Market Patron

Mysterious Stranger's page

4,874 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 4,874 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Mark is talking about the Hulk villain the Leader.

Use the solar bloodline instead of the orc. It gives you the same damage bonus, but friend of fire gives you fire resistance and adds 1 per die to healing effects that you are the target. If you also have Fey Foundling that would be 3 extra points per die.

The whole point of things like versatile evocation is to be able to use whatever elemental damage type is appropriate for the situation. While there are a lot of things that are resistant or even immune to fire not all are. The other thing to look at is there are more spells that use fire damage than any other type of spell.

There are two main reasons not to always change the damage type. First and most important is as Claxon pointed out that versatile evocation is a limited resource. Why waste a limited resource if it gains you no advantage.

Second but still important is that if you do so your opponents will be able to counter your spells more efficiently. If it becomes known that your character never uses fire that means people don’t have to worry about protecting themselves from fire. Spells like Resist Energy need to specify the type of energy it works against. If your character is known for using or not using a specific element your enemies have an easier time preparing for you. By giving up fire you have increased the odds that your opponent will choose the right energy type to ward against. Since fire damage is probably the most common damage that is what a lot of protection spells default to. By using fire damage unless the opponent is resistant or immune you perpetuate this idea and make it more likely someone is going to choose fire damage to be protected from. Using all elemental damage including fire actually make versatile evocation more useful. Now instead of your cold ball being your signature spell it is a nasty surprise.

The Draconic, Orc and Solar bloodlines all increase the damage of fire spells. The divine fighting technique of Sarenrae allows you to do non-lethal damage with fire spell. Feats like burning amplification allow you to add effects to fire spells. By forgoing fire, you lose the ability to use these types of things.

Getting scribe scroll for free means the wizard can create scrolls for the out of combat spells and use his spell slots strictly for combat. A 1st level wizard with an 18 INT will be able to memorize 3 cantrips and 3 1st level spells (including their bonus spell from their school) but can also start with 4 spells on scrolls. If they take object for arcane bond that gives them 1 extra spell they can cast per day, and it can be any spell they have in their books. That means the 1st level wizard can cast an unlimited number of cantrip and 7 1st level spells. Even without using scrolls the 1st level wizard can cast 4 magic missiles. This is without factoring in their school power. If the wizard is an evoker, he will get the equivalent of 7 more magic missiles at 1st level. I think a 1st level character who can throw 11 magic missiles per day is not going to have trouble surviving.

Please read what I write before you disagree with me. Nowhere in my post did I state the wizard is fine as is. I did not express any opinion on regarding the design of the wizard at all. What I said was that a wizard is powerful enough that if you want to gain something you need to give up something. This was a follow up on my observation that the arcanist delays spell access. Giving the arcanist all the advantages of the wizard as well as those it already has would make the class too strong.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Chell Raighn what are you disagreeing with? You post is confusing in that you strongly disagree that an Arcanist makes a good wizard replacement, but state that the arcanist is better than a wizard in all but one way?

The arcanist is actually a good replacement for a wizard if you want class features. It does reduce their spell casting ability by delaying gaining their higher-level spells, but wizards are powerful enough that if you want to gain something you need to give something up. The need for CHA makes it harder to dump all other stats to pump up your spells. Overall, the class is actually fairly decent. The exploiter wizard is another alternative to give them more class features.

Diego Rossi has a good point that you don’t need to retrieve the scroll case to take out the scroll. You don’t have to retrieve your pouch off your belt before taking something out of it, so why would a scroll case be any different? The only downside of doing this is that it may expose the scroll case to being taken. A scroll case stored on a belt would be subject to being stolen. Storing it in a backpack makes it extremely difficult for a pick pocket to swipe the scroll case.

