Search Posts
>So why does hold person/monster have an extra caveat about taking no actions. Because at the time the spell was written it was likely loosely worded and no one considered the possibility of mental only actions at the time. You could literally use this argument about the word paralysis in the spell.You are also not accounting for the use of the word "held" in the Helpless condition.
Than why don't they do the same thing, if they are the same? Paralysis: but can take purely mental actions. Hold Person:It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions
I know that grapple doesn't make you helpless, I actually used that fact to support my interpretation of Hold Person because "Helpless" specifically mentions being "held". I know of nothing that would qualify as holding somebody which isn't grapple, except Hold Person. I think that the word paralysis is used in the Hold Person spell to describe the effect of the spell, but doesn't actually apply the condition.
The spell "Hold Person" has in it's description:
and in it's text:
There are 2 conditions, one specifically for paralyzed and the "Helpless" condition which mentions the word "held" amongst others.
Looking at an Ancient White Dragon who is not immune against mind effects, but paralysis.
My question is, does Hold Monster effect this dragon? In my opinion, it should. The helpless condition specifically refers to being "held", but holding a Monster/Person is usually resolved with the grapple condition, so to what else would it refer? Usually (for example Stinking Cloud) spells do have relevant information right at the top. For example Stinking Cloud is noted as being "poison", which means all Monster that are immune against poison aren't effected. The dragon is also specifically immune against Sleep. On the other hand in the special abilities section under paralysis it says "Some monsters and spells have the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze their victims, immobilizing them through magical means." Which has me second guessing myself. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Paralysis
After letting the topic sit with me for a while and considering the arguments for and against certain buffs I've come to the conclusion that you guys are largely right. The price for "continuous" effects on items is just too low. Combined with the ability to stick any spell on any item slot characters just get too strong for too little money, I honestly think the SpellLvl * CasterLvl * 2000 formula is broken and completely useless in it's combination with the duration modifier. It would be great if we got more realistic outlines usable by the players. I will stick to creating command word items that need to be activated with a standard action, I think that should balance out the "powerful" effects and the relatively cheap way of getting those effects. The need for strong defensive items mainly comes from the fact that monks seem to be shitty front liners, but that's exactly what our group got and I'm trying to make it work. I would stick to pre-generated items but unfortunately paizo has not blessed us with enough variate for my taste ^^ Thanks for all the input, I think I'll be able to now present my GM with items that are not game breaking, but still fulfill our needs. Personally I'll be using the formula: SpellLevel * CasterLevel * 2000 = EndPrice for all my creations and depending on how strong the effect is we will decide how many activations it should have per day. Magic missles is freaking weak with a CL of 1 for example and could probably have 10 activations per day, while something like mirror images is much stronger and could be limited to 3 for example.
That's very helpful, thank you Diego. I think I'm going to move away from "constant" effects and move towards "command word" effects. Am I correct in my believe that "command word" refers to a standard action? It think that will solve many balance issues if I simply go SpellLevel * Caster Level * 1800 and let the GM decide how many times a day the effect can be activated. Making a simple ring of Shielding constant is completely unattractive the way you describe it, especially since it doesn't even give the ability to tag on armor enchantments. I hope you see how crazy it is to pay 40k for an item that gives +4AC and an incredibly unimportant side bonus compared to getting a flat 50% dodge chance from an item that costs 10.8k. >The bracers do not do a lot more than just add +4 Armour. How about the ability to get +1 Bracers for 500 and tag on good armour enchantments? Yes, that's doing a lot more. What is really powerful? The effect of a level 1 spell that holds a damn day and can be replenished with a 500GP item without expanding resources? Holy moly you are right, better nerf mage armor @_@
The POINT of getting crafting feats is to either make stuff which is not available because the GM decided that there is no magic shop (which is a problem we don't have in our game) or to make stuff you can't buy.
He is going to adjust our wealth depending on what items I craft. (saving 5 k on that 10k item? okay next loot is gonna have 5k less gold in it)
What? That's the first I heard of an "order" and I can't find something in the rules or in this forum about it. Could you please link to it next time? Besides, the item itself doesn't grant +AC, it grants a spell which grants +AC. But instead of me casting Mage Armor (level 1 spell) I craft an item which gives the same effect. I could also achieve this with a Pearl of Power at the cost of 500GP without taking up an item slot...I really don't see why you guys are so freaked out about a +4 to AC.
I am a player. Well, bracers actually do a lot more than just adding +4 armor, so you either give the ring all those additional powers or it has to cost less. I've talked with my GM about taking the crafting feats and making magic items for the group, but I haven't talked about the specifics with him yet. We have a meele monk in our group has been promoted to be the new main front liner after our barbarian left the group. So I'm mainly trying to think of ways to make him stronger on the defensive side of things.
