Search Posts
Why is are Spyglass 1000 gold a piece? Its a great way to get characters to spend 1000 gold for an item that does virtually nothing by game mechanics.. There is no real economy to D20 its just made up numbers that someone thinks it makes sense.. You could make the spy glass cost anything you like as a GM and it still would not affect game balance in any way what so ever. So enjoy.
This one isn't correct -- natural weapons don't have a type on the simple, martial or exotic line. Same issue with unarmed strikes. True, however everyone is considered proficient with natural weapons if they have them and unarmed strike. So I would say that they are Simple. Sense everyone seems to have simple weapon prof.
Should a lich make use of a polymorph effect, what lich abilities do they lose and which do they keep? I don't believe that they would lose any of there abilities, here are my reasons: What Polymorph Gives the Lich:
1. A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +20 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature. 2. Each polymorph spell allows you to assume the form of a creature of a specific type, granting you a number of bonuses to your ability scores and a bonus to your natural armor.
3. In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, including movement types, resistances, and senses 4. Your base speed changes to match that of the form you assume. 5. In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks. 6. If a polymorph spell causes you to change size, apply the size modifiers appropriately, changing your armor class, attack bonus, Combat Maneuver Bonus, and Stealth skill modifiers. Your ability scores are not modified by this change unless noted by the spell.
What Polymorph takes away:
7. Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals. . Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature. 9. you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision)[B] [B]10 as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. 11. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, 12. but those that allow you to add features(such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.
So a lich using polymorph to turn into a human would lose : Nothing, as the lich is a template that can be added to any race that can create a phylactery. Thus none of it's powers or abilities are reliant upon physical form. In general it is my personal biased opinion that the a Lich whom uses the poloymorph spell will not lose anything. The reason for this conclusion is the the Lich template can be applied to any living creature that has intelligence enough to create a phylactery. Thus as long as the lich take on a form that is a living creature that can create a phylactery he can not lose any of this abilities. If the lich chooses a form that normally can not speak, it does not matter because a Lich does not use a tongue to shape words. So if a lich turned into a Wolverine he would gain the following abilities. Sent and a +2 to STR and a +2 natural armor bonus, SPD 30 Feet and Climb 10 Ft. "This stocky, muscular mammal is the size of a badger, its snarling lips revealing a mouth full of yellow teeth, and a pale blue light shines from where its eyes should be. A distinct almost palatable arua of dread follows this creature." One has too consider that a lich can be just a floating skull with no lower jaw bone, or hands arms body or feet and can still cast spells and talk. Again my reasoning is soley based on the fact that a Lich is a template that can be added to virtually any creature. Even if a lich had eyes he would still not be using them to see..lol
Its completely in the power of the ST. The ability allows for the Anti paladin to be immune to the disease. Otherwise passing one the disease is up to the ST. If you wanted rules as to how it might work look up monsters that have diseases and let the Anti paladin contract them and deliver them in the same method as the beast. But again that just a ST call. No written rules exist for PC's who are sick passing on the disease as far as I have found. But it is a great ability for NPC use. An anti paladin whom has Bubonic plague using seduction to pass it on to village women, whom then pass it one to village men. He then leaves out moving on to the next town.. This could be a fun plot for PC's. Or maybe it touches upon real life a little too much.
The Question Here is what Is a Weapon in pathfinder? This is difficult to answer because the game conisders many things as weapons a differnt times. A weapon at it's base has the following properties:
This is what we know. We also know that ranged weapons us the Dex Modifier as a bonus to hit and melee weapons use the STR modifier to hit and to damage. So does a Ranged Touch Spell fit the bill?
Here is the real question, and I have not found a rule either way. Does a ranged touch spell use Dex Modifier to hit? I found not rule to say it does, and I have found no rule to say it does not. So does touch spll fit the bill?
Worse does a touch spell get a str modifier to hit? If it does does it get a str modifier to damage? My surch foo has failed me on this one. However if the answer is yes then they meet all the requirements to be weapons. If the answer is no then they don't.
I tend to agree. It has long been my understanding that there are only 2 types of weapons in the game Ranged and Melee Melee Weapons include
Ranged Weapons Include
Things that are not weapons:
Of course that may be too simple of a understanding. But that's how I roll.
Under Benefit they both stat ranged weapons, in the description they say ranged attacks. I'm under the standing (and it may be a false one) that the description text means little to nothing mechanically. The benefit text is the rules for the game.
