Enga Keckvia

Happler's page

Organized Play Member. 1,920 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like a surprise round.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Link to the FAQ to help out:
FAQ

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

When was the last time that the party bathed?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ectoplasmic Glitterdust would cover any issues, but I am not sure if it is needed.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:
Sadurian wrote:

Sorry to be a nerd, but 'octopi' is not the plural of 'octopus'. It comes from the Greek rather than Latin, and the plural is technically 'octopodes', although 'octopuses' is also usually considered acceptable.

Had to get that off my chest.

Sorry.

Etymologically, you are correct. However, due to the use of Latin and pseudo-Latin for scientific naming, the pluralization "octopi" is now dictionary-valid.

So basically, enough people who were wrong repeated something until it became true. What a horrid precedent.

But a normal precedent for all growing, evolving languages. The true horrid precedent is the addition of "Twerk" to the dictionary.. :(

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

.
.
.
.
.
So, now we have the following:

Spiked Gauntlet:


  • Requires a free hand to use
  • Cannot be disarmed
  • costs 5 GP
  • x2 crticial
  • does 1d4 (medium sized) damage
  • weighs 1 lb.
  • Simple Weapon

And

Armor Spikes:


  • Requires a free hand to use (either one)
  • Cannot be disarmed
  • costs 50 GP (10x the cost of a single gauntlet)
  • x2 critical
  • does 1d6 (medium sized) damage (1 dice greater,)
  • weighs 10 lbs. (10x the weight)
  • does damage on successful grapple checks
  • Martial Weapon

so, for 10x the cost you gain one other gauntlet and an extra 8 lbs of weight to carry around, and do an average of 1 point more damage?

I think that I would rather just spend 10 GP and buy two spiked gauntlets and just punch people with them if I am in grapple. Heck, spend 10 GP (for a total of 20 GP, still 30 GP less then the armor spikes) and get a barbed vest for that extra 1 point of damage from time to time.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Happler wrote:
Alignment is not a fuzzy line, but a fairly hard line.
Which is why we can all agree on morality and alignment and there are never any threads asking about it ever? I usually prefer flexibility myself, helps make everyone happy.

I did state that these where the games I played in and have run. Each gaming group has a different treatment for alignment. Personal preference and all. These personal preferences are why any discussion on alignment on these boards gets so heated if allowed to go on for any real length of time.

I do not mind the flexibility, but I also expect my character choices and actions to have consequences/benefits in both the populous and with divine powers. A character who does evil acts (in according to the views of the deities), will gain the attention of the deities whose portfolios the acts fall in.

In the worlds I have created, monks come from temples/sects and have their own rules that go along with that sect. To play a monk, you must choose which temple trained you, and your powers go with their rules. At high level, if you want to create your own temple as a character "retirement" I expect you to write up the rules that the temple follows, and it will be available to future monks. Also, not all temples have the same alignment requirements, and I tweak some of the rules of the monks to show this (effectively they are all arch-types). If a monk comes from a chaotic based temple, the ki strike goes chaotic instead of lawful for example. I do similar things with other classes, as that is the type of world that I chose to create/run as a GM.

But this is thread is not really about alignment in general, but the effects of removing alignment restrictions from a class. From what I can see, the restrictions are mostly flavor, and if you are going to remove them, go for it, as long as it fits the game style and world flavor you want to run.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Talynonyx wrote:
Alignment restrictions are a good part of this game, so they should be kept. It helps the flavor immensely. If you want to be an NG 'monk' then play something like an oracle that uses unarmed strikes or monk weapons.

Because your gaming experience is greatly improved by being told to play something else that is nothing like what you wanted and being told you can't play what you wanted because arbitrary? No thanks.

More options is good.

the alignement restrictions for classes are mostly flavor and role playing. For monks it is to represent that it takes a lot of discipline to work at perfecting yourself.

they are not really mechanically important. But they are important for the flavor of the class and world. If you as a GM want to allow non Lawfull monks, then go ahead.

