Is standing up considered movement? For example, could you stand up and then take a 5' step?
Search Posts
Yes I agree that calling it a dodge bonus would probably be better than a reflex bonus. But naming it Dexterity modifier might be best of all, as my original intent was for it to work off of the Dex stat. And yes, Tai-sho defense could double the existing wisdom bonus to ac for a monk of high enough level.
I think that monks could use some help in the defensive department, so I would like to see some feats added there. Something that will allow them to avoid taking a hit, with a kung fu flavor. Monkey dance; (Monk only) +1 reflex bonus to AC. Increase by +1 every 3 levels up to a max equal to character's reflex bonus. Tai-sho defense: Prerequisite, monkey dance. +1 wisdom bonus to AC. Increase by +1 every 4 levels up to a max equal to character's wisdom bonus.
This is correct. Otherwise, a +5 buckler would provide a +5 bonus to touch AC, since touch AC ignores shield bonuses but doesn't mention enhancement bonuses. Stacking for bonuses to bonuses works just like every other stacking. If a cleric casts Magic Vestment (+3) on +2 leather armor, the armor bonus is +2 (leather) +2 (enhancement) +3 (enhancement) = +5 (armor) Bonuses would have to come from different sources to stack. Therefore multiple enhancement bonuses do not stack. Your leather armor in the example would keep the higher of the two enhancement bonuses. And I think that the designers must have unintentionally omitted the part about shield bonuses and polymorph. But I also cannot find it in the RAW.
Obscuring mist. Because if things go wrong you can pop the smoke and the party can fall back and regroup. It can be surprising powerful at defusing bad situations, cutting sneak attacks, cutting line of sight, neutralizing enemy ranged attacks, and defusing surprise situations, all for the price of a first level spell! And it pretty much works anywhere and anytime.
Very interesting post that cuts to the heart of the matter in so many of these threads. It seems to me that either extreme of the model can be detrimental to an enjoyable gaming session. I have seen cases of the roleplayer taking the absolute wrong action during a delicate situation just because "it's in character". I have also seen cases of the over optimizer single handledly owning the mod with a liberal use (abuse) of the rules (usually overpowering the DM in the process). It seems to me that the optimal environment that keeps a majority of players coming back for more can be found somewhere between both extremes. A happy median where a character can be good at what they do, but still need teamwork to succeed, while still being able to do so within character.
Where is that reference located in the PCRB? I cannot find it. The section I go to for wand questions is the chapter on magic items. There, on page 496, it describes wand activation. Although it doesn't go into specifics about ranges it does specify that casting time for the wand remains the same as the spell being cast from the wand; "if the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spelll from a wand." So if casting times remain the same as the original spell for using a wand, then I would expect ranges to be the same as well.
A barbarian 1/fighter 1 on a horse is a CR 3 opponent. Remember that a combat-trained horse is a CR 1 opponent by itself. I just played an apl 1-2 mod during which we had an encounter with a 3rd level caster plus its CR 1 minion. So CR 3 encounter are in apl 1-2 mods.
"I believe this is the way a lance would be used two-handed on horseback. And it would allow much more strength to be used. The left hand would be adding because the lance is more stable. Remember, it's not your actual str from pushing the lance, it's how much of your str can be applied to keeping the lance firm and on target to allow your mounts strength and mass to be transferred down the shaft." But this is not swinging or thrusting so why 1.5x? Nathan said; MDT has it right here. More importantly, there were real world horsemen that wielded cavalry hammers as well (2 handed) and you can wield a greatsword two handed from horseback, so what possible reason could you have to be worried about the damage from a lance? It's a one turn advantage IF they are on horseback IF they get initiative IF the situation allows for it. In comparison I give you Searing Light. Crazy range, touch attack, multiple D8's for damage and one of the LESSER attack spells. The lance thing is no biggie, really. And so they did, but do they get 2x for doing so in Pathfinder? Nope, just 1.5x. But from your opinion, as well as others the cavalry hammer gets 1.5x from horseback, but the lance gets 1.5x and 2x. And ultimately it is neither being swung nor thrust by the character so again why the 1.5x str modifier for wielding it two handed when said character is actually using it one handed. And steadying it with the second hand still does not seem to be swinging it nor thrusting it.
