As the finale to a epic battle the characters are up against a bodythief plant monster (p.g. 20-21 Beastiary 4).
One of the players asked what effect would the defoliate spell have on it?
Search Posts
In our last session the adventurers (all good aligned) came into possession of a +3, unholy, bane (humans) weapon. After the session one of the players presented an enchantment called “redeemed”. From the Champions of Purity companion book. The question is how much does it “cost” for this enchantment? In the price area it states the cost is a +3 bonus. In the text it makes mention of the caster needing to pay a +1 enchantment bonus. Is it +1, +3, +1 and +3? I contend that it should be the +3 bonus as the enchantment not only changes the weapon to good it also adds the sacred bonus to saving throws and competence bonus on knowledge rolls. What do others think? Here is information on the enchantment: Aura strong abjuration and evocation [good]; CL 12th; Weight —; Price +3 bonus DESCRIPTION
When the redeemed weapon special ability is added to an unholy weapon, the weapon loses the unholy property and gains the redeemed property, and the crafter must pay the price of adding a +1 enhancement bonus to the weapon. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
The title pretty much says it all. Are spell casters subject to the same -4 penalty as archers when firing rays and ranged touch attacks into melee combat?
In our previous session (starting over at first level) the cleric took the fire domain so he can cast 1d6 fire bolts up to seven times per day. Per the rules on ranged touch attacks you can score a critical hit. The problem is no where in the multitude of books doe it say rolling a 1 is a critical failure. If so what happens in the casting just lost, does it fly off in a random direction, thoughts?
We have a veteran group of players who just started a new campaign at 1st level. The party killed some giant caterpillars. We have a Paladin in the group who said to collect and sell it was just as evil as using it. The party begrudging left the bodies to rot with poison glands still in tack. When they asked me for a ruling I said Paladins frown on poison use and left it at that. My question is do all good characters believe poison use is evil?
Sorry if this has been answered before but the question our group has is under arcane archer the character gains the ability to wear light or medium armor. What's not addressed at least in that section of the book is whether the chance of spell failure still applies if the archer wears armor. Thoughts?
In the game I'm running the characters have access to rings that allow them to teleport alone to another person with one of the rings. As these are powerful magic items I set a condition that only the weaer of the ring can teleport. No holding someone or otherwise bringing someone alive along. This has played well for several months but now a party member has a bag of holding and wants to know if having people in the bag of holding allow an exception to the wearer only rule. My first reaction is to say they still count since their alive and gaining the benefit of the teleport. I can however see the possibility of them being on a different plane of existence letting it work. Thoughts?
Looked around for the answer (which might be right in front of me) but can an alchemist gain the stacked benefits of a mutagen and potions? We had a game session with the alchemist taking feral mutagen and then drank a potion of bull's strength and enlarge person. The effects if true make this class a powerhouse in melee combat. Here's how it played out started with 18 strength, used feral mutagen that gave the player a +4 to strength and +2 to natural armor. He then drank the potions listed and came out with a three natural attacks with the following stats for Strength base 18 +4 mutagen +4 from bull's strength and +2 for enlarge person for a total strength of 28 doing 1d8+9 with the two claws and a 1d6+9 bite. If this is correct no one can compete with him at lower levels for dealing out mass amounts of damage. Did we play this wrong? Thanks for your help.
Playing a Paladin is not nearly as hard as many people make it out to be. A paladin is a virtuous warrior sworn to uphold the laws that he or she has agreed to in their vows (thus granting them their powers). Currently the game is skewed to focus on playing generally good characters so that part is covered as well. As to your specific questions: 1. You can cooperate with a NE person to achieve a goal or overcome a greater evil, but then you should part ways. At the same time inner party conflict is likely as her/his methods are likely to conflict with yours at some point. This can actually be quite fun if both people get into their respective roles. 2. Being nice is fine, but certainly not required. You are first and foremost a warrior. You see the answers to things from that perspective. If you want to play a diplomat do so, but a paladin is a warrior through and through. I agree with Ainslan that Batman is lawful good. He does not seek to kill or maim without cause, but if provoked will set things right by force. 3. Your personal code and laws you set with your god are always first. Very often this will conflict with the laws of the land, but a true paladin will stay the course and keep his/her convictions. 4. Trying to bring all evil to justice would be the same as a police officer trying to stop all crime. It is impossible. While it is in your nature to want that, it is known to both you and your god that this is not possible. Your goal should be to seek out and punish those who do evil that stands out and your justice can serve as an example to others of what happens when they do evil. Paladins can have a sense of humor, enjoy the pleasures of the moral world and still remain loyal to their vows. If you choose to be a holier than thou type that is just one style of play, not the only one.
Our group is discussing the effect that a vorpal blade would have if the character scored the natural 20 and confirmed the hit. According to the vorpal description "the weapon severs the opponent’s head (if it has one) from its body. Some creatures, such as many aberrations and all oozes, have no heads. Others, such as golems and undead creatures other than vampires, are not affected by the loss of their heads. Most other creatures, however, die when their heads are cut off." The gray area, if there is one, concerns what happens to a vampire if it is beheaded in combat? Does it remain corporeal and can be finished off per the Beastiary description of staking the heart and anointing the head with holy water. OR does it drop to zero hit points, go into gaseous form and try to return to it’s coffin?
I have a fighter/rogue playing and wanted to know if evasion still works when mounted. If so, does he have to dismount to avoid the damage?
We have a group playing and the ranger just reached 4th level and opted for the animal option under hunter's bond. The new core rule book states: The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion. A ranger who selects an animal companion can choose from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary), dog, horse, pony, snake (viper or constrictor), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the ranger may choose a shark instead. The player argued that the selection of animals was open to any animal as is described in the Druid's description. I ruled that the bigger list for druid's was one of the advantages of taking that class. We have tabled a decision for now, so I am asking for input from this group on whether a ranger is limited to just the animals listed in the ranger section or open to any animal as for a druid. Thanks in advance for your input.
Thanks for all the input. This all came about more by accident than through a planned encounter. The party is trapped in a prehistoric region and decided to capture one of the aurochs rather than just kill it for meat. The idea of using it as a mount came after they had successful captured it.
I am GMing a campaign where a halfling captured a aurach (Herd animal-wild cow) and he wants to train it as a charger for mounted combat. He has all the riding and handle animal skills and mounted combat feats. Is there any reason this can't/shouldn't be done? Assuming he successfully completes the handle animal roll, do standard mounted combat rules apply? Finally if all of the above is ok, would special equipment be needed? Thanks |