Outland King's page

Organized Play Member. 47 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 7 Organized Play characters.


Vigilant Seal

James Risner wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

Nope. Not mentioned anywhere in the Pathfinder Society Guild Guide. What is mentioned though is:

Pathfinder Society Guild Guide, page 12 wrote:
within the rules
As a PFS Player or GM, you have to play by the rules as they are actually written.
What you are refusing to admit is a GM running the rules as he interprets them is doing exactly that. Using the rules written within the rules.

what does that even mean? the point of this before it gets bogged down in symantics is that per PFS documentation, anything posted in a forum is not admissable, regardless of the intent behind it.

until an official errata or FAQ is published, the rules are as written. If the rule "should" be interpreted a specific way, make it official using the official channels outlined by Paizo themselves. Anything outside of that is personal opinion and subject to different readings."

this is to avoid scenarios where a single developer makes a post that is not vetted by his/her peers and (hopefully) put through playtesting.

Vigilant Seal

Thanks Talonhawke for the wall of info.

now, after reading it I agree with Cantriped on it being unusable from a rules perspective. the key word in Sean's writing is "should". until the rules are officially changed, all of his writing is a houserule at best.

I also dont understand his confusion with how a gauntlet and an amulet of MF would interact. there's a general rule that states "similar bonuses granted from different sources do not stack unless explictly stated". so it's the same instance as using a ring of protection with
the mage armor spell. basically pick the "highest" and use that. however it would get confusing if you have a flaming gauntlet with a shocking amulet.

personally I would allow it as Monks are underpowered as written anyway. losing that weapon enchantment slot is pretty rough.

Vigilant Seal

Talonhawke wrote:
If need outland I can dig up a few post from developers nothing that is official but it is the intent.

if you have them handy that would help yes.

Chess Pwn wrote:
"clipped for space"

trying not to be rude. but you've effectively said nothing. I get that logic could interpret the rules this way but you've cited nothing that would negate the line in the gauntlet rules that states " strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack."

the interpretation here is that it is considered an unarmed attack when using a gauntlet, therefore any effect related to an unarmed strike would apply. it's not a chose to attack unarmed or chose to attack as a manufactured weapon, it's a special property of the weapon.

to counter your point, a staff is not two weapons, however it's description states you can attack with it using two weapon fighting and treat each head as a separate weapon.

Vigilant Seal

SorrySleeping wrote:

Monks only get bonus damage with actual unarmed strikes.

This is mainly to prevent double enchanting with Gauntlets and Wondrous Item whose slot I forgot of Mighty Fist.

is this listed somewhere specifically? I've got a player who's arguing this and I'd like to point him toward an errata or FAQ. I agree with his point as written based on the description above.

Vigilant Seal

12 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

does a monk get their damage bonus when using a gauntlet to strike an enemy?

Benefit: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.

Note: The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.
Weapon Feature(s): cannot be disarmed

Unarmed Attack Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Weight Type Special
Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 x2 — 1 lb. B —

Vigilant Seal

I too really couldn't get into the campaign. I think it was due to the GM focusing so much on the first part and the inter-crew actions. the torture section was fine, because as an adventurer, not everything is roses and candy. sometimes you get screwed over.

we literally spent 5, 4-hour sessions just doing ship actions and mundane skill checks. it was maddening since the skill checks literally do nothing. the only penality for a failure was being fatigued, but since we didn't fight anything it didn't matter </rant>

my recommendation would be to gloss over the first part of the story and get to the pirate action sooner.

Vigilant Seal

Azten wrote:
Alex Mack wrote:
Azten wrote:

Strength 14

Dexterity 16
Constitution 14
Intelligence 12
Wisdom 14
Charisma 7

Isn't CON 14 a bit low for a Kineticist?

Also I always get a laugh when people suggest 14 STR+Medium BAB+ Power Attack= More damage.

Physical Blasts don't need as much Con for damage as energy blasts do.

The stat boosts from Elemental Overflow can easily go into Strength, and if needed you can lower some other stats to make Strength even higher. At that point is use something with a natural bonus to Strength, like a Skinwalker or a Tiefling variant though, not dwarf. Yes, you aren't adding that Strength bonus to damage, but with the dice and automatic bonus to damage from physical blasts(+1 per d6) you don't need too. And if you're in a situation where you Kinetic Blade isn't your best option, a melee weapon works just fine.

but why add in another stat when you don't need to. Con is super useful for absorbing the burn required from pretty much all abilities. Strength is only useful for damage and to-hit, which weapon finesse can alleviate using kinetic blade and Dex. as you said Physical blasts are pretty powerful so the extra con is only going to help more.

overall strength is a dump stat for almost all kineticists.

