Glorfendill's page

Take a look at the Falling rules.

These Look fun. One Flying Character Vs Army. Flyer has a bag of holding full of bags of caltrops. Flies 1500 ft above army, and starts dumping the bags of caltrops out on top of the troops below. Safely out of bow/spell range hundreds of spiked objects fall to the ground making troops have to perform dozens of reflex saves to avoid 187 dmg on a success, 375 dmg on a fail, and 750 dmg on a crit fail. on the off chance that someone should actually survive, they are now also surrounded by a field of caltrops to cross!

What's up with Touch attack spells? Most spells are pretty straight forward, you cast the spell and that guy over there needs to make a save, or there's a ranged attack roll right away.

However there is no clarification on how touch or touch attack spells work.

-Do touch/touch attack spells have to be cast adjacent to the target and delivered as part of the spell casting?
-If you fail the attack roll do you keep the charge or is the spell lost?
-Can you cast the spell then use stride/step to move adjacent then deliver the spell attack automatically?
-Can you cast the spell then use stride/step to move adjacent but have to use a strike to deliver the spell attack?

Then there's the Archetype Rules that list 'occasionally' Archetype Feats that act like skill Feats. And they should have the Skill Trait. Unless I missed it there are no Skill Trait Archetype Feats listed among the archetypes. Are they listed Elsewhere, or does "occasionally" mean there are none yet, but you think some will be coming?

From my perspective as a player and occasional GM for about 2.5 years in the Raleigh/Durham Area, Michael IS the Face of Paizo in this area. And short of hiring Scarlett Johansson to take his place, I don't believe you could find anyone better to take his place in that role.

Michael puts in hours of prep time each week not only for the games he GM's but to help new/less experienced GM's be fully prepared for any games they are running. He gets to know every player that not only plays at his games, but even comes with questions and a passing interested in what Pathfinder and PFS are about. He puts in countless hours working to help players in this area with little or no recognition or incentive for himself as he already has every measurable bonus Paizo has to offer.

Yet I have no true understand of exactly what he did that warrants his removal as VC. Thus it seems odd that the act of removing him as VC is hurting the Paizo and PFS Brand in this area significantly more so than whatever actions he took that sparked this issue.

Smite Neutral wrote:

When you deal damage to it with negative energy, it is healed.

Not too sure about this. It seems like you're extrapolating a bit too much. By the way I read it, it's just not harmed by the negative energy and not healed (the same way living creatures are not healed or harmed when a cleric channels positive energy to harm undead).

This is a good example. By your(The OP, and those agreeing with him) method a normal human (or other living creature) cleric, that chooses to channel positive energy to harm undead would be able to heal themselves at the same time. But even though they can include themselves as targets for that channel, they are still channeling to harm, and since they are not harmed by positive energy, it has no effect.

Same circumstances, you invert them, a dhampir cleric channeling negative to harm living. They can choose to include themselves as targets, but they are channeling to harm, negative energy does not harm dhampirs (since they are treated as if they were undead, even though they are living creatures) since they are not harmed, it has no effect.

Because most of the game's themes are based on fantasy tropes, and in most media undead are evil if they are intelligent and/or the result of evil/dark/forbidden magic so they are evil in the game. Outside of Casper, and Slimer(from Ghostbusters) you won't find too many(a high percentage of) undead good guys.

That is the same reason why summoning evil outsider is evil even if you use them for a good purpose. Generally when someone calls an outsider the outsidr(demon/devil) outwits the human and makes things a lot works. That is how the "deal with devil" in media is transferred to the game by having devils be the masters of "fine print" contracts.

Because mankind has always vilified what it doesn't understand. But a few more examples, Ghost Dad (Bill Cosby), Ghost (Patrick Swayze), Frankenstein (Frankenstein's Monster), Twilight (The whole clan of Vampires the story centers around), Ghost Rider, A Christmas Carol (Marley, or multiple examples if you accept the "spirits" as actual ghosts)... I'm sure the list continues.

But as Frankenstein portrays, if you make something out to be a monster, it is very likely to become monstrous.

I won't get into the whole outsider/demon, as those are not undead...

How is it different? It allows you to deal negative energy damage to living creatures, including yourself. Negative energy affinity converts this damage to healing, does it not?

No it does not, you are treated as undead for the purposes of determining if you are healed or harmed by positive/negative energy.

Because channeling specifically calls out that you have to select both the target creature type (living or undead) AND if you want to heal or harm them. You only do healing, or harming, to the appropriate type.

Since The cleric in this question is targeting living to harm. even if they select themselves to be included, they are still casting to harm, so even though negative energy heals undead they are only channeling to harm creatures, therefore they do not receive any healing.

"An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures."

I believe in 3.5 it did both at the same time. At the time of channel you need to choose to damage living or heal undead. That's btw out of the cleric chapter.

Including/excluding self comes after you select to damage living or heal undead.

Lets Look at the relevant Pieces.

A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect.

