Korwynne's page

I have decided to go with a negative energy cleric, am level 3, and am trying to decide how to proceed in the future.

So far, he's been effective with sneak/obscuring mist/channel negative. He has also the Command Undead feat. Much to the party's dismay, he has not chosen Selective Channel (yet).

I built him with a high dex and low str, so he's good with a crossbow or at range, but not so great hand-to-hand. He tries to use negative energy channel when first entering a fight, directly after using obscuring mist to 'outline' the deadliness. Sneak and darkvision have been helpful here (being a half-orc). I've been wondering lately if I should possibly also take a rank in rogue...

Reasons for it:
1) Our party doesn't have a rogue,
2) With undead at his command, it could create flanking opportunities,
3) Invisibility + sneak can be very effective for this character.

Reasons not for it:
1) I'd delay my cleric progression,
2) I can't see any use for backstab, unless I can use it with touch-melee combat and cause wounds spells.

So primarily I'm curious on your thoughts about rogueing out... followed by any additional thoughts on progression for this build.

Thanks in advance!

I have decided to go with a negative energy cleric, am level 3, and am trying to decide how to proceed in the future.

So far, he's been effective with sneak/obscuring mist/channel negative. He has also the Command Undead feat. Much to the party's dismay, he has not chosen Selective Channel (yet).

I built him with a high dex and low str, so he's good with a crossbow or at range, but not so great hand-to-hand. He tries to use negative energy channel when first entering a fight, directly after using obscuring mist to 'outline' the deadliness. Sneak and darkvision have been helpful here (being a half-orc). I've been wondering lately if I should possibly also take a rank in rogue...

Reasons for it:
1) Our party doesn't have a rogue,
2) With undead at his command, it could create flanking opportunities,
3) Invisibility + sneak can be very effective for this character.

Reasons not for it:
1) I'd delay my cleric progression,
2) I can't see any use for backstab, unless I can use it with touch-melee combat and cause wounds spells.

So primarily I'm curious on your thoughts about rogueing out... followed by any additional thoughts on progression for this build.

Thanks in advance!

I have decided to go with a negative energy cleric, am level 3, and am trying to decide how to proceed in the future.

So far, he's been effective with sneak/obscuring mist/channel negative. He has also the Command Undead feat. Much to the party's dismay, he has not chosen Selective Channel (yet).

I built him with a high dex and low str, so he's good with a crossbow or at range, but not so great hand-to-hand. He tries to use negative energy channel when first entering a fight, directly after using obscuring mist to 'outline' the deadliness. Sneak and darkvision have been helpful here (being a half-orc). I've been wondering lately if I should possibly also take a rank in rogue...

Reasons for it:
1) Our party doesn't have a rogue,
2) With undead at his command, it could create flanking opportunities,
3) Invisibility + sneak can be very effective for this character.

Reasons not for it:
1) I'd delay my cleric progression,
2) I can't see any use for backstab, unless I can use it with touch-melee combat and cause wounds spells.

So primarily I'm curious on your thoughts about rogueing out... followed by any additional thoughts on progression for this build.

Thanks in advance!

For a cursed longsword, the description points out the user must weild the sword over other chosen weapons. If a zombie is ordered to pick up a cursed weapon, would they too be compelled to use it? Undead traits say zombies are immune to certain mid-affecting magic, including compulsions. I can't really tell what magic a cursed item uses. Other than curse effects associated with removing or dropping certain cursed items, would zombies be immune to specific negative affects of cursed items? For purposes of discussion, how would a zombie handle a -2 longsword? Need to use it over other weapons, per the description? Still able to specifically not weild any weapon and rely on their own body slam attack, while keeping it in inventory?

I guess my gut reaction would be, unless instructed to weild a weapon, the zombie would just keep it sheathed. If instructed by an undead command to weild, the sword would wind up the weapon they happen to be using. Is that a fair interpretation?

