Initiate of Flame

Oddman80's page

Organized Play Member. 564 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 564 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I am not getting the numbers you are posting when I recreate based on what you wrote.
At Level 1, you have the following added to your d20 on a Bluff to lie:

+5 - charisma
+1 - trait
(+5)- possible from second trait if lie is believeable or just unlikely
+1 - Skill Rank
+3 - Class Skill
+8 - Racial Bonus - Evolution (when synthesized with Eidolon)
+3 - Skill Focus

=+21 (+26 if lie is believable or just unlikely)

Were you adding the +4 racial bonus from beguiling liar? It wouldn't stack with your eidolon evolution as they are both racial bonuses.

At level 2, you show the numbers going up by 5... but the only thing that would change is +1 skill rank, and +1 from Skilled Liar (spy rogue class feature)
so you are at +23 (+28)

At level 3, +2 from deceitful feat. +5 from Silver Tongue (Su) bloodline power - but you are taking a risk by using it since the super low DC 11 Caster Level check can shine a beacon on the fact you are lying even if you rolled a 100 Bluff... so - add in another +1 skill rank...
now you are at +26+ (+36)

At this point I stopped checking your math....
Don't get me wrong - its still a really impressive bluff check... I just don't see where you are getting the rest of the numbers from.


since the spell has an ongoing effect, i would have any targetted spell caster make concentration checks to get their spells out while continuously gasping for air.


Yqatuba wrote:
Do the player races even have "default" alignments like in DND or no?

no. but bestiaries list many of the playable races as monster listings - examples that are typical for thier kind


Ravingdork - i am generally on your side here (though it appears we are in the minority), but it doesn't help to throw easily refutable things out there...

Specific overrides General, and as far as General Rules go:

from the Special Abilities section

Quote:

Supernatural Abilities (Su)

Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability’s effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.

from the Magic section

Quote:

Supernatural Abilities (Su)

These can’t be disrupted in combat and generally don’t provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren’t subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don’t function in antimagic areas.

And nothing about the Witch's Hex feature or the Flight Hex indicate anything that would override these.


TOZ wrote:
Oddman80 wrote:
There exist LG humans, just as there exist LG giants... but they, like their human counterparts, are few and far between
I'm pretty sure that's hardly true

TOZ, You think LG Humans are not few and far between?

Or you think the % of LG Giants relative to the entire population of giants is significantly different (greater than/less than?) the % of the human population that is LG?


Yqatuba wrote:
Isn't LG the default alignment for dwarves? It was in DND anyway.

nope - if you look up dwarf & bestiary for the various paizo npc's, they run the gamut. most have a Neutral component (NG, CN, LN, TN)... the few that are LG are all paladins and clerics.


Giants are humanoids.
Why should they be any different?

Of all the humanoids in Pathfinder, only one is listed as naturally LG (i.e., Vanara). LG is not an easy alignment to live ones life by. There exist LG humans, just as there exist LG giants... but they, like their human counterparts, are few and far between - and therefore do not show up as "typical for their kind" in the bestiaries.


i think the issue is that the Flight Hex (su) is one single hex that gives a bunch of benefits.

If it was Flight Hex (Su) provides the following unique abilities:

  • Swim (Ex)
  • Feather Fall (Sp)
  • Levitate (Sp)
  • Fly (Su)

    then i would agree - you need to take actions to activate all the sub-abilities.

    but the only thing that is marked as (Su) is the hex itself - and if you are benefiting from the swim part of the hex all the time (because you took 4 seconds when you woke up to activate the Fly Hex (Su) ability) then there are no other things that are defined as needing activation.


  • I have read the other Wheeling Charge threads, and i think i know the answer to this, but I just want to check.

    Ride by Attack:
    Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.

    Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can’t exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.


    Weeeling Charge:
    Prerequisites: Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Ride 5 ranks.

    Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, your mount can make one turn of up to 90 degrees as part of the move, as long as each part of the move is at least 10 feet. You may make an attack during any part of this move. Your total movement for the round can’t exceed double your mounted speed. Allied creatures do not impede your charge, though you cannot attack from or end your move in an ally’s space.


    ===========================================================
    Since Ride by Attack allows you to keep moving past the target of your charge after you attack it, and Wheeling charge allows you create a charge path which includes a turn up to 90 degrees (so long as the segment before and after the turn point is 10' or more), AND it also allows you to attack at any point along your charge path...

