Erutaki

Moondragon Starshadow's page

Organized Play Member. 189 posts (2,782 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I use the excel files created by BlueCanary. His files can be found HERE.

Now, if you are using an old computer with old excel, then I recommend version 6.20 (which has most everything). Although, the last version 7.4.0.1 is working well on my old computer. I have found the versions in between a tad unstable.

The bonus: It's free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just wanted to say thanks for the new version. Using Office 2007 and I had been stuck with the 6.2 version for a while as updates since then had crashed after just a few moments of use. The new versions 7.3 and 7.4 appear to be stable on my computer.

Great job!


You should be allowed to do it. A homebrew ruling can say no, but if you want to go by the rules you can do it.

As Nefreet put it, as you grapple the beast, does the beast get to make all of its claw attacks, or just 1 claw attack, when grappled? The GM will of course say all claw attacks. Well, same thing with humans.

As for TWF, the feat, requiring 2 hands, I would say that it is to say that the off-hand is not as penalized because you are used to fighting with a weapon in each hand. It's not really a fighting "style" that requires two hands (something that if you miss with one hand, you auto miss or have a big penalty with the other hand). Using this logic to deny the plain text and intent on grapple really is stretching things.


Heh, I feel your pain. I GM a vety active fast paced game for quite a long time. I then have joined perhaps 6 games as a player, all of which the GM disappeared after a few weeks. I have played the runelords AP three times and never got past the first combat sequence because the GM disappeared.

So, there are lots of decent players but extremely few decent and dedicated GMs. So all I can say is you would have a lot better luck being a GM. If you can post regularly and keep it going, that would put you in the top 5% automatically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My group just finished this part of the campaign. I would say that the setting of the campaign needs to be as dark and grim as possible. You are in a land full of devil worshipers and evil people. Tieflings are treated like cockroaches, and Halflings are nothing more than possessions. The more evil and over the top I made the setting, the more the players tended to get into the story of making it a better place.

I threw in a lot of "justified" killing of NPCs by other NPCs just to enhance the evil aspect of the city. I had bodies of tieflings piled up under one of the dottari's buildings as they were trying to exterminate them as part of the response to the Bastards of Erebus crimes. Stuff like that. A truly heinous setting.

So, I think that's the part about the first book that they liked the most. They also enjoyed fighting the Bastards, although their constant use of the Darkness spell made it a very difficult encounter for them.

What they disliked the most was how fast level 1 went by through the sewers. I made it so that they had a brief lead over the Hellknights, and each time they reached a special marking, they could spend part of that lead to increase the chance of reading the mark correctly. Incorrect readings resulted in more random encounters, but taking time would result in the Hellknights catching them. However, they were able to get the readings correct without spending much time and after 4 encounters they reached the exit. They suddenly were level 2 and they thought it was too fast. I agree. Giving them lots of XP just for entering and exiting the sewer seems too much.

They also disliked Palaveen's loot, which includes a potion of Disguise Self. This caused a lot of arguments about the legality of that potion, since the spell Disguise Self is a personal spell. That upset the rules-lawyer players so much that it frankly ruined the fun of beating the Bastards.


666bender wrote:

No need for proficiency .... He q is , can a earth elemental hold a scimitar , and fight ?

As a Druid with wildnshape I am proficient .
All that wrote above had a case. , is there anything WRITTEN I the roles ?

Let me break this down into two separate questions:

1) Can whatever you shift into hold a weapon that is roughly similar to what you want to use? So, can a Earth Elemental, which is a humanoid type that is proficient in simple weapons, use something like a sword? The answer is yes, if you believe a club/mace is similar enough to a sword. If the answer is "NO", then you're out of luck. Some GMs might say a sword isn't anything like a club/mace, while others would say it is close enough.

2) If you answer #1 YES, then the second question is are you proficient in it without wild-shape? If you answer YES to this question, then you are good to go.

The key thing about wildshape is to remember you don't gain the feats of the creature. So, let's be silly and say Earth Elementals had a feat in exotic weapon proficiency and used Nanchuku. You turn into an Earth Elemental, you cannot use Nanchuku to attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

SUGGESTION ON HOW TO FIX IT

Similar to Ebay, you could have forum users with enough posts (say 100 post minimum) to hit a feedback button of some sort on an alias if they think they are being a jerk.

Now, when a forum moderator comes along and see a jerky post by someone, they can look up the alias and see how many people (and different posts) have been marked as a "jerk" post. If the moderator sees enough people and in multiple posts marked as "jerk" posts, then the moderator can send a message to that person and give them an official warning.

If a moderator finds a post they feel is over the line, but that person has rarely made other "jerk" rated posts, then perhaps the moderator cuts them some slack.

It's a self-policing mechanism, whereby the forum users can signal a jerk post, and if enough of them pile up and a moderator finds a post clearly crosses the line, they can step in. It would make it easier on moderators who might hesitate on a borderline post.

Now, as a reminder, the forum users have no power to enforce anything, they can just rate a post as a jerk post. The moderator can use that information in the future should something catch their attention as to how common those kind of forum posts are occurring.

Blah, that's probably a long-winded suggestion, but I think you get what I'm trying to say.


Thanks for the invite for Gordo, the Barbarian. Small request, can I change his name to Narvolo? If not, that's fine. Nothing else to change, just that.


