Nicodemos's page

Questions of whether or not using the necklace as an offensive weapon is an evil act are beside the point, since my evil NPC cares nothing about morality, and even my neutral PCs have been known to commit murder in my opinion.

I would also have to agree with Pizza Lord. I don't think a dispel magic or even an anti-magic field would be sufficient to stop the necklace from strangling a character, since it states specifically what can stop it. In the case of a dispel magic or a anti-magic field, it could be that, while the magic of the necklace stops functioning, it still does not loosen its grip on the character's neck. Perhaps the necklace works by shrinking in size around the neck. Preventing the magic of the necklace from working may stop it from shrinking any further, but it also may not allow it to expand to its original size.

As for how it might be used, I'm thinking that a particularly stealthy character could easily sneak up behind someone, perhaps invisibly, and slip the necklace over the victim's neck. I, of course, would allow the victim a perception check to notice his attacker. But with an invisible and stealthy attacker, he would have very little chance of noticing the attacker. Which in essence means instant death with no chance of survival unless someone can can quickly produce a limited wish - my party of PCs cannot and neither can the vast majority of NPCs.

I would also require the attacker to make an attack roll as well, probably a touch attack but with a penalty and, depending on whether or not the victim was surprised, with or without any Dex related bonuses. If the victim was surprised, his AC then would likely be very low and thus very easy for the attacker to slip the necklace over the victim's head. I think the modifier for the added difficulty to perform the maneuver (as opposed to simply touching the victim) might be in the range of -4 to the attack - or possibly more.

Since the attack, would not be all that difficult to perform if using the above guidelines, and it means unavoidable death if successful, I'm also thinking of allowing the victim a Ref save to, at the last second, avoid the attack - possibly with a DC of 20.

I have an older published source book that has an NPC villain who uses a necklace of strangulation to sneak up behind characters and slips it over their heads. With more recent descriptions of the item this mode of attack can apparently only be used once a month, assuming that the NPC can even retrieve the necklace a month after its use. But, other than this limitation, this seams to be an awfully powerful, and perhaps, unfair mode of attack and yet, assuming the NPC is able to attack with surprise, a fairly easy method of attack. Any thoughts on how to deal with this? Note, I'm also concerned about PCs using this method later on against my NPCs.

I suppose the real question is whether or not a combat maneuver is considered a melee attack, since the channel smite feat says it can be used as a swift action before a melee attack - for example, using a channel smite while performing a trip with a trip weapon.

So, in other words, the bonuses from both classes would stack.

I'm making a character for a Pathfinder/Ravenloft game and need to know if the bonuses for a ranger's favored enemy are considered insight bonuses, because I'm also looking at taking the monster hunter prestige class later on. The monster hunter prestige class has insight bonuses for certain monsters (chosen by the player) that are very similar to the ranger's favored enemy bonuses. So I need to know if the monster hunter's bonuses will stack with those of the ranger. Thoughts anyone?

Thanks for the input guys. I realize, of course, that games have rules which must be balanced and playable and this doesn't always equate to being logical or to a hard set system of keeping track of every detail. Still, I wanted to see what others had to say about it.

Now, at least, I can hopefully put this monkey to bed and focus on other areas of my game. Thanks again.

Keep in mind, that a cleave is still just one swing, albeit a long swing, of a weapon. And a character with multiple swings who doesn't cleave takes the same amount of time to perform his standard action.

Regardless, it doesn't explain why a character can't take a swing with his weapon in the same amount of time it takes him to move 30 feet.

I know this subject has been discussed several times before in several places, and that it has been stated numerous times that the cleave feat cannot be part of a full attack action and can be used only as a standard action. But I have a player who raises what I think is a valid argument against this rule and I'm wondering if anyone out there can offer a valid counter-point (or two) to his argument as opposed to simply quoting the rules or their interpretation of the rules.

The argument is this: If a character with multiple attacks is allowed to make a move (say of 30 feet) after or before making a cleave, why can't he instead swing his weapon one more time in the time it would take to make that move? Frankly, I don't have a good answer for this. One would think that in the time it takes for a character to move 30 feet during combat (i.e. not running), that same character would have more than enough time to swing his weapon again.

I'm trying to come up with a system for determining the level of expert craftsmen within a city, (weaponsmiths, for example) and I was hoping someone might know of some general guidelines for this or even a random generator. I would assume that the larger the city the more likely the odds of higher level experts, and the higher level the expert the rarer they are. And I have some ideas on the average levels of expert craftsmen as well as a method for randomly determining their levels. But I wanted to see what others may have to say on this.

Ok, I'm convinced. I guess you're right in that the d8 damage of the Sneak Stab isn't really advancing, and as long as the ability of one archetype is allowed to enhance the abilities of another class/archetype then this works for me.

I'm just trying to make sure that rules aren't abused and things don't get out of hand later on. Thanks everyone for the input.

