Do you need a free hand to kick someone? Does a Space Minotaur Need to drop one of his pistols to horn someone?
I am leveling a Paladin and find it lacking. I do not have an idea as to what I am fighting so I feel that I should take the Devine Grace. Now once I do that I am locked out of getting bonuses to fighting Undead or Dragons.
They did address this in the FAQ. I am sorry that I missed it the first time I checked it out.
Page 197—In the Spell chapter, in Spell Attacks, in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”
I still believe that they should use the spell casting mod. I like Vic's idea of getting rid of TAC at that time.
I would also like to see this clarified.
I would like to know where you see that a spell attack requires Str or Dex modifers. Neither page 9 nor 291 state that you have to use str or dex for an attack roll.
I have played the previous addition for several years and think that they may have changed it from how it was to this new version using your "Spell Roll" to determine if you hit.
They have done other minor changes and this may be one of them.
My reasoning being that they do not define a "touch attack" as it was clearly defined in PF1.
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
This is the FAQ. It seems that they can always tell who is doing the ability in question. I would like to know if what skills can be used to mask the manifestation.
"All right, let's see your character sheet, Greg... oh. Look at that. Five 18s and 20 Strength. But that's okay because Amy signed off on that! Now, let's see Amy's cleric... whaddyaknow. 20 Wisdom and 18s across the board, but it's kosher because Greg saw you roll your stats!"
Wish I could favorite twice!
Yes that is exactly the problem. However they would rather re-work a class then deal with the easy solutions.
The other problem is that they do not like the designed flaws for the class. So they have basically made Gunslingers a short range archer.
I never apply real world logic to a game, where dragons can fly. Other people do so I was trying to appease to them.
The HD argument I was ignoring; because the other solutions were to re-work most of the class. I was trying to offer an easier solution then that. Also this is for house rules, so you can ignore certain constraints. Plus I feel that this is what they should have done, and not feel constrained to keep things the way they are because that is how it has always done.
My house rules only change touch attacks for firearms. However, my analysis of them did lead me to change an ability of one of my homebrew classes so it uses a normal ranged attack.
Touch attacks aren't as problematic for full spellcasters because they were specifically designed for them. As I explain in more detail in my blog article, touch attacks were designed so wizards could hit armored targets with spells at higher levels. They're a band-aid for a flaw in the base attack bonus system. The limited use of spells and alchemist bombs keep those touch attacks in check. Difficulty in doing iterative attacks is also a major balancing factor. However, Ultimate Combat firearms give a mechanic designed for 1/2 BAB classes to a full BAB martial incentivized to min-max Dexterity.
My house rules do replace a few deeds and rework others. For example, quick clear got replaced with an...
I mostly play PFS so my answers will be slightly biased. I have rarely run out of spells or bombs. Usually the fights last only a couple of rounds and it is very hard to use up all of your resources.
This reply cut off some of your answer.
Misfires are critical failure mechanics driven into the game. If a misfire happens, the gun breaks. A gunslinger has to waste a move action and a grit point to undo it. If it happens on a full-attack, then you're just screwed for two rounds. It's an unfun game mechanic meant as a clutch to balance the broken firearm touch attacks.
A misfire does not break the gun. It takes 2 misfires to break a weapon. If you use the quick-clear grit action it is cleared as a Standard or a Move action if you spend the grit point.
It also should appeal to all the people who want to apply "real world" to the game. I consider it an approach to handle the fouling of the weapon from poor black-powder, not a mechanic forced into the game.
The sense I get from talking to people is that it is the full BAB with touch attack that causes some problems. Why not place it at 1/2 BAB? This would still be a minimum change vrs. re-working a lot of the class. I used that feature to take other feats then the standard Point Blank and precise shot. This allows me to be more variable then standard range characters. If you modify that then it is just an archer with more expensive arrows and shorter range.
There are multiple problems that I see arising. One problem is how do you address the Touch Attack abilities of other classes? The Alchemist has touch attack bombs/splash weapons, also rays for wizards and sorcerers.
How do you handle the deeds? Did you just replace the non-relevant ones or did you just ignore them?
I would also have to ask how it is mechanically different from a mis-fire to just missing?
I hate to repeat what others have said; however changing a lot of what the guns do does not make sense. You will be instituting house rules to cover for something that is OPed. You will also still be changing his character in a substantial way that will impede how he is played. This may impact the players continued involvement with that class. Especially if he feels that you are making changes to the game that are directed at him.
You would be better served to just admit that it was a mistake to allow advanced firearms. That 1 change will reduce the amount of damage he does without changing most of the abilities.
I play a Musket Master Gunslinger and will admit that the misfire chance of 20% (10% musket + 10% alchemical cartridge) has stopped most of my attacks. I do not have any feat that reduces the misfire chance as of yet.
This will also means he misses more. High BAB vrs low Touch AC: he will still miss when he misfires.
I play PFS at 3 locations; at one location I prefer to exclusively play, at the second I prefer to exclusively GM and at the third I do either as required to get as many people playing as needed.
I HATE HATE HATE having the place where I play or the place where I GM need me to do the other. In the case of where I GM I have already prepared for the game by reading the scenario and drawing the maps.