It's not impossible to remove oneself from the campaign, but it is harder than it should be. The best way I have found is to look at the last gameplay post date, then sort the forum by date and scroll through until you can find it, then hide the thread.

Does it really have to be that complicated? That's all I'm sayin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Currently there are two ways to get a campaign off your campaign list:

1) Have the GM remove you using the Edit Campaign information. This is great when GMs know to do this, or the GM is active. Gives the GM plenty of control. But there is no control by the player.

2) Find the gameplay thread on the main forum list and select "hide post" option. This is EXTREMELY hard to do if your campaign is old. The only way to find it is to do a search, but when you get the search result, it takes you directly to the thread itself, not the block forum listing that has the option to hide it. Thus, you are forced to scroll endlessly through the forums trying to find your exact campaign to then hide. It shouldn't be this hard.

The hide option needs to be in the thread itself, or there needs to be a way so that when you search for your campaign thread, it will give you the option to hide a campaign. Something. Anything, so the player can also manage their campaigns. Ideally, it should be on the campaign tab or in our account.

Thanks for reading. I hope this is fixed.


I'd like to submit Narvalo the Barbarian. It's a 20-point buy human invulnerable rager barbarian using the dual-talent alternate racial trait (+2 CON/+2 STR).

The character has taken the "Earning your freedom" campaign trait, selecting +1 Will Save option.

Background Information about Narvalo:

Narvalo's father was challenged to the leadership of his tribe via combat. Prior to the battle, his father's food was poisoned, making him very lethargic the next day, ensuring that he lost the fight.

When his father lost (and died), Narvalo was shipped off and sold into slavery to prevent a future challenge to the tribe. The slaver sailed far south into the deserts. There, Narvalo was enslaved for many years. While the sands and work made him tough, the constant insults from his master gave him a stronger willpower than most. Eventually, Narvalo was growing very strong and scary. His master, fearing for his own safety, gave Narvalo his freedom and starting money for a promise never to hurt him for his insults during his enslavement. Narvalo agreed and left, ending up in Katapesh.

If selected, I'll create a formal alias.


Yes, I'd be interested in it. I grew up just outside of Stone Mountain and played with some of the devs in a monthly LARP in Atlanta when they got started. Good times. I dropped the system after the "reboot", although when I look at the new systems it's okay.

So, I'd play Vampire, Mage or Werewolf. The other WW stuff never really got me interested. I could go new system or the old school stuff. Things I didn't like about new vampire were the different sects. The clans were fine, but the sects were dumb. The tremere and malkavians were gone, which was nice, depending upon your point of view.

The Mage system is easier now than it used to be, but it eliminates some of the roleplay aspects. Mage can just get goofy if people aren't trying to tell a story and are instead just metagaming. "I turn the vampire into a lawnchair!"

Werewolf was always like, eco terrorists, and I never did like that part about them. Werewolf is for more combat focused games. Vampire is like middle of the road, and mage is really story over system. At least that's my point of view on them.


May I present Gordo, a human barbarian. Please note that I took the dual talent alternative human racial trait.

Name: Gordo
Male Human Barbarian – Invulnerable Rager
CG Medium humanoid (human w/Dual Talent Alternate Racial Trait; +2STR/+2CON) (STATS won't add up to 25 points unless you take this into consideration)
Favored Class Barbarian
Deities: Gorum
Init +4; Rage 11/day; Perception +4

Stat with RAGE:

---------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE
---------------------------------------------------
AC 15, touch 10, flat-footed 13
hp 19 Nonlethal Damage 0
Fort +8, Ref +2, Will +2;
---------------------------------------------------
OFFENSE
---------------------------------------------------
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. w/armor + 10’ class bonus)
Melee Earth Breaker w/Rage and Power Attack: + 6 (2d6+12; 20/x3);
Melee Earth Breaker w/Rage only: + 7 (2d6+9; 20/x3);
---------------------------------------------------
STATISTICS
---------------------------------------------------
Str 22 (+6), Dex 14 (+2), Con 22 (+6), Int 10 (+0), Wis 10 (+0), Cha 10(+0)
Base Atk +1; CMB +7 CMD 17

Stats without RAGE:

---------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE
---------------------------------------------------
AC 17, touch 12, flat-footed 15
hp 17 Nonlethal Damage 0
Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +0;
---------------------------------------------------
OFFENSE
---------------------------------------------------
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. w/armor + 10’ class bonus)
Melee Earth Breaker w/Power Attack: +4 (2d6+9; 20/x3)
Melee Earth Breaker: + 5 (2d6+6; 20/x3);
---------------------------------------------------
STATISTICS
---------------------------------------------------
Str 18 (+4), Dex 14 (+2), Con 18 (+4), Int 10 (+0), Wis 10 (+0), Cha 10(+0)
Base Atk +1; CMB +5 CMD 17

Traits:

Beserker of Society (Combat:Barbarian) 3 more rage per day;
Exile (campaign) +2 Initiative

Feats:

Feat: Power Attack

Skills:

Trained Skills:
+2 Acrobatics (+1 skill + 3 class + 2 DEX -4 Armor), +4 Intimidate (+1 skill +3 class +0CHA), +4 Perception (+1 skill +3 Class +0WIS), +4 Survival (+1 skill +3 Class +0WIS)

Untrained Skills:
+0 Appraise (+0INT), +0 Bluff (+0CHA), +0 Climb (+4STR -4 armor), +0 Diplomacy (+0CHA), +0 Disguise (+0CHA), -2 Escape Artist (+2DEX -4 armor), +0 Heal (+0CHA), +0 Perform (+0CHA), -2 Ride (+2DEX - 4 armor), +0 Sense Motive (+0WIS), -2 Stealth (+2DEX -2 armor), +0 Swim (+4STR -4 armor).

