Qemuel's page

Qemuel wrote:

Cartigan. I'm sorry if I offended you in some way. It wasn't my intention at all. Nor was my intention to cause such a reaction from you. Again, I'm sorry.

I got caught up with the "still fight perfectly normally" part in your post. Blindsense doesn't allow that. Blindsight usually does (barring silence for Echolocation example).

EDIT: I just thought that might cause confusion between the two abilities to someone new to the game.

I know Dragon Disciple grants the ability to fight blind, and thus that was what I was assuming was what he was talking about and skimmed over what he said. Then at least two people jump down my throat for referring to the ability incorrectly despite it being what the person I quoted used.

Fair enough. Hug? :-)

Jesus Christ. THE GUY I QUOTED SAID BLINDSENSE. Get off my ass and then climb down from your high horses.

Shar Tahl wrote:

so, to add another wrinkle, does the Rogue/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple's Blindsense negate this effect? I am assuming it would since it is bending light, hence visual

Honestly, if you have Blindsense, just tie a blindfold on at the start of every fight. Buy some goggles with lenses you can't see through. You can still fight perfectly normally but you are immune to a number of illusions and gaze attacks.

Cartigan. I'm sorry if I offended you in some way. It wasn't my intention at all. Nor was my intention to cause such a reaction from you. Again, I'm sorry.

I got caught up with the "still fight perfectly normally" part in your post. Blindsense doesn't allow that. Blindsight usually does (barring silence for Echolocation example).

EDIT: I just thought that might cause confusion between the two abilities to someone new to the game.

Reread his post, he said "Blindsense."

I think he was referring to you saying that you can just tie a blindfold on and be done with it, but blindsense doesn't work that way. Blindsight, on the other hand would suit your example perfectly.

Here:

Blindsight and Blindsense

Some creatures possess blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a nonvisual sense (or a combination senses) to operate effectively without vision. Such senses may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation. This makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can't see ethereal creatures). This ability operates out to a range specified in the creature description.

Blindsight never allows a creature to distinguish color or visual contrast. A creature cannot read with blindsight.
Blindsight does not subject a creature to gaze attacks (even though darkvision does).
Blinding attacks do not penalize creatures that use blindsight.
Deafening attacks thwart blindsight if it relies on hearing.
Blindsight works underwater but not in a vacuum.
Blindsight negates displacement and blur effects.

Blindsense: Other creatures have blindsense, a lesser ability that lets the creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent that cannot be seen has total concealment (50% miss chance) against a creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

If the provoker is an NPC, AOs should be taken in whatever order is least convenient or most annoying to the players.

If the provoker is a PC, AOs should be taken in whatever order is least convenient or most annoying to the player.

All in good fun, of course.

-Skeld

I like that idea. What say you, Nahtar, least convenient to you as a player?

;-)

It doesn't give concealment either.

It does, however, act as if it gives you total concealment

...as if it had total concealment

then it goes on to say why it isn't actual total concealment.

Unlike actual total concealment...

You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

So, by the way I read the displacement spell description, it acts as if you have total concealment with the caveat that you already know what square the displaced character is in, therefore, no guess required to target. Hence, the "does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally" line.

EDIT: so coming back to the original question on page 1 (wow this is a crazy discussion), it depends...

It depends on if you think the spell gives enough concealment to negate the Rogue's sneak attack ability.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot

Overcoming the 50% miss chance is seeing through that illusion and going for the kill.

I would think this be better represented by making your Will Save to see through the illusion. If you don't see through the illusion, you can't hit precisely enough for the sneak attack damage to be applied and you have a chance to miss as well.

That's how I see it at least. Everybody's game is going to be slightly different based upon differing interpretations, so just do what is going to be most fun for you and your players. There really is no need to convince anyone of playing YOUR way or MY way. Play how you like, just make sure that you and your players are all on the same page. The GM is the final arbiter.

EDIT: Actually I take my first paragraph back as Displacement states that the TARGET (which is a touched creature) gets the save to negate the spell taking effect. Ah well, that's what happens when I jump in too quick without doing my research thoroughly. :-)

Qemuel wrote:

If anyone should be best in the position to answer this quandary, it would be him.

