Hjolmaer's page

69 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So I've looked around the forums a bit along with another player in the game I'm playing in, and the question has come up yet again about the Mythic Vital Strike tree. To keep this simple: in the rules, does the phrase "weapon damage dice" mean:

2d4 = 2 dice or

2d4 = 1 "set" of dice?

In short, with greater mythic vital strike and a scythe, are you multiplying everything by 4 or 8?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elamdri wrote:
Well, to be honest, that part is not rules text, but rather flavor text. But I think that having a caster who wakes up one day, creates a phylactery, and becomes a lich, without doing anything else, is a crappy way to do it.

Is it flavor text? I checked the PRD and the SRD and didn't see in either where it says the prospective lich must spend decades in solitude, or any reference to them being sociopaths.

While I do agree that if the player wants to become a lich, he should have to spend considerable game time (either with the party's help or on one-on-one games), as well as considerable in-game resources. Just "Yep, I made my Spellcraft, there's my phylactery" wouldn't be good enough in my opinion, as a player or a DM.

How does the rest of the party feel about this player's prospective lichdom? What is his motivation for becoming a lich?

I know that the template lists the alignment as "Any Evil", but I'd be willing to wave that one in my games if the player could give a good reason for wanting to become a nigh-indestructible abomination of unrivaled arcane power.

I've run a Lawful Neutral lich in a game (some many years ago, I think it was 2nd ed.), who's goals where similar to the parties. But since the party kept running across his minions, who were being sent after the same tasks as the party, they assumed he was trying to stop them.

That was an interesting session. Party: "Why are you trying to thwart us?"

Lich: "I was about to ask you the same thing."

Party: "So...you're trying to stop Emperor too?"

Lich: "Yes....I thought you were trying to help him..."

My players hated me after that one.


1.) Broken condition doesn't seem to have provisions for magical items, so I would say they're affected.

2.) Depends on how the Oracle is using the gauntlets, and what he/she is using them for. As weapons? I'd have to say they get the penalty just like other weapons (gauntlets are still in contact with the tender parts of the body). In addition to weapons? Again, probably, as they would still be in contact with the injured skin. As a stand-alone magical item (Gauntlets of Ogre Power, for example), then there wouldn't be a penalty to apply there, as the gauntlets aren't doing anything other than granting a bonus.


PRD wrote:

Wounding: A wounding weapon deals 1 point of bleed damage when it hits a creature. Multiple hits from a wounding weapon increase the bleed damage. Bleeding creatures take the bleed damage at the start of their turns. Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage. A critical hit does not multiply the bleed damage. Creatures immune to critical hits are immune to the bleed damage dealt by this weapon.

Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bleed; Price +2 bonus.

I don't see why not.


The modified flat-footed is referring back to itself, rather than the full AC like it should be. I'll fix it this evening. In the meantime, if you're working in the sheet, replace E9's formula with this one:

=ROUNDDOWN(IF(E3<10,E7,IF(E3>10,E7-(E3-10)/2)),0)

That cell is starting to drive me crazy......

Any other bugs you goodly folks have found?


Convert the psychic warrior from 3rd, perhaps....interesting.....


Okay, pretty sure I got the flat-footed issue fixed.

Also fixed an issue where the "base" flat footed armor class returned "FALSE" if the "base" Dexterity was less than 11.

Next bug?


Think I've got the issue figured out. The formula's missing a reference.

I'll work on it today.


What's wrong with a 10th level halfling rogue having a Stealth modifier of +40?

Dishonest question in the name of fun:

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?


Found our answer:

CRB wrote:

Armor Class

Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for
opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It’s the
attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit
you. Your AC is equal to the following:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier +
other modifiers
Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you’re
wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole
Dexterity bonus to your AC (see Table 6–6).
Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity bonus (if you
have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your
Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus,
your AC does not change.

Pretty clear cut. Page 179 of the core rule book.

So other than the Dodge bonus (which I'll work in there this weekend), where are we at?


PRD doesn't make a distinction between the two:

PRD wrote:
Ability Damage and Drain (Ex or Su) Some attacks or special abilities cause ability damage or drain, reducing the designated ability score by the listed amount. Ability damage can be healed naturally. Ability drain is permanent and can only be restored through magic.

So judging by that, damaged STR would affect the Mighty Composite longbow.


Knowing my group, we'd probably make templates anyway and just keep them with the mat.

"Lightning Gallery trap? Let's see how many it hits..."


Fionnabhair wrote:
You may also want to include the dodge feat for AC, if you want.

Sorry about that. Was still thinking 3.5 Dodge feat. Again, simple fix.


