It doesn,'t quite fit the terms, but:
It probably won't do 140 damage, but it ignores AC and forces a DC: ~130 Fort save vs death.
(Actually that did come to almost enough damage unless i messed up, maybe someone wants to add to this?)
The thing about reach tactics is that you don't need to rush in. You can take your time and wait for everyone to come to you.
I don't think you use any of your movement when you are "shunted" to a different spot - you just assume they moved to the other spot instead.
Personally I'd let them share a square (which is not the rules) provided the invisible enemy succeeds at a stealth check (and maybe an acrobatics check or reflex save). If the invisible enemy wants to attack it gets more complicated, but there are rules for "squeezing".
I generally go melee, but that's mostly because I prefer that. It does have the advantage that if you need to heal, buff or debuff you're in melee range (which is the range for a lot of spells). Also if you're using channel to heal at all you want to spread the damage out as much as possible, so taking a hit or 2 might kake the most of that.
Ranged has the advantage that you're less likely to down yourself - if you're buffing and you go down the buffs often go down with you.
Who's your patron deity?
The part you quoted is the flavour text. The actual rules about how many attacks you make say this:
Dead Shot wrote:
When she does this, she shoots the firearm at a single target, but makes as many attack rolls as she can, based on her base attack bonus.
This text states that the attacks made are your iteratives due to a high BAB. I could see an argument for some things, but "Rapid Shot" is about making more attacks and thematically doesn't fit here at all.
You're correct that you can't get to more than 4 attacks by level 20 due to BAB, but if people play above level 20 they may change that. Rules like this are also often written in a generic way in order to account for any changes that may be made to the game at a later date, so this text is likely just written as a catch-all in case something changed this to the point where the "penalty" ended up giving them an attack bonus.
I think this is going to be a situational deed, but to counter the need to improve it I'd say that the Gunslinger is the last class that needs a boost to damage output. If you allow Rapid-Shot/Haste to add to this then a 7th level Gunslinger can potentially roll 4 attacks with this deed. If even 1 attack is a crit then there's a very high chance that you confirm and end up rolling something like 16d8+44 damage (~116 average damage). While the Gunslinger could use some help to be more relevant in some situations in the game, Damage output has never been their problem and probably shouldn't be buffed.
I would also ask: Are you the one playing the Gunslinger or are you searching for answers for another member of the group?
If you're playing the Gunslinger then you being the "rules guy" have a responsibility to make sure you present everything in a balanced way to the GM to avoid any kind of bias. I'm the rules guy in my group so I'm very careful to check before I take any feats/traits/spells/etc that might be considered unbalanced. I even check if it's just something I think the GM won't have seen.
... but seriously - yes you need to make a spellcraft check to know what spell is being cast.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
There is a way to get Sneak Attack Damage with Bombs, sort of. Take the Explosive Missile Alchemal Discovery. That lets you put a bomb on a regular piece of ammunition such as an arrow or musket ball. You aren't technically getting SAD on the Bomb: you get SAD on the Musket Ball. And you get Bomb Damage on the Musket Ball. You get Deadly Aim on the Musket Ball.
I like this idea, but Explosive Missile specifies: "arrow, crossbow bolt, or one-handed firearm bullet", so no musket (not sure if you meant that exactly, just putting this here for people who are looking into this).
I agree exactly with what Pan said.
If I were GMing a game I'd think very carefully about giving this item to a player without modifying it.
If I were playing a Sorcerer and wanted this item I'd talk to my GM about how/why it can be considered OP before putting it on my character sheet. If the GM wants to rule as DeathlessOne would I wouldn't argue (it's still a good item).
Since this is the Rules Forum: According to the language used it does allow the use of new powers.
Benefit: A rogue with this talent may treat her initiative roll as a 20 for a surprise round, regardless of her initiative, but she may only take an attack action with a ranged weapon. Her normal initiative roll is used in subsequent rounds. If two or more rogues possess this talent, their initiative determines the order in which they act, but they all go before any other creature. If a rogue is prevented from acting in the surprise round, this talent has no effect.