No. If we were talking about Jason Buhlman, here, I'd agree, or even Monte Cook or one of the 3.5 designers. A guy who's written modules, as admirable and cool as that is, doesn't get any special insight into the rules, and is certainly not "in the best position to answer this quandary". There are any number of instances where published modules have false rules interpretations in them, even in Paizo modules. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Greer by saying that he's no authority on the subject, but it's simple truth.

Especially when he's dead wrong. Displacement does not say it grants concealment, except for targeting. It says it grants a 50% miss chance, as if the creature was totally concealed. Those are completely different, logically and grammatically. "Miss chance as if concealed" is nothing remotely like "concealed except for targeting", logically or grammatically. As I have pointed out four or five times now, if the effect was "concealment except", it would allow Stealth checks in plain sight and would make the target immune to attacks of opportunity, both of which are properties of total concealment but not the displacement spell. The ONLY property that displacement has in common with total concealment is the property that the spell explicitly compared to total concealment, a 50% miss chance.

I meant that he was in the best position from those that had, up to this point, posted on the subject having worked with the game designers. Of course Jason would be the best, but he hasn't chimed in yet.

The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.

Okay, so we get 50% miss chance as if we have total concealment. That's the easy part since it says that right in the description of the spell.

Then it goes on to say what the difference is between actual total concealment and the version that this spell gives us, namely that you can target the creature without guessing which square it is in (I know the wording at this point leaves it up to interpretation). Because normally (with total concealment) we would have to guess the square before we could attack. However, the displaced image 2' away negates the need to guess.

To me this sounds simple and RAI, and this is how I will be using it in the game I run should it ever come up. It would be nice to get clarification though. It's just too easy to get hung up on word choice.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but Karui Kage, are you suggesting that you have TWO targets (one real and one glamer)? That's not how I would read the spell since it is a glamer and not a figment. A figment creates something where nothing exist (for example a second image), but can't conceal or change something that already exists (which a glamer can do, see below).

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Hence the 2' displacement. Something displaced, is shifted from one place to another... not in both at the same time.

Here:

Main Entry: dis·place·ment
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)dis-ˈplā-smənt, di-ˈsplā-\
Function: noun
Date: 1611
1 : the act or process of displacing : the state of being displaced
2 a : the volume or weight of a fluid (as water) displaced by a floating body (as a ship) of equal weight b : the difference between the initial position of something (as a body or geometric figure) and any later position c : the volume displaced by a piston (as in a pump or an engine) in a single stroke; also : the total volume so displaced by all the pistons in an internal combustion engine (as in an automobile)
3 a : the redirection of an emotion or impulse from its original object (as an idea or person) to another ]b : the substitution of another form of behavior for what is usual or expected especially when the usual response is nonadaptive —called also displacement activity, displacement behavior

2b being the one for this example.

One of my players created a cavalier and he wants a Roc as his animal companion.

According to the Bestiary a Roc starts out as a Medium creature, then is Large at 7th level.

The cavalier is human. Would he be able to ride the Roc at 1st level even though both are medium sized?

Mounts for medium size creatures need to at least be Large... though a halfling or gnome could ride that baby Roc.

Whee!!!

Rocs taken as animal companions by druids or rangers are typically newly hatched birds—a baby roc is the size of a person and ready for flight and hunting within minutes of hatching. Unfortunately for druids seeking animal companions of legendary size, an animal companion roc is limited to Large size—still large enough for a Medium druid or ranger to use the flying beast as a mount.

And to quote someone who went over this very same issue back in 2007.

Quote:

The thing you and your players are getting hung up on is the "unlike actual total concealment" part of the spell description. The designer is trying to tell you that a person under this spell's effect is not actually invisible or otherwise completely unseen. If a creature had total concealment, you would have to guess just to figure out what square that opponent was in because you can't see him, and they're telling you that that isn't the case.

However, in all other instances it has the same rules mechanic. Thus, as is the case for all other situations, a rogue CAN NOT perform a sneak attack on anyone that has concealment. You can see the opponent, but it's a 50/50 chance you actually land a blow. Precision attacks? Forget it. You're lucky if you actually hit the guy at all.

