Kartissa's page

Organized Play Member. 22 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


Canthin wrote:
Every dragon in Bestiary 1 that has a "Space" entry in its stat block shows reach for the bite (except for the Young Black, Ancient Brass, and Young Bronze, which don't have a space entry at all). All of the Medium sized dragons in the Bestiary 1 have reach (except for the mentioned Young Black that doesn't have any Space/Reach entry).

Most of the Large dragons in the Bestiary 1 (other than the Adult Brass and Young Bronze) have a listed reach of "10ft with bite." If, as the general rules for dragons states, that is the reach of a creature one size category larger than the dragon (i.e. Huge), then a Medium dragon would have a reduced reach (5ft) unless specified otherwise.

Canthin wrote:
You should view the rule in the dragon section as applying to all dragons and stat them accordingly, not just blindly follow what is on a third party site (no matter how awesome and useful that site is).

If you're referring to the information I posted from the Draconimicon, then I agree, you shouldn't blindly follow it. But the table Matrix Dragon posted is actually in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, page 195 of the 2009 hardcover edition, as well as the official Paizo PRD (Combat section), along with the note:

*These values are typical for creatures of the indicated size. Some exceptions exist.

Bold text is my emphasis. According to that table, medium dragons should have a reach of 5ft with their bite, unless specified otherwise.

fretgod99 wrote:
I would chalk up any stat entries in the PRD for medium dragons that don't include reach for the bite as an oversight. Rules text has higher priority than printed stat blocks.

Typically, specific rules override general ones, meaning the stat blocks are correct. And as shown by the table Matrix Dragon linked, medium dragons which do have a longer reach are actually the exceptions. Large (long) creatures only have a reach of 5 ft.

Captain Phoenix wrote:

I'm working on some dragons now and came across this thread.

A young white dragon has a 10' bite and is a medium creature.

A young black dragon is also medium, but has no 10' bite.

I'm confused all over again. Or are black dragons more "long" and white dragons more "tall"?

All dragons are typically 'long' creatures, but some have shorter necks relative to their body size than others. Green dragons, for example, have the longest necks relative to body size, so that they can have a clear view over the trees in their forest habitats. They also have the longest legs, to step over all the foliage and debris on the forest floor. (Incidentally, this little fact actually comes from the D&D Draconomicon, so it's not technically canon for PF, but it's still a useful resource if you're looking for more varied dragon NPCs.)

To determine whether your assumed dragon form has any reach, you should check its entry in the Bestiary.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Simple answer, ignoring all the rules on polymorph and transmutation:

Animal Growth grants size bonuses.
Form of the Dragon grants size bonuses.

The spells don't stack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Morphling wrote:

Using Smite Evil to cheat won't work. Because when you try to smite him, you will find out you no longer have the smite evil class feature. Or your spells. Or Lay on Hands.

Good luck with the Ogre, Mister Fighter-Without-Bonus-Feats.

Depends on how your GM defines the Paladin's code. Using Smite or LoH in a 1-on-1 non-magical duel isn't necessarily an evil act, especially if the paladin intends to save lives by doing so. (Especially if the Smite actually works, which raises the question of the other side of the Ogre's alignment. The default is Chaotic, which means that it probably wouldn't hesitate to cheat if it had to....) In fact, cheating in this instance would likely be a Chaotic act, for which there are no lasting repercussions.

The Code of Conduct section only mentions losing Paladin abilities if he willingly performs an evil act. Granted, the following paragraph refers to not lying or cheating, but it also mentions punishing those who harm or threaten innocents. (I'm assuming the people the Paladin is trying to save through this duel are innocent....) I actually have a problem with this paragraph, since by a strict interpretation, the Paladin cannot feint in combat (lying about where he's going to strike) or use flanking attacks (must act with honour, and ganging up on somebody could be considered dishonourable, especially if the target turns away, and the Paladin is now effectively stabbing it in the back!), neither of which seem to present any problems for most GMs.

(As an aside, if the Ogre tried to Intimidate the Paladin, would that cause the watching crowd to cry foul when the (Su) Aura of Courage activates, making Pally immune?)