I agree with Thedmstrikes, it doesn't give a surprise round. It even says there are times when you won't get one (bolded).
The 2 ways I know of to get an auto-surprise round would be to take at least one level in Sohei Monk, or to take at laest one level in Wizard with the Divination specialist school (or Foresight sub-school I think).
Haha, it was actually easier when I skimmed it than when I read it thoroughly, but I'll post what I think the question was just to be sure:
OK so I know that if I were to hold the charge on a spell and deliver it through
(Bold = replacement for unclear text. Italics = missing text added.)
The answer to that question is: "Yes."
doc roc wrote:
Well it doesn't necessarily, but it can.
I could make a reach cleric with 10-STR, 10-DEX, 13-CON, 10-INT, 20-WIS, 10-CHA, then put zero feats into combat and just be a caster. I can still wield a longspear and wear medium armour and occasionally I'll hit or trip an enemy. This is basically a better use of my time than standing at the back casting spells, since I will also deal some free damage every few rounds. I'll probably take some damage, but if I channel positive energy then I'm better off spreading the damage out a bit anyway.
Or I could drop that WIS just a little and have my stats at: S-14, D-10, C-14, I-10, W-18, C-10. I put 2 feats into Power Attack and Furious Focus. Now I'm dealing decent damage with each AoO, and I'm hitting more often. With a lowly +1 weapon this is doing 1d8+13 damage at level 11 (the end of your PFS carreer). That's not amazing, but since you can still get your WIS to 24 it's still high enough to give you that bonus 6th level spell that you want. The only thing you've really given up is losing 1 point to the DCs of your spells.
With a little stat dumping you could get even better: S-15, D-14, C-14 I-7, W17, C-10. Now you spend one more feat on Combat Reflexes (on top of Power Attack and Furious Focus), up your STR at lvl-4 and your WIS at lvl-8 and make some use of Enlarge Person. Now with a +1 weapon at level 11 you're dealing 2d6+16 damage, and you potentially get a 2nd AoO each turn. Once again you can still get your WIS high enough to get that bonus 6th level spell, but your early levels will see you doing way more damage, and even at 11 you're doing enough to be helpful.
Note that all of these builds can still be focused on casting. If you're playing a caster-focused cleric then you're probably throwing out some group buffs, so why not add one more spear to the mix to maximise the effect of your spells?
This isn't to say you have to do any of this, but more that you CAN do it. Since just holding a Longspear doesn't cost you anything there's no real downside. Some people choose to invest a little more in the combat-side since it really does make thise earlier levels much easier, but the extent you go to is up to you.
EDIT: I forgot to say these stats assumed Human/Half-Elf/Half-Orc (with the bonus in WIS), but you could get similar stats with other races.
doc roc wrote:
I think what you're missing is that it doesn't need to keep up.
The Cleric (along with most 9th level casters) isn't very good at casting at low levels (1-4). For Wizards/etc this usually means they grab a crossbow and make peace with being carried to level 5 by the martial characters (that's right, I went there).
The Cleric has the advantage of being able to use armour (and possibly some martial weapons) and has a medium BAB. While not as good as a full BAB character they can still contribute to the combat.
By wielding a reach weapon they get the choice to use weapons/spells/channels/domain-abilities each round while still potentially getting bonus attacks with AoOs. This lets you focus on making yourself the divine magic-user that you know you'll eventually become while still contributing at lower levels. As merill pointed out standing on the front-line also puts you where you need to be should an ally need healing (or should you feel the need to use one of your many "touch spells" on an enemy).
As far as spending feats or spending points on other stats - that's entirely up to you. Spending one or two feats will make you a better martial at low levels, and might keep things relevant through the mid levels.
If a hunter has an animal companion and the teamwork feat . paired opportunist , and a creature we both fight wants to get away . not using withdraw or 5 feet step .. do we then get 1 or 2 aoo EACH ? as the 2nd aoo we get is in the action of yer partner !!