Actually Steve Greer has authored and co-authored the GameMastery/Pathfinder Modules "Gallery of Evil", "Sins of the Saviors", Part 5 of the Rise of the Runelords series, The Demon Within, and LB1: Tower of the Last Baron. He has also contributed sections of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting book and co-wrote Pathfinder Chronicles: Dark Markets - A Guide to Katapesh. If anyone should be best in the position to answer this quandary, it would be him.

As a GM, I would have to agree with him and the group on this thread that says Displacement would negate the Sneak Attack damage of a Rogue.
To me it just makes more sense that way.

Even so, this is your game to have fun with. Make your ruling as you feel is best for you and your players.

cheers!

Yes. The confusion I can see is how you occupy the square you start in. Presumably you have to move from the horizontal plane to the vertical one 5'. But the game abstracts where you are in your square. You can move in any direction and only count the new square for movement. Would this abstraction allow you to be on the wall (your first 5') when you started moving?

Sigurd

Personally, I would rule that it would require that first 5' of movement to move from the floor to the wall, but I could see making an exception to my own rule depending on how my players had described their character's actions in setting up the scene. Most of the time, yes, treat each surface as horizontal movement.

Not to get all "method actor" on you, but the problem may be with how you are approaching the problem. Instead of thinking, "what would this character say," consider approaching it from "what would I say?"

"I" am a barkeep in a town infested with agents of a criminal guild who will torture and kill at a moment's notice. "I" hate and fear them. "I" want them gone, but "I" have a family and a business to protect. "I" know that they are strangling the life from my town, but "I" have seen them murder in cold blood.

PC: "Good Sir, those men on the street with the tattoos and daggers. I need to find their leader. Do you know of him?"

"I" say:

What? What would you say? What would you want to know before saying anything?

The more you get into the heads of your NPCs, the more you "know" about them, the easier it will be to know what to say.

Hope this helps.

I'm going to try this on Tuesday. Great suggestion, Jake. And really, that's all that acting is to begin with... placing YOURSELF in a role. Great suggestions from everybody, by the way!

I feel your pain, Baijin. I have the exact same issue when GMing my group. I want all the NPCs to be more in depth and multidimensional, but I have a very difficult time trying to pull that off, usually failing miserably (at least in my eyes. My friends are all glad to have me run, but know I can do better.)

As your players say, practice is always good. It also really helps to know the story and the main characters in it really well. I think that is usually the easy part, though. Often it's the characters/NPCs that you make up on the spot because you need such and such to fill a new role that need the most flavor.

Perhaps it would help to write down a list of common archetypes, such as shopkeeper, innkeep, noble busy-body, etc.. and do as Nikolaus Athas suggests. That way you have a cheat-sheet ready to go in case you need to bring one in to the story all of a sudden. You may even want to write down a few one-liners for each to help you keep their personality in mind as you roleplay off the cuff.

Let me know if you come up with anything good that can help me and anyone else in the community that may have similar issues. With a little internet searching, you may be able to find some really nice archetype write-ups already to go, too.

Also, Spellcraft (along with Detect Magic or Identify) require that you be able to thoroughly examine the object.

Base on that, my opinion would be to rule that determining something to be an Arcane Bond would require a similar restriction to specifically pinpoint it as an Arcane Bonded item.

EDIT: Also to answer your original question more thoroughly, between Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft, I would rule it as Spellcraft. Knowledge Arcana may give you knowledge that such things exist, but to pinpoint it specifically, Spellcraft seems more in line.

EDIT again: However, I would rule that Analyze Dweomer could give you the information quite quickly.

OK... running under the assumption as a houserule. What kind of DC could one look at? And what kind of check?

It could potentially just be an appraise check, if someone is specifically looking (and has the in-game knowledge to warrant it):

Check: A DC 20 Appraise check determines the value of a common item. If you succeed by 5 or more, you also determine if the item has magic properties, although this success does not grant knowledge of the magic item's abilities. If your fail the check by less than 5, you determine the price of that item to within 20% of its actual value. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the price is wildly inaccurate, subject to GM discretion. Particularly rare or exotic items might increase the DC of this check by 5 or more.

Still, that doesn't automatically tell you that it is an Arcane Bonded item, only that it is magical.

