Search Posts
Another option, if 3rd party is allowed, is to take a few levels in Psion (Psychoportation). You get limited teleportation starting at 2nd level (15 feet, plus 5 feet for each additional level of Psion). No limit on uses per day, as long as psionic focus is maintained. Plus you gain powers over time, some of which are teleportive in nature.
One of my players is running a cleric, and she wants to worship Freya, who, as far as I know, is not statted up for Pathfinder. I used the Frog God Games version as a template, but I would like to give her Obediences and Boons like the regular deities of Golarion. Any ideas? Based on the FGG version of her, her symbol (and animal) is the Falcon. In addition to the falcon, she also favors the stag and the winter wolf. Her color is white. Her worshippers are all female. Her weapons of choice are longsword and longbow. Her domains are Animal, Good, Healing and War. Her main descriptor is Goddess of Love and Fertility. She also commands the Valkyries. I had thought about perhaps having four different obediences, one for each of her Domains, with each conferring a different Boon, but limited to only one obedience and boon per day. We're also working with mass combat rules, with the party leading an army (we're running the Wrath of the Righteous adventure path), so I'm also toying with the idea of adding an obedience that takes a full day to perform, but which adds the Boon to the army rather than just to the cleric or the party. Any thoughts or ideas?
With the Automatic Bonus Progression variant, items don't have inherent bonuses, they are given to the character instead, over time. But how does this effect items like a holy avenger, where the bonuses differ according to its use or who is wielding it? Typically a holy avenger is a +2 cold iron longsword in the hands of a non-paladin, but becomes +5 in a paladin's hands. Is that entire aspect lost? Or is only the +2 lost, and the paladin's weapon attunement considered +3 higher when wielding a holy avenger?
Should it work like that or only to remove the TWF penalty? As I'm reading it, it only reduces the penalty for an offsize weapon, it doesn't confer any benefit for TWF. Also, if you're using a bastard sword without the exotic weapon proficiency, so that you can only wield it 2-handed, then you wouldn't be able to use a large bastard sword, because you would have to treat it as something larger than a 2-handed sword, which is unwieldable. With the exotic proficiency, though, you'd normally be able to treat a bastard sword as 1-handed, so you could treat a large one as 2-handed.
On a related question, our group is running Skulls and Shackles and recently fought several cyclopes with this ability. I interpreted it as if the ability only applies to the initial attack roll, if they are using it to guarantee a Nat 20, but it does not apply to the confirm roll (or vice versa). Is that a correct interpretation?
Agreed, you can sneak attack with a greatsword! But in the hands of a knife-master, a greatsword would do d4 sneak instead of d8. So the question is, would an oversized dagger that is now treated as 1-handed rather than light, still do the d8 rather than the d4?
Size is only at issue because he is not using a dagger sized for him. I agree that as long as the weapon is appropriately sized for the creature, there should be no difference in the sneak attack damage. A diminutive creature using something the size of a needle, a tiny creature using something the size of a pocketknife, or a small creature using something the size of a letter opener. But the issue is when a small creature is using something almost the size of a short sword (for him), can he finesse it well enough to do the sort of precision damage that the d8 sneak attack die suggests.
If gonna apply all the penalties that they're still medium sized daggers (loss of weapon finesse since he's small and they're now one-handed and the -2 to attacks from inappropriate size penalty) then he should keep any benefit from it too = they're daggers so he gets d8's for sneak attack. Yeah, weapon finesse is kind of what I was looking at as a guideline, basically, how much does the ability to finesse the weapons for pin-point precision play into the extra damage, something which is harder to do when you're using an oversized weapon. But I agree, with the loss of weapon finesse AND the -2 size penalty, it would seem like overkill to also take away the extra damage.