Vigilant Seal

I'd rule it as detaching the prosthetic no longer allows it to count as unarmed strike, it's now an improvised weapon as it's being wielded with another limb, as such throwing it would use the items' current enchantments (flaming, etc) in the same way throwing an axe would.

the unarmed strike aspect only applies when using it in place of a limb strike.

Vigilant Seal

THe issue with Clerics being boring is what was listed above.
they are comppletely front loaded (beyond spell levels). meaning once you select your domain(s) there is really nothing beyond adding a couple new spells or an extra channel die. Similar to wizards, but the other issue is that wizards at least have a larger spell variety to compensate and bonus feats.

I was looking into the Shaman class as it at least has less "dead levels". Warpriest looked kind of cool as well but it's too martial focused for the current party.

I'm looking for a support caster, but one that's not tied down to casting bless or aid every turn.

Vigilant Seal

Hey, I'm going to be playing in a "Haunted Asylum" campaign, so probably ghosts and undead mostly. I immediately thought about playing a exorcist style cleric. however I'm having difficulty building one thats not really boring to play.

Requirements are:
20pt buy
5th level starting point

I was trying to work in scribe scroll for some party utility. I'm also leaning more toward casting as we have a couple martials already.

Side note - If anyone can come up with some compelling Warpriest build alternatives that could be cool too.

Vigilant Seal

noretoc wrote:
Outland King wrote:

so to say that you get "no" result back and the spell does nothing is just lazy GM'ing. even if it was tied to a major plot point or story arc, if a player uses an ability as it's written, hand waving it away is insulting and cheap.

Lazy?!? Well we don't want any lazy DMs, so here is a spell that can be used for this situation.

Confuse Languages

<Chopped for Space>

this is brilliant and I would be totally in favor of this. however I was under the assumption that the TC's post said it was non-magical.

Vigilant Seal

taks wrote:

Comprehend languages is not a bulletproof solution to understanding unknown text. Suck it up, read the description of the spell, and quit whining.

understanding and reading are two different things though. the spell would never fizzle. it could return "AX FDE GEFDSFD SS ASFDE" which would make no sense as it's a code, but it would still return a result.

it allows you to read the writing, not understand the meaning of the writing. so to say that you get "no" result back and the spell does nothing is just lazy GM'ing. even if it was tied to a major plot point or story arc, if a player uses an ability as it's written, hand waving it away is insulting and cheap.

a better way to handle it would be to allow them to read it but either make the sign meaningless ("tavern is one block east") or make it a coded message (so they still need to search for the key). simple.

Vigilant Seal

Claxon wrote:

So it's important to note, that whirlwind (the Supernatural ability from the Universal Monster Rules and not the spell versions) requires that a creature be a least 1 size category smaller than the user. So a Peri could only suck up a small creature (or smaller), so it's highly likely that the whole thing simply couldn't be done.

In the event that the PC character was small and sucked up, what was the rest of the party doing? You can still hit the Peri while it's a whirlwind and cause it damage and it's movement still provokes AoO. Also, it can't make attacks while a worldwind and would have required two rounds to set up two walls of fire, either before or after having sucked up the part member (and remember turning into a whirlwind is a full round action).

So at best it could have been something like:
Round 1 -Turn into whirlwind - full round action
Round 2 -Move to small character and suck them up. Use standard action to cast Wall of Fire SLA.
Round 3 -Use standard action to cast SLA Wall of Fire a second time, and move action to move through both walls.
Round 4 -Use standard action to move and move action to move through both walls.

Passing through a wall deals 2d6+15 points of fire damage. So passing through each wall twice would deal 8d6+60 damage. Compare this to a normal full round attack which has 4 attacks with it's sword and two wing attacks. If all attacks hit (unlikely) it's 4d6+32 from the sword and 2d6+6+burn from the wings. Total being 6d6+38 and didn't take 3 rounds to set up, where it was dealing no damage.

