Search Posts
Willing to trade info on games (et me know fi you find something, I'll do the same). I'm in a similar situation, moved to San Jose a year or so ago, and still haven't found a solid group to get a game with. Pretty open to game system, though would definitely prefer Pathfinder or 3.5. Willing to travel, but would prefer to stay semi-local. I have experience as a GM, but would prefer to play, at least while getting to know a new group.
I, unfortunately, cannot make this Friday. It's just a previous commitment for that specific day, so should not affect my involvement thereafter. Saturday's should work fine for me as well. Let me know if I would still be able to participate since I can't make the initial meetup. Here is my contact info : conor@mac.com
I moved down to San Jose in September 2011 (from Portland), and have been running into similar difficulties finding a group. Please keep me in the loop with any leads you come across, I will do the same. I think I have a similar mindset to you:
Sorry for the thread necromancy, but something similar came up for my weekly group. A custom race of giants with 4 arms (they are imports from Palladium, called Rahu-men, but that is of no real impact to the question), the situation came up with one of them trying to mix weapons and natural attacks (a clear use of multi-attack). I couldn't find clear-cut RAW rulings, but here is what I decided, and I would be interested in people's thoughts. 4x weapons (natural or one-handed):
2x two-handed weapons
Mixed, 1x two-handed weapon, 2x natural or one-handed weapons
I'm sure you are getting a ton of "where is my APG" requests, and sadly this is another. This is the first shipment of my first subscription, so I just want to make sure there is nothing on my end that's holding it up. Any info that you can provide is greatly appreciated! :-) P.S. Again, nothing new, but getting access to the PDF would be fine if the physical copy has to be delayed.
There is Amazing Stories out on Fourth Plain, but they have hardly the selection that the stores in Portland do. I generally end up either ordering from Paizo, Amazon, or driving down to Bridgetown to get my gaming stoof. BTW, welcome to the area. Shoot me an email if you are looking for a game, I have a spot or two in the game I run, and am looking to form up a seporate group for me to be a player in, too. Goblin's Email: conor@mac.com
Otherwise, *for me*, taking Bard to 8+ trying to fill the melee-ist role just doesn´t add up... Sure, you can activate your Bard abilities more easily/simultaneously, but a full Bard can make use of that much better than a wanna-be melee-ist. Not to mention the issue of splitting stats between STR/DEX/CON and CHA, while for most of your career you don´t really have the class abilities to make the most of S/D/C yet the abilities you do have have CHA-determined DC´s. Personally, I always considered the DD to be another version of the EK gish. With EKs being the more wizardy (i.e. practiced, tutored, educated, trained) and DD being the more sorcerery (i.e. more innate, inherited, spontaneous, etc.). The best DD builds I seen, like the better EK builds, focus on melee capabilities that use their casting for self-buffs or utility. Because of this view, I think Bards, in particular, really suffer when going into DD. You have to delay entry into the PrC in order to pick up essential abilities like starting a performance as a move, and you end up never really progressing out of the +2 or +3 buff bot that the bard is stuck being at low levels. That said, dipping into Bard instead of Sorc to qualify offers a lot of extra flavor, if a less beneficial spell list, while still granting 90% of the bloodline crunch of the sorcerer (kinda like taking Barb or Pally to get into EK and still getting fighter feats). The best mechanically sound pure Bard DD (though I know pure mechanics isn't the only guiding premise here), would likely be a version of Treantmonk's controller bard (the Str buffs from DD will sync nicely with the trip attacks). Further, I would likely push entering DD out until picking up Dirge (which is a big part of the build). But, if I were to roll up a pure bard DD, I don't know if I could stop myself being a Kobald and singing "Doom do do dooom, doomity doom" at the table. :-)
I would have liked if each session was specifically named/numbered. I also think I would have liked to have seen an hour break between official game sessions (maybe 8a-1p, 2p-7p, 8p-1a?). I also agree with Ryan about the sessions. The chairs in evergreen were horrible (at least for me) to sit in for hours on end. I also hate to say it, but the sessions ended up being more watered down then I expected. Most were just Q&A sessions, and the topics greatly meandered from their originally planned topic.