Languages/Gear/Encumbrance:

Languages Common

Carrying Capacity 100/200/300; (Weapons & Armor Load 54lbs.) Total Encumbrance: 76lbs.

Armor: Scale mail (medium) +5 armor bonus/+3 Max Dex Bonus
Other Gear: Backpack, Crowbar, Grappling Hook, Hemp Rope, 2 Empty Sacks

Total Gold: 5gp

Background:

Gordo challenged the right to lead his clan, the Dolagods, through unarmed combat. His opponent Varma, son of the previous leader, poisoned Gordo's food before the fight. Gordo was extremely sick during the fight, coughing up blood. This looked like he was being beaten by Varma, but Varma's weak strikes could never have made Gordo bleed. Eventually, Gordo collapsed from sickness, not blows from Varma. Gordo blamed Gorum for causing him to be sick during his fight, not realizing that he had instead been poisoned. While cursing Gorum, he fell into a deep slumber and awoke in this empty prison. So much for cursing Gorum...

Rage/Feat Planning subject to change:

1st Level: Power Attack
2nd Level: Superstition, Dr/1-
3rd Level: Improved Initiative, Extreme Endurance Hot
4th Level: Witch Hunter, Dr/2-, +1dex
5th Level: Lesser Beast Totem
6th Level: Beast Totem, Dr/3-, +1 Fire Resistance
7th Level: Spell Sunder
8th Level: Strength Surge, Dr/4-, +1dex
9th Level: Improved Sunder, +2 Fire Resistance
10th Level: Greater Beast Totem, Dr/5-
11th Level: Combat Reflexes, Greater Rage
12th Level: Come and Get Me, Dr/6-, +3 Fire Resistance +1con
13th Level: Unexpected Strike
14th Level: Increased Dr/1-, Indomitable will, Dr/8-
15th Level: Increased Dr/1-, +4 Fire Resistance, Dr/9-
16th Level: Increased Dr/1-, +1con, Dr/11-
17th Level: Raging Vitality, Tireless Rage
18th Level: Elemental Rage Lesser, Dr/12-, Fire Resistance +5
19th Level: Elemental Rage,
20th Level: Mighty Rage, Energy Resistance, Dr/13-, +1con

Mythic Plan:

I will be selecting the Champion Mythic, going under the Furios Fighter theme. 1st-Tier Path Abilities: burst through, flash of rage, mythic rage. 3rd-Tier Path Abilities: titan's rage, to the death 6th-Tier Path Abilities: sweeping strike.


The biggest problem, as your guide points out (similar to most other druid archetypes) is the wild shape level penalty, which is pretty darn big. That's what turns me off on almost all the archetypes. However, if you're playing a "caster" focused druid, it's not that bad. If you're playing a more melee oriented druid, it is pretty bad.

Still, if you had to pick an archetype, this one is my favorite.


I'm not very smart, but if you want to play a high charisma caster, why not just make a sorc? If you want to do Cheliax RP, then do an infernal bloodline.

I dunno, seems rather obvious to me.


Be aware that taking 20 ASSUMES YOU FAIL during the process. This is why you can't take 20 when disabling a trap, as it would ensure the trap goes off.

I like SKR's description of taking 10, pass a skill check that should be passable to a hero who has some training as long as they aren't meaningfully distracted.


You don't have to speak a language to command your companion. You can make grunts, gestures or whatever that the companion can see/hear and those grunts/gestures are unique to whatever command you're trying to give.

There's really no reason to give a companion Int 3. You should have enough tricks to do what you need at Int 2. Even if you want the companion to understand others, they would still need to perform a Handle Animal skill. So, what's the point? They'll never have the bonus and skill total you get, and it's a move action (I think) for them to handle animal, while you get it as a free action.


EXAMPLE OF DITZIE MAP

You just move your character, then hit enter, it generates a new URL, which the player then posts into their post.

How to use Ditzie:

Once you have an account, you make a folder and subfolders, then go to add items and add the pics to the subfolder. Once you have the map and pics you'll need, you need to note the folder's identification # (you'll figure it out when you see it). Then, you go to beta.ditzie.com/[folder #] and you select the map, make it whatever size you want (shift-right click and resize), set it as the background. Then put the stuff you want on the map. Use a black blockout rectangle to block off things (and resize to what you need covered), then lock the blockout so players can't move it. Once you have it set, just hit enter, and it generates a URL. Sounds complicated, but if you do it once or twice, you can make a map in about 2 minutes. Even if you don't pick me but want advice on how to use it or have questions, just send me PM. Ditzie >> Google Docs. The only downside is touchscreen's don't work well with it. You need a mouse.


