Leobardis's page

Back when pathfinder was in beta there was a 3-4 page mini-comic about the 3.5 gods playing Pathfinder as the deities of Golarion. Notably, they were making fun of Pelor for playing a female character.

I've been trying to find these for some friends who're getting back into gaming, but I'm having no luck.

Google is returning nothing; does anyone have a link, or remember the artist that I might look them up?

While the opponent is impaled, as an attack action you may make a grapple check on your turn at a -4 penalty to damage the opponent with your weapon, even if your weapon cannot normally be used in a grapple.

I would not agree. This feat seems like it was designed for longer/larger weapons to be usable in a grapple (go ahead, grapple with a Lucern Hammer, or that crazy Dwarven Warpike) which is normally impossible. It specifies that you may choose as an attack action make a grapple check to deal damage with the impaling weapon. Once they are impaled, I'd think that the only time you would be limited to the "impaled" attack is if you are using a weapon that cannot normally be used during a grapple. If this is not the case, you could just use the RAW grapple rules now that the grapple has been established.

The other case for using the "impaled" attack is if you have Hamatula Grasp and wanted the bonus 1d6 damage that that feat grants, with a -2 penalty on attack, which could be worth it since it's damage would be counted as a part of the original attack and could help punch through DR.

I've built a Barbarian that uses Spiked Armor as a Grapple Monkey, and was looking at Hamatula Strike. Relevant feats I've taken include (Improved Grapple, Greater Grapple, and of course Rapid Grapple is on my list for later).

Question: When attacking with armor spikes as a primary attack, it would trigger Hamatula Strike for a free grapple (assuming a succeed on the attack), which would then trigger the free damage of armor spikes on any successful grapple check (assuming I succeed on the grapple), as well as place me in a grapple with my target? Am I missing anything or making a mistake anywhere?

Relevant Rules:

Armor Spikes deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack.
Hamatula Strike feat text

I personally don't like at-will Mending. Whats the point of damaging some magic weapon or suit of armour [from DM's point of view] if the PC's can just cast Mending continually until its fixed? And if you're the player you can now Sunder away and not worry about the hassle of repairing the mashed up loot.

I changed Mending so that it no longer mends anything Magical.

Mending only fixes ordinary rents and cracks in ordinary objects it will do absolutely NOTHING for magic items that have been sundered. That has always been the default ruling.

You need to read page 111 Alpha3 where it states the following..

This spell repairs damaged objects, restoring 1d4 hit
points to the object. If the object has the broken condition,
this condition is removed if the object is restored to full
hit points. All of the pieces of an object must be present
for this spell to function. Magic items can be repaired by
this spell, but you must have an equal or higher caster level
than the object for the spell to function. Magic items that
are broken (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this
spell, but this spell does not restore their magic abilities.
This spell does not affect creatures (including constructs).
This spell has no effect on objects that have been warped
or otherwise transmuted, but it can still repair damage
done to such items.

The bolded section is something of a typo. It should read as "destroyed" according to the sunder description in the PDF. Anything with less than full HP but more than 0 is broken, while anything with 0 is destroyed.

Still, I don't understand the delimma here. It mends the object, yes, but it does not repair the magics of a destroyed item. This means that sundering as a DM is still a viable combat tactic. Sure, if you only damage the fighters +2 Holy Flaming sword (passed down through generations and upon which his entire character is based), he'll take some penalties for the combat, but he'll also have it repaired in fairly short order afterwards. If however, you drop it to 0, he's not getting it back (a major character blow, and golden opportunity for both the DM and players to plant new plot/character hooks) without special DM questing or a high level "Make Whole". He could mend to his hearts content, and at the end of the day, all he's getting back is a masterwork sword, a far cry from being as good as what he lost.

They're elvish they are Drow

Yes elvish are the Drow
They were once abandoned
And want revenge now

They came from below t'earth
To watch Ragnarok's birth
They're selfish
They're elvish they are Drow, Drow, Drow, Drow
Drow, Drow, Drow, Drow
Drow

Before Campaign is done
Their plan will be unfurled
By drawing in the sun
They'll devastate the world.

They're elvish they are Drow
Yes elvish are the Drow
Their twilight campaign
Is easy to explain.

To prove their elvish worth
They'll overthrow the Earth
They're selfish
They're elvish they are Drow, Drow, Drow, Drow
Drow, Drow, Drow, Drow
Drow

NARF, poit!

HotA is a (Su) ability that does not provoke AoO, it requires a standard action to summon the hand, after which the caster needs to concentrate to keep it up, in this case all the wizard can do each round is a move equivalent action each round. However once the hand is summoned it can be used to make melee attacks against any opponent within 30' (with line of sight and line of effect).

In my campaign I ruled that given all the above the attack begins and end at the casters position, there is no flying weapon around for someone to grapple, bat out of the air etc. However this doesn't prevent someone from readying an action to do so on the casters turn. Simply put this is a melee attack that the caster can do from the safety of distance thus limiting there exposure to danger but still being able to contribute in a combat situation.

This is how we judged it in my current campaign as this seemed to best fall in line with the other wizard abilities. Other spells have been called as a reference to how it should work, but I think the one I've found best is treating it as a 'one target' "Whirling Blade". The melee weapon goes out, and attacks once (using any applicable feats you posess) and returns. By maintaining the concentration, you are esentially re-casting the spell every round.

The question really comes down to game play balance as it always does. My campaign is still early so the PCs are lvls 1 and 2 and so the casters are still finding them selves out of spells early on, and so instead of just standing there like a fifth wheel, or trying to hit with a crossbow (without precise shot), they can contribute to the partys success to a limited degree. I think it has been pointed out earlier in the thread that the ability does not scale with level, eventually the caster will have better things they can do with the one rounds worth of actions than taking a swing in melee. It goes with the theme of alot of the first lvl domain/school powers in that they help the PCs over that lvls 1-3 hump before they can hold their own. If you don't think its enough then go play 4th ed if you think its OP go play 3.5 or earlier versions of DnD.