PAIRED OPPORTUNIST wrote:
Benefit: Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, you receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attacks of opportunity against creatures that you both threaten. Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity). This does not allow you to take more than one attack of opportunity against a creature for a given action.
The bold part specifically addresses this. You do both get the +4 to hit with your AoOs though.
Ah I found it. It's not an FAQ but it's from someone who was on the design team.
Sean K Reynolds" wrote:
The text about it being a wall of force means that it blocks attacks by incorporeal creatures (it denotes that it's a force effect), not that it acts as the spell: "Wall of Force". The items specifically says it acts like a shield. If your GM allows it then great, but generally that's not what it's intended for.
Regarding size, a 5×5 shield would definitely be a Tower Shield.
The text you quoted is from a feat (Equipment Trick). Without the feat you can't do this (which is why the feat exists). If your Fighter does have the feat then no worries.
If you're not proficient with armour or a shield, the penlty is that you take the Armour Check Penalty to your attack rolls. Since this item has no ACP that's not a problem. As a wizard you would also incur the Arcane Spell Failure chance for wearing armour or a shield (whether proficient or not), but again this item has no ASF chance.
In this case you are taking the penalties for using this item, it just so happens that the penalties are a -0 to hit and a 0% chance for your spells to fail.
On a side note, a Mithral Buckler has the same penalties, so you could wear a +3 Mithral Buckler. It would have a +4 AC bonus and cost ~9000gp. It wouldn't be a force effect though.
As for whether it takes up a hand, it says it's "wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield" which implies you can't use that hand for anything else (light shields and bucklers let you use the hand, but heavy shields don't).
It also says it's a free action to activate/deactivate, so you could deactivate it at the beginning of your round (so you can do something with that hand), then activate again at the end of your round. This has been debated ad-nauseum, but it seems to be the strictest RAW. I'd check how your GM wants to rule this before using it this way.
I would treat them as an object.
Being made of stone gives you Hardness 8 and 10hp per inch of thickness.
How that relates to someone when they "wake up" would likely be GM fiat, but if you have enough time to chisel out their internal organs you should be able to kill them.
I'm confused by this. You say you disagree with me, then you seem to agree with me, then you come to a different conclusion.
(Not trying to pick a fight, I'm genuinely confused by this. I think getting to the bottom of this this might help us communicate better.)
If it were the case, then there would be no immunity to precision damage.
I'm not sure why you think that.
There are other things can be affected by multiple immunities, eg. the FROSTBITE spell is both cold damage and non-lethal damage. An enemy immune to either would be unaffected by the spell. Likewise an enemy immune to negative energy would be immune to both the Harm spell and the Sneak Attack damage applied, while an enemy immune to sneak attack damage would take damage from the spell but not the sneak attack damage.
If the damage were negated by DR or ER this would work differently.
Eg. If you have an attack that deals 5 damage, and an enemy has DR:10 you'd deal no damage. If you deal 5 damage plus 10 damage from the attack the whole thing is calculated together to be 15 damage, which takes you over the threshold of DR:10, allowing you to deal 5 damage. This only works by assuming that the attack and the sneak-attack are added together before applying DR/resistances/etc. They are the same attack, you just have a way to increase the damage. This is why I say Harm + SA wouldn't reduce them to less than 1hp.
The reason I called it an oversight is that any time you could choose the advanced frog option ...
... you could instead choose thebasic frog and basic otter options ...
... which is strictly superior (it's the same except for the nold part).
The oversight is that they made two similar options where one is always better than the other (which is something Paizo has said they try not to do).
So the way I read it, with Greater ANIMAL ASPECT you either gain 2 of the following:
ANIMAL ASPECT wrote:
OR one of the first list (animal aspect), and the corresponding bonus from the second list (greater animal aspect):
GREATER ANIMAL ASPECT wrote:
So for Frog and Otter your choices are:
CHOICE ONE wrote:
CHOICE TWO wrote:
CHOICE THREE wrote:
TLDR: CHOICE ONE and CHOICE THREE are almost identical. It's almost certainly an overisght.