After looking at the table (http://paizo.com/prd/magicItems/magicItemCreation.html) It appears that some effects can be accomplished rather cheap. For example, a Ring of Shield only costs 4000 to make. (SpellLvl * CasterLvl * 2000 * 2) a Ring of Mage Armor only costs 2000 (SpellLvl * CasterLvl * 2000) So, after halfing the prize on these items because I would be crafting them they only cost me 3000 Gold for a combined +8 AC. Of course Mage Armor doesn't stack with regular Armor and Shield doesn't stack with a regular Shield but almost nobody wears Shields and there is a good amount of classes that could still benefit from Mage Armor. I think +AC isn't that big of an issue especially since later on it becomes rather unimportant. But what strikes me as a tad bit op is for example a Ring of Mirror Images. 2 * 3 * 2000 * 2 = 24000 So for the crafting cost of 12000 one basically gets a permanent 50% miss chance. First of all, am I reading the rules correctly? Is this RAW? Also, do any of you have experience with crafting and the long term effects it has on a game? Will I break the balance while using this, or does it just appear op and is fine in the long run?
Pin =//= having your hands bound
(casting dimension door only has a vocal component)... gm responds.... rocks fall, you die.A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grapple =//= having your hands bound
Classic case of GM vs PCs You did something smart, how DARE YOU!
So simple, yet so perfect. No need for a huge look up table, just get to the goal somehow, create a 0 and multiply the leftovers by it. Done. A lot shorter than a full round attack.
Yes......that's good. So you first calculate which combinations CAN give you the correct answer and after you are done with that you build a list which you than compare to your rolled results. At that point it's just a question of optimizing the search algorithm which the Internet should be full off. Finding out what number of dice is best for a particular number should be easy enough, just numOfWrongResults - numOfCorrectResults, the lower the number the better. Creation that list thou...hmmmm. I can't think of any smart way to do it so I'd probably brute force it. Just create an table of all the possible combinations of the numbers and let every single one run against every single combination of +-*/. Note how often you are correct and if correct save that line to an array, move how often you are wrong and discard it. I don't have the time right now since I should be cleaning up my place, but if I'm motivated I'm gonna build it after my visitors are gone.
So, correct me if I'm wrong but: with 3 dice (taking the feat at level 3 having 3 ranks in the skill) every single roll can be arranged in 96 different ways.
That doesn't sound too bad... With 7 dice, the number of possible combinations is now 20,643,840. Yeah....I guess without some good logic built in to it you would have to wait a bit for your desired result.(all thou technically you could cut away from that number because it doesn't matter how you arrange the dice if you only multiply or add and only subtractions are pointless as well)
>Then again, if it didn't give you the metamagic feats, people would be shouting it's a pathetic feat... lol. No, it would still be insane. You can quicken every 5 level and below spell every turn basically doubling your spell output for the cost of a few engineering skill ranks. If this feat read "attach quicken to a spell (if you have it), do some math with engineering, if you succeed you cast the spell for it's original spell rank" it would still be incredibly powerful.
This feat is completely crazy. He either does something completely broken (like a quickened, empowered fireball, plus empowered fireball every turn) or nothing because he can't find the solution. Either way the game grinds to a halt until he finds the solution (or doesn't). All we need now is a math tool, you enter your individual numbers and the tool gives you the answer (if there is any) a split second later. You think casters are OP now? Think again. 1 Feat gives you: 2 free meta magic feats + the ability to cast spells with any meta magic feats attached without having to increase the spell slot expanded.
Int vs Wis is an interesting topic, at least for me. It's hard to nail the details down but I think that Int = I know how to solve this problem. Wis = I know why to solve this problem a certain way. That said, using a spell comes natural to a Sorcerer, and figuring out that you need a key for a cell isn't that hard. But if he starts coming up with complex battle plans, complex solutions and thinking quick on his feet etc. than we enter the "I neglect my stats " territory, because he simply RPGs over his dump stat. I have no problem with dump stats, but one should respect them. It's easier with STR etc. you can't RPG over low STR, but that's the challenge he accepted the moment he dumped Int.
This is so extremely off topic, but I'm annoyed with the people that try to make planar binding useless by coming up with almost unworkable and extremely inconstant scenarios, just so they can stick it to that dirty dirty mage.
Secane, don't you guys have a scout? A stealthy char or a mage that can summon a scout? The min/level spells are best used before the actually combat breaks out because they have such a long in-game duration. I mean 1 minute has 10 turns, so you should have plenty of time to make use of it and confirming every crit is amazing.
Ally: Do you count as your own ally? You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies." http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9nda
Woops, didn't realize Bless Weapon doesn't stack with Keen. Guess on a Paladin the feat would be better.
Keen You buy it with money. You are not really limited with how much money you can have (well there is a "soft" cap dictated by your campain). You are very limited with how many feats you can have. Money is always easier earned than additional feat slots.