I guess ultimately the point here would be don't ignore an enemy and allow them to set up such a scenario in the first place, and that you should have focused on killing the Peri once it became such an obvious threat.

that's not bad, the fire walls do some significant damage, because even if all it's attacks hit it's still outdamaged by a couple iteratives. realistically the full attack would hit maybe half the time.It's also potentially doing damage with the walls normally as well as sectioning off the rest of the party.

but the main question is how many times per round can a fire wall hit a person, with a 90 ft fly speed the victim could potentially go through the same wall multiple times per move action.

Vigilant Seal

If nobody has said it yet there's a 1st level spell that would work.

basically prevents him from firing for a standard/full round depending on saves. 1st level may not be likely to hit without a significant boost but it's low enough that any mook can use it.

Vigilant Seal

typically from my experience Low magic games tend to focus less on combat and more on skill checks. Normal combat assumes there is a fair amount of magic in play, especially when higher level, so you'll probably need to either have everyone play martial classes, or lower CR on some events.

look for more mundane challenges, a wide canyon filled with scorpions is a no brainer for a party with a little magic but can be a troublesome event for a bunch of guys with backpacks and shovels.

get creative with your challenges and include some technological equivalents to magic (alchemy items, special materials, "inventions", etc).

Vigilant Seal

feel free to make up stuff if you need to, in order to keep the game rolling. obviously try to know rules that pertain to the events you're DM'ing. but fudging something every now and then to keep people interested and keep the game flowing helps out.

remember that the point of the DM is to keep people engaged and make sure everyone is having fun. the rules are just a means to an end.

also try to set up your campaign so that each character has a little time to shine. if you just have a level 1 combat campaign the fighter is going to crush everything and the sorcerer is going to be pretty useless pretty quickly.

Vigilant Seal

absolutely unneeded action tax.

the point of the move action to get a stored item includes to action to retrieve the container, hence the difference between stored and non-stored items. Looks like the GM is just trying to make the experience more difficult.

Vigilant Seal

I don't really care for the progression of the build. a mediocre companion monster pretty much negates most of the normal dread powers and the supplemental "spells" are pretty situational until higher levels. at least to me the class seems like kind of a jumbled mess once I started really reading into it.

Vigilant Seal

So I have a 1st level Psionic Dread (nightmare Constructor) that I really just don't like. I don't want to just intentionally kill off the character and I still want to play. I'm looking for alternatives to this character, maybe multiclassing or whatever. we are currently playing in a Pirate Campaign.

the jist is a Charisma focused fetchling with an unnatural obsession with Fear and what it can do to a person. main points are in Stealth and Disable Device. the stat breakdown is 14,14,12,8,10,17.

I was originally thinking some form of a bard or oracle to keep the 3/4 BAB with some casting/additional options. Looking for Ideas.

Vigilant Seal

you could always have a contingent Dimensional Anchor spell for anyone that comes through. It allows a Save but fits thematically.

otherwise you could have him create a demi-plane and put the artifact there so even if something comes through they are stuck without planar travel.

only other thing off the top of my head are the protection from alignment type spells that prevent approach by beings of a specific alignment.

Vigilant Seal

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

A fighter simply sucks at all the roles of a martial except soldier. If you want to hold to a martial theme, you are better off with another class.


The fighter doesn't really need as much as you think. What it needs is people to either play it or not. If you don't like it, then don't play it. If you do like it, then play it. If you want to change it, then change it.

quoted your last statement because from what I've seen, popularity is mostly tied to how "Good" a class is. and by good I mean a mix of interesting and powerful mechanics. the majority of opinions I've seen place the fighter at the bottom of the list because it's both boring to play and not very powerful.

as many have said, if you want skillpoints go rogue, if you want brute damage go barbarian, if you want something in the middle there are plenty of options even in the base class. I'm just scratching my head trying to figure out what the fighter actually brings that's special, besides be decent at fighting enemies with a couple of weapon groups.

Vigilant Seal

Zedth wrote:

2nd comment -

I see a lot of folks above saying to "avoid" him or to stop playing with him.

I don't know the guy so I can only speculate, but that seems a little harsh considering he's basically a noob. He (admittedly, foolishly) made a rash call by throwing out a core mechanic of Pathfinder. This can be chalked up to his inexperience, which isn't necessarily an indication that his judgment is forever tainted.