Let me start by saying that I am only looking for interpretations of the rules here (RAW or RAI are both okay), not for advice on whether it would be reasonable to make an exception to the rules. Our party has a rogue knife-master who was recently killed. The party didn't have enough gold to pop for a raise dead, so they opted instead for a reincarnation. For the fun of it, we used an alternate reincarnation table, and he came back as a ratfolk, which are small creatures (he was originally human). His weaponry included two masterwork daggers, medium size. According to the rules, he should take a -2 penalty to attack with them, and they would be treated as 1-handed weapons, not light weapons, but would still do the standard 1d4 damage for a medium dagger. Now here is the crux. As a knife master, his sneak attack uses d8 instead of d6 for damage when using "daggers or dagger-like weapons," but only d4 when using any other kind. All of the listed weapons that allow the d8 are light weapons. However, since he now has to treat those daggers as 1-handed weapons (as they are more unwieldy in his smaller hands), do they still count as "daggers or dagger-like weapons" for the purpose of determining die type damage for sneak attack? Again, while I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow them to still count (or meet him in the middle and let them do d6, because they're still daggers, but he can't finesse them quite as well), I am mostly interested in seeing rules interpretations. This is simply for debate, because he has a very easy out - there is a nearby armory they discovered where he can easily swap out for a pair of normal daggers of small size, and I'm going to allow him to simply break down the masterwork medium daggers for materials in lieu of the cost requirement for the bard's masterwork transformation spell. So solving the problem without having to really McGuyver the rules is not an issue.
I disagree that it is necessarily the logical conclusion. Take, for instance, a paraplegic who is paralyzed from the waste down because of an injury to the spinal column. The injury doesn't necessarily affect the motor centers of the brain, those may well be perfectly intact. Paralysis occurs because the signal from the brain to the extremities is interrupted somewhere along its course, not necessarily at the brain center. An injury to the brain's motor control center could certainly result in total or partial paralysis, but the injury doesn't have to be there. If you then generalize that reality to the magical fantasy of the game, then you could reasonably conclude that during paralysis, the brain could still attempt to send movement signals to the body, but the signals are simply blocked by the magic (or poison, or whatever caused the paralysis, such as a ghoul's touch). As such, the CONCENTRATION equivalent of walking is still there, and the body under a Fly spell might still be able to move in a limited fashion, since the propulsion is from the magic, not from physical effort. That, of course, is assuming the Fly spell was already active when the paralysis occurred. You would not be able to make a Reflex save, nor would you be able to add you Dex bonus to Fly skill checks, but otherwise, you should be able to move in limited fashion.
According to the rules, trained-only skills cannot be used for anything with a DC higher than 10 if you don't have ranks in it. Since the DC to Aid Another is 10, does this mean that a character can use the Aid Another action to aid a Knowledge skill check even if they don't have ranks in that particular Knowledge skill? Or does the particular nature of trained-only skills make them an exception to the Aid Another DC rule?
Check out Ultimate Psionics from Dreamscarred Press. The Psion, Psychic Warrior and Aegis classes might be good adaptations for the Adept, Vanguard or Sentinel classes. The Aegis is especially suited (no pun intended) for the Vanguard! If you're also bringing the races in, the Asari are naturally psionic. The Krogan also have some degree of natural psionics, though not to nearly the same degree.
Thanks for the suggestions, everyone! I like the idea of using Words of Power to represent Dragon Shouts. The system is a bit complicated for a group that has never used them, but I think we could get used to it. What I may try, to preserve the "specialness" of being Dragonborn, is let each Dragonborn pc, regardless of class, begin with the equivalent wordspell progression of a Level 1 Skald. By finding certain fonts of esoteric knowledge throughout the world (similar to finding Word Walls in Skyrim), they can increase their spell progression on the Dragonborn (skald/bard) wordspell list (though to gain the additional benefits of a skald or bard, they'll need to take levels in those classes). Progression would be limited by the number of total class levels they have. For instance, a Level 4 Dragonborn Fighter, if he's unlocked enough knowledge/power sources, could have the wordspell progression of up to a Level 4 Skald. I would probably do away with the Dragon Souls mechanic, as it would be unrealistic to expect anything but a high level party to be able to handle the number of dragons that would require, unless we made it so anything with the "draconic" subtype (such as kobolds) would qualify.
I'm thinking about running a homebrew campaign that borrows some themes and elements from Skyrim. For the most part, I don't think this will be difficult, as most of the races have Pathfinder equivalents (Ulfen for the Nords, etc.), and I'm not trying to recreate the whole thing, so setting it in the Realms of the Mammoth Lords or the Worldwound should not be a problem. But apart from simply borrowing some storylines and quest ideas, I also wanted to try to incorporate some of the Dragonborn concepts, like Shouts and such. Obviously, I'd need to tweak some things so we don't have low level parties fighting dragons every outing. And I'd need to find a way to spread the shouts around, rather than having only one person benefit from them. Has anybody tried this before? And do any of you have some ideas on how to make this work like a party of Dragonborns, rather than just one, without it seeming rediculously overpowered? Or do you think making this work will be a pipe dream?
