Abraham spalding wrote:
But a wizard, bard and sorcerer wasts a standard action doing this. And rarely can cast it five times at second level. I would'nt say its broken cause i haven't see it in play yet... But seems pretty powerful for a level 2 character.
No no no, they don't grow from their stomachs because it is obvious that they grow from their appendix, that is the secret organ of their regen powers.
XD could be too, ¿why not? if you like it
I was taking a look to the past, back to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Trolls had rules to cut their arms, legs, and heads fairly easy, the funny thing is that it didn't prevented them for attack! Severed members of the trolls could attack to anyone near them, (and not blindly, it was the troll still who commanded them, the rules even specified that separeted parts of the troll had no malus for being... well... in pieces) and the severed member would only die 24 hours later! Of course the troll could take the member back and reatach it. So in that edition you could sever the head of a troll with your vorpal sword, and not only he is alive, but his head is biting your feets, funny ¿right?
Thinking about it, a Dungeon Master on Pathfinder could use this rules (maiming and decapitation are much rarer now, sadly) and this incredible conscius state of his own scattered parts could be the reason for the troll "selecting" which part of itself regenerates, and a troll would select the biggest one, because, hell, it's easier, less things to do.
In the end i think that any GM would use diferent rules for the really unspecified incredibly regenerative abilities of a troll.
So true i could cry.
I'm mastering a campaing in an own world, one of the first adventures was to the players and his little-army to hunt and fight a murderous troll that had defeated dozens of men single handely.
Basically, that troll was cunny enough to chop away one of his own fingers and leave it hidden, and then go fighting with that funny little humans without much worry of their fire-things. The players fought him, killed him, and burned his pieces and then enjoyed a party in the same place they killed the monster... the face of the players when they saw a not completly reformed bloody hungry troll hoping for meat to regrow completly, coming out of the cave where the troll leave the finger hidden... well, that was some face :D.
But, thinking in a less-magical phisiology, i would bet that the troll don't regrow from their heads, instead, no no no, they would regrow from the most important piece of a troll's body, and it is the Stomach XD. For what i know, the incesant hunger of a troll is related to their regenerative powers, so a GM who is searching for that, could say that a troll must be well-fed to regrow parts (Even heads, and regeneration doesn't mean that you remember who where you before, a troll who regrows a head could easily be considered a "new-born" troll).
I'm actually playing with a Dwarf Cavalier (Order of the Lion) level 14 and CA 29. Actually, it's the poorest fighter in the group in comparison to the fighter and de invulnerable rager, but i like it because is most versatile, beeing relatively good at fighting defensively and ofensively.
I'd used sometimes Combat Expertise + Fighting defensively, with gets me to CA 36, and with mi Challenge power to CA 40, also, most that melees my dwarf gets tripped very fast (and that is a -4 to attack if you don't want a caress of my flail! xD).
In true: i think that are many options that can put a fighting type player to have high defenses, but combats with Great Beasts (such as Dragons and Purple Worms) are really, really, quick and brutal, the Ace for Win is most who can do more Damage more Quickly, BUT even like that it's not impossible to defend against their attacks.
Of course, without Armor as DR ... with it you are pretty much f$%%ed, as i see, battling big baddies.
Oredia Vlaskinov wrote:
You can consider yourself lucky if the dragon is even coming near you to attack.
Hm, the Armor as DR rule is just a suggestion. Personally, i think that it only work relatively well in low-level campaings, in the long run it only benefits the character types who have lots of life, natural DR, and low CA, name: barbarians.
Also, you can see that monsters and enemies are affected by this rules as well, so, the combat is "diferent" and surely, the bigger monsters are more dangerous, but maybe it's not that unbalanced. It should be tested.
Oh, and i've seen many characters survive thanks to combat expertise, and with them, their groups.
Someone deserves a Headache for this.
It seems strange indeed that an Archetype who changes nothing allows you something. For that thing about "you can have all archetypes you want while don't modify the same ability" thing.
Hopefully they did this hoping in the roleplay of the people who don't have to adore Totems if the don't want, and not as some "Free powers!"
Roaming Shadow wrote:
humm. Magical rays are affected by them, even being it a "magic attack roll", at first i thought that it would work partially like a one-use spiritual weapon, the spiritual weapon don't use feats or anything because it's It who does the attacks, not you, you only direct it to the enemy you want in little pieces, but with telekinesis... "you" are hurling the objects, and esentially a thrown object is affected by Ranged Weapon Feats.