While clearing out some boxes recently, I unearthed an old copy of Dragon Magazine, which contained an article about minor magic items in 2nd Edition AD&D. Two sections stood out: Bladehammers and Piercing Head weapons, and Racial Items.

Bladehammers are basically slashing weapons which can, on command, deal bludgeoning damage instead. Piercing Head weapon deal bludgeoning or piercing damage in the same manner. However, in the original article, neither are particularly magical. (They don't, as standard, have any enhancement bonus.) If I were to re-create these items, should I make the damage-changing ability equivalent to an enhancement bonus (holy, bane, etc.) or use a flat fee (adaptive, impervious, etc.)?

Racial items are enchanted items which only count as magical when employed by members of a specific race. (Useful for powering up enemies without giving the PCs huge amounts of magic items they can use.) Once my players find out about them, they're going to want to make their own. (My players are like that.) What level of enhancement bonus or GP cost do people think would be appropriate for the Racial ability?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sambo wrote:
I'm fighting an ogre that has above average stats and possibly a brawler level. So, he's either CR 4 or 5 and I'm fighting him alone. I'm level 4 and at a disadvantage already because I can't use any of my paladin combat bonuses.

If the Ogre's that tough, you're not really expected to win in a 1-on-1 fight. Challenge ratings for combats are typically based on a party of 4 or 5 PCs. You have an effective party level of 3 (level 4, reduced due to fighting solo), so it is possible for you to win, but not without using all the class abilities you have at your disposal. (You may want to point all that out to your GM if he's that inexperienced....)

Now, on to the question of detection:

1) Since Smite Evil has a lasting effect (deflection bonus to AC), I would say that it can be detected in a similar manner to Shield or Mage Armour.

2) Lay on Hands channels positive energy in a similar manner to the various Cure spells. Since they can be detected as they are cast, I would rule Lay on Hands can also.

In both cases, they would be considered a nonspell effect to identify what they actually are (DC 15 + 1/2 caster level).

Sorry, but it looks like you're probably going to lose, unless you can persuade the ogres that it's not a fair fight unless you can use your divine blessings and/or Enlarge Person to even the odds. Or unless your GM is kind enough to use the default Ogre profile with no advantages, since that's only CR 3.

Raisse wrote:
I'm assuming a flaming weapon would act as a torch for light effects?
From Ultimate Equipment:
Light Generation: Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell. These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. They can't be concealed when drawn, nor can their light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions.

This magical glow is independent of descriptors for any prerequisite, since it can be added to weapons that have only a basic enhancement bonus. Whether a flaming weapon is one that generates a magical glow or not is a matter for the person who created it. Personally, I would rule that the flaming effect does shed light in this manner. (It is fire, after all....) However, since it counts as a magical source equivalent to a light spell, the glow would be negated by the darkness effect. Although, as SNO_75 stated, you can probably light a torch from the flaming effect, which would then be non-magical.

Maar the Volcano Monk wrote:
Although, can someone debate that staying Silver/Cold won't be that bad in a few levels and convince me to not waste the 10 PP?

Resist Energy is a bonus spell from the bloodline anyway, with a better bonus than your natural resistance, and Elemental Spell:Ice feat from Advanced Player's Guide can make any spell deal cold damage, at a +1 level cost.

CyderGnome wrote:

As to how the game was intended to be, for that I have to fall back on a piece written by Sean K Reynolds.

You can read the piece in it's entirety here:
A Different Take on Wands in D&D/PF

In the article he discusses an alternate concept for wands... and how it differs from what was laid out in Pathfinder, but he does it in the context of the game as it exists.

Thank you for the link. It's an interesting article, but the part that stands out for me is the statement about healing wands "adding power to a class that is already really powerful," indicating that he sees the same potential for abuse that my friends and I noticed. The suggestions in the comments are interesting, and I plan to discuss them with my fellow GMs. Perhaps we can use one or two of them in our campaign....

Diego Rossi wrote:

Actually in AD&D you didn't pay XP to craft magic items, you acquired them. But it was very difficult and time consuming to make magic items.

It is in D&D 3 and 3.5 that you had to pay XP to make magic items

3 and 3.5 are AD&D. The 'basic' D&D came in 5 boxed sets covering levels 1-3, 4-14, 15-25, 26-36, and Immortals. I know, because I still have them all in my RPG collection.