Regardless of sequence of events it does not work. It boils down to the requirement to either target living creatures to deal damage, or target undead to heal. Since you have to make a choice to heal undead or damage living then even if you include yourself when you chose to damage living then you do not receive healing because you are undead, and you're not choosing to heal undead.

I had the same thoughts when trying to pick a class to play my PFS Dhampir boon. It all falls through because you're not just targeting living, or targeting undead, but you're target them to perform a specific action (heal or harm)

Just being careful. My GM can be a real stickler for rules. He doesn't really like it when characters find ways around inherent limitations like that (albeit very expensive ones). If it's a total fix, I'm just worried that he'll make an extra effort to pull something out of his hat that will exploit an item fix for a racial weakness... ;)

Everything here is correct, nothing in the rules say there is any penalty (beyond buying this item and not being able to wear something else in that slot) that applies to the character's vision.

That being said, it's your GM's game if he doesn't like things that counter inherent character penalties like this, then perhaps the best answer is not to come to the forums, but simply ask your GM what he thinks of the item and if he will allow it in his game.

Ranger is not the weakest class in the game.

Core rogue or Core monk deserves that title.

The stereotyping runs rampant. Certainly Core rogue is nowhere near as good as unchained rogue, but good core rogues CAN be built.

As for Core Monks, I don't even feel the unchained is clearly better than core, they are simply different. Very powerful monks can be built and can out DPR (Damage Per Round for the newer people that may be reading this) most other classes and their AC, Immunities, abilities generally scale far better than those classes that do over power it.

Just because it is common for people to go down the wrong rabbit hole when creating a Monk (or any class) does not mean that class is weak, only that they don't always work well with any build.

The Chemist Inquisition wrote:

If it were made out of real-world atoms, we would expect there to be 118 different kinds of elementals. And that's assuming no wizard managed to reach the valley of beta stability.

While that would be amusing, the elements present in RPGs are inspired more by the classical "elements" that those of real world chemistry. I'd love to know what special powers a potassium elemental has.

Or When Sodium Elemental's meet Create Water!

I'm not sure exactly what you're referencing... most of the points you make are things fighters have straight out of the CRB... So it's not like there's some massive shift in what fighters are now vs what they were at any other point in Pathfinder's lifespan.

It would seem flanking is based on the (in game) objective reality of the flankers, not the subjective reality of the flankee. If the flankers are really there then flanking happens, even if the flankee doesn't know. And if the flankers aren't really there then flanking doesn't happen even if the flankee thinks it does.

Yeah. One of those things. At least it's systematic.

Even to the extreme of the invisible flanker may be unknown to both the flanked creature as well as the visible flanker. The Visible Flanker still gets a strange +2 to attack and the option to deal sneak attack damage. Even though they themselves do not see how they are able to utilize their skills to such effect in this moment.

It's not about making something that isn't offensive, it's about not being offended because the well known history of some ancient ancestor correlates to a specific lifestyle suitable for comparison to some fantasy RPG racial attribute.

Further, it's about deciding that you can't be held responsible for what someone else may or may not find offensive. There was a time if someone said something offensive to you, you would walk away, stop listening, or just ignore them. When you choose not to say something like "Men are smart!" for fear that you might offend women, then things are clearly going too far. Just because a woman could infer that since you did not include women in the statement you are saying that women are not smart does not mean that you either intended to or should have offended any men. To be honest, by merely posting those two previous sentences I have probably offended some women because they feel that I am saying that women are too easily offended!

Recently everyone has started going on crusades to ensure that no one else says anything that might be offensive to them, as a result people are expected to ensure that nothing they say could ever be taken as offensive. If they do say something offensive, they get fired, blacklisted, or boycotted. Potentially even charged with slander or some other allegation.

You could use a very large bag of holding or a very large portable hole

I think they (portable Holes) only increase in size by weight capacity, not volume. and as a colossal creature volume is a big issue when dealing with Tarrasque.

The choice to doing portable holes into bag of holding was an intentional one, as exactly what happens are distinct differences.

"If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole, a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in the space: bag and hole alike are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane: the hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, destroying the portable hole and bag of holding in the process."

So if you put the Tarrasque in Bags of Holding, I have serious reservations that it would fit in one bag at 1,500 lbs. or 250 cubic ft. So you now need multiple bags. Placing bags of holding into a portable hole you may not have both bags in the hole at the exact same moment, if one enters before the rest then the hole colapses and you still have a bag of holding with tarrasque parts. You also have the hassle of shoveling the creature into a hole about 18-24" diameter, rather than into a 6' diameter hole. Finally the text for the text does not identify the objects as being destroyed, thus even though lost forever, nothing clearly states that something lost can not be found by something else that is lost, thus a lost creature could release the tarrasque resulting in it breaking through the barrier of the planes as noted above.

The portable holes into a bag of holding takes the surrounding 10' with it. So you ensure all the portable holes are in the bag of holding. Then the holes and the bag are destroyed, note nothing denoting that the space they previously contained being destroyed. The text also says nothing about contents being released. There is now nothing to find, thus nothing to potentially be released. And even if all the pieces could potentially regenerate to try to regrow, they would be limited to the relatively minuscule and powerless size of the space that was contained within the portable hole. With the portable holes themselves destroyed, there is no way to access the space they once contained.