As to balance, it was quite shocking to have my wizard doing 1d8+4 at first level, a number which matched our fighter. Also, as expected, the difference in damage grew as we leveled, with the fighter easily overtaking my paltry damage by 3rd or 4th level. A suggestion was voiced to cap the contrubition by Intelligece to the wizards level, letting the fighter maintain his place as 'melee prime' but retain the end effect of the wizard's ability.

**Note, I know that the Pathfinder staff cannot reference non-OGL material. My reference to "Whirling Blade" would therefore never be seen should they decide to change the effect's reference from "Mage Hand" to one of the other suggested spells.

If a wizard with HotA is invisible. . .is his weapon also invisible if he sends it from his person to attack, or does it "wink" back into view?

Can invisibility be placed on weapon itself and be used to sneak attack ?

Could this be coupled with a permenancy spell for a nearly constant easy source of delivering sneak attack damage?

Would you need Detect(see) invisibility active to do any of the above with HotA?

I would assume that anything that would apply to invisibility would also apply to greater invisibility.

In order:

1)From the SRD "Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature."

To me this says that once it is in the "hand" of the spell it again becomes visible.

2) I would have to say no. Attacking normally with an invisible weapon gives no benefit so neither should this example.

3) No for the reasons stated in #2.

4) I'd think no, but your DM may or may not apply penalties for attacking with a weapon you can't see, but that would be on a more individual basis.

Currently, the sneak attack benefit from invisibility occurs when the attacker is invisible, no matter the method by which he/she is attacking. Arrows, bolts, and thrown weapons all become visible when loosed and yet still apply sneak attack damage. Similarly, an invisible creature who picked up a weapon after the spell effect (and thus still visible) would also get the benefit. An invisible character holding a visible object could be pinpointed (what square they occupy) but would still get all the benefits of being invisible.

There are 20 standard languages put forth in the 3.5 PHB and assumedly in PRPG, 19 if you leave out Druidic. Give that an average character starts with between 2 and 5 languages based on race and intelligence, you could learn every single one of them by 15 level. This still leaves said character at a loss considering all the other languages put forth in the Wizards accessory books alone. Drow sign language, the Raptoran Language Tuilvilanuue, Gutterspeak, Illumian, the Goliath Gol-kaa, not to mention any number of other monster, campaign, or setting specific languages.

Granted, you don't have to use them in your campaign but Paizo must consider the fact that they exist when making the PRPG system.

Speak Language was 1 point per language in 3.5 anyways. The only reason that 2 points per is so well known is that bards were the only one who had it as a class skill and could really take advantage of it. I vote to leave it as written in A3.

I like it as well. This skill gives flight more use than just airborn movement. The Dragonlance setting had a similar system of DCs tied to the Ride skill (due to the prevelance of.... well..... dragons, go figure).

The discription of Make Whole on page 111 contradicts the description of the broken condition on page 154. The spell description says it takes CLx2 to repair while the condition description says CL or higher.

Also, both Make Whole and Mending should read:
"Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell..."

since broken itmes (at less than full HP but but with at least one HP remaining) are never mentioned as losing their magical properties. see "Sunder" description on page 79 for reference to broken and destroyed

Looking for a clarifacation on broken magic items.

What the rules say:
The Alpha 3 says that magic items with the broken condition can only be repaired by either Mending or Make Whole. Mending does not restore any magic properties and Make Whole does so only if your caster level is twice that of the item being fixed. It also says that broken staves and wands use twice the number of charges as normal.

referencing pages: 111 and 154

My questions:
How does this work? If I'm a wizard with a staff (CL 10) and it gets broken, what happens? Can I still use the charges remaining in it (at double cost), can I recharge it as normal? What does it lose, what does it keep? How can I repair it and what does it regain when I do?

What about non-weapon or non-charged magic items (say a headband of INT +4)? For these items that fall into none of the other categories given on pg 154 the PDF only says that their function is not impaired by the broken condition but can still be repaired only via mending or make whole. Do they still work when broken?

If it were me ruling; I'd say that they could leave cantrip slots open, but once they used a cantrip it was locked into that slot for the rest of the day. In effect they are filling that slot with a prepared spell and cannot change it again until they rest, as per the 3.5 rule.

I would suggest the following substitutions:

bludgeoning/piercing/slashing: +2
cold iron/silver: +3
alignment (chaotic/evil/good/lawful): +4
adamantine*: +5

I too would like to put in a vote for this change. I don't have a problem with bringing back the + method to overcome DR but I think it could stand a little higher threshold which this suggestion does nicely.

At this advancement rate, it also keeps pace with the CR of the monsters likely to have these DR and the likelyhood* of at least one character in the party to have spent his money on a powerful enough weapon.

*(not accounting for evil DMs who throw Balors at 10th level parties)

Looking for a clarifacation on "broken" magic items.

The Alpha 3 says that magic items with the "broken" condition can only be repaired by either mending or make whole, the former of which does not restore any magic properties and the latter only if your caster level is twice that of the item being fixed. It also says that "broken" staves and wands use twice the number of charges as normal.

How does this work? If I'm a 12th level wizard with my staff familiar (CL 10) and it gets broken, I can still use the charges remaining in it (at double cost) but it loses all other magic properties until I can get a CL 20 make whole cast on it?

What about non-weapon or non-charged magic items (say a headband of INT +4)? For these items that fall into none of the other categories A3 only says that their function is not impaired by the "broken" condition but can still be repaired only via mending or make whole.