Narvolo the Barbarian:

EASY TO READ VERSION HERE

Name: Narvolo
Male Human Barbarian – Invulnerable Rager
CG Medium humanoid (human w/Dual Talent Alternate Racial Trait; +2STR/+2CON)
Favored Class Barbarian
Deities: Gorum
Init +2; Rage 11/day; Perception +4
---------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE
---------------------------------------------------
AC 16, touch 11, flat-footed 15
hp 17 (19 w/rage) Nonlethal Damage 0
Fort +6 (+8 w/rage), Ref +1, Will +0 (+2 w/rage);
---------------------------------------------------
OFFENSE
---------------------------------------------------
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. w/armor + 10’ class bonus)
Melee Earth Breaker w/Power Attack: +4 (2d6+9; 20/x3)
Melee Earth Breaker w/PA & Rage: + 6 (2d6+12; 20/x3);
---------------------------------------------------
STATISTICS
---------------------------------------------------
Str 18 (+4)/22(+6 w/rage), Dex 12 (+1), Con 18 (+4)/22(+6 w/rage), Int 9 (-1), Wis 10 (+0), Cha 9(-1)
Base Atk +1; CMB +(5/7) CMD (16/18) (no-rage/rage stats)
Feat: Power Attack
Traits: Beserker of Society (Combat:Barbarian) 3 more rage per day; Exile (campaign) +2 Initiative

Trained Skills: 1 Intimidate (+3), 1 Perception (+4), 1 Survival (+4)
Untrained Skills: Acrobatics (-3 or +1 for jump), Appraise (-1), Bluff (-1), Climb (+0), Diplomacy (-1), Disguise (-1), Escape Artist (-3), Heal (+0), Perform (-1), Ride (-3), Sense Motive (+0), Stealth (-3), Swim (+0).

Languages Common

Carrying Capacity 100/200/300; (Weapons & Armor Load 44lbs)

Armor: Scale Armor
Other Gear: TBD

Backstory:

Narvolo challenged the leader of his tribe in a battle to claim the leader's wife. Narvolo nearly killed the leader, when the leader's henchmen interferred with the duel by throwing a net over him and subduing him. The leader's wife intervened and stopped them from killing him (her secret lover), and insisted that Narvolo be exiled. Put on a boat, he eventually ended up at the docks of Sandpoint.

Posting frequency:

I'm in multiple games and I run a Council of Thieves campaign. None of them are meeting my posting frequency expectations. As such, i keep looking for a very fast paced game since I'm retired.

Map Program:

You should consider creating an account with Ditzie. It's what I use and in different games. The reason Ditzie is better than google docs is that you can keep track of old positions and new positions with Ditzie. If you do google docs, you will have to probably add a grid to the maps like battleship and ask people to announce their moves from B3-->D14 or something like that. That's not necessary with Ditzie. I can give you a hand if needed. Once you get the hang of it, it's very easy.


This was a good article that addressed this issue if you want a nice house-rule option. Skip the part about flanking and get to the 5' step commentary on different sized creatures.


1) If you cannot communicate with a creature, how does it know whom to attack?

I rule it works similar to summon monster. In that spell, the monster knows who to attack. That spell says: "It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions. "

2) Given a choice of enemies, who does the creature attack?
Reading above, it would most likely attack the closest opponent. Animals aren't strategy/tactical beasts outside of their typical pack mentality.

3)Does the creature have any kind of self-preservation instincts? Not really. It's compelled to fight for you per the spell, so I'd say it's death is somehow instinctively known that all it does is send it back to its plane, not really a death.

4) Can the creature be used for utility-purposes, such as transport (yo octopus, transport me to the shore)?

Only if you can communicate with it. Even then, I'd probably make you do a Handle Animal check.

5) A special case from our own gaming session:
The bad guy swims into a cave via an underwater entrance. The druid, being outside the cavern, summons a water-creature (an octopus in this case) and expects for it to swim into the cave, locate the bad guy and attack him. How would you rule on that expectation?

I'd make him roll Handle Animal with the DC for asking him to perform an unknown trick. The reason it wouldn't naturally attack is because the bad guy isn't an "opponent" of the druid at that point. Had the druid and the bad guy had some kind of fight, or fought after the summons, then the octopus would naturally attack since that would now be an opponent of the person who summoned it.

That's how I would rule. The key would be "opponent". Not "someone I don't like".


All you should do is confirm with the GM that he is making a house-rule, or does he believe it is a core rule from the book?

If it's a house-rule, then the GM knows the actual rule and is changing it, which is within their right as GM. I believe players should be informed of all house-rules prior to making a character. If a GM suddenly informed you of this, then you should make an argument that house rules should be disclosed ahead of time.

There was a GM here in Las Vegas who really didn't know the first thing about Druids, and I had to walk him through Wild Shape, and he got really angry about all the rules, thinking it was overpowered, and started making all sorts of house rules on the fly. The thing is, I had to make sure I knew all the rules before choosing a character. Had he done that at level 4, I would have blown my top. After that, I demanded a written document from him on all house rules prior to making any character. Amazingly, he didn't have one, so going forward he was forced to comply with the core rules.

So, that's my solution. Demand a list of house rules, in writing, prior to making any character. I would do this for any new GM. Then you have recourse if you think you're getting the wrong end of the deal with sudden rule changes.


It's so simple.

Make a list of non-normal actions. When you make that list, you cannot do a free action with those actions. Everything else will be a normal action, and those you can do a free action, regardless of who's turn it is. That's the rule after all.

