Oh, thank you very much Kthulhu and MMCJawa. I appreciate this.
I need counseling.
So... is there any more information available about what's actually in this book? The copy at the top sort of reads like: "We're glad you liked our other stuff! Buy this one, you'll love it."
What's the monster count?
Things like this are what I'd like to know rather than, "Here, buy this."
Which spell are you using to create this demiplane fortress? Lesser Create Demiplane is also a 7th level Wizard/Sorcerer spell that does not appear on the Magus list and cannot be added bis Arcana for the same reason that Plane Shift cannot, its level is too high.
Aside from that, I think the once permanency is used to 'lock' the created plane into existence, every further casting by the originator will bring him (and allies) to the same spot on your very own, specially created demiplane of existence. It is not a pocket dimension hidden in a fold of the plane the spell is cast on, like Mage's Magnificent Mansion would be. Although, the definition of 'demiplane' does seem to cover that as well.
There is no 'secret door' or gate. The caster just holds hands with his group and wills himself to that plane. Planar magic is required for other creatures to enter your plane. Mage's Private Sanctum would definitely make it difficult for anyone to peer in to your demiplane and thus become familiar enough to use a teleport from the same origin plane.
Now, if you just had to make a portal to it, I can see the concern. Having a magic device that casts that Portal spell for you and is keyed to your plane might be cool and is entirely thematic. It could be an elaborate gem crusted device, or a simple piece of chalk used to draw a doorway wherever you need the portal to originate from. Still, its something that can be stolen and used by someone else.
If money and magic is no limitation, you can do anything you want to build a permanent portal somewhere and hide/guard it and all that... Isn't that how the Acererak did it? (Tomb of Horrors, anyone?)
I so read this post without the '/'s in it... <shakes head>
I finally got to get into the comic line earlier this month when the first four issues arrived. I read all of them in one night and spent a bit too long marvelling at the novelty of the battlemap/mini-poster included in the first two before I realized it was fast approaching midnight and I still had to sleep before that 4:30 a.m. alarm woke me for work.
Reincarnate also states:
The reincarnated creature gains all abilities associated with its
That should answer the movement issue.
This is one of those spots where the nomenclature is sticky.
There needs to be a more clear definition between the feat and the paths' abilities as well as a better defining of the feat itself.
The second sentence of the opening paragraph for Mythic Feats seems awkwardly worded to me.
"These feats can be selected only as part of the mythic character's advancement- not as part of the character's normal advancment or in place of a bonus feat."
The second part of the sentence seems quite fine.
Upon further thinking though, I am incorrect in how our friend Elfrond would be slinging spells about all willie-nillie.
Dual Focus (Mythic)
Not really much of a stretch.
Metamagic feats are described as feats that allow you to "subtly alter" the effects of spells that you cast. Why wouldn't a Mythic version alter those spells Mythically?
Granted, 'normal' metamagic feats are well defined for each one's effect and cost,usable on virtually any spell you are capable of casting with its cost adjustment, while the Mythic Spells feat allows you to only affect a small number of spells out of what could potentially be virtually every spell.
I have not seen an actual Glossary style definition of what Metamagic means, only using it as the name of a grouip of feats that all "alter the effects of magic". If the Mythic Spells Mythic Feat isn't the grand-daddy of all Metamagic feats, from out of Myth, no less, then it is certainly an odd duck.
I would like to see it like this:
Amazing Initiative (Ex) : This ability provides a Mythic bonus of + 4 to your initiative, cumulative with any previous bonuses. At Mythic Teir 6, this bonus becomes +7, and at Tier 10, it becomes +10. For the expenditure of one Mythic Power point, you may elect to move again on half the initiative score without the Mythic bonus.
...with this as a Mythic feat choice....
Improved Amazing Initiative (Mythic) :
I feel that it gives you a decent nudge that wouldn't be too play altering at low levels ( though Improved Initiative melee will still hit the mark even faster) and allows for a continued reward as you progress in Mythic Tiers. The addition of the Improved feat also lets those who wish become even more heroically proportioned. Of course, there would also be a commensurate Monstrous feat to go along with this.
I think that only the most combat-gumby'd rogues and fighters would be interested in spamming all of their power points through this. Especially if those points could fuel something else that would be just as desirable.