I will add though that this same player later on intends to switch to Master Chymist, which adds other complications. There has already been much discussion on whether or not a Vivisectionist/Master Chymist should be allowed to progress his sneak attack ability in place of the Bomb-Thrower ability of the Master Chymist since the Vivisectionist does not get the ability to make bombs. General consensus seems to say that he should not be able to progress the Sneak Attack ability, or that it should be limited, since the Master Chymist already has great benefits for melee combat such as Brutality.

Either way, I'm looking at a very powerful character build should the character become high level.

I understand that Sneak Attack damage always stacks. But the Knife Master is a rogue archetype. By switching to an alchemist Vivisectionist he is no longer progressing as a Knife Master. The d8 damage is a part of the rogue class, not the alchemist class.

To allow the d8s to continue into the alchemist Vivisectionist levels would be similar to allowing the spells of a wizard to increase in power long after he quit progressing as a wizard and switched to being a fighter. I'm sure I can come up with other examples that might be more apt. But this is a simple one that comes to mind.

I've seen a lot of discussions here about combining archetypes and such but I have not been able to find anything specific on whether or not an ability already gained by an archetype continues to progress after no longer advancing in that class or archetype.

Specifically, I have a player that has taken the Knife Master archetype for his rogue, which allows d8s instead of d6s for sneak attacks, with the Sneak Stab ability. Later on, he plans to switch to an alchemist with the Vivisectionist archetype which allows sneak attacks instead of bombs. The question then is whether or not the Vivisectionist's sneak attacks progress as d6s or d8s.

Originally, I was thinking yes. But now I'm thinking no, because while the sneak attack of a Vivisectionist stacks with that of the Knife Master it is not a continuation of the KM's Sneak Stab ability.

In other words, the character would only get d8s for the levels he has gained as a KM. Any damage gained by the Vivisectionist would be d6s added on to the d8s.

By saying that sub-domains are like archetypes, are you saying then that you can't have an archetype and a sub-domain?

I thought that was probably the case - I just couldn't find anything on it.

Can a cleric pick more than one sub-domain for the same associated domain? I have not been able to find anything specifically that says he can't, though there are rules prohibiting him from taking a sub-domain from two different associated domains or from taking a sub-domain as well as it's associated domain.

As an example, for the Glory domain, there are the sub-domains of Heroism and Honor. The replacement powers do not overlap, so one might think that one could take both sub-domains. However, both sub-domains have replacement spells of 6th level, which obviously do overlap. If both sub-domains are allowed, how would the 6th level replacement spell be determined? Player's choice perhaps?

You know, there once was a time when this game was so very simple, before mountains of rules books came along and changed this game into a never-ending jumble of statics. In those days, DMs used a certain amount of logic and common sense to adjudicate anything for which there was no specific rule. And players didn't really need to know the rules and were allowed to try anything that seemed like it might work, regardless of whether or not there was a rule for it. Clearly, those days are long gone now. What a shame. Now it seems that strict adherence to the rules is more important than playing a game with any amount of believability to it.

So reality has no real purpose in it? Seriously? Yeah, fireball spells, demons and dragons may not be realistic. But we can't just throw reality out the window. Playing a game, even a fantasy game, in a world that makes no sense would quickly get boring or frustrating or both. It's important that there be a certain amount of reality and continuity to the game, and that a player can attempt to perform some task and expect a certain result, based on common sense, rather than have a DM shut him down by saying, "Nope, according to the rules, that's not allowed."

This game we play, regardless of what it's now being called or who owns the rights to it, has evolved a great deal over the years - and it will continue to do so. But, in order to do so, there has to be those who will question the validity of the rules.

Personally, I love the Pathfinder game system. Is it perfect? Perhaps not. But, in my opinion, it's the best version of the game yet. So whatever you do, do not tell me it's just a game. And more importantly, do not ever tell me that reality has no real purpose in it.

P.S. Sorry for the rant.

Okay, then let me point this out: under "Shield, Heavy: Wooden or Steel" it says, "You strap a shield to your forearm and GRIP IT WITH YOUR HAND. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for ANYTHING ELSE." So explain to me then how you can still swim and climb with only a -2 penalty? This seems contradictory, and, quite frankly, laughable.

Also, as far as I can tell, a character with a 13 strength (barely above average, and which can carry up to 50 lbs with no encumbrance) can strap a 45 lb shield, that's almost as tall as he is, on to his back and swim and climb with no penalty what so ever! Lol.

At least swimming and climbing with plate mail incurs a -6 penalty. But that's the rule, I guess.

I have a problem with this ruling. Trying to climb or swim while holding on to a shield is next to impossible making a mere -1 or -2 penalty unrealistic. It should be assumed that the shield is on the back of a character in order to swim or climb or the penalty should be much more severe. At the same time, a shield in the back of a character could interfere with a character's ability to climb or swim, making a penalty of -1 or -2 seem very realistic.