How to Kill the Tarrasque in 10 simple steps!
(Watch out for that first step... it's a doozy!)

Step 1: Kill (Knock out) Tarrasque
Step 2: Continue to Kill (Knock out) Tarrasque. (to buy time)
Step 3: Lay out several (many) Portable Holes
Step 4: Cut Tarrasque into pieces
Step 5: Fill Portable Holes until all Terrasque pieces are in a hole.
Step 6: Close/Pick up all Portable Holes.
Step 7: Place them in a normal sack.
Step 8: Place an Open Bag of Holding on the ground.
Step 9: Move 15' away from Bag of Holding.
Step 10: Throw Sack containing portable Holes into Bag of Holding!

The fact that you miss on a nat 1, or hit on a nat 20 do not change the values of the attacks that you rolled. If you are attacking a mirror image and roll at nat 1 and your attack bonus is high enough that a nat 1 still means missing by 5 or less than you have successfully met the conditions to destroy an image, thus an image is destroyed. By the same token if you rolled a nat 20 and get the benefit of an automatic hit you still have to roll to see if that nat 20, best possible hit you could do, still hit an image or the real creature. From a balance perspective you can't say the 1 has no chance to even destroy an image while the 20 still has to find out if it hit an image rather than the target.

The same applies for exceeding a value, if your CMB is not high enough to exceed a targets CMD by 10 or more a nat 20 does not make 20+10(CMB) exceed 35 by 10+, it just means you automatically succeed at the Combat Maneuver even if you wouldn't have normally.

CorvusMask wrote:

Ya know, these types of conversation makes me realize that "No man can kill me" "I am no man" isn't prophecy twist, its rules argument :D

It's kinda nice when you can have rules work as a prophecy twist.

I've always been fond of the thing with magical rules in Gargoyles; there's no such thing as an unbreakable, unconditional curse. You can set some damn ridiculous conditions like "you will be stone until my castle rises above the clouds" but if you put a curse on someone there has to be a condition under which it will break.

"You will be cursed until the curse is broken!"

I think it does. The definition of a "Two-Handed Weapon" is a "Weapon which requires Two Hands to use". Trying to argue otherwise is absurd. I think now is as good a time as any to remind everyone that Pathfinder wasn't written to be parsed like a C++ Script or a Magic: The Gathering card. It was written "conversationally", and in that vain, I think it is safe to assume that a weapon that requires one hand to use is a One-Handed Weapon.

Cantriped has the true RAW and RAI meaning of all the rules, trying to argue otherwise is absurd.

PFS Scenario (Unnamed so as not to be spoilerific)

Party encountered a controller alchemist that was fond of stink bombs (and GM was a specialist having his own, controller based alchemist character with stink bombs). So fight drags on as much of the fight has a large portion of the party unable to attack. Finally Alchemist hits his retreat condition and opts to throw his last stink bomb at the largest grouping of players (my character was not in that grouping at the time, but my character had already been nauseated so the alchemist wasn't exceptionally worried about me). After re-nauseating most of the rest of the party, he moves to the door heading opposite the way we entered. Having used his standard action, and moving, he did not have the move action required to open the door.

My mind is already going 1000 MPH as a flash of genious hits me and I start looking at one of my abilities and what it takes to activate it. (Ultimately SU that does not identify action required, so defaults to Standard action) "CRAP" Crap I think to myself knowing that I can't do it while still nauseated.

Next player goes, They are nauseated, so move up next to the retreating enemy and done. Then GM looks to me and says "You're turn, you are no longer nauseated". My face beams with an ear to ear smile.

I asked the GM, how does the door work?(opens inward or outward, swinging door, round door knob, turn handle style, pull handle with no latch mechanism) GM responded "It opens inward, with a normal door knob/latching mechanism". "Metal Door knob", I asked. "Yes." replied the GM.

My Oread, with Alternate racial ability "Ferrous Touch", proceeded to walk up to the door, and reach out and touch it. Turning the door knob into a metal spike that drove through the end of the door into the adjoining door frame/wall. Effectively spiking/pinning the door closed.

The Alchemist was then left with no real offensive threats and no escape path as the door the party had entered was being blocked by another player!

People keep trying to say that the Barbazu beard is Off-Hand and it says 'thus it can be used with a two handed weapon' so it is clearly intended to be used for two weapon fighting with a two handed weapon.

Fact is the barbazu beard can be used when two weapon fighting so they include text to cover that (the weapon can be used as an off-hand weapon if you choose). It also does not require a free hand to use, so they confirm that it can be used while also wielding a two handed weapon.

This is A=B (Beard can be used two weapon fighting) and C=D(beard can be used with a two handed weapon) so A=D type thinking. There is nothing joining these two directly.

Description: A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon.

Lets break this down.

"A Barbazu beard CAN BE used as an off-hand weapon." So when you're two weapon fighting, you can say that the barbazu beard is an off-hand weapon, in other words, it does not have to be the primary weapon. The text does NOT say it "IS ALWAYS" or "MUST BE" it only says that it "CAN BE" so there is the OPTION to use it that way.