The whole "speaking was specifically called out, thus it's clear you can't do free actions other than speaking outside your turn" response that about 20 people keep repeating don't get it. Speaking outside your turn was specifically called out not because of who's turn it was, but because speaking didn't accompany a normal action. Thus, it needed a specific rule. Again, it had nothing to do with who's turn it was. You can speak anytime, without a normal action to go with it. It's sad people took that and made the whole thing in their head that free actions were limited to their turn only except for speaking. Once they made that association, they just keep on repeating the same thing, over, and over, and over.

Normal actions can have free actions go with them. That's the rule.

So, we need a list of non-normal actions. That would solve the problem. I haven't seen that list. And as everyone keeps pointing out, the AoO isn't the action, the melee response allowed by the AoO is the action. Is it a normal action? Man, if melee attacks aren't normal actions, then this game really has some serious rules problems.


bbangerter wrote:
Moondragon Starshadow wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
The exception given for speaking is one of the reasons people believe that free actions can only be taken during your turn.
That exception is to allow you to speak without taking a normal action. Had that been the way it was written, things would have been clearer.

The rules aren't that you can take a free action when taking a normal action. The rules are that normally you take can free actions while taking another action.

Normally has quite a distinct meaning from normal.

PRD wrote:


You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally

Could also be written as

"Normally, you can perform one or more free actions while taking another action."

Yeah, that's completely right. So, let's write it that way. Normally, you can perform a free action while taking another action.

Now, that implies that there might be specific instances when you cannot. Well, which ones? I would assume (oh boy, that word) that what it implies that the developers will state specifically when you cannot use a free action, or if a specific free action can only be done in certain times/actions/whatever. Thus, it would be the specific rule overwriting the general rule.

Going with that concept, it should say very clearly in the Attacks of Opportunity section or somewhere, that you cannot take free actions as part of an Attack of Opportunity. Or in the section for GRAB, it would say "this free action can only be used on your turn". Until that specific rule is mentioned to overwrite the general rule (why I think they added the word "Normally"). They could further clarify with a statement like "Unless otherwise noted, a free action can be performed with any action." Thus, we would know they intend to limit free actions with specific language.


bbangerter wrote:

A situation to consider.

Wolf moves provoking an AoO from a PC. The PC uses his AoO to do something that provokes from the wolf. The wolf bits the PC for his AoO - does the wolf get to apply trip? It is the wolf's turn after all.

While RAW technically doesn't allow the trip when it is not the wolves turn - because of the above, RAI, to me, is plainly that the wolf does get the trip regardless of whose turn the attack happens on. or creatures with grab get their grab regardless, etc.

So, let's put it a bit more real. The wolf moves through a threatened square to move into another threatened square of the same creature (trying to get a flank position +2 bonus). The creature tries to trip the wolf for his AoO without having the Improved Trip feat. Because the creature lacks the Improved Trip feat, this also provokes an AoO, so the wolf then bites (which has the trip feature as a free action). Yes, this all would "fire" at the very first square, so the wolf's bite would go off, but it wouldn't get the +2 flank bonus because all this occurs in the first threatened square, not the second square with the flank bonus. So, let's assume the wolf hits and trips the creature. The creature then goes prone, attempting to trip the wolf while prone and fails. Then the wolf moves into the square with the flanking position bonus.

At least, that's how I think it would get resolved. I've seen arguments on the forums about provokes that provoke, that provoke, ad infinitum. I think when that happens, I'd just rule the AoOs cancel each other out and move on with the game. It's such a rare situation that it's not worth getting an official ruling.


Nefreet wrote:
The exception given for speaking is one of the reasons people believe that free actions can only be taken during your turn.

That exception is to allow you to speak without taking a normal action. Things would have been clearer had they specifically stated it this way instead, then everyone would understand it is linked to the normal action rule, not the turn "rule".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

RAW, It's pretty straight forward that you're not allowed to do it. Sure, it's a Free Action you can take when you hit a creature with an attack; if it occurs outside your turn, you aren't given a special exception to take that Free Action outside your turn, since there is no clause explicitly stating it can be used with Attacks of Opportunity or otherwise.

Speaking sets the precedent that Free Actions are limited to be taken only during your turn, since it is the only written subject that signifies language stating you can do so outside your turn. Everything else which lacks such language would follow the same restrictions as nearly every other action type.

Please link where it says you must take a free action only on your turn. When you read the Free Action description from the PRD, it says no such thing. It seems that unless you have a link to the rulebook stating that a free action must be taken on your turn, you are assuming. Most actions occur on your turn, and free actions are done with normal actions, so obviously the vast majority of free actions occur on your turn. But, there is no stated restriction that a free action must occur on your turn. The restriction is that it accompany a normal action.

So, a normal action can be a melee attack. A melee attack is part of an Attack of Opportunity. So, please, provide your link that a free action must be done on your turn only.

Furthermore, to the post about pointing out feats that allow you to take free actions with a bow to do an AoO. The feat doesn't allow the free action, it allows the AoO. Because it allows the AoO, and the only way to attack with a bow using an AoO is to also draw the arrow, which is a free action. So, if the feat allowing an AoO from a bow required you to hit the creature with a melee attack with your bow (like swinging the actual bow), then you might imply you can't draw an arrow and shoot it in an AoO. But, that's not the case, you actually shoot the creature as an AoO, so you have to draw an arrow, which is a free action, which of course doesn't happen on your turn. Another way to think about it is the feat would say "You can make an AoO with your bow ONLY if you have an arrow already drawn and ready." But of course, it doesn't say that.