Instead of storing the scrolls in your belt pick up a bandolier or two. Each one allows you to store up to 8 small items. If you have two bandoliers, that is 16 scrolls or other items.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The standard advice for multiclassing two full casters is not to do it. Your spell casting and other class features do not stack so you end up with an extremely weak character. You get tons of low-level spells, but your caster level is split so they are weaker than those cast by a dedicated caster. Let’s say you are casting a spell that does 1d6 damage per level, at 2nd level that is 2d6. If you multiclass instead of increasing your first class, the damage is only 1d6. Also, the DC of the saves is based on the level of the spell so low-level spells are usually not that big of a threat to higher level creatures.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lawful good and chaotic good are not diametrically opposed alignments. Lawful good’s diametrically opposed alignment is chaotic evil. While a paladin has to lawful good, the good part is more important than the lawful. A paladin does not fall when he performs a single chaotic act but does fall when he performs a single evil act. While a lawful good and a chaotic good creature may have differences they can still work together and even respect each other. I understand that in todays polarized society that may seem like it is impossible, but that does not need to be the case, and at one time it was not like that.

The Solar bloodline has a lot of good abilities. If you are in an undead heavy campaign this bloodline is incredibly good. Searing light as a 1st level spell can dish out some serious damage vs undead. Sunbeam is also incredibly powerful vs undead. Fire Resistance is always useful especially when it is you gain a decent amount at low levels. Many of its spells are not normally on the sorcerer's spell list so make them somewhat unique.

A higher initiative is a game term and part of the abstraction. In the game we wait for a player to complete their turn before the next person goes. In real life that is not how things happen. When the drow starts moving towards the ninja he is not going to wait until the drow spends six seconds walking up to him to react. If the drow is taking 6 seconds to move that is more than enough time for the ninja to step aside.

Unless the ninja is blind, he can see the drow walking towards him. Noticing a visible creature is a DC 0 perception roll assuming the drow is 30 feet away that would be DC 3 roll. Unless the Ninja somehow has a 2 or less bonus on perception and rolls a 1 there is no chance, they do not see the drow walking up. Considering perception is a class skill for ninja’s and it is the most important skill in the game he should have at least a +4 even at first level. Wayang get a racial bonus to perceptions so even with a 5 WIS the minimum perception bonus for the ninja is +3 if he spent at least a single point on perception.

The fact the OP stated the GM ruled the Ninja could move as a free action is a pretty clear indication that the ninja knew that the drow was going to move through his square.

The ninja still gets a +20 bonus to stealth even if he moves. If he does not move the bonus is +40. Considering the character is small and has a racial bonus to stealth he should still have at least a +31 roll to stealth with a single point in stealth.

The rules are an abstraction to make it easier to play the game. Sometimes those abstractions actually make it harder to play the game. Turns are part of that abstraction; they allow the combat to be broken up into discrete segments so that each character can act in a reasonable manner. The thing to keep in mind is that all the actions are actually taking place simultaneously. The drow is not suddenly moving through the ninja’s square with no warning. He is taking 6 seconds and moving at a normal pace, the ninja is aware of this and has plenty of time to step aside. Forget about the invisibility or attacks of opportunities. If someone you are aware of is 30 feet away from you and walks towards you how difficult is it to avoid them? Personally, the only time anyone has ever run into me is either when neither of us saw the other, or they were actively trying to run into me. The ninja is aware of the drow and the drow is not attempting to run into him. The idea that the character has to loses 5 feet of movement next turn is a good idea but making them make an acrobatics roll going too far.

A stealth roll to avoid being noticed would be appropriate.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know it is not as popular as a two-handed build, but a weapon and shield build can still be fairly effective. I am not talking about using a shield as an extra attack; I am talking about using a shield for defense. A normal shield only gives a +2 bonus, but it can be enchanted for a larger bonus. Purchasing +3 Full Plate and a +3 Shield costs 19820 GP, a suit of +4 Plate costs 17650 GP. You get a lot more AC per gold with the shield. If given the chance, would you buy a magic item that gave you +4 AC for 2170 GP? That is exactly what you are getting with the +3 armor and shield over the +4 armor.