    Is there anything keeping someone with both of these feats from "Charging" an adjacent enemy, and then taking off at 2x their mount's speed (turning up to 90 degrees at some point along their getaway route if they so wish), while also not provoking an AoO from the enemy in the process?


    armor spikes deal damage ontop of the damage you normally deal when grappling someone.... i think that's whathe meant by ADD TO his bite damage. not boost damage from the bite itself, but add damage that is in addition to the bite.


    if the character in question is a medium sized creature with a 25' long tentacle that can make natural attacks..... the creature is not a humanoid, and therefore cannot be enlarged through enlarge person.

    more likely, its a monstrous humanoid or an abberation - neither of which can be targeted by enlarged person.

    any chance thre creature is a cleric, capable of casting Righteous Might?


    If your contract did not included a specifically defined penalty for failure, than it wasn't much of a contract. At the very least, the contract should state that the outsider must return whatever gift you offered them for their services (assuming it had a monetary value) if they fail at their task.

    In my current Way of the Wicked campaign, my guy prefers to bind Demons. But due to their chaotic nature, simply signing a contract/making a pact is not guarantee that they will actually carry out their part. As such the penalties I dictate are usually much larger and permanent in nature - and involve things owed to my Deity (Asmodeus). If the demon wants to piss off the King of Hell, that's on them. Due to the higher stakes of the failure clause, I offer the demon a much nicer reward/gift, than what is outlined in the Binding Outsiders section of the rules (most have liked the "15 minute killing spree" bonus I have offered them in the nearby town we are terrorizing)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    oooohhh... i had been eyeing a few of those dangerous delves modules a few weeks ago. My procrastination is rewarded once again!!!

    Thanks for the sale. I look forward to my future purchases.


    Even though the Ash Hag had 7HD, it is rated as a CR5 creature, and all of the other cohorts were allowed PC stats and nearly PC level wealth to start (making them somewhere between CR4 & CR 5)- so the Ash Hag was only slightly more advanced than the other PC cohorts. Also - it had been decided that I wouldn't level up the Hag until the other cohorts were reaching Level 7.

    Part of my concern was that, when looking at the Game-mastering rules for advancing monsters with PC class levels, it shows that for this Hag, it would take up to 10 PC levels before it was increasing its CR on the same 1:1 basis that the full PC Class cohorts would be advancing at.

    For example when our PCs are level 12, we could have a 10th level cohort. A 10th level Alchemist Cohort with PC stats would be a CR 10 Creature. My Hag would be a Ash Hag/Fighter 4 at that level, and per the game-mastery rules, would only be a CR 7 creature.

    Do you know if the Hag's CL for her SLAs increases with the class levels, in the same way PC's SLA CL's increase with each new level?


    Hey everybody, I am playing a cartomancer witch in in a Way of the Wicked campaign, and we just leveled up to level seven. That's the level when everybody starts taking the leadership feat. I convinced my GM that along with my group of witch minion followers, that my cohort should be an Ash Hag.

    I am very excited for the various spell like abilities my personal coven will be able to accomplish, however, I am not sure how I should level up the ash hag at higher levels. So I would love your advice on class levels to add to the hag that would synergize well with the cohort's base abilities.
    Thank you!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Dave Justus wrote:
    Well, you can discount it all you want, but in the text on curses it says: "The oracle’s curse cannot be removed or dispelled without the aid of a deity" which seems pretty straight forward to me.

    As Divine casters, don't oracles get their spells from deities?

    As pointed out - we are not talking about removing or dispelling a curse - just temporarily counteracting or circumventing it, by using actions and resources in combat.

    The Aboleth curse gives a -2 penalty to saves vs mind affecting affects. The first level oracle spell "Rite of Centered Mind" would halve the penalty or negate it completely depending on the specific effect the oracle is saving against. Can I assume nobody has an issue with an Aboleth Cursed Oracle using this spell?

    The Legalistic curse causes one to become sickened for 24 hours if you ever break your word about something. The first level oracle spell "Remove Sickness" suppresses the sickened condition. It doesn't remove it, it just suppresses the effects for the duration of the spell. Can I assume nobody has an issue with a Legalistic Oracle using this spell?

    The Plagued curse causes one to take a -1 penalty against diseases. Once again, the level 1 oracle spell "Remove Sickness" would not only counter the -1 penalty, but also give an additional +3 bonus beyond that.