Yes, it's true that you didn't need to spend XP in 1st and 2nd Editions to make magic items, but the other requirements amounted to pretty much the same thing. You needed to actually go out and get what you needed, and were rewarded with a healthy XP boost for creating the item. Probably to make up for the time you spent in research, and not out adventuring with your friends.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Then houserule a total ban on Wands and crafting, and maybe even healing.

You now know how it works, both RAW, RAI, and even the reasoning behind both.

Other than you not liking it, what else is there to discuss?

Wands, crafting and healing are useful and valid features of the game. To ban them would turn it into something other than it is.

I understand that yes, RAW it is that cheap to craft a wand of CLW, but I cannot for one moment believe that was how it was truly intended to be. I have seen no conclusive reasoning in this thread regarding it other than a single suggestion that

Pupsocket wrote:
Healing damage out of combat for pocket change is pretty much the default play mode.

- unlike the various incarnations of the game from which Pathfinder is derived. There's a reason magic items in AD&D required Experience Points as part of their creation costs.

You're right that I don't like it, and neither do my fellow GMs, which is why we've decided to houserule crafting the way we have.

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

The game assumes you have access to cheap healing for in between combats, nothing wrong with it at all. My witch took the feat and is crafting like 20 IH wands and retraining it out. The first item any party usually splurges for is a wand of IH or CLW.

But he should really just craft wands of infernal healing and not loose a sorcerer level to dipping.

The only RPG I've played that allows such cheap healing between combat is AD&D 4th Edition. (Although I have acquired the 1980s Marvel Super Hero RPG to run a City of Heroes campaign, which does something similar.) Every other one required the players to take a certain amount of downtime to fully heal, either through lack of convenient rapid healing, or a more complex damage system. (Sometimes both - I'm looking at you, Babylon Project!)

Such rapid healing, as you claim PF assumes, just seems incredibly wrong to me. It takes some of the fun out of the whole thing. If the players start every battle at full health, with enough healing items spare to remain at full health without using up any limited, class-based healing abilities, then where's the challenge? The struggle of fighting through hordes of minions, in order to face the Big Bad with the few resources you have remaining?

Almost every fantasy epic has the protagonists fighting against impossible odds and only just winning through perseverance and determination, despite being outclassed in almost every way. That, to me, is how a role-playing campaign should be played. The fun, the satisfaction of managing to win when your party is at its weakest. It's at those times that the class abilities of fighters and rogues really come into their own, since they are never depleted like those of the casters.

As to the Infernal Healing: since we now have the book that comes from, our sorcerer probably will get it, instead of taking a level of cleric, as he'd originally considered. Even though we are rather short of healers in our Adventurer's Guild. (2 paladins, 1 bard, 1 ranger, 1 thief/cleric - not all available at the same time, due to players having multiple characters.)

Diego Rossi wrote:

Your GM is missing this part of the rules:

PRD wrote:
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.

No he isn't. He interpreted the bold section (which I assume is the part you want me to consider) as the 'level of the spell' part of the equation. Since we're talking about Cure Light Wounds, that can be as low as 1, since a cleric can cast it at 1st level. However, it can also be as high as the creator's caster level if they so choose.

CyderGnome wrote:

If you went with 375x1x5 as the minimum cost for a wand... that would make a wand of a 1st level spell cost 1875 to craft, which would be 3750 on the open market. That's would be 37.5 or 75 gold per charge respectively.

By contrast, a scroll of that same first level spell would cost 12.5 gold to craft or 25 gold on the open market.

And? Scrolls are generally made of paper, and are thus flimsy and prone to tearing. They have to be kept rolled up in tubes and cases to prevent wrinkling or tearing that might render them unusable. Wands are significantly sturdier, having 5 times the HP, double the break DC and actually possessing a Hardness that scrolls don't. That almost justifies the increased cost per charge in itself, but there's more:

A scroll must be seen and read to activate, which can't be done in the dark (no emergency Light scrolls, I'm afraid!); it provokes an attack of opportunity; and the reader needs to have the requisite minimum ability score, as though casting it themselves.