A defensive build can crank up the AC pretty high. A 12th level paladin with a defensive build can get around a 35 AC at 12th level without smite evil. Smite evil will bring it up to about 37 (CHA is a deflection bonus so does not stack with ring of protection). A character with that high of an AC will likely have the GM coming to the forums complaining about not being able to deal with the paladin without killing the rest of the party.

VMC Bard will give you versatile performance and even allows you to retrain all the skill ranks in those two skills for free. VMC Bard is probably one of the best.

It still does not provoke an AoO. That was my main point.

The description specifically states that it does not provoke an AoO, but any other movement used as part of the move does. It also states that it counts as 5 feet of movement so might be considered a 5 foot step.

Dimensional Slide (Su): The arcanist can expend 1 point from her arcane reservoir to create a dimensional crack that she can step through to reach another location. This ability is used as part of a move action or withdraw action, allowing her to move up to 10 feet per arcanist level to any location she can see. This counts as 5 feet of movement. She can only use this ability once per round. She does not provoke attacks of opportunity when moving in this way, but any other movement she attempts as part of her move action provokes as normal

There are some archetypes that will fit every god, but not all will. Archetypes are the main way to make clerics unique. Outside of alignment and domain they all have pretty much the same spells. Domains are the only thing that really makes them different from other clerics. Wizard and prepared arcane casters have limited access to spells based on what spells they know. You can have two different wizards with very different tactics. While clerics can memorize different spells, they get access to all their spells. This in one of the strengths of the class, but does mean that given the same information, most clerics will end up with similar tactics.

Just because you consider someone friendly does not mean they consider you friendly. How would declaring someone friendly allow you to gain any advantage, when they still consider you an opponent? You still provoke AoO from them because you are their opponent. They don’t provoke AoO from you because they are your friend.

Changing the friendly designation happens all the time in the game. For example, if someone is pretending to by my friend and I cast a healing spell on them I don’t need to make an attack roll because they are an ally. After I heal the “friend” he stabs me in the back getting sneak attack he is not going to be considered friendly anymore.

Dimensional Slide is not Dimensional Door, and as such cannot be used with those feats. Dimensional Slide is actually better than Dimensional Door. It only counts as 5 feet of movement that does not provoke an AoO, and does not stop you from taking your other actions. With Dimensional Slide there is no need for Dimensional Agility.

Keep in mind that normally you cannot move through an opponent’s square unless they are helpless, or you are three sizes smaller. Also a fine, diminutive or tiny creature can move through an opponent square, but provokes an attack of opportunity doing so. The rules also state you cannot end your movement in an opponent square unless they are helpless or tiny or smaller.

Assuming the tiny fox is a swashbuckler with the deed they would be considered flanking if they are in the opponents square, and if both the target and the fox are adjacent to an ally of the fox. One thing to keep in mind is that if you don’t spend the panache, you will provoke an AoO for moving into the square.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

An example of feinting is making what appears to be an obvious attack that can easily be blocked, that when blocked leaves you at a disadvantage. Your opponent anticipating gaining the upper hand blocks the attack instead of dodging it. Since the attack is not real when your opponent goes to block there is nothing there and his sword keeps going leaving him in a vulnerable position. You also only start the false attack so when he goes to block you reverse your attack and attack from a different angle. He is over extended and cannot block your actual attack. The mindless opponent does not see the opening that blocking would cause so simply dodges the attack. This is also why feinting against animals is so difficult.

Feinting like anything else in combat has been abstracted to allow the game to be played. If you really wanted to get realistic you would be gaining a bonus to hit based on how much you beat the targets sense motive and it would explicitly gain other benefits including allowing sneak attack to be used. The problem with this is that this level of realism will slow down the game. If you want that level of realism, there are games better suited to it. The Hero System would be a good example of a more detailed combat system.

All the major good gods have additions to the paladin’s code in Faiths of Purity.

The way I see it a cleric’s archetype should be something that fits the deity. Not all archetypes will be available for every deity. For example, I don’t think that Nethys would have crusaders, but Iomedae most certainly would. This allows the different faiths to actually be different.