Explain his error in judgment. Talk him through how you can't just remove one of the pistons from the engine and expect the car to run smoothly. If he obtusely refuses to listen to reason, then yeah, don't play with the guy anymore.

Sorry for double post, but I both agree and disagree with your statement about the guy. understandably he is a noob and would make some pretty poor decisions, however I would still advise on avoiding the guy because if you're willing to axe a core fundamental part of the system because you don't agree with it, what are you willing to do later? I see the 5ft step as a really basic mechanic to play the game, let alone run one.

Vigilant Seal

Sounds like someone was playing 5e or modified 4e D&D.

the 5ft step is pivotal to combat in melee. most if not all of the grid combat was build around this concept, so any changes to it would be hard to gauge.

basically going to echo everyone else and just tell you that this person has no idea what they are talking about and should be avoided.

Vigilant Seal

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
There's a worthless and meaningless contribution. Particularly since this thread actually has been largely on topic, addressing the title topic.

Let's talk about the title topic for a second: there's nothing at all wrong with the fighter, despite the premise for this and the countless other threads to the contrary.

Fighters are good, because they are an incredibly varied class. Pick anything related to combat, and the fighter does well at it.

Outside of combat, you have most people use 2 things to handle situations: roleplaying and skill ranks. between traits and archetypes, fighters have a wide variety of access to class skills, and can have a decent amount of skill points with which to purchase them.

As far as roleplaying goes, fighters aren't locked down to a very specific rp hook, like (say) a paladin or a cavalier. Because fighters exist in every culture and every race, how a fighter behaves can vary widely, even among members of the same culture or race.

fighters ARE underdeveloped, even going off your point of the fighter's versatility, any other martial class can fill that void and do it in a more flavorful way. want to be a mercenary, pick a ranger or a cavalier, want to be a general or prince, cavalier or Paladin, want to be part of the church, paladin, want to be a bandit or a slave, barbarian. See they don't actually have that much variety as it all comes down to how well the character is Roleplayed.

And they are just generally lacking in power after about level 4. any decent build for fighter would have around 4 skill points per level assuming you're not pumping int. that's the bare minimum for most classes, so you're hurting for skills unless you spread those points thin.

my point is that YES, fighters can be dynamic and do have access to skills with archetypes and traits, BUT so do ALL of the other classes, and many of them do it in a better way. So to say that the fighter is versatile by bringing in something that every other class can equally do seems to be a false statement.

Vigilant Seal

ranged poison is not that good since you waste the poison on a miss, at low levels this is a big deal since poisons are not cheap.

barring that, you could use throwing daggers instead as you can pick them up and preserve the poison on them later.

Madness bombs are good as they lower will saves.
Lingering Plague is good for continued saves
Plague Bombs also lower saves.
poison bombs fit in thematically.
poison conversion is good if you want to change the type of poison.

Vigilant Seal

I like it.

as stated above all to often people just want to kill. it's nice to see someone with more options than power attack.
just make sure you're on top of your game so you're not taking up too much time at the table per round.

Vigilant Seal

I couldn't find anything in the Rules that actually prevents this spell from impacting the caster. I can see this being useful for a caster who relies on will saves but if it's going to hit the caster too then it's not really a useful spell.

do you have any links to Illusion pages?

Vigilant Seal

the spell "Haunting Mist" from Ultimate combat has a range of 20ft Radius centered on the caster. however it effects all creatures int he mist, does it also effect the caster? since it's an illusion of vapor does the caster become immune by default?

Here is the spell wording:

An illusion of misty vapor inhabited by shadowy shapes arises around you. It is stationary. The illusory mist obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target). All creatures within the mist must save or take 1d2 points of Wisdom damage and gain the shaken condition. The shaken condition lasts as long as the creature remains in the mist.

Vigilant Seal

one thing to be careful with when making secret checks for the players is their involvement with the game. I agree that sense motive and bluff, etc should be made in secret to avoid players meta-gaming. but these checks should be offset with stuff that the PC can do (additional rolls).

I've seen lots of players get frustrated when the GM is the only person making rolls outside of combat and everyone's just sitting around listening or occasionally talking. The best games are ones that keep everyone interacting and feeling a sense of contribution.

Vigilant Seal

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
JiCi wrote:

"Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."

Emphasis mine...