No he can't use the Perform skill, it's a Charisma based skill.
If I were a PC in your game (or a game which uses this logic) I'd go berserk. First I'd try to argue OOC, not only with the supply and demand argument but also that the game is balanced around the prices advertized in the rule books. If that doesn't work my character would take things in his own hands, that greedy merchant thinks he can f~+~ me over? Think again. Derailment incoming.
LOL @ Fake Healer "you evil min maxer you!", burned Why don't you just have the crab sit on your back :P Wear a cloak and let the crab sit in the cap, done.
Sorcerer - Fey Bloodline with CHA +4 you get a DC of 16 on DAZE thanks to the +2 on compulsion spells. Alternatively you could go Witch, Evil Eye, Misfortune and Crackle, it's still gonna rock even in a small group. You could also look in to "Word Casting".
>The problem isn't so much focusing your character in specific areas as doing it to the point of making yourself WORSE in other areas You can not be serious, can you? Of COURSE a Wizard is gonna be WROSE at fighting enemy's up front, it's what he CHOOSE to do. Are people gonna demand equality of magic and BAB next? Our strength and weaknesses define us. >The first part is illogical. Would you damage your own body, your own health, in order to make yourself better at what you do? No, but I'm not training it either. People seem to forget that 10 is the average. Having a 8 in STR doesn't mean I'm a f&~&ing cripple. >They're rendering themselves deficient to the point of handicap, to make themselves better in one area. I'm just completely speechless. I guess you are a person who does everything equally. You are not specialized in any area what so ever. I guess if you where a Barbarian you would sit down and study, and work on your social skills, just as much as you would on your combat prowess. Makes absolutely no sense to me. €: just want to add on that while 10 is the average, the stat array for a normal NPC is 8,9,10,11,12,13 So the average person in pathfinder has 1 or 2 abilities at -1.
I don't understand everyones problem with "dump" stats. Why do all characters have to be good at everything? Isn't it natural that strength and weaknesses alter from person to person what ever that persons goal is? A warrior who focuses on fighting has not much use for charisma, he isn't trying to charm anyone. Same with a Wizard who doesn't care that he's physically weak, because he is strong in his mind. Rolling stats can lead to some people having crazy high luck, or really bad rolls. Point buy ensures that everyone has a equal stat array, people can build what ever they want in a way that makes it effective. I also don't understand the dislike for min/maxing. having characters that are good at what ever they want to be good at just ensures less PK and more fun all around.
Snap Shot and Improved snap shot is what you are looking for
So your party is basically missing a dedicated buffer/debuffer&cc caster and a face? Sorcerer, done.
>f I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM. Can you give an example?
Paladin works out of the box perfectly, unless your GM isn't playing Pathfinder. (by which I mean he isn't using the rules as written in the class) If you use the rules as they are you will never fall because your GM is a dick, but because you made a mistake. You can not force a Paladin to fall, a Paladin can work perfectly fine with a group that has some morally gray characters in it.
A Paladin can also easily work with a Poisen user and a Lier and so on, it's in the code. >a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. _Avoids_ and not "is required to avoid". The next sentence gives back up >Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. So the Alchemist is throwing around poison and the Sorcerer is bluffing a lot? The Paladin sure as heaven doesn't like it, but he can see past these moral problems because the good they do together far outweighs the evil.
Roll Diplomacy "What is it that you wish to gain from this scenario? Do you wish to go free? Give me the civilians and I promise you may leave without harm. Do you wish to call this palce your home? Give me the civilians and I promise to leave it to you." A Paladin would simply not accept that choice. A smart Paladin would engage in to a dialog. "No, I will not leave these people at your mercy. Where I to turn around and leave, who would guarantee those peoples safety?" If at any point of the dialog the Orc attacks, the whole thing becomes quite easy. "I will not promise any such thing, but I will leave now and spare your life if you spare them!" You can not trap a smart Paladin.
What you don't seem to grasp Ashiel is that a Paladin is obliged to do good, not to take the most effective way to do good. Your scenarios all hinge on that distinction.
>I've said nothing of the kind. Sorry, must have been somebody else :) I guess you need to split the spell up in at least 2 versions, one for single tasks and one for long term services. Simply so you can properly balance every version. It's too late for me to invest much brain power in to this, but what you'd have to do is keep the flavor, turn down the power, define the spells a lot better and do it all without sucking the fun out of it. After all we want to bind outsiders, demons, devils, angels, aliens, to our will. We want to force them to do our bidding. Just gotta do it in a way that doesn't break the game balance in half and turns the game table in to the argue zone. Pretty steep hill.