Full Plate has a max Dex bonus of +1, so unless it's Mithral, you're AC is actually 2 lowers, as you can only add +1 from Dex. He said he was a Fighter, so I assume he is taking the bonus Max Dex adjustment from Armor Training. I am trying to figure out how to boost my armor without having a shield. I already have full plate +3, ring of protection +2, Amulet of natural armor+2, dex +3. So ac is 29, not so great to a fighter at 10th level. one rule that I am unclear of is would spells like shield of faith or protection from evil stack with the ring of protection (deflection bonus). Could someone please explain how deflection bonuses add and how I could get dodge bonuses without actually taking the dodge feat? It all has to do with bonus type. Effectively, the only AC bonus that stacks is a Dodge bonus. Spells that grant a Deflection bonus (like Protection from Evil) would not stack with the Deflection bonus granted by a Ring of Protection. Other then the Insight bonus granted by Ioun Stones (if you don't want it floating over your head, you could always get a Wayfinder, the next obvious AC bonus for you would be a Shield bonus. The simplest way for you to get such, without an actual Shield, would be the Shield spell (via an item and UMD), a Ring of Force Shield, or an Animated Shield. There is also an obscure AC bonus, either Sacred or Profane, that's referenced in the footnote of the Magic Item Creation Table, but there are no existing items (that I know of), that grants them, so you would need a custom crafted item.
I think that successful DD builds are based around either Monk or Barbarian, with just enough Sorceror or Bard to qualify. The stat bonuses from DD offset the lost class benefits of Monk or Barb, and the limited casting progression you gain provides various self-buffs. I've played a Monk 4, Sorc 1, DD X for a while, and think it's a very successful build. Alter Self, Enlarge Person, Mage Armor, & Shocking Grasp are all highly beneficial to the build (especially with the Trait to buff you effective caster level), and easily accessible even at low caster level. Not to mention, even with a limited caster level, it opens up access to various wands, scrolls, etc.
Wouldn't that be incredibly frustrating to the player, coming up with an effect that works, only to see it suddenly not work the same next time they use it? My players know I reward creative thinking. Further, I wasn't saying that repeated uses of it wouldn't work, I was saying repeated questionable uses (like the smock cloud the OP mentions) are more likely to get approval when they are new and unique ideas. Essentially, I'm willing to let creativity trump game mechanics.
Clothes are NOT AC 0 armor. If they were, then monk's wouldn't get their class bonuses whenever they were wearing clothes. There are very game-mechanic-specific effects granted to "armor" that are not granted to "clothes". An Armored Kilt grants 0% spell failure, and 0 ACP, so already kinda mimics the idea of enchantable armor that is light enough to not impact the mechanics of the player. If the max dex of +6 on the Armored Kilt, or the 5% spell fail chance on Padded, are a problem for you, then I likely suggest house ruling in a new kind of armor, rather then considering generic clothes as armor. The other viable options, as many others have suggested, would be to just make a robe or vest that grants a force-based armor bonus to AC, ala Bracers of Armor.
Silent Image is one of those spells where you never know if something is going to work when you cast it. That is both a plus and a minus. From a Player's perspective, it's open-ended enough to allow for any myriad of effects. That flexibility provides a spell caster with A LOT of power (the entirety of my argument that flexibility=power will likely wait for another day), the spell is pretty much only limited by my imagination. From a GM's perspective, Silent Image is one of the spells where I get to reward my players for thinking outside the box, and coming up with an original idea. If I have to sit down and seriously think about if a specific Silent Image would work, I'm generally of the mindset that it will. I want to reward my players for coming up with clever and unique ways to solve a given problem. That said, just because a clever use of Silent Image works the first time a player tries it doesn't mean that it will every time. For all the same reasons why I'm willing to give player's the benefit of the doubt on the first new use of a given effect, I'm less likely to let it work on the second or third, and likely to have it fail on the tenth.
How I would rule it is that since the set becomes medium armor (which the bard is not proficient in), he suddenly incurs all ACP and spell failure as normal. If those numbers both happen to be zero, well, then it doesn't really matter, does it?
