Pegasos989's page

Well, I haven't been around lately to listen to their arguments... But I might know what they are talking about. A vast majority of the teamwork feats seem to require you to be very close to someone. Many of them require you to be adjacent to someone, preferrably someone who has a shield. Now, if you are archer, you are very mobile and the last thing you want to do is chain yourself to another ally. Neither one that is in melee very often or another soft target (Wizard and archer next to each other? Now, that is a nice place for enemies to go to...). If the monster truly does charge at you from range and you are an archer, you want to move away and have a feats that you can use from there, too.

There are certainly some teamwork feats that benefit ranged combatants too. But they do tend to favor melee combat a lot more. Useful teamwork feats for ranged combatants have to be chosen from a lot more limited range.

How can you build a low level encounter that isn't flat out boring? Now, I am not talking about "It's boring to fight against goblins" type of stuff. I can come up with loads of plots from ambushes, clearing a wizard's basement, etc... The problem is that low level monsters can hit nothing.

CR1
Wolf: +2 attack. Goblin dog: +2 attack. Gnoll: +3 attack. Ghoul: +3 attack. Spider: +2 attack. Hyena: +3 attack. Trogdolyte: several attacks, best of them at +2. Snake: +2 attack. Lizardfolk: +2 attack....

CR 2
Skeletal champion at +7, all others at +3 to +6 range

CR 3
Several at +7. Few (if any) higher than that.

Now, let's look at your average primary melee combatant. We could assume dex at perhaps +2. 1st level he would likely have cheap padded armor and heavy shield which means AC 19. At 2nd he can easily afford chainmail for AC 20. Half-plate for AC 22 at third level. Now, you could say "Only a small portition of them have a shield" which might hold true for your games, not for mine. Besides, even if they don't have shields they might have other ways to boost AC (such as dodge feat, etc.). In my games, they tend to have both (IE: shield focus feats and the like that make AC 23 a common sight at 3rd level) but let's just be kind and assume ACs 19, 20 and 22 for first three levels.

There is no way that the monsters can hit them. Even the heavy combatans have only about 30% chance to hit them. If I want to build more varying combat (more lower level opponents), it becomes ridiculous: 2 trogdolytes against 3rd level party, both of which can only hit on a natural 20! I am aware of basic tactics such as flanking but at that point, they can't save the situation. Even if both of them have 15% chance to hit instead of 5% chance, it might still be that they'll not land a single hit in the fight. I know that same CR encounter isn't supposed to be very difficult but I just don't see the poin in those. They won't even drain any of the party's resources if the monsters can't hit a single time (or hit once)!

Now, some of the monsters can specifically go after the spellcasters (others, unintelligent ones have no logical reason to do so) but I don't think that players like it if monsters try their best to ignore the big character in a tincan for first three levels and constantly attack mages. I am also aware that monsters can attack during a night, etc... But I think it's a dick move to do that often. It can happen a few times but can't be the basic situation. And it gets worse than that... A regular wizard can well have AC of 17 if he casts one spell (dex +3 is easy if you are an elf. Or perhaps dex +2 and size +1 for gnomes and halflings... And then mage armor. Or shield. Or something.) So CR 3 opponent has only about 50-50 chance to hit a low level wizard who realizes that it's after him!

So... How can you hit PCs at low levels, using unmodified, somewhat CR-appropriate monsters? I just don't get it. I've ended up mostly just making all encounters in the "challenging" or "hard" difficulties or giving monsters unnamed bonus to attack... I am not looking for very specific encounters: I know that 4th level barbarian is CR 3 and can well have some +12 to hit. I would be interested in building a variety of encounters with the interesting abilities monsters have (such as wolf's trip) but I find myself unable to do so due to their abysmal attack. (A wolf attacking unarmored, first level wizard who has cast no buffing spell has only 50-50 chance to hit! It's ridiculous!)

Karui Kage wrote:

In any case, this example doesn't really cover your issue. The problem is that even if you use those tables, three CR 1/3s does not add up to a CR 3. Remember that with fractional CRs there are other fractions you must go up to first. In all, the order is like so (from largest to smallest):

1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8

Any clue where that is specifically in the section? I was wondering if the fractions were supposed to count as individual steps when using the CR Equivalencies table last night, but couldn't find it anywhere.

It does say that each such fraction is it's own step. It speaks about going down the chart, but it would be very far fetched for someone to claim that the same rules wouldn't apply when going up the chart.

A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. If this reduction would reduce a creature's CR to below 1, its CR drops one step on the following progression for each step below 1 this reduction would make: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8.

Now, that said, this is pretty irrelevant. The charts itself are there only to help you avoid any math. The rules say:

Step 3—Build the Encounter: Determine the total XP award for the encounter by looking it up by its CR on Table: Experience Point Awards. This gives you an “XP budget” for the encounter. Every creature, trap, and hazard is worth an amount of XP determined by its CR, as noted on Table: Experience Point Awards

Now...