BTW, MrSin (just to play devils advocate), would you allow a Chaotic Evil cleric of a good deity? After all, more options are good..

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since Death's kiss is a supernatural ability and not a spell-like or spell, could you do the following:

round 1: Cast an inflict spell and hold the charge.

round 2: use Death's kiss and hit them with the held inflict spell as part of the touch for death's kiss?

I guess then it would be up to the GM to decide which goes off first, the touch for the SU or the touch for the held spell.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

From the Core book in combat under Nonlethal damage:

Quote:
Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

gauntlets are weapons that do lethal damage, thus you can do non-lethal damage with them, at a -4 to hit.

You can, of course, also attack without the gauntlets (kick them for example), and do nonlethal, but you would gain none of the benefits that you may have on the gauntlets (for example magic enhancements, etc) or feats that require the gauntlets (improved critical - gauntlets).

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Daynen wrote:

Succubus monk.

Best. Monster. Ever.

That is all.

Could be a very flexible playstyle.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Whale_Cancer wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Would have the fighter to try overrun or bull rush (or acrobatics if there was a better chance of working than the CMB), maybe even attack on the next round.
Indeed, that is what he must do.

nope.

Quote:
Panicked: Characters who are panicked are shaken, and they run away from the source of their fear as quickly as they can, dropping whatever they are holding. Other than running away from the source, their paths are random. They flee from all other dangers that confront them rather than facing those dangers. Once they are out of sight (or hearing) of any source of danger, they can act as they want. Panicked characters cower if they are prevented from fleeing.

He must flee in a random direction away from the source (yeth hounds), try to avoid all dangers, and if they are unable to flee they cower.

to me, if the cleric successfully blocked the fighter, and the fighter had no where else to go, the fighter would cower.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that there are ambiguous readings for the RAW here. I tagged it for a FAQ myself.

Part of the reasoning for how I read it is the lack of the wording "except as follows".

If it read "Detect Evil (Sp): At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell except as follows." or something similar it would call out that they are changing how the spell normally works. Instead it goes on with "A paladin can, as a move action," which, for me at least, calls it out as a separate activation style from a normal spell like ability.

As I said though, I can see that the RAw can be read many ways. Before now I never questioned mine. I do hope that they can chuck us a quick little FAQ on the RAI for it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dropping an item is a free action:

Quote:

Drop an Item

Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action.

Dropping prone is a free action

Quote:

Drop Prone

Dropping to a prone position in your space is a free action.

So, it is a move action and one, possibly 2 if they have to drop prone, free actions.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wynd Sister wrote:
While the authors unfortunately forgot to include the words "melee weapon" in the TWF feat description, they did say weapons must "wielded in each hand," not thrown. I do not believe TWF applies to non-melee weapons.

FAQ

Quote:

Alchemist: If an alchemist has the Fast bombs discovery, can he use Rapid Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, haste, and similar abilities and effects to add more attacks?

As written, yes, all of these apply because fast bombs "functions just like a full-attack with a ranged weapon."

—Sean K Reynolds, 08/18/10 Back to Top

The basic TWF feat only lowers the penalty when trying to get an extra attack.

From the core book:

Quote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon.

Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Victor Zajic wrote:

Did you really just call Cloudkill weak? It does Con damage on a sucessful save. Players run in terror everytime that spell is cast by an NPC. Combo it with Force Cage and you auto kill any creature that can't Teleport and isn't immune to poison.

My favorite is Cloudkill and one of the create pit spells. Since Cloudkill sinks into the pit it makes it "fun" to climb out of. Plus, when the pit spell ends, it ejects the cloud kill onto the people trying to help the poor sap out.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since a medium Greatsword does 2d6 and a large one does 3d6 I would be tempted to follow the chart in the monster feat "improved natural attack" which is this:

Quote:

Improved Natural Attack

Attacks made by one of this creature's natural attacks leave vicious wounds.

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, it applies to a different natural attack.

This would put a huge greatsword @ 4d6. The rest of the chart follows the right pattern.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love it when people put real world stuff into games.