POINT-BLANK SHOT:
You are especially accurate when making ranged attacks against close targets.
Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.
PRECISE SHOT:
You are adept at firing ranged attacks into melee. Prerequisite: Point-Blank Shot. Benefit: You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard –4 penalty on your attack roll.
WEAPON SPECIALIZATION:
You are skilled at dealing damage with one weapon. Choose one type of weapon (including unarmed strike or grapple) for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You deal extra damage when using this weapon. Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, fighter level 4th. Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
IMPROVED CRITICAL:
Attacks made with your chosen weapon are quite deadly. Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8. Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled. Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
Notice the wording of these feats. Each and every one of them says the word weapon, not attack but weapon. How then could 3 of them work with spells and one of them not work with spells? Would you say a spell caster spell would not benefit from precise shot?
Talk about a touchy subject: the following Statements have been made: Sean K Reynolds, 10/22/10:
Weapon Specialization (page 137): Can you take Weapon Specialization (ray) or Improved Critical (ray) as feats? How about Weapon Specialization (bomb) or Improved Critical (bomb)? All four of those are valid choices. Note that Weapon Specialization (ray) only adds to hit point damage caused by a ray attack that would normally deal hit point damage; it doesn't increase ability score damage or drain (such as the Dexterity drain from polar ray), penalties to ability scores (such as from ray of enfeeblement) or drain, negative levels (such as from enervation), or other damage or penalties from rays.
From the above note at least a ray is a weapon for the purposes of Weapon Specialization and Improved critical. I do know that some where it is mentioned that in order to avoid the -4 penalty to use a ray spell in melee combat you must have precise shot. Now to get precise shot you have to have point blank shot. Some say it is cheesy to get the benefit of point blank shot with spells. However its just as cheesy to make spells have a -4 to hit in melee combat. I personally believe that anything that requires a roll to hit and does damage is either a melee weapon or ranged weapon. Now as far as PFS goes, ehhhh....my only statement is that Pathfinder is based on 3.5, and unless Pathfinder has made a change to the rules then the 3.5 rules apply. For PFS they have made several changes to the rule system, and I not even sure if they follow the core rules. I know in several cases they don't use the Pathfinder Core Rules. Good luck
SPEED: Fastest Game:Cyberpunk
Hmm... Spell Combat (Ex):
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks. According to Spell combat (above). A Magus can not used a range weapon and use spell combat. I've looked for a exclusion to this within the Myrmidarch Archetype and so far I have not. Ranged Spellstrike works as spell strike however you must use a ranged weapon to deliver the spell. Spellstrike allows the use of Spell combat. Spell combat allows you to cast the spell and take your attacks. It is currently a free action to change your grip on the bow. So I guess it works like this: 1. Free Action, I Remove my left hand from by bow
It is tricky, I could really see someone reading the rules saying that spell combat does not work with Ranged Spellstirke, and as such you can not use ranged combat at all. The reason is that Spell combat say only light or one handed melee weapons. We have to assume that Ranged Spellstike modifies spellstrike and then modifies spellcombat. If it does not then one could never use Ranged Spellstrike. IF it does not then
So I go with the thought that it works as my first example does. But those are the two options that I see.
Hmmm...correct me if I'm wrong but a unarmed and improved unarmed strikes are consider to be light weapons in all cases. Thus I don't think you can, however that is just plain silly.
Yes you have to reduce the object ot 75% of its hitpoints for it to get the broken condition.
There seems to be 3 or so different ways it can work. Thus a thread was created so it could be clarified.
I wounder if their is a correlation with summoning "aspects" and the Astral Projection spell.
It is, but it became nitpicking because people made the incorrect assumption that an item has to go through an imaginary progression from "healthy" to "broken" to "destroyed". If they'd just latch onto this concept, this whole post would be a non-issue. Just because I fill like nitpicking, your statement as I read it is that if you destroy something it is not broken! So a shattered vase is not broken it is destroyed. Is that a summery of the thought process? My argument is that anything that is destroyed is also broken buy definition. You can not destroy or ruin something with out it being broken. So how does that work?
