Gyftomancer's page

57 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I also have questions about Hand of the Apprentice.

I believe that if you are not prof. with the weapon then you take the -4 penalty because the Hand simply lets you make a ranged attack.
Nothing more. It doesn't give you weapon prof. BUT i am not sure. Any official about this one?

If i am wrong, and there is no prof. penalty, the you can also use great axe or long spear?....

In my campaign Detect Magic can not detect things that their purpose is to hide something.

So, it cant detect invisibility (of any form) and magical traps.

It can still detect the traps that are created from spells (glyphs and fire trap) but not the usual traps that need money to be crafted and not just a single spell. Only a rogue can find them.

Maybe i wont allow it to detect conseiled things aswell (alter self..) and charm like auras.

Gorbacz wrote:

Demodands are open content, thanks to Tome of Horrors :) They've been already mentioned in Pathfinder products.

Matter of fact, here's a short list of Evil Outsiders in Pathfinder:

Qilppoths (Obyriths)

I didn't find any Daemons or Demodands in Pathfinder RPG Reference Documents (

Where are they in paizo's (3.5 revised) products?

Set wrote:
but I can't imagine that they are burning up the top of anyone's 'to do' list.

Since there are chaotic evil (demons/tanari) and lawful evil (devils/batezu), Cosmic Balance requires Neutral Evil as well!!!

Set wrote:

Not Open License, so verbotten.


Anything similar to yugoloths in pathfinder with a diferent name?

Crimson Jester wrote:
Gyftomancer wrote:
Any pathfinder conversion of Yugoloths?
No open contect as such they have been replaced.

I am not sure i understood what you have just said. Yugoloths are not open contect, right? Thats why i asked if there is something similar to yugoloths.

Any pathfinder conversion of Yugoloths? Did paizo publis them in a diferent name maybe?

Any pathfinder conversion of Yugoloths?

James Risner wrote:

SLA (unless otherwise specified) use p304:
10 + Spell Level + CHA Modifier

If the ability says "Racial HD" then you have no racial HD as a Drow.

At the Drow noble cleric lvl3 example we can read:

1/day—divine favor, dispel magic, suggestion (DC 14).

and that Drow has the following ab.scores:

Str 12, Dex 17, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 17, Cha 12.

So according to the rule you posted above, how comes the 14 DC for the suggestion spell? 10+2+?

SirUrza wrote:
Because it's an attack action and dual wielding imposes it's penalty whether you use both weapons or not.

Thats true, its an attack action but its in the place of a melee attack. And after alla it clearly says that we should only use BAB + STR + SIZE.

Quandary wrote:

"Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects."

That should probably read "modifiers", not just bonuses, but you get the idea.
And the same line also means weapon enhancements DO apply, at least for maneuvers using the weapon.

Well if weapon enhancments apply then why not the masterwork quallty? Are those two included to the "effects"?

And again, the rule talks about spells+feats+effects only. It doesnt talk about various combat modifiers (e.g. the two weapon fighting penalty). Should i include it to the various "effects" too?

The rule was clear at 3.5E but now it confuses me. Is there any errata?

I was reading the Spell-like Ability paragraph but i couldnt find anything about the Ability Mod. that someone has to add to the spell-like ability DC.

The Drow for example what Ability Mod. do they use? I didnt find anything about that at the Drow description.

And btw, spell-like ability's DC is
1)10 + Half the creature's HD/Level + Ability Mod.


2)10 + Spell Level + Ability Mod.?

I still do not understand why i get penalties for two weapon fighting while tring to disarm.
Lets say i have BAB for only one attack with the main weapon. But i also use one more weapon in my off hand.
I ll mention again that CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier.
So why do i get a penalty if i use two weapons to attemp a disarm action? According to the bolted sentence above i can make disarm attacks in the place of melee attacks (2 attacks in my example) and i should not take any penalty because i have to use only BAB + STR + SIZE.

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier.


When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.


1) if someone tries to DISARM using 2 weapons does he get the normal -2 attack roll penalty to his CMB? The above two paragraphs dont mention anything about two weapon penalties. (I could ask the same for a TRIP attemp but i think its the same with DISARM).