Selgard wrote:

Doesn't even consume a slot (unless I'm mistaken). It doesn't become a "magic ring" until you enchant it, which you just need never do.

Actually, yes they do take up their respective slot, as per pg 78. Although it's not stated, but I would also assume the item in question would be concidered "magical" in nature. Much like a familiar goes from being an animal to a magical beast. As such, I thonk a plain bonded item would then be unaffected by a Shatter spell.

Just to reiterate what Pathos said above, here is the relevant passage from the PRD in bold:

Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork quality. Weapons acquired at 1st level are not made of any special material. If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is equal to 20 + the spell's level. If the object is a ring or amulet, it occupies the ring or neck slot accordingly.

Also, I could see (depending on your DM and how close you were to the wall to start) that it could be ruled that you were already on the square on the side of the wall, in which case it would be 5' of diagonal movement to bring you directly above your ally on the wall, then another 5' to bring you to the ceiling directly above your ally.

Still, this would be 10' of movement and require a move action.

If I'm picturing this correctly, I'd need to know how high the ceiling is.

This is based on the following assumptions: 10' high wall (2 squares to ceiling).

You (with active Spider Climb) in the middle(ish) of the 5' square next to the wall with your ally in the square in front of you.

1) It would be 5' of movement to advance diagonally (5' for first diagonal movement) to the wall directly next to your ally (pick a side, left or right)
2) One square of movement up (brings you to one square above your ally, but still on the wall

if you want to stop here, you are now out of your ally's square (total of 2 squares of movement), but if you want to continue to the ceiling directly above your ally, then one square of additional movement would be required (total of 15' of movement).

Either way, it's a movement action, not a 5' "step".

fanguad wrote:

I seem to be in the minority here (maybe it's just squeaky wheel syndrome), but why does everything have to be optimized all the time? What's so terrible about a druid who starts out with an 18 Wisdom instead of a 20 Wisdom (or 16/18, w/e). If you want to play an elf, play an elf. Yeah, it's nice that some races have good synergy with certain classes, but if all you're going for is optimization, who cares if you're an elf? In that case, just pick the [half] human so you can get your maximized Wisdom.

Nothing at all wrong with that. Heck, our iconic rogue, Merisiel, is statted up with Intelligence as her dump stat; we took a fair amount of heat and complaints on the boards as a result from folks who argued that Intelligence is NOT a good dump stat for a rogue. And they're right; it's not a good choice... as far as number optimization goes. But as far as roleplaying opportunities go, it's actually a pretty solid choice, since rogues already get a LOT of skill points anyway, and thus can absorb an Int hit to their skills better than any other class.

The optimization mentality gets on my nerves at times too (especially the idea that there's one best choice for anything—if that's the case and that's how the game is mean to be played, why offer choices at all?), but it's important to remember that folks play the game differently.

It's posts like this that make me happy. I like having my thoughts reflected back to me from time to time. That's not to say that I don't optimize to some degree. I certainly do. It just bugs me a little when it becomes the sole focus of my players. Still, I don't want to complain too much. I like my players and am glad for them and the ability to play the game with them. I just find it difficult at times to balance an encounter with their inflated stats. Ah, the work of the GM never ends...

They certainly keep me on my toes
:-)

On annother note, I asked my GM for a hammer of fabrication (spell lvl5, 9th caster lvl, use activated: 90000gp) Its an absurdly high magic campaign though, I wouldn't be suprized if I have on by lvl 10.

You can decrease that cost significantly by using the Charges per day adjustment p.550 Table 15-29 [divide by (5 divided by charges per day)].

By having that Hammer of Fabrication work only once per day, the final cost becomes 90,000gp/5 = 18,000gp.

Core Rulebook, p398 wrote:

Adding NPCs: Creatures whose Hit Dice are solely a factor of their class levels and not a feature of their race, such as all of the PC races detailed in Chapter 2, are factored into combats a little differently than normal monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept—see page 448) 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.

So, nope. In PFRPG, a goblin bard 1 is CR 1/2.

ah gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

Now that I look over the bestiary preview, that becomes apparent with the Tengu Rouge and Tiefling Rogue. I didn't catch that before.

gets out his eraser and makes a couple changes

Looks correct except for the CR and xp. As a 1st level Bard, shouldn't it have a CR1 and 400 xp?