I can see the Imp. Init. bearing fighter at Mythic Tier 2 with an 18 Dex rolling his initiative, burning a point to add 1d6 of untyped bonus to the roll and then adding in his Amazing bonus (let's say its at +4) to now get 1d20+ 8+ 1d6+ 4 for an initiative. So that's anywhere from 14 (all 1''s rolled) to 38 (max rolls). Someone else can run averages, I've been awake too long. If he then burns a 3rd power point, he can act again on Initiative 10 or 34 (dependant on rolls). 3 of his points burned. If he was lucky enough to have +5 as his Str mod and +4 as his Dex mod, he was already well above the norm. If he operates this way, he's down to 4 power points in one round. If the Mob is Mythic enough, he might have to repeat the show and be left with just 1 point. At Tier 3, he could move to it a bit faster after taking the Improved feat and only have one more Power point. Talk about laying the Smacketh down, though.
Granted, a Rogue could very easily take out some of even the Mythic baddies with just one round of Sneak Attack damage.
I have yet to see where one cannot burn more than one point in a round, so this should be a viable tactic.
Both essentially grant only 5 potential Mythic spells as a base ability for their path.
Mythic Spells (Mythic)
At just one selection, the feat potentially gives you 10 Mythic spells. You can take it at any Mythic Tier, if the prereq is the minimum as it is in most feats. it doesn't say 1st tier only, plainly alludes to using another number other than one as the number of spells you get to choose from the Mythic spell effects list.
Even for the playtest adventure, taking Mythic Spells Feat at MT1 grants the first spell. Only one at this time, boohoo. The wizard goes Archmage. Then you gain MT2... Archmage path ability kicks in and you now get a second spell. But wait...! The feat gives you a third Mythic spell because it gives you one at each Mythic Tier gained. Looking hawt.
Awesome sauce on this awesome cake... nowhere yet does it say you absolutely have to have the spell selected as one of your daily allocation as a prepared caster or a spell slot available as a spontaneous caster. The Archmage ability Wild Arcana lets you burn a Mythic Power Point to cast any spell you know and apply any metamagic feat that you know to it. The unlocked Mythic version is a metamagic effect is it not? Metamagic feats are those designed to alter the function of spells in some way, in this case Mythically and without a level adjustement. So...
If the wizard, Elfrond, with his Int at 20 at 1st level puts his 4th level ability bonus into Int (like a good little wizard that he better be), and gets Int-21. That's a +5 Int Modifier, no real change.. Some short time later, he ascends and gets his first Mythic tier and takes Mythic Spells as his MT1 feat, Archmage as his path, Wild Arcana as his chosen schtick, and (of course) chooses Intelligence as his Mythic Power feed-stat. This makes his Mythic Power point total to 6. Life continues on with its trials and, Lo!, we get to MT2 just after making level 5 ( just for giggles). Now we get the Mythic path ability for Mythic spellls. The MT2 ability score increase boosts him to Int 23 and now his modifier is +6 and his power pool is now 8. Hitting level 8 will up his Int to 24 (Int mod-+7) and his pool to 9.
He prepares his spells as normal. Its a real hard day and he realizes that a couple of his spells just aren't going to be useful for taking out the overly muscled, smells like Mythic sweat brigand leader. He burns a Mythic point to access Magic Missile, a spell he has on his Mythic Spells list and applies the Mythic feats to it. Now we got ourselves something worthy of burning brigand backside. Scorching Ray is also on his list, so He spam casts them at the BBEG until he falls over, especially since he's got his Guardian and Champion friends doing that bang up job of keeping his squishiness form getting squished.
Elfrond, at level 5ish, with just 2 teirs into Archmage, can cast all of his spells and then get up to 8 more castings of kick-ass spells in a single day. Recuperation at MT3 just makes this even better when he gets to rest an hour and replenishes all is used Spells per day slots to be filled with more universe twisting goodness.
That, my friends, is a Mythic spellcaster in the making.
I think any Archmage or Heirophant would be a fool not to take the feat at MT1. If he loves the choices of spells (which are decidedly few right now), he might take it again at MT3, because we do have few really good Mythic feats to choose from.
The only possible downside is running out of spells that currently have Mythic enhancements that you can cast as a normal spell due to spells known or learned deficiencies. As with a huge percentage of the Mythic rules, that all depends on the Path Master being fair minded and having the doors open for advancement.
I can see a rewording in the future to make it so that only the spells on you prepared for the day list or to be used in the available spell slot can be used as Mythic Spells, and so that Wild Arcana could not trigger the Mythic spells without at least costing 2 points first ( one for the Wild Arcana activation and then another for the Mythic Spell enhancement), but right now, they don't have any such wording.