No "official" word that I've found yet, but this thread seems to indicate that it doesn't factor in. And the points made make sense.

CRB wrote:

Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a

chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in
the initiative order), you are f lat-footed. You can’t use your
Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while f lat-footed
. Barbarians
and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge
extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot be
caught f lat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain
their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks
of opportunity before they have acted in the first round
of combat. A f lat-footed character can’t make attacks of
opportunity, unless he has the Combat Ref lexes feat.

Emphasis mine. According to this, you don't apply a Dex penalty to AC. You just don't get your bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Vulture wrote:
The only thing I'm seeing as missing is stat bonuses/penalties for types other than beasts.

It's just a testing draft. I have another spreadsheet set up with the other form options (elemental/plant), I'm just wanting to make sure I've got all (or most, at least) of the bugs out before I adapt the formulas to the other sheets.

The Vulture wrote:
But so far, it's working very nice. Looking forward to further additions you make to it.

I'm glad you like it so far. When Fionnabhair mentioned this and I realized there wasn't one already, I figured it'd be a great tool to share. Once we get these bugs worked out I'll be adapting the formulas to the other forms.

Fionnabhair wrote:
Also, are you including Dex penalties to flat-footed AC? I have been told that they apply, but as I'm playing around, I'm getting a flat-footed AC higher than my regular AC.

Do Dex penalties apply to Flat footed AC? Let me check. If they do, that formula will be a real easy quick-fix.


Should be able to get them from most craft stores, or from places like Wal-mart.

Lastoth - That's cool. Didn't know Paizo had folks covered there already. But there are two advantages to pipe cleaners:

1.) Cheap.

2.) Player 1: "Crap! I lost the fireball template!"
Everyone else: "Meh? Make another."


I love this......absolutely love it.

In answer to the earlier question about if Yoda could be a lich and still be good, remember that the Jedi had codes against things most consider "positive" as much as "negative".

Fear, yes, but also love, for an example.

So you could get away with neutral there.

The Bestiary lists the alignment in the Lich template as "any evil", though the description of the lich itself doesn't necessarily preclude neutral alignments. A neutral character could very well practice necromancy without becoming evil. If the focus in necromancy were something like becoming a lich to, say, safeguard an ancient order?

Besides, if necromancy were inherently evil, any spell in the book with the [Necromancy] school would risk warping the user's alignment, and I haven't seen a ruling on that yet.

So we could probably get away with a Lawful Neutral lich. Far more horrible things have been done in the name of "the greater good" than turning oneself into an undead wizard of unsurpassed power.

So....off to build a LN Goblin Lich. But how many levels, and of what?

Wizard, obviously. Someone mentioned psionicist (a good fit for getting "Force" powers). A dash of fighter for some bonus feats. Thoughts?

At 900 years, he'd have plenty of time to break well beyond 20th level.


Jodokai - Didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out. That should save a ton of time.

Grimelark/LT - Got it fixed. Again. Apparently when I saved it last night, I saved it to the copy I have on my desktop, not the one in the dropbox folder.

Also caught another small issue.

NEXT BUG!


Yeah, makes sense. Not familiar with PFS, so I had no idea how such disputes were handled. Now I'll know if I ever find a PFS game.


zylphryx wrote:

If you use an arrow as an improvised melee weapon, sure, I would allow the sharpened blade of the broadhead to gain the +1, as you are using it in a way where it takes on the weapon classification.

Fired from a bow though, nope. As far as RAW goes.

Quick question:

What would you consider the difference between the arrow piercing an opponent driven by your hand, versus piercing an opponent driven by the bow string?

The head of the arrow hasn't changed.


Ringtail is a genius. Don't know why my group hasn't thought of this before.


Grimelark - I'd swear I already fixed that. I'll pull it up and go over the formulas again when I get home. It'll be cleared up tonight.

LT - That should be easy enough to add in. I hadn't thought of Amulet of Mighty Fists, and I overlooked Amulet of Natural Armor.


Brotato wrote:
To be fair, there's actually nothing in the monk description under ki pool that says that the extra attack while flurrying doesn't stack with similar effects. Unfortunately, every other ability that grants an extra attack (Haste, Speed enchantment, Divine Power, etc) does.

True. Could just be an oversight.


Suspense is always good.

Maelstrom - Seems it's largely up to you (or the GM). Kydeem's idea seems like it'd work nicely, especially if you can build up the suspense of the "Oh, Crap" moment. Otherwise, it pretty much boils down to either give it a surprise round, or just roll initiative normally. Rules don't seem to indicate one way or the other.