To me a cleric is supposed to set an example of how a follower of the deity is supposed to live their lives. They are a walking advertisement of the ideals of the deity. They should act like the deity would act, and dress like the deity would dress. From what I have found most if not all the depictions of Iomedae show her as a woman dressed in armor. Her temples tend to be very military in appearance and often act as barracks for her holy knights.

When a cleric encounters a situation they are not sure how to handle, they should be asking what would <insert deities name> do? In a war I see Iomedea strapping on her armor, taking up her sword and defending the people. If an Ecclesitheurge does this, they lose their divine powers.

This is all just my opinion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nature Fang is a strong choice but I am not sure it really fits with the concept the OP is using. It trades away a long of abilities to boost combat.

Moooncaller might be a better choice. If it is an elf, they can still use a bow, but that will not be the focus of the character.

Personally, I don’t think this archetype fits Iomedae that well. Iomedae is a warrior goddess and is almost always pictured in armor and using a sword. The longsword is more than just her favored weapon it seems to be a central part of her identity. Since the archetype gives up proficiency in the deities favored weapon it just does not seem to fit. Giving up using armor also seems like it runs counter to her ideals. If armor is good enough for Iomedae, why would the cleric think it is beneath them to wear it. Part of the duties of a cleric is to teach the faithful. How can a character who does not know how to wear armor, use a shield and wield a sword instruct a warrior? It does not make sense that Iomedae would strip her cleric of their abilities for wearing armor like she does.

Mechanically there is no problem, and she does have a couple of good domains to make it work. This archetype seems to me to be better suited to deities that are less martially inclined. A cleric is supposed to try and emulate their deity. I just don’t see how someone who refuses to wear armor or wield a sword can emulate Iomedae. It does not make sense that Iomedae would strip her cleric of their abilities for wearing armor like she does.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Feinting is more than making a false attack. It is tricking your opponent into thinking you are out of position so are no longer a threat. Basically, you pretend you not only missed, but missed badly enough that they don’t have to worry about other attacks. They don’t dodge your next blow because they don’t think you can attack. As you said a mindless foe dodges all your attacks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bluff and Diplomacy are not charm or compulsion effect. Treating them as such is a mistake for numerous reasons. I have not seen the FAQ that states Intimidate is a fear effect, but I suspect it is talking specifically about demoralize, not the skill itself.

You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.

The or in the description is significant in that it makes clear you can do more than simply frighten someone. If the description had said and instead of or, that would be a different story.

A lawyer in court who is quoting legal precedence to get the other lawyer to back down is using intimidate. The other lawyer is not afraid of the other lawyer, he just realizes that unless he can counter the argument of the first lawyer he is going to lose. If he still presses on without countering the first lawyer, he may even damage his case and be in a worse situation.

The rules state you cannot move through a square occupied by an opponent. You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character unless you are charging. This kind of implies the reason you cannot move through a square is the opponent actively preventing you. This is further supported by the fact you can move through a square that has a helpless opponent.

In this case I can see the GM allowing the ninja to act as a friend as long as he is not taking any hostile action. This would allow the ninja to maintain the invisibility and move out of the way as per option 1. The GM has already ruled on that so that kind of falls under rule 0.

Personally, I would say that option two would mean that the target knows the ninja is there even if the invisibility was maintained. I am not even sure if the invisibility would remain if the character blocked drow. If the ninja cast a spell that prevents the drow from mothing through the square it would break the invisibility. So, why does blocking them not break it?

High level paladins would be immune to bluff and diplomacy.

While those skills can “mess with the targets emotions” that is not always the case.

Bluff is often about controlling your own emotions and presenting the case in a manner that is believable. It is also twisting the facts to support your point. It is often more about reading and understanding the target than changing his emotions.

Diplomacy is often about finding a mutually beneficial solution to a problem. It also involves understanding the target. It usually involves pointing out negative aspects of not doing what the speaker is suggesting and often uses reason instead of emotion to make its point.