A wand, on the other hand, simply needs holding in a hand and pointing in the general direction of the target; does not provoke an attack of opportunity; and may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.

Ultimately we went for our cost interpretation based on the nature of our campaign setting. Many of our players have two or more characters, which they switch between as they feel, meaning that while one is on a quest, the other is on 'downtime' crafting or otherwise working on more mundane endeavours. One adventure with the non-crafter could easily mean 3 or 4 wands made by the time the crafter is played again, and I for one don't think magic items should be that prolific, even in a magic fantasy setting. (Which is the main reason I don't let players buy magic items during my sessions. Commission them, yes, but they're just not commonly available for sale.)

Azten wrote:
Tiefling's aren't devils.

And a Half-elf doesn't count as an Elf then? If the Tiefling has devils in their ancestry, they should count as devils. They do count as Outsiders, albeit with the native subtype.

My fellow GMs and I decided that since our Tiefling cuts himself with a dagger to get the blood for Infernal Healing, he suffers 1 point of damage whenever he casts the spell in that way. Of course, if he has access to another source of devil blood or unholy water, he doesn't take that damage.

Thanks for all the input. Seems too cheap for me, and as my friend pointed out, our rulebook states the cost as:

375 gp x level of the spell x level of the crafter

He (a more experienced GM than I am) interpreted that slightly differently. The 'level of the spell' is the Caster Level at which it is to be cast, while the 'level of the crafter' is the Character's level, including any multi-classing, thus being a minimum of level 5, since that's the earliest you can take the Craft Wand Feat. This makes even level 1 wands slightly more of an expense, and is more in line with our campaign setting.

Mark Hoover wrote:
Finally it might be worth it to just have the player research Infernal Healing as one of their spells. This is a 1st level spell that grants 1 minute (10 rounds) of Fast Healing 1. Essentially this is (over the full minute) more healing than CLW at CL 1 and costs the same for the PC to put in a wand. Of course, they have to find either 50 doses of unholy water or a vial (50 drops) of devil blood, but I'm sure that's in every corner apothecary right?

He have a Tiefling witch with that spell in our guild, with infernal heritage. Devil blood isn't a problem as long as he has a knife....

One of my players had the idea to take a level of Cleric, in order to craft wands of Cure Light Wounds for just 375gp (375 x 1 {Spell level} x 1 {Caster Level})

He already has 5 levels of Sorcerer, meeting the prerequisites for the Craft Wand feat. Do these levels stack when calculating the cost of the wand? Or is he really counted as a level 1 caster because he'll only have 1 Cleric level?

Although at our group's level CLW doesn't really heal enough to be effective in combat, he's thinking more of post-battle recovery. Wands are created with 50 charges, so that's a minimum of 100 damage healed per wand, and 375gp is going to be pretty much pocket change for our group soon. Also, at that price, he can craft one per day, RAW!

While it would be useful to have curative wands, due to a distinct shortage of dedicated healers in our group, I don't think they should be that cheap.

Nefreet wrote:

Holy thread Necro!

Command activation is a standard action. It is not the same as free action soliloquy.

Hmm. Didn't see that. Thanks. That'll cause a few problems for my players, then....

RunebladeX wrote:
remember that a command word is just that. so if a player draws his flaming, shocking, ice, corrosive long sword he can speak a command word and 3 of his allies next to him can utter the other command words... ;)
Or the wielder can say all 4 command words in succession. The weapon abilities don't specify that it takes any kind of action to activate the magical properties. It just says "Upon command," and
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

Gambit wrote:
Kartissa wrote:
One character I'm planning in my PF campaign is a bar-room brawler. Human Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike, Catch Off Guard and Throw Anything at 1st level. Improvised Weapon Mastery when he can take it. No other weapons. No armour heavier than a Chain Shirt. Yes, he'll be at a disadvantage anywhere there isn't a weapon for him to use, but that's part of his character.
I get the point you're making here, but I have to ask, why the heck wouldn't you play a barroom brawler character as one of these?

Because I didn't know about it, and it's not in the core rulebooks our group possesses anyway.