Of course most rays come from "you", or your hand or another appendage, and in this case the objects hurled need not being wielded or anything, that is, the genesis of mi doubts :P.
don't mistake me, i like logic, well... it's logical, but some rules are done to put limits, so, i don't think that rope some items togueter is enough to consider it one only item, or that shrink a container would shrink the contained (Logic, in the last, speak of something crushed or ripped).
At the end? It's the GM who will have a word in that until someone put a rule about that XD.
Anyway, i'll be glad if someone more express his opinion in the original discussion about ranged weapon feats applied to this or not xD.
Magic is not logic, and the rules to use it are not always logical. But you could try to nail the jabalins together! that should make "one" item. There are many examples for logic going to take a walk over rules. ¿why can't you put more than two rings or more than one amulet? Because the rules say yo can't, not by logic.
Roaming Shadow wrote:
He shrinks it only for transport... shrinked items return to their size just by letting them fall to the ground, easy enough for a quick "Giant-stone-in-your-face"
I think he intended to flame the arrows whit spells, not buying them.
And if shrink a container shrinks the things contained, i would say "Hell, no!". That could end shrinking an entire house with people inside! xD (There is a limit to what you can shrink but aniway... ) the spell is intended to shrink a single items, put all of them together and asume it's one doesn't seem to work. Else, it would be easy to shrink as many items as you want.
yeah.. i was looking the Shrink item spell and don't say anything about bundles. You can use it fifteen times, of course!
The description also gives an example of shrinking a fire and it's fuel, but i supose in the case that the "fuel" is a single item, like a burning torch.
aaaand... Roaming shadow, look the description:
You can hurl a total weight of up to 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level).
(That one is with Sonic Thrust)
Thanks for the tip! I thought it was a lost cause.
Yay, medium chakrams are far more usable with this than colossal jabalins, but even in that case i prefer use arrows, even being just 1d4, they are easy enough to carry around in every situation in your quiver and throw them to the ground easily. Chakrams are big enough to some DM to crap about where you are carying that sharp metal disks.
Of course if you have a dimensional bag and ten ultra-sized jabalins with ten ultra-sized corks in the points (to not broke the bag), well, you can go with them.
I would appeal to the GM of the campaing, normally weapon effects work well even when not trying to kill, but elemental damage should be considered Lethal, damage non-specified should be the same the weapon does, so non-lethal if it's what you want.
Personally, a lifedrinker weapon i'll only let it work if you are actually doing lethal damage, (Or make it recover only non-lethal damage you have instead of lethal one xD).
If you are trying to not-kill someone and cut his head off with a vorpal sword... well... you haven't chosen well your weapon.
Yep, Wild armor continue to give the bonus, but it's not there fisically to give any penalties...
I would force that druid to get the Heavy Armor Profiency feat to actually use it or give him penalties anyway, but i'm kinda evil.
That's true for some equipment, but anything continuous still works, like cloaks of resistance and headbands of wisdom, even when melded.
yep too, i'd forgot about that. But only the gear you had actually equiped when you transform, not the one in backpacks or the like.
Firts, when your equip melds in your body, it ceases to function completely. So, you are "Carrying" it, but not using it. There are feats and ways to do more.
Second, you can only polymorph into the creatures described by the druid class ability. It point's to the spell for other miscelaneous details not specified.
Or, so i think of course :P
I'll risk to put some common sense.
They only specify "As the Rogue's Trapfinding Ability" to say that they can disable the same magic traps than the Rogue can, no one more, no one less. ¿Is it redundant? Yup, but no harm is done as far as i can see.
If the entire ability would be equal to the rogue's, they would say "You gain the Rogue's Trapfinding Ability" and nothing more.
Assuming the contrary, and Cartigan is actually right, the Archivist only would get the half level bonus to disarm traps for magical traps, because "An archivist can use Disable Device to disarm magical traps as per a rogue’s trapfinding ability"
I was wondering, if someone cast Telekinesis in Violent Thrust mode, (or similar spells like Sonic Thrust) to hurl diferent weapons or objects to one target, ¿Can be applied generic ranged weapon feats to this attacks?
Personally i would think that a rotund "no" should be the answer, but ... well, ask is cheap.
Sorry about my crap-english.