Monster Jack's page

20 posts. Alias of Raging Hobbit.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Of all the talk of how bad monks suck on the boards

Who is saying that?

Monks are awesome!

DrDew wrote:

No because DR says it stops damage from attacks and bleed is an affect, not an attack.

EDIT: Going grammar police on myself. Is it an affect or an effect?

Effect. Noun. Thanks

Does a Barbarians DR stop bleed damage?

Cartigan wrote:
Apparently you play some sort of fantasy D&D.

D&D is fantasy, dude.

Cartigan wrote:
where the DM is just another player instead of the guy in charge.

FYI - The DM is also bound by the rules, or should be. Otherwise, DM fiat and numerous house rules could dilute the game and confuse players.

This happened to me. I thought I was creating magic items according to the rules, but the DM didn't like it and informed me of how I should make the items mid-game. I had bought 3 item creation feats and the new rules put HUGE restrictions that were beyond anything written in the CRB on how I could create the items. The feats I bought became useless.

I didn't make a production out of it, as you and mdt have been alluding to, just didn't show. I continued for a while to point out what the rules and the developers said until the DM got mad. I asked to introduce a new character, but my current one was integral to the current story/narrative. I left them with my character and still talk to them over e-mail.

I just didn't like the way things played out so I just stopped going.

I think you guys are characterizing the upset party as throwing tantrums, because that is what you would likely do.

It's a psychological phenomenon called projection.

Shar Tahl wrote:
I believe he means that it is a check to see if you know about a specific thing in a broad knowledge category. It is a chance based on how skilled you are in that subject. I may know a lot about history in general, but if I never studied about a specific topic, then no amount of time I spent pondering it will help. That's what it means. You roll your random d20+skill to see if at some point you learned something about a certain thing, not having anything to do with how distracted you are. It's a just a "do I know about this?" check.

I get that but I failed to see how that was relevant to allowing or disallowing a Take 10.

When Question asked if he could Take 10 on a Knowledge check, Sean said look at the Try Again entry at the bottom of the Knowledge Skill description. It says nothing pertaining to not being able to Take 10, so why bring up the Try Again entry at all.

Just a little confusing. I think Question thought the same thing as me. Sean's reply did not really answer Question's question.

Question wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Question wrote:
So i could take 10 on knowledge checks when trying to figure out the weaknesses of a monster, assuming i was nto distracted?
Read the "Try Again" entry at the bottom of the Knowledge skill.
Uhhh so anything that doesnt allow trying again disallows taking 10?

While I am also a little confused by Sean's remark, disallowing Take 10 for non-retry checks is not right. I remember a specific post by Sean about Taking 10 for Magic Item Creation (which you cannot retry). You can use Take 10 for Magic Item Creation. PG/rules/magicItemCreationAndCasterLevel&page=1&source=search#33

about half way down the page.

Question wrote:
For what skills can you not take 10?

James Jacobs on taking 10:

"Taking 10" is supposed to be something you do when you're good enough at a skill that, normally, you WON'T fail. It's only if you rush or are distracted that you'll normally fail a skill that you're normally so good at that you can basically always succeed at it.

Also, taking 10 reduces die rolling. Which is a way to speed up game play. Over the course of a session, replacing numerous die rolls with taking 10 can add up. PG/rules/take10OnMagicItemCreation&page=1&source=search#11

If you are good enough at a skill where an AVERAGE roll will suffice, Taking 10 is an option that should be allowed as long as you are not distracted or in immediate danger.

Tryn wrote:

So for this, a 5rd Level Wizard can create a

+1 holy keen vorporal scimitar (if he had the money) right?

That's sounds a little bit strange, especially if you don't go so far but hold it simple:

A level 3 Cahracter should have ~ 3000 Gold.
So lets imagine a group of 3 charaters put theit money together and so the wizard can create a +1 holy weapon greatsword for their barbarian at level 3 - sorry thats a little bit OP or?

Remember Jurassic Park. Just because they could make dinosaurs doesn't mean they should re-introduce a long extinct line of Thunder Lizards into today's world.

Just because the party CAN create the item doesn't mean they will or should.

Assuming the crafter creates the item correctly and makes his crafting check, all of a sudden a rogue comes out of nowhere and steals it. They have to fight to get it back. Players putting all thier eggs in one basket deserve to get a shiner. The DM can regulate it easily.

RunebladeX wrote:

Flaming Burst-

Strong evocation; CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +2 bonus.

; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; =thats the requirements that must be met. you MUST have Craft Magic Arms and Armor no way around that. IF you dont have ANY of the 3 spells listed you have to take a +5 to the DC for not meeting a requirement. You do not need a CL of 12 for Flaming burst, CL 12 again is for GM use.


Louis XI wrote:

Perhaps I'm wrong in my understanding. How do you (all) understand the following sentence?

If [a magic weapon] has both an enhancement bonus [like +1] and a special ability [like Flaming], the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.