2) if you wield a magic weapon or just a mwk one, you dont get any bonuses, right?

For example, the Healer class from Miniatures Handbook cant match anymore the healing of PF clerics (because of the channeling ability).

Thats why i ask the reason of buffing the core classes. Are now those two classes (cleric - healer) equals? The non core classes dont need any true buff? Or do i have to buff some non core classes i use from the 3.5E in my campaign aswell to equal the new versions of core classes?

I ll notice again that ALL the core classes were buffed.

The Grandfather wrote:

PRPG p. 103, Ride skill description wrote:

If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a
mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks.

Thats true. I know about this rule but if you simply want to ride and not perform any special task you dont have to roll for a ride check. So by rulelawing you can ride any mount you want...

I am 95% sure the rules state that a mount must be at least 1 size category larger than the rider, but no more than 2 size categories larger. However, I do not remeber the page number.

Thats a nice rule for most of the situations. But using this rule you cant ride at all an exotic and very big mount like a dragon. You cant add -5 on your ride check. You just cant ride a very big mount. Right? So for example paladins can not ride very big dragons.

PRPG p. 162 wrote:

Horse: A horse is suitable as a mount for a human, dwarf,

elf, half-elf, or half-orc. A pony is smaller than a horse and
is a suitable mount for a gnome or halfling.
This paragraph should however answer your question.

Yes this paragraph answered my question.

But after everything that i ve read here i think there should be some house rules. Because i ve never read for dwarven cavalry.


Shadowlord wrote:

Also, there was a rule (perhaps in the 3.5 DMG under darkvision, I’m not sure) that stated HiPS did not work against darkvision. I imagine this would only matter in areas of darkness where they were using the darkvision, but the PRD description of darkvision says that “the presence of light does not spoil darkvision” so maybe a character could use his darkvision in low light conditions now. I am not sure if that was all versions of HiPS or just a specific type and I have not seen that rule anywhere in the PRD.

I think the rule for HiPS is clear. Darkvison has nothing to do with this. After all the HiPS ability also means that you can hide even if being watched.

If the creature has HiPS without the need of cover or concelment and it doesnt also need shadow illumination to hide then DV is useless.

There are monsters and templates that have the HiPS ability only in shadow illumination or only when not in the bright light of a sunlight spell and not just from a torch.

So everytime the description pf the creature gives the answer.

James Jacobs wrote:

The advice to "add 1 to the CR of monsters from the 3.5 MM" isn't very accurate, and if indeed we DID say that, it was I hope a long time ago when we weren't quite sure of what we were doing or something.

For the Bestiary, we tried very hard to keep every monster's CR the same as they were in the 3.5 MM. But the truth of the matter is that a lot of the monsters in the MM are inappropriately CR'd; the designers were still learning the system when they wrote that book, after all, and they made a lot of mistakes. When the 3.5 edition of the Monster Manual came out, they were able to look back at the last 5 years of growing more accustomed to the rules and made a LOT of revisions; this is why, for example, you'll see that the demons and devils all got more powerful in the 3.5 MM.

With the Pathfinder Bestiary, we have close to TEN years of familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the CR system. We actually did a lot of work looking at what a monster of any particular CR from 1 to 20 should be, compared to the actual abilities of a PC from levels 1 to 20. A 10th level fighter, for example, should be able to take a certain amount of hits from a CR 10 monster, and should be able to hit with a certain reliability. We were able to thus build a huge set of charts that delineated averages for hp, AC, attack rolls, average damage, Ability DCs, and saving throws for all monsters based by CR, and in so doing we were able to match monsters more accurately than ever before to their various CR scores. (And all of these charts and advice are IN the Bestiary, so anyone can go about creating new monsters for Pathfinder using the same assumptions and tools we had in creating the book.)

As a result, all of the monsters in the PRPG Bestiary are different. Some in minor ways, some in major ways. Their more accurately representing their CR scores, I hope, and in some cases (like the ogre mage or the rakshasa) this means they got quite a bit more powerful than their 3.5 version. In others, like the dire ape, they got...

I think i understand what you say here. Some monsters needed to be weeker and some stronger. Thats ok.