EDIT: I did a lot of editing after posting to make it easier to read. Hopefully I didn't mess anything up =P
For an invisible sensor, the DC to notice it is absurdly low. Invisible creatures get an extra +20 while motionless.
You're forgetting that all invisible sensors constantly make a "wubwubwub" hovering noise. It's only their innate magic that keeps them from being noticed by everyone within 100 feet.
Remember that the Assassins are pieces on the board that the PCs haven't seen yet. If the encounter you had planned doesn't work for that session, save it for the next session when they're all around. You can justify it however you like (eg. The assassins were hired from overseas, so they took a little longer to get there), but the great thing about being the GM is that you don't even have to justify it.
There are times when this won't work, but this example is a fine time to simply save that encounter for later.
If they do something stupid, like splitting the party, then they deserve what they get.
I also disagree with this. While mechanically it's always better to keep the party together, as a story that can be just plain stupid at times.
I haven't done this kind of thing in a long time (a loooooong time), but I've thought about it recently.
I thought it could be fun to roll 7 sets, and discard one set. You have to take the sets you have left in the order they were rolled (respectively), but you can delete whichever set you like. This gives a little more flexibility, and also might give incentive for someone to delete a set that isn't their lowest stat.
(If that wasn't clear let me know and I'll post it more comprehensively later.)
As luck would have it I was looking this up yesterday, and the answer is: "the size of the whirlwind is equal to the size of the elemental".
Although not 100% clear in the bestiary, the STORM KINDLER prestige class clarifies it for us.
Storm Shape (Su) wrote:
At 2nd level, a Storm Kindler becomes a physical embodiment of the fury of the storm. As a standard action, she can transform herself into a whirlwind (as per the universal monster rule, Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 306) for a number of minutes per day equal to her Storm Kindler level.
Then if you look at the chart for the Storm Kindler it gives the following sizes:20' - small
30' - medium
40' - large
50' - huge
60' - huge
(I found this information in THIS THREAD)
Hopefully this helps you as much as it did me.
Pizza Lord wrote:
For the most part, having the dragon come back as another dragon is the best option, likely fill the central percentage areas with those chances, then go for slightly different variants, on the edges of the table for extremely low or high rolls (00 is GM's choice of course).
Haha, 01 on a d% is a Kobold: "Fear the Great and Powerful Vermithrax!!"
(...and as silly as that sounds, can you imagine a Dragon-Soul Kobold uniting all the Kobold clans? Scary stuff.)
Maybe in the rules for creating new spells? I think I remember something about balancing spells by either having an attack roll OR a save OR spell resistance. The more powerful a spell is the more likely it is to have 2 rolls associated with it (eg. attack roll and save), or sometimes all 3 rolls for very powerful spells (Disintegrate is one such example, requiring an attack roll, a spell resistance roll and a save to be successful).
I don't have time to look it up now, but you could look there.
@Yqatuba The way I see it a good god wouldn't give someone the Hellbound curse, but an evil god can (and will) give a good character the hellbound curse to further their own nefarious deeds. Likewise a good god might gove an evil character a curse in order to teach them a lesson in an attempt to turn them to the light.
The character can then choose to fight against the powers that cursed them, or give in to the power and become a conduit for that god's will (or somewhere in between). Many simply explore their curse in an attempt to understand it.
I’d probably go holy guide+Oath if the Peoples Council paladin. Holy Guide gives you the ability to share teamwork feats while Oath of the Peoples Council gains bardic performance
While they seem to stack, a Holy Guide uses Smite to power their teamwork-feat-sharing, and an OotPC replaces smite. While your GM might allow it, I'm pretty sure they're incompatible (although it's one of the less clear examples). Even if they are compatible they don't function together.
Having said all that, the Oath of the People's Council Paladin (and to a lesser extent the Martyr) seems to fit exactly what the OP was asking for.
While it might not be quite what you're looking for, I played a straight Magus in a "Thieves guild" 1-shot that worked exceptionally well.
I went DEX based (Weapon Finesse + Dervish Dance) and took Extra Traits as a feat so that I could have all the Rogue-ey skills at a decent number. I also took HEIGHTEN SPELL as my free 5th level feat so that I could take PREFERRED SPELL - Shocking Grasp.