There are a couple of wacky exceptions to note though... most specifically, how Amulets of Natural Armor don't actually grant Natural Armor, instead they grant an Enhancement bonus to natural armor. They would thus stack with natural armor granted by the various polymorph flavors that can turn you into a monster that has natural armor.
I'd also point out that for a 20th level fighter, their third iterative attack is still at a +9 (plus their ton of other modifiers). AC on targets generally tracks slower then attack progression (as in, at higher levels you gain + to hit faster then you, or the bad guys, gain AC), so your chances of landing that last attack go up. In fact, I have been in near epic games where fighters have been annoyed that there wasn't a way to get a 4th off hand attack (to match their 4th iterative main hand swing at level 16).
The bottom line for me is that the shield feats create a situation where there are no penalties for the shield and yet there are penalties for the sword and that there's no way (in the rules as published) for a sword (Or other melee weapon) to have parity in in attack bonuses. Please forgive me if this sounds confrontational, I honestly don't mean it to be. However, I'm a bit confused by the goal of this thread. No one has disagreed with you that there are different feat options for sword and shield then there are for two weapon fighting. Several people have offered solutions in the form house rules that balance the two builds. Are you trying to point out the issue so future action (say in the 2011/2012 melee combat splat book)? I can only presume that you don't expect developers to drastically rewrite text in a year-old book. So, I don't quite know what you are trying to accomplish. Is this thread about raising visibility to the disparity, about complaining about the disparity, or about verification of your findings?
I don't quite understand the debate here. Both sides seem to be arguing rule 0. If in your game you want to disallow N clerics of Evil gods, then do it. If in your game you want to allow them, then do it. As for the OP's question, which was basically printed text vs. the wiki, I think it has already been solved as missing info (whether you agree with it or not) on the wiki. The RAW provide a general guideline, and offer no specific, clear cut exception for this particular deity. So, be it oversight, intention, or ambiguity, the RAW would seem to allow it. Further customization falls under the rule 0 comment above. We can only hope that further clarification will be included in the upcoming Inner Sea world guide update.
Being flat footed is a condition that commonly includes being denied your dex bonus to AC. However, there are ways (such as Uncanny Dodge) to be flat-footed, but NOT denied your dex bonus to AC. Similarly, there are situations where you are denied your dex bonus to AC (such as being tied up), but you are not specifically "flat-footed" (which is a condition directly linked to not having acted yet at the start of combat). Shady points out a very common logical fallacy that gets made with these two conditions. Just because someone is not denied their dex bonus to AC does not mean they cannot be flat footed. This inductive argument is very easy to make a mistake in (just because all pumpkins are orange, doesn't mean everything orange is a pumpkin). This is only amplified by the fact that there are multiple overlapping conditions, that they each see limited exposure. I've heard, multiple times, players say something like "I'm flanking him so he's flat footed", or "I don't need to flank him, he hasn't acted yet, and even though he's a rogue, I'm 4 levels higher then him". They are easy mistakes to make. So much so, that sadly, I think even the game developers make them. From the wording of Shatter Defenses, I can't imagine that they meant that you grant the flat-footed condition. Instead, I believe the RAI would be that any such opponents would be denied their dexterity bonus to AC. As such, I agree that the feat Shatter Defenses would be useless against any character with the Uncanny Dodge ability.
The -10 is not a penalty, it's so that the third iterative offhand attack lines up with your third iterative main hand attack. BAB of +15, with all the requisite 2-weapon feats, would have an attack progression that looked like:
See how all the main hand and off hand attacks line up. The BAB required for each 2-weapon fighting feat also line up to where you gain each iterative attack (Imp 2 weapon at +6, when you gain your 2nd attack, & Greater at +11 when you gain your 3rd attack). Clear as mud?