Or is this a leftover from previous D&D versions and should be ignored completely?

"must be met" means during the skill check to create the item. The CL must be met during item creation.

For example, if you are crafting a +3 Holy Crossbow the CL would be 9 (3 x enhancement bonus(3) = 9 vs Holy ability = 7)

Hobbun wrote:

From what I understand, the CL listed by the weapon (or any magic item) is not a requirement in crafting the item. Therefore, you don’t need to apply the +5 DC modifier if you are not at the same CL.


Sean K Reynolds - Developer

Sean on CL and creation requirements:
Caster level is only a prerequisite for creating the item IF the caster level is LISTED in the Requirements section of the item (for an example, see amulet of mighty fists). PG/rules/archives/magicItemCreationAndCasterLevel&page=1&source=sea rch#3

CL is not a requirement that must be met and therefore does not incur the +5 check penalty. Otherwise, your 6th level caster would incur the penalty on making a Pearl of Power, 1st level (CL17). For a 1,000g item.

Sean says the CL becomes a prerequisite only if it is listed in the item creation requirements...and is still only a prequisite. As noted in Happler's previous post, it can be overcome by adding 5 to the DC.

So the 6th level character can create the Sword of Bane incurring no penalties (as long as he can cast SumMonI).

Raging Hobbit wrote:
Does a crafter have to be a certain level to make say a Belt of Giant Strength +4?

What would the DC check be for an item like that any way if a sorcere without being able to cast Bull's Strength? Say he were 5th level with the proper feats.

CL 8, +10 for item creation, + 5 for not meeting CL of the item, +5 for not meeting BS prerequisiet.


OK, so there is a character in our group who fires arrows into combat and takes a -8 penalty. He says that the minuses come from not having Precise Shot (which gives you a -4 to shooting into melee) and the target having cover from opponents/allies standing in the way. I am wondering, he doesn't need to take that kind of a penalty, right? The cover is the -4 from shooting into melee right?

I have a DM that changes things up mid combat. The group isnt doing so well, so all of a sudden neither are the bad guys. We totally know what he's doing and it takes risk away from the game. None of us have died yet and a couple of us should have.

I like my character, but...don't take the risk out of battle.

Simon Legrande wrote:
In regards to the original question, I would think most GMs would have you put throwing on a weapon before returning if it isn't normally classified as a thrown weapon.

RAW states that Returning can be placed on "a weapon that can be thrown."

That being said, any weapon can be thrown.

"It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown."

About Touch Attacks...if you attempt a touch attack with a spell (say Shocking Grasp) but miss, is the spell discharged without effect or can you hold the charge until you successfully touch someone?

  • Spends most of the game session looking at unrelated stuff on his laptop. Sometimes he's browsing the web, sometimes he's looking up rules (he's a rules lawyer) which are unrelated to the current game.
  • Player doesn't actually know what's on his character sheet. Roll and then spend two minutes figuring out if he made it.
  • Continues rules discussions long after I have settled the issue, often disrupting the game in the process.

    This is something I've come across too. Sometimes we have to get a player's attention several times just to get him to roll to open a door!!!

    The thief thing is really annoying too. Stealing the most valuable loot while the rest of the party is still fighting.

    I am new to the game (a few weeks)and hours have been spent on discussing old campaigns. I've wanted to get up and walk out sometimes.

  • Raging Hobbit wrote:
    From the way the phrase is worded, the area you are monitoring must be known but you dont necessarily need to have been there.

    Seems pretty clear to me. As long as that point is within range, don't see why not.

    The door is known right? You could try looking through a crack on the door or under it to glimpse inside the room maybe.

    If there is any light coming through you could say you want to view the light source and from there see the room.

    Tanis wrote:

    Yeah, you've got it. You would need to pay 2,000gp to enchant it as a weapon, 1,000gp to enchant it as a shield, and 150gp for the m/work quality. Once it's enchanted as a weapon you get the +1 to attack (and damage as well) anyway, so don't worry about the m/work enhancement to attack.

    If it was just m/work then you would not get the bonus to attack.

    That's how it goes down.

    Shield at purchase: 3,020
    To enchant as a weapon:+2,000
    To enchant as a shield:+1,000

    Total Adamantine shield with +1 to attack and damgae and a +1 to AC would cost 6,020.

    Mynameisjake wrote:

    The Base price for a +1 sword is 2K gp.

    Cost to create for a +1 sword is one half the base price, plus the components cost, or in this case, 1K gp plus the cost of the MW sword to be enchanted.

    Do you have to have a +1 enhancement bonus on a weapon before placing a special ability on a weapon.

    e.g. a holy sword.

    would the bp be 18,000 or 8,000?

    The weapon obviously needs to be masterwork, which gives the weapon a +1 enhancement bonus per page 149 in the PHB.

    Page 551 the text says "A magic weapon must have 'at least' a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities."

    Question: Does the masterwork +1 enhancement bonus satisfy the requirement of having at least a +1 enhancement bonus?