We're running the Skulls & Shackles AP, and some of the characters have opted to wear eye patches, including the Pirate's Eye Patch, and the Mariner's Eye Patch (Necromancer Games). The question is, if the character's do not have any actual eye injuries, should they take a hit to their perception while wearing the eye patches, if the item description does not state that perception is somehow aided by the items?
If I understand the rules for charging and for mounted combat, in this scenario, there are actually two charges taking place, not one. The rider can make a charge with the lance, using the mount's movement, as per the mounted combat rules, ending HIS charge at the limit of the lance's range. However, the horse can continue moving the additional space needed to end ITS charge, with the rider making a ride check to stay on, provided the mount has enough movement left. Think of it like the horse dragging the rider to reposition after the rider's charge ends. Technically, horse and rider might even be able to charge two different targets if they're lined up right, with the rider attacking a target adjacent to the mount's path or within reach of his lance at some point between the start of movement and the end of movement, with the mount then continuing on to attack a second target directly ahead of it (which may provoke an AoO from the first target, of course), with both gaining the bonuses and penalties for a charge.
My group uses the heroic rolls. 2D6+6. This way the fighter doesn't have to be a moron, and the wizard can survive some one looking at him funny. So your lowest roll is 8 and you don't have to be the retarded fish frog with a 3 intel, or whatever dump stat you prefer. Point buy simply makes every one average, let the PCs be heroes and do epic world changing things. Point buy only makes pcs average in comparison to each other. Compared to average NPC and monster stats, they are well above average, especially with the 25 point buy. Although rolling stats is a time honored method, it is also a much more imbalanced method that is often unfair to some players. When you have one player rolling abnormally high stats in a party with another player who was far less lucky, SOMEBODY is going to feel that something isn't fair, namely that 8th level Wizard who is still stuck casting 3rd level spells because his rolls were so bad that even with putting his highest roll in Int, with a +2 Int boost item and 2 points for level boosts, he is still sitting at a 13 Int (I've seen that exact scenario in a group that rolled stats rather than using point buy - his highest of six rolls was a 9). It's just as rare as someone rolling all 16s through 18s, but it does happen, and it isn't fair to the players it happens to.
If the party tends to exercise caution to a fault, over-analyzing everything to the point that it drags the game down, just remember that the enemy doesn't have to wait for them to finish strategizing. If they're doing that in combat, give them a time limit: "You've got ten seconds to decide, or your planning IS your initiative this round, and now for the bad guys ..." If they're doing it outside of combat, in town or whatever, just say the bad guys got wind that heavily armored tanks were coming after them and moved all their loot to a safe location. After a few battles that turn up nothing but short swords and leather armor, remind them that the longer they take to come up with a plan, the more time the enemy has to prepare for them (hey, bad guys can research, too). On the other hand, if the party tends to throw caution to the wind every time, occasionally throw in something they just can't handle, forcing them to remember that "Run Away, Run Away" is sometimes good advice. Maybe that'll remind them that they're not invulnerable, and maybe a little caution can go a long way.
In order to keep it from being too broken or costing a king's ransom to buy (and thus making it nearly impossible to sell for a fair price), I would use dragonhide armor as a guideline. With dragonhide, the armor, though it may itself be immune to the energy type of the original dragon, it does not confer this ability upon the wearer, even when enchanted. However, such energy resistance (not full immunity) can be enchanted into the armor at 25% reduced cost. By the same token, don't give armor made from the hide of a displacer beast the abilities of a displacer beast when enchanted. Just give it the stats of, say, leather armor and the appropriate +1 to +5, depending on the enchantment. However, just as with the dragonhide, allow the Shadow enhantment (and the improved versions thereof) to be enchanted into the armor at a 25% reduced cost. That'll give you your Stealth bonuses. And allow Displacement to be cast onto the armor, along with Permanency. Since Displacement isn't on the normal Permanency spell list, I wouldn't give it a reduction in cost like with the Shadow properties, but I would allow it to hold a permanent displacement spell (subject to Dispel Magic as normal, of course), due to the nature of the creature it comes from. Using other spells on the list as a guideline, casting permanent displacement should cost at least 7500 gp, and that's if you're casting the spells yourself. If you're hiring someone to cast them for you, then it'll be an additional 600 gp, or 8100 total. Assuming 8100 gp for that, and the lowest of the Shadow enchantments, and the requisite +1 enhancement bonus to enchant it with anything, and the masterwork cost, you would be looking at right around 12,100 gp (1,000 for +1 plus 2,812.5 for Shadow [not a plus-equivalent property] at 25% discount plus 8100 for permanent displacement plus 150 masterwork cost) plus base armor cost, if you're having someone else do the work, less if you're doing it yourself. That would give you +1 Shadow armor [+5 Stealth] with (dispellable) permanent displacement. With Improved and Greater Shadow properties, you can raise the Stealth bonus to +10 or +15 respectively, at considerable extra cost. Remember, its only the hide, it's not the whole creature, and it is the magic of the entire living creature that gives it its abilities, not just the skin, so the skin should only naturally hold a hint of the original creature's power, hints which can be later expounded upon with the use of armor property enhancements and spells.