But still i dont understand why did you buff the core classes instead of just remake/redesign the monsters that you believed needed to be weaker or stronger? Some classes (for example bard) needed to be buffed only compared to the rest. But you buffed every core class of the game. And you said thats because the core classes used to be weaker from the non core.

So if thats the reason i trully understand all the changes (core classes and monsters). And i dont have to wory if the psion of the group is underpowered compared to the others (even if i find psionic classes overpowered :P)

But if not, then what about the rest of the classes/races in the game? What do you advise? Buff them a little it or not?

Malikor wrote:
Has anyone ever seen in the novels Drizzt ever using a command word to activate Icingdeath? It has been a LONG time since I have read the books, but I don't recall him ever having to say a word to activate it, and I also do not rercall him ever freezing his rear becasue of it. It has likly been 'on' long before Drizzt ever picked it up, and since he probably never went to a wizard to have him identify the weapon, he never learned the command word.

Maybe the "DM" in Drizzt novels use a differnt system for elemental weapons. Because Drizzt doesnt use a command word to activate the weapon but he CANT deactivate it either. ANd i dont think thats because he cant find a fellow wizard to identify the weapon. :P


Maybe the reason is for ballance.
The rule used to exist since the 3rd ed. You just have to "lose" your first action if you want to be stronger the rest of the combat....
You can find whatever excuse you want to cover it by roleplaying means.

Otherwise your magic gear doesnt harm you.

Maybe the developers have answers to this.

hogarth wrote:
In fact, I don't think D&D dwarves can ride ponies; a size M creature can't ride another size M creature. So it's horses only, as far as I know.

So, where is this rule? And in general which is the rule for riding unsual creatures and not having a penalty? Do you have to spent ranks in riding ("specific creaature")?

James Risner wrote:

If you go by the rules on page 313 of the Bestiary, you find the two Drow races are CR+0 and CR+1 respectively.

If applied as per page 313 the Noble Drow is essentially similar to an old school LA+1 race.

I would use +2 LA (as in 3.5E). One for the high SR and one for the rest of the abilities. After some lvls i would drop the LA by 1 by slowering the xp progression of the player. I would never drop his LA to 0 because the high SR is always usefull.

Or maybe i would never drop his LA because the "new" drow has even more abilities than the "old one"

As i can remember Dwarves ride ponies. They can also ride normal horses? The only penalty is the -5 ride check for riding unsual mounts? But there is no penalty if a dwarf wants only to ride and not perform anything special?

What about humans that want to ride ponis or riding dogs?

I ask because i cant remember the rule and i find a little rediculus for someone to ride anything he wants.

Since you re-designed (revamp) the core classes and made them stronger, you said that since Bestiary is out we should raise by one the CR of the monsters from 3.5e MM. So that means that the monsters from the Bestiary will be abit stronger than before (in 3.5e).
But you also said that the reason you buffed the core classes was the fact that after the first 3.5e releases there were new classes (and races) stronger than the core classes (and races).

So, why the monsters from Bestiary should be stronger than before (something that you said)? I mean what is the logic to make the core classes/races stronger (something that you said they needed) if you also make stronger the monsters?
The only answer i can give is that insteed of reprinting and make less stronger the classes/races other than the core, you chose to make stronger the core ones and all the monsters.
But since you evolute and continue the 3.5e (succesfully till now) it will be hard for all of as who want to use the rest of the 3.5e books (various monster manuals) to continue using them because most of the monsters will be less effective than before.

You are gonna reprint old classes and pr.classes other than the core ones too. Right? Will those classes be stronger than their 3.5e version? I hope not but correct me if i am wrong i bet they will. And again, whats the point? If you plan for example to buff old classes (psionics for example) then the reason should be that you also plan to make the monsters better and vica versa. So what do you suggest to do right now in my party with the characters that use classes other than the core?

The Rage's duration is 4+Con mod rounds per day. Those rounds shouldnt be continuants, right? And the Con mod is before enter rage. The normal one. Without calculating spells active on barbarian.

But some Power Rage abilities use the Con modifier. Which one? The new (after the rage) or the normal one? Various spells like bear's endurance add to this con mod?
For example the Renewed Vigor. Which Con mod the barbarian should use to heal HPs?