The third location I sorta prep something and hope to play. Not the best but still better then nothing.
I do not enjoy GMing because I can always see where I made the mistake. I will nit pick the little things that I forgot even after I have prepped everything. I hate the pressure that I place on myself and always feel that I let the players down. Unless it runs perfectly(i.e. players follow the clues and the encounters are effective.)
Andrew Christian wrote:
1) You are informed someone is there. It was logical to assume that it would meet the requirements.2 & 3) It was.
The real problem was that he blurted out what he wanted to do and the BBB responded with "Tell me more". He then locked himself in a room with it and negotiated the deal.
It was a complete dick move, but legal by the actions.
Played it. Kinda sucked having my Arcanist do nothing but Echo Shout for 3 hrs of PFS. <Sigh>
I also had cold and acid. They had either resistance 10 or immunity to all of my attacks. Only sonic could get them and I had only 1 sonic attack.
The problem with that post was that it did not provide any answer. It was just a response without any context. Therefore irrelevant to the thread in question.
Plus with over half the thread being about the question and not overly-derailed. It obviously needs to be answered.
James Risner wrote:
Thank you for the answer.
And again Unconscious is not used as a condition that results from the spell. If they wanted it to be there they could have listed it very easy or just said that you use that condition only. Especially considering that unconscious makes you helpless. That is part of the result of being unconscious.
This is why I object to the idea that people keep trying to use it in answers. Sleep is used repeatedly to describe things without ever going into detail as to what they intend. This is a problem. They can say anything they want until they put something in writing. Then they have to be sure that it says what they want it to.
James Risner wrote:
One is a condition. One is not. "a Sleep" is never defined as a condition.
I have still not seen anything to support the stance that you fall prone and are disarmed. Nothing that is supported by a single rule. Everything has been based off of what they believe the intent of the designers is.
I have now even seen people arguing that maybe you should take damage.
Now the thread has degenerated into arguing what RAW means.
James Risner wrote:
You are adding the condition of "unconscious". The spell uses the condition of "helpless". There can be no debate as to which conditions are stated. The debate is over the use of the term "magically induced slumber". This is NOT a condition. Slumber and sleep are not listed as conditions, however they are used repeatedly throughout the CRB to describe things, without ever being properly clarified in the texts.
James Risner wrote:
I can accept this as a given.
James Risner wrote:
My RAW is you go prone and you drop your stuff.
This however I cannot accept. This is clearly a case of RAI ruling by you. RAW only takes what is written and uses it in your argument. Not what somebody wished it to say.
Also do you rule that they take damage when they fall? If not why not? If you are going to make a ruling then you have to be willing to deal with all of the consequences. Do you believe that it is the same as going unconscious? I Could accept this, but that is not the case as per RAW. It is clearly differentiated by the way it is listed in the conditions.
James Risner wrote:
It comes down to permissive or non-permissive. It comes down to do you think the RAW must include every corner case and if not covered, it doesn't happen. Or do you think they assume you will make reasonable extrapolations. The developers have said too many times to count that they do assume you will extrapolate and the rules would need to be significantly larger if they didn't assume so.
I do not believe that this case of permissive or non-permissive. This is a case of changing how some classes are being played. Others have stated that it tones down the slumber hex from the Witch and changes how low level games are being played. This means that there should be no table variation. If you were to show up at my table you would be expecting your characters to do certain things, if I have other interpretations you will be either surprised or disappointed. Your character will not work as you expect.
This is what I like to avoid. This is why I try to only argue RAW. I do not like to argue what anybody intended. I do not have the same mind set as the designers, if I did I would then be comfortable stating their views.
James Risner wrote:
This may sound like I am antagonizing you, because tone is hard to do through typing.
You mean sense 1984 nobody read what the book said and just assumed that it did more then it says? I have played longer and will admit that until somebody new came into the game and asked why we did something I was in the same school of thought as you. However when we actually started re-reading the rules, we realized that there were many minor things that we had been assuming that were not supported by RAW.
What I am gleaning from this is that people go into the game with preconceived notions and no amount of showing the rules will change their view point. That is too bad I have had to adjust my view point when people have shown me that the RAW dose not support my view. I do not understand why people will argue RAW for some rules and then for something like this they argue RAI. (I also dispute that they intended for it to do what people have ruled it to do.)
I have also had people point out that Sleep is a very OPed spell and then STILL argue against the view point that if you followed RAW that it would be on par with other spells of its level.
I will wait for next month when this question comes up again and ask the same questions again and still get no clear answer to hopfully bring more people into the light of RAW. ;)
James Risner wrote:
Nice logic, until you ignore EVERYONE who has SEEN and posted about somebody asleep on their feet. Other then ignoring that you almost have a point. Except that you then point out that the condition Stun has a more serious result in game then in life. So the results only go one way? They could not have a less serious result?
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I am going to make the assumption that you believe that the sleep spell makes you prone and disarmed.
Now ignoring all of the points about RAW.