CR 1 encounter is worth 400 exp. CR 1/3 orc is worth 135 exp. So 3 orc = CR 1 encounter.

CR 2 encounter is worth 600 exp. CR 1/3 orc is worth 135 exp. So 4-5 orcs = CR 2 encounter.

CR 2 encounter is worth 600 exp. CR 1/3 orc is worth 135 exp and CR 1/2 tiefling is worth 200 exp. So 1 tiefling and 3 orcs = 600 exp = CR 2. Similarly, 2 tieflings and 1-2 orcs is about 600 exp = CR 2 encounter.

The charts are there only to show this: Gnoll is CR 1, worth 400 exp.
-1 gnoll = 400 exp = CR 1 encounter
-2 gnolls = 800 exp = CR 3 encounter
-3 gnolls = 1200 exp = CR 4 encounter
-4 gnolls = 1600 exp = CR 5 encounter
-6 gnolls = 2400 exp = CR 6 encounter
-8 gnolls = 2400 exp = CR 7 encounter
...

That chart indeed doesn't work that well for fractional CRs... Except when you consider creatures as groups. In that table, each gnoll would be equivalent to three orcs.

Thanks to everyone for answering. Especially James for the more detailed and official answer. While my questions were answered and this thread could die now, I decided that I might just as well post why I was interested of these in case someone cares.

I am DM to first level group (well, solo player controlling four characters at the moment. We've gone through a solo campaign or three together so he can handle it.) and they are about to delve into the cellar laboratory of a deceased wizard.

There they will encounter a succubus who has no motivation to fight them but will charm all of them. My idea was that she would also give the profane gift to one character (some less important stat to prevent it from being too powerful) before teleporting out so she could control and monitor him later on.

This is somewhat ruined by the "willing" requirement that I had overlooked as none of the characters would be willing to become a pawn for a demon. I guess she could use charm and suggestion to convince him that accepting the gift is a good idea but that would become too complicated, railroad-ish and would be hard to implement without other characters finding out. Alternatively I could of course alter the ability with my DM powers but I think that I'll just abandon that part of the idea for now.

As for zombie constructs... Well, the wizard whose laboratory they will descend to had turned into advanced plague zombie due to failed experiment. I considered what else would I add to the encounter and wondered if his homunculus could also turn into zombie... I think I'll abandon that too (because the idea just feels too stupid) but became interested on whether it would be technically possible.

You can't generally take 20 on treating deadly wounds, because...

Action: Providing first aid, treating a wound, or treating poison is a standard action. Treating a disease or tending a creature wounded by a spike growth or spike stones spell takes 10 minutes of work. Treating deadly wounds takes 1 hour of work. Providing long-term care requires 8 hours of light activity.

So, even ignoring the issue of health kit expenditure, taking 20 always assumes you fail several times before succeeding. So taking 20 on that check always assumes you spend many hours doing that. At that point, it sounds more like long term care to me...

Though if the players really want to do it and have plenty of time, I see no balance issues in allowing them to spend whole rest of the day resting and expending a few uses of heal kit for just a few hp... So I see no reason for you to not allow it but I also see no reason why they would think it's a good idea. :D

That said, taking 10 should usually suffice if it is class skill for one of the characters. +2 from health kit, +2 from someone aiding, +3 class skill, +1 rank and +2 wisdom modifier = 20.

Profane Gift (Su) Once per day as a full-round action, a succubus may grant a profane gift to a willing humanoid creature by touching it for 1 full round. The target gains a +2 profane bonus to an ability score of his choice. A single creature may have no more than one profane gift from a succubus at a time. As long as the profane gift persists, the succubus can communicate telepathically with the target across any distance (and may use her suggestion spell-like ability through it). A profane gift is removed by dispel evil or dispel chaos. The succubus can remove it as well as a free action (causing 2d6 Charisma drain to the victim, no save).

So, is it possible to detect that someone has been granted that effect? Does that show up in detect magic? Does the character register as evil in detect evil because of that? Does the character himself realize that he is under such effect? He probably feels the ability increase but what about that telepathy thing? Is he aware of that before the succubus first contacts him? When that happens, does he realize she can do so because of the profane gift?

Also, when character is aware of the effect, is the communication 100% equal? Can the character at any time choose to contact the succubus or does he always need to wait for the succubus to contact him before he can answer?

EDIT: Actually, now that I have a thread going...

“Zombie” is an acquired template that can be added to any corporeal creature (other than an undead), referred to hereafter as the base creature.

It doesn't specify living creatures there. It doesn't even specify skeletal system like 3.5 srd. So construct zombies? Ooze zombies?