Thank you for the answers. According to what you wrote i have a few more things to add.

First of all here is the link to the rule conserning the treasure and CR from Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document in the paragraph NPC Gear Adjustments:

The rule talks about NPCs with class lvls. From what i can understand from the whole chapter, class lvls = heroic lvls. In that case what about NPCs with basic lvls?

Second. You say that for an orc Ftr1/war2, i should give him treasure as a 3rd lvl heroic. Thats 1650g. But if i give him only a masterwork axe and and a simple hide thats only 400g. In that case wouldnt be better to substrack 1 CR? The rest of the treasure could be a masterwork bow, a pot of haste and 1-2 pots of cure spells that could make the orc a harder opponent...

And third, i want to return to the rule conserning the CRs. You say that an orc Ftr1/war9 is the same CR (9) as an orc ftr10 just because he possesses a single heroic lvl! But thats doesnt seem right to me for obvious reasons. Dont you think it should be a (maybe new) rule to combine basic and heroic lvls? Or maybe if there are more basic that heroic lvls we should substrack 2 CR and not only one?
Otherwise there is no reason to give NPCs many basic lvls if we plan to also give them a few or even just one heroic lvl. The only reason to do this is just for roleplaying but the difficulty of the battle would be well suited for that CR...

1) I see. That "only" should be in bold in the book as well :)
And you tell me that even from a fighter1 warrior19 i should substrack only 1 lvl!

2) The table 14-9 on p.459 is the one that i described. But it doesnt combine basic and heroic levels.
For example:
A War3 has 780g
A Ftr3 has 1650g
What about a war2/ftr1? It shouldnt be right just to add the treasure of the 2 first basic lvls and the first heroic lvl to create the treasure of this NPC!

And btw, there is a rule that says
You can significantly increase or decrease the power level of an NPC with class levels by adjusting the NPC's gear. A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC), while a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR.

That rule is only for NPCs with pc class lvls and for npc class lvls aswell?
For example. I have an NPC Ftr1/War3 and his only gear is a masterwork weapon and a hide armor (not masterwork). Can i substrack 1 from his CR? There is no rule to indicate exactly how much treasure someone should have to increase or decrease his treasure. Right? Or he should have exactly NO GEAR? Naked!

[Editted for more info].

A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. If this reduction would reduce a creature's CR to below 1, its CR drops one step on the following progression for each step below 1 this reduction would make: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8.

According to the above rule i have the folowing questions.

1) What if you have a NPC that combines pc class lvls and npc class lvls?
For example a Human fighter 1 and warrior 4. Should i subtrack 2 for his npc class lvls AND 1 for his pc class lvls OR i have to chose one for them? And which one is the right one?

2) Should i give treasure to my NPCs according to their level or CR? There is a table for this job for Basic lvls (NPC classes) and for Heroic levels (PC classes) but i cant find a rule when i want to combine basic and heroic lvls. I only use my judjment and a house rule.

[editted for typo].

NSpicer wrote:
Also, for anyone still playing around with Pathfinder Beta, Paizo originally pegged it at CR-2 for creatures with no racial Hit Dice and CR-3 for the NPC classes. But they adjusted that back to CR-1 and CR-2, respectively in the final Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

I still agree with PF Beta. Even with more feats a NPC 8lvl fighter (cr:7) is not as powerfull as the dire bear (cr:7 in 3.5 MM)

Greg A. Vaughan wrote:
CR is -1 for NPC classes in 3.5. It is -2 for NPC classes for PF RPG. The CR 2 for a level 3 warrior is correct for 3.5.

Yes sure. My bad. Goblin confused me because has another -1 cr

Matthew Morris wrote:

I believe that this errata section is what you need.

Thank you. Do you know if the vril as a race has any +x CR? Because the example of the 3rd lvl warrior has a 2cr but i think it should have 1cr because the WotC rule says for NPC class levels the CR is -2.

And btw PF says -3?

Its General Discussion boards. I think i can post anything about RPG.

So thnx Jadeyt for the link! Btw Kayeyoss i didnt know there is a 3.x board. I ll check it out.