If you can wield a lance with ONE hand, you could wield ANOTHER lance in your OTHER hand, all while mounted... right?

No that is not inherently followed by logic. Just because you can now wield a lance in one hand, (presumably your dominant one), doesn't mean you have the equivalent ability for your second hand.

The rules say you can wield a lance in one hand when mounted. The rules don't say that a lance BECOMES a one-handed weapon when you do so. That's an important distinction.

the issue is that the rule never states you can only do this with one hand, and since most creatures have 2 or more hands, there is no rule preventing you from applying this condition twice. using the lance in one hand does not mention having to use your other hand for non-weapon purposes (see the heavy shield description where it specifically says this).

so yes I agree logically you would be hard pressed to do two lances. rule wise there is nothing preventing you from putting a lance in one hand while mounted, and then putting another lance in one hand while mounted.

Vigilant Seal

N. Jolly wrote:
Byakko wrote:

You're wielding it in one hand, but it's still a two-handed weapon.

If what you are suggesting were true, you wouldn't get the +50% damage from Power Attack when attacking with it. But you do, as per the FAQ.

I think I get where you're coming from, let me try to break it down a little.

Lance is 2 handed weapon, no one argues this, this is CRB.

While mounted, a lance can be wielded in 1 hand. This does not change the classification of the lance (which is still a 2 handed weapon), it simply alters the requirements needed to wield it. This is why the power attack ruling works, since as ruled, a two handed weapon gets 150% power attack damage even while wielded in one hand.

Now, let's see what two-weapon fighting has to say:

Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Now it doesn't matter how many hands our off hand weapon takes, it simply matters if we HAVE an off hand weapon, which we do, since our second lance still only requires 1 hand to wield.

There is the question of if the statement "You can wield a lance 1 handed while mounted" means "you can wield A lance (singular) while mounted" or "you can wield a lance (plural) while mounted", which would mean we could use any amount of lances in one hand in the case of having 2 or more hands.

I'm all for the latter myself, but I suppose that's what it boils down to in the end.

i have to agree with this comparison. TWF with a lance and a shield is the same as two lances since they are both wielded as single handed weapons while mounted. if it's a good idea or not is irrelevant, only that the mechanisms in place support it.

I believe it's supported based on the rules for TWF as well as mounted lances.

Vigilant Seal

alexd1976 wrote:

So you restricted the race choices to non-darkvision races, then sent them into a darkvision requiring environment?

Other than Half-Orc I mean...

You created this problem, their reaction is fair.

Imagine spending the time creating a human archer, all excited about a new campaign, and then having this sprung on you.

Sure, they might be able to muddle through with great difficulty, but it doesn't sound like fun.

Suggestion to fix: Tell people which module you plan on running, and don't place such restrictive rules on races. This was avoidable.

that's not fair to blame this on the DM. characters should not be tailored to a specific scenario. also as a role playing game there are almost limitless options to get around this, as people have listed above.

sure if you create an archer this encounter is putting you at a pretty large disadvantage, but PCs should not always have advantage. otherwise the game gets boring quickly.

I do agree that it may require the DM to adjust the scenario a little bit to account for this, but telling everyone "hey it's a darkness campaign so bring your darkvision" kind of defeats the point of the role playing.

Vigilant Seal

MendedWall12 wrote:
My problem with just about any D&Desque sanity or insanity rules is this:
prd wrote:
Insanity can also be caused by exposure to particularly potent sources of unhinging horror, madness, or alien natures, such that the mind simply cannot withstand them.

In a world like Golarion where there are actual rifts open between the lower planes and the surface world, and where seeing an octopus swinging from tree branch to tree branch before it sucks on your face, can be described as "uncommon" but not unheard of, how do you define unhinging horror? I mean vampires and liches are things that your average townsperson will have at least heard about. And these rules are for the PCs primarily. We're talking about a group of people who would have no trouble running into an an earless cat that can peel back the skin over it's own skull while emitting a bloodcurdling scream, and that's pretty "normal."

So my problem with the Pathfinder sanity/insanity rules is not that they make a mockery of real mental illness. It's that they have them at all. The life of an adventurer is chock full of entire months where the most normal thing that happens is you get attacked by short reptilian humanoids.

you can liken it to people now a day who watch horror movies. they don't come away with insanity, but if you put them in that same situation in reality, they most likely would become unhinged.

