FarmerBob's page

585 posts. Alias of Lee Gordon.


1 to 50 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Thanks for all of the useful advice, and good to know I had it down right. For a little context, I am currently playing a bard, and our group is better served by having the bard boost the sneak attacking TWF rogue instead of trying to do a measly single attack himself.

I hadn't considered readying an action to aid an attack after the first. I'll keep that trick in mind.

May look into carrying a whip, just to aid from 15 feet away, although it wouldn't help with flanking/AoOs.

I'm currently playing a character who is more effective aiding another than actually attacking.

In reading through the rules again, I just noticed two aspects that I was doing wrong.

1) Aid Another cannot be used with Fighting Defensively (both are standard actions and therefore mutually exclusive).

2) Aid Another only applies to the first attack in a full attack (either the player's or the opponent's).

If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack ...

Is that how others read/play the Aid Another action? If so, it's less useful than I thought.

Ganryu wrote:
Does this mean that if I use, for example, a fingernail clipping from myself, I can have the familiar turn into a copy of me?

It would let your familiar turn into a creature of the same type, but not necessarily a copy of that creature.

Grick wrote:

You're not making the attack roll, the magic weapon is.

Agreed. That's why Spiritual Weapon doesn't break invisibility.

Don't forget about Ant Haul. After a few levels, it covers your typical adventuring day. Not a bad use for a first level spell once you start to have unused spells each day.

A wand of Ant Haul for 750 would probably get you by until your party has an excess of first level spells.

Replace "silence" with "light". If char A casts light on char B's weapon, and invisibility on himself, would invisibility end if char B's weapon was within 20' of a foe?

I would think not. To me, the same principles would apply to both.

One thing that gets a little dicey if if multiple wands (or any other word activated magic item) had the same command word. I'd roll randomly in that case, and only permit one to activate in a round.

If your shocking longsword, and your bundle of wand of lightning bolt and wand of cure critical wounds all activated on "Shazaam!", bummer for you.

Ravingdork wrote:
Yep, I'm right. The combo is perfectly legal.

Nothing wrong with taking a handful of wands and tying them into a bundle to make storage and retrieval (and sunder) easy. But, I'd rule you can only activate one at a time. If it isn't a rule, it would be a house-rule for me. Otherwise things get out of hand.

Eg, why buy a wand of cure moderate wounds (2d8+3) for 4500 when a bundle of two cure light wounds with the same command word heals 2d8+2 for 1500? That would be too easy to abuse.

7 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

This came up last session. Bad guy casts a spell and I went to use the Order of the Warrior - Honor In All Things ability to boost the save.

Whenever the samurai makes a skill check or saving throw, he can call upon his honor as a free action to grant him a +4 morale bonus on the roll.


Oops. It's a free action, not immediate action. To my knowledge, the only free action that is usable when it isn't your turn is "Speak".

1) Is this how others understand the ability?

2) Is this the intent of the ability?

Seems like only being able to get a boost to your saves on your turn really limits the usefulness. Wanted to double check that the nerf is by design.

Troubleshooter wrote:
Just curious, how do we know it still applies? It may be a good suggestion, but I don't see how it's canon.

Okay, how about THIS

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mr. Green wrote:
Are 3.5 FAQs of any value in pathfinder, for discussions concerning RAW or RAI.

Absolutely, as long as the content in question didn't change.

Ravingdork wrote:

Wasn't there a rule somewhere saying that you can only get a single sneak attack on a spell volley? For example, you could hit a guy with with 3 rays from scorching ray or 15 darts from the violent thrust aspect of telekinesis, but you would only get to roll sneak attack on one of those attacks.

I'll see if I can track down where I remember this from.

+1. I was just about to write the same thing, and I also hadn't been able to find the source.

Lathiira wrote:
So it's gotten easier to deal with, especially since you can buff up your Fort save the next day when it's time to save against each negative level (you save separately for each one, by the way).

Allowing to buff before saves that happen the next day is pretty generous. This came up in another thread, and I believe SKR or JJ weighed in that they don't allow that. Can't locate it right now.

The saving throw is an abstraction of the body fighting the affliction over the course of the day. At some point, you check to see if your condition has improved. Having a higher Fort for a few minutes wouldn't help much. If you were buffed for the day, it would be more palatable.

It is similar to spending a week crafting and then bumping your Int before you roll to see how you did. Having a higher Int for a few minutes had no bearing on how well you crafted during the last week.