Nathan wrote; "You are aware that thrusting weaponry benefits GREATLY from the increased striking power of a second hand? The Estoc, a German two handed thrusting sword (and the ancestor of the Epee) used precisely the type of force you're denouncing to penetrate full plate?" But I am not denouncing thrusting power. I wrote; "...that swinging/thrusting weapons brings more strength into the equation." But I don't believe that thrusting occurs by the player during a mounted charge with a lance. Instead he plants the lance (couching, I think its called) securely under arm and against shoulder and he lets the mount provide the thrust, hence the 2x multiplier on damage.
Agree with you that there is more going on in this argument than lancing. I am blessed to play with a group that has 5 members who can and have DM'ed frequently. I think this makes it easier for us to lean more to the reality side of the equation since we have all been there as DM's and players. My fantastic group is highly tuned in to rules lawyering, as well as being very knowledgeable about character builds, encounter levels, feats, and everything D + D. I wonder if other groups can confirm whether more DM's in a home group equates to stricter rules interpretation? Or maybe my group just gravitated towards others with a similar point of view.
Who needs web? Caltrops work. Ahh, but deploying them takes time.
Treeant wrote "They were taken far on purpose to prove a point. A player wants to use his lance two handed. Yes, that will increase his damage, but it's hardly a game breaker." I can agree that is not as bad as some of the other examples I saw from other posters, such as dual wielding lances, but I still believe it is not consistent with the description of two weapon wielding. "any NPC with a lance can wield it two handed. It's not a measure of the build - it just requires using your other hand to hold the lance." Because the rule says "can" instead of "must" which was unfortunate. The letter of the rule supports you, but it doesn't satisfy my understanding of two weapon wielding or of lances. Besides lances already give you the bonus multiplier. Why give it more? So no go for me on both counts. "Not sure what all this about Large Greatswords is about. Are they that much better than a regular greatsword? I didn't think they were.
Just some other examples mentioned earlier during the thread showing how you can get more bang out of your character while still technically abiding by the rules. But the 1x vs 1.5 is not nearly as egregious a case. "For what it's worth - I agree that using "tricks" to make your character more powerful by using the rules in a way they clearly weren't intended is not behavior to be encouraged. " Agreed! "However, I really don't think the Lance thing is abusive." Not as abusive, but still out of bounds to me.
But Ben, in the low level example you won't have web available (although an entangle would be a life saver) and said NPC could easily be set up to surprise the party (hidden, out of sight, etc). And at higher level there would only be more npcs to contend with. Also, you are falling back on magic, which some have argued is already overpowered.
From page 141, "Two handed; Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon." Why? Well it just doesn't say. Why should a two handed swing cause 1.5 times more strength damage than one handed? I play some golf every now and again, and sometimes it is beneficial to train by swinging at the ball with only one arm. And you know what, the ball just doesn't seem to go as far versus when I swing with both arms :) So using this comparison I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the authors believed that swinging/thrusting brings more strength into the equation. But no such swinging or thrusting goes on when you charge with a lance, in my opinion. Instead you couch the lance under your arm and brace it against your shoulder and use your mount's strength to do your work. In fact you get double damage everytime you make a mounted charge with a lance (x3 with spirited charge). But because the authors unfortunately used the word "can" instead of "must" then it would appear legal to further increase the damage as if the wielder were swingig/thrusting the lance, which he is not. And that is why a lance should not also get 1.5 strength bonus on top of the already 2x bonus for using a lance in a mounted charge.
Actually criticals only come up on certain rolls of the dice, as I am sure you well know.
For what it's worth Mugen, I wouldn't cry foul at all, that's exactly how my campaigns run, both the ones I play and play in, for the most part. And I would be happy to run it for you, if the NPCs can enjoy the benefit of a creative build as well. But I suspect that not all those on here can say the same as you. But in any case I would still prefer the gaming world that wouldn't push credibility too far, magical or martial, as a DM or a gamer.