    For extra fun - what about a dual cursed Legalistic + Plagued Oracle? The base Plagued curse still makes the oracle immune to the sickened condition - which is pretty much the only downside of the legalistic curse. They can gain the level benefits of Legalistic, without suffering anything besides the -1 to saves vs diseases and infestations.

    None of these examples remove or dispell the curses from the oracles - they simply counteract the curse sufficiently, that the penalty of the curse is not as noticeable.


    Volkard Abendroth wrote:
    Val'bryn2 wrote:
    The curse isn't being removed, it is just being surpassed, in the same way taking Dance of Blades surpasses the speed reduction of Lame. I'd say it would work, because you still spent an action to cast that spell, and can only understand, not speak.

    Not true.

    A lame oracle still moves 10' slower than any other oracle using Dance of Blades. Lame does not prevent move speed increases, it just reduces the total base move speed by 10' (or 5' if you are a race with a 20' base move speed.)

    Tongues, however, places an absolute limit. You can understand and speak only the selected language.

    SO is there no way to circumvent it? What about telepathy? Telepathy is supposed to work for anyone who has a language, even if it isn't the one the telepathic creature speaks.... But Telepathy wouldn't be Aklo - so, per the curse, the Oracle shouldn't understand anything being spoken to him by someone/something with telepathy... right?


    River of Sticks wrote:

    I would side with "no". A first level spell is NOT divine intervention by a deity. The difference between Tongues and Comprehend Languages is that Tongues allows you to speak and understand any language; CL only allows you to understand them.

    All the curses are written independently of each other, and just because one may interact with spells doesn't justify that all of them do.

    I agree with the party spending a Linguistics point on Aklo, or on specially commissioned Rings of Eloquence.

    I was not asking if Comprehend Languages allowed the oracle to speak a language other than Aklo (in the original example), I was asking if it allowed him to understand what his party members were saying when they spoke common. The 10th level ability implies that were he to have Tongues cast on him, he would be able to understand what others were saying. So what is it about Comprehend Languages, that wouldn't allow the same understanding to occur?

    I guess i am just a bit confused, River of Sticks - because if your position is that "A character needing to use their first round of every combat to cast a 1st level spell on themselves" does not constitute a sufficient burden on them for the first 9 levels of the game (to make the Curse of Tongues really come off as a curse)... then why would you think it okay to counter the curse simply by spending 3500gp on a Ring of Eloquence? Do you see what spell serves as the base for that ring?


    but... i'm the gm. lol.

    i'm looking for others imput before making a ruling. Are peole considering the text of the 10th level modification to the curse?

    Tongues Curse wrote:
    ...At 10th level, you can understand any spoken language, as if under the effects of tongues, even during combat.

    If having tongues cast upon you would grant you the ability to understand languages beyond the ones you know and are able to speak (as the constant effect at 10th level says it does), how is comprehend languages any different?

    Additionally - look at the difference in wording between the Ghoul curse and the Hunger curse, in terms of being able to benefit from spells (e.g. goodberry, etc)

    i appreciate your thoughts.


    A level 1 oracle with the Tongues curse finds himself in battle and only able to understand and speak Aklo. He sees his ally is trying to tell him something important, but he doesn't know what it is. He casts "Comprehend Languages" on himself.

    Can he now understand his allies (though not speak to them) for the duration of the spell?


    Scout (Rogue): encourages movement on the battlefield while also giving a reliable source of sneak attack when fighting solo

    Master of Many Styles (Monk): There were so many cools combat styles and there were quite a few interesting opportunities that popped up when you started combined the Styles - but MoMS Monk was THE ONLY way you could do it - truly unique.

    Sacred Shield (Paladin): I simply love the flavor of this one. It flips the Paladin from "Destroyer of all Things Evil" to "Protector of All Things Good"

    Ley Line Guardian (Witch): I love Hexes, but I get stressed out by preparing spells. This archetype makes me So Happy!

    Dirty Fighter (Fighter, Orc): Speedy Tricks and Double Tricks, Oh My! The problem with Dirty Tricks was always how quickly your efforts could be negated. Even with Greater Dirty Trick, your debuffs can be cleared out after just 1 standard action. But when you start being able to apply 2, 3, 4, even 5 conditions on an opponent each round - you become something quite unique and feared.