I would imagine that the trap simply "holds the charge". Since, as part of creating a Summon Monster trap, the trap creator would have to cast the spell. This would mean the 1 round casting time was spent when the trap was created, which would allow the baddie to appear and act on the initiative count on which it entered the scene.

If you rule that the spell was cast in the creation of the trap, this would be (I believe) initiative count 0 on a surprise round.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

I wouldn't roll initiative because I see it as kinda like the trap is continuously holding it's initiative until someone sets it off. So it would go off immedately after the initiative of the guy that tripped it. Full round casting time, so next round after the guy that sets it off.

That was my reasoning anyway.

That actually makes a lot more sense than my usual method. And perfect sense with regard to how initiative works, come to think of it.

My players will likely hate you now. :)


Not expressly written as near as I can tell, but the traps entry does state:

PRD wrote:
Spell Traps: Spell traps produce the spell's effect. Like all spells, a spell trap that allows a saving throw has a save DC of 10 + spell level + caster's relevant ability modifier.

Since the trap basically casts Summon Monster x, it would logically work as a spell trap.

The one given in the PRD uses Summon Monster VI, which reads:

PRD wrote:
This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions. The spell conjures one of the creatures from the 1st Level list on Table 10–1. You choose which kind of creature to summon, and you can choose a different one each time you cast the spell.

This would indicate it operates on the caster's initiative. Since the trap doesn't have an Initiative modifier, I'd personally say to either use the creature's initiative, or give it a surprise round.

In my games, on the occasion where I use them, the summoned monster gets a surprise round unless 1.) the rogue was able to identify the trap before it got set off, or 2.) someone in the party with Spellcraft was able to make a roll to identify the spell as it's being cast. If either of those conditions are met, I roll initiative normally (no surprise round).

But that's just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems to be coming down to individual rule interpretations.

I'd like to recommend that either folks accept that we seem to have differing opinions on the matter, or wait for one of the powers-that-be to officially weigh in on whether or not a whetstone could be used on an arrow.

The OP asked if it could be done, likely according to the rules as they are written.

The rules, as written, neither expressly include nor expressly deny the use of a whetstone on ammunition.

Arguments could be made for both sides. But the absence of an inclusion in the rules doesn't necessarily indicate an absolute exclusion, either.

Either go with what seems logical, or go with your own interpretation of the rules. Barring official weigh-in, it seems the issue will be up to individual GM ruling.


1). Assuming your referring to the Monk ability, there's nothing saying you can't. It's not a haste effect. Just an extra attack. Similar to the extra land speed the monk gets as they go up in levels.

2.) How does what? I'm a little confused....

3.) Personally, I would say no, since Furious is a weapon enhancement.

4.) If I'm understanding the question correctly, if you cast something like Shocking Grasp, and miss on the free touch attack, you can "hold the charge" and your next unarmed melee attack will deliver the spell. Unless you cast a different spell.

5.) Haven't read up on UC much, so I unfortunately can't help you here.


I normally use the PRD (which I believe also has them), but the D20pfsrd should work just as well I'd imagine.

Definitely worth a shot.


JDragon - Haven't looked into the APG much, to be honest. I'll do some digging on that when I get home, see if I can tweak the level-linked formulas. I think of a friend of mine has it....


Bender - I had considered that (see previous post ITT), and while it's do-able, it's going to take a lot of time. With three bestiaries and all the potential forms a druid could theoretically take, there'll have to be a lot of compiling done first. And then will come the question of whether or not it's practical.

But, that's what these drafts are for. The one I linked above (and have been fixing with help from Fionnabhair) is a sort of rough test draft. Once I get the formulas cleaned up and working correctly, it'll be easier to finish this one out (formulas will just need to be adjusted) and convert it into the second option of the spreadsheet (the one that will list all the forms, instead of just adjusting stats based on size/armor/etc).

One potential issue with simply listing the different forms and index-matching everything is going to be formula nesting restrictions. In order to ensure cross-compatibility I had to save the document in compatibility mode. While Excel 2010 may allow for nesting of up to 64 formulas, older versions of Excel were limited to 7.

Once I get a cross-compatible version of both sheets running smoothly, I'll look into doing something a bit more comprehensive for the Excel 2010 users.


JDragon - What source is that out of?


Think I got it fixed. Try it now.


Alright, I think I'm seeing the problem. Formula isn't calculated quite right.

Working on it now.


I'd recommend all of them.

Simultaneously.

