Search Posts
Addressing the PFS specific concerns: I'm fully aware of the limitations that PFS incurs. Sometimes they've rubbed me the wrong way more than others, but generally speaking I accept the confines that the Organized Play environment imposes. An example of the hardest spot I've ever been in was a scenario that requires the group take one of two binary paths and the group wanted to go a different path. Nothing in the briefing actually spelled out the two paths, it was a primary objective, and I had to tell them that while I appreciated their idea, that wasn't a valid option to fulfill the mission. I do like the fact that in this scenario, my "I reject options 1 and 2... I want option 3" is actually viable. It is a shame that the links to the previous scenarios (and Torch) are downplayed, but word counts and trying to make all parts accessible without a specific play order makes for a challenge. Anyway, on with the conclusion!
Korasu listens thoughtfully as each of his travel companions speak, the Tengu's eyes closed with his head bowed almost in prayer. "Ah, my learned Sages. You are both paragons of wisdom and history, in your own right, but each of your memories are colored by your own perceptions and measure of mortality. Sage Amenopheus, you find strength in the trappings of the past, like Osirian drawing from our ancestry buried in the sands. Yet your eyes are to the ground. Sage Tahonikepsu, your timelessness causes you to focus on the future, not feeling the weight of history has for one truly mortal." with an additional bow, he withdraws his blade from his scabbard and inscribes in quick motions the Ancient Osirion the characters 'Past' and 'Future'. "And yet, perhaps we can find a bridge between the Past and Future? My friends and I seek the past, look to the future, but walk the paths of the present. We can ill afford having our heads buried in the sand or be caught stargazing when matters that threaten all of Golarion present themselves" He marks the character of 'present' on the ground. "Past, Present, Future, they all bear great import." He draws a triangle between the three characters. "Then we come the the matter of leadership: To be flexible in the face of change, yet diversified in the case of calamity. We have seen firsthand the dangers of two few leaders: the guidance of the Sages has been lost for ages. Yet a congress of collegiates could take too long to decide matters." He inscribes a circle in the triangle, then makes lines to lead to each of the points. "What I propose is that there be a trio of Pillars: Past, Present and Future, supported by those that look to the past, those that look to the future, and those that look to the present. Three pillars, with four supports should satisfy both needs, would you not say?"
Korasu looks like he was in deep concentration. He looks at the brewing fight, looks at the puzzle before them as if it's a snake, then sighs and moves towards one of the lamps, taking it out and seeing if it's possible to 'align' it with one of the gemstones in the floor. "Ah, friend Pooka, I hope this has some visible... if not perhaps we should aid in the fighting and return when combat has passed..."
For the chron sheet, I'll try to (hopefully?) recruit someone to the Scarab Sages when it's appropriate :) Also, I'm playing catchup to try and figure out what all has gone on and how I can contribute to the puzzle or combat.
Korasu looks around at the rest of the party, then bows his head solemnly. "Guardian, I am Korasu, herald of Nevermore, avatar of Vengeance. And yet still, I am a scholar of the ancients and seek to allow those that preseve Knowledge to grow. More to the point, I am a proud member of the Scarab Sages!" He bows low once again, making a sweeping bow. "May you judge my words and actions worthy."
Running with my best friends:
Korasu's keen eyes pick out the fleeing foes, and the chase begins in earnest! Yet as he runs, his shadowy form flicking in and out of visibility appears to pick up a host of black ravens, illusory harbingers of Vengeance! Nimbly he scales the cliff wall, little flecks of shadowy ravens illuminating the path he takes for the others to follow. He spins through the narrow opening, not hesitating a moment as he runs recklessly along the cliff wall. Again, the ravens that trail him call out the most treacherous of locations for his pursuing party! He literally flies through the mountain crevasse narrowly avoiding the quicksand and marbles that would slow him, before he sees a massive wall ahead of his path! Calmly he runs straight through the wall, thinking to himself, You cannot evade the Avatar of Vengeance
Korasu feels a sense of calm as the great beast begins its descent down the cliff face, so close that he can smell the acrid smell of its breath. With a sense of calm, he lets himself fall a few seconds before latching onto the rock face and bringing his sword down heavily on the monstrous thing. Yet as he swoops down, a transformation takes over him. He is not merely cloaked in shadow. He *is* the shadow: an Avatar of Vengeance; a bird of prey, gliding invisibly down. After his strike lashes out, he remains cloaked in invisibility.
If the behir (inevitably) *hits* with an attack: As the monster's return attack intercepts the form of Korasu, the Tengu explodes into a shower of illusiory shadow ravens. He reforms safely at the bottom of the cliff, outside of the reach of the behemoth.
Korasu begins to cough back the poisonous dust as he moves to the foot of the cliff. "Ah, yes, friend! We wish no violence in this matter! We have come long and far seeking the treacherous creatures that have invaded your territory. There is no doubt that whatever promises these oathbreakers swore were in vain" I hope this works, I'm not sure if I can take that can take that thing while we wait on the rest of the group to climb
As the adrenaline of combat begins to leave him, Korasu begins to move forward and experiences a sensation familiar to his usual Vanishment granted by his patron, but different in that it doesn't seem to draw from the same limited and tenuous link. He experiments a bit with this new-found temporary invisibility and surmises that it is tied to him being in motion. A broad grin splits his beak as he takes the opportunity to Vanish and re-appear wherever he moves. He shifts in and out of being visible as he peers curiously at the strange metal sheet.
As combat descends on the group, Korasu feels a wellspring of Destiny surge within him. His eyes turn jet black as he draws forward, his magically enhanced steps just enough to come to the alien blue skinned thing. With a swift blow he strikes with a razor's edge!