"requires no hands to use" This means that even if your hands are completely full with other items you can still use this weapon to attack. Be it 2 weapons, a single two handed weapon, or even 2 pails of water as you do your Jack & Jill impersonation, you can use the weapon even if your hands are full.

"thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon" This means that because the weapon requires no hands, you can use the weapon while also using a two handed weapon.
So for example, you can attack a creature that moves up to you with your Glaive as an attack of opportunity, but when it is standing next to you, and you're backed into a corner with nowhere to move. Even though your hands are full with a two handed weapon, you can still attack the creature with your Barbazu Beard.

Absolutely nowhere in this item's description does it give a statement that stipulates that the item can be used to achieve two weapon fighting while wielding a two handed weapon. As even creatures with 3, 4, 10... arms could still NOT do the same thing. A creature with 10 arms could wield 5 different 2 handed weapons and attack with all 5 in a single round, but they are not two weapon fighting. They are attacking with a primary attack and 4 different iterative attacks due to high BAB.

A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon.

If you emphasis "that requires no hands to use", it's clear they are talking about using a barbazu beard as a weapon that does not require hands to be free to wield the weapon.

This is clarifying that even though the character may have both hands occupied, they can still make attacks with the barbazu beard as part of the appropriate attack chain.

This means that a two-handed fighter could use iterative attacks to attack with the beard, or could threaten adjacent squares even though they are wielding a 2 handed reach weapon.

Alternatively if they were two weapon fighting with weapons in each hand they could alternate between all three weapon options available to them, with the restriction that the barbazu beard is an 'off-hand' weapon, thus can only get 1/2 str mod to dmg.

However there is NOTHING in the text that is a specific exception to the FAQ that an alternate weapon can be used in conjunction with a two-handed weapon to perform two weapon fighting.

People can choose to infer that is what was intended, but it is most definitely NOT called out as being an option by RAW. Yes you can use the beard with a two-handed weapon, but nowhere does it say you can use the beard with a two-handed weapon to achieve a two-weapon fighting style.

Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

The glaive is not a weapon that can work with weapon finesse.

You possess an ability to stretch weapon finesse to glaives sized for you that you use. Not all glaives, not for everyone.
Glaive is not a type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse, but you have the ability to weapon finesse a glaive.

A short sword is a Light weapon, Light weapons only deal +1xStr Mod when wielded 2 handed, not +1.5xStr Mod.

A tiny creature picks up a normal medium short sword. A medium weapon wielded by a tiny creature is treated as though it were 2 sizes larger. So the tiny creature has to 2 hand the short sword.

So... the tiny creature only does Deals +1xStr Mod because it's two handed weapon is still on the light weapons list?

when wielded in 2 hands a short sword would deal 1.5x str to damage they just cant be used in 2 hands by a creature the same size as the weapon so would have to be a large or larger short sword to be wielded by a medium creature

Actually the rule says you gain no benefit from wielding a light weapon in 2 hands, it only provides bonus dmg from strength as if it was wielded in your primary hand. So you can 2hand it, you just can't put any extra force into it when doing so.

The short sword at that point would be considered a two-handed weapon. Only if it is considered a light weapon does it not get 1.5xStr.

An appropriately sized short sword for a tiny creature is a light weapon. A short sword for a medium creature is the same as an appropriately sized great sword for a tiny creature.

precisely the concept I was trying to get at.

Finesse Training says "select any one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse (such as rapiers or daggers)." under the right circumstances (the character has the Bladed Brush Feat) glaives are a type of weapon that can be used with weapon finesse.

To say that it normally isn't a weapon with which you can use weapon finesse so it can't be used with finesse training, is the same as saying a tiny creature with a normal sized short sword doesn't get extra bonus dmg from str because a short sword is normally a light weapon.

The best example I can come up with is as follows

** spoiler omitted **

Definitely NOT option 3, because your Kiss of Death ability doesn't stop just because you've already dealt your weapon damage.

It's always active any time you are applying positive/negative energy, so even if conductive occurs after the normal weapon damage. The act of the conductive attack is when the channeled smite is applied. At THAT point your Kiss of Death treats the target as if it were undead, so your positive energy still deals damage as if it were undead!

Beyond that, i still don't think it matters other than you're not going to know if the target is dead by physical hit before you apply conductive damage where you can 'decide' not to use it because in that instant the blow hits before your conductive goes off you still wouldn't know that the creature is being killed by the physical dmg.

this is why the game is not physics... physics has a stricter definition of what is free fall and game rules are written using common english definitions.

So what the GM has to determine is how much extra forces are allowed and what constitutes a common definition of free fall from a DnD perspective.

IMO since the spell slows things to 10ft/sec this would seem to be a good limiting velocity for other directions of movement.

So you're saying that if you're already going 10ft/sec horizontally then you're under the effect of another force and can't apply Featherfall?

Or do you mean if you're going 50ft/sec Horizontally and 50/sec Vertically that Feather fall reduces both to 10ft/sec each.