Another reason i posted here is because PF evolutes the 3.5E but WotC is at 4E.

One more thing. I cheked the Vril from the above link. Its a 3lvl warrior but CR:2. I think that NPC class levels was -2 not -1, so the vril warrior lvl3 should have CR:1. Right? And in PF system is -3. Am i wrong?

(editted for more info)

I was planning to make an encounter using the VRIL goblinoid subrace from Drow of the Underdark (WotC book) but i think that some info is missing from the book.

In the introduction at page 123 the book says that there is an example of a Vril warrior level 3 but i cant find the table with the stats!
More important is that at page 126 under the paragraph Vril as Characters there are the stats of the Vril. It says that Vril have Special Abilities: skinshift, shriek and Weaknesses: light blindness, vulnerability to poison but i cant find the description of those abilities anywhere in the Goblinoid section of the book!

Please can you help? Do you know if there is a web enhachment or errata for this? Or can you find those info in your book? Other books can help me to see how light blindness and vulnerability to poison work but i have no idea for skinshift and shriek...

Sorry for posting this here and another section of the boards but i am not sure where to post it.

I was planning to make an encounter using the VRIL goblinoid subrace from Drow of the Underdark (WotC book) but i think that some info is missing from the book.

In the introduction at page 123 the book says that there is an example of a Vril warrior level 3 but i cant find the table with the stats!
More important is that at page 126 under the paragraph Vril as Characters there are the stats of the Vril. It says that Vril have Special Abilities: skinshift, shriek and Weaknesses: light blindness, vulnerability to poison but i cant find the description of those abilities anywhere in the Goblinoid section of the book!

Please can you help? Do you know if there is a web enhachment or errata for this? Or can you find those info in your book? Other books can help me to see how light blindness and vulnerability to poison work but i have no idea for skinshift and shriek...

Mistwalker wrote:

Deadly Aim works with all ranged attacks.

As Throwing Weapons are ranged attack, the feat works with them.

Power Attack only works with melee attacks, so the feat would not work with bows and crossbows.

maybe you didnt read carefuly what i wrote

According to the descreption, by pinpointing a foe’s weak spot you can add more dmg at the expense of making the attack less likely to succeed.


First of all, how is it possible to pinpoint a weak spot and still receive an attack penalty against the whole target?!
In a realistic way this is not right. I agree that maybe its right for a game system/rules.

Second, there is a feat in 3.5E named Brutal Throw i think which gives you the same bonus as the power attack feat. It is the PA version for the ranged weapons. But only for those ones tha use STR mod in dmg! We all know that if someone wants to play with thowing weapons he is also forced to select the quick drow feat plus every other basic feat for the ranged weapons. Brutal Throw gives a reason for those players that want to roleplay someone with flying daggers or axes instead of the standar composite long bow style.
But no more because of the change in the way that ranged weapons work. Now with Deadly Aim you can also use PA with bows or crossbows. No reason for throwing weapons.

Can you tell me if i am wrong. Otherwise i ll ban this feat from my campaign or try to use it somehow with a different way. NOT because its imba but because it cuts off the opportunities for different play styles. In general i hate to see my players to play with the same style because thats "the best build to win".
Maybe there are other ways - which i like to hear - for someone to play a weapon thrower using Pathfinder. Plz tell me.

darth_gator wrote:
In 3.5, I played my share of Goliath Fighter Barbarian Frenzied Berserkers wielding impact minotaur greathammers with greater mighty whallop permanently affixed, and PA was my best friend.

Are you sure you play a pen and paper >>roleplaying<< game???

wraithstrike wrote:

Under the old power attack it was 1 for 1 or 1 for 2 depending on your weapon concerning attack penalty to extra damage.

Under the new power attack it is 1 for 2 or 1 for 3. It seems the ability is weaker for players but stronger for monsters since you get to attack based on your BAB, which monsters normally have a lot of at higher levels.

it was most of the times better for player because they used 2H weapons. Monsters which use natural attacks are 1H

kroarty wrote:

"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus"

New saving throw off the effect ENTIRELY, as opposed to in the past, where it was just to ignore that particular order?

In 3.5E it is:

"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."