EDIT: Oh, and I think her melee and ranged attack is missing her Small Sized +1 modifier... or I'm just really tired and can't focus.

EDIT AGAIN: Either that or you didn't add in the inspire courage bonus...

Before Combat The warchanter activates inspire courage, gaining a +1 morale bonus on saving throws against fear and charm and on weapon attack and damage rolls (included in the stats above).

Just need a little clarification on this spell. Here it says that if you aren't directing the sword it will return to you.

Quote:

If the sword goes beyond the spell range from you, goes out of your sight, or you are not directing it, it returns to you and hovers.

And here it says that if you don't designate (direct) a new target it will continue to attack the previous one.

Quote:

Each round after the first, you can use a standard action to switch the sword to a new target. If you do not, the sword continues to attack the previous round's target.

These two things seem to contradict each other. So what my question is that if i cast this spell and designate a target that would count as my action for that round. But next round if i don't designate a new target, would I be able to cast another spell or do whatever and have the sword still take its attack?

Thanks for the help

I think what it is saying is that you can set it on someone as a standard action, then you can let it do it's thing. If you want to switch targets, it would require another standard action.

The "if you are not directing it" probably would come into effect if it killed one of your targets and you did not specify another one with a standard action.

that's how I would read it.

EDIT: Yeah, what Ninja Krigare said

I guess it would not be a problem allowing to trade in your standard action for another swift action. Letting the move action in, too, might be too much in some situations.

Qemuel wrote:

can a swift action spell and a non-swift action spell be cast in the same round now???

What do you mean, "now"? That was always the case.

My bad. I meant to say more than one swift action spell...

Well we have been discussing on if it would break the game or not, but we still have the question. Is this allowed in PRPG or not?

It is not stated in the rules, but from reading it, I personally would say no, but hope it was yes.

To summarize, this is what it sounds like we have come up with:

Some DMs will have no problem letting you take a Swift Action as a Standard Action (with all the effects of using a Standard Action i.e. incurring AoO), but it is not as written. And since this is "your game" according to the introduction, you can change anything you like.
:-)

Starting bardic music is a special case - the bard can use a faster action, but doesn't have to.

Good catch! Thanks!

So if a 13th level bard wanted to quicken a spell, cast a spell normally and then use his move action to start a bardic performance I would let him (he could have done this at 7th level, so I don't see why suddenly at 13th level it's game breaking).

Wow, that just turned this discussion upside down. That makes me think that it WAS the intention of the designers to allow using (at least) a standard action in place of a swift action.

LOL

So now that you are more powerful, you have just become more limited in what you can do... [i]silly rules[/]. ;-)

All good points. I have a feeling I'll be making a few mistakes here and there along the way anyway, so if one of my decisions doesn't break the game, I may allow it for the time being.

I like being informed, though, so I'm glad this topic came up!

Qemuel wrote:

What is the point of the Finesse Rogue and Weapon Training special abilities, considering that those are both available as combat feats?

Because you can't take a rogue talent (i.e. Combat Trick) more than once.

Oops, Hogarth, somehow that quote got attributed to me...

One good example occurred in our game this weekend. the Cleric used a Close Wounds spell on the Barbarian who took damage below 0 using her Immediate action (and thus next rounds Swift action).

In the next round she wanted to get up the side of a 20 foot cliff and asked if she could use Updraft (a swift spell) as her Standard because she did not have a swift to burn.

Now in the case of spells I would trade a swift for a standard only, as you can get extra moves willy nilly (at least in 3.5).

--Vrock'em Sock'em Robots

What was the ruling in the cleric's situation?

I find it amusing that you're willing to ignore the rule that says you can only ever perform 1 swift action in a round, but not the rule that says you can only ever cast 1 swift...

Well, I try to be reasonable while playing by the rules. Sometimes things in first edition books get overlooked or left out. Just to point out, I was basing my opinion on the SWSE rules and haven't been able to delve too deep yet in the shiny new Pathfinder rules.

Most of the issues stated seem to come up around spellcasting, so I'm glad the rules prohibit more than one swift action spell.