The way I would handle it would be to choose a legal mount with similar stats to a unicorn, probably an elk and change the fluff. When the mount qualifies for the celestial template give it the unicorn abilities instead.

A unicorn is a lot more powerful than a horse, but a paladin’s mount is no ordinary horse. Even at 5th level the paladins mount is supervisor to a horse. Other than the magic abilities the mount of a 5th level paladin is actually about the same when it comes to combat. By 7th level it is actually a lot tougher.

Ryze Juja is right that all pattern spells specify in there description when the save is made. The fact they all have specifics that are overriding the general rule is reinforcing my aurgument. Pattern spells are also mostly used to attack. Any time the illusion is attacking something that qualifies as interacting with the illusion. So, in a since all published pattern spells do allow a save automatically because they are all exceptions to the rule.

The whole argument started because of a post I made in response to claxon comment about creatures taking full damage from a shadow spell if they do not disbelieve the spell. I suggested that one reason could be because the spells were like patterns in that when someone believed they are real their mind caused them to take more damage. Chell Raighn stated that would nerf the spells because all patterns spells automatically get save. I simply disagreed with that and stand by everything I said.

Below is the dictionary definition of usually.

under normal conditions; generally:

So, under normal conditions you only get a save against an illusion if you interact with it. If the spell specifies other conditions that allow a save, or that you don’t get a save those are special (not normal) conditions.

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

The above section is straight from the core rule book under illusion school. It is right after the sections detailing all the sub-schools. So, the default for illusion spells is that the creature viewing the illusion does not get a save until the study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion. Seeing something is not the same thing as studying it carefully. The only illusion spells that automatically get a save are those that specify they do in the description of the spell.

Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.

The section on patterns does not mention anything about saves. All it says is that it creates an image others can see, but also affects the mind of those who see it. Since there is no mention of saves patterns follow the general rule on saves that all other illusions follow, which is they only get a save when studied carefully or interacted with. Even Phantasms follow that rule, and they are all in the mind.

Some illusion spells may include a sentence stating that you only get a save if you interact with it, but that is a reminder of the rule. RAW you only get a save vs an illusion if you interact with it, unless the spell states otherwise.

Yes, there is no reason the feats have to be used. I would agree a bluff check would be appropriate at this point to fake the character was trying. But if he succeeds in the bluff it might call into question how skilled he actually is. If the king is already aware of his skill even the bluff might not be enough. If the king knows how skilled the fighter is there will probably be some penalties based on the believability of the lie. For example, if the king has personally witnessed the fighter single handedly killing huge dragon that might be considered an impossible lie.

Unchained rogue is a hell of a lot better, it brings the rogue from a point where they are next to useless to the point where they are something that can be useful to have. Even the unchained rogue is a little on the weak class, but now can at least contribute to the game in a meaningful way.

The unchained monk is also much better. Now they can actually fight fairly well.

The unchained barbarian seems to have fixed the instant death when the barbarian is knocked out and appears to have cleaned up some rage power.

The unchained summoner from what I understand was mainly to fix some out of balance issues. I don’t really play summoners, so it is hard to say.

@Hugo Rune

I am not sure what you are asking? This seems to be more of a paladin falling question. Unless the fighter was under a compulsion to obey the king, the fighter can decide to use or not use his bonuses from the skills and techniques he has including power attack it he has it. If he fails to use the skills and techniques he would be in violation of his oath if he chose not to use all of his abilities including power attack. Doing so would have no game effect unless he had some ability tied to keeping his word or obeying the king. If it were a paladin who somehow had those feats, they would probably be screwed either way.

The extra accuracy and damage form point blank shot could be that you are targeting areas that are more vulnerable. The way to not get the damage would be to aim for more protected areas. With point-blank shot you aim for an area where the armor is weaker, without it you hit the armor where it is stronger. With point-blank you aim for the throat; without it you aim for the shoulder.

No, just seeing is not enough to be counted as interacting with it. Seeing an illusion is not enough to be considered interacting with it, you actually have to interact with it in some way. In the case of color spray you are interacting because it is being used to attack you. In one of your earlier posts you stated “they do NOT get a save just by seeing it”. That is and remains a true statement.