From a mechanics perspective, how do you know when you are about to make a saving throw and should apply the buffs? Short of divination and accurate timekeeping, you probably can't buff beforehand anyway.

Bruno Kristensen wrote:

Sorry if this has been discussed before. Did a brief search but didn't find anything.

Normally, as I understand it, you have to pay the cost of any material components of a spell, when you scribe it into a scroll.

What happens, if I want to scribe a scroll of Restoration, where the component cost either 100 gp or 1000 gp, depending on which use I want? Do I have to scribe it as either one, and if I scribe it as 100 gp, it only works for non-permanent levels, etc.?


That's what I'd do.

Tom S 820 wrote:
That answer nothing that I asked... You lost me in your vague answer.


Tom S 820 wrote:
A) How many time can I take that Immedate action once per level?

Once per round.

Tom S 820 wrote:
B) Once per casting?

Once per round.

Tom S 820 wrote:
C) Should this spell not be an an Immeadte casting spell?


Tom S 820 wrote:
D) Should the target of this get a save each round as it a on going effect like most over spell of this type?

The target is you. You cast it on yourself. Each round, you can use it to affect the attack of one opponent that threatens you, but is attacking someone else. Doing so is an immediate action, and is something you do as part of the opponent's attack. The opponent you target can make a Will save to resist the effect. It only affects that attack that round (I think).

Tom S 820 wrote:
Can get up to 5 monster/ bad guy to attack me ?

No. You get one immediate action/round, and you affect one target with that immediate action. It doesn't continue into subsequent rounds. You can retarget that opponent 5 times, or 5 different opponents once.

New Quetion

Tom S 820 wrote:
E) What is and attack for this spell melee? spell? ect.

You can only target someone who attacks an ally but is threatening you. It isn't specific, but I'd limit it to the attack type that the opponent was using. Casting an area spell isn't an attack, but using a spell as a melee touch attack is (IMHO).

Immediate Actions

Diego Rossi wrote:
I would say that using a alchemical power component is a move action that provoke an attack of opportunity.

+1. Most of those items are fairly substantial in size and weight (1-4 lbs). Normally it is move action + standard action if you want to take one out and use it in the same round. Unless you want to hand wave and say "it's magic", it seems excessive to allow you to retrieve an item as "not an action" when used in a spell, but require a move action if you want to fetch it otherwise.

If using an alchemical power component increased the casting time, then I'd feel differently.

Back to the OP:

HydrophobicFish wrote:
Last night's session, they were explorting a crypt, and he announces "I'm readying a spell." Then they encounter a handful of NPC's who basically say "you shall not pass." the PC's and NPC's argue back and forth, and then suddenly the player who readied a spell says "That's it, all these guys need a reflex save, I cast fireball."

this is probably what I would have done (which is in line with your approach).

When any player announced they wanted to do something aside from talking or movement outside of threatened spaces, I'd roll initiative and start sequencing the turns at that point. Could be casting a spell, drawing a weapon, readying a shield, retrieving an item, etc.

Anyone (good guy or bad guy) prior to the player announcing their intention to act could choose to delay or ready an action. It would be a bit meta-gamey for someone to attack based on the knowledge that the spellcaster planned to cast fireball later in the round, unless it was cued by something else.

Really, to be fair, the player should just ask to measure time in rounds at that point and not publicly declare their actions beforehand.

If the bad guys readied an action vs. a spell being cast, they'd get their standard or move action to do something beforehand. Without something like spellcraft, they'd react the same way to fireball as prestidigitation though.

Unless the good or bad guys had some kind of cue, the player that decided to end the parley and attack would be the first one to get both standard and move actions. Anyone going beforehand would only get a readied action vs. something specific.

Jiggy wrote:

Well, my concern (regarding time paradoxes) is this bit:

Ready wrote:
The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.

That's the problem, right there.

Now, if I were GMing a home game, I'd insert a tiny-but-effective bit of eratta:

Jiggy's Ready wrote:
The action occurs just before the event that triggers it finishes resolving.

I think I've always been doing that mentally. If you view actions as having a start time and end time, then readied actions go off after the start time, and before the end time, of the action that triggered it. The resolution of the initiative count isn't sufficient to track it at that level, so things look out of sequence by that measurement. Maybe we need ... SEGMENTS!