It doesnt say that it simply disobey the particular action. It just receives a new saving throw. For what? For breaking the spell because the spell is "will negates". The description should mention that the new saving throw is only to disobey the particular order.
Do you know anything else from errata maybe?...

Steev42 wrote:
Worse, he keeps threatening to cast Shillelagh on his club, making the base damage 6d8--Vital Strike would then be 12d8 (or 18d8 on a critical).

Why it adds only +50% on a crit? The club has x2 crit? Did something change at PFbeta/final?

Seldriss wrote:

For many years now, i've been using casting time for spellcasting.

It goes back to AD&D 1st edition.
The higher the spell, the longer it takes to cast it.
As a matter of fact, i am still using the 10 segments in a round (from AD&D), but even without these, the casting time is basically a penalty to initiative :
0 level spells : Initiative -0
1st level spells : Initiative -1
2nd level spells : Initiative -2
3rd level spells : Initiative -3
4th level spells : Initiative -4
5th level spells : Initiative -5
6th level spells : Initiative -6
7th level spells : Initiative -7
8th level spells : Initiative -8
9th level spells : Initiative -9
Of course, during the spellcasting a caster can be interrupted, so watch that defensive casting and concentration...

I was looking forward to use again the initiative system of 2nd ed. but not only to spells. Do you also use this system for weapons (and for the natural ones)? What initiative mod. do you use for regular weapons and what for the natural ones of the monsters?

Its easy to remake the system for spells but as i remember that monsters as well used to have init.mod. according to theire size most of the times. Have you tested this in 3.5E rules?

By the way, what rule do you use guys for the playe miniature when its mounted. The player is 5x5 but the mount 10x10. Does the miniature is considered to be on every square? Otherwise how do the enemies can hit it without reach?

Krome wrote:

And this is where the horse comes into it. The PCs will be mounted. What happens when a 5x10 (I don't care what the rules might say, a horse is NOT 10 feet wide) animal steps into a 5x5 trap? And the rider? I assume rider needs to make a Handle Animal role of some kind. To stay mounted (to what advantage?) to control the animal... but what would you do with a horse in a pit half its size?

The rules DONT say that a horse is 10x10. They only say that a horse to fight effectivly needs that space otherwise should squeeze.

DMG says...
In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn’t as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls and a -4 penalty to AC.

When a Large creature (which normally takes up four squares) squeezes into a space that’s one square wide, the creature’s miniature figure occupies two squares, centered on the line between the two squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into.

A creature can squeeze past an opponent while moving but it can’t end its movement in an occupied square.

To squeeze through or into a space less than half your space’s width, you must use the Escape Artist skill. You can’t attack while using Escape Artist to squeeze through or into a narrow space, you take a -4 penalty to AC, and you lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.".

So your mount should roll a reflex save. There are various DCs for that. DMG describes some traps. The reflex dc most of the times is 15 or 20. If it fails it falls and into the pit it will squeeze. The rider should roll a ride check for fast dismount (reed ride skill) and after that he should role a reflex save aswell. Otherwise maybe he falls with his mount into the pit. And maybe fall from his mount aswell. Again read ride skill to make your house rule to see if the rider falls by the mount or on the mount into the pit. Both the rider and the mount into the pit should be double the squeezing penalties for both.

In my oppinion if the mount fails the reflex it should fall prone into the pit. To climb out just use the normal rules for climbing. If adventurers help the mount using a rope just use the rules for the use rope skill. If the ysimple aid it without rope just give the mount a +2 to climb (aiding another rule)
As for the rider? I dont think he should fall into IF the mount falls first because there is not enough space into a 5x5 pit for both. The y dont want to squeeze into. They just fall... If he fails the apropriate checks he should fall prone 5 feet near the pit (actually in real world he falls over his mount but now i think you need simple rules to simulate situations in a game).

And how should I deal with a terrified non-warhorse that falls into a pit? A Handle Animal check (what kind of DC) to keep it from thrashing around and injuring its rider and itself (what kind of damage should I roll and what bonuses to attack?)

Again the ride skill gives a clue for non war-mounts into combat. Maybe you can take an idea and make something similar combining the handle animal.