This was less so that I could kill everything in 1 shot, and more so that I could start the day without preparing any offensive spells. I had almost entirely utility spells prepared in order to "rogue" my way through the sewers, and when I needed to I could spontaneously cast Shocking Grasp. Spell Recall meant that if I needed to re-cast a spell I could do so for the cost of a swift action.
(For the record this was 1-shot adventure for a level 7 with "some" PVP elements. I wasn't the highest DPR character, but I was the most useful by far out of combat.)
EDIT: Also for the record I was a Tiefling, and I took the BLADEBOUND archetype. I like the Bladebound, but it's not my favourite.
I get that, but a lot of necromancy spells aren't evil. Inflict spells specifically aren't.
As Squiggit pointed out there's no real difference between 3d8+5 negative energy damage and 5d6 electricity damage.
The reason I brought this up at all is that it used to be a necromancy spell (although my google-fu just revealed how old I am that I remember that), but it got moved into conjuration for "reasons".
(I just realised that my haunt-collector occultist with a haunted conjuration implement is more thematic with the conjuration school containing all the resurrection magic. I'll be a conjuration focused necromancer.)
My problem with that is that it's not consistent. Cure Light Wounds conjures energy from the Positive Energy Plane, but Inflict Light Wounds is apparently not conjuring energy from the Negative Energy Plane. You could just as easily swap these spells, so that Cure is Necromancy (you're draining life energy from your surroundings and putting it into a person "CARNIVALE-style"), and Inflict is Conjuration (You're conjuring energy from another plane). It would have the exact same logic that you've used (and be just as inconsistent), but have a slightly different flavour. So I know you CAN justify it (you've done a very good job of it, well done sir), but why should we be justifying something inconsistent when there's a much easier solution - to make it consistent.
As to Raise Dead ... that's literally the definition of Necromancy. If you ask a layman what Necromancy is for, they'll say: "Raising the dead."
The idea of "conjuring energy" is an evocation thing.
Yeah, I think perhaps it's more than Necromancy that has the problem ...
ADENDUM: It looks like my problem isn't really with Necromancy, it's with Conjuration.
PS. Everyone should watch Carnivale, it does a great job of showing how any magic can be used for good or evil (it does have quite mature content though, so maybe not "everyone").
Yeah I don't have the same problem with Enhantment. Yes it can be used nefariously, but a character could use Cure Light Wounds for nefarious purposes, so that's not inherent to the magic. Spells like COMMAND can change an encounter from a murder-fest into a quick round-up for the local guards, so nothing Evil there. They also encourage teamwork and tactics within the party, which is great for game-play.
Necromancy is probably my least favourite in Pathfinder, simply because they took all the healing magic away from this school. How does it make sense that Cure Light Wounds is Conjuration but Inflict Light Wounds is Necromancy? When you get to higher level spells like RAISE DEAD are REALLY stretching the definition of "conjuration".
I just re-read why this originally came up. The idea was: "Don't make things overly complicated" ... but I was agreeing with the complicated side.
I retract my previous statement.
Rule 0 folks: "A fun game is a good game." (That's hopefully not a rule that people will bring up meaningfully in this thread)
While I agree in real life there's a difference, I don't know that there would enough difference for a different condition in Pathfinder.
As you both said, it's a specific type of Unconsciousness, but Pathfinder doesn't really differentiate. There IS an in-game definition of "Unconscious", so if it falls within that purview then it has an in-game definition. The level of detail you'd be adding to the game to have different levels of unconsciousness is at odds with the ease-of-play aspect that the game strives for (For example there's no difference in your abilities/conditions if you're woken up during deep sleep or REM sleep, even though you'd likely have a very different reaction in real life).
Essentially - While I agree that there is a more nuanced definition - I don't think it's a meaningful difference for game-play.
(I also don't remember why this came up, so if someone's trying to game the system from either direction my default is "Don't game the system".)
Well I'll be ...