Jiggy wrote:
This is why the rules language for readying needs an overhaul. As written, it creates time paradoxes.

If you don't view actions as atomic, I think it is okay as written.

If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.

As long as you are okay with the idea of shoe-horning an action into the middle of another action, I think it works fine.

This all stems from trying to force an order on simultaneous events, but without that, combat would be much more complicated to run.

Grick wrote:
You can ready a move action, triggered by an enemy moving closer to you. Since the ready is triggered by his move action, you would move before him, which means he could choose to move in a different direction. Or move all the way up to you if he has the speed. Or charge.

All depends on how the readied action is worded. I don't think you necessarily preempt the entire action, but instead interrupt the action as it is unfolding.

For example, say a bad guy is 20 feet away, and you ready an action to move if he moves within 10 feet of you. The guy has to move 10 feet towards you before the action is triggered. You can then move as part of the readied action, suspending his move. After your move, the bad guy can choose if he wants to continue his movement or not. He couldn't undo the 10 feet of movement to charge instead though. That movement has already occurred.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my games, I'm a big fan of rolling initiative early and often. If the party approaches a group with unknown intentions on either side, and both groups are aware of each other, roll initiative while they are still some distance away. That does three things.

1) It serves as a tool to give each player equal time to say something or do something as I cycle through the initiative counts. If someone wants to start casting buffs, then I'm already tracking rounds for duration.

2) It also makes it harder to immediately identify friend from foe. If you roll initiative for non-hostile meetings, there's no DM cue for how to treat the NPC.

3) If player wants to be a loose cannon and fireball the group, he can. The recipients could have readied actions though, depending on the setup. Could be he just fireballed a group of pilgrims that were in a bad mood, or brigands intent on robbing them.

But to the OP, ready is a combat action, and you can't ready an action if you aren't sequencing actions by initiative.

Happler wrote:
Also, the spell does have a much lower duration then greater magic weapon. GMW is 1 hour/level, while VW is 1 minute/level.

Didn't notice the drop in duration before. Could be addition to then.

Happler wrote:
The way that it states it in the spell makes me think that it also gives the same bonus that greater magic weapon gives. I would come up with the same result as the OP (level 8 caster getting +2 and a type of DR).

Versatile Weapon and GMW are both Wiz 3 spells. Would it make sense to create a spell that replicates another spell exactly at the same level, and includes additional bonuses, plus works for natural and unarmed attacks?

I read this:

This spell functions like greater magic weapon, except that it subtly alters the physical properties of a weapon

as that it functions like GMW, except it alters the DR properties instead of giving an enhancement bonus, and not in addition to.

Seraphimpunk wrote:

does versatile weapon really function as greater magic weapon for minutes / level, but also allow it to bypass dr? so if an 8th level caster cast it, it would give a +2 enhancement bonus , and allow it to bypass one of the listed DRs?

No. Versatile weapon only lets you pick one kind of DR to overcome.

harmor wrote:
It came up.

I guess nothing would prevent them from running by RAW. For particulars in my game, I'd say it would depend on the swarm type, their intelligence and how they tend to hunt. If it would make sense that they'd pursue prey instinctively, then I think they'd run. If the swarm is opportunistic and relies on surprise or terrain to capture food, then possibly not.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Cfoot wrote:

Furious Finish

You channel all of your rage into one massive blow to crush your enemy.

Prerequisite: Rage class feature, Vital Strike, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: While raging, when you use the Vital Strike feat, you can choose not to roll your damage dice and instead deal damage equal to the maximum roll possible on those damage dice. If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be).

1) Does this max out the damage roll for all dice (Vital strike dice and normal damage dice) or just the vital strike dice and you roll the normal damage dice?

2) Does this apply to Improved Vital Strike as well, or just Vital Strike?

Thanks in advance.

Reads to me as all damage dice. Would include energy, bane, precision, critical, or any other damage dice you'd roll as part of the strike.

HappyDaze wrote:
FarmerBob wrote:

Although depending on the dispel magic check, it's possible a roll isn't high enough to dispel the top CL spell, but could affect a lower level one. Eg, CL 15 stoneskin (DC 26) and CL 1 mage armor (DC 12). Isn't foolproof, but would help you order them to some degree (at the expense of duration).

That example is a bit overdone. I'm suggesting lowering the caster level of the spell you least want to lose by 1. If you have four spells at CL 15 and one at CL 14, then the CL 14 is reasonably likely to stay unless it's specifically targeted with dispel.