In this instance it is a moot point because we are talking about why something would take full damage form an illusion. Being attacked by something or attacking it is enough to be considered interacting with it. Anyone who is taking damage from an illusion will get a saving throw for interacting with it.

Likewise the fact an illusion is a mind affecting effect does not automatically grant it a saving throw. The target of the illusion still has to interact with the illusion. The only difference is that a creature immune to mind affecting effects is immune to illusions that are mind affecting effects.

Chell Raighn wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:

To me it seems like the illusion covering the object or creature is more like a pattern than a figment or a glamer. Maybe the extra damage from those that believe should be considered a mind affecting effect.

From a gameplay standpoint it would probably complicate things more than it should, but that is what makes more sense. I could easily see a GM house ruling it that way.

Patterns warrant automatic saves upon simply being seen. To rule them to behave like patterns would be a straight up nerf to these illusions.

Can you show where that is stated in the rules? I have never seen that before and the section on illusion does not mention that.

To me it seems like the illusion covering the object or creature is more like a pattern than a figment or a glamer. Maybe the extra damage from those that believe should be considered a mind affecting effect.

From a gameplay standpoint it would probably complicate things more than it should, but that is what makes more sense. I could easily see a GM house ruling it that way.

Somethings don’t need to be specifically defined by the rules. When you have a situation where no character is going to be negatively impacted and performing the act in real life is simple you don’t need to have it defined in the game. By this standard a character relieve themselves because it is not covered by the rules.

The game is supposed to be about having fun, not blindly following a set of rules. When a supposed highly skilled warrior has to kill an innocent person because he has to use every bonus he has instead of being able to knock them out, that is absurd.

Are you really saying a 20th level fighter with a 20 STR with weapon focus, greater weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization all in unarmed strike, improved unarmed strike and focused weapon training in unarmed strike has to deal 2d8+13 damage when slapping someone? That is enough damage to kill a lot of low-level NPCs.

The idea that you cannot willingly fail an attack roll is ridiculous. If someone is skilled enough with a bow they can shot the wings of a butterfly, they can easily avoid hitting a human sized target. Being more skilled at something is supposed to give you more control over the situation not less. Things like weapons specialization are often the ability to hit vulnerable spots on the target. It could be something like hitting the person in an area that is already wounded so it causes more pain. If I have the ability to hit the wounded shoulder, that does not mean I cannot hit the targets legs. The game abstracts certain things to make it playable, but this level of rules lawyering is kind of absurd.

Don’t forget that if you do more non-lethal damage then the target has all further damage is lethal damage. That means a highly skilled combatant cannot subdue an ordinary person. Take a 12th level fighter with 20 STR, weapon focus, greater weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, and weapon training +2. The fighter does 1d8+11 points of damage with a long sword. That means he does a minimum of 12 points of damage. He attacks a 1st level commoner with 4 HP doing 12 points of non-lethal damage. The commoner has 4 HP so 8 is real damage. That puts the commoner at -4 HP when the fighter is doing minimum damage. The 12th level fighter has a 25% chance of straight out killing the commoner in a single blow when trying to subdue him. Take a 1st level warrior with the same STR attacking the same target does 1d8+5 damage. Doing minimum damage that means the commoner to 2 HP and knocked out. On an average roll the commoner is down to -2 HP. Unless the warrior gets a critical hit, he has no chance of killing the commoner. Why is the cannon fodder better at subduing a farmer than a highly skilled fighter?

The only training, I had was from hanging around the SCA. I went to some of the practice session’s people hosted and listened to what the people running it had to say. Mainly what I learned was how to hold and control a “sword”. Part of the control was proper use of a pivot to increase the power and control out of your swings. So, yea my “training” did include how to hurt s someone. My buddies and I picked up a couple of cheap boken from an import store and fooled around with them. None of us had any formal training or participated in any competitions. Looking back at it, it was kind of stupid thing to do but we here just out of high school and everyone at that age does stupid things. There were a couple of bruises once in a while, but even those were rare. According to what is being posted here we should have been knocking each other out on a regular basis.