1 acre of wheat (per averages I found on-line, may be wrong) takes about 15 acre/inches of water

This gives us about 1116 Gallons per day (365 days a year) to grow wheat on average. At a book cost of 5 gp per 2 gallons (standard spell casting cost from the core book for a 0 level spell by a 1st level caster) this would cost 2790 GP per day / acre to water.

How much does it cost to dig a well?

Or the 5gp per 2 peoples worth of drinking water (1 gallon a day for hard working people). A poor standard of living per the core book is 3 gp/ month. That water is suddenly very expensive. Much cheaper to either buy a Decanter of Endless Water, or dig a well.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mergy wrote:

Working as intended.

If you want to rage at the rules more, check out archery next. Follow that up with carrying capacity, and then round out with lesser restoration to avoid sleeping altogether.

What??! There are penalties for not sleeping?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't forget arcane mark + spellstrike. Combat using a magical branding iron.

While arcane mark does no damage, it does allow you to get an extra hit off.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with people saying that it was intentional. I think that it was just a typo.

I say this since devourer, ghost, Shadows, greater Shadows, lich, mohrg, mummy, skeleton, skeletal champion, vampire, wight, wraith, and zombie all have the "Immune undead traits" listed under defense.

Ghouls and Spectres are both missing it even though I believe that they should also have it.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering that it has 5 lbs of silver needed to create 1 pint (flask) of holy water, you mave have to worry about turning blue (argyria)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is assumed that the grappler is intentional doing things to mess up the spell. So, while it only is verbal, it still takes concentration, so, while you are casting it, they are twisting your arm, jerking you around, and generally messing up your concentration. The better their CMB, the more skilled they are at fouling you up. In a world full of magic and casters, that is probably part of fighter 101.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My best guess would be that the list of languages (and order of pickup) would be set at creation.

So, after wearing it for 24 hours, you would get linguistics skill and a number of new languages as per the list created with the headband according to your level.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

James,

The term "free action" is used liberally in the books. Everything from dropping a weapon, to the monster ability rock catching. Sometimes it appears to be an action that you can only take on your turn, sometimes it is a reactive action that you take out of turn, sometimes it is grey on where it falls in a turn.

Unless otherwise stated in the ability (for example speaking), is a free action restricted to being taken only on your turn?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grick wrote:
Happler wrote:
So a monk could not CdG with out a monk weapon then?

Any kind of melee weapon, or a bow or crossbow.

Happler wrote:

Or use combat Expertise?

A monk/cleric could not do a "Channel Smite"?

Correct, though the intent is surely that those are covered by the third paragraph of monk unarmed strike. (treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.)

Happler wrote:
Nope, per the RAW, an unarmed strike is a melee weapon.

Citation or refutation of earlier points needed.

Happler wrote:
It is even in the weapons table in equipment, has a description with the rest of the weapons, and all characters are proficient in it.

You mean the table which lists it not as a weapon, but under Unarmed Attacks? If it were a weapon, specifically a simple light melee weapon, it would not be in it's own category. (A category which SKR has said is in error, see this thread)

Happler wrote:
You would be closer to say that you cannot do a CdG with any "Natural Weapon" (so no dogs tearing the throats out of anybody who is down), since Natural Weapons are different than Melee Weapons. (even if I think that that RAI is to allow it).

How do you consider an unarmed strike to be a melee weapon, but a natural weapon like claw or bite to not be a melee weapon?

Nothing in his statement said that the table was in error for the unarmed strikes, only that gauntlets should not be there.

As for the natural weapons, your rulling of melee weapons only stops all animals or creatures armed with only natural weapons from doing CdG's per RAW.

If you check the FAQ, you see comments like this:

Quote:
For example, you can trip with a longsword or an unarmed strike, even though those weapons don't have the trip special feature. linkage

this also implies that the dev team think that the unarmed strike is a weapon.

