Would you accept a Paladin using the fact that they haven't fallen as circumstantial proof they are in the right?
Looking at the rage description in the Core Rulebook I found something that can justify the rage cycle as something that was in the mind of the developers:
"... A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat."
Regarding the +5 furious weapon as a +7 weapon while in rage is there any clarification out there?
2. They also get it for free at 17 with tireless rage, so I see not reason why it would not be intended.
Thanks for your answer, I'm aware of tireless rage, it's just my GM can be a bit picky sometimes so I want to have enough arguments just un case.
Any other oppinion or reference?
I've been working around a lvl 20 barbarian for a campaign and I have two questions.
1. Does a +5 furious weapon count as a +7 weapon while in rage despite the +5 limit?
2. I know that by RAW rage cycling is perfectly legal since both start and end a rage are free actions; but is there any 'official' statement that proves that it is not just a side effect based on an uninteded rule?
There are some things to have in account. First, if psychic is uncommon or even quite rare, there would be not too many creatures (or NPCs) with such descriptor in the world, in fact the non-psychic creatures would be a lot more common. This would lead to the fact that psychic powers would overcome spell resistance much more often than spells overcoming psychic resistance; this would mean than being a psychic is a clear advantage.
Second, if there would be a sidebar that indicates things like "outsiders and dragons have psychic resistance equals to their listed spells resistance, undead have psychic resistance equals to their listed spells resistance minus 5 (SR-5)" you would need to have this in account all the time since PS would not be listed in the monster entries existing right now (bestiaries 1, 2, 3, 4 and other stuff), that sidebar would need to be quite simple in order to handle it easily. The OP talks about rules added in the past using sidebars, maybe I don't have a wide knowledge of the rules but are out there sidebars that add (or replace, or invalidate) parts of a big amount of the monster entries existing in the books? please give me an example.
The OP also talks about magic and psychic like well defined (different) concepts, but none of then can be measured in real world, so how can we be sure about magic and psychic being entirely different (or similar)? So to use them as the same thing or different powers is entirely arbitrary, Paizo staff made their choice and we can't say it was right or wrong from a real world perspective.
Regarding fluff vs crunch we could argue that if psychic classes are redundant since they are similar to Wizards and Sorcerers; we can say the same about monks, barbarians, or cavaliers being variations (archetypes) of fighters, druids, rangers, or paladins variations of clerics, and so on.
Here you can read a description for the different types of actions you can take:
In general you have the following actions per round:
You can exchange your standard action for an extra move action, or exchange both your standard and move action for a full round action, but you can never exchange a move action for a standard or a swift action.
Full round actions are specific actions like a full attack (make all your iterative melee or ranged attacks, not spells), charge, withdraw, etc., not a double standard.
So if you can't cast a spell as a swift action (i.e. via quick cast) then you can't cast more than one spell per round.
Some of the guides in the Guide to Class Guides have sections for recomended items.
I also encounter useful the next link, although it is not intended as an exhaustive guide to items, in fact it's pretty short.
I started to play back in the 3.0 days (near to 2001); when 3.5 came out we switched to it without any problem except for the money "lost" in our 3.0 core books. I ceased to play in 2006 because most of the crew moved away from town.
I found a D&D 4E group in 2008 but I had the misfortune to play with a bad GM (IMHO), I played with him about six months and after that I was so tired that decide not to play more; my experiences with D&D 4E were not good and I started to accept things like "all classes feel the same" as arguments against D&D 4E. I've been playing pathfinder since 2010 and I have to say I really enjoy the game.
Since last year I started to play as well Mutants & Masterminds 3E (not sword & sorcery at all) and I can tell that all characters are almost the same if you remove the fluff (no classes here, just "concepts"), and the balance is as good as D&D 4E (if not even better) with the power level limits. The funny thing here is that things I believed were bad about D&D 4E are present in M&M and I don't feel them bad anymore, I really enjoy that game too. Now I would be glad to give