One of the neatest things I had a player suggest is a variant of an immovable rod. It actually is a small rod about 8 inches long and an inch or so in diameter that upon one command changes into a "traveling towel rack" and upon another stand perfectly upright at the height it is set at. It was a request by a paladin who was extremely fastidious and lived by the "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" motto, especially when "doing the God's dirty work."
Keep in mind what the end result of the story would be also. If there is a continuance after this major engagement, plot out how the different factions would behave after victory or defeat. Obviously, if the PCs die horribly, the campaign could well be over unless the dragon patrons win and decide to bring their chosen back to life to continue to serve.
Edit: Ninja'd by MC Templar on a solid point.
So the fighter's bonuses, being untyped, are not lumped into the "character abilities", and the phrase refers specifically to Enhancement (and equivalent) bonuses. Is this correct?
I was recently thumbing through the rules for a bit of research and ran across this paragraph in regards to magic weapons:
“Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.”
(Bold emphasis is mine.)
Does this statement mean that a level 17 fighter with four levels of Weapon Training in heavy Blades (+4 to attack and damage rolls), Weapon Focus (longsword) (+1 to attack), Greater Weapon Focus (longword) (additional +1 to attack), Weapon Specialization (longsword) (+2 to damage) and Greater Weapon Specialization (longsword) (additional +2 to damage) for a total of +6 to attack and +8 to damage , not counting at the moment his +17 BAB, get yanked right out of using a +3 Holy Vorpal Longsword (a +10 total bonus weapon)?
I understand immediately what spells wouldn’t affect the above mentioned weapon, but do the fighter’s class abilities, and for that matter, the Magus class abilities, fall into the emboldened character abilities and spells category? If not, what character abilities do come under this rule? I am certain there are at least three or four people who want to know.
Even discounting BAB in the calculation, would that mean there would be diminishing returns on using the more powerful weapons once a fighter reaches about 9th level?
Certainly seems harsh and thoroughly vexing considering this would presumably carry over into those as-yet-unwritten "mythic" rules I would enjoy playing with.
As Mr. Salvatore said when he was told that he would have to do away with Artemis Entreri in his stories when Assassin was removed as a class back in the day "[paraphrased, mind you]But he's not an assassin, he's a fighter-theif who takes money to kill people!"
Even then, he new the Assassin was rather gimped.
I don't understand why you feel you can't make potions of spells with that have "Personal" or "targets you".
The Brew Potion feat's first sentence reads:
Last I checked, you are "a creature," which is defined in the "common terms" portion of the core rulebook as:
There is no real reason to have to reverse engineer items for spells fitting the conditions noted in that first sentence, simply brew the potion.
While the feat itself doesn't mention it, the text under Potions in the magic items section spells out over several passages that oils are essentially potions that are used "externally, rather than imbibed."
I guess that would come down to a flavor aspect; such as whether a cleric wanted to brew a potion or oil of cure light wounds. I could see story-telling scenes where an oil of cure monir wounds would be applied directly to a wound and then the wound would knit itself together, leaving no indication it was there other than the glistening pink of new skin. Though, honestly, many of my games in the past have simply been the "swallow the brew and get more hit points, damn the wounds" kind of play.
And Bob_Loblaw has illustrated a point I made earlier that I rather like about Pathfinder. It takes what used to be a very clouded issue and very explicitly states it in unequivocal terms. Now if they will explicitly state that unarmed strike is indeed an attack with a natural
And TOZ, I must ask you to clarify: how do you justify unarmed strike ignoring the context surrounding your assertion that an unarmed attack is a light simple weapon, which is only considered one for the purposes of using an unarmed attack as an off-hand attack using the Two-Weapon Fighting rules in the SRD, especially in light of the clear and concise statement in the Monk Class Features that "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
Seeing how the Unarmed Strike class feature and the Weapon and Armor Proficiencies both fall under the heading of Class Feature, I am abashed that you would not give equal weight to both entries when determining attack rolls in regards to proficiency.
Is it that you don't view "...is proficient with..." and "...trained in the use of..." to mean the same thing? Please keep in mind that "... is considered as.." and "...is..." are not synonymous even though "is" makes a part of both.