If that attack kills it:
Like a Nightmare Bird of Prey, Korasu drives his feet into the dying abomination, launching himself at the festrog!
If that attack doesn't kill it:
Allowing his momentum to carry him forward, his blade still embedded in the beast, he attempts to eviscerate it!
Read and re-read the Mythic stuff. Here's Korasu's final Mythic Additions: Mythic: You are considered a mythic creature, which may affect how some spells and abilities affect you.
Dual Path:
Dual Path: Select a mythic path other than the path you selected at your moment of ascension. You gain that path's 1st-tier ability (either archmage arcana, champion's strike, divine surge, guardian's call, marshal's order, or trickster attack). Each time you gain a path ability, you can select that path ability from either path's list or the list of universal path abilities. Extra Path Ability (Mythic):
extra-path-ability-mythic
Choose one mythic ability from your path or from the universal path abilities that you meet the prerequisites for. You gain that path ability. Strikes / Attacks: Two special abilities: Path abilities: Two special abilities: Hit Points: Gain 12 hit points. Hard to Kill (Ex): Whenever you're below 0 hit points, you automatically stabilize without needing to attempt a Constitution check. If you have an ability that allows you to act while below 0 hit points, you still lose hit points for taking actions, as specified by that ability. Bleed damage still causes you to lose hit points when you fall below 0 hit points. In addition, you don't die until your total number of negative hit points is equal to or greater than double your Constitution score. Mythic Power (Su): 9 mythic power per day. Surge (Su): You can call upon your mythic power to overcome difficult challenges. Expend one use of mythic power to increase any d20 roll you just made by rolling 1d6 Using this ability is an immediate action taken after the result of the original roll is revealed. This can change the outcome of the roll. Amazing Initiative: You gain a +3 bonus on initiative checks. In addition, as a free action on your turn, expend one use of mythic power to take an additional standard action during that turn. This standard action cannot be used to cast a spell. Limit one per turn. Recuperation: You are restored to full hit points after 8 hours of rest as long as you aren't dead. In addition, use one mythic power and rest for 1 hour to regain half of your hit points and regain the use of any class features that are limited to a certain number of uses per day. This doesn't include mythic abilities. It should be noted that as a balancing act for more abilities, his Surge is nerfed significantly.
"Think I could knock one on a bad guy if he decided to show his ugly face?" Pooka asks, spurring Luna into action as he mounts up. He points at the tracks and the dog's expert nose sniffs the ground, scanning back and forth for any extra clues. "Ah, perhaps. Should all the pillars fall, though, it would likely cause a cave-in in this area a minute later."
Korasu, perhaps aided by the mythic legacy stirring within him, takes preternatural note of the room around them. "Ah, this is fascinating friends! These glyphs seem to predate even Ancient Osirion and depict the two monsters- akatas, large tentacle maned creatures, that fell from the stars in the aftermath of Earthfall!" Looking around the room, he further cautions: "Be ware! Those columns look like they could topple or be toppled, though on us or an enemy, I am unsure."
Korasu can cast Druid / Ranger spells from his Vigilante levels ;) (I seriously love this build and fear that it will be nuked into orbit come April.) I'm fine with using as many charges are needed; it's why I spent the Prestige on it. GM, just let me know how many hours we spend.
When I get home tonight I'm double checking the sources, but here are the abilities I'm planning on taking. I decided to skip the "super damage build" to go with "what's thematic for a raven trickster?" Fleet Charge (Ex):
As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to move up to your speed. At any point during this movement, you can make a single melee or ranged attack at your highest attack bonus, adding your tier to the attack roll. This is in addition to any other attacks you make this round. Damage from this attack bypasses all damage reduction. Transfer Magic (Su):
Your mythic nature allows you to take magic from others as easily as you could take their gold. By expending one use of mythic power as a standard action, you can make a melee touch attack to transfer an active magical effect from a target creature to you. If you succeed, the highest-level effect on the target transfers to you (determine randomly if the target has multiple effects with the same level), ending the effect for the target and continuing it on you with the remaining duration as if you were the original target. You may end the effect on yourself as a standard action; this doesn't cause it to revert to the original target. If the transferred magic can't affect you (for example, if it doesn't affect creatures of your type), it ends immediately as if dispelled. You can't use this ability to transfer continuous bonuses from magic items, such as an armor bonus from bracers of armor. Mirror Dodge (Su): When hit by a melee or ranged attack, you can expend one use of mythic power as an immediate action to replace yourself with an illusory duplicate and teleport to any open square within 30 feet of your current position. You take no damage from this attack, which instead destroys your illusory duplicate (similar to mirror image). Using this ability requires a line of effect to the teleportation target square.
Korasu uses 6 charges off his wand of Endure Elements. At breakfast, rather than making a cooking fire, he sets a pan on a rock and watches as it causes the bacon to sizzle. "Ah, I knew that wand would be a good purchase."
"Ah, I could climb that wall... or we can go through that cleverly hidden door that is likely our destination."
Korasu spends time winding through the town, making careful and polite conversation under the guise of setting up his next caravan route. After sufficient time, he returns to the group to share what he found. "Ah, it appears that our quarry has perhaps a three day lead on us. The one known as Nefti is a flutist, perhaps a bard, whereas Kafar has traveled to herbalists and apothecaries, perhaps an assassin or alchemist? Both appear to have ties to the Aspsis Consortium, however, they may be looking for a new patron and are willing to sell their knowledge."