But Dark_Mistress' recommendations are good. I'd also offer Serpent's Skull. Playing through it in the near future, and it's looking very promising so far. Starts out a sand-box, gets railroaded, then seems to flow pretty smoothly.


Okay. A few things seem to have been lost in translation, but I fixed the formulas. Should be able to re-download it.

A few things (CMB, for example) are showing a negative value without other input. It appears to calculate correctly, though.

Just to be sure (assuming OpenOffice lets you see them), check the formula in cell E7 - Full AC, as a test. It should look like:

Quote:
=ROUNDDOWN(IF(H3="Diminuitive",5+(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H15+H17,IF(H3="T iny",3+(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H15+H17,IF(OR(H3="Small",H3="Small Magical Beast"),2+(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H15+H17,IF(H3="Medium",(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H1 5+H17,IF(H3="Large",1+(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H15+H17,IF(OR(H3="Huge",H3="Mediu m Magical Beast"),4+(E3-10)/2+H6+H9+H12+H15+H17)))))),0)

Everything's tallying up now on my end.


Formulas may have broken up a bit in the conversion. Looking into it now.

I'll double-check Powerful Shape.

And yeah, I can change the modified BAB. That's just text.


Wraithstrike has the right of it. In your example, if you cast the Wall of Fire, then focused on something else, you'd still get the 10 rounds of Wall of Fire.

If you maintained concentration on it (spent your standard action) for 3 rounds, it would last for 13 rounds (the 3 you spent maintaining it, and then 10 rounds after you stopped).

Since you asked, the rules reference can be found in the core rulebook on page 216.

Teh Rules, pg 216 wrote:

Concentration:The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentrations on page 206.

You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.

Emphasis mine, to help with the arguments at your table.


I should also mention that a lot of those values won't calculate until you put in the druid's level. At the moment, the test will only calculate correctly for a straight druid, but I'll try to work some multi-classing in there.

And, if you're bored, feel free to double-check my math.

If you downloaded that between the linked post and this one, delete it and re-download. Had to fix a quick formatting error.


Clicky clicky! Here's the test draft!

Theoretically, that should work. Just installed Dropbox, so if the link doesn't let you download the draft test, let me know and I'll try something else.

But there it is. It's a test draft. I'll get it cleaned up this week, and do my best to incorporate input from here.

Questions? Concerns? Thoughts? Insights?

Remember: that's the draft. The far left column (Header reads "Initial Stats") will show either "Enter (stat)" or "(stat) (auto-calc)".

In the first instance, put in whatever relavent value from the character sheet, and once all the appropriate fields are filled it should (should) auto-populate the rest of the values.

Anywhere you see an existing number in the Stats fields means that the cell is set to automatically populate the information you need.

Under "Planar Wild Shape" on the left side you'll see a bunch of cells that read "False". This just means that the appropriate information isn't entered yet. But if you have the Planar Wild Shape feat, and select the appropriate template from the drop-down box on the right, it'll automatically enter the relevant information for you (SR, DR, etc).

Let me know. I need input from anyone who's willing to give it.

Jodokai - Let me know what you and your player thinks. I'll be working on finishing out the test into a complete first draft this week. Hopefully be done with it by Monday.

Fionnabhair - Definitely let me know. If it won't run right in Calc, I'll see about downloading the program, or finding some way of converting it.


Got the test spreadsheet done. I'll get it uploaded tonight. Will definitely appreciate feedback on it from anyone who wants to look at it.

I built in with Excel 2010, but it's saved in compatibility mode, so it should work with any version of Excel.

If someone has OpenOffice, I'd appreciate knowing if the sheet works in that program as well.

The current test just has the animal sizes (from the Beast Shape spells), as well as some other variables (such as the Wild special property on armor/shield, deflection bonus, cloak of protection, Planar Wild Shape feat, etc.

Given formula restrictions, Power Shape won't automatically calculate in. But the only real benefit it provides is a +2 to CMB/CMD, so I just made a note of it on the spreadsheet.


Does someone else in your group have access to a scanner that could scan them in for him?


Should have a rough draft up tomorrow evening if all goes well. Still a lot of formulas that need tweaking, but all in all it's coming together nicely.

As it's currently assembled, you should be able to just input some basic stats (level, hit points, Str, Dex, etc), pick your forms new size and armor/shield bonuses (assuming your armor/shield has the Wild property), and viola! Instant stats built from the rules presented for Beast Shape.

Working the formulas to include Gargantuan animal and Large Magical Beast (for the Power Shape feat). It's proving a bit tricky, though, so they may not be fully available in this draft.