Or are you saying regardless of speed or direction Featherfall would slow you to 10ft/sec in that same direction?

It might help to read a definition of free falling. The key words are "where gravity is the only force acting upon it".

This would mean that significant forces such as turbulence and air resistance from moving in a direction other than that of the acceleration due to the local gravitic field would disqualify the free fall state.

Thus catapult ammo once shot in the usual manner is not in free fall.

** spoiler omitted **...

It might help to read the definition of force

This would mean that once the catapult/trebuche completes it's launch the object still has the momentum that was created by the launch but the force is no longer being applied, so from the instant it enters the air it transitions to freefalling.

Furthermore even the page you linked on freefalling stipulates the same

An object in the technical sense of free fall may not necessarily be falling down in the usual sense of the term. An object moving upwards would not normally be considered to be falling, but if it is subject to the force of gravity only, it is said to be in free fall. The moon is thus in free fall.

The example of a falling skydiver who has not yet deployed a parachute is not considered free fall from a physics perspective, since he experiences a drag force that equals his weight once he has achieved terminal velocity (see below -> after falling about 1500ft). However, the term "free fall skydiving" is commonly used to describe this case in everyday speech, and in the skydiving community. It is not clear, though, whether the more recent sport of wingsuit flying fits under the definition of free fall skydiving.

Then only objects in a vacuum would ever be free-falling as any object outside of a vacuum would have atmospheric pressures applying force, would have drag/air resistance in motion. So Featherfall would never work outside of a vacuum.

So when are we going to get to the part where the Paladin falls?

When the Paladin True Ressurects the Undead-Horse and find it was really a cursed Mount, and any creature that touches's the Horse's Flesh get's a total alignment reversal!

Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:

People are focusing too much on the question of whether or not the creatures thrown would be considered ranged weapons. That seems to be less of an issue as I'd imagine anyone being shot out of a catapult/trebuche would reach a point that they have fallen "quite a distance" At which point Feather falling works.

...

no and yes on that last statement...(lol...)

if you cast a spell on a target that does not meet the targeting requirements the spell fails.
One also assumes that at any time during the duration of a spell if the targeting requirements are not met the spell will fail and end at that point in time unless the spell contains verbage otherwise. The spell does not "wait" for valid requirements to return. Under Duration, Subjects, Effects, and Areas, you'll see that an effect can be destroyed prior to when its duration ends.

What is being alluded to is that the weapon must have fallen quite a distance and THEN Feather Fall could be applied to that item. I don't know if they are implying that most of the forward momentum (of the ammo) must be lost before Feather Fall works, that's a GM's call.

So if you are stating that Feather Fall can be cast and then later comes into effect, that's a no.

No I stated no such stipulation. Feather fall is an immediate cast, so the "ammo" creature in question can cast featherfall at any time.

Furthermore, I would even argue that at the point that you cast the spell you are making a choice to go from projectile weapon, to simply a falling creature, since you are no longer acting as a ranged weapon, then featherfalling works as you are only a creature.

People are focusing too much on the question of whether or not the creatures thrown would be considered ranged weapons. That seems to be less of an issue as I'd imagine anyone being shot out of a catapult/trebuche would reach a point that they have fallen "quite a distance" At which point Feather falling works.

This spell has no special effect on ranged weapons unless they are falling quite a distance. If the spell is cast on a falling item, the object does half normal damage based on its weight, with no bonus for the height of the drop.

Once you determine that Feather falling works. The question becomes, are the creatures items or objects. Now if they are constructs, then you may have a debate on your hands. But for normal flesh and blood creatures, the answer is a very simple NO! Creatures are NOT items or objects. Therefore feather falling would work on them normally.

doctor_wu wrote:

I am not sure that is anywhere near rules as intended as the pfs pregen hunter uses this trait with a composite longbow.

The pregen's aren't really what you should look to for rules clarifications. If I recall correctly, Hayato has greater weapon focus before he can legally get it.

Maybe not, but looking at the stuff that's plain as day in the CRB/PRD is a good place to start.

LONGBOW
Price 75 gp
Type martial
At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow can't be used while mounted. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a longbow. You can apply your Strength modifier to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow, but not a regular longbow. A longbow fires arrows.

Clearly a Composite Longbow is a Type of Longbow. This is one of those overlapping circles you learned about as a child... Not all Longbows are Composite Longbows, but all Composite Longbows are Longbows.

So I'm playing a game as a rogue/fighter/assassin. I took over an NPC and had to keep it close to the base character. Because of the multiclassing my will save took a hit. I'm currently level 9 and have a will save of 5 on a good day and that is with a cloak. Are there any other magic items or techniques anyone knows that will help me against enchantment effects? Specifically charm and dominate effects.

Wayfinder with Clear Spindle Ioun Stone (makes you immune to control/dominate effects as 'Protection from Evil')

16,000g and I can't buy magic items?

Screw Adventuring... I'm going into commodities trading!

The word "usually" negates any impact this sentence could have on actual rules.