I've never understood the point of asking a question, qualifying it with what essentially amounts to, "I don't care what you say, you can't prove it to me," and then continuing to argue the point or ask for an answer. Particularly for no benefit. If you're not going to accept an answer from anyone short of Sean K. Reynolds or Jason Buhlman, why bother coming to the Rules Forum to ask in the first place? To add to the absurdity, you claim no one can even know the answer short of the author, but you're looking for an answer from Paizo employees. The wording for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting was first written in the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook sometime prior to the year 2000. It's been ported nearly verbatim from 3rd Ed. to 3.5 to Pathfinder. The same wording was even used in both the Star Wars RPG and the Revised Star Wars RPG from Wizards of the Coast. In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon, albeit at a -5 penalty. In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a -5 penalty. In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon, albeit at a -5 penalty. In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon, albeit at a -5 penalty. In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a -5 penalty. If you'll only accept an answer from one of the authors/developers who wrote the rule, you should head over to the Wizards of the Coast website and see if you can get a hold of Monte Cook, 'cause that rule wasn't written by Paizo The meaning of the rule, including the use of the word 'albeit' is quite clear. When you take the feat Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, you gain a second attack with the off-hand weapon, but you make that attack with a -5 penalty. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting then gives you a third attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties are NOT TWF penalties. TWF penalties are specifically called out (and are the ONLY TWF penalties in the game) in table 8-7: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties, on pg. 202 of the PFRPG CRB. If you want an official answer, just look at the table heading. By RAW, the ONLY penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting are explicitly listed on that table. Finally, Hero Lab is a piece of character creation/management software developed by Lone Wolf Development in conjunction with several RPG publishers, including WotC and Paizo. If you build a fighter with ITWF and taking one instance of Precision, the attacks are listed at a -2 penalty for fighting with two weapons and having the TWF feats; no penalty on the second off-hand attack other than the -2 Two-Weapon Fighting penalty. I did a quick build with 12 levels and Strength and Dex of 18. The attack progression is +14/+14/+9 with the main hand and +14/+14 with the off-hand. That is the closest thing you will ever get to an official answer. Pretty much everyone that's responded here seems to agree that's how it's supposed to work, and they don't see anything confusing about the rule. As others have pointed out, this is far from the first time someone has asked a question looking for some kind of affirmation that their (seeming) refusal to grasp an obviously simple rule's meaning is evidence the rule needs to be rewritten. As I said, if you want the author/developer who wrote the rule to weigh in, you're in the wrong place. Go look up Monte Cook. Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams; they're the ones who wrote the rule.
I've been running Skull & Shackles for my group since August 2016 (we only get to play a couple of hours a week, so it's taking us a long time). We're currently working through Tempest Rising, Part 2: At a Lady's Request. The party just arrived at the wreck of the Brine Banshee and swam down to check it out. After encountering and killing the sharks, Ormandar wild shaped into a great white shark and attacked. The party tried to keep away from his bite range, so I opted to have him continue casting spells rather than just chase the PCs around the wreck. Spell 1: Hydrophobia. Everyone passed their save except the crew's captain (male human bard [sea singer]). So, he took off for the surface. Spell 2: Baleful Polymorph on the party's divine caster (custom race undine/dhampir oracle of bones). He failed his fortitude save and turned into an electric eel, but passed his will save and maintained his "humanity." The rest of the party was able to kill Ormandar in three more rounds, or about the time the captain got back to the surface. The oracle then ordered his bloody skeleton (actually the Matron from Mancatcher Cove) to use signal flags found on the Brine Banshee to signal the captain what had happened, and to please drop a bucket for Pearl (the Matron's skeleton's new name) to catch and carry the eel. EDIT: I forgot to add that Qouli, the oracle, pointed out to the other players that if they manage to change him back to his normal form, he's going to be at least a little p*ssed to, and I quote, "be in a body with too many bones, again."
My party attempted to win Conchobhar over in the first session. The vanara rogue failed the check by about 12, immediately dropping Conchobhar's attitude to hostile. From that point on, the rogue made it his job to intentionally annoy Conchobhar at every opportunity, even planting stolen goods in Conchobhar's footlocker so he was beaten by Scourge. Of course, he found out the PCs were responsible for his punishment and hated them even more. During the mutiny (which happened before the storm that wrecked the Man's Promise), Jaundice Jape bullrushed Conchobhar over the ship's bow and the gnome bounced along the ship's hull, essentially keel-hauling himself. The eventual captain was angry with Jape for several weeks for "stealing his kill." Capt. Mez kept the foppish hat as a souvenir.
Or rolled a 1 on top of their 7 CHA :3Sounds like B's friend just attempted an intimidate check, not a diplomacy check.I think, overall, discouraging people from getting involved in parts of the game (i.e., a barbarian in negotiations) isn't ideal from a player perspective: "Okay, I've got a 7 Cha so rather than risk alienating every villager in this town, I'll go watch TV until you guys are done talking to the Council." The last line bugs me. Rolling a natural 1 on anything other than an attack or save is NOT an automatic failure. Too many GMs with insufficient rules acumen make this same mistake when they claim to be running, "a totally RAW game." No, you're not. If you tell everyone who rolls 1 on a skill check they auto fail, you're doing it wrong. Secondly, as most other posters have mentioned, applying a penalty to the Diplomancer's check or decreasing the target's attitude because someone failed an Aid Another roll on the check isn't RAW at all. Failing a Diplomacy check to change someone's attitude that fails by 5 or more results in target's attitude decreasing. Aid Another is NOT a roll to change an attitude, so the decrease was absolutely contrary to RAW. This ruling falls squarely into the houserule category, and while I'm not necessarily opposed to it from a realism perspective, if you want to play a 'strictly RAW game', you can't make this call.