I guess I was trying to warn against staggering all your spells so that you control the order of dispels. Eg:

CL 15 - Fly
CL 14 - Stoneskin
CL 13 - Mirror Image
CL 12 - False Life
CL 11 - Shield
CL 10 - Mage Armor

If you go crazy with this, you'll increase the odds of something getting dispelled.

I'm all on board with having a two layer system where you cast the more important spells at one level lower. Then you only have a 5% chance of them hitting your important spell collection with a dispel magic.

Cyberwolf2xs wrote:


Easier to achieve than my version if you can afford to cast your buffs at less-than-maximum caster level.

And yes, thinking about it a second time, random feels like it's the better way to handle it.

Although depending on the dispel magic check, it's possible a roll isn't high enough to dispel the top CL spell, but could affect a lower level one. Eg, CL 15 stoneskin (DC 26) and CL 1 mage armor (DC 12). Isn't foolproof, but would help you order them to some degree (at the expense of duration).

Asteldian Caliskan wrote:

Hi all,

Just looking at the Quickdraw shield from APG and noticed that with teh Quickdraw feat you are able to put on and take off the shield as a free action.

Doesn't this mean that technically, you could be attacking with a Bastard sword (or a longsword for that matter) 2h for the 1.5 str bonus and then as a free action equip the shield so that you have shield AC during opponents turn. Then, again on your turn take it off, strike with the 2h attack and equip again? Smells rather cheesy to me...I assume I am missing something obvious to stop this?

All legal, and works like Ring of Force Shield (effectively). Also works with a 2-handed weapon, although you wouldn't get AoOs in that case.

Start of round:

- unequip shield/deactivate ring (free action)
- grip weapon with off-hand (free action)
- take normal attack actions
- ungrip weapon with off-hand (free action)
- equip shield/activate ring (free action)

Rinse and repeat.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Yes, you can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand. Taking one hand off (or grabbing it again) is a free action.

The big issue is what to do about the wand after you've used it. Quick Draw doesn't help with wands ("Alchemical items, potions, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat"), which means it's a move action to draw the wand and another move action to put it away. One solution is to use a glove of storing, which reduces the time to both retrieve and store one wand (or other item) to a free action. It's a bit pricey at 10,000 gp, but by the time you're fighter's Use Magic Device check is probably high enough to reliably use a wand (75+% success on a DC 20 check), he should be able to afford it.

As far as drawing it, you can draw a wand as part of a move with a +1 BAB.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
x93edwards wrote:
Since two (or more) stones would technically be different sources, I'm not sure what would stop them from stacking.

They are considered they same source. Much like if you cast Virtue multiple times. It would be considered the same source (Virtue spell), even though they are multiple copies cast at different times.

The source of the bonus is an ioun stone, so you can't use another one to increase the bonus.

Starglim wrote:

A1) Almost. This is not an action rather than a free action.

A2) It's not clear to me whether getting the horse to charge, if it's not going to make attacks itself, requires the Attack trick or is simply riding (no check required). If you want it to attack with a hoof, your reading is right. If you fail to get it to attack, you can still ride it for its double move.
A3) RAW doesn't prevent you, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me (and has some odd consequences if you're allowed to dismount). I think this usage should have the same effect on failure as controlling an untrained mount in combat, namely that you can't do anything else for that round. At minimum, you can't make any sort of attack in that round while riding.

B) You can push the horse to attack the undead creature as a move action. If you fail that check, your following steps seem right.

Thanks for the feedback. Glad to hear it isn't straightforward for others either. My master plan at this point is to dump it on the GM's lap and have him tell me what to roll when. Having some net wisdom for guidance is really helpful though.

Sorry if there's already a thread that covers it, but my search-fu failed.

I'm trying to figure out what rolls I need to make each round to attack from the back of a combat trained horse as a samurai, and what happens if the rolls fail. This is what I have so far.

Let's say you want to charge a humanoid foe.

1) Roll a DC 5 Ride check as free action. Failure = use one hand for rest of round

2) Roll a DC 10 Handle Animal check for the animal to use the Attack trick as a free action, attacking with a charge. Success = charge. Failure = no charge. What are your options after a failure?

3) Assuming you succeeded with the charge, make a DC 10 Ride check so that you can attack with the horse as you reach the target. Failure = no attack for you. Do you get your standard and move actions then anyway?