Certainly valid logic and I can see why you'd rule it that way. I believe destroyed should definatly been cleared up as apart from a few scattered statements around the core book (the only truely defining one being in the magic items section that states any magic item loses it's abilites once it becomes "destroyed"), they seem to leave it up to each group to decide exactly what it does. I think what is possible the most annoying thing about any game system is players and GMs' fill the need to believe that the designers of the game are all knowing. When one can take a simple statement as Unbreakable then apply that it can be destroyed and have a valid argument with that, then the game system has failed in the one area that that it must do. All games system based on rules must be understandable in the language that it is written in. It also has to understandable to the lowest academic level of the intended consumer.
@Nevernever: Your not the only one that is stubborn, I'm pretty stubborn myself. As for this entire discussion; for my group we actually typically avoid allowing any feat, class, spell or rules which are vague. That means several archetypes of the Magus and summoner are flat out banned because the rules are too subjective. My understand the rule follows a strict sequence. If I can't write in functional pseudo code then I must be missing something. The bladebound archetype is considered vague enough do to the personality of the blade to not be used by my group, heck spellstrike has made the magus all but unplayable in our group. I have recently come to the conclusion that if a condition is not defined in the book as a clear rule then it is not a rule. An Example, held, wield, destroyed, and ruin. Instead I tend to think of Held or wield as "armed" (which is defined). Thus when an ability says held or wielded in its description I refer to the rule "armed". Sense I cannot find a clear definition of held or wield in the system and the ambiguity causes to much conflict. In the case of the blackblade the only truly defined condition in the game that fits is the one it calls out "broken". It's not to say that Destroyed is not used (and used heavily) as a descriptive word. It is to say that the designers felt that Destroyed or Ruined did not need a definition in the game. I believe that they felt Broken filled that position. As for Fatigue, Exhausted is defined as a condition of it's own. As for sub condition I only used that phrase as I mentioned much earlier as a way to clarify the fact that technically Destroyed was not a true defined condition in the game. I would love for a better set of rules with better definitions, but I think that the designers hope we will be reasonable with our views of the game and remember that it is both a Game and Recreation. We are here to have fun not debates.
I would acually prefer if the rules where written by a lawyer with, at the very least, a masters in english. The rules would be very concise and have perfect syntax and grammer. I have never read a legal document that didnt say just what I means with little to no room for interpenetration. It would be nice but I doubt the pay is good enough to entice a lawyer, but maybe a good editor... If this interpretation is how things are run at your table then by all means, I can see where you are coming from it does require a lot less micro-managing but please do not spread blatant mis-information on the forums, as it can lead to confusion if people learn how a rule works incorrectly then start attempting to make arguements from that standing espically in PFS games. It's not a interpretation is is the absolute logical conclusion of the rules. If a rule creates a Loop in logic it can not be followed and thus can not be played. So one must look for clues as too use the rule in a playable manor. For PFS games it's irrelevant. Those games work outside of the RAW rules for the game. I'm speaking from the rules that are written. From those rules either Destroyed and Ruined are a coin toss or part of a defined condition. The objective of the game is not twisting the rules to one person advantage or another it is about playing with a set of rules everyone understands. The moment you define Dead at Negative a PC's constitution score you have stated a rule. However if you then define Comatose being at Negative a PC's constitution score you have crated two different effects. One kills of the character from play, the other keeps the character alive and waiting to be healed, you can't have both. The same applies to the Ruined and Destroyed except we know that those two words are Synonyms of each other. Synonym means: Equivalent,
If you truly want to believe the Editors and writers wanted to convey false information about the English language in order to make their product seem ignorant or written by uneducated individuals that your opinion.
Now if your saying that the Devs have created a circumstance where an object with 0 hitpoints can be difined by two different states and that both states are mutually exclusive. Well that sounds like a coin toss.. So here is that mentioned rules call in motion:
My argument is that the word Destroyed and the word Ruined represent the same state in regards to an object when it reaches 0 HP. That means you can not repair it, and can not use the object. Now with my argument I state that sense in the game mechanically definition of the Broken condition it includes Ruined, and sense it includes Ruined which we know is when an object has 0 Hit-points, then by default it must include Destroyed which is when an object has 0 hit points. The argument that is being expressed by others is that Broken is separate from ruined which is separate from destroyed. Now I find that rules call to be ignoring the fact that Broken includes the Ruined descriptor in its definition. Another argument could be made that yes Broken condition does include the ruined descriptor because it is spelled out in its definition but it does not include Destroyed. So when your object get broken and hits 0 hit-points what condition is it, Ruined or Destroyed? Both descriptors are an effect that happens when an object reaches 0 hit points. Both are synonymous of each other. In the English language. So I have stated the three possible arguments. Of which my personal argument does assume that there were English speaking individuals creating the books, and they knew how to use the English language to describe a effect. But to support my argument: Ruined:
Destroyed
Now the English language says that Ruin and Destroy for the purposes of objects are the same freaking effect. Argue all you like but blame the language the books were written in. Ruined = Destroyed, Broken condition includes Ruined and thus sense ruined means the exact same thing in game mechanics as destroyed and they mean the same in the English language, the broken condition includes the rules of Items of 0 HP. Don't believe me ask an English major or a lawyer.