I've been running S&S for a while now and have a few pointers. Rules Modifications: 1. I also believe any pirate-centric game requires guns (something I'm generally averse to using in PF games). As such, I made "simple" guns (muskets, pistols, blunderbusses, etc.) simple weapons and more complex guns martial, so (most) everyone can use some sort of gun without additional feats or penalties. Prices are also drastically reduced and pretty much every pirate and sailor carries a couple of basic or MW pistols. This is great for the setting, but hitting touch AC and doing x4 damage on crits can instakill PCs for the first few levels. To help counteract this, I also use the racial bonus HP rule from the PF Beta Playtest. It's helped keep everyone alive. 2. We also use wound thresholds from Unchained. It hasn't seriously affected anything yet, and has actually benefited the players several times by knocking a tough enemy down a little just as the party is starting to wear down. 3. We use the background skill system from Unchained, too. Because so much depends on the PCs being able to work as sailors and have various social interaction skills that aren't always useful in a "normal" PFRPG game, the background system allows the characters to have those skills without harming their ability to make adventuring skill rolls. I seriously recommend giving it a try. Additional Modules: I have 5 PCs in the group, and the challenges as presented in the books are a little underwhelming for a party of more than 4. So, to keep them at a reasonable level, I've added in a few extra adventures to allow them to gain additional experience without needing to increase individual encounter difficulties (much). 1. I have added all of the adventures from the Legendary Games Adventure Path Plug-Ins "Islands of Plunder" Series: "Spices and Flesh" between Books 1 and 2, "Tarin's Crown" between Books 2 and 3, "Raid on the Emperor's Hand" during the investigation portion of Book 3, and "Scourge of the Steaming Isle" between Books 3 and 4. 2. I'm adding modified and reduced portions of Paizo's "Plunder and Peril" module(s) during the "Piracy on the Fever Sea" portion of book 2. I increased the time to squib the Man's Promise to d3+1 weeks (because 8 days seemed like a ridiculous amount of time to completely change a ships superstructure), and had Capt. Peggsworthy offer to take the party to the Rum Punch festival as amends for barging in on them at Rickety's. 3. I'm adding 3 other Paizo modules, also: LB1 - "Tower of the Last Baron," moved from Andoran to Sargava to help reinforce the Cheliax invasion subplot and provide some non-piratey type adventure. LB2 - "The Treasure of Chimera Cove" to finish the LB1 story. And "From Shore to Sea," because one of the PCs is a gillman. spoiler:
I thought the aboleth connection in this module was too great an opportunity to pass up. I'm a little worried these additions may allow the PCs to progress beyond where they should be in later books, but I'm ok with adding a couple of additional class levels to the BBEGs in books 4-6. I'd like the PCs to be around level 19 when they face the Hurricane King, I think. However, I have too much AD&D 2nd Ed. in my history and I calculate XP exactly rather than use the more free-form method suggested in the rules. Things to Look Out For: 1. The Wormwood Mutiny can drag or become a drudgery. Specifically the grindylow dungeon crawl in Riptide Cove. I recommend either warning your players of this when they start, or heavily modify it. In our game, the PCs mutinied early and were already in control of the ship before they were shipwrecked on Bonewrack. I rolled randomly to see which NPC the grindylows snagged in addition to Sandara and got Rosie (whom the party loved and had made their new quartermaster). Be warned, following the scenario as written is likely to result in at least one of the NPCs captured by the grindylows drowning. It is difficult, if not downright impossible, for the PCs to save both once they're dropped into the water. I played through the scenario myself a couple of times before running it for my group, and only once was I able to save both (using the party's PCs). They were only able to save Sandara, and were pretty broken up when Rosie died. That added some nice reality and emotional development for the characters, but if your players aren't likely to handle that well, it could go poorly. 2. Because PCs are PCs, expect them to completely screw up the storyline in book 1. Like, seriously jack it up. I warned my players before we started that it was important they befriend NPCs (our group is generally a lot more focused on roll-playing rather than role-playing). Of course, they took this advice to heart, one of the PCs is a face bard focused on diplomacy and perform skills, and spent every free moment influencing NPCs. They never even explored the ship and barely recovered their gear from Grok. They literally converted every non-officer NPC (and three officers) to friendly before "Day 17: Unpleasant Duties." Conchobhar was the only NPC they didn't convert, actually making him actively hostile, which I've read other GMs indicate was especially hard to do. This led them to mutiny early, as mentioned above, and a pretty simple fight against Plugg, Scourge (who they nicknamed 'The Goodwife'), and the few sailors brought on from the Man's Promise's original crew. 3. The ship-to-ship rules suck. I'm currently in the process of deciding which alternate version to use instead. Start planning your conversion now, before you start the campaign. 4. Be ready for lots of unheroic actions. I was at GenCon the year this AP released and sat in on a Paizo seminar with Eric Mona and Lisa Stevens who suggested this AP was the first where GMs were told it was OK for players to be evil. Not required, but allowable. That was one of the many reasons I decided to run it, and it certainly doesn't hurt anything to have non-good PCs. However, it can present an entirely different set of issues for a GM when running a game for evil characters. No problem if you've done so before or decide to disallow evil characters. I just thought it worth mentioning. Sorry for the novel...but I hope at least some of this is useful to you! Enjoy the AP, it's a lot of fun!
When used that way the greataxe becomes a thrown improvised weapon, and would take a -8 without precise shot Please quote the specific rules text that says throwing a melee weapon changes the weapon's type to Ranged or Thrown. From a basic understanding of English, yes, that is absolutely true. And how many times have we found that basic English meanings aren't necessarily applicable to PFRPG rules? In PFRPG, "ranged weapon" is a specific list if tangible things, and greataxe does not appear on that list, ergo, a greataxe is not a "ranged weapon." Additionally, because the greataxe isn't a "ranged weapon," Precise Shot wouldn't apply to the attack anyway. For what it's worth, I agree that a character would take -8 to the attack roll when throwing a greataxe at a target engaged in melee, because RAI pretty clearly intends it to be so (and I would allow a character to apply Precise Shot, because I interpret "attacks with ranged weapons" to mean "attack rolls made from range"...but that's interpretation, not RAW). But the question is whether or not Precise Shot applies to ranged attacks made with spells that are not specifically identified as 'ranged weapons'. If someone is going to be so pedantic as to limit a feat's applicability because it specifically says "ranged weapon," then they have to apply the same pedantry to each instance that specific phrase is used. Hence my (somewhat ridiculous) example: The -4 penalty to attacking into melee at range ONLY applies to those items that are specifically identified as "ranged weapons."