Regarding the horse not having the required number of ranks in Acrobatics, I seem to remember way back when we were still playing the beta version, that the +3 class skill bonus DID count as ranks for the purpose of determining if they qualified for feats or prestige classes. Acrobatics is a class skill for animal companions. I am not sure if they took that rule out of the official version, though. If that is still the case, then the horse would qualify for the Dragon Style feat.
Nobody is saying that a paladin has to be a redeemer. I'm saying that the old concept of the paladin as always and only stab first, ask questions later is unnecessarily limiting and narrow in scope. If your campaigns are nothing but combat all the time, every time, then that's a fine approach, but if you your campaign has room for role-playing (as opposed to roll-playing), then your paladin can be a lot more dynamic than that, and should be. They're not one-dimensional characters.
I haven't read every post in this thread, so my apologies if anyone else has already brought this up, but one thing to remember is that paladins are dedicated to the eradication of evil. That does not necessarily equate with the killing of evil things and people. Some creatures are evil by nature and may have no choice in being evil or doing evil. Killing or banishing may be the only way to deal with such things. Most evil things in the world, however, are evil either by choice or by environment. A wise paladin will take each evil on a case by case basis when they can. While it may not be practical to try to kill an evil king, it may be possible to undermine their influence, propogate an uprising among his beleaguered people, or try to work your way into the king's confidence and plant the seeds of decency in his head in an attempt to make an evil king become a good king. Evil savage creatures like orcs and kobolds can potentially be civilized. An evil thief might be able to be convinced to use his talents for the greater good and to take pride in using his ability to help others. Any creature that makes a choice to be evil can also potentially make the choice to be good. Of course, if someone is bearing down on you with weapons a-swingin', by all means, let the gods sort through the bodies. But when the opportunity for diplomacy and role-play presents itself, the paladin has a lot of choices in how they try to eradicate evil. Although it wasn't brought forward into Pathfinder, I would recommend consulting the Book of Exalted Deeds from 3.5 for some good rules on redemption and conversion.
Also, is the half speed restriction to those who fail their reflex saves cumulative with the half-speed restriction of moving through spike stones? In other words, if a creature moves normally at 30, and is reduced to 15 while moving through spike stones, are they then further reduced to 7.5 feet (which I presume would mirror the movement rules for moving diagonally, where every other square counts as 10' of movement) while in the spell's area of effect, if they fail their save?
In a recent game, we encountered a gug savant, which has spike stones as a once daily spell-like ability. It managed to cover the entire cave floor in spike stones. According to the spell description:
Now, the Nimble Moves and Acrobatic Movement feats allow the character to move through difficult terrain without impediment for a limited distance, including making 5-foot steps. Note, that by the spell description, the environment acts mechanically like difficult terrain in its movement restrictions, but is not specifically denoted as difficult terrain. And it does automatic damage when moving through it. So the question is, should the Nimble Moves and Acrobatic Movement feats allow movement through the area of spike stones without damage or impediment (at least for the 20' the two feats together allow)?
In many places in the PF world,prostitution is legal, sometimes even sacred, so she's not luring her client to crime unless it is illegal in your locale. Robbing the client is shady, selfish, chaotic, and could be deemed a minor evil in that she is using his trust to make him vulnerable. It would be more evil if the robbery were to leave an "innocent" client destitute, and she was aware of this. Otherwise, it seems to fit fairly well in the realm of CN.