In all honesty, I would still prefer the standard fighter, since I'm not really interested in playing a half-monk. Yes, it will limit my capabilities at higher levels, but I play the character, not the stats.

Changing Man wrote:
As per the rules, both would convert to Psionic Talent.
The problem I have is Psionic Talent has the prerequisite:
Having a power point reserve.

Soulknife is the only class that doesn't grant power points per level. Only the Wild/Psionic Talent feat. If they both changed, you'd have 2 feats with prerequisites that you don't meet, since they are what is granting you the power points you wouldn't otherwise have. If a bonus feat allows you to ignore prerequisites, it will say so in the class feature text that explains it. Soulknife doesn't say that.

Changing Man wrote:
Long story short, it's great at low levels, but certainly doesn't break the game :)

True. Compared to some of the things I've seen in my games, it's nothing. Just awkward.

All the psionic races in Ultimate Psionics have the Racial Trait:

Naturally Psionic: (Race)s gain the Wild Talent feat as a bonus feat at 1st level. If (they) take levels in a psionic class, (they) instead gain the Psionic Talent feat.

Obviously this means changing Wild Talent to Psionic Talent when choosing a psionic class, which I'm happy with.

However, the Soulknife has:

Wild Talent: The Soulknife gains Wild Talent as a bonus feat at 1st level. This provides him with the psionic power necessary to manifest his mind blade. A character who is already psionic instead gains the Psionic Talent feat.

Again, on its own, it's fine. A Vitalist taking a level of Soulknife gains a bonus Psionic Talent feat.

The quandary comes from the Wild Talent feat:

Benefit: Your latent power of psionics flares into life, conferring upon you the designation of a psionic character

An Elan has Wild Talent, and is therefore a psionic character. She takes a level in Soulknife, a psionic class. Do both Wild Talent feats convert to Psionic Talent, or just one of them? If the former, she now has 5 PP (2 from the first Psionic Talent feat, and 3 from the second). If it's the latter (which is how I would play it, personally) then she only has 4.

Granted, it doesn't matter too much - it's only 1 point, after all - but as an Elan, 1 PP is an extra 2 damage resisted or one more save augmented per day at 1st level. And then you can add the Psionic Aptitude trait:

When an Elan takes a level in a favored class, she can choose to gain an additional power point instead of a hit point or a skill point.

Said favored class needn't be Soulknife, or any of the Psionic classes, as written.

Mogart wrote:
"Why would anyone who is a Melee fighter play anything but a Half Giant Aegis?"

Um... role-playing? That *is* what the 'RP' in 'RPG' stands for (unless you're talking military weaponry!).

Part the fun of the game (for me, at least) is *not* having an uber-powered munchkin that can stand alone against a ravening horde of enemies before breakfast, before going on to conquer the next kingdom. At least, not before reaching the epic/ mythic tiers. If it's too easy, it's only going to be fun for the munchkin, and there are usually other players in the group....

One character I'm planning in my PF campaign is a bar-room brawler. Human Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike, Catch Off Guard and Throw Anything at 1st level. Improvised Weapon Mastery when he can take it. No other weapons. No armour heavier than a Chain Shirt. Yes, he'll be at a disadvantage anywhere there isn't a weapon for him to use, but that's part of his character.

Mogart wrote:
Do I think doing 90 damage per round at level 8 is a lot?.........YES

The Dwarf Fighter in my current campaign can deal out close to that with a magical war hammer and shield, thanks to Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. Without Power Attack, Vital Strike or magical buffs beyond his weapons.

Back in 2nd, I created a fighter that could deal up to 76 points of damage over 2 rounds at level 1(!) using Weapon Specialisations in Longsword and Short Sword, his average being 60.5/2 rounds. (Slightly more against Large targets.) Granted it didn't increase too fast beyond that, but it was enough for my GM to ban him from the campaign she was planning.

Mogart wrote:
Even the damage reduction of the barbarian tops out at 5 whereas the Damage reduction of the Aegis tops out at 8 by class features alone.

Doesn't mean anything if I'm attacking with energy damage such as, say, fire! And I can throw simple Molotovs at level 1 as a ranged touch attack, rendering your armour utterly useless. (against AC 5 if targeting a location, but that just deals splash damage....)