If you can't use Precise Shot on spells requiring a ranged attack roll, then you don't suffer the -4 penalty to those attacks when your target is in melee. Of course, if you want to use the strict wording "ranged weapon," then if my barbarian chooses to throw his greataxe at an enemy in melee, he'll only suffer the -4 improvised weapon penalty, because a greataxe isn't a ranged weapon. So, it's no less effective to throw a greataxe at a character in melee than it is to shoot an arrow at the same character when you don't have Precise Shot. Additionaly, the Throw Anything feat muddies the water even more. It essentially states that anything you use to make a ranged attack is, by default, a ranged weapon (which actually makes pretty solid logical sense).
I think RAI is that both the penalty and the feat apply to spells requiring ranged attack rolls, but it isn't perfectly clear from the wording used.
But Steal only applies to in combat checks and has nothing to do with picking someone's pockets. You can only substitute your Steal CMB for Sleight of Hand if you take Graceful Steal. That's a pretty closet case, and not likely to be something Hulk (or a Colossal Red Dragon) would do. So, technically, yes, Hulk COULD, by taking a very specific feat that doesn't match his character build, be better at stealing things in combat than Black Widow. Maybe. And who says you can't pick someone's pocket in combat? I'm unaware of any limitation on Sleight of Hand that says you can't use it in combat. I'm pretty sure Black Widow can make herself invisible, and she's sneaky as f***. So, combat starts, she goes invisible on her initiative (isn't that a +20 to stealth?) and sneaks up behind the baddie with the item you want. Then she picks his pocket and takes it. It's another issue if baddie is holding it, but if he's holding it in combat, you can assume it's probably providing him/her a combat bonus. So if you've allowed the situation to get to the point where you have to enter combat, yes, the big dude is better able to take the item away. And if the item is in the baddie's pocket, the actual mechanics may allow the big dude a better modifier to Steal (assuming a bizarre/unusual feat choice for a "break all of the things tank") than the sneaky character. But it's still going to be a closet case. If someone's building a high strength, large+ size martial type and spends a feat on Graceful Steal on the off chance that the party will be in a situation where they have to take something from an enemy that their Neidermeyer isn't able to steal outside of combat, I'm going to question their character building acumen.
Unless the spell description specifically tells you otherwise, yes, you may absolutely cast spells in areas smaller than the spell's size and shape. Spells like glitterdust and grease will just fill up the squares that aren't blocked by the walls, e.g. grease fills a 10' square, so in a 5' wide corridor, you'll fill two squares with the grease (the remaining 2 squares will be "wasted"). Create pit specifically requires you to cast the spell in an area of sufficient size. So you can't cast it in a 5' wide corridor.
so you want me to assume what other classes it means? that sounds like RAI to me. You want to ignore the rules explanations that have been provided simply because there's a word-count limit in the rulebook? That sounds like Munchkining to me. Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. Emphasis mine. The rod allows you to "use the given feat", which means all of the applicable feat's rules apply to using the rod. See, when you use a feat, there are specific requirements and conditions set forth to govern its use. In the case of metamagic feats, spontaneous casters require additional time to use the feat(s). The rods allow you to "use the...feat". So you increase the casting time if you're a spontaneous caster. See how that works? Using the rod allows you to use the feat. To use the feat as a spontaneous caster, you increase the casting time. Use rod = use feat = increased spontaneous casting time. No clarification required unless you want to blatantly ignore the RAW because someone didn't spell out every single spontaneous caster class (particularly those that didn't exist yet) when the CRB was published. So, everyone who quoted feat rules for you was doing exactly the right thing, and you're willfully ignoring them because it doesn't fit your narrow and unreasonable reading of the metamagic rod rules. I can only conclude you're trying to limit the casting time increase to sorcerers so you can powergame your way to "victory" with a different spontaneous caster class. I, unlike MichaelCullen, won't give you a break for being new to the boards. Not when you're going to be belligerent with people who have kindly provided you multiple examples of why you're misreading the rule. Just because you disagree with CampinCarl (and the rulebook for that matter) doesn't make your point valid. If you choose to run a game where only sorcerers suffer increased casting time when using metamagic rods, so be it; it's your game and you're welcome to run it your way. Don't believe for a minute that you're following RAW, though. You will have dipped into houserule territory.
Female sorcerer casts See invisibility, turns around, sees fat guy in a fedora with a neck beard oreo (where they have three chins and only the outer two have the beard part).With see invisibility, you see the invisible stalker as it truly is Of course, at that point the invisible stalker, realizing he's been made, simply says, "Bon jour."
Apparently the full text of see invisibility is relevant:
With see invisibility, you see the invisible stalker as it truly is (or would be if it were ever truly visible).
Regarding see invisibility:
Emphasis mine. Nothing in the invisible stalker's description says it's immune to see invisibility, so you can see them this way.