Yes. Now take 40 average damage (3d8 + 27; str 22 from rage = 9x3 for the 27) from mounted 2nd level fighter/barbarian charging you with a lance at apl 1-2 without any crit. Don't forget to add the 1d6 when you fall off your horse, if you were mounted. Are you still having fun? Oh, and the comparisons only get worse the higher you go with stronger monsters dual wielding whatever. But sure, I can run it that way if you like. But will you complain if mod authors show the same kind of "creativity" when they create encounters? I stand by my earlier suggestion. Have two difficulty settings. If the party is comprised of "creative" builds then use the more difficult version of the mod. Really, how can you disagree with this idea? It's ok to dual wield large greatswords, lances, wands, etc... Right?
Actually criticals only come up on certain rolls of the dice, as I am sure you well know. The other damage we were discussing is for any spirited charge, which is on any mounted charge for any pc or npc with the appropriate feats. A build easily reached by 2nd level as I demonstrated. Why you try to compare the two situations is beyond any common sense explanation. And as I posted earlier, I can run it either way. But I wonder how many posters on this thread would cry "foul" when the mod throws up some creative build that causes the kind of damage that you and others defend in their own builds. Furthermore, if you re-read my answer to your earlier post you can see that I didn't suggest banning anything, just responding in kind. What would be wrong with that? And I do agree with earlier posts that said common sense should trump the rules. But if you want a min-max campaign then I would be happy to run it that way. But don't be surprised when you take deadly damage from a min-maxed attack. But if I had my choice, and I do, then I choose the world where characters are not dual wielding lances, or large greatswords, or any other nonsense like that.
I think it is a cool idea. But would it set a dangerous precedent? If a weapon is allowed to embed itself in a shield then why not a body. And if it can embed itself into a body then you open a doorway into all kinds of nastiness. I remember way back when a character in a home group upgraded a harpoon with returning, owiee! Is MMIII for Pathfinder?
Have you looked at the swords wielded by Large sized minis? Now compare them to a medium sized mini. That's around a 12' long greatsword. And yes, a Goliath with Monkey Grip can wield a Huge sized 20' long Greatsword that the rules don't say has reach, nor does it have any penalties for being used in a 10' corridor. I am honestly shocked that anyone would have difficulty seeing that such swords can't be used in such confines. But then, some feel that the rules trump anything.... I happen to disagree. Common sense should trump the rules imo. I know playstyles may differ, but I'm just shaking my head here. +1
I think it is a cool idea. But would it set a dangerous precedent? If a weapon is allowed to embed itself in a shield then why not a body. And if it can embed itself into a body then you open a doorway into all kinds of nastiness. I remember way back when a character in a home group upgraded a harpoon with returning, owiee!
No, not to me at any rate. I think that PC's may be unpleasantly surprised when they get hit with a charge for 40ish points of damage from a fairly simple NPC build with one lance, not to mention more creative builds which will certainly deal much more damage. 1x vs 1.5x can mean the difference between a one hit one kill vs one hit staggered/low on hp/unconscious. Also, when you consider that NPC's can more readily be tailor made for one specific encounter vs pc's which tend to need more flexibility and you get a situation where TPK's may be inevitable. And I do not believe that TPK's benefit the game. The 1x to 1.5x difference can be very telling when you consider how high monster strengths can get. Combine that with some feats, two lances, a surprise situation, and maybe a potion or two, and watch the pc's drop! Also I just cannot suspend my belief enough to see the 1.5x applying to the lance in spite of the RAW. It seems to me that a (singular, one only!) lance is held firmly in the couched position to allow the mount to help deliver that nasty 2x (or 3x with spirited charge) therefore negating the benefit conveyed from swinging/thrusting a weapon with both arms. But as a DM I can run it either way, as long as PC's understand that they can just as easily (probably more likely) be on the receiving end of such damage (probably higher even). Picturing some huge mount with monstrously strengthed rider gives me the shivers. I think what would solve this situation to my satisfaction is if the DM could have two power settings; Stun, and Deep Fat Fry. At the beginning of an adventure if he can determine if party members support the idea of two lances, or two hand multiplier damage for wielding a lance one handed, or other such maxing techniques then set up his NPC's in a similar fashion (DFF) as these players are certainly looking for a challenge. On the other hand, if the pc's are just a group of regular joes playing by a more moderate standard then by all means do the same and reciprocate. The first group of PC's shoud be easy to spot as they will have multiple pole arms/lances sticking out of their backpacks, or dual wand wielding familiars. Running a mod this way would require a second set of stats in the mod for each encounter corresponding to the difficulty setting. This way average characters who enjoy the game don't have to get railed by souped up NPC's, and heavy hitting/magic PC's can be all they can be, and receive the same. That would be balance.