The Broken Condition is caused by damage. Any object that has 75% of it's hitpoints is automatically broken. It's part of the condition. I can accept that the area is grey about the damage, I just really think that having to keep up with the damage over and over through out the course of multiple games is kinda silly. Not to mention just an added difficulty to the game. What I really don't understand is why there is a need to over complicate the rules system that is already complicated as it stands. It's immune to the broken condition, with an ability called unbreakable. What more must a game designer say in order to gets things across to the consumer. Sunder means to break. To do HP damage means to be breaking/harming something. Is this logic really to difficult to grasp, do the devs make the game so hard to understand that one needs a law degree and a masters in English in order to play?
In the actual definition of Broken it includes the word ruined. Under hit points it defines an object that has 0 hit points as ruined. Under damageable an object it defines a object with 0 hit points as destroyed. Thus destroyed and ruined are defined as an object with 0 hit points in the game system. This means it is a word that is used interchangeable in the books. The broken condition includes Ruined as part of the broken condition. This is not rocket science, I really do not know why folks fill the need to distort what the rules say for what they wish the rules say. Ruined = Destroyed | Destroyed = Ruined Broken condition includes Ruined. The end. The only Legal condition in the game reflecting damage to an object is Broken! Immune is not defined in the game so we will have to use an English dictionary to determine what the word means in a sentence. Protect or exempt, esp. from an obligation or the effects of something: immune from legal action. Pretty clear. If you are really determined to make individuals keep track of the damage to there black blade so that when they spend the last arcane point it falls apart instantly. Then have fun with that, but it's against the rules.
Damaged Objects: A damaged objects remains functional with the broken condition until the item's hit points are reduced to 0 at which point it is destroyed. Destroyed is a sub-condition (at best of Broken, which is defined) Destryed removes the Ability to have the object be repaired and removes the ability of the object to be used. This the best your going to get by RAW, and even then Destroyed is a sub rule (or a add on rule) of Broken, an Object muse use the Broken Condition rules to be destroyed. Broken Condition by RAW includes destroyed and ruined (ruined is destroyed or unusable and can not be repaired). Quote Page 173, Hip points section, 1st Paragraph, last sentence. "When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined." Ruined and Destroyed are interchangeable in the rules. The Broken condition includes ruined as part of it's rule sub set.
Umm.. No Dead is defined as a condition in the game. You are incorrect sir. DEAD:
Dead: The character’s hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies. My argument stands. Destroyed is not a condition defined as a mechanic in the game it is a description of the broken condition. Dead is a condition defined by RAW thus it exist. If dead did not have a mechanical definition then you sir would be correct. As to the Barbarian reference the power is called Tireless Rage and is extraordinary in nature. It states very clearly that "a barbarian no longer becomes Fatigues at the end of her rage. So you are correct, however it does state the limits of this power as only affecting the barbarians rage. Rage is a defined power, Fatigued is a defined condition of the game. Thus I don't get your point sir. So far your argument is that they did not define Dead, they did, that barbarians are immune to fatigue at level 17, they are not, they are immune to the Fatigue Condition caused by their Rage ability. So your argument is to invent an new Rule in the game called Destroyed (Condition) that is your choice. However it is not a game mechanic by raw and does not exist in the game.
Note that some maneuvers ARE attack rolls (trip, sunder, disarm...) which would be deflected. Fozbek's reading I'm not so sure about. Technically if one uses arms, legs, or such it is a unarmed weapon which counts as a light melee weapon by the rules. For further hurting of ones head, you can do crane wing while your hands have no weapons in them. I don't believe it requires a weapon in your hand to deflect.....