So, if I have a greatsword in my hands, and that puny net wraps around me and my sword, I can't use that sword to slice the net?.

I use the same rule that DnD uses when someone is into the stomach of a monster. After all if you can use a greatesword while entagled in a net then you could use it while grappling (another situation that you can only use light weapons)

But it hardly seems reasonable to deny the use of sharp edged weapons that are already in hand - heck, those blades are already directly in contact with the net the moment it intangles you.

Same as above plaus the fact that longsword or most medival swords werent too sharp (like daggers or katana). They use to hack and slash or better say chop. mighty chops against the victim that many time used to breake his bones. The only reason i use light weapons is to avoid too much realism but still use some.

Fists are natural attacks, can they tear up a net?.

No. They cant. Not every natural attack can. But those natural attacks that can simulate sharp blades can tear up the net. Thats the universal rule afterall because its not fair for the monsters not to be able to do things that weapons can. In every rule in DnD monsters can do the same things just if they had weapons.

Ever owned any beasts?.

No. Just reading rpg books or stuff like that that improve game mechanisms. Do you own?

I have a 120 pound dog. His claws are quite blunt, and his paws have very little strength - I can lift his leg up (like when I ask him to shake hands) and hold his leg off the ground with just one of my fingers. Between blunt claws and weak legs, I don't see him clawing through even a tiny rope.

Your dog is not a beast neither a wild animal that use its claws everyday to hunt and i am pretty much sure that its not a monster (you know those things that adventurers face in DnD game). And you forget that you need rules for weapons AND natural weapons aswell. Blunt weapons cant tear up a net. Neither can fists. Light slashing weapons ca. So should the natural slashing attacks of the monsters.

As for the romans or greeks ofc who were the first in battle formations they didnt use nets in the battle but they effectivly used them while hunting or facing a single enemy. Thats why i was finding underpowered the net to be destroied with just a slash. I was talking about the simple close combats and ofc the fact that IN GAME TERMS this exotic weapon is not very usefull.

DM_Blake wrote:

It is very reasonable to say that only slashing weapons can damage a net.

It's also reasonable to say that the only natural attack that can damage a net is teeth.

Likewise, throwing the net on a bear means it might bite through the net, but it cannot use its claws to slice the net open.

Historically, nets were never popular on the battlefield

Ok using a house rule is not what i would like to hear. I was hoping that there were some eratta for this. My house rule says that youu can damage a net only by using a light weapon and even then not a rapier. But natural attacks are light weapons too. Even if they werent i believe that a beast can tear up a net not only with teeth but with claws aswell. It doesnt have nails, it has very sharp claws that can easily kill commoners.

Btw, historically many things in DnD werent popular in the BATTLEFIELD. But close combat is not like that. The net should be usefull in a combat like that (after all you spend an exotic feat). Using realism you can entagle the enemy with a net but its very difficult to cut it off. Especially with just a chop...

hogarth wrote:
Yeah, nets are pretty wimpy. But if your target cuts himself free, at least you made him waste a full-round action.

But you also waste your round not because there is a possibility not to score a hit but also you have to move near him since net's max range is 10 ft

An entangled creature can escape with a DC 20 Escape
Artist check (a full-round action). The net has 5 hit points
and can be burst with a DC 25 Strength check (also a fullround

So, you can simply destroy the net by dealing onnly 5 hit points instead of succeding against Escape Artist or Strength check??? PH or Pathfinder doesnt say what weapons you are allowed to use so you can also use a greatsword?
If thats true it makes the net completly useless. Not to mention that its an exot weapon.

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

I don’t believe the confused character has the presence of mind to avoid attacks of opportunity, so they will run past the other PC’s, drawing the AoO’s while trying to get at the ranged attacker.


Wrong. They are confused not feebleminded. They are still sane. After alla the power of the spell doesnt allow it for more effects. If the rules dont mention that creatures play in a fashion that provoke AoO then they dont.

Vampress77 wrote:

So how or what is the best way to conduct mass combat?

You can use the Heroes of Battle (a book of WotC) or you can take ideas from the rules in Mystara campaign setting (2nd edittion TSR)

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>