Some GM's (myself included) will run things like that past the party before simply giving the go-ahead. It helps avoid issues like the one Ravingdork ran in to, and helps promote inter-party communication.


Doesn't look like it:

Quote:

Command Undead

Using foul powers of necromancy, you can command undead creatures, making them into your servants.
Prerequisites: Channel negative energy class feature.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can use one of your uses of channel negative energy to enslave undead within 30 feet. Undead receive a Will save to negate the effect. The DC for this Will save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your cleric level + your Charisma modifier. Undead that fail their saves fall under your control, obeying your commands to the best of their ability, as if under the effects of control undead. Intelligent undead receive a new saving throw each day to resist your command. You can control any number of undead, so long as their total Hit Dice do not exceed your cleric level. If you use channel energy in this way, it has no other effect (it does not heal or harm nearby creatures). If an undead creature is under the control of another creature, you must make an opposed Charisma check whenever your orders conflict.

As written, you have to be able to channel negative energy specifically. If it could go either way, the prereq would simply read "Channel energy class feature".


I may be doing the work, but it's for the community as a whole, should folks so desire to use it.

Working on brief drafts of both ideas.


No, you pretty well pegged it. Like I mentioned above, Option 2 would include pretty much everything, but would require an insane amount of scrolling.

Even going with a hybrid, while you could break the information up and have multiple spreadsheets in the one workbook, with different forms broken up by size/element/etc, it would still be a very large file.


Which is true, I overlooked the changes from Elemental Body/Plant Shape. Sorry about that.

Now, I've already been fiddling quite a bit with the formulas, and I'd like to ask a few questions (of you and the community at large) about layout.

Given formula limitations, it seems to me the best options for this project are to either:
Option 1 - break up the forms onto different spreadsheets within the same workbook (one for animal forms, one for Air/Earth Elemental, one for Fire/Water elemental and one for plant forms) or

Option 2 - one spreadsheet that basically has everything.

Going with Option 1, I can make the thing pretty comprehensive (house/home-brew rules excluded) without producing an inanely huge Excel spreadsheet. And if I can tweak the formulas just right, I should be able to set it up so all you'll have to do is put in your "base" stats (as they are when in normal form), make a couple choices from drop down boxes (Wild armor special ability, deflection bonuses, Amulet of Natural Armor, etc) and pick your Wild Shape form from a drop-down box. This would provide you with modified stats (STR/DEX/CON/Base attack, etc), which you could then reference with your character sheet to see what new bonuses would be, etc.

The only other potential issue I'm seeing with such a spreadsheet is that it wouldn't necessarily be easy to give total stats for every possible form specifically, unless you went with Option 2 (which would, again, be a very large spreadsheet).

Going with Option 2, while the single spreadsheet would be VERY large, it would also be possible to just put in base stats, pick a couple relevant options from drop down boxes (as above), and BAM! All your stats for every form at a glance.

Chief upside to option 1 - clean appearance, minimal scrolling, printer friendly.
Chief downside to option 1 - necessity of multiple spreadsheets, specific forms not listed. Rather, you would only have relevant bonuses.

Chief upside to option 2 - Everything in one place. Everything
Chief downside to option 2 - Everything spread out over one sheet, likely requiring a LOT of scrolling through to find the form you're after. Also, Printer Bane +5

And then there's Option 1+2:
Still do different spreadsheets, but lay it out like Option 2, only have fewer forms per spreadsheet. Same number of spreadsheets and relative ease of reference as Option 1, same visibility and printer concerns as Option 2.
-Alternative: Make one spreadsheet each for Diminuitive/Tiny/Small/Medium/Large/Huge Animals, one each for Small/Medium/Large/Huge Earth/Fire/Water/Air Elementals, one each for Small/Medium/Large/Huge Plant forms. Chief upside: relatively easy to find the form you want. Chief downside: 26 spreadsheets.

Thoughts? Input? Ideas?


I can see what you mean. It's simple, which is great (simple is always good), but that's also it's chief downfall. A couple things I note quickly is that, while Beast Shape (which is the basis of the Druid's wild shape ability) doesn't affect Con at all, not only is it a field, it's also noted that the website creator "fixed the bug which modified the HP based on the new Con modifier".

Druid's Con doesn't change when they wild shape.

I'm still thinking something in Excel, or maybe even Adobe, might be better. I've got a slow day at work tomorrow. I'll play around and see what I can't put together. Nothing fancy, at least not at first, but I do agree that the community as a whole would no doubt find it useful.

Admit it. Gamers are, when it comes to game mechanics, lazy. ;P

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>