Oh boy, you haven't given this enough thought. Look at the definition of service: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/service With a definition like that, I can make almost everything sound like a service. The word "service" needs to be better defined in the context of this spell. The question is also how long can the "description" of this service be? Am I limited to "Walk from one side of the continent to the other." Single sentence single job, or can I add on to it? "Walk as fast as possible, on your feet, whole only sleeping 2 hours a day, without interacting with any other living creature from one end of the continent to the other." Same with open ended task. "Guard me for the next 5000 years." How do you like that? It's not open ended, it's got a set end. Some people argue "you can't make the task take longer than CL/day". While that is not supported any where in the spell, it opens up another problem. What if a single task you give the creature with a set end that it can cause. Something like "collect all the leafs from this forest in a huge pile". That's gonna take a long time if the forest is big enough, but it's still doable. It's not unreasonable, but one could argue it's unreasonable to grant a wish without payment. You also seem to think that wishing is easily countered because an efreet can twist it? Nope. Cast Geas on that sucker and force it to actually be nice. What I know is that you can argue till the cows come home what qualifies at a service and what doesn't, what open ended really means and what which creature would consider unreasonable. It's not fun for the players or the gm, there is no official word on this. Maybe the smart thing to do is to break the spell up in to 2 spells. One for short term single target services, one for long term multi target services which would be considerably harder to cast. I mean you have to realize that this spell is completely and utterly broken. Even if you put the strongest regulations imaginable on it (without actually changing the RAW but going with a very harsh RAI). A level 13 Sorcerer can force Glabrezus to simply raze the HQ of the BBE.
I think this discussion misses the mark a bit. The problem with planar binding is the wording in the spell, not the stuff around it. It has great flavor, great amount of additional resources, it requires preparation, it's a multi step process and has a big risk attached to it. You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. The word "service" is not defined. demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. Again, "Impossible demands" and "unreasonable commands" are not defined anywhere. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level What is a "open-ended task" specifically? If those portions where better defined and explained, perhaps with a few examples, than the spell would become instantly usable without creating a shit ton of discussions. You could fix a bunch of loopholes (infinite wishes) by simply declaring those instances examples of "unreasonable commands" and be done with it.
You told us what you got, but I'm more interested in what you want. Is there a certain flavor you want him to have? A specific weapon he should be using? Certain skills maxed out? Or do you just want a min/maxed paladin with no limitations what so ever? Also,m what point buy are you using or are these stats as is and can be moved around? Any restrictions on resources?
I can't add anything of use, but I gotta say this sounds amazing, good job.
I think it would be a lot easier to help you if we knew exactly what you want to achieve with the monk, where you want to focus your gameplay etc.
Have you given Zen Archer any thoughts, or are you set on entering melee combat?
You will cry tears once you start fighting monsters that have more than +5 to hit. The problem with a meele monk is the d8 hit dice, you need con or 1-2 hits of a bad guy will push you out of the fight which isn't gonna be a big problem early levels, but once you go past 7 it's gonna be a big pain in your ass.
What do you mean? At what level would you take improved initiative? Also, think about instead of starting with a Great Sword to start with a reach weapon (like the Glaive 1d10). Pure dmg wise the Great Sword is better with 2d6 but the Glaive has reach, and since on low levels you will probably fight against enemies that need to be directly in front of you , you could get a AoO every time they close in without using a 5' step. The weak point is that you need a square between yourself and your target to attack it with a reach weapon, but you can simply take a 5' step to achieve that. I think the amount of easy AoO you could get with this will be wroth it.
Improved Critical has Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8. So unless you intent to cheat, or your GM allows it you are stuck with Power Attack. You could Simply start with a Great Sword and instead of picking Weapon Focus go with Furious or Cleave (which if you have 2 enemies in front of you, which happens a lot at low levels) allows you to double the amount of attacks you can do per turn at full BAB (-2 AC is worth it). If you can't retrain go Furious level 3 and pick up a Falchion +1 (at least) shortly before you hit level 9. You could also if you have the money (about 8k) get a Keen Falchion +1 before you hit level 9 and get the big crit range without investing a feat.
Sorcerer, focused on conjuration You can be the face quite easy, you can summon additional tanks, you can cast a wide array of CC spells. perfect fit for your party
I just calculate with 20 hits hitting every number once, every hit is a success every crit is confirmed.
AverageWeaponDmg
STR Bonus 4(which is +6 DMG with 2H)
PowerAttack 6
and so on. The larger the bonus (looking at smite) the larger the difference between a Falchion and a GreatSword.
Double means you take the dice rolls that you can crite on 18-19-20 (3 dice rolls) and double them 15-16-17 ( 3 dice rolls) Falchion is because of the 18-20 way better than any other 2H weapon if you plan on taking the critical feats or if you plan on enchanting keen on it.
I can see Ultimate Mercy only if you got nobody else who can do that job in the group, else the opportunity cost would just be too big.
|