    Lemartes wrote:

    I obviously like my way better. ;)

    However, using your way what if you reduced the damage from hardness first then split it between you and the shield?

    Yeah - I like that - its simple, and the risk/reward is a little more favorable so you are less likely to completely destroy a shield with each encounter.

    Regardless, if the ring of force shield still exists in 2nd edition, it would be a pretty awesome item. Once they bust through the 30 hardness/90 hit point shield, you just conjure a new one as an action. LOL


    to me this makes sense - but no need to wait until the shield takes half its own hp worth of damage.

    When using the shield block reaction, your shield absorbs half the damage of the attack (subtracting for hardness).

    If the shield has 10 hp and 5 hardness and you get hit for 14 damage, you take 7, and the shield takes 2 (7 minus hardness 5).

    If you got hit for 35 damage, your shield is destroyed (after taking its full hp in damage +5 hardness = 15hp), and you take 20 hp of damage.

    Sure - you will go through a lot of shield this way - but if shields gain HP and hardness, like they did in 1e, a +3 adamantine shield would have hardness 23, and 50 hp


    I know - the answer is probably "You'll have to wait and see", but it never hurts to ask. I am a little confused about the whole Shield Block reaction - which lets you reduce an attack's damage by the shield's hardness, if you spend an action the previous round to raise your shield.

    From the Glass Cannon podcast and blog discussions, it is mentioned that shields will get damaged frequently due to how popular this action is - and this raised a question - If the shield is only absorbing the "hardness" amount of damage, ans the rest goes on to hit the shield's wielder, then hasn't the shield actually taken NO damage?

    If I am attacked with a hit that would cause me 10 points of damage, and I use my reaction to use my raised shield (which has a hardness of 4), I take 6 damage and my shield takes 4.... but with hardness 4, the shield takes 0 damage. No?

    Or is it that by using the reaction the shield takes the entire hit - turning the attack into a sunder? And therefore the shield takes 6 damage fromthe 10 damage hit?

    What am I missing?


    Claxon wrote:

    If the fighter is your NPC, have him become large and be unaffected by the spell due to weight.

    As to the actual question....I don't have a great answer for you.

    That druid spell is a bit overpowered since it doesn't allow any saves or resistance against it.

    no - the NPCs are actually a pair of Earth Yai Oni who can each cast the spell 1/day.

    and 50 lb full plate becomes 400 lb full plate when enlarged, so it would still be affected. even if it had been 500+ lbs, full plate is made up of many overlapping, but otherwise disconnected pieces - so would likely still be affected by the spell.


    You are a Fighter wearing full plate and a ring off Freedom of Movement. A high level Druid just cast the 8th level spell "Repel Metal or Stone" as you approached him with your greatsword. As a result, your sword and the armor you are wearing have been pushed backwards until you hit the corner of a room - where you become pinned in the book between the two adjacent walls. While you have been indirectly affected, the spell is not in any way directly affecting you. The spell has no saving throw, and allows no ability/skill check to overcome it on your turn

    So, what would happens next?

    1) Are you able to suddendly slip out of your armor as it now the thing that is restraining you?

    2) Are you simply able to move freely, since both sword and armor are attended items and thereby an extension of you - therefore incapable of hampering your movement in any way despite the Repel Metal spell?

    3) Are you stuck until the spell ends (barring a magical item that lets you dimension for out of your spot)- as it has already been established that Freedom of Movement does not let you pass throughc solid walls if you were entombed, therefore you could not move out of the armor, and you cannot avoid the result of the spell, since the effects are not actually directly affecting you? Plus, the corner position is keeping you from backing away further or simply moving laterally.

    _____________________
    I am the GM, in this instance, so telling me to go ask my GM isnt really helpful. I am looking for your individual take on this conundrum, as it will likely come up in a couple of sessions.

    Thanks.


    SlimGauge wrote:
    If they have magic weapons or can affect incorporeal some other way, attacking the spectral hand itself would (slowly) work.

    Good Point - i know both the paladin and the fighter in the group have ghost touch weapons - so yeah - they will just have to ready an action once to foil the caster's plan.

    Thanks guys!


    Ah! okay - Thank you for clarifying. I had been assuming that the hand followed you around at all times - and only left your side when you sent it to deliver a touch attack.

    Would the caster even break stealth? I ask since the caster isn't the one attacking - he is sending the spectral hand to attack in his stead.