If two characters are side by side in battle - one wants to move to the other's square and vice versa. Neither has the "swap places (teamwork)" feat. Would they be able to trade places via sacrificing initiative and taking 5-foot steps? I know with movement you need to move to an unoccupied square, but with a readied or delayed action could the movement be considered synchronized such that they aren't landing in occupied squares?

I know of the swap places feat - I don't want to minimize the value of this, and I don't think I am by allowing a coordinated trade positions. The way I see it, if a character is willing to give up place in initiative and use their movement, they should be able to coordinate with an ally. With swap places, the true gain is in getting that free immediate action instead of having to wait and also sacrifice movement.

I'd like to get thoughts on this. It seems minor, but want to be fair. In a game I'm running, there was debate about two NPCs attempting to trade places in this way. In the end, I just flipped one of the two into an adjacent unoccupied square. It was of minor consequence. Later on however, PCs or enemies, I think if a front line and second line of fighters want to switch places during combat via coordinated 5 foot steps, I'd like to allow it if the rules don't flat out contradict it.

My latest thought:

A spellcaster passes a stealth check to enter a room - remaining at the edges of a room and unnoticed by an enemy (the caster is either invisible or in darkness).

The caster then wants to cast "obscuring mist" - a non-offensive spell that creates a mist that emanates from the caster's position. This is a standard action and the PC has silent spell, but does not have quicken spell as a feat.

For casting the spell, should the caster roll another stealth check? If so, what modifier would apply?

For the enemy, the mist would be a clearly visible action. Would they notice it at the onset and therefore get any bonuses in pinpointing the caster's location?

Thanks in advance!

An underwater-breathing PC grapples a high-level NPC in the ocean. In my game, I've allowed a 3rd dimension to the water (in that this PC can drag the grappled creature 'down' as a move action).

I have a couple questions, and would appreciate your thoughts:

1) There are no rules in RAW about swimming vertically 'down'. The player really wants to drag enemies as far down as he can while maintaining the grapple. The thought would be that he has swim speed, and it would make for a lot more efficient drowning if the bad guy takes more than 1 round to get to the surface. I am employing max depth rules- in the latest situation, he'd bottom out at 50' of water. For the swim ability (without a swim speed), the rules identify that you can move at 1/4 speed as a standard move action. I'd argue that a player should be able to swim 'up' faster than this (allowing the drownee to surface from a 50' depth in 2 to 3 rounds instead of 6 to 10 rounds). Is that a reasonable approach?

2) Per the rules on moving a creature while grappled:
"If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus." Is underwater (threat of drowning) a hazardous location? Would the opposing creature then get -2 (dex mod) and a +4 (hazardous modifier) every round? These would both apply to the escape artist check?

3) Are there penalties to attempting to grapple/maintain grapples underwater? What about if this became a pin attempt?

Thanks!

I'm new to GM'ing and I tossed a cursed ring into the adventure. Now I'm trying to identify the best way to play it out. A party member was rewarded with a ring of clumsiness after a large battle in which he was poisoned and took massive damage (including Str damage as well).

The ring was identified by a party member as a ring of feather fall (passed the DC, but not by more than 10).

The player put the ring on. Assuming they catch no notion of trickery around how they acquired the ring in the first place...

1) Regarding the ring description, there's no mention of how to take the ring off. Once they figure out the damage is related to the ring, can they simply discard it? It seems like a lot of other cursed items specifically say "cannot be removed until..." or "need to cast remove curse to remove the item..." This item just states the affect and leaves it at that. On the flip side, there is a passage under cursed items that states: "While some cursed items can be simply be discarded, others force a compulsion on the user to keep them. Others reappear even if discarded or are impossible to throw away. A remove curse spell can allow the item to be discarded, but the curse reasserts itself if the item is used again."

If the item can simply be discarded, once identified...
2) The cursed item is the difference between two-weapon fighting and really clumsy non-two weapon proficient fighting for this character. Is it an easy lift to at least notice something is off the next fight they get into? Or the next Dex-based skill check? Would I just give an odds?