I removed some posts. Be nice. Agreed, and edited. But hopefully you saw my point.
Wow, so a simple NPC with a level of barbarian and a level of fighter can easily deliver 3d8 + 27 points of damage on a mounted charge! [Mounted combat, ride by attack, spirited charge, strength 18 and raging] And that is assuming he is only using one lance, and no critical hit! And with all the potential for NPC's surprising those high skill point fighters and paladins out there too! That would mean Mr. NPC could prolly get off a surprise attack, and if he rolls high enough on his initiative get off a second attack, before the party reacts. And imagine if there are more than one of those NPC's? Could be some TPK's before all is said and done.
Alizor, I do not see how the line you quoted hints that each unarmed attack would provoke an A.O. I think that the line about moving only drawing one A.O. does hint that a full attack action would only draw one A.O.
Yeah, how could the word "arcane" in that sentence possibly confuse anyone? Just plain ole crazy that someone could mix up these crystal clear rules. Yup. So an arcane caster uses a scroll but faces possible "arcane" failure chance, but a cleric (or fighter for that matter) can use the same scroll but does not face the failure chance. Somehow the scroll knows the difference. Yeah, that makes sense. I get it now! Oh and the word "arcane" is not supposed to imply that it affects arcane casters and not divine. How crazy of me to go there! Note to self, just follow another poster's advice and make your own home rules that your particular group can accept.
Zurai, I am leaning toward agreeing with you. I think the key to the argument is whether or not one must still make gestures when casting from a scroll. The line I quoted refers only to arcane spell failure, so that would seem to indicate that arcane casters must still gesture when casting from a scroll. This is why I distinguished between divine and arcane. I agree with your logic, one hand to hold the scroll, and one hand to gesture. But do divine scrolls and arcane scrolls operate the same with respect to activation. Specifically, since clerics do not have to worry about arcane spell failure does that line I referenced apply to their scrolls?
That link doesn't work me so I assume you are referring to divine scrolls. But what about arcane scrolls. Page 490 of the PFRPG has a line that reads, "Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance." So for scrolls requiring the somatic component how would an arcane caster read the scroll and gesture with the same hand? Seems to me it would make reading it impossible.
The sentence following the one in question says; "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same oppponent in the same round doesn't count as more thanone opportunity for that opponent." So I think that they were trying to illustrate that point more clearly.
James, From the barbarian class under rage powers; Knockback (Ex): Once per round, the barbarian can make
So to answer your question the OP is talking about bull rush. Although the barbarian's knockback version does have a notable difference. That difference being that the barbarian can use a bull rush in place of a melee attack, whereas anyone else must use a standard action (if not charging). Pretty nasty I think. And the damage is a nice bonus too. And to the OP, by all means grab knockback for your degenerate ogre, but skip the other two feats. That way you can smack your opponent with your first attack, then bull rush him with your second, thereby driving him outside of attack range. Now he will draw that aoo you want if he closes with you again.
Cookies!!! Really? Time for an alignment change, lol.
I was reading your rouge ideas with interest and I thought of a houserule suggestion to give the rogue a spell casting angle, albeit a costly one. Add 1/2 his rouge level to his UMD rolls.
I like DtO's interpretation of this situation the best. Simply stated you cannot ignore a flanker's synergistic effects just like you cannot ignore an attacker's higher ground bonus. The RAW works fine here for me. But if, for some reason, a houserule were to be allowed then I would vote for Zurai's version. Completely ignore would be just as good as helpless to me in that situation and the bunny rabbit (with lunge) would be able to rip your head off. Look at the bones man!!!