@Chell Raighn I specified the attack reduces the STAT, and there are other things besides ability drain that can reduce a stat. Aging the character can reduce a physical stat. Your point while true has no bearing on the argument.

@Melkiador a child will probably have about 3 HP (4 + 1 for favored class -2 for CON from young template). That means a character with a 14 STR will deal on the average 4 points of damage (1d3+2). According to the rules for non-lethal damage they will be knocked out and have taken 1 real HP. You really think that someone training a child is going to be doing knocking them out with every hit. A black belt is probably going to be a lot higher than 1st level and more than likely doing a lot more damage than 1d3+2. A 4th level fighter with a 16 STR and weapon specialization unarmed is doing 7 points of damage (1d3+5), so the child is taking 4 real points of damage. That is enough to reduce him to -1 HP and means the child has to make a DC 10 roll con roll with a -2 penalty or take further damage. That kid is going to be in the hospital. There was never any mention of this being a life-or-death situation. The fact that post is about being able to not use some of your bonuses suggests that is not the case.

I am not really all that combat trained, but I used to play around with some stick fighting when I was younger and never put anyone in the hospital or even knocked anyone out. If I could do that a teenage messing around with his friends with no combat training I would imagine that someone who was actually trained could easily do the same.

The normal order of operations is to first do everything inside parentheses, then exponents, then multiplication and division and last is addition or subtraction.

The way you have been doing it looks to be the correct way. Since multiplication and division are at the same level it does not matter if apply the vulnerability before or after the saving throw. (20 * 1.5)/2 is the same thing as (20 / 2) *1.5.

Holding back is not that hard for someone who is actually trained in combat. If it was that difficult it would mean a black belt in a marital art would literally kill l children when they are teaching them. When you are sparing with someone you usually pull your blows, so you don’t put someone in the hospital when practicing. The people who have trouble holding back are usually untrained.

Since feats and class abilities usually represent skill and training not using most of those should not be a problem. Some feats or class abilities represent permanent alterations of the character, but those are rare. So, something like bloatmage initiate will not be able to be turned off but point-blank shot will be able to be turned off.

The other thing people are forgetting is that if the feat has a prerequisite and for some reason, he loses the prerequisite he can no longer use the feat. Crane Style has a prerequisite of dodge, which has a prerequisite of DEX 13. So, someone with the full crane style feats with a 13 DEX gets hit with an attack that reduces their DEX by 1 does not gain the benefit of dodge or any of the crane style feats. Does it really make sense that an injured person is able do something that a fully healthy person can?

From the second sentence of the description of the spell Fly. Other forms of flight may not grant this.

The subject can fly at a speed of 60 feet (or 40 feet if it wears medium or heavy armor, or if it carries a medium or heavy load). It can ascend at half speed and descend at double speed, and its maneuverability is good. Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking, so the subject can attack or cast spells normally. The subject of a fly spell can charge but not run, and it cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears. The subject gains a bonus on Fly skill checks equal to 1/2 your caster level.

I would point out that in order to use a style you have to choose to enter the stance, and can usually only have a single style active at one time. That makes it pretty clear that in the case of crane style you can choose not to use it.

Most of it is going to be common sense. I understand the idea of having a well-defined rule, but some things really don’t need to be explicitly defined.

They only get one attack with their tentacles, but probably use more than on in the attack. If you look at the stat block for squids and giant squids in the bestiaries, they also only get a single tentacle attack.

Levitate is an inferior form of flight which is why it is a lower-level spell. In reality it resembles climbing more than it does actual flight. Even if you have a way to move laterally it is slow and inefficient. You are also somewhat exposed when levitating. You can only go up or down 20 feet a round by using a move action. So, if you move up more than 20 feet it is going to take you more than a round to get down. With flight you could descend at double the rate of flight.

1 to 50 of 4,874 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>