I'll fix this, destroyed does not exist as a condition in the game rules. Ruined and Destroyed are descriptions of the broken condition, they in themselves are not defined as individual conditions in the rules and are just descriptive words for the Broken Condition. Sense the weapon is immune to the broken condition while it has a arcane point it is immune to the descriptive words of that condition as well. So by RAW, the weapon is immune to the Broken condition, and sense it is immune to the Broken condition it cannot be destroyed or ruined sense those two conditions do not exist in the game. As doing damage to an object makes it have the boken condition it is also immune to damage as it can't have the condition. Broken (Condition):
Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item. • If the item is a weapon, any attacks made with the item suffer a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls. Such weapons only score a critical hit on a natural 20 and only deal ×2 damage on a confirmed critical hit. • If the item is a suit of armor or a shield, the bonus it grants to AC is halved, rounding down. Broken armor doubles its armor check penalty on skills. • If the item is a tool needed for a skill, any skill check made with the item takes a –2 penalty. • If the item is a wand or staff, it uses up twice as many charges when used. • If the item does not fit into any of these categories, the broken condition has no effect on its use. Items with the broken condition, regardless of type, are worth 75% of their normal value. If the item is magical, it can only be repaired with a mending or make whole spell cast by a character with a caster level equal to or higher than the item’s. Items lose the broken condition if the spell restores the object to half its original hit points or higher. Non-magical items can be repaired in a similar fashion, or through the Craft skill used to create it. Generally speaking, this requires a DC 20 Craft check and 1 hour of work per point of damage to be repaired. Most craftsmen charge one-tenth the item’s total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined). So by RAW there is no defined Destroyed Condition, it is part of the broken condition. By raw there is no ruined condition it is part of the Broken Condition. Why do people make this game so difficult. As to why rules exist for the repair of the object, well you can spend all of the Arcane Points and thus it can then be destroyed. Now unless they have defined the destroyed (condition) in another book it remains descriptive words and has not real game mechanic. Only the Broken condition does, at least by RAW.
Your right, they are wrong. I mean really don't folks know how to speak English anymore..Un breakable, can not be broken, can not be damaged, can not be destroyed.
I took the Durable arrows from the book Elves of Golarion. Durable arrows don't break when used and can be reused over and over. They have a cost of 1 GP each and a Alchemy DC of 25. As the mithral description does not have any cost for ammunition I just though it was fair to remake the Durable arrows as Mithral Compound Arrows. However I initially thought that 20 Arrows weighted 1 lb. Thus the 500 GP for 50. It would seem that the weight for arrows is 3 lb. Thus I guess to be more correct it should be 1500/50 so 30 gp each or 600 GP for 20. To fit the rules correctly. However when I look at this the benefit of Mithral is negligible for arrows shafts or heads. I guess it technically counts as silver for the purposes of damage reduction. I think for a standard weapon the Longbow, Compound
Arrows, Compound
My concerns here are of course:
For the Same Price one cold have;
The benefit of this weapon is the 1.5 multiple of the STR modifier for damage. Mithral is not a benefit for the weapon, yes it helps vs. sundering but it's not as important as with armor. Mechanically I'm left with the concept that the fluff of the weapons is it is made of Mithral, but that is not important for the weapon to function. It is only there for fluff. The Benifit of this weapon as I see is
Does that balance out with a cost of 2600 gp to effectively use the item. Adamatine at least is great for Sunder, and I would never by a Adamatine Arrow unless it was a Durable arrow. As too technology developing the hollow tubes, heck the Compound bow was not invented till the 1960's so I'm not too worried about that. But it seems the technology needed to make hollow tubes of metal has been around for over 600 years.