The reason it doesn't say that is because there is nowhere stated that free actions must occur on your turn. The only restriction is that it happens with a normal action. Stop reading stuff that isn't there.


Yeah, misses count as "using" the spell. You are discharging the spell on your attack, not on a successful attack. I also believe that once you convert it to ranged touch, holding the charge becomes impossible because it becomes overpowered at that point if you can hold ranged touch attacks. I would be shocked if you could hold a charge as a ranged touch attack. Touch attacks are inherently more powerful, since you do indeed have to touch the target, something casters are not prone to do, or get close to your allies, who are probably near the enemy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corodix wrote:
Starglim wrote:
Moondragon Starshadow wrote:
The only problem is the word "normally" in the sentence. Why is that word even there? Are there non-normal actions you can take, and thus not permitted to use a free action? So, is an Attack of Opportunity a normal action, or a non-normal action?
Neither. An attack of opportunity is not an action.
The attack of opportunity rules say that an attack of opportunity is one melee attack. Melee attack can be found under the actions table as "Attack (melee)". Doesn't that mean that the attack itself is an action even if the attack of opportunity isn't?

Yeah, I would think that's the case. Furthermore, being able to make AoOs with a bow via feats or special abilities also suggests you can indeed take free actions as part of an AoO.

If I had to guess, I would say that when they wrote the definition of free action, they just inserted "normally" without really thinking about the consequences of that word OR it was meant as a catch-all just in case something weird came up, and as such they would probably make a specific ruling about it, so that the specific rule would overwrite the general rule. I'm probably going to assume the latter, and thus if the rules don't specifically state that you cannot take a free action, I'm going to assume you can take the free action. I'm going to assume that when they make an action that says "this action cannot include free actions" or something like that, then every listed action is indeed "normal". Thus, in a nutshell, you can indeed use grab with your attack of opportunity.

I realize that's not official or anything, but until we get something from Paizo, I think that is a clear reasoning.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:


QUESTION: Can creatures with Grab or Trip (or similar abilities that are triggered as a "free action" during an attack) use those abilities during a successful Attack of Opportunity?

I'll do you one better.

From the PRD on free actions: "Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."

From that quote, nowhere does it state that a free action CAN ONLY be done on your turn. It might be assumed that's the case because on your turn is when you normally take another action. But that's not at all what it says. It says while taking another action. Is an Attack of Opportunity another action? Sure.

The only problem is the word "normally" in the sentence. Why is that word even there? Are there non-normal actions you can take, and thus not permitted to use a free action? So, is an Attack of Opportunity a normal action, or a non-normal action?

If it's normal, then you can do a free action. If it's not, then you cannot do the free action, and it solves all the questions.


Beopere wrote:

The druid would lose 1hp per HD, so in this case 1 hit point. Note however the current AND maximum decrease by this amount.

Nevermind, found the rule finally.


So let's say a level 1 druid with a constitution score of 10 and has 8 hp suffers 2 points of constitution damage. What is the hp of the druid?

Ignore if it is good or bad to do this to a level 1 character, just need the result based on RAW.

Thanks in advance.


It's not a problem. What you could do with a Neutral Evil druid is basically use methods and strategies to "protect nature" that a Neutral Good druid would never consider.

Does creating a flood that destroys the local village that was poaching animals in the forest acceptable? Sure for a Neutral evil druid. Creating an undead squad to attack people to keep them out of the forest okay? Sure.

Basically, you're the druid that has "had enough" of trying to be nice and convince people to respect nature, etc. You see yourself as Nature's Avenger, and if it means killing, raising dead to fight on your behalf, or stealing from those in civilized land to "hurt" civilization (anything non-nature), you can probably remain a druid.


Well, assuming your GM will allow it, here's what I would do:

I'd have two of your hands hold a greatsword or other typical heavy damage weapon, and in the other two hands I'd have a two-handed reach weapon like a long-spear.

That way, you get to smack them as they come in, and smack them when they're close. When they are close, drop the spear as a free action and pull out another big 2-handed weapon like a heavy mace as your move action, and swing both the sword and the mace. Or, if you have improved trip, you can then trip with the mace, get the opponent prone, then hit them with the sword with the +hit modifier for prone enemy.

Something like that.


You should check the rules forum. This subject came up a couple of months ago and there are some major hurdles, especially when it comes to getting the 1.5 multiplier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As stated many times, the rules are written in plain english, not legal speak. However, every so often (like every other day) someone tries to read it like it's legal speak, and then complains it isn't clear, demanding an FAQ.

If I were a Pazio developer, and I saw people asking for an FAQ on what exactly does "wielding" mean, I'd shake my head and throw up my hands in frustration.

The example of Scepter of Heaven, which is supposed to be confusing, seems blatantly obvious. It acts as a morningstar, so it has to be wielded as a weapon. OMG, what does "wielded" mean. Really? Have we fallen so far that we have to actually ask these questions? If you had to just be wearing it, then they would have said wearing it. Nobody is wielding a ring of protection, after all.

If Paizo were to write the rules in legal speak, it would 1) be so incredibly long nobody would really know the rules accept for a select few and 2) would probably just be more confusing. The last thing anyone should want are for the rules to become more legal speak.