It takes significantly more energy to move 40 feet up than it does to move 40 feet horizonally. With horizonal movement you just need to maintain enough force not to descend and then work against air resistance to move forward but with vertical movement you need to maintain the force not to fall and then work against gravity AND air resistance.

It just wouldn't make any sense to be able to move just as fast up as you can move forward. Try this: Attach a rope somewhere, put on rollerblades and see how fast you can draw yourself forward. Then attach a rope to the roof and try to climb it up with only your hands. I guarantee you that moving horizonally is a lot faster and it has nothing at all to do with your skill.

If you choose that you want to houserule fast movement upwards, you should know *why* you want to do that. Don't do it for the sake of houseruling or because "it makes sense" as it really doesn't. If you think that the combats really need mechanics like that for some reason, think purely from mechanical perspective.

At that point, those DCs seem really low. The will-o'-wisp which you mentioned has a fly check of +31! By the time wizard gets overland flight spell (early mid-levels) he could easily have modifier of +17 or so... Especially DC 20 seems really low.

If you just want to make the movement simpler, pehaps just houserule that movement costs the same, regardless of direction? No skill checks needed.

Of course the character gets the spellbook free at that point. Rulewise: Nowhere it says that you need to spend a lot of money to multiclass to wizard. Balancewise: It makes no sense to penalize that. RPwise:

You don't become a wizards overnight. The character has to study for years or even decades. He has done that even during the first level. As he gains second level, he won't go from "A character who cared nothing about arcane magic" to "A wizard" instantly. Rather he has been a cleric who has also been studying arcane magic. As he gains level, he finally gets to the point where he can cast his first spells.

Yeah, technically it would be reasonable that first spells would be cantrips, etc... But that is the crux of level based system. If intelligence 20 wizard has no ranks in knowledge planes, he can't use the skill. If he takes 1 rank, he gets a very good modifier of +9. That doesn't happen overnight but with the level based system we just need to accept that existing skills and abilities below certain limit just won't be represented in the character sheet.

If you are bothered by the "Where did this expensive book come from?", there is a simple explanation. Before the wizard has gained the ability to cast spells, his spellbook is unfinished and nearly useless. It is completely useless for people other than the wizard. (Even finished spells require spellcraft check for other people to interpret, unfinished low-level spells might just not be worth the effort it would take to finish those pages) As such, it has effectively had near zero value during the first level.

What do you do if you are attacked by a swarm of bees? Yes, you run away. Swarms are fun because they push PCs to try other tactics than going to whack them with a pointy stick.

If bat swarm attacks PCs, they might run away (but can't lose the 40ft. speed things just by running) and eventually find an old abandoned hut where they can go and which they need to seal against bats very quickly. They might jump into a river. Or cast a rope trick (what swarm has the patience to wait for hours?). Or the swarm might just lose interest in attacking them after a while (far enough from nest). Or they might surround themselves with burning material and light it up to keep ant swarm from getting to them. You get the idea.

To me, this kind of stuff is the reason why critter swarms should exist as opponents in a game in which characters kill savage barbarians and whatnot. A DM could have run and chase scene with just some higher CR mob but swarms are better because they are very difficult to kill but their damage output is low. In addition swarm's lack of intelligence works well for encouraging creative solutions.

And even without extra weaknesses, there are tons of ways that low level PCs can kill swarms. Alchemist's fire is cheap (what, nobody bought any?). Acid is cheap (what, that neither?). Negative channeling clerics are pretty efficient against them (what, all clerics are positive channeling healbots?). Low level AoE spells (burning hands, etc.) work. And I imagine that tanglefootbags (what, nobody bought any of those either?) might also hamper a group of small critters...

Letting PCs just light a torch and whack the swarm in a combat that is just like any other (except slower) just ruins it all, in my humble opinion.

dulsin wrote:

The only extra penalty you take is to attack rolls. If you don't care about a -1 for all attack rolls you can skip the feat.

Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dex- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.

Yeah, but those other penalties come even if you are proficient. So as Dulsin said, the only extra penalty comes to attack rolls.

By direct wording, I see no reason why it wouldn't apply. Weapon focus gives you bonus on all attacks made with that weapon. Hand of the apprentince lets you make an attack with some changes (int instead of physical ability) and some limitations (can't use it to make combat maneuver).

Also, I see no reason why it shouldn't. I can't see it as being overpowered. Especially as the ability has been capped to int+3 times per day.

Thanks for the reply.

By Rules As Written, I would interpret that whirlwind attack does allow tripping.

instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.

And also lunge (which was actually indeed included in the build)

You can increase the reach of your melee attacks by 5 feet until the end of your turn

appears to work with both whirlwind attack and attack of opportunity by RAW though it doesn't let you make AoOs against him on his turn (as you no longer threaten 10 feet away after your turn - and lunge feat - has ended)

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.

