MachOneGames's page

If an enemy is firing at archers behind an invisible wall with arrow slits what bonus would the defenders get? +8AC with a 50% miss chance?

+8AC for the arrow slit
Add a 50% miss chance for the invisible nature of the wall?

What about if the slits were shuttered with an iron shutter? A wizard could use an open/close cantrip to shutter-up the slits immediately after the friendly archers fire.

Just a quick question on how Improved Share Spells and Spell Sponge interact... how do you calculate the duration of those spells? Spell sponge doubles the duration on your familiar. Improved share spells forces you to divide the duration between you and your familiar. So, which math is done first?

In the example of a wizard casts a ten round spell it would normally, with Improved share spells, last 5 rounds each. However, the Spell sponge increases the duration on the familiar.

1) 5 rounds on the Wizard; 10 on the Familiar? Apply share spells first, then apply spell sponge.

2) 10 rounds on each? Wizard casts the spell on the familiar. Spell sponge kicks in and doubles the duration to 20; then it is divided amongst them according to Improved Share Spells.

3) 7 rounds on each? One would last 10, the other would last 20; so you average it to 15 and divide them.

I think I would go with reading 1. I'm playing the wizard in question and I think that reading 2 is a bit cheesy. Especially since I'll be employing a double-telekinesis tactic to push things into my pits.

Pathfinder, like D&D 3.x before it, has relatively fast advancement through the levels.

When designing an environment the challenge ratings need to scale in order to accommodate the advancement. However, once you scale the challenge ratings you run the risk of the players taking the challenge out-of-sequence. If the players make a connection, or leap of logic, that puts them ahead of the curve -- why should they be punished by an unreasonably tough set of encounters?

Is not the "Skyrim" approach better? That is that the monsters adjust based on the order in which you encounter them? Or, is there a way that players could be given a "spidey-sense" -- a way of determining the the basic Challenge Rating of an encounter? That way you could build a consistent world and the players have a better chance of recognizing the dangers and adjusting to the world.

As it works now it seems to favour a linear approach.

Thoughts?

In the description of the spell it does not identify explicitly the targets of the spell -- simply stating "see text."

The caster selects one of three versions of the spell: Sustained Force, Combat Maneuver, and Violent Thrust. By reading the description I would think that the Combat Maneuver version should have a target of "you." The text seems to identify a target "Alternatively, once per round, you can use telekinesis to perform..."

Am I reading this correctly? Can I cast Telekenisis CM (Combat Maneuver) on my familiar? If so, whose INT and DEX is used to resolve the CMB stuff?

Note: I think this would be very powerful. You can cast TK on your familiar and then continue to cast spells. Your TK would last a long time on the familiar (up to twice your level if you take a spell-sponge feat). Just from a balance point-of-view I would want to at least force the familiar to use their own Int/Dex.