I am stating that to not have any character, let alone monks automatically be proficient in unarmed strike, thereby avoiding the -4 penalty for nonproficient weapon use makes a great deal less sense than anything several stripped of context references you've made.
I usually find much of you input insightful and remarkable, but this one, not so much.
I must ask though, because I am extremely curious, what is it that makes you specifically feel that the (3.5)RAW proves that monks should have their unarmed strikes penalized for non-proficiency? I am curious how the evolution of that sentiment came about, becasue while not explicitly stated for against the subject, there is by far more information in the text of the SRD granting the unarmed strike ability to every single character, while all text concerning the monk seems to indicate they are not only proficient but quite excellent at delivering damage while not using an actual weapon (generally accepted as an object created or grown for the express purpose to inflict some form of damage, which, with the exception of the monks abilites and the application of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, the appendage most often referred to as hand most definitely isn't).
Unfortuanetly, the SRD doesn't have a glossary, but the hardcopy does and it says a Natural Weapon is "a creature's body part that deals damage in combat. Natural Weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages." I am quite certain that other appendages certainly covers the fists, feet, knees, etc. mentioned in the Monk's choices of Unarmed Strike Class Feature and means they are indeed natural weapons.
You have already stated agreement with Zmar (and myself) that all creatures are automatically proficient with natural weapons.
Still with 3.5, but I haven't sifted the details out of Pathfinder yet, though preliminary searching of the Monk Class Features seems to create the same vaguery. Little help on that note developers?
Well, I must admit, you are most adamant on this particualr matter.
So I ask you this: What happened to your assertion that an unarmed strike is a Simple Weapon, not on the list for Monk's to use, and therefor subject to a -4 penalty?
The rule for Unarmed attacks being treated as Light Weapons is specific to an off-hand attack while two-weapon fighting, not unarmed strike as a rule.
You are again trying to ignore that explicit fact that monks do indeed have several Simple Weapons on their Weapon Proficiency list, so repaetedly referencing this specific passage ", with out the context of the remaining sentences in the same paragraph ("Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of mainly simple weapons and possibly also some martial or even exotic weapons. A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls." is a blatant attempt to cut out information that is quite obviously countering or embellishing upon the first sentence in the form a list of exceptions.
I again point out that the RAW most definitely states that Monks are highly trained in unarmed attacks. Why you are so insistent that this does not infact mean that Monks are capable of using unarmed attacks with proficiency is a point of bafflement for me. Does this mean that the Fighter who has proficiency in all simple and martial weapons had never trained one single instant in any of them?
To sum up: Monks are trained to use unarmed attacks (trained means "been granted proficiency with [item/concept trained in]"), Unarmed strikes are indeed treated as Light weapons, for the purposes of two-weapon fighting's off hand attacks.
I have yet to see any textual assertion directly quoted from a Rulebook stating that monks' unarmed attacks do indeed incur a -4 non-proficiency penalty, primarily because there is no proficiency to acquire. It is a basic ability every being is born with (as long as they have a corresponding form to strike with). The monkis given a tremendously ability to enhance a rather blase standard ability and transform it into the things legends are made of. Any DM, Gm or PathMaster (can I coin that phrase now?) that would assert otherwise would very quickly be without many of the players I have had the experience of playing with, including myself.
I reply again with a question "Where does it state in the text of the rulebooks that unarmed strike is indeed a simple weapon.
I reference again the definition on page 314 specifically desiganting unarmed strike as being "without a weapon", therefor implying in the Rules As Written that unarmed strike is not a weapon at all, and refuting the tabled listing of Unarmed strike as a weapon.
This is a classic example of 3.X having anyone trying to find a clear rule having to leap through several sections of a book (or even several books) to bring several bits of information into a cohesive rule.
The fact that the Monk Class features explicitly states that "Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed..." is apparently not sufficient enough for some individuals to draw the simple conclusion that comes form equating completion of training with gaining proficiency.
To stand resolutely by the entry on the Weapon damage table as the only point of reference for unarmed strike being a Simple Weapon, coupled with monks being unable to use Simple Weapons not specifically noted as a weapon proficiency class feature, tells me that someone may be extrapolating too much on page 139's rule stating "Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll." and page 112's "Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, rogue, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of mainly simple weapons and possibly also some martial or even exotic weapons. A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls."
With a Judicial perusal of the rules, a fair minded individual will note that:
I have shown my knowledge of the Rules As Written and provided page references so that anyone may check my information.