Well, based on the "understanding" that there's no rule that reduces BAB by 5 on iterative attacks, only static numbers listed in the class tables, the prestige classes listed in the CRB do not allow for additional attacks as BAB increases. See, none of them list iteratives, only a static bonus. So, if you're a 6th level fighter and enter the duelist prestige class, at Fighter 6/Duelist 5, your total attacks are +11/+6. You'll max out at +16/+11 when you reach Fighter 6/Duelist 10. As a 20th level character, your total attack bonus will be +20/+15, and you can only gain additional attacks through two-weapon fighting or somehow adding a natural attack. Sorry. There's NO WRITTEN RULE that outlines how BAB and iterative attacks work, so you can only use the LISTED static number for your attack bonus (or add it to your current attack bonus). Of course, the introductory section of the CRB tells us: Base Attack Bonus: ...When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action - see Chapter 8). So we go to Chapter 8 where we find: Full Attack: If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Chapter 3),... Then we head to Chapter 3 and look for "Base Attack Bonus"...and we can't find it listed. Check the Index...nothing. So, where is this rule in Chapter 3. Oh, I found it. It's in the class tables for each class, where it's listed as a static number. Meaning THAT is the written rule. BAB progresses through a specific sequence in which each iterative is 5 lower than the previous. If someone wants to willfully misread this rule to say that by replacing a non-full BAB class's BAB with level, then you simply substitute their level for the listed BAB. In the Oracle's case as provided, the BAB would go from +6/+1 to +8 ONLY. Because the listed BAB is +6/+1, not BAB +6 and BAB +1. In this example, +6/+1 becomes +8 period; there is no iterative because the iterative is listed as a specific value rather than a separate BAB (+6/+1). Talk about a non-issue...
There are a couple of things I don't understand in this discussion from the "initiative changes mid-combat due to effects, etc" camp. 1. Everyone of you have stated at least once (often multiple times) that (essentially) the initiative penalties apply, but not bonuses. 2. Everyone of you are blatantly ignoring the word CHECK in the spells/abilities/conditions that modify "initiative." In response to Point 1: Logically, if a penalty can lower a character's initiative mid-combat, then a bonus can increase a character's initiative mid-combat. Therefore, if in the combat I act on 15 and enemy A acts on 14, and if I then increase enemy A's initiative by +2 or more, enemy A loses its action this round. If I can change its initiative to 12, then I can also change it to 16. Since 16 has already happened, ENEMY A LOSES ITS TURN. You absolutely CANNOT have it one way and not the other. Therefore, in a party with 2 casters, all we need to do is keep changing enemy initiative to higher and lower values and we can totally prevent them from ever acting. Game over. Enemies act on 14 which I change to 16 at initiative 15, then allied caster at 13 changes it back to 14. Wash, rinse, repeat. Guess I know what to spend all of my gold on as a caster: Wands to modify initiative. In response to point 2: You are ignoring the word check. Reread that. Now read it again. And a final time. Any ability/spell/feat/etc that affects an initiative check ONLY affects the initiative check. Period. If you cast a spell on an enemy that applies a -2 penalty to initiative checks AFTER initiative has been rolled, the spell does NOT modify that enemy's position in the initiative order. The check is over. IF you have a rule/spell/ability/feat/etc that specifies it modifies a character's initiative rather than its initiative check, you may be able to make an argument that you can change that character's position within the initiative sequence established at the beginning of the round.
Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values. It isn't "state sanctioned discrimination" though; it's allowing people to do as they please with their private property. If I own a business and choose to be a bigoted douche bag, that's my choice. It doesn't make me right. No one is forced to do business with the bigots either. If you dislike their stance on an issue, you're more than welcome to take your business elsewhere. If enough people agree with you, the bigots will run out of customers and they will either be forced to change their policies or they will go out of business. That's how the free market works.
At the time Greyhawk and Faerun were developed, a majority of Americans were opposed to the idea of interracial marriage. I don't know that the majority of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage when Greyhawk and Faerun were developed. Late 1970s through the early 1980s? While I realize it wasn't nearly as widely accepted then as it is today, I find the claim that "the majority of Americans were opposed to [it]" to be an exaggeration. At the time Tolkien was writing, racial discrimination was even more widely accepted among his intended (white) audience. The notion of "light-skin is Good, dark skin is Evil" seemed normal to Tolkien's contemporaries. With that in mind, it isn't surprising that the same racial prejudices were deemed 'correct' by his work. I'm not sure where this is found in Tolkien's work. There are no dark-skinned elves in Tolkien's writings, and the only elves referred to as "dark elves" are those elves that never made the journey west towards Valinor. Orcs were sometimes described as "black," but I don't believe it was ever implied that ALL orcs had black skin. (Black blood, yes; I guess that may tint their skin?) I suppose he did describe the Southrons and Easterlings as "swarthy," but I don't believe there was ever any indication that they were inherently evil. In fact, Faramir wonders about one of the dead Harradrim after the ambush in Ithilien, asking if the dead man was evil or what violence or threats lead him on the long road to Mordor. If Tolkien was working to reinforce some perceived standard that dark-skin=Evil, he wouldn't have had one of the central characters questioning that exact notion so openly. All that being said, yes, one can most certainly play a non-evil Drow in PFRPG. I wonder if OP is looking for a Noble Drow or a "normal" Drow? The GM should disallow a Noble Drow regardless of alignment.