From the description of Bull Rush under combat section; An enemy being moved by a bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Bull Rush feat.
see dm_blake above. Though on another note, PF no longer makes any indication of penalties performing a trim unarmed so it seems they've done away with that portion the 3.5 rules. Pg 57 says that monks can substitute trip for unarmed attacks with flurry of blows.
Additional checks to intimidate an opponent increase the DC by +5. But your bonus is still impressive.
Can someone point me to the section in the rules that discusses how to save vs. Domain powers. I am having trouble finding anything about that.
I think your interpretation fits. But is it possible that they overlooked that footnote on page 145 about dropping the weapon during the conversion? Because dropping a weapon to avoid being tripped by your opponent, and falling prone due to failing by 10 or more on your roll, seem different to me.
Great trilogy, dontcha think?I came SO close to making my screen name "Szartzanek," but was afraid it would be too obscure. Yes it is. It would probably burn in the back of my mind for a week before I connected that name with the trilogy. Wasn't he the one Murgen changed into an iron post to pin the magic roads down in the Tantravelles forest? It has a gnomish ring to it.
Hello, My friends and I play at San Jacinto CC, central campus, about once a month. We started a couple of months ago and are now 2nd level. Good to see other Houstonians on the board.
... Great trilogy, dontcha think?
Yeah, but then why even designate certain weapons as able to be used to make a tripping attack? Also I wonder if the whole drop your weapon in order to avoid being tripped in return thing went away. Now it says that if your attack fails by 10 or more you fall prone (as the attacker) instead. But that doesn't match what it says on pg.145 regarding trip.
This from page 182 of the PFRPG; "Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons,
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural
The only beast on the druid animal companion list with a secondary attack denotation was the horse. So it seems that animals are going to hit hard in PF. Also looking at the sample bestiary it seems that bite, claw, claw routines are at full BAB. Oh, and look at the dire tiger CR 8, 5 attacks all at BAB of +18. WOW!
Page 53 of the PFRPG explains a bit under the title "Animal Choices". "All animal attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus unless otherwise noted." The only one noted that I found was the horse.
Wow, animals are gonna hit a lot more in PF!
Polymorph: 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. 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. In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, including movement types, resistances, and senses. If the form you choose grants these benefits, or a greater ability of the same type, you gain the listed benefit. If the form grants a lesser ability of the same type, you gain the lesser ability instead. Your base speed changes to match that of the form you assume. If the form grants a swim or burrow speed, you maintain the ability to breathe if you are swimming or burrowing. The DC for any of these abilities equals your DC for the polymorph spell used to change you into that form. The whole "and a bonus to your natural armor." wording has me wondering whether or not a polymorphed creature gets to keep it's base natural armor. Because a bonus, to me, implies that you add it to something. Why would you say it that way if you were not adding the "bonus" to an existing natural armor? And since base race player characters don't come with natural armor I was left wondering if polymorphed creatures keep theirs. I see that there is another Rules FAQ section in addition to this one. Will post my questions there also. Thanks.
I have a question about the rage ability. Can a creature sneak attack while in a rage? Can a creature use CMB while raging (to trip in particular)? Can a creature use combat expertise while raging?
I have a question about the spell "Beast Shape I". Do you acquire the natural armor of the creature polymorphed into? So, for example, if you cast Beast Shape I and changed into a small crocodile would your natural armor be +4 for the crocodile and then +1 bonus for the spell for a total of +5 to your ac from natural armor? And what if you had a mage armor spell on you before you polymorphed? Would that bonus also still be active after you polymorphed into the above mentioned crocodile for a total of +9 to your ac? Thank you in advance for your help.
How can you tell which natural attacks are primary and which are secondary? I was looking through the druid animal companions and some have 3 or more attacks, yet only the horse entry identifies which attacks are secondary. Does that mean that the other animal companions with multiple attacks get them all at their full attack bonus?
|