I'd say you can choose your current identity to be whichever you want, and that in most cases it would make more sense to have your vigilante identity be the one used with most of your other classes' talents. RAI, most class abilities would make you stand out from the usual "polite society member" and require disguise check in social identity, though RAW nothing is said about anything other than vigilante talents.

Btw, assuming you were planning to multiclass at level 2 anyway, nothing is stopping you from playing the whole level 1 with warpriest as your level 1 class, and switch them before receiving your first chronicle as a level 2 (ie, vigilante then warpriest).

That's correct, if your violent pirate is already named "Dread Pirate Roberts" then you're pretty set on a name that instills fear, No reason why the time and effort spent creating a vigilante alternate persona couldn't be used to instead create a fake 'past' for a normal Farm Boy named Westley.

Alternatively, maybe see how they feel about running 2 characters each, you could go through with a 6 man party. Or even a communal character, the group makes the choices and each session maybe it's controlled by a different player?

Just because you only have 3 players doesn't mean you have to only run 3 characters. Or at least I don't feel it means that.

Then there's always the recruiting options, see what you can do to find a 4th!

Want to know how to kill a mid-high level alchemist ? With level 1 NPCs ?

Can you say level 1 Dex 15 Monks with snatch arrows (yes you can have it at level 1 , imp unarmed strike free, deflect arrows bonus feat, snatch arrows level 1 feat.)

DM "You just walked into an unholy temple the monks look pissed. "
Alchemist " no problem I throw one force bomb at each of the nearest , that's 7 bombs total...*rolls*.... heh like I need to"
DM " you hit all of th..."
Alchemsit " sweet I roll dam.."
DM " I'm not finished , you hit all 7 but they catch you bombs in flight and redirect them back towards you. What's your touch AC ?
Alchemsit" wait don't they roll to catch them ?"
DM "Nope, your touch AC please"
Alchemist " ummm like 13"
DM " 5 of the force bombs hit you direct, the other 2 hit you for splash damage, now you can roll your damage"
Alchemist " *Sqweak*"

Nice concept, and the snatch arrows to counter a bomb is always true, but really it's Bomb 1 thrown, Target 1 catches bomb and throws back as a immediate action (probably missing because it's only +2 to the attack roll). Since the throwback was an immediate action it's resolved first showing the alchemist the cards on the table, bomb 2-6 all target the AC5 empty squares next to them, let the splash dmg take them out.

You have to rage. By default bloodline powers only work while bloodraging unless the power specifies otherwise.

This...

When a bloodrager enters a bloodrage, he often takes on a physical transformation influenced by his bloodline and powered by the magic that roils within him. Unless otherwise specified, he gains the effects of his bloodline powers only while in a bloodrage; once the bloodrage ends, all powers from his bloodline immediately cease, and any physical changes the bloodrager underwent revert, restoring him to normal.

How I run it, without trap Spotter, you get no passive check. After all if you do anything else, you're giving out for free what you are requiring your rogue-like to take for them to have it.

Also I do not allow a take 10 to search for traps, again why should a player be able to take a base value to search for something that a rogue-like does not get even if they have paid the feat (talent) tax. If you allow Trap-spotter to take 10 instead of rolling, then you could allow the Take 10 looking for traps.

Take 20 is an option, but you're taking 2 minutes for every 5' square you're searching.

If players wish to say they check every square twice for traps it takes 2 rounds to move 5' if they want to have multiple people searching, it takes additional time (unless they can search different squares) as they are in each others way trying to search the same 5' square. I may only roll the appropriate number of checks for the specific traps they are going to face, but I might do it 2 rooms ahead of time just to watch them all start rolling their own individual checks or saying they are taking 20 here.

I feel this is justified because (well outside of the rules not being in place for you to get these massive hand waves of auto checking EVERYTHING) I find it hard to imagine people exploring an ancient ruin or cavernous dungeon and crawling around carefully inspecting everywhere they put their foot, or touch anything. If you want to check a door 5 times before you try to open it, because you don't want to miss a trap but don't want to spend 2 minutes searching with a take 10, I'm fine with that. Just don't say you're going to check once, see that you rolled a 2, and then say well I'm going to look again, roll a 6, and decide maybe you need to triple check the door...

When I have characters searching suspicious areas for traps if I'm the only one that can search my characters quickly learn to search ~3 times, that's much faster than a take 10, yet still has very good odds to beat out a take 10. But I never bother searching an entire dungeon as I go. If I hit the pit trap in the middle of nowhere, heck you can't find them all!

darkfireslide wrote:

To answer everyone's question about the Ninja sneak attacking and doing so much damage, here's the math.

He was flanking an opponent with the NPC cleric, so he gets his sneak attack. He two-weapon fights with a Katana (He uses something called like an effortless ribbon(ultimate equipment I think) to make it a light weapon)

Just so he knows, this is a waste of money. As long as your OFF HAND is a Light weapon, you don't take the larger penalties to TWFing, so making the Katana Light and then using it in your main hand is absolutely pointless.

He's also probably going to feel the pain later when he realizes that for that extra +1 average damage he's going to need multiple Weapon Focus or Improved Critical or whatever Feats to complete his build because he's using two different weapons.

