only has Spell Focus (conjuration) as a prereq. So you could even gain it at 1st level.
Perhaps this post by James Jacobs might be enlightening?
I don't think so. BC improves your familiar's abilities once you've obtained it. But by RAW, nothing in the text of the feat lets you sidestep the CL pre-requisites for obtaining such a familiar. Of course, f your GM is willing to let you do so, I don't think it would deviate that far from RAI. Sandeep
Have you looked at the 4E skill list?
+ I've always been dissatisfied with how skills are dependent on just a single ability score, and have always felt that in reality, certain skills would involve the use of multiple faculties as opposed to just one.So I've thought about modifying the mechanic so that skills are dependent on two ability scores: a primary ability and a secondary ability. The total ability related modifier would be the sum of half of the primary ability score (rounded up) and the secondary ability score (rounded down) For example, if Intimidate is dependent on Cha and Str - with +3 modifiers for Cha and Str each, the net ability score modifier for Intimidate would be the sum of (+3 divided by 2 rounded up = ) +2 and (+3 divided by 2 rounded down = ) +1 = +3. I think with the halves rounded up/down - the resulting numbers would be fairly compatible numerically with normal skill modifiers. This is especially important when dealing with NPC/monster skill ranks - so as to avoid restatting if you don't have the time to do so. I've outlined a possible set of ability score dependencies below (listed as Primary/Secondary ability scores): Acrobatics - Dex/Str
I'm not aware of a monster that can "receive youth" - but wraiths can be pretty lethal with their ability drain capabilities. And should be pretty straight-forward to run mechanics-wise.
A cheap way to get 4 attacks is to add claws to the legs and drop the slam. Then you can improve all 4 claws as a whole. Depending on how your GM interprets the "one natural attack form" term in the Improved Damage evolution, you can improve the damage for all 4 claws as a whole. You can stack the Improved Natural attack feat on top of this damage to further move the damage die one size category higher. So you can get up to a d8 damage die for each claw. You can also take Weapon Focus (claws) - that will improve your attack roll on all 4 attacks. The great thing, of course, it gives you 4 attacks with minimal evolution point costs. And if you are so inclined, you can add additional arms + claws as you level up. (Yes your eidolon will look weird). And all the improvements you've made so far will apply to the claw attacks as well.
Eidolons (and those mounts paladins use) can move back to their extraplanar homes taking whatever they are wearing/carrying with them. OK, but now a problem. If I kill an Eidolon that happens to have some nice magic items on it and it goes away taking those items with it, right? So my loot disappears and I get nothing?I think whatever it carries drops to the ground unless it is bound with it. In that case, yes you get nada, zilch, zero. It doesn't have to be that way. See here for some thoughts on this by James Jacobs. So if the items are on the eidolon - you get nothing.
Between the hounds, Orik, Lyrie, the bugbear and Nualia - they could mount a pretty good defense if they put their minds to it. (Has Tsuto been neutralized yet?) If you can manage the CRs, why not add some more goblins to the mix. Perhaps they were not present during the first run through (out harrassing random animals, maybe). They could even be goblin commandos. Now they rally back under Gogmurt's leadership. Don't forget his animal companion. Even if you don't use the goblins, you still have quite a bit of fire power.
Thistletop can be defended easily with a skeleton crew. Securing the rope bridge is key. Make sure an assault from the water side is not possible. Ranged attacks from the watch towers can be deadly. Use Gogmurt's and Nualia's magic + magic items appropriately. The yeth hounds' Bay ability can be very effective.
Of course this is completely up to how you want to play it out. That said, I'm skeptical that Nualia can be redeemed. Her background makes her a good candidate for redemption. But in her mind, she has much more to gain by winning Lamashtu's favor and becoming a demon than going back to the light. And what would she go back to - a lifetime of regret without friends or family and a demon arm? I think she's too far gone already. Besides, Lamashtu probably holds some sway over her as well.
Dear Lord! JJ - you trying to start something here?! Soooooo, now that you've set the stage for this, the rule addendum covering the integration of 120 point buy PCs into Golarion will soon be forthcoming? Ooo ooh, passing the Test of the Starstone becomes a feat? (writing up Minor Deity prestige class now....).