Now, what happens if you are facing an undead foe, and the horse isn't trained for that. Can you charge? I don't think you can. Charge is an attack option, and you can't charge if your horse doesn't. This is what I think happens.

1) DC 5 Ride check to steer with knees.

2) Horse double moves towards target (no roll needed).

3) Make a single attack w/no charge (no roll needed).

Do I have it correct? Thanks.

Aren't belts and headbands use activated, and not command word activated?

Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.

Seems like it would function on animal companions just fine in that case.

Rats Archive wrote:
So in the interest of saving face, I mantain that RAW, hooves are secondary attacks, but Jacobs gives good advice and you should do it his way just 'cause. ;)

I've been looking at this recently, and here's my spin on the situation.

Docile (Ex): Unless specifically trained for combat (see the Handle Animal skill), a horse's hooves are treated as secondary attacks.

Without combat training hoof attacks are treated as secondary. With combat training hoof attacks receive no special treatment. It doesn't say that combat training makes hooves primary.

A bite attack is primary and hoof is secondary. With only a single type, hoof is normally primary for a light horse. Without training, a light horse is docile, and the hoof becomes secondary. With training, it no longer is treated as a special case, and it goes back to primary as per the UMR.

With heavy and animal companions, they already have a primary attack (bite). Docile is irrelevant (if it applies), since hooves are always secondary in that case. With training, you don't treat hooves differently, and they are still secondary.

That seems the most reasonable to me.

Raymond Lambert wrote:

anyone know if alchemist extrats are fully transparent with spells for stuff like metamagic feats(plus rods), pearls of power, rings of wizardry. do they count as arcane casting for the purpose of qualification of the arcane strike feat?

any other interesting interactions anyone can point out?


Far as I can tell, no to all of the above. They aren't spells, and the magic isn't divine or arcane.

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

This is going down a different path than I intended. My real question is, why does a Cavalier start with 175gp and a Samurai start with 105gp? I'd expect them to be the same. I think Samurai is incorrect, so I'm looking for someone to confirm that.

Just wondering if the starting gold was correct. Gunslinger is 175 and Samurai is 105. My gut is that those values are backwards. Cavalier (and other heavy armor classes) are 175. Gunslinger is a light armor class, so 175 seems a bit off for them too.

Is this correct? I see there is no FAQ for UC yet.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
HappyDaze wrote:
With Improved Familiar I get some nifty choices at Level 7. However, many of these (Pseudodragon, Arbiter, Silvanshee, Lyrakien, Brownie, Cythnigot, Quasit, Imp, and probably others) have Intelligence scores that exceed what a Familiar has at level 7 (Int 9). The Lyrakien is the most stunted of all, and won't hit intellectual parity with the non-Familiar version until its master is Level 17! Please tell me that there is a rule somewhere that Familiars use their base Int until the value on the Familiar table exceeds it.

Nope. Looks like the creatures of average racial intelligence avoid being familiars.

Must fight urge to necro thread ... argh .. epic fail.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fine. He's burning down an orphanage because it was costing the town money and the Orphanage's matron was 15 minutes late in filing her renewal permits. Since the building is burning down, everyone fleeing the fire is guilty of vagrancy, which is punishable by death.

That's still a caricature of evil to me. Here's a better example, IMHO.

Some street urchins (who happen to be CN) have been breaking into shops and shrines to take a few items they don't think will be missed. This time, the shopkeeper is there and tries to stop them. In the scuffle, the shopkeeper is killed.

This happens as a patrol is rounding the corner, catching them in the act. The urchins flee to the orphanage (where they live). The patrol gives chase and surrounds the building, awaiting instructions.

The LE ruler orders the building sealed and burned to the ground, killing the guilty and innocent alike. This sends a strong message about tolerating crime and harboring fugitives. The others in the orphanage may not have been involved, but maybe they were.

The LG ruler orders all of the occupants to be arrested and taken for questioning. There the full extent of the conspiracy is determined, and the appropriate people are put on trial. The punishment is death for the urchins that killed the shopkeeper. It might also be death for the leaders of the orphanage if they were responsible for sending the kids out to steal. A compassionate ruler might temper the punishment based on the circumstances (they were stealing to fund the orphanage, and had been non-violent to that point, for example).

The LG bystander to the LE ruler agrees that killing the urchins was just, but regrets that the methods killed "innocent" people (in their eyes).