Also, I personally don't think it as very cheesy because while it is efficient combination, it requires practically all feats from 7th level fighter to work... But I could well understand people that think otherwise.

Anyways, I think that I'll link this thread to my DM before I go to sleep and let him give his opinion when I meet him tomorrow for the game. In the meanwhile, I would appreciate more comments. Both about the technical feasability and whether others also consider this cheesy.

EDIT: And right... While I think that those things work... The question of whether I could make more than one attack of opportunity when whirlwinding remains. And as the next post says... I also wouldn't mind a small comment from Paizo staff about how this was intended to work.

My idea would have been to allow the half-orc to apply the +2 only to one of his physical stats(Str,Dex,Con) and the half-elf to only apply it to one of his mental stats(Int,Wis,Cha). Then the humans could have been left to apply the +2 to any stat. That way humans appear the most adaptable and the half races are well half adaptable. =)

Interesting idea, though I would probably not put it quite like that. I think that there is no reason while half-orcs would be extraordinarily agile or dexterous but same is not true for half-elves... So I would adapt your idea to letting half-elves choose from DEX, INT, CHA and half-orcs choose from STR, CON, WIS.

The last thing I was thinking about was giving humans three favored classes to represent their adaptable, flexible, and ambitious nature. Of course that is all just my humble opinion.

I don't really like that one. Half-elves have been made the best class for multiclass builds as they can choose 2 favored classes instead of one like all the other races. And I find it to fit them well as they have also been always described very adaptable in all enviroments due to their mixed heritage, etc.... Giving humans even better version of that ability would not only negate that but IMHO it wouldn't even be very flavorable to give the same ability (or well, better version of that) to humans too.

And humans don't really need anything more. The +2 to any ability and bonus skillpoints and +1 feat is very good incentive to choose them already.

I discussed this with a friend yesterday and we agreed that it would have been just too good.

Who benefits from STR: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger and Bard benefit a lot, as do melee druid builds. All other classes have some minor benefit from it, too. (A bit more damage, carrying capacity and some skill checks)

Who benefits from WIS: Cleric, Druid, Ranger and Paladin benefit a lot. For all others there is notable benefit. (Will saves, some skill checks and class abilities)

Who is hurt by the INT penalty: Wizards. All others lose one skillpoint per level and slightly worse knowledge/spellcraft modifiers. Some fighter builds are hurt a bit.

Those were just too awesome combination. Compare to the two small races who have strength penalty and elves who have constitution penalty. Both hurt a lot more in most cases.

The next question is "Well... Dwarves?" but even they have a charisma penalty which hurts sorcerers, bards, clerics and paladins quite a lot so it's worse than int penalty IMHO. In addition, CON bonus is not as good as STR bonus as no class has CON as it's primary stat. And dwarves do have the base speed of 20 so it balances things a bit more.

In addition, half-orcs now fit the "humans and half-humans get +2 to ability of their choice" and they are the only race with darkvision that can choose where they want their bonus....

So I think that this was a good design choice. They would have simply been too good as they were.

Heya, all. I have a question about a feat combination.

Whirlwind attack says it doesn't stack with other bonus or extra attacks from spells, feats or other effects. Haste spell and speed weapon enchantment specifically say that they provide extra attack so this limitation clearly applies to them.

However, Combat Reflexes says that it provides additional attack of opportunities. Is this intentional difference?

Example: Fighter has combat reflexes and some dexterity, allowing him to usually make 3 attacks of opportunity per round. On one round he uses whirlwind attack and then enemies provoke AoOs. He can clearly use one of them as it isn't any bonus or extra attack but can he also make use of the two additional attack of opportunities provided by combat reflexes feat?

I think this isn't quite clear because the feat does say that it gives more attacks (though not "extra" or "bonus" attacks so there might be a difference) but unlike haste and such, they aren't part of the full attack action so they aren't necessarily included in the restriction.

Also, attack of opportunity description doesn't use words extra or bonus, it says that opponents provoke attacks and you can make them for free... So it is more of a penalty for them about something they do than you getting bonus attacks... But this is definitely unclear enough that I would like to have a 2nd. (and third and fourth) opinion.

2nd question: Would this be cheesy?

Now, assuming that this all is technically allowed... I was thinking of having a fighter who has whirlwind attack, greater trip and improved combat reflexes. So whirlwind attack to trip everyone nearby and AoOs against them as they fall. (For those who haven't noticed, you no longer get extra attacks from improved trip but with greater trip, enemies provoke AoO when you manage to trip them.)

If this is technically feasible, would you personally categorize that as "cheesy" or as "OK build that swallows a lot of feats".