I'm working on a new setting an I want to add a new type of bow. The compound bow. It was developed in the 1960's but in fantasy where they have guns, crossbows, and fireball spells I don't see much of a problem with it. Specifically I'm wanting the compound bow to be a Elven Style of weapon. My Thoughts on the game mechanics are as follows "Longbow Compound At almost 5 feet in height, a compound longbow is made of Mithral, and unlike other bows is far less curvy and is arranged with a pulley system. Description: You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. You can use a compound longbow while mounted. A compound longbow adds 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied) Ammunition: A compound longbow cannot fire normal arrows but must instead fire compound arrows. These arrows are specially crafted to handle the increased power of the compound bow For purposes of Weapon Proficiency and similar feats, a compound longbow is treated as if it were a longbow. Cost: 2000
Compound Bow Arrows: These arrows are crafted from hollow tubes of mithral. Compound bow arrows don't break due to normal use, wheter or not they hit their target; unless the arrow goes missing an archer can retrieve and reuse a Compound Arrow again and again. Hardness 15 Hit Points 5 Cost: 200 GP for 20 Arrows includes a quiver. If bought individually they cost 10 gp each. Tell me what you think as far as the pricing and cost. I valued the Bow as a mithral composite bow with a +5 str rating. To cover the fact that it gives a blanket 1.5 times your str on attacks. I built the Compound Arrows out of mithral and followed the guid for Durable Arrows. Thanks for your advice.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but if you are fortunate enough to have a laptop at game that you as the GM uses... The above free program has really helped streamline combats for the games I've been in. It allows tracking of HP, Conditions, turns etc.. It does have the potential to track some buffs as well. This may help a lot. Just My Two Cents.
Urgosh, Dwarven
So ok the Heavy Flail is a cool weapon, gives a +2 to disarm and trip manuvers, and does a d10 But another weapon you might want to look at is the Dorn Dergar is a reach weapon that can be used with or without reach and it does a d10 to.. And we can't forget the other dwaven weapons: Waraxe, maulaxe, Urgosh are pretty sweet. Are you planning on using heavy armor. If so trade that dex for another stat.
If I choose a bird as my animal companion, it says I can choose a number of feats, but they are lacking fly by attack. Is there a reason? How can a hawk even be some what good if he doesn't get fly by attack? I am very confused by this. Also if I am a ranger and take Boon companion, will that upgrade it to my normal level?Hawks and other birds of prey generally don't use Fly-by attacks. Their dives and swoops from up high are more accurately charges. It would require a higher degree of tactical intelligence (i.e. stat boosts to Int) to act outside of instinct and rake on the fly-by rather than getting in there and fighting face to face. You and the game designers have never pissed off a hawk guarding its nest before have ya. They sure do a great fly by attack in nature..lol RANT: Remember this is a game, it in no way is intended to emulate any thing in real life,. It in know way is it designed to emulate any thing in fantasy novels. It is a fantasy board game! The rules do not follow common sense. The rules do not follow any know language. Please stop trying to use logic, and or personal experience with game rules it will only hurt your head.
That is true, it is a feat tax on the magus he will need to take at least one feat in order to keep his armor. But what is great is it is just one feat then Elven chain and done. Arcane Armored casting ligt is a must. For that build. But o my how powerfully full of flavor and fun it would be.
I'm currently looking at a whip wielding Kensai Magus to fill just this role. The combination of spell combat, reach and tripping are ridiculous. You should take a look at Spire Defender instead of Kensi.
I've had the experience of taking a few LCDs apart and fixing them. Its a really neat idea. A few thoughts concerning this. 1. If you fill comfortable take the case off of the LCD screen. You will find that it is a perfect rectangle that is 1/2 inch thick. You can put a glass surface dead on top of it with out a gap at all if you dismantle the case. 2 Once the case is removed correctly you will find small screw holes ever 5 or 10 inches on the side of the LCD. Use those holes to mount your new case. This will make it very secure. 3. Make the glass 1/8th an inch larger on all sides, then you can put a thin rubber seal on the metal LCD frame. This will absorbs shock and resist liquids. 4. Mount the power, ports, and every thing else as needed to the new case. I'm referring to the table as the new case, because that is what it is. Just my two cents.
A Sorcerer/Sorcerer Gestalt is far weaker than a Magus/Sorcerer or a Wizard Sorcerer when it comes to spell power. Allowing the Sorcerer/Sorcerer to have 2x spells, 2x spells known, and 2x bloodlines still will not come close to the other combinations out there. Examples (10th Level)
Wizard/Sorcerer (Sage):
So at 10th level our Wizard/Sorcerer has 1 bloodline Arcan, 3 bloodline powers, 4 bloodline spells, 1 bloodline feats, Cantrips and Eschew materials, and Arcane bond, arcane school, cantrips, Scribe Scroll, Bonus Feat, Bonus Feat Sorcerer/Sorcerer
So at 10th level our Sorcerer/Sorcerer has 2 bloodline Arcana, 6 bloodline powers, 8 bloodline spells, 2 bloodline feats, Cantrips and Eschew materials PROS:
W/S = More Spells known, Less Spells per Day (Still won't run out), Gets a familiar, arcane bond, scribe scroll plus 2 bonus feats. S/S= More spells per day (Still won't run out, Gets double the standard sorcerer stuff. Overall I think that a Sorcerer/Sorcerer Gestalt is not a problem for game balance. Compared to the other options above. Giving the Sorcerer/Sorcerer x2 everything from the sorcerer class does not overbalance it, heck I would argue it under balances it. Depending on what the character is looking for a Magus/Sorcerer or Magus/Wizard would be what I would worry about in derailing a game.