    If the caster is magically flying while unarmored and virtually invisible (Hidden in plain sight), the caster could cast a touch spell, have the spectral hand deliver it, and then move to a new location (moving at half speed, so as to not require a new roll) after the hand returned to the caster's original position.
    I am not concerned about ever leaving a place within 10' of shadows, as the cavern is described as being 60' tall while being filled with stalactites - so as long as the caster is flying along the bottom of the stalactites - he will always be near shadows.

    Now... how do my players defeat such a foe? i suppose readied actions to make ranged attacks (or readied "partial charges") towards the square the spectral hand returns to as soon as the hand returns. I suppose that for the party to take that tactic, they would need to make a spellcraft check to show they knew how the spell functioned. That could work... Faeryfire/Glitterdust to negate the stealth would be smart at that point...

    Am i missing anything?


    I'm a bit flummoxed. How can you say "the spectral hand itself does not give away your position" while also saying that it will, in fact "reveal which square they are located in" ???

    How is that NOT giving up your position?

    Anyway - I appreciate the annalyis. I was worried that an npc was about to be too OP for the group. She flies, has a huge stealth and a HiPS (Su) ability, can cast quickened spells, and use touch spells via spectral hand... so it just seemed like the party wasn't ever going to be able to find her, while she just took her time and took them out one by one.


    If you are under the effects of Greater Invisibility, would a "Spectral Hand" spell you cast be invisible to others or would it still be visible since it is not physically connected to you? Is the Spectral hand giving away your location?

    What if, instead of spectral hand, you had a Hide in Plain Sight ability? If after the hand returned to you - having made a touch attack, you move and re-stealth - do you have a glowing hand giving away your position? or is it as hidden as you are?

    Thanks.


    Julbo the Nice Orc wrote:

    Hello! I'm just dropping in to say that the idea orcs are naturally good with weapons like this is a little bit problematic.

    Why, just because humans invented the Fauchard, it doesn't mean we should call it a Human Fauchard and assume that all humans are natural Fauchard-users!

    Personally, I do use a Butchering Axe for butchering my foes, but I had to work long and hard to get any good at it, and it's a little bit irritating to have people make the somewhat racist assumption that it was easy for me! Yes, it was invented by an orc, but he created it as a test of strength and skill, not a convenient weapon that anyorc could use.

    Remember: killing orcs may be an important part of being an adventurer, but hurting our feelings isn't.

    Thank you, Mr. Nice Orc. I was going to say the exact same thing - but I see you've beaten me to the punch. Your speed at posting thoughtful responses is only exceeded by your kindness on consideration towards others.


    I figured I would share my work, in case it helps any future GM's. I found the book glossed over the party's entry into Kasai, before arriving at Isao's house.

    I knew that there would be party members that would fail the disguise or bluff check, to get past the guards at the city gates, so a confrontation at the point of entry was unavoidable. However there is no way for the party to know, in advance, that the entire Typhoon Guard is made up of Oni. So Ameiko and the others would not necessarily want to go in with guns blazing - shredding through the city guards in a horrid blood bath, when (from Ameiko's perspective) these same guards would be serving her in the near future.

    So - Instead, I planned a city-wide chase event. Using the Pathfinder Chase rules, but allowing for more options and veering paths than the single 10-step linear railroad that is suggested in the game mastery guide.

    Below is a link to a pdf that has 30 inter-weaving chase events that allow the characters to split up and find paths that are more in Sync with their characters. In the end, they party members (and Ameiko) all find people in the city willing to help get them to Isao's house, or they manage to find a place to hide long enough to shake the guard's pursuit, before heading over to Isao's house. Either way - The party members all reconvene at Isao's where they can share with one another what they went through, and meet their host.

    Kasai Chase Events Link:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3_5VSyDl9CJdHh2ZUJwNEN5NmM/view?usp=shari ng

    Link for Flowchart showing how to navigate through the events:
    https://i.imgur.com/iB0eMIU.jpg

    Just note - The flow chart should not be shared with the players, as it would give them direction on which choices to make to reach safety most quickly.


    even if you decided to let the act of scrimshawing be the preformance - it would not only take up both of the bards hands to perform - it would also require line of sight for the allies to gain the buffs, whereas a normal bard can provide buffs so long as they can hear the performance - around corners - in the next room, in various fog effects, etc.

    what if scrimshaw is his thing - but he delivers oratory performances loosely related to the act of Scrimshaw?