If I'm understanding it right, the Ninja uses TWF with a Katana with a Effortless Lace and a random loot drop Wakizashi. In this case it probably is needed on the Katana, not only to be able to TWF with the light off hand (which the Katana might be if he's using the shocking Wakizashi primary... I would), but also to make it usable with Weapon Finesse (He previously mentioned the Ninja only has STR=10) So he's likely using dex to hit. The Character was probably intending to TWF with Dual Katana's, but got a pretty impressive Wakizashi that is good enough to use for a while until he gets additional feats or can afford to make a better Katana.

To the GM, I do suggest you make sure you know where items are coming from so you can keep track of what they do. The item in question (Effortless Lace) is from Giant Hunter's Handbook, and is powerful (overpowered) enough that it's been specifically excluded from PFS play.

I'm biased, but if he likes playing a ranged Character, consider showing him a Zen Archer. They don't beat out the properly maxed inquisitor, but they get pretty close, are much easier to manage, and have plenty of fun options (especially if he's starting at lvl 5). The are both solid DPR and tough as nails if mobs try to target them. And all but a couple of your most important feats are hand picked for you to either gain automatically or as bonus feats.

And the sap master rogue would have had no reason way to know it was a level 2 commoner and hold back by opting not to sneak attack.

The person performing the skill check has a failure condition, the person performing the aid action is NOT trying to improve the target's condition, they are simply trying to assist in their party members argument. Failure to do does not mean they called the target an ignorant fool and pissed them off at the whole party. It means

Check: You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature's starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier. If you succeed, the character's attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character's attitude toward you increases by one additional step. A creature's attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations. If you fail the check by 4 or less, the character's attitude toward you is unchanged. If you fail by 5 or more, the character's attitude toward you is decreased by one step.

Action: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature's attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request. Using Diplomacy to gather information takes 1d4 hours of work searching for rumors and informants.

You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can't take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.

In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

When you Aid another, you are NOT attempting to succeed at the skill check to improve the attitude of the NPC you are dealing with. Your target is not even the NPC, The target person you are interacting with is the person you are adding. You assist them by making a DC 10 check of the appropriate skill. If you fail the DC 10 check by 1 the person gains no bonus, nothing is lost. If you fail the DC 10 check by 100, the person gains no bonus, and nothing is lost.

Only the person performing the primary check to improve the attitude of the NPC need beat the DC to success, or fail by 5+ to reduce their attitude.

As for a trait (or other bonus) to diplomacy to improve the attitude of an NPC not applying when you perform an aid another action for that purpose. While I've never really considered it, sticking strictly to RAW, I would probably be OK with that not applying when you are aiding. It does not say it works when aiding someone for that purpose, and to be entirely honest, anyone who would likely need that to help with a DC10 probably hasn't taken it. And anyone that has taken it can probably auto succeed a DC 10 to aid by level 3 without it!

I'm really trying to find some way to build a character utilizing a Tower shield and Shield Brace, however with the fact that tower shield starts with a -2 to attacks, and shield brace adds the shield's ACP as a penalty to attack. That's already a -12 out the gate and I'm having to Nat 20 to do anything. Does anyone have any suggestions on what could be combined to reduce those penalties to a point that they are not crippling?
Or perhaps to do any kind of attack/combat maneuver where I'd be able to bypass those penalties?

So wait... you're enforcing a restriction on Party spell casting to the weakest hybrid casters there are. Then you're sending full caster opponents against them?

And you want help to make it balanced? I don't know if you CAN balance that... Not without throwing high CL wands at them for loot every time they turn around.

Let one or more of them die... Then strongly encourage them to re-roll as a caster of some kind.

This is from someone who prefer's the melee/archer types over spell slingers..... but they are critical.

Daedalus the Dungeon Builder wrote:

Knight who says Meh- That's like asking if killing a demon is an evil act, and then someone saying "well, switch that to an angel and ask again." Mercilessly killing hundreds of evil creatures is usually accepted as a good act. Neutral or good? You've firmly changed both the parameters of the question.

So it's okay to bad things if you do them to bad people?

If not, many paladins and LG Clerics are falling from grace for killing all those BBEG's they encounter!

You can't take a Full Spellcaster, combine it with a Non-Spellcaster, and expect it to still be a Full Spellcaster. That's just axiomatic.

If anything, the Sacred Fist is more like a Fighter/Cleric/Monk, which is akin to Man/Bear/Pig, which we all know is a bunch of hooey. (Unless you're Al Gore, and you're super duper serial about it being a threat to the world.)

But when a potential hybrid class can be easily covered through archetypes, then it's not really worth requesting, in the same vein that it's not worth making a FAQ when your GM can just houserule it for you.

First, who said anything about a Cleric Monk hybrid that was a full spell caster?

Second it's all but impossible to pick two classes that aren't either polar opposites (Assassin/Paladin) and not be able to name at least one archetype of some class that isn't close to what's being requested. Just because a similar archetype exists doesn't it wouldn't be nice to get an actual hybrid.

