Leress's page

Why are all the legends barbarians? Why not fighters, or paladins?

Read the entry for the Horn of Valhalla

Horn of Valhalla

Since I haven't seen it done yet...

The GSL

Squirrelloid wrote:

The advanced talent Feat lets rogues gain *any* bonus feat. Like the 3.5 rules before this, a rogue can still select feats they don't qualify for, which is bizarre. Text to the effect of "may gain any feat they qualify for as a bonus feat" would limit this abuse, and would be a simple fix to make.

Just curious -- where in the SRD does it say that, in general, you don't need to meet the prerequisites when picking a bonus feat (other than the specific case of the monk)?

Here...

Rogue

Feat

A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability.

Monsters

Feats

The line gives the creature’s feats. A monster gains feats just as a character does. Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites.

-------------------------------

Don't you (in the general sense) think it would make sense just to put those four words in the line about bonus feats to clear it up and reduce confusion or abuse of the rule. This very thread proves that this needs to be added to the entry.

primemover003 wrote:

Actually common sense has nothing to do with it. A Rogue can sneak attack with a thrown weapon within 30ft. The extra damage is considered the same type as the weapon used. A flask of Alchemist's fire requires an attack roll and does direct damage when it hits, thus a rogue can apply their sneak attack damage to that attack if they satisfy the conditions (opp dex to AC is denied). It's no different than a rogue/sorcerer applying their sneak attack damage to a lesser orb of fire. See Complete Arcane.

In my opinion there is a big difference. First, regular thrown weapons (i.e. knives, daggers, darts etc.) deal damage from their point of impact, i.e. at the vital spot in case of sneak attacks.

Same with weaponlike spells, they impact at a certain location and does the damage there.
A grenadelike weapon, i.e. Alchemist fire, doesn't depend on direct damage of the impact, but on widespread damage from being covered in the substance when the container breaks. Thus even if you aim for a vital spot, the actual damage is spread over a much wider area and doesn't benefit from the sneak attack.
Unless you can cite a rule which specifically states that grenadelike weapons can benefit from sneak attacks the rules can be read either way. Meaning that you might allow it in your campaign and I'll disallow it in my campaign, but you don't have any specific rule that supports the given example of grenadelike/splash weapons. A point of note is also that the rule you cite is from Complete Arcane, thus not from the SRD and not considered a core rule. Just on those grounds alone a DM is free to disallow these spell sneak attacks.

It's in the FAQ

FAQ

Leress wrote:

Correction...

King: "So why should I not kill you all where you stand?"
Wizard: Casts Charm person
King's Guards: Make Spellcraft check (most likely fail), So they hear gibberish.*
King: "On second thought would you like the hand of my daughter?"
Wizard: "Sounds good to me"

Of course the king's advisor (expert NPC class) may be able to catch it

King's Advisor: "Kill the wizard!"
King: "Steady your arms"

*For all they know the wizard is speaking a different language.

Now I would like to see more test at higher levels of play.

Just because you don't have spellcraft doesn't mean you can't identify spellcasting, you just can't identify the exact spell being cast. It's pretty easy to ID casting, you can even spot someone concentrating intently while using a spell like ability. You're basically saying that you can't ready an action to disrupt spellcasting unless you have spellcraft ranks. That's just crazy. No the guards don't know what the spell is, but you bet that if the caster doesn't have the king's permission there's going to be several readied crossbows or halberd charges directed at him to disrupt the casting.

I guess my brand of humor is really recognized around here. (Look at the line "On second thought...")

Not to mention that the charm person saving throw may fail. I'm not sure why you guys consider it automatic. And if you fail, you're basically screwed.

Well since in the situation I was pretty much screwed anyway might as well try.

If charm person is dominating your social encounters, it's probably because you're letting wizards get away with stuff they shouldn't, like having guards behave as though they've never seen a spell cast before. Seriously man, that's just bad DMing.

Please quote where I said it was dominating my games. I have not once mentioned about how social encounters run in my games. So you can't say that I am DMing poorly.

-----------------------------

Sorry Squirrelloid, for the off topic-ness of this post

2. Really? Charm person is an auto-win in social challenges?
King: "So why should I not kill you all where you stand?"
Wizard: "Charm person!"
King's Guards: "Kill the wizard!"
<TPK>

Correction...

King: "So why should I not kill you all where you stand?"
Wizard: Casts Charm person
King's Guards: Make Spellcraft check (most likely fail), So they hear gibberish.*
King: "On second thought would you like the hand of my daughter?"
Wizard: "Sounds good to me"

Of course the king's advisor (expert NPC class) may be able to catch it

King's Advisor: "Kill the wizard!"
King: "Steady your arms"

*For all they know the wizard is speaking a different language.

Now I would like to see more test at higher levels of play.

So there's really no more terrible idea than just declaring that magic items "sell for less." It makes no sense - permanent magic items, by their nature, don't degrade in power or value. So now no one will buy them for more than 20% of value (under cost) - except for adventurers, who are buying for 100% plus? This is the retarded kind of tripe that makes me hate 4e. Let's at least pretend there's still a hint of simulationism in D&D.

Now, there is indeed a problem with the magic item economy that needs fixing. The core of the problem is how quick and easy it is to make items. It provides a great incentive to cash in items for money in order to finance a min-maxed set of items (+1 armor, +1 natural armor, +1 resistance, +2 to prime stat...)

In earlier editions you kept the weird valuable magic item (Helm of Underwater Action!) because

1. Magic was rare, and in case you need it you can't rely on quickly obtaining magic "to fit". "What if I need me some underwater action one day?"

2. Money couldn't be simply chewed on by a wizard for a day and pooped out into a magic item - even if you got "full price" for that helm, what were you going to spend the money on - items weren't readily available. You couldn't turn it into the standard min-max array easily.

So IMO the way to handle the problem is:

1. Better rules on what you can obtain. "Anything under the locality's gp limit" is a bit too generous.

2. Better crafting rules that take a longer time and/or something other than "a bag of gold" to make a permanent magic item.

3. Better buying/selling rules in general. Leverage skills to find buyers or sellers.

You may want to look at this...Economicon (scroll down)

and this about crafting (scroll down)
Book of Gears

This may have some ideas

This would really help in unifying how we are suppose to playtest this Alpha release and future releases.

Yesterday I sat down with the DM of the current campaign I'm playing in and we playtested a 7th level fighter against a CR 7 ogre barbarian. The Ogre got in one good hit but only managed to do 21 hp damage to the fighter. Meanwhile the fighter slaughtered the ogre barbarian in just about seven rounds. I would say that the new fighter class in Pathfinder is pretty powerful based on that test.

Okay now test that same fighter against...

• an aboleth
  
• a gargantuan animated object
  
• a bulette
  
• a succubus
  
• a dire bear
  
• a huge earth elemental
  
• a Remorhaz
  
• a cloud gaint skeleton
  
• 2 trolls
  
• 2 winter wolves
  
• an Achaierai/barbazu team
  
• 4 Ankhegs
  
• 4 centaurs in the woods
  
• 4 troll skeletons
  
• 8 lizard folk in a marsh
  
• 8 skeletal wolves
  
• a pit with 8 monstrous scorpions
  

This assumes that you fight them on their home turf (since that is were you would most likely find them). Using the tactics section as a guide on how they fight.

After this, then that would give you a better measure on where the pathfinder fighter stands. Doing one test isn't enough.