Also, form the equipment section:

Quote:

Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

Since you can CdG with a light weapon, and an unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon, you can CdG with an unarmed strike per the RAW.

Also, nothing in the books states that Natural attacks are melee weapon attacks (or even considered them for any purpose).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is, at least, still allowed to ready an action to set the tower shield to provide total cover vs the archer once they fire. That way you can stop all the arrows that they fire with no chance of failure.

Glad that the rules let me move a 45 lb giant wooden shield in place to block the arrow while it was in flight. Also works to block bullets! Per the RAW, I can say "I am readying my action so that as soon as he fires, I will set my tower shield to provide total cover from him, thus stopping the bullet." That must be the fastest tower shield in the land!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malfus wrote:
Masterwork Weapons wrote:
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls. You can't add the masterwork quality to a weapon after it is created; it must be crafted as a masterwork weapon (see the Craft skill).
Note that Masterwork Transformation only works on items that have a masterwork equivalent. A monk's fist cannot be masterwork without considering the spell, and the spell only considers items that could have been made as a masterwork item otherwise. It is sort of a catch 22 in terms of trying to see it as legal.

It is listed as a simple weapon in the tables, this causes it to be craft-able with a craft skill check DC of 12. Since it is craft-able, you should be able to craft a masterwork version of it.

Personally I think that unarmed strikes should be removed from the "simple weapons" section of the table, it would clear up a lot of questions.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:

Hmmm… what about this: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/masterwork-transformation

Yes, not RAI, but this could be a cheesy RAW work around for you.
EDIT: NVM, the text in masterwork transformation makes it pretty clear this won't work. "if the target has no masterwork equivalent, then the spell has no effect"

As for the recent "clarification", I'm referring to the massive explosion of player outrage that occurred a few weeks ago, when Jason "clarified" that flurry is supposed to work exactly like TWF, i.e. you can't make every attack in a flurry with a single weapon.

In response to this, several people pointed out that this breaks the zen archer, and soheis who specialize in reach weapons. It also contradicts previously publish Paizo material, such as the Battle Monk from the Game Mastery Guide, who makes all his flurry attacks with one weapon.

In response to the numerous forum topics in the dozens of pages, Jason said that they'd be taking another look at the issue.

Just for grins:

Unarmed strike is listed in the equipment section along with the rest of the weapons on the table. Pure RAW, there is nothing stating that you cannot have MW unarmed strikes.

Sure, it has a value of -, but then again, so does a club, quarterstaff, and sling, and there is nothing stopping you from making masterwork versions of those. All weapons can have a masterwork version (even if there is not one listed in the rule book).

Can you show me where unarmed strike cannot be masterwork like any other weapon?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Reecy wrote:

You know I still think it should be Armor spikes of Magic Missiles and just end it... On command it fires Magic Spike missles at target using your base attack and no str bonus.

Takes 1 move action to reload!

Brilliant Energy, throwing armor spikes?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, skipping the parts on DC's, lets see what the book says:

Quote:

Charisma (Cha)

Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.

You apply your character's Charisma modifier to:

Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
Checks that represent attempts to influence others.

Assuming that you have no ranks in the skills

Bluff: You character is almost incapable of telling a lie. Not that you have to tell the truth, but you are unable to fool anyone with a lie (unless you have ranks in bluff, but even then, you are going to be pretty bad at it).

Diplomacy: you would have the misfortune of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time or are not very good at speaking to people. You may stutter, or get strong "stage fright".

Handle Animal: Animals are going to react badly to you. And punching that horse may not be the best way to get it to calm down.

Intimidate: you are going to have a hard time scaring people. If you go back to that stutter, think of the movie "A fish called Wanda". "I am going to k-k-k-k-k-k-k-kill you" just is not that threatening. This also goes back to the bluff. Your threats are just not very convincing.

Perform: I would not even try.. :P

Disguise: I am not sure how to rule this one.

this is the way that I have worked out how to RP low stats in the past. By taking a look at what skills are effected and playing those up.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Only if the orc threatens the square that Steve is in when he picks up the sword.