    My friends and I shall cut you from this earth
    No matter how hard or callous you be
    We will whittle you down and we'll turn you to dust
    Then all the world will be left to see
    That despite your destruction, there's no cause to morn
    Hardly worth even a memory
    You were just scum here, filth to wipe clear
    To reveal the planet's true beauty

    yeah... i just made a skrimshaw-themed battle-poem.
    :P


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Wait until the target does something remotely impressive in combat and then say:
    "Damn! I know we're fighting, but that was pretty sweet what you just did. Up top, bro! I give praise where praise is due!"

    Then Roll Bluff as you hold your hand up and wait for him to give you the high five.


    What about buying decks of playing cards?

    for food: Spam Deck or Bacon Recipes Deck

    for drink: Tropical Drink Recipes Deck!

    Then you can do something unique for Ammunition... Get a labeled bag for each ranged character and fil them with arrow heads LIKE THESE, and then have them give you an arrow head for every arrow (or bullet) they fire. You collect them and redistribute them when they craft more or buy more.


    Point Blank Shot
    Precise Shot
    Improved precise shot
    Rapid Shot
    Two Weapon Fighting
    Improved Two Weapon Fighting


    Are you thinking of Frigid Touch or Frostbite?


    _Ozy_ wrote:
    John Murdock wrote:
    _Ozy_ wrote:

    A flaming longsword could do damage if a swarm wasn't also immune to effects that only target a specific number of creatures, because a flaming longsword does 1d6 of fire damage along with its weapon damage.

    Dude, WTF are you even arguing here? That an alchemical weapon doesn't do fire damage?

    no that the immunity of the swarm is very badly worded, since an alchemical fire even if it does fire damage it still a weapon damage since its a splash weapon categorize into simple ranged weapon in the list of alchemical weapon, they should instead use the word immune to all single targeted damage or immune to slashing/bludgeoning/pierce damage instead as i see it
    No, it really is not. What is the 'size' category of an alchemist fire? How much fire damage does a 'large' alchemist fire do?

    you seem to move the goal posts in and out a lot. Post the table that shows weapons do "weapon damage" because i only see ones that do slashing, piercing and bludgeoning. now we can assume that since its "damage" by a "weapon" that it is also considered weapon damage.

    however natural attacks are not listed as weapons. they may be occasional refereed to as "natural weapons" but they are not simply refereed to as "weapons" Similar to "weapons" they deal slashing, bludgeoning and piercing damage, and not "weapon" damage, but an argument could be made that they deal "natural weapon damage"

    IF you are going to make the leap that "natural weapons" deal "weapon damage" as opposed do "natural weapon damage" then you cannot stop there. You must assume "siege weapons" deal "weapon damage" and not "siege weapon damage" and that "splash weapons" deal "weapon damage" and not "splash weapon damage" and you have to also assume "alchemical weapons" deal "weapon damage" and not "alchemical weapon damage"

    You can't pick some categories of weapons (outside of the category actually labeled "weapons") and say only those count as weapons when it comes to their damage being considered "weapon damage"

    Unless it is noted otherwise, either all weapons count as weapons or only the weapons listed as "weapons" count as weapons.


    if natural weapons are considered weapons (even though the rules specifically governing natural attacks differentiate then FROM weapons) because they have the word"weapon" in their name, then swarms are immune to alchemists fire, acid, and alchemical grenades add those are all listed as alchemical weapons.


    WHOAH!
    i'm just going to throw this out there.... but looking at the rules for weapons and the rules for natural attacks, it looks like natural attacks are NOT actually weapons. by RAW, swarms are not immune to natural attacks since they are not weapons, and this whole thread is moot.

    Read: Universal Monster Rules: Natural Attacks

    Read: Weapons


    rend only occurs when you successfully hit with two claw attacks. if swarms are immune to claw attacks then the requisites actions that trigger rend cannot be completed. so regardless of what rend is,
    swarms that are immune to weapon damage are also effectively immune to rend


    @2bz2p - I Like it. Swarms with fly speeds are not affected, but swarms without fly speeds are affected as if its an AoE.

    Trample is, by the mechanics of it, basically pushing a giant rolling pin, the size of the creature across the entire path. unless you have evasion, reflex isn't avoiding the damage, its just positioning yourself so when the damage happens, it doesn't hurt as much.