I'd like Paizo to focus on truly confusing things, like they did with charging while mounted, rather than junk like "what does wielding mean?" When games devolve into such nonsense, where there is a debate about common words, I would tell the player (or DM) that perhaps an RPG isn't for them, and suggest they play something like Candyland.


What exactly does the spell Faerie Fire do that putting an invisible creature on fire not do? It's the same "effect", except one is magical and one is not. In both cases, the creature is outlined, one in magical lines and the other in real fire.

I'd apply the same effect: -20 on stealth, no benefit from concealment, blur, invisibility, etc.


No, you wouldn't get the Hold Breath ability, per beast shape rules.

Now, Tusk is basically saying if you do a charge attack, use that instead of Bite. "A charging narwhal can make a single gore attack with its tusk in place of its normal bite attack." Well, if you are a narwhal, and you specify that you are charging, then I would allow you to do this specific gore attack.

It's sort of stupid to put that as an extraordinary ability. It's just a special attack when they charge, so I'd allow that without a second thought.


Byronus wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
"Better" vision is not an ability, but a racial bonus to a skill.

...skills which, as previously indicated, does not apply to Wild Shape as the character's own skills replace that of the Skills the animal gets normally, correct?

If the Fighter/Druid changed into a Common Cat, they wouldn't have Climb+6, Perception+5, and Stealth+14, but would, instead, apply the Racial Modifiers of +4 Climb and +4 Stealth, and any applicable modifiers for Tiny size, to the Skill ranks the Fighter/Druid possesses. Right?

:Byronus

You neither get the feats nor the skills of the creature you are wild shaping into. The ONLY thing you "get" from the animal you transform into has to be listed in the beast shape spell, and then you get the worse of the option. So, under beast shape 1, you can "get": climb 30 feet, fly 30 feet (average maneuverability), swim 30 feet, darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, and scent.

So, if you transform into a fish that can swim 60 feet a round, you're stuck going 30' a round. If you transform into a creature with POUNCE and only have access to Beast Shape 1 (level 4 Druid), then you cannot POUNCE.

Your stats change per the Beast Shape spell. So, to be clear, you maintain your skills (although all armor penalties go away), your feats, your stats change and your size changes. Size will affect your ability to hit, your AC, CMB/CMD. Make sure you adjust accordingly.

Please note: You cannot transform into a magical creature, despite what Beast Shape 3 says. That is overruled by specific rules for wild shape.

And yes, you are right to be frustrated with Wild Shape. The information is scattered in multiple parts of the core rulebook.

Oh, and I'd probably dump the animal companion and go with the domains if you're going to multiclass. I believe (not sure on this) that the animal companion does not level unless your Druid levels, so a level 10 fighter and level 6 druid with a level 6 companion. The level 6 companion isn't going to be effective enough, so the extra spell from the domain probably makes more sense.


ohako wrote:

So, I'm liking my 'so-old-it's-new' Snake Style/Stunning Fist/Medusa's Wrath monk/duelist business, and I wanted to get a clear picture of the Snake Style tree.

Plainly put: when is the best time to use each of the different immediate actions in Snake Style?

Action 1: Use a Sense Motive check instead of AC or touch AC
Action 2: Take a 5-foot step if you land a critical hit
Action 3: Punch an attacker twice instead of once if they miss

So, action 2 is a clear outlier: you're just not going to get crits very often with an unarmed strike. (unless I'm missing something: is there a way to boost your crit range with an unarmed strike past 19?) Also, can you even take an immediate action on your own turn? If you can, then this might be useful if your crit-victim just dropped, and you wanted to 5-foot step to a new target. If not, then you'd only be able to use it when you critted on an AoO...maybe move into a better flank position, or play keep-a-little-away?

The main choice is between 1 and 3: do I boost my AC for one attack, or do I take an extra punch if they miss? You have to choose before they roll, so...you sorta need to know your chances: will I get hit or not?

Does that about sum it up? Am I missing anything with Snake Style?

I guess the same question applies when deciding to use Stunning Fist: do I try on my turn to stun, and hope my target gets no action, or do I try on their turn (with a Snake Fang AoO or similar), and hope I can drop him with the two extra attacks from Medusa's Wrath?

I have a flowing monk and I'd say it usually depends on a couple of things:

First, what is your "normal AC"? So, let's say you have a pretty good regular AC from some magic items and most stuff misses, then clearly you want to skip #1 and save it for #3. However, if your normal AC is merely okay, and you get flanked, or someone is charging you, or is going to hit you with something really painful, then clearly use option #1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You can fly while paralyzed.

Remember, the rules are written assuming "normal" circumstances. In a normal circumstance, a creature is on the ground or swimming or using wings to fly. In that normal circumstance, a paralyzed creature cannot move, as movement is mechanical in nature. This kind of reasoning was discussed with touch attacks, as the developers "assume" you are holding the charge in your hands (a normal circumstance), not with your feet, hooves, bite attack, etc.

What if a creature only moved via teleportation using their mind? Paralyzation wouldn't have any effect, they would be a teleporting brick. Fly is exactly the same thing.

The fly spell, once casts, says it only requires concentration. It doesn't say you grow wings, or must flap your arms, etc. Thus, you would be forbidden from taking any kind of action that required something like that, but you could fly, like a flying brick. Had the fly spell said you grow wings, then no, you can't fly. If it said you must act like a bird, then no, you can't fly. Doesn't say that either. You just become a flying brick. Does it make sense? Of course not, it's magic.