I agree, though it raises the question of if, by RAW, you can reach into an adjacent square to pick up an item (the Manipulate Item action on page 187 doesn't make it clear one way or the other IMHO).

I can imagine some GMs may argue that Steve would need to enter Bob's square to pick up his sword and that he at that point would provoke an AoO as he is now in the orc's threatened area.

If a GM rules that you have to be in the same square to pick up an item, then make sure he enforces it when his NPC wants to pick up a document from his desk to show you - he'll have to climb up onto the desk, grab the item, and then get back down.

And Desna help you if you need to get something from the fridge.

Only if the desk or refrigerator are 5'x5' otherwise you could stand in the same square as the desk with no problem..

Here, tape some 5' squares onto the floor, put a stick in one, now stand in the other and pick up the stick. Now try that for the stick being in any location in the square. I think that you will find it easier and less awkward (man, that is an awkward word!) to step into the square and pick it up. Unless you have really long arms (10' reach).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Banecrow wrote:
Just a question about the Hold Person spell. I know it says that it affects humanoids but does that cover monsterous humanoids also? Would say a bugbear, goblin, lizardman all be effected or would you need hold monster for that?

Easy way to answer that is to take a look at the bugbear for example:

Quote:

Bugbear CR 2

XP 600

CE Medium humanoid (goblinoid)

Hold person would effect it, as the type is humanoid.

If you check in the Bestiary , it gives a list of monsters by type:

Quote:
Humanoid: boggard, bugbear, cloud giant, cyclops, dark creeper, dark stalker, derro, drow, drow noble, duergar, ettin, fire giant, frost giant, gnoll, goblin, hill giant, hobgoblin, kobold, lizardfolk, merfolk, ogre, orc, stone giant, storm giant, svirfneblin, tengu, troglodyte, troll, wererat, werewolf

So hold person would effect any of those. (along with the normal human, half-elf, etc).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Richard Leonhart wrote:

there is also no number of times you can use a loaf of bread in a day...

I'm sorry, but it's not written that you can transform the fortress back to anything, and the damage is not done from the door you can open and close on command.

So yeah, you got your 10d10 damage, once, and a fortress thereafter. Such fluff can easily be abused, sure, but I think you misread something.

Here is the whole text for the instant fortress:

Quote:

Instant Fortress

Aura strong conjuration; CL 13th

Slot —; Price 55,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

Description

This metal cube is small, but when activated by speaking a command word it grows to form a tower 20 feet square and 30 feet high, with arrow slits on all sides and a crenellated battlement atop it. The metal walls extend 10 feet into the ground, rooting it to the spot and preventing it from being tipped over. The fortress has a small door that opens only at the command of the owner of the fortress—even knock spells can't open the door.

The adamantine walls of an instant fortress have 100 hit points and hardness 20. The fortress cannot be repaired except by a wish or a miracle, which restores 50 points of damage taken.

The fortress springs up in just 1 round, with the door facing the device's owner. The door opens and closes instantly at his command. People and creatures nearby (except the owner) must be careful not to be caught by the fortress's sudden growth. Anyone so caught takes 10d10 points of damage (Reflex DC 19 half).

The fortress is deactivated by speaking a command word (different from the one used to activate it). It cannot be deactivated unless it is empty.

Construction

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, mage's magnificent mansion; Cost 27,500 gp

you can deactivate it with a command word, so it would return to original (assuming that it was empty).

But for Ragwaine. They only have to make a DC 19 reflex save for half?

Also, it is a standard action to use a command word. So the combat would go like this:

round 1: standard action to toss cube (attack action) to their square
round 2: standard action to activate fortress
round 3: standard action to deactivate fortress
round 4: hope that they do not ready an action to kick the cube back at you if you go to speak the activation again.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mortavius wrote:


As for running out of hammers, he wants a Returning Hammer (a +1 bonus) and at 5th level, that's not outside of the realm of possibility, so that solves the ammo problem.