That being said, now I'm really curious: What is an example of a non-spellcasting swift action that would cause the game to break if it was done in place of a standard or move action?

So in your games I could cast 3 swift action spells in a round?

Sweet deal...

can a swift action spell and a non-swift action spell be cast in the same round now???

Edit: Okay, found this (I feel better and stand by my previous ruling... for now...)

Casting Time

Most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a swift action.

A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.

A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action, just as noted above for 1-round casting times). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.

When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.

A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

Edit 2nd time: I'm also thinking of Swift Actions as defined by Star Wars Saga, so there may be a rule that will get me to change my mind and I'm always willing to debate and be swayed

"Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn."

That being said, a swift action does consume less time than a move action.

In addition, since a standard action is the action that has the highest priority and can be downgraded to a move action, I would also grant (and I believe it is the intent of the designers) a swift action in place of a standard action as well.

a swift action is simply something that requires very little time, albeit slightly more than a free action, so if you want to give up your major actions in a round (standard or move) in place of a swift action, I don't see that as being a problem for either or both.

Again, I believe this to be the intent of the designers, but as RAW, it may need some clarification.

Standard Actions require the most time but can be downgraded to...
Move Actions take significant time but can be downgraded to...
Swift Actions take nearly no time at all (still only one per round as RAW) and only on your turn.
Free Actions are just that... free. Take as many as you want within realistic and/or DM fiat, even when it is not your turn.

Oh, I really like this a lot... which spurred my creative juices to the floodgate breaking level.

Ahem.

To add to the confusion, you might have had a tucked away, folded piece of paper with the title of "DM Rules" to be shown at a later time (after said melee).

(as an aside, you as DM certainly DO rule, sexy beast that you are!)

On it, of course, would be written the following:

DM Party vs. Player Party combat:
1) first double to die by his/her alternate is the actual Doppleganger (whether played by DM or Player)
2) if any two or more PC characters choose to gang up on any specific character (DM controlled or party controlled) member (not identified as humanoid or doppleganger with some type of divination spell) and kills him/her, well that was the real humanoid character and the dopplegangers won a battle

Mayhem, confusion, and screaming ensues until (hopefully) the real characters (or fraction thereof) remain standing.

that way the player will never know if he is a doppleganger or the real character...

When your characters go WTF???!!! You simply take out your DM RULES sheet and let them know how much you really do rule... and they all bow down to your glorious wisdom.

(in a perfect world)

Further questions:

Can a wizard use a Necklace of Fireballs as a bonded item.

I would say yes. Why or why not? Does the logic apply to any item worn in the neck slot?

No, and here is why:

Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork quality. <snip...> If the object is a ring or amulet, it occupies the ring or neck slot accordingly.

Necklace of Fireballs

Aura moderate evocation; CL 10th

Slot neck (does not take up slot); Price 1,650 gp (type I), 2,700 gp (type II), 4,350 gp (type III), 5,400 gp (type IV), 5,850 gp (type V), 8,100 gp (type VI), 8,700 gp (type VII); Weight 1 lb.

Description

This item appears to be a string of beads, sometimes with the ends tied together to form a necklace. (It does not count as an item worn around the neck for the purpose of determining which of a character's worn magic items is effective.)

Bolded for emphasis...

thoughts?

I see that, but my concern is that it is a backdoor way around the new mithral rules if intentional. I like that the new mithral rules have some requirements to wear medium or heavy mithral armor beyond just the price and have no issues with wearing armor heavier than you could normally. If elven chain lets you get around that (and celestial armor to a lesser extent - at least that has a significantly higher price), then suddenly, every bard or rogue starts wearing elven chain instead of the mithral breastplate that they used in 3.5. So, I'm hoping it's errata.

I see Celestial as a totally different circumstance though, as it specifically says within the description that it "is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence."

That is, of course, nothing like regular chainmail.

The elven chainmail is similar. Those crazy elven armorsmiths have delicate fingers and can make fantastically small chain links. They're kind of obsessively compulsive when it comes to fine detail that only their heightened senses can see... (no offense to any elves intended)

Now a regular made set of chainmail that happens to be made out of mithril should still count as medium, albeit weigh a good chunk less.