Unfortunately for those of you claiming that regenerating creatures can starve to death (I'm not replying to all of those posts, though I specifically like Am I the Only One's? comment about cheese), are totally ignoring the rules. What the rules are meant to emulate is irrelevant. It isn't cheese to use them the way they're written. If you choose to allow creatures with regeneration to die in your games, so be it. That's you're choice. I have no issue with you doing that. I'll play the game the way I want to, too. To avoid quoting and re-quoting the text, here are the basics: If a creature has regeneration it:
That's pretty much it. Since everyone seems to jump on the troll comment because of the fluff line in Classic Monsters Revisited, I won't use specific creature types. I used one everyone knows, and that everyone knows has regeneration, for simplicity's sake. Apparently some people can't understand that, though. (And they accuse ME of cheesing the rules...) So, let's call the creature with regeneration creature X. It normally has to eat, sleep, drink, and breathe. One final point that everyone seems to be ignoring: Each creature with regeneration has in its stat block THE METHOD OF MAKING ITS REGENERATION CEASE FUNCTIONING. Allow that to sink in for a moment or two before continuing. Read through the caps section, again. And a third time. Now, continue. Creature X has this line in its stat block: Regeneration 10 (acid and force). That means the Creature X's regeneration CEASES FUNCTIONING on the round following it taking any amount of damage from acid or force. At all other times, regardless of situation or circumstance, environmental conditions or celestial alignment, Creature X's regeneration is FUNCTIONING (i.e. it CANNOT DIE). Now, Creature X has had a rough day. He ran into some adventurers and they took him to -30 hp. He's unconscious. The adventurers have no acid or force damage potential. What do they do? They walk away, because they can't do a damn thing to stop Creature X from regenerating. They can even chop it up into little bitty pieces and scatter them over the next 6 miles. Irrelevant. Creature X will regrow into a single being from ONE of those pieces. The rest disappear. Now, enter player Y who believes that if a creature with regeneration suffocates, it dies. Player Y cuts out Creature X's lungs. Problem solved. The creature can't breathe, so it is dead. So, all you have to do to kill ANY creature with regeneration is subdue it, cut out its lungs, and it can't regenerate. And before any of you say, "But it didn't die from suffocation", please rethink your response. At -30 hp, Creature X is unconscious, ie, still breathing. If you cut out it's lungs, it can't breathe, therefore it begins to suffocate. It has three rounds. Don't like that? Stick its head in a barrel of water. Since it's unconscious and still breathing, it inhales water, resulting in triggering the drowning (ie, suffocation) rules. Problem solved. No acid or force necessary. All regeneration can be overcome with a sap and a bucket of water. Just knock it out and drown it. How many of you believe that will actually work? Anyone? Now, the (mostly) tongue in cheek sap and bucket of water example could be an interesting way to keep the regenerating creature out of action. Deal enough non-lethal damage, and ZERO lethal damage, to make it fall unconscious, stick it's head in water and wait for it to drown. It has then, essentially, taken it's full hp+1 in damage from suffocation. It can't regenerate that damage. It will remain unconscious until someone or something heals that specific damage, or it rests long enough to heal. And NONE of that damage will heal with regeneration. Ever. Until it rests enough to recover those lost hp, it will not recover its full hp with regeneration. Other damage it takes will regenerate, but not the suffocation damage. Furthermore, if you hit it with a single point of acid damage after it drowns, IT WILL DIE. Because it's regeneration STOPS FUNCTIONING the round after it takes that acid damage, it is at negative hp, so it dies. This goes for the other two, also. Sovereign glue Creature X's mouth shut so it can no longer eat. It will, eventually, fall unconscious from thirst or starvation. It will continue to descend into negative hp. Until you hit it with acid or force, its regeneration is STILL FUNCTIONING, and it CANNOT DIE. That's not twisting the rules to some cheesey end. That's called reading the rules and being able to understand them.
As you see its one ability with ALOT of flexibility for a smart player. Worse it often requires house rules or head ache cases. Either way I think it requires some errata. A lot of versatility...none of it game breaking. That's been my point the entire discussion. I don't see it requiring any house rules or creating any more headaches than a smart player creates normally. I also see no need for errata. The ability is spelled out pretty clearly. It does exactly what it says it does. No need to errata something that makes perfect sense. If you as GM can't handle the situations this ability presents, I suggest you work on stepping up your GM game. There's nothing terribly difficult about handling this ability. Personally as a DM I try to reward smart/creative play. As do I. Smart/creative play is fantastic, and the ability mentioned here lends itself to all sorts of creative uses. I'm all for players using it...I'm all for players finding fun ways to use it. You seem to misunderstand what I said. As opposed to lording over others. I would never gun after a PC as you would. I've never "gunned for a PC" in my life, and I've GMed for some super munchkins. Nor did I say that I would. What I did say was, if a player is trying to game the system with this ability (or any ability for that matter), then they have to expect the NPCs to do the same thing. That's not "gunning for a PC," that's playing the game on your players' level. My players understand that I can game the system as well as, or better than, they can. Using an ability creatively isn't gaming the system, though. Manipulating an ability or rule to give yourself an unfair/unintended advantage is gaming the system. There's a huge difference between the two. No penalties for creativity; substantial penalties for gaming the system. I'm also a big fan of the "lording over others" crack. Because using the PC's tactics against him/her is "lording over" them. I think you may need to look up the meaning of that cliche. I would be more inclined to gun after clerics with the travel/liberation/luck domain candy constants than those who look beyond the optimization guides for situational coolness and saving others at cost. But, you'd NEVER gun for a PC "as I would"... Outstanding contradiction.
There are two separate thoughts or situations described in this ability. If we examine them individually the RAI and RAW are pretty clear. "...you heal damage instead of taking damage from channeled negative energy." How can any character take damage from channeled negative energy?
Therefore, a living cleric of 8th level or higher, with the Death Domain, when targeted to take damage from negative energy will heal instead. That is EXACTLY what the first sentence states. "If the channeled negative energy targets undead, you heal damage just like undead in the area." How can undead be target by negative energy?