That is actually a +2 hammer. It has to be a +1 hammer before they can add the returning power to it. So, that hammer would have an 8000 GP base cost (4000 GP to craft) plus the price of the masterwork hammer. This is out of a 5th level characters 10500gp average wealth per level.

Also, what other weapon on they going to use, as the returning hammer does not return to them until right before their next turn. Unless they have something else in hand, they are unarmed when dealing with AoO, etc until their next turn.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My other favorite line for invisibility is this:

Quote:
An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light or similar spell cast upon it.

If you have an object that gives off light, and have it out when you are invisible, people are going to be able to see where you are.

Also, while floured/watered/painted you do remain concealed, the flour/water/paint does not. While you could use stealth, the item covering you cannot, and still remains visible. Sure, you are still hard to hit (50% miss chance, I would lessen that chance if you where 100% covered in flour, but that is neigh impossible to do) since you are now being observed, you cannot use the stealth skill.

Since stealth states:

Quote:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.

Want to use stealth and slink away, get that flour/water/paint off of you (great use for a level 0 spell called prestidigitation).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought about posting in here with my point, but at this point, I would feel like Luke walking into Mos Eisley. Debate is fine but arguing is not conducive to getting new ideas into the thread.

But here I go anyway:

From a RAW standpoint, even the WBL chart is only suggested guidelines for running an average game. As a GM, you are required to adjust everything for your gaming group to keep the game fun and interesting for everyone. The rules are not written to act like a computer game, but as set of guides for the GM to run a story around. If you want the more computer like gaming rules for pathfinder, that focus on balance without concern for individual GM and group standards, then play PFS, where crafting does not exist. Otherwise, all you can do is work with your GM and either listen to their end rules or move on to find a GM who games the way that you want.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
gbonehead wrote:
Regardless of what you qualify it as, it means that you really don't need holy weapons to overcome the DR of devils, etc., which in my mind diminishes that aspect of the creature.

You are right, you only need a +5 weapon to bypass alignment based DR, which can only be made by a character with a caster level of 15+, and has a purchase cost of 50,000 gp. Personally, the holy weapon (a minimum cost of 18,000 GP and a CL of only +3, since it can be +1 holy) is a much better deal and easier to get at lower levels..

It only diminishes stuff if you give out +5 weapons before about level 11 (at least in my opinion).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Felwred wrote:

Where does PF distinguish between noting the square someone is in via perception versus "in the room?" Why within 30 feet?

(Thanks for you help so far, I think we are getting close to the answer.)

On the dispel, I tend to agree (belatedly) that since you cannot see the target, dispel magic cannot work on invisible creatures. Further, that likely means you cannot counterspell anything they do as that also requires that you see that spell being cast (which you cannot if it has somatic components.) This makes invisibility pretty powerful.

So - please elaborate more on the perception piece and does anyone disagree with the targeting piece of this?

Felwred

For the perception check thing. Here is the PRD on it (link here. scroll down to "invisibility):

Quote:
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.

That first part A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. states that you can at least notice that there is an active, invisible creature with 30 feet of you.

Then it goes on to state, It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. This tells you that you add +20 to that DC to find the square that they are in.

You can check farther then 30 feet out, but then it adds to the DC. From the perception skill info, you would add +1 to the DC per 10 feet.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fozbek wrote:

The Bomb class feature is a supernatural ability that requires a standard action to use. Part of that standard action is making a ranged attack, but you are not using the attack action. Bombs are mechanically the same as a dragon using its breath weapon; you wouldn't ask if a dragon could two-weapon fight with its breath weapon and a ballista, would you?

Fast bombs still modifies the original Bomb class feature, which is still a supernatural ability and thus requires a separate action. The "this functions as a full attack with a ranged weapon" is there to tell you that your attack bonus decreases and so on as if you were making a full attack. It doesn't allow you to mix other attacks with bombs.

Per this FAQ it does allow bombs to be considered a weapon for other feats as well:

Quote:

Alchemist: If an alchemist has the Fast bombs discovery, can he use Rapid Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, haste, and similar abilities and effects to add more attacks?