So, fairly recently, I read a thread about Ninjas and how they're so awesome and stuff. I don't have an Ultimate Combat yet, so I can't vouch for that, but most everyone on the thread was in total agreement that the Rogue was underpowered in comparison to most (if not all) of the other base classes in the Core. I'm kinda curious as to the specifics of the Rogue's underpoweredness that everyone is talking about. The rogue is not underpowered, not by a long shot. I have found that the majority of people who think that fall into two categories: 1) players who don't really know how to build them effectively, and 2) players who are stuck with GMs who don't know how to build an adventure that suits the rogue. I will agree that Pathfinder and 3.0 have been pretty bad about nerfing the things rogues are supposed to be good at, but they've tweaked them in areas they were never meant to be good, such as front- line fighting (and before anyone protests that they're not good on the front line, see category 1 above).
I strongly disagree on some of these points. While there are many who saw the classic rogue as weak and irrelevant, that was not because of any fault in class features. The fault lay primarily in two areas. 1) Players who didn't know how to build an effective rogue, and 2) GMs who didn't know how to construct a game that would allow them to shine. Rogues are designed to shine outside the front line of combat and in social encounters. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the system is built to allow rich role play outside of combat, many players and GMs lack the patience and imagination for it, so they utilize only the tiniest portion of what the game can actually bring, fast-forwarding through everything that doesn't involve swinging a sword. In combat, they're still very effective if you know how to build them, often having some of the highest ACs in the game by the time they reach the middle levels, by virtue of the fact that their preferred armors don't pinch off their Dex bonuses. Their hit points aren't the highest, but neither are they the worst, they're comparable to clerics. And while they may give up surprise after one strike, they don't suffer that limitation when attacking from a flanking position, which is shockingly easy to achieve with a few ranks in stealth and acrobatics. So, in short, anyone who ever thought the rogue was an irrelevant class either didn't know how to play one, or played with a GM who was too lazy to throw them a bone.
Just for the record, when a post is rife with "maybe", it doesn't make for a very authoritative refutation of the opposing viewpoint.
Neither the mechanics of undead animation nor the mechanics of glitterdust are fully detailed beyond a few basic parameters, meaning how both interact is left up to the GM. Some might rule that glitterdust is brought into being by magic, but what waswas brought into being is otherwise mundane and might not have the same effect on creatures who sense through magical rather than physical means. Others may rule the opposite, that the dust called forth is itself lingering magic and not merely the byproduct, and that skellies see via physical sensors of some kind, and the dust would effect them the same. Fact is, with so much left to interpretation, both interpretations are equally valid.
The way I see Ki Throw is that it is basically a martial arts shoulder toss (where you grab the opponent and toss them over your shoulder to the ground, as you often see in WWE and martial arts movies). It uses the game mechanics of the trip maneuver, because the end result is that your opponent ends up prone, but it is not an actual trip, i.e. you're not sweeping their legs and causing them to fall prone in the same square, instead they fall prone in a square other than the one they were originally in. You can't shoulder toss someone who is already on the ground, because the maneuver relies on you being a fulcrum and being able to use their weight and momentum against them. Leverage. Likewise, you can't trip as an AoO when someone is standing up from prone, because the AoO occurs at the beginning of the act that triggered it, not at the end of that act, so in the case of someone standing up from prone, the AoO would occur while they are still in the prone position. However, a delayed action ("I delay my action until he stands up") would allow the character to make a new trip maneuver against the opponent, but it wouldn't be an AoO, it would be their regular attack for the round.
Summoned monsters come into being WITHOUT speaking the language of the summoner, and automatically attack your enemies. Period. There is no communication required. This is probably not the best parallel example, since most summoned monsters are intelligent. Perhaps a better example would be summon swarm, which are unintelligent. Summoned swarms will attack the nearest target, including allies and the caster. Likewise, though the commanded skeleton may automatically recognize that the caster is its ally, it does not automatically know that the caster's allies are its allies. It doesn't read your mind.
Even if the caster is on the ground 200 feet away, it's still not that difficult to project your voice 200 feet. If no other modifiers are in play, it would be a DC 20 Perception for the target to hear you (base DC 0 plus 1 per 10' of distance). Can you stand at the goal line on a football field and shout loud enough to be heard by someone standing 60 yards away? If the air is relatively still, and there isn't any crowd noise, certainly. Of course, that doesn't negate the problem of the close range of the spell requirement.