The problem with the statement made on P.440 is that some of us have seen things like a roommate who sleeps standing up. Not for 8 hours, but for easily the duration of the spell in question. We have also seen people standing watches who were asleep standing up. Now I personally cannot do this, I have to have a horizontal surface to sleep on. However that dose not help at all with the balance of power that this spell has.
Now I am not counting player actions that can impact this, because then you have to count for bad dice rolls and I am strictly looking at what is listed.
I knew there was something I forgot. ;)
Also if you pick up random splash weapons while adventuring you get to add your Int modifier to the damage. Just like you do with BOMBS!
In PFS ,y lvl 2 beat a lvl 7 Boss with all the alchemist fire we picked up. Had to play up because of the other high lvl players who all failed their fear checks or just got pummeled into lala land.
I will say this though if you have no interest in bombs there is always poison. However the bomb mechanic is the most interesting to me. The Mutagens allow you to make some changes to your character on the fly.
Every time I have been made prone. I have just gotten pummeled. You trigger an AOO for almost every action that you can do. My best action to date is to go full defense and hope that the rest of the party kills them before they attack me again.
I have had a bad GMPC with heavy armour move out of the way to get the non-sentient dog to charge me at the back of the party. PFS needed 4 to play and only had 3.
I have been beaten trying to stand-up and pick up my weapons to attack( learned to carry twice as many weapons as needed to by-pass that AOO)
You are -4 to AC against melee +4 for range; however I am usually based so that is not relevant most of the time.
I hate that I seem to have no good options. Most conditions you have no control and you just go with it. This one just makes me pick how I want to suffer.
I am still waiting on an answer!!!!!! I usually prefer lightening based spells.I can even see his puzzled expression.
Really did make me laugh out loud.
When I mess this up I will blame you:)
Bit of a leap, not a reach. :)
Sorry my mistake.
I would have to say that they would use whatever action it normally is, because they set up a special circumstance. They intentionally set things up to be easier. They also did not drop it while they were effected by sleep. When you drop them in an uncontrolled manner then you would say that they provoked attacks. The reason being that they have to look around and figure out where the weapons in question are located. Even if they are close by they are still not where you last had them.
I prefer prone to disarmed because prone is character-neutral. Disarming is more of a hassle for characters that expect to hold two items or wield two weapons. TWF users have it bad enough as it is.
I HATE prone. While asleep you cannot control what happens. When prone EVERYTHING is on you. Posted it in "things that get you shunned"
I have a friend who refuses to play with anything that is not fully optimized. He will not put a single skill point from a fighter into anything that dose not make him a better killing machine. This makes it harder when the rest of the group has points put into face skills and are less then fully optimized. You might consider lower your optimization into the level of the rest of group. If you notice everyone else has social skills and you do not maybe take a couple and see how it works out for you.
Ok to look at the last post you are going to make all your social skills which will continue the trend of him not liking your characters. Try a more balanced approach.
I find the condition "PRONE" to be the most annoying possible circumstance to be in as a character. If you are helpless you have no control. Make your save and then carry on. If you are rendered Unconscious, Whelp nothing for you to do but wait. If you are dead, well then you just make a new character and troop on. Only in prone is everything that follows based directly on your actions. Stand up: get hit, crawl away: get hit, sit there doing nothing: get hit on their next turn and have everyone b&!!+ at you about not helping them at all.
I am not as skilled in parsing out the sections I want without re-posting everything in the text. So here goes.
Whereas it may seem "like a bit of a reach for you" you are ignoring the rule that explicitly stats that you provoke when picking up an item form the ground. Anything else is strictly done at the GM wish and i do not see how you can say any different.
Plus you are still rendering them prone. If you do not render them prone it will tone back how powerful/annoying that you feel it is. It will still be very useful but not overwhelm encounters.
The problem with that ruling is that you are ignoring the rule that states you provoke a AOO when you pick up a fallen item.
SO you change the conditions imposed on you by one spell and then you have to ignore the rules in order to make it more balanced. That makes even less sense to me then not imposing extra conditions on a character to begin with.
Plus you now have to decide where the weapon has fallen so how would you determine that?
Option X: You fall prone, and anything you were holding in your hands stays in your hands, but are no longer being clenched. Any Disarm maneuvers done against the sleeping target are vs. a DC of 10 +/- any applicable size modifiers. When the target awakes, they are not considered to be wielding any held weapons or shields until their turn in the initiative order (i.e., if they are woke due to taking damage, they would not be able to use their weapons for Attacks of Opportunity until their turn in the initiative order comes back around).
Why are you adding more complexity to a situation.
Ok your hands are full, but you do not count as having your weapons in your hands.
Plus you still have to deal with all the AOO if you make the mistake of surviving and then doing anything.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
1. Picking up provokes a AOO. It is listed as a separate action from drawing a weapon which does not provoke an AOO.
2. Nothing here
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Personally, I would allow a TWFer to pick up his weapons just like he draws them—in the same action—but that's just me.
The problem with this solution is that it is TOTALLY against the rules. It was a situation caused by not following RAW and then you have to change a rule to have it appear as more balanced?
That to me is the main problem with people not following RAW they have to modify the next ruling to compensate or worse they complete throw out the rules and just try to appease people at the table to overcompensate for something that should have never arisen.