Death's Embrace causes the living cleric of 8th level or higher with the Death Domain to heal damage just like the undead. Quite simply, Death's Embrace allows them to heal with both applications of channeled NE. Pretty straightforward. I don't see the confusion with this ability. Yes, it can be powerful in very odd situation. It allows an evil cleric to heal himself two different ways; by channeling NE to harm living OR by channeling NE to heal undead. If, for some odd reason, a cleric channeling positive energy to heal living and chose NOT to exclude the cleric with the Death's Embrace ability, that cleric would heal, too. However, the only way to really "break" this ability would be to have two clerics over 8th level in the party with the Death Domain, one of whom channels PE and one who channels NE. Then, the two of them could heal each other with both PE and NE, and heal their party members with PE.
You only get the 1.5x Strength bonus if you're actually wielding a 2H weapon with 2 hands. If you have some ability that allows you to use a 2H weapon with only one hand, you only apply your strength bonus. If you're using a 2H weapon in each hand, you'd only add 1/2 your strength bonus to damage with that weapon. Not to mention all the crazy penalties for using a 2H weapon in your off hand. I can't think of any situation where this would gain you anything.
Imagine if the feature were called something more appropriate...like back stabbing. I wonder if anyone's ever thought of that? ;-)
How much damage does the average pre-adolescent deal? 1d8? I'd recommend hitting them with a Greater Magic Weapon (or would that be Greater Magic Fang...are kids natural weapons?) so they're +4 Throwing Children...maybe +3 Throwing Returning Children. Yes, I realize you can't add special abilities with Greater Magic Weapon...but it'd be fun, right? EDIT: 1d8+3+Strength and you can throw them each round!
Initiative is a fairly non-specific way to keep track of time in the confusion of combat. If you cast a spell with a specific duration, there's no reason per RAW that you HAVE to roll initiative (though rolling initiative will make it easier for everyone to keep track of time passed). If you summon a load of beasties into a room ASSUMING there are baddies there to be handled, then you would roll initiative for them (summons and baddies) after their surprise round standard action(s). EXAMPLE 1: Summoner: I cast summon monster 1 in that room up ahead.
EXAMPLE 2: Summoner: I cast summon monster 1 in that room up ahead.
In the second example there's NO REASON AT ALL to roll initiative...the GM just keeps track of how long it takes you to do things. As long as you remember the spell durations begin as soon as you FINISH casting the spell, there is no RAW requirement that you roll initiative. It all becomes GM interpretation then.
A couple of points... 1. I agree that drinking blood from a freshly slain corpse may be Chaotic. However, a paladin does NOT lose his paladin-hood for chaotic acts. Only evil ones. Just because a paladin is Lawful Good, he is perfectly free to engage in chaotic acts from time to time. It does NOT affect his paladinhood...I think too many of you are remembering 2nd ed paladins. This is Pathfinder, people. 2. If you replace "drink blood" with "necrophilia" the answer to all the questions in my post will be the same. Because we're dealing with an object, not a living, breathing, being. Also if you replace "drink blood" with "urinate on", "draw obscene pictures on", "play charades with", or "sing to". You are acting upon an object, without alignment, sub-type, or feelings. It is not the same as desecrating an object consecrated to a particular deity, good or evil. No one has consecrated this corpse to anything. It's a pile of protein, calcium, and other assorted goo. 3. Resurrection has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. In the RAW, you can cast True Res on a pile of dust and bones and re-create the deceased's body. If you've done something to the corpse, it doesn't matter. The same goes for Resurrection. That being the case, I would argue that in a society where these feats are possible, the general public would care LESS about what you did to a corpse. Who cares what happened to Bob the Fighter after he died...we'll just pony up the cash to have him brought back good as new. Also, in a society where the presence of gods isn't some abstract philosophical debate, people are going to care less about the remains of the deceased because they already KNOW where the immortal soul rests. The body is just a dwelling, not the person. 4. The corpse is an object. I feel the need to reiterate this. It makes no difference that some cultures/societies view it differently. Some societies in Pathfinder probably believe certain animals are sacred and killing them is evil, or that touching a corpse is taboo, or that washing in certain streams is forbidden. Does that make those actions Evil (EDIT) and therefore a breach of a paladin's code resulting in loss of standing? Vehemently, NO. Because Good and Evil are NOT determined by mortals, but rather by higher, universal, principles. The litmus test for those principles has been neatly handed to us on page 166 of the PFRPG Core Rulebook. By that test, drinking blood is NOT evil.
Drinking blood is not evil. Western Civilization mores and morality aside, we need to look at this from a purely fictional standpoint, as it's based in the PFRPG. "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters debase of destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." (PFRPG Core Rulebook, pg 166) So, let's ask questions about drinking blood FROM AN ALREADY DEAD SOURCE (because this is the only blood acceptable based on the Bloodline Power description) based on this description of "Good" from the PFRPG Core Rulebook. Q1: "Does drinking blood debase or destroy innocent life?"
Q2: "Does drinking blood show disrespect for life?"
Q3: "Does drinking blood show a lack of concern for the dignity of sentient beings?"
Q4: "Is drinking blood a selfish act that harms others?"
Q5: "Does drinking blood hurt, oppress, or kill others?"
Q6: "Does drinking blood show lack of compassion for others?"
Q7: "Does drinking blood show a willingness to kill for sport or out of a sense of duty to an evil deity or master?"
So, based on these questions, the only real information we have on what is "Good" in the PFRPG, we can conclude that drinking blood is NOT inherently evil. The only caveat I see is if by drinking this blood you show lack of compassion towards some spectator's sensibilities.
That's a complete fallacy. Just because you dump charisma, an in-game abstract, you are not limited in your rp ability--an out of game experience. If I'm playing a character with a dumped charisma, I can easily rp him as abrasive or otherwise socially awkward. You don't have to look at your character sheet and say, "Well, my Charisma is only 8, I guess I don't have any chance of role-playing this guy." |