So, umm, what's stopping you. Rule 0!!!!! you want them in your game, put them in your game. The text for the 2 weapon defense feats are already there, no work needed. As for a 2 weapon master, just copy and paste shield master and tweak it. Example Two Weapon Master: Two Weapon Master (Combat)
Your mastery of the off-hand weapon allows you to fight with it without hindrance. Prerequisites: Dex 21, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11. Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a light off-hand weapon, while you are wielding another weapon. Table:
First off, yes, a rogue's sneak attack is applied to any and all attacks in which the conditions are met. That includes multiple attacks in a round, as well as attacks of opportunity. However, note that additional "precision" damage, like sneak attack, is never multiplied with a critical strike. As a general rule, when you crit, you double, triple, or whatever any additional damage that doesn't involve extra dice, but only add damage from extra dice (like sneak attack) once. As for a lycanthrope, yes, you acquire the Afflicted Lycanthrope template (see here). This includes an increase in your CR. This essentially means you do not gain the benefits of "leveling" until the level after next. Essentially, you end up "multiclassing" into taking one level of monster, you just don't get any extra hit points for it. For example, a level 2 commoner gets afflicted with lycanthropy. He becomes a level 2 lycanthrope with commoner levels, CR 2. He then doesn't gain any additional class levels until he reaches level 4's experience mark, in which case he gains all the benefits of his 3rd level of commoner. He will then continue to level normally, except that he will always be one level of commoner behind. Think of it kinda like a debt. When you acquire the lycanthropy template, you get a bunch of new stuff, kinda like you just gained a level. But you still don't have enough experience for that level. The game is willing to let you have the new stuff now, but you don't also get more stuff the next time you level. You instead have to "pay" for the new stuff you "owe" for at that level. Then, once you are out of "debt", you continue leveling as normal. Clear as mud?
1a) I see no reason why it can't be made Masterwork. However, since it already has a +0 ACP, MW gives you no mechanical benefit. 1b) I see no reason why it couldn't be enchanted with normal armor bonuses. However, I do not believe the bonuses would stack, see 1c. 1c) The way Armor Kilts stack with suits of Armor, is a glaring hole in the RAW, IMHO. While both provide "armor" bonuses to your AC, they stack, but specifics on how they interact are not outlined. Furthermore, if they do fully stack, a +5 Kilt on a +5 Breastplate is superior to +5 Full Plate in every possible way, to an almost game-breaking proportion. While absent from the RAW, I can't imagine that the RAI would be for the Kilt's enhancement bonus to add to the Armor's enhancement bonus in such a way. Since we are already into house rule territory, here is how I would rule it:
2) Making an Armored Kilt out of Mithril would increase it's max. dex. allowance, though it wouldn't affect how an armored kilt increases the weight/type category of the armor. 3) Yes, an adamantine armored kilt would provide DR 1/-. Additionally, while I would generally not allow DR to stack (i.e. a Barbarian gets little benefit out of wearing adamantine armor) , I believe the properties of an armored kilt might provide an interesting interaction. If wearing both adamantine light armor, and an adamantine armored kilt, you would be considered as wearing medium adamantine armor, and perhaps get DR 2/-. They aren't strictly stacking persee, rather interacting in such a way the the net effect is the same.
Why are we trying to re-invent the wheel here?
Sure, in some cases the text lives in the feat, sometimes in the class, but does it really matter? The precedent is clearly that extra damage like this doesn't get added to multiple aspects of the same attack. Granted, we are all talking about house rulings, since the RAW is ambiguous at best in these circumstances. NEITHER of us are discussing RAW at this point, as the RAW for this situation doesn't exist. Instead, we are both reading what is essentially flavor text, and arbitrating as best we can to make the crunch fit that fluff.
As a spell with range of "personal", Mage Armor is not able to be made into a potion. The possible exception of that being an Alchemist (the base class from APG).
I've seen shadow spells be used to try and bypass a repulsion, and to allow a good cleric to cast evil spells. Granted, both were WAAAY back in the day (3.0 era), with wacky multi-class builds, but still. I also don't have a major issue with shadow casters getting buffs from feats mean to target the spells the shadow is emulating, as the higher DC only helps make the spell more believable. There used to be a prestige class, buried in one of the old FR books, something about Drow or Underdark I believe, that buffed the "real" part of shadow spells, but I don't remember the specifics.
Yeah, I'm generally in agreement with Hexcaliber on this. Seeking only works based on what you are targeting, which means one of the mirror images in most cases. Besides, between rapid shot and fighter base progression, archers are already pretty much the fastest way to dispense with Mirror Images (a monk flurry-ing with shuriken works pretty well too), I don't think we need to buff them any more.