    14 people marked this as a favorite.

    88. GM: Your ship has been sailing in calm seas for the past two days. the weather looks good. You should be able to to get back to your village in time to save them.
    -
    five minutes later after some benign interactions with npcs on the ship...
    -
    GM: A dark mist settles around your ship. The man in the crow's nest shouts "HARD A PORT! HARD A PORT!" and the captain shouts to the crew "Drop the starboard main brace! Haul the port! Do it now, ya gobs!" as he turns the ships wheel to to the left and the entire ship lurches around. "Land Ho!" the Barrelman hollers. The caltain yells back "Check yer eyes ya bloody cockroach - we's a 5 miles off a the nearest shore!". As the ship finishes its hard turn, you hear a horrifying grating sound of wood scraping against rock, and the constant swaying feeling of the oceans waves cease. The black mist begins to lift, and you find your ship is perched atop a black stone mountain. As the mist clears further, all you see are mountains... range after range... as far as your eyes can see.
    -
    This happened to me last night. We all said "Oh F--"


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Lady-J wrote:
    Isonaroc wrote:
    River of Sticks wrote:

    79. GM: There's a door ahead.

    Rogue: I check for Traps. ... Looks like a 34 after bonuses.
    GM: You look the door over, but do not FIND any traps. Do you want to open the door?
    I usually go with "see" as it's slightly more paranoia inducing.
    if you go with see then that opens the player up to asking if they can smell/hear a trap if you say they cant see one

    GM: Do you have any bonuses to hearing-based or smell-based perception checks?

    Player: <in a sad voice> No.

    GM: <with a slight tilt of the head> Then no.... you don't.


    1) Magic Weapon works on Direct Fire Siege Weapons (e.g. cannons, ballista), but not on Indirect Fire Siege Engines (e.g. catapults and trebuchets). Only Magic Siege Weapon spell works on Indirect Fire Siege Engines

    2) Siege Weapon Ammunition should be made using Craft (Siege Weapons)

    3) Yes - most of the alchemical features of these special ammunitions have smaller-scale counterparts in the Alchemical Creations section of the prd. Crafting of these items should have the same Craft (Alchemy) DC, you are just having to make a larger quantity.

    4) if the Gm is firing the siege weapon using npcs, the gm determines who is crew leader. if PCs are firing the siege weapons then the players have to decide. Crew leader shouldn't be changing throughout the battle, unless something has happened to the current crew leader, and thereby incapacitating him. In such a case, unless it was discussed before hand, or a officer rank dictates it, i would think that whoever was trying to step up and serve the roll would need to take a move-equivalent action to get everyone to recognize themes the new crew leader. this is not in the rules - so it will be up the the G< to determine. expect table variance.

    5) yes.

    6) yes - but they will just be standing around - waiting to jump in, in case one of the other crew is incapacitated. if they tried to help, they would just be in the way. picture what happens when too many people try to help do something -it gums up the works.

    7) Yes - you need to be able to lift the ammunition in order to load it. If the ammunition requires 2 people to load it, then their combined max load would need to be greater than or equal to the weight of the ammo as it is listed in the prd. There is no minimum strength to aim a siege engine. While siege engine weights are not listed, in order to move a siege engine to a new location, one would need to be able to pull/push such a load. Expect Table variation for GM's determining the weight of various siege weapons, and then you just need enough crew, with their cumulative push/pull maximums to equal the weight given.

    8) Again - expect table variation on this one, since the price is not specifically listed - but this is simply a platform on which smaller creatures can stand in order to operate siege weapons that are much larger than their size, in order to avoid the penalties that come with size disparities. Think of it like extra scaffolding that you can build and use. if a bunch of gnomes want to build a huge siege engine and suffer no penalties, they have to spend more money to outfit it with the platforms. BUT - if a bunch of gnomes raid a fortress belonging to giants, and the little guys want to use the giants' huge weapons against the fortress, they will take the size penalties unless they have ranks in Knowledge (engineering), or provide extra equivalent manpower

    9)this seems like a bad idea... and since the range max is 100 feet - the only benefit would be to quickly move siege engines from post to post... interesting idea, though... since you cannot put the siege weapon in a bag you carry, or wield it, you would need to literally hold on to the siege engine for 24 hours before you could use the called feature. I would say that durting that grueling 24 hours, however you were holding the siege engine would be how it appears when called. So - as long as you can stand for 24 hours with your hand outstretched into an adjacent square - you could probably pull that off. since it says it teleports, and doesn't fly to you - i would think it couldn't come to you if anyone was in the spaces where it needs to appear, do to teleportation rules or unoccupied spaces... it might end up in the closest available spot.