If the item cannot be discarded and a remove curse is used...
3) This is a specific cursed item, that does both feather fall, and -4 to dex and 20% arcane spell failure. Some items, when remove curse is cast, will revert to the intended original magical item from which the item was crafted. In the text for the remove curse spell, it states if the DC is met, the curse is removed (except for cursed shields, weapons, and suits of armor). By "curse is removed", does that
a) mean the wearer can remove the cursed item this round, or
b) mean the cursed item is no longer cursed, and now is a ring of feather fall, or
c) mean that the cursed item is no longer cursed and is now a ring with no magical properties at all?

I think the way I want to play it is:
1) The PC knows the ring is cursed. I can't imagine what losing 4 points to an ability score would actually feel like, but I can't imagine not feeling *something*. Also, the NPCs that provided the ring are still around and have never been allies of the group. If not immediate, a series of sense motive checks should identify the curse in relatively short time... right?

2) The ring cannot be removed. If I'm going to let the dex damage be noticed (immediately), it doesn't make sense that the ring can simply be discarded. Per the rules of removing cursed items, it can either force a compulsion, or the ring keeps coming back, or it's impossible to throw away, or it's easy to throw away... It seems like this leaves a little discretion in crafting cursed items for a gaming situation. When I initially rolled for the ring in setting up the game and read the description, I assumed specified cursed items were of a more devious nature than common cursed items.

3) When remove curse is cast successfully, I'll allow the curse to be removed, transforming the ring into a ring of feather fall.

That isn't quite RAW, but I feel like I'm not a good enough GM to play out "figuring out the ring is cursed" without a lot of meta-gaming taking place. I'd love to hear other takes or feedback around this item. It seems like the description of either "specified cursed items", this specific ring's description, or the "remove curse" spell, could've used a little more explanation.

The way I read the rules as written:
1) The ring is not initially identifiable.

2) Once identified as causing the effect, it can be removed and discarded at the will of the player.

3) Remove curse = the curse is completely removed, transforming the ring into simply a ring of feather fall...

... although I couldn't really tell if the ring could also just be a cursed item, in which case remove curse would allow it to be removed, but it'd pass on the same curse if it's ever worn again. Getting back to the remove curse spell, it seems fairly limiting that ALL items EXCEPT armor, shields, and weapons would be de-cursed with 1 successful remove spell.

Thanks in advance - I look forward to any feedback or similar experiences with cursed loot as GMs or as PCs.

Spell Penetration says: "Gain a +2 bonus on caster level checks (1d20 + caster level) made to overcome a creature's spell resistance."

If someone were to have a cursed item where the save when casting "remove curse" is 10 + caster level of that item, would spell penetration help?

If not, is there any feat that would assist in the situation where a person is looking to reduce the roll necessary to remove cursed items?

I'm setting up a new character/familiar and have a couple questions:

1) Can a witch get a Thrush at 1st level? It seems like it should be an option... Similar to a raven, except +3 diplomacy instead of +3 appraise.

2) With a thrush, how do I calculate the attack?
Step 1 - use the master's BAB (+0)
Step 2 - according to the Wizard section of Core, a familiar's attack will be the highest of STR and DEX modifiers. Thrush has STR = 1 (-5) and DEX = 15 (+2). Do I use the dex?
Step 3 - Thrush = size diminutive, so do I also get a +4 on the attack for size bonus?

I guess my concerns are around Step 2, where it doesn't specifically say the new familiar has weapon finesse with his natural weapon (his beak), and his build actually shows a -1 for attacks (+0-5+4).

And secondly, in the Wizard portion of Core, it doesn't state specifically anything about using or not using size modifier on attacks.

And finally, for size dim. creatures, if the thrush attacks:
a) at level 3 will I be able to use the same stats for its natural attack as I'd use for delivering a touch attack? Would it still be against the opponent's touch AC? I saw once a comment about creature's natural attacks having to go against regular, not touch, AC when delivering a spell, but couldn't find the reference.

b) for a size dim. creature, if it attacks, it has to enter the enemy's square; so does this mean, the enemy would always get an attack of opportunity against it? Entering and leaving the square?

Thanks in advance!