I'm generally in agreement with Blake here. If the attack, spell or not, includes both an attack roll and a damage roll, then I'm inclined to allow it to gain bonuses from Smite. This includes rays like Scorching Ray & Acid Arrow, and touches like Vamperic Touch and Shocking Grasp. The way I'd shorthand this is, if an attack can gain the benefits of Sneak Attack, it can gain the benefits of Smite Evil.
As others have stated, this is not implicitly stated in the RAW, but the above is EXACTLY how it would work in my games. Shadow spells do not lose their existing type and subtype, but they do gain the subtypes of the spells they are emulating.
I just wanted to post a quick message to Maerrin to thank him for running this. I know it was late and everyone was tired, but I had a ton of fun with this game, and was glad I had a chance to participate. I'm sorry for any delay in starting that me having to roll up caused. I don't know if there ever happened to be a second session, but I would be more then happy to continue over post or at next years con.
I'll echo all of the major comments above...
I know the Coast did everything they could to accommodate, and while they seemed to mostly keep on top of it, I couldn't imagine the situation if the year over year attendance growth remains the same. Of the other cons I've been at, I've noticed several practices that really seem to work well:
That said, I know I'm already planning on attending next year. And I thank all the Paizo folks, along with all the GMs, for all their hard work in making the con such a great experience.
How CMB (and CMD) is calculated includes your BAB. This does not mean you get to make additional combat maneuvers using only your best BAB. If you did, then the +6/+1 progression of BAB would be what determines the number of combat maneuvers you make in a round. This is a cake and eat it too situation. Lets use an example. 15th level human fighter with 20 strength, in a bar brawl, only using his non-magical non-masterwork boot knife he doesn't have any feats for (just to make the math easy). BAB of 15/10/5, plus 5 Strength, gives us attack progression of 20/15/10. Since he has no size modifier or anything specific to CMB, his CMB progression is the same, 20/15/10. These are only some of the various combinations he can try in the space of a round:
Clear as mud?
I'm unsure all of these are covered in the RAW, but here is how I would rule them. Can I push a person into difficult terrain?
Can I push a person into a pit?
Can I push a person off a pirate's plank?
Can I push a person over a low railing?
Can I push a person into a fire?
Can I push a person into a lava square?
Can I push a person into a blade barrier?
Can I push a person into a Gelatenous Cube?
I hope that helps.
The problem with the craft system is that it is trying to balance two decidedly different economies. First is the silver based economy of the average level 2 expert in town crafting arrows to put food on the table. The second is the level 15 ranger, with platinum literally coming out his eyeballs. And while yes, skill ranks cover this to a point, but coming up with a multiplier that balances both scenarios, especially given that the ranger's skill will continue to increase while his costs (masterwork) will not, becomes exceedingly difficult. House rules like those above bring the PC crafting into line with what is acceptable, but would have the level 2 expert quickly become the land baron of his local hamlet. I suppose, from a PCs perspective, NPC craft time and profit margins hardly matter, so this may all just be moot. But I also suppose that such considerations are likely why crafting rules have been griped about for years, and still not seen any appreciable change.
A successful Knowledge (Dungeoneering) roll, and the information your GM provides you will eliminate most of this issue. In my game, an ooze is decidedly not flesh, and thus would be immune to Flesh to Stone. Your GM might view it differently. Like all cases where the RAW are not expressly clear (and even cases where they are), Rule 0 > all. As for the OP's initial question, Rake listed several other, less ambiguous petrification effects that show that immunity to gaze attacks does not mean immunity to petrification. I would expand on the listed examples only to point out that a blind human may be immune to gaze attacks, but can easily be turned to stone through just as many (or even more) ways as an ooze or construct, so clearly the two two immunities are not linked.
Wrong stuff about wand costs Correct stuff about wand costs Yeah, trying to do math on no sleep = bad juju. Good catch on the multiplication of the mats by the SL & CL, my apologizes for any confusion. As for the other numbers... I divided the wand base multiplier (750) by the base number of charges (50), to get a base multiplier per charge (15). I was trying to be all snazzy with my math, but was half asleep and accidentally fubar-ed the mat costs.
|