Hearing about a vampire in stories and confronting one face to face are completely different and most likely would mentally scar a townsperson.

that's why I think the insanity rules (which are in no way a reflection of real world illnesses, but are more for entertainment) are still applicable to a PF setting.

Vigilant Seal

you could get them the Siege engineer feat line and make them awesome with cannon's. they do respectable damage if you set up the campaign correctly.

otherwise UMD as listed above is a good way to get around the lack of abilities.

Vigilant Seal

this is more of a gripe than advice but, the one that always gets on me are the players who talk while the DM is reading descriptions or conversations. I understand you may not have something to add but just shut it.

Also make sure to know the turn order and when your turn is coming up. the DM shouldn't need to tell you when your turn is coming up. know the initiative order.

and last, make sure everyone is getting some spotlight. if a player just did something awesome or really saved the party, don't try to one-up them with a story or attention grabbing moment. Let everyone have their "Hero minute".

Vigilant Seal

alexd1976 wrote:
Outland King wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Against non-ooze creatures, an alkali flask functions as a normal flask of acid.

It is not acid damage, it just affects non-ooze creatures as if it were acid and deals double that not-acid damage to oozes.

Try not to over read things. If there are two ways to read an ability and one way works fine, and the other doesn't work at all, guess which one is the right way to read the ability.

so does that mean that hitting a non-ooze creature with the alkali bottle would also bypass Acid resistance? so protection from Energy(Acid) wouldn't work on this item even though it "functions" like a bottle of acid?

just want to make sure I'm getting this correctly and that these weapons are effectively "untyped" damage.

Nope, against oozes it deals damage of (not acid) type.

Otherwise it is treated as acid.

Just like it says.

the wording is confusing and muddled. "Against oozes and other acid-based creatures, the alkali flask inflicts double damage." double what damage? does it double the acid damage it's functioning like against normal enemies?

I understand the RAI, that's not really the question.

in the pathfinder reference site the type is listed as Acid for the weapon's stat entry. Since the description says it does double damage my assumption is double the listed acid damage on the stat block. .html

Vigilant Seal

dragonhunterq wrote:
Against non-ooze creatures, an alkali flask functions as a normal flask of acid.

It is not acid damage, it just affects non-ooze creatures as if it were acid and deals double that not-acid damage to oozes.

Try not to over read things. If there are two ways to read an ability and one way works fine, and the other doesn't work at all, guess which one is the right way to read the ability.

so does that mean that hitting a non-ooze creature with the alkali bottle would also bypass Acid resistance? so protection from Energy(Acid) wouldn't work on this item even though it "functions" like a bottle of acid?

just want to make sure I'm getting this correctly and that these weapons are effectively "untyped" damage.

Vigilant Seal

you could give them discounts on purchased goods, or Skill bonuses.

examples are if they befriend a thief type character they may get an underworld contact that give 5% off magic items.

or befriending a scout gives a +1 to perception/survival due to training or being along in the party.

as you stated artisan friends can help with crafting.

Vigilant Seal

shroudb wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
As you can't act after teleportation

Wait, what? That restriction is specific to Dimension Door.

Of course, I usually have the surprise round being the demons casting teleport, so it usually ends up preventing them from surprise actions anyway.

I was wrong. But it is a standard action (usually) so you can't attack unless you have quickened teleportation or you cast a quickened spell or have some attack that is a swift action.

i thought that was the whole discussion?

i mean:

demon spots through his scry a party of adventurers inside his dungeon.

he teleports in front of them.

The party didn't expect a demon being somewhere there.

Is the party surprised?
Does the demon gets a standard action to act?
Or is the surprise round just before he teleports, and how really does this works out?

The reasonable way is to say that the party is surprised AFTER they see the demon, or else we have things like:

The demons spots the party
The diviner casts haste for some reason
The demon sees that in his scry and goes "huh? i better wait a miute or two"
The diviner goes "huh? why is nothing happenening? my spider senses told me a battle would occur in less than 3 secs"

The other (more resonable imo) way to roll this initiative is:
The demons spot the party
The teleport in
The party gets to roll something (maybe reflex? will?)
The diviner and all those who sucedded on the roll get to act in the surprise round, which starts now.

I would treat the demon as getting a surprise round with the full initiative being rolled at the start of the next round.