    10) animated siege engines wouldn't grow the requisite body parts for lifting and loading items into themselves (all they have are slam attacks) - but it seems reasonable that they could help aim themselves, and in the case of trebuchets and catapults reset themselves at the ready for reloading - cutting down on the reload time. This is, once again -up to the GM since it isn't explicitly in the rules.


    @Saethori - interesting points. i reverse my opinion accordingly. this should allow him to gain quick clear too, then.. as he wouldnt be limitted to the mysterious stranger archetype abilities, but rather the standard generic gunslinger deeds.

    side note - monks totally do say they can use stunning fist. "The monk may attempt a stunning attack a number of times per day equal to his monk level, plus one more time per day for every four levels he has in classes other than monk."

    but all your other examples hold true. Thanks.


    @bbangerter - The magus is clearly an exception. The entire class is about channeling touch spell into their hands and then through their weapons.

    but the OP was asking about non-maguses. reformatting his questions you have the following:

    OP Questions Reformatted wrote:

    1) If I'm not a magus, what happens if I cast a second touch spell while I'm holding the charge of a previously cast touch spell?

    2) If I'm not a magus, and I am wielding a weapon while attempting to hold a charge of a touch spell? Does the fact that I am holding a weapon discharge the spell?

    3) If I'm not a magus, and I'm holding the charge of a touch spell, and I attack someone with a wielded weapon, can I continue holding the charge?

    4) If I'm not a magus, and I'm holding the charge of a touch spell, and I attack someone with a wielded weapon, can I simultaneously attempt to discharge the spell I am holding on the target?

    My answers to these questions would be:

    1) You lose the first touch spell - it just fizzles away. no damage is dealt to you or anyone else from that original spell

    2) If it is a light or one handed weapon being wielded in one hand, nothing happens unless you put a second hand on the weapon (i.e., try to wield it with two hands). By placing a second hand on the weapon, you are touching it, and that causes the spell to discharge - which could result in damage to your weapon.

    3) Yes. As long as the attack is made with a manufactured weapon that you were already wielding when you first cast the spell, you can continue holding the charge. If you draw a weapon while holding the charge, the spell will discharge upon making contact with the weapon (potentially damaging the weapon). Additionally, if you are holding the charge and attack with a natural attack or an unarmed strike, the spell would discharge on your target if you succeeded in your attack roll.

    4) Typically - no (but there are some exceptions). This is an ability that is, for the most part unique to the magus. Making a touch attack is a standard action, and making a melee attack is typically also a standard action, and so the two cannot be done on the same turn. However, if you had iterative attacks, or were two weapon fighting, you could make your first attack with your wielded weapon, and then make a second attack as an unarmed strike against the target's full AC (which would deliver the touch spell upon success attack roll). If you had the tripping line of feats and vicious stomp, you could even make the weapon attack as an attack of opportunity, and use it to trip your target, hit them with the weapon attack gained form Greater trip, then deliver the free unarmed strike from vicious stomp, and thereby discharge the held touch spell into the target as well...


    Wait a second....

    Holding the Charge wrote:

    Holding the Charge:

    If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal

    you must be holding the charge in a specific limb (the one used to cast the spell) - other wise it would go off instantly and you couldn't hold it in the first place - since it is unlikely your character is flying in the air in his birthday suit.


    So you can cast a touch spell in round 1, and then hold the charge without using up any of your "hands"? Then in round 2, you can use a manufactured, Two-handed weapon to full attack, while still continuing to hold the charge?

    I always thought the hand that you needed free to cast the spell, needed to remain free until the spell was discharged...


    The Sideromancer wrote:
    You would probably end up with Amateur Gunslinger replaced with Extra Grit since that's what occurs when you have both Amateur Gunslinger and Grit.

    This appears to be one of those rare instances where order of operation matter. if he takes paladin levels first - i believe this would be true. But if the paladin levels come after the gunslinger levels, i do not believe that is true.

    1 to 50 of 564 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>