As written, yes, all of these apply because fast bombs "functions just like a full-attack with a ranged weapon."

—Sean K Reynolds, 08/18/10

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
concerro wrote:

Size bonuses? You are right, and in that case they don't stack. The SU works like the spell so it provides the same bonus types as the spells. The only bonus that stacks are dodge bonues, and untyped bonuses from different sources.

prd wrote:
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Since the SU and spell both provide a size bonus they don't stack. Note that size bonuses are not a listed exception.

Plus, there is this line in the Enlarge person spell:

Quote:
Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.

Since the SU ability acts just like Enlarge person....

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Atonement should do it. It is also a way to change alignment quickly.

I would love to see that quest...

"Go over there and break things until you feel better!"

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wall of Stone + Stone to Flesh = Feed a village?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For some reason, this thread reminds me of the caucus race from Alice in Wonderland...

The only clear thing that this proves is that the wording for it is not 100% clear. Have everyone involved FAQ'ed this?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For all of you stating that just wielding two weapons triggers the TWF penalties...

Lets change the OPs' situation around a little, without changing how it plays with the rules. Instead of an axe and a scimitar, lets give him a quarterstaff.

How does this change things?

Does he now have to either always attack with the staff as a two handed weapon or take the penalties for it as if two weapon fighting?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sirmattdusty wrote:

I have a question regarding the spell mirror image. I've searched the forums for this answer, and found about a bazillion threads regarding mirror image, but they all seem to focus on either targeting the images specifically or finding a way to circumvent the images and hitting the caster directly.

My question however involves what is stated in the spell description itself. "If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed."
What is this random roll? Do i roll vs AC, a percentage dice, what? If its AC, whose AC; if its percentage what is that number and why? or is it just a d6, assign the real caster a number and if you roll that number you hit him? Please help. Thanks.

I have always treated it as a percentage roll. For example. If the wizard has 5 images (for a total of 6 options), I would just roll a 1d6 and say that on a 1, it hits the wizards, 5-6 hits an image and destroys it.

If there are 5 total for example, you could still roll 1d6 and just reroll 6's.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grick wrote:


The brass knuckles problem stems from the Core Rulebook putting "gauntlet" in the "Unarmed Attacks" category, as brass knuckles are listed as "Unarmed Attacks" because gauntlets are there.

Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)

Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.

The cestus description confuses the issue by referring to unarmed attacks; it's clearly a light melee weapon and doesn't relate to unarmed strike rules at all.

Rope gauntlets are light melee weapons and its descriptive text shouldn't confuse the issue by referring to "unarmed strikes."

There's more in that thread.

I am not going by the table but the description of the gauntlet itself:

the PRD wrote:


Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.

Also, if you go by the rest of that thread, your table is still wrong.

Wizard Gauntlet strike: Penalty, provokes.

should say:

Wizard Gauntlet strike: Penalty, does not provoke.

Since Sean was taking about removing the "unarmed attacks" reference from both Brass knuckles and gauntlets.

Linkage

Quote:

Yes, the answer changed... because Jason and I discussed the precedent it sets for the Core Rulebook and vice versa.

Treating brass knuckles, gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, cesti, and rope gauntlets as "unarmed attacks" doesn't make a lot of sense (because you're not unarmed, you have metal/leather/rope/etc. there).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

another sad note is the passing of Dennis Ritchie.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dennis_Ritchie

without him Steve would never have had a job.

Sad to see them both go.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

I will point out that "one or more".

Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.

And here I point out the one action.

To me it seem clear that the line in the free action description is there to explicitly allow someone to reload and fire a bow several times, but nowhere in the rules I see something saying "you can't take a swift action."

BTW, full quote:

PRD wrote:

Swift Actions

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions.
In that regard, a swift action is like a free action.
You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take.
You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.

I think I have out trumped you.

That also does not disagree with the quote in the RAW about full-round actions:

Quote:
Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>