I'm not real sure about using Rapid Shot with shurikens, which are thrown weapons. So it depends on whether you consider these to be ranged weapons. There are instances in the rulebooks where they make distinction between ranged and thrown weapons, but I'm not sure if they are meant to be distinct in the case of Rapid Shot.
So my level 1 druid has a roc as a companion. I understand the compnaion's speed is the distance it can travel, but how HIGH can it fly?? This part of your question actually came up in our game last night. We were planning an ascent to the peak of a very high mountain, so we were examing the environment rules for high altitudes. One of our players also happens to be a scientist in real life, who brought up a very valid point - if you're flying by non-magical means (i.e. wings), then very likely when you get into altitudes where the air is so thin that you're risking altitude sickness, then the air is also likely too thin to support mundane flight. A brief recap of the altitude rules: Up to 5000 feet elevation, you're fine.
So the house rule we made was if you're flying below 5000 feet, there is no limit to how high you can fly, as long as your means of flight doesn't expire. At the 5000-15,000 feet altitude, you suffer the effects as described. At this point, it is wise to remember that any form of mundane flight other than gliding is a strenuous activity, so if you fail your save (or your mount fails) and gain the fatigued condition, there's a strong likelihood that you'll increase that to the exhausted condition and potential unconsciousness if you don't descend to below 5000 feet (at which point the fatigue goes away). You don't want to go unconscious at 10,000 feet. Once you get above 15,000 feet, it is practically impossible to fly by mundane means, because the air is too thin to support you. Aside from that, though, the sky is literally the limit on how high you can fly.
The Core Rulebook states that the DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for every prerequisite that the creater does not meet. It also states that wands or other spellcasters are allowed to be used in place of spellcasting prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state that this allowance forgives the DC increase, and it could be read either way. What is the general consensus on how that should be interpreted? Should involving another spellcaster (or a wand) negate the +5 to the DC? I've always personally taken the "too many cooks spoil the broth" approach to interpreting the increased DC rule, meaning that unmet prerequisites don't necessarily meet the prerequisites aren't met, just that the item crafter has to go to other sources to get them met (you just don't have to roleplay it out), and with each new pair of hands involved in the process, the better the chance that something will go wrong. If that is a correct interpretation, then involving another spellcaster would still increase the DC, although using a wand might not (if it is the crafter using the wand).
Ahh, but the problem is that charisma is not the paladin's primary stat. Its typically strength. Charisma IS typically the paladin's primary stat. Strength comes a close second, but most paladins I've come across pump Charisma first, since nearly all of their abilities are Charisma-based.
While Pathfinder did many things to the rogue, nerfing wasn't among them. There are quite a few of us who think the whole idea of turning the rogue into a fighter lite that can stand toe-to-toe with most monsters alongside the fighters was contrary to the spirit of the rogue.
One of my gaming groups has implemented the following rules, and I want to see what people think of them. My co-DM Ed came up with this one: Sneak Attack only applies to the first attack each round, not to all iterative attacks. The rationale is that precision-based damage requires study and patience to find just that right kink in the armor or that momentarily exposed vital spot. With your opponent writhing and bobbing and weaving, those openings are going to close up very quickly, especially once you've hit them. I like the idea, and I've toyed with the idea of allowing two attacks with sneak attack damage in a round, if the character is using Two-Weapon Fighting and wielding 2 light one-handed weapons, such as daggers, because they could both strike the same opening simultaneously. I came up with this one: When a character who has Evasion or Improved Evasion is in difficult terrain (and lacks feats or spell effects allowing them to ignore it) or is in a situation where their movement is otherwise hindered, such as grappled, then they are treated as if their Evasion is one step lower - Improved Evasion becomes regular Evasion, and regular Evasion is disqualified. Part of the reason for these changes was to add a little more realism and sensibility to the game, and part of it was to nerf the rogue just a bit, because one thing all the DMs in my games seem to share in common is that we all disagree with the trend in 3rd Edition and later incarnations to turn the rogue into a fighter lite.
We're having a bit of a kerfuffle about the various detect spells, regarding whether or not a caster can cast these spells on other party members, such that they can detect (whatever). Looking through the various detect spells, none of them say Target: Creature Touched, like most spells that can be cast on others; but neither do they say Range: Personal, like most spells that are limited only to the caster. I think it has generally been conventional wisdom that the detect spells are self only, but is this actually RAI, despite not being RAW?
|