Specific rules beat general rules. The section detailing natural attacks state that strength bonus is added "as normal". "These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plusyour Strength modifier, as normal)." The structure of the sentence is very specific and clear.. These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal) The modifier is only applied to the second section of the sentence. It separates the to hit from the damage and further highlights the Strength modifier only for the damage section of the sentence. Of course you could say the the Strength modifier applies to the entire statement which makes sense, however as written it does not. The same structure says that a natural attack is a melee attack. Melee attacks can only be made by melee weapons. H
Using this logic Melee Attack always refers to Melee Weapon (as the only definition of Melee attack is defined by use of Melee weapons) Page 182 Core Rules book. Thus Natural Weapons do not gain STR Modifier bonus to hit. As the rules say only Melee Attacks get that bonus. Thus every monster printed by the the guys at Pathfinder would be wrong. OR Natural Attacks = Melee Attacks
Thus Melee Weapons = Natural Weapons
It is either one or the other, do you think that they would have made that massive a mistake in printed material?
SKR is an Official Rules Guy. His word on rules questions is official Paizo stance. Argue with it if you want, but he's as official as it gets. There seems to be only a few types of weapons in this game system Melee weapons: This category includes:
Ranged Weapons:
Area Effect Weapons:
And that's it. Thus, anything that makes one considered "Armed" for purposes of melee attack is considered a Melee Weapon. A Good example is anything that you can take the Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, or Weapon Finesse feat for is a melee weapon. Natural Attacks, Armed Attacks, Unarmed Attacks, and Ranged Touch Spells all qualify for the above feats. For weapon focus and weapon specialization this has been cleared up with a faq. For weapon finesse it actually states natural weapons within the feats description. This is a very simple game system, looking at the rules and trying to make it more complex only harms the system and the enjoyment of playing in it.
Phantasmal killer is 4ht level and would fit with the 7th level caster. but a 7th level caster could wipe the party with two 3rd level spell and a rod of lessor quicken spell Swift: Fireball take 7d6 24 damage save for half (12)
have a nice day everyone dead. That CR system needs work.....lol In one game I was in we got in a fight with a 5th level priest, The fight lasted 10 rounds. However the ST flat out told us if he was playing fair we would all have died in round 2. But he realized that the encounter was too much for our level, and had no choice but to make the Priest really really dum. So the game could continue..Channel Energy dangerous. Never the less the party was out of spells, and most of us were useless by the he was taken down. That happens
If the guy you're trying to fight is a greater evil then it doesn't break your code. That's up to the ST, however at best you would lose you paladin abilities until you get an atonement spell. That still requires a 9th level priest and 500gp plus another 2500GP because it was a deliberate misdeed. If the ST follows the WBL guidelines it will be several levels before one can get their paladin levels back. What fun is playing a 2nd level paladin that is not a paladin, or a 3rd level paladin that is not a paladin, or a 5th level paladin that is not a paladin. It would not be a good experience. If done at later levels say 10-12 then there could be a good story, the gold is not as bad as a hit and it will not nuke the character.
Whip sounds good, but I want to go with a bladed non-dex build. I was more curious than wanting suggestions on whips =P Click the Below Link Walters Magus Guide
Whip sounds good, but I want to go with a bladed non-dex build. I was more curious than wanting suggestions on whips =P Well Heck... Look up Walters magus guide that should help
Or ride and warn as many people as you can. Maybe some of them can escape.What if I told the demon no, then rode out to rile the thousands of locals in danger into grabbing scythes, picks, shovels, and whatever else is at hand and fighting? Would leading them into battle instead of getting them to flee be a bad thing for a paladin to do? A whole lot of them may die who could have survived by running. Then again, I think the BBEG might be able to cast 9th level spells. Is that enough power to take out a mob of over a thousand people? YES!!!!!Not only could he do it, he could do it by just smacking them in the face with his hand.. (9th Level spells means 16th level character at minimum). Heck for the demon to give you enough power to fight this guy he would have to give you the power to slay him... It seems you are in a situation sucks. The following variables apply to the decision making process. 1. Is you GM Following the rules as intended or even as written?