You could try to do flying maneuvers, but since that would require a dexterity based skill check, you'd probably be at stiff penalties since I'd rule you have a dexterity of 0.

In rules discussions, while I know it's tempting to point at a specific few words and say "see, it says you can't move", one must remember it's made for normal circumstances. When you have a specific circumstance that overrules it, it overrules it. Fly is one of those specific circumstances.


That is correct for wild shape, you gain the natural attacks, and if the natural attacks have a bonus for elemental damage, you get that bonus as well. You essentially are that creature.

Now, some caveats: If a creature is using a ability that is listed under beast shape IV like POUNCE, RAKE, CONSTRICT, etc. you must make sure that your character level's beast shape allows you access to that ability. So, a level 4 character cannot use RAKE, even if they are as a creature that normally does have RAKE.

Second, you do not gain the creature's feats, like improved critical, improved natural attacks, etc. So, if there is a Bite 2d6 (19-20/x2), you have to check to see if the Bite crit is normal crit range or if that has been boosted by the feat improved critical.

Third: You cannot wild shape into a magical beast, despite what it says in the Beast Shape spell, because the specific language of wild shape overrules that portion.

Fourth: You do not assume all of the creature's stats. You modify your existing stats based upon the spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, my monk at level 9 has an amazing 36 AC. He always runs in first since it normally takes a 20 to hit him. Then all the other players can attack.


Imbicatus wrote:
The Druid/Ranger spell Strong Jaw increases the damage of natural attacks by two size categories. You would need a good UMD or a party member to cast it for you.

Just be aware that some GM's might rule that strongjaw does not stack with Improved Natural Attack. You should inquire with your GM.


The only other guide that I know of is Here. Still, I think the Treatmonk guide should do you well.

I've played druids, and I can tell you that going melee is the way to go with the class. High STR, modest WIS (say 14) and moderate CON (at least 12). Get a lion animal companion and boost it's damage with feats. Learn the rules regarding SCENT. Your DM probably will not know the rule or will apply it wrong. When you reach level 4, start wildshaping. Your DM probably won't know the rules regarding wildshaping, so do your homework and help him, or ask here (or send me a PM). It's complicated at first.

Hope that helps. Send me a PM if you have further questions on the class, i'll be glad to help.


Lack of access to monster feats is one reason I refuse to play a druid in PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, you're saying that really high level spells can unbalance the game? That's a newsflash. Of course a spellcaster with access to lots of 9th level spells is probably going to win against just about any multi-classed character.

You could say put a lvl 20 druid against a lvl 20 Zen Archer Monk and see how that goes, or a lvl 20 druid against a lvl 20 Divine Focus Wizard.

Given the amount of time spent discussing level 20 performance on the forums, I must be in the minority of people who rarely play a level 20 character.


Well, I think the topic got a bit off course.

Cheese Mode-Hit with +grab, do constrict damage, let go with free action, hit with next tentacle with +grab, do constrict damage, let go with free action, etc. etc. all in the first round.

While I suppose it's legal, it's not RAI. Constrict damage takes TIME. Let me demonstrate. Put your hand in a vise, and then squeeze it to break your hand. That took TIME. Now, put your hand on a table and smash it with a giant hammer. It had exactly the same physical effect (squeezing between two hard objects), but the hammer is just a hit in the game rules.

So, I believe RAI is that you can take CONSTRICT damage just once per round. Otherwise, if it takes no time, then it's the same as doing damage via attacks like getting your hand smashed with a hammer. So, the cheese mode of doing constrict, letting go and hitting with the next limb to do constrict damage again in the same round is not viable.


Yes, I asked a very similar question to James Jacobs about holding charges with Frostbite. I was asking if holding a charge as a wild shaped animal would "Detonate" the spell since I'm walking on my "hands." My DM at the time argued you couldn't hold a charge in an animal form since you are "touching" the ground with the paw that also does the attack.

=================================
Jacobs responded:
"The rules are indeed assuming you're holding a charge with your hands. When you stretch the situation to include unanticipated things like being a tiger in Natural Shape with a held charge... you need to adjust.

If that tiger picked something up in its paw, it would discharge the spell. Walking is not the same as picking something up."
=================================

So, for me, grappling is similar to "picking something up" and it would set off the held charge.


Discussing the possibilities of what happens at level 20, is a bit insane and neat for forums but usually useless for 95% of games and players. Here's a CR20 vs level 20 Class X: blah blah blah. Neat for forums, but helpful to the average player? Hmmm.

Anyway, a wizard needs to think about defense differently. Walls of stone come to mind. Hordes of summoned creatures in the way come to mind.

If these things don't come to mind to a caster as a way of protecting themselves, then they might not be a very good wizard.

In general, at higher levels the game becomes rocket tag. Whomever goes first, and either deals unbelievable damage off the bat, or casts a spell that almost negates the other's attack/ability or changes the battlefield completely, wins. Not always, but usually. So, you have to tell the players to start thinking strategically, not just running into every battle willy-nilly and hoping their AC is high enough. Might work a few times, but that's a suicide mentality that will eventually end in a player or party wipe rather quickly.

1 to 50 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>