The LE bystander to the LG ruler agrees that killing the urchins was just, but regrets that the methods spared "guilty" people (in their eyes).

BigNorseWolf wrote:
To a person that is primarily good, secure borders safe streets and stability are not the end goal, they're a means of achieving a goal.

A person that is primarily good is comparatively more neutral on law vs. chaos (lawful GOOD). A person that is primarily lawful is comparatively more neutral on good vs. evil (LAWFUL good).

A person that is equally lawful and good (LAWFUL GOOD) should feel the same indignation witnessing chaotic acts as they do evil acts. They are the complete antithesis of their philosophical beliefs in either case.

Your point is that good vs. evil is such a strong element that law vs. chaos is never on the same level when one of those is in play.

I find that neutral is usually played as being slightly less good. But, a LN cleric can choose equally between Iomedae and Asmodeus. They support the same desire for a orderly society, and either set of approaches is acceptable to the cleric. They strongly oppose CG as much as CE. I have yet to see a game where a neutral cleric picks an evil deity and hangs out with good adventurers. [ Note to self, try this ]. Tying this marginally to the OP, would a LN cleric of Asmodeus be able to heal a paladin of Iomedae?

I do think most games play out as battles of good vs. evil, and completely marginalize (or ignore) the lawful or chaotic elements. I hate the alignment system, and even more so when it is used to put white or black hats on people so you know who to kill. I think everything is a shade of gray, and defined alignments constrain that. Alignments are fundamental to the game, so this won't change. But, I can still rant about it. :-).

Scharlata wrote:

What exactly does the sentence "Nothing can pass through the sphere, inside or out, though the subject can breathe normally." mean?

Does it include sight and sound?

Eager for info :)

Kind regards

It works like Resilient Sphere, which works like Wall of Force, which is invisible. So, you can see through a bead of force.

The effect is completely immovable, so I would rule that sound would not pass. If you bang on the sphere, it doesn't move at all to create sound/pressure waves, so no sound would be transmitted at all.

You can breathe normally, which means any creature that would fit inside would have enough air to avoid suffocation for the duration of the effect.

Agreed. By RAW, no. But wouldn't hurt to ask your GM for a sensible ruling.

SurlyJoe wrote:
I am trying to understand the ins and outs of high fantasy, as opposed to normal games. I know that the players get more points for the point buy system, and they get more treasure, and the NPC characters get a little more loot. Is there something I'm missing?

I don't think you are missing anything. The low/standard/high/epic fantasy designations are just labels for point buys. The higher you go, the more capable the PCs. It can be a tool to help craft the power of the PCs to keep them challenged with published material. I wouldn't read more into it than that though.

SurlyJoe wrote:
I am trying to understand the ins and outs of high fantasy

I thought it was just when you played at 4:20.

(Somebody had to go there).

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

That makes sense to me.

DR/magic = +1
DR/silver or cold iron = +3
DR/adamantine = +4
DR/alignment = +5

I don't know of a rule that changes this by CR or HD.

Sleeping creatures are not unconscious, so they are not automatically considered willing. Unconscious is a specific condition.

Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

Sleeping, as a condition, is not defined. Sleeping creatures are still conscious, since they are able to make perception checks (at -10). Unconscious creatures cannot.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bascaria wrote:
Conditional clause at the start appears to apply to whole sentence. You only get the increased reach while using the style and using elemental fist to deal cold damage.


Suichimo wrote:
Exactly what does this mean?

I think it's intended to work similar to a ring of spell storing, at least in terms of what the levels mean.

Felantron wrote:
My plan, therefore, is to shorten Bastards and speed them through it, removing some of the encounters. Roughly, this is what I have in mind:

That should work pretty well. I found the first book to be pretty light on XP, so I actually ran Crypt of the Everflame between parts 4 and 5. I ran a few encounters in the sewers so they could tangle with some Hellknights-in-training, but didn't spend much time there. After the rescue, they did the Crypt as a side-quest as part of a PCs backstory, and were more than happy to leave town for awhile. Worked great, and XP was right by the time they were done.

I think you could get by with running the works if they are coming in shy of 3rd level. Dividing by 6 and keeping story awards small, they'll be mid-3rd level by the time they start the 2nd book. You'll want to bump the bosses at each level though to account for more, and more experienced, PCs.

1 to 50 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>