James Jacobs wrote:

In games I run, one suit of worn clothing won't count for encumbrance. I'm relatively sure that the omission of that line from the rules was an oversight, but it's not something that I think warrants a full-blown errata.

Do you still get a free set of clothing?

Yes, if it costs 10gp or less.

Clothing

All characters begin play with one outfit, valued at 10 gp or less. Additional outfits can be purchased normally.

dulsin wrote:

I have wondered about this myself.

If there is supposed to be a RP component to the Miracle then it should be spelled out in the spell description. Any RP reasoning is going to be very subjective to each DM and player.

Ok so the cleric of Desna wants to use miracle duplicate a cloud kill. Sorry that will make the giant butterflys sad.
Oh Cleric of Asmedeus wants to send a plague on a village that refuses to pay tribute? Bring Popcorn.

Technically (and I do mean technically...) a Clerics spells inherently have an RP component. Its called following a god (or these days, an ideal by RAW, although I will admit I'm a jerk, clerics in my game have to follow a god). Most of the time they probably won't mind what your doing...but thats assuming your following your beleifs...been a bad cleric lately, or doing something diametrically opposed to your gods wishes...why should the god allow it?

I dunno...alot of this probably stems for me, from playing for a while, and being a little set in certain beleifs. But daym, Wish is Wish...its something your wishing for. Not divine intervention, not good fortune...just a pure wish.

Miracle on the other hand..."Sarenrae, we are kinda banged up, and that cleric of Asmodeous is really mad...could we get a hand?" And BAM!!! Mass Heal kicks in when you didn't memorize it...divine intervention.

Again, not saying I can point to any one place in RAW to support that, but thats the way my group plays it, both those of us who DM and those of us who don't, since we feel thats whats intended.

I really like this stance on both spells. I would rule (in my game) that you must explicitly speak out your wish in character, starting with the words, "I wish...". then as DM I'll apply the effect to the current situation based upon the spell description and how well the player worded their wish. My players will (generally) NOT be able to specify exactly what effect the spell does in game terms. That's the fickleness of the delightfully universal Wish.

Miracle should be similar (the player doesn't get to specify the effects, only that a Miracle happens), so the effect will be subject to the god's whims, how good of a cleric the player has been in service to said god, and the direness of the situation that brought the request for the miracle forth in the first place.

The option of the bonded item is significantly weaker a standard familiar. A spell, + a masterwork item vs, touch delivering, skills wielding, magic item activating (raven), familiar.

A. I would suggest that delivering a touch attack be explicitly enumerated.
B. I would suggest that bonded items become tiered and more powerful with character level.

Still, having the ability to spontaneously choose ANY spell in your spellbook that you can cast (in addition to all your standard spells for the day) is a huge boon to the Wizard class, and that reason alone was worth it (to me) in exchanging it for a familiar.

That said, I REALLY like your idea of being able to deliver touch spells through your bonded item, and whether it becomes part of the core rules or not, I think that is an AWESOME houserule!

so consider it stolen!

As for bonded items going up with level, I feel that is marginally covered by being able to enchant it without the corresponding item creation feat.

Linnorm, Crag (bestiary preview) wrote:

Offense
Speed 40 ft., fly 100 ft. (average), swim 60 ft.
Melee bite +23 (2d8+12/19–20 plus poison), 2 claws +23 (1d8+12), tail +18 (2d6+6 plus grab)

Basically, if the linnorm takes a standard action, it can make a single attack. That could be one bite, one claw, or one tail, all at the listed bonuses to hit (+23 for bite or claw, +18 for tail).

If it takes a full attack action it can make all four attacks listed.

As for the 2 claws; that's two separate attacks. They're not "bundled."

Awesome! I've ALWAYS wondered about those two claw attacks (or other similar). Now I know, and knowing is half... ah, you get the idea.

As a standard action you may attack with any one natural weapon, the bonus doesn't change (i.e. if you attack with a secondary attack it's still at -5 even though it's the only one you attacked with)

you may attack with all of your natural weapons as a full round action.

So using this as an example:

Offense
Speed 40 ft., fly 100 ft. (average), swim 60 ft.
Melee bite +23 (2d8+12/19–20 plus poison), 2 claws +23 (1d8+12), tail +18 (2d6+6 plus grab)

If it were to run (or fly) up to you then attack, it would attack once with its bite OR once with its 2 claws (is this 2 separate claw attacks?) OR once (at -5) with its tail.