Give me a page reference and I will quietly bow out and and defer to your heightened ability to find information in the most obscure places.
As we have read many times on these boards and elsewhere, text trumps table, so please show me where in text format, not listed on a table it references these items:
I am more than willing to be gracious if I am proven to be incorrect. I often agree with you on many things TOZ, but this is absolutely not one of them. Convince me otherwise, and I will most humble and public in my apologies.
As a GM, I would question how th character would be aware of the numerical statistics on the definitely out of game character sheet. There is no fathomable in-game reason for any charcater to be aware he or she even has BAB or HD.
Definitely wouldn't allow anything of the sort until the wish could be expressed well with in-game terms.
Wishing for the abilty to physically cause as much damage as the fighter in the party that he has been adventuring with for the last several months or years might be a good start, but this is where the capriciousness of the powers-that-be drools at the opportunity to twist the wizards world into uncomfortable knots.
Unless there is a really awesome story-plot item involving the wizard laying the smack down on some unsuspecting BBEG in a surprise Pimp-Slap moment of the game.
But as to Why I like Pathfinder over 3.5?
Fighters don't turn into gear obsessive snivelling whine bags at level 11 anymore. They also finally have something approaching use outside of the party leader pointing and giving a "kill that" command.
Class ability acquisition across the board is much better.
I find myself actually wanting to play many more character classes than I ever did,even since the the early '90s when I actually started playing the game. Except Bard. I just can't find myself wanting to play Bard.
And since TOZ wants to quote the SRD for Improvised weapons, I refer again back to the Monk Class features stating:
"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
So there you go as a textual reference to Fists being a type of weapon, whetehr or not it is an explicit definition is a rather moot point.
I would like to challenge wraithstrike to find and provide actual page and title reference for Monks being non-proficient in Unarmed Strike.
It seems fairly striaghtforward and absolutely clear in the text under the Monk Class Features subsection titled Unarmed Strike (Player's Handbook, page 41) that unequivocally states : "Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantage when doing so. At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes. Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
The definition of Unarmed Strike (appearing on page 314 of the Player's Handbook) states: A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but other deal nonlethal damage.
Despite the listing on Table 7-5 showing unarmed strike falling under the subheading Unarmed Attacks, also under the Category of Simple Weapons, there is no text anywhere relative to said table that defines Unarmed strike as any form of weapon at all.
Page 139 Further explains Unarmed Attack as: Striking for damage with punches, kicks and headbutts is much like attacking with a melee weapon except for the following: ... (a few paragraphs omitted for some semblence of brevity) ... Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
So where does it say in the rules that so many RAW groups are using does it say that monks are not proficient in unarmed strike because it is a simple weapon? I really would like to know.
I was attempting to give an in-depth analysis of my reading of the Wizards Presents: Races and Classes book when it got dropped off the face of the planet when I tried to preview it before posting it. There was over 300 words to that particular report. I am too tired now to re-write it and I just want to know why the dern thing dropped it. This has happened several time before with other posts I was making.
I have been thoroughly unable to prove there is a file beyond the icon for a zipped file. I am still getting "blocked" messages when trying to open the file directly from the website. After downloading it, my machine doesn't even register that there is anything beyond the frame of the file. I am stumped because all attempts, even with WinRAR are not working. I am coming to the conclusion that I should try to write something better myself, since anything I write must be better than the nothing I seem to have purchased. :[
Order nujmber- 473143, placed on Nov 15, 2007 seems to be severaly delayed in an effort to fill it entirely. Umm, how to put it delicately... stop that!! Please send what is accounted for to me so that I might divy it up for Yuletide presents as I intended. The two products still delaying the other 49 are by no means that important. I do still want them, but I'd rather have the majority of the order rather than a large number of friends looking at me crossly because I told them a bird whispered a hint of what they shouldn't by at the FLGS last weekend. If neccessary, strike the remaining two items and send the rest. I'll put an order infor them later.
On order number 683617, made Saturday, I fouond a great deal of trouble downloading "A Touch of Evil Volume 2: Hobgoblins (d20) PDF". I saved a copy of the .zip file to my machine only to find that Windows refuses to open it. It is "Blocked". I followed the instructions given in the Help database and found them ineffective. I then tried to open the file for direct viewing and found that the file created 0 objects to view. What's the deal there? I was under the impression that an 8.7 mb download would have a bit more than the .zip file icon to it.
Help the computer idiot in me figure this out please.