I view this the same as the characters not knowing an action is taking place. why would a character get a +5 on charm if someone casts it while being hidden. the character is unaware until the effect resolves so they get no save until afterward.

It's a similar concept that the party has no prior knowledge that the demon exists or is aware of their presence so they get no save against an "attack" (baring specific magicks or whatnot).

Vigilant Seal

1 person marked this as a favorite.

allowing changes to initiative mid combat can cause a bunch of "abusive" situations

as an example we have
Wizard 17
Cleric 16
Goblin 6

the wizard acts and does whatever, then the cleric casts a spell lowering the Wizard's initiative by 4. this would cause the wizard to get ANOTHER turn before the goblin. this doens't sit well with me, or the rules.

People are saying throw away the numbers in the sense that the numbers dictate the rotation, once the rotation is set the order is what's important.

and the only way to impact order is ready or delay actions. changing a character's dex score to change their order doesn't make sense. why would a quick agile character get a potential Second action in a round by suddenly becoming more clumsy?

Vigilant Seal

the question I have is, if I have a wolf animal companion, once it gets to 7th level the following adjustments occur.


Starting Statistics

Size Medium; Speed 50 ft.; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6 plus trip); Ability Scores Str 13, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.

7th-Level Advancement

Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4.

if I decide to forgo the large size adjustment in favor of the Dex and Con boost, do I still apply the other stat adjustments or do I ONLY apply the dex and con boost?

so would the final stats be 21,15,21,2,12,6 or would they be 13,17,17,2,12,6

Vigilant Seal

I would tend to agree that the mount would continue their movement to finish the charge, I see this as they both start movement for the paladin and the mount's respective charges. the palading "stops" when his lance connects with the enemy, however the mount then "moves" him as they are attached (same as a bullrush or other effect) to finish it's charge action.

so technically they are both stopping at the first available space and both finishing their action. just the paladin in this case was forced to move by being "attached" to the mount.

Vigilant Seal

So the issue I ran into is during a mounted charge (paladin and horse mount), my table couldn't figure out the actions taken. so a normal horse requires a free action to steer with the human legs.

but I decide to charge so
1) who's move action is getting used
2) who gets the bonus to the damage
3) can both the paladin and the horse attack at the end of the charge?
4) if the paladin has a reach weapon where does the charge stop?

not to mention all the feats that are a muddled mess, like spring attack on the horse.

Vigilant Seal

you can only have 1 active at a time, hence the wording "Changing the bonus feat granted is a swift action."

the wording is somewhat ambigious since it doesn't explicitly mention the amount supplied.

Vigilant Seal

So the text for the witches familiar says it can add additional spells using some ritual. Here was the actual text.

" A witch can also add additional spells to her familiar through a special ritual."

What exactly is this ritual? Can they use scrolls for this? What about wizard spell books? And do they pay a s riding cost like wizards?

Vigilant Seal

Thanks for the updates.

does this mean that you could hold the spell on cards until it was discharged, similar to a touch spell?

Vigilant Seal

So i'm looking over the Witch archetype "Cartomancer" and the ability to deliver touch spells at range with the card deck doesn't specify if the ranged attack is part of the casting time for the spell or if it's a seperate action.
There are a couple of rules about ranged touch spells that specify they can't be held. but I'd just like some clarification or insight into how this should be read.

the GraveWalker witch archetype specifies that the deliver as ranged touch ability is a full round action, so I'm not sure how to read the Cartomancer.

Here is the ability in question.

Spell Deck

Each cartomancer carries a special harrow deck that allows her to communicate with her patron. Its ability to hold spells functions identically to the way a witch's spells are granted by her familiar. The cartomancer must consult her harrow deck each day to prepare her spells and cannot prepare spells that are not stored in the deck. The spell deck cannot be used for this purpose if any cards are missing.

This ability replaces the witch's familiar.

The following familiar ability works differently for a cartomancer.

Deliver Touch Spells (Su)

At 3rd level, when the cartomancer uses the Deadly Dealer feat with a card from her spell deck, the card is not destroyed and gains the returning weapon special ability.

In addition, the cartomancer can deliver a touch spell with a thrown card. This uses the Deadly Dealer feat (see below), except the attack is resolved as a ranged touch attack and the card deals no damage of its own. This ability can be used with any card (not just one from the cartomancer's spell deck).