2. With the above variable we must determine if there is anything a demon could do that would up your groups power level for a duration of time by the rules.....Ummm...Ummmm...No, not really. Other than him summoning a demon to aid you I guess. So with the above variables we realize that the game is not by the Rules as written or as intended. So the GM only using the rules as a guide. Thats cool, however in this situation you character is 2nd level if you work with the demon for the greater good you will not be a paladin again for quite a while (as the atone spell is expensive and high level). So if you want to play a paladin (and I can only assume that you do because you took the class) then you have no choice but to decline the offer. If that means the party dies, well its the GM's fault for designing a bad adventure. However I willing to give the guy a chance, maybe the right answer is no, and the demon is an angel in disguise!! If that is not the case and their is no way around this issue. Just Give up. So it comes down to, Yes you have to say no, and leave it up to the ST. if it is a no win situation then the game is over. Second level characters should never be in NO WIN SITUATIONS. I learned that when I was 10....
The blade bound magus with the whip is freaking great with the right feats. Whip mastery, and there is a trait that is pretty cool as well with it. Magus: Bladebound Spire Defender This would be the way I would go with a exotic weapon build. Spire Defender grants you a free one handed melee weapon that has the disarm or trip special feature: You get whip for free. You get combat Expertise and Dodge for free..However you do lose your armor proficiency. However a 1 level dip will get that back for you and your armored casting at the same time. And spell recall is switched out with Arcane Augmentation. +5 to Acrobatics, or Perception anyone. really nice ability. The benefit is the 3 free feats, if you want to go whip magus.
From my experience Sorcerer/Sorcerer Gestalt is far too weak of a build. Compare the Following:
Then think how weak a Sorcerer/Sorcerer gestalt would be. Just my two cents.
Tapped out of Archetypes they have got to be kidding. They only have one or three for there setting, and the wizard currently plenty of room for archetypes. Not to mention Racial Archetypes are a great idea!!!! That would help support my concept of NO ELVEN ALDORI SWORDLORDS cause it does not fit thematically!!!! However a similiar archetype that used the Elven Curve Blade would be nice.
An internet cookie to he or she who tells me how to pronounce the name of this behemoth! the best I can find by searching is the following tsee-tsee'-mee-tl
For the players in the group I'm in most enjoy story over mechanics. Currently we are all in a AP and playing a game straight by RAW. Personally I like to Run in Hero Systems. It allows me a level of creativity and balance that I like. But right now as for this, it is just an Idea. I literary started thinking about it today. So it's really a rough draft of sorts. Logically at some point I will probaly break down and use far more weapons from the book. But for now, I want the get the fluff out of the way and then see what works out and does not. Things that need to be worked upon are: A better premise or focus. What unique features of the setting will the character look at and say wow that's new. Story and Story arch. I also have to develop history, Gods, a understand of how magic works in the setting and why. Like the post says, its and idea. It might be a bad one, or a good one.
So you think the fragile thing is too much, or the -2 on sunder attempts. Hmm I could have all the weapons made of obsidian or sum such. In games like this I will be planning out everything. Much like an adventure path. So I will know what will exist, what will not exist. I'm currently thinking that there are only 9 planes of existence in the setting Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Positive, Negative, Ethereal, Astral and of course prime. I also plan on the gods actually living on the prime, hiding among there follower, watching life unfold with little interaction with mortals. I like the idea of a god working as a village blacksmith. Just a guy working steel. Occasionally moving from one location to another so the mortals don't catch on. But that removes a lot of planes. I also plan on removing alignment and replacing it with a Simple, GOOD, EVIL or NEUTRAL system. So classes will have no alignments. The character can tell me in the beginning that they are Good, Evil or neutral, if they don't I assume Neutral. Actions will dictate if one is Evil or Good. But it has a long way to go. However for this discussion I'm trying to find Class flavor with Gestalt that works well both mechanically and flavor wise.
|