Last I knew this was a random forum asking what people would like to see, not a Poll so Paizo can decide what to put out next.

I would like a Cleric/Monk, I'm sorry you feel that it would be a complete waste of anyone's time to even read my posts because you feel the Sacred Fist Warpriest is more than anyone should possibly want since it's Cleric/Monk AND Fighter, so that's obviously better!

Clearly this entire thread should just be moved to house rules and ignored since it's not going to actually get a new class created, and anyone that actually wants to create a new hybrid just needs to talk to their GM, not visit this thread!

A hybrid always takes reduced versions of both classes. The Investigator doesn't get Bombs or Sneak Attack, the Brawler doesn't get a full Flurry... what's important is what they bring to the table as a fusion, not a gestalt. The Sacred Fist replaces the "Fighter" part of Fighter/Cleric with "Monk", and is as much a hybrid as it is an archetype. They just felt that the Warpriest...

I understand that a hybrid is always going to be lesser versions of the primary classes, otherwise you end up with a lvl 40 character with 1/2HD. However I (and I may be the only one that feels this way) don't feel that starting with another hybrid and simply swapping out a few low level abilities creates the same kind of effect you would get by doing a new hybrid of those two specific classes. And the whole 'Forti-vasion' of blessed/miraculous fortitude are the prime example, creating a new style of evasion that works for fortitude saves seems far more of a fighter/monk than it does a Monk/Cleric.

If you Combine the two classes directly instead of trying to apply a monk template to a Warpriest. You can come up with totally different things. Maybe this hybrid spends Ki to Channel Positive. Or can deliver heals at 5' range instead of touch as long as they maintain 1 ki point (or heals at close range spending a Ki point). Maybe it gives up Fast Movement for Fast Healing Aura for any ally within 10'.

I just feel there are so many more interesting possibilities that would be available to a custom hybrid (and any associated Archetypes) than is available by a specific archetype of another hybrid that kinda/sorta fills that role.

Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:

Wow, I'm both impressed there are so many requested combinations of Monk+Other. I find too many people that don't see the potential in the lowly discipline of the monk. Some are too focused on big massive weapons, others require flashy spells, and finally some simply don't get that just because someone they played with 5 years ago built a sub-par monk doesn't mean that all monk builds are going to be weak.

But I digress.. the one Monk Hybrid I'd like to see would give us an official option for one of the already supremely possible cross class options people often take already. Where is our Monk/Cleric Hybrid? The synergies between these two are already very strong and even the lives of training discipline and devotion ally very closely.

Sacred Fist says hi.

Sure... If you want to be a lesser version of the cleric, and then be combined with a lesser version of the monk. You start off with reduced channeling abilities, no ability to spontaneously cast heals (without having to sacrifice Channels), and slower spell level progression, then you add in just a few Monk abilities (AC Bonus, Flurry of Blows, Improved Unarmed Strike, and Ki points).

Yes a Sacred Fist War Priest might have a s vaguely similar feel to a Monk/Cleric Hybrid, but so would cross-classing a Monk/Cleric, which I'd probably prefer over that mess. But this thread is suppose to be about what actual hybrid class would you like to see. Not what Hybrid class do you feel doesn't have an archetype that is sorta close to what you're describing!

This would be a bit unorthodox, so ignore my insanity if you wish. It would require a 3 level dip into zen archer, but they get point blank master without having to meet the requirements and without having the same (must have weapon focus in that weapon) that the Ranger has to meet with his 6th level bonus feet. This should mean a Zen Archer uses Point Blank Master with any ranged weapon, since there is nothing that locks them into a single weapon type. You could also pick up many of the ranged bonus feats (rapid shot, many shot, precise shot...) just take a close look, as some of the ones that are automatically gained require to be used on a longbow or shortbow only.

But there is always the tried and true, stay out of melee and 5' step a LOT!

mplindustries wrote:

Because there is absolutely zero player buy in for that. No rogue in the history of D&D ever wasted a combat turn picking a lock.

When an enemy is barreling down on the party, they're not going to fret at the lock hoping the rogue doesn't blow it, they're going to get into ambush positions.

Locks are not an in-combat obstacle. If they were, they actually would be interesting. People pick locks when they're safe, when the rules for picking locks are most boring.

Actually, you're wrong I've built a skill rogue who has had an encounter where we engaged a large room with multiple doors and we had one person inside cut off from retreating and a bottle neck at the one door that we had opened. My unchained rogue was able to move up to another door, and pick the lock in one standard action. (with a significant penalty to the check and a good roll!) Allowing the rest of the group to move in through the door and support the trapped player who would have definitely died had the second door not been opened immediately.

The main point about locked doors is out of combat it just takes time, maybe during that time nothing happens, maybe during that time a group of guards walks around a corner and sees you trying to pick the lock... In combat you have the obvious, it takes time to perform, and failures mean it takes even longer.

Also, if we are going to change away from a popular well known name simply because it's been determined that it wasn't Real, then where's that leave us for the names of Everything else from Unicorns and Sylphs to Bearded Devils and the Terrasque?