JJ, 1) What is your position on meta-gaming? 2) Is meta gaming inevitable to a certain extent? In any case, do you see it as detrimental to the overall role-playing process or is it just a quirk that you live with in RPGs? 3) As a player, do you find yourself meta-gaming occasionally or do you actively try to not do that? 4) As a GM, do you slap down players for meta-gaming, or do you let it fly as long as it doesn't get out of hand?
I think that the fighter is great class to play when there's going to be a lot of opportunity to do what the fighter does best - combat. If you are in a campaign with a heavy emphasis on role playing with a lot of skill use, and a *lowered* emphasis on combat, the fighter-playing PC might find himself a little bored. But it doesn't need to be that way. The problem comes in when your fighter is a programmatically min-maxed, template-based, standard feat-tree based character. So don't do that. Experiment! 1) If you are not into multi-classing there are a lot of archetypes in the APG and UC to choose from that could make your character more interesting. 2) If you are into multi-classing, a dip into spell-casting can liven things up, or a larger investment can lead to a PrC-based build. Just plan ahead with your stats. A fighter wizard with an 8 for INT is silly. 3) If you haven't dumped your Dex, think about a dip into rogue for the skill ranks and the (albeit small) sneak attack bonus. Melee fighters get a lot of flanking opportunities. It can also make your backstory and party contribution more varied. 4) Build a background for your fighter that truly makes him part of the world you're playing in. Give him color. Tie your physical attributes, feats and equipment choices into your backstory. 4) Do something different each time you play a fighter. Throw away that cookie cutter. Experiment!
You can definitely attack incorporeal creatures with the Magic Attack evolution. It's a great 1-point evolution. You still deal only half damage.
In general, the only way to get in more than one natural attack in is to take a full round action. So if you're going to attack as part of a charge, more than one attack would require a pounce. A normal charge only allows a single attack.
Wowzers - that is a pretty awesome reply. Just so you know - your vision of how this works is really cool!
JJ, I believe there are several (inconclusive) threads on this topic on the messageboards. So I was wondering if you could clarify something on the subject of summoning and how it works in Golarion: 1)If summoning an eidolon only summons an "aspect" of a creature, does this mean that the actual creature remains behind on its home plane? 2) Do items carried/worn by the creature representing the eidolon come over with it when it's summoned? 3) What about items that the eidolon is carrying when it's dismissed (or dies) and is sent back to its home plane? 4) If the answer to 3 is that they are left behind, does this mean the eidolon has to be re(equipped) every time it's summoned? 5) Do the answers to 1 through 4 above apply to summoned monsters as well? 6) And finally, are the answers to all the above questions Golarion-specific, or would they apply to the Pathfinder mechanic in general? Thanks in advance!
1) We have a 3 person group (a ranger, a rogue and a cleric) who are playing Rise of the Runelords. Since the AP was written for a group larger than 3, what's the likelihood that they'll make it through to the end? What would you recommend to increase their chances of success? (no spoilers please!) 2) What strategies (for GMs and players) would you recommend in general for under-sized groups running through the APs?
I've always been dissatisfied with how skills are dependent on just a single ability score, and have always felt that in reality, certain skills would involve the use of multiple faculties as opposed to just one. So I've modified the mechanic so that skills are dependent on two ability scores: a primary ability and a secondary ability. Let me know what you folks think about this modification? I think it rounds things out reasonably well. The total ability related modifier would be the sum of half of the primary ability score (rounded up) and the secondary ability score (rounded down) For example, if Intimidate is dependent on Cha and Str - with +3 modifiers for Cha and Str each, the net ability score modifier for Intimidate would be the sum of (+3 divided by 2 rounded up = ) +2 and (+3 divided by 2 rounded down = ) +1 = +3. I think with the halves rounded up/down - the resulting numbers would be fairly compatible numerically with normal skill modifiers. This is especially important when dealing with NPC/monster skill ranks - so as to avoid restatting if you don't have the time to do so. I've outlined a possible set of ability score dependencies below (listed as Primary/Secondary ability scores): Acrobatics - Dex/Str
|