...but if it were already in place and taking the full attack action, it could do 1 bite, 2 claws, and a tail (albeit at -5) for a total of 4 attacks, is that right?

Thats a bite at +23
a claw at +23
another claw at +23
and a tail at +18

or are the two claws considered one attack?

So, we kicked off our new campaign with the final Pathfinder rules, and the game felt a bit ... different.

On the player side, the party bard felt more useful, the extra hit points made characters a bit more durable, cantrips were used a fair amount, and the party was able to go through a fair number of encounters before retreating to rest.

On the GM side, I found the xp and treasure system interesting. I tracked the encounters, and kept an eye on the treasure I was handing out on the fly, and while I should have handed out 2000 gp of treasure, I only gave 1600. It's neat to see in the middle of the session whether or not I should give the party a boost, or reign back on the swag.

My rulebook is getting a bit of a pounding in our sessions, flipping to rules a lot until we get used to spells and other effects. It's holding up so far!

How many players, what were they, what type of adventure did you start with? (I always love the details)

It sounds like you had a fun time and so did your players! I'm gearing up for running my campaign. My players are still in the character development/creation stage while I'm converting Rise of the Runelords in detail (I know I could probably just run it as written with little difference, but I like digging into the nuances of the new rules to get a deeper feel for them).

Here are a few conversions I've done if anyone is interested:

MillerHero wrote:

For class skills, you'll have the same maximum modifier in Pathfinder RPG as you would in 3.5, which is character level +3.

That's right. And a character who chooses to max all his skills at level 1 will have the same number of maxed skills as he would in 3.5 (plus one if you apply favoured class bonus to skills).

Overall, you gain more from your skill points than before, since next level, if you choose to buy different skills, you still gain the +3 class skill bonus as soon as you take the first rank in it.

And don't forget, that once a class skill, always a class skill, so if you multiclass, you still get the bonus if you buy your first rank in a skill that is proper to one of your classes, regardless of what class you just leveled up in.

And all skill ranks cost one. No more double cost for non-class skills.

This is such a welcome change. No more headaches for making multiclass characters and trying to determine which skill points apply to which class at which level. Was it a class skill or cross-class skill? Yikes! That was a nightmare!

I'm using Google Chrome and would like to subscribe to a few threads so I'm notified by email of any additions.

When I click on the RSS (subscribe button), all I get is a list of text for some reason. Is there a work-around for this issue?

thanks!

for example, when I click the RSS button, this is what I get:

I ALWAYS love this type of roleplaying as a player. As a GM, it is more difficult for me to weave something like this together off-the-cuff. I seriously congratulate you on a job very well done!

I used to be able to GM like this, but that skill must have fallen to disuse. I'm trying to get back into GMing and stories like this make me really, REALLY happy.

My hat's off to you. *bow*

...but a collectors edition on the level that has been talked about, SHOULDN'T be offered for anything less than $150 dollars...

This would be a rare tome and not something everyone will want or need. It would be a high-end luxury item.

...and I would want one!

We have MANY plans like this, although they start dovetailing into the "How much money can we charge our fans to buy things that are super deluxe and probably things that our editors couldn't afford to buy if they didn't get them for free?" category.

In other words... a globe would be cool, but we're not sure yet how to actually produce and ship and stock and sell and distribute something like this for an amount of money that wouldn't incite flame wars and get us called Pai$o.

True, globes would certainly be a nice niche item that would only appeal to the Paizo fan-boys and -girls all over the world. Pricing would definitely be one of the biggest factors. Maybe someone will do a "virtual globe" that can be accessed though the internet... not as cool as the world sitting in the middle of your gaming table (or hanging from the ceiling). Ooh!! That makes me think that a solar system mobile might be in order... hmmm...

Sheesh, I better stop while I can...

I'm starting to picture the do it yourself Golarion Solar System mobile: Collect every planet! With every purchase, you also get a World Gazetteer!

Eventually, yes; we'll have a map of the rest of the world and will have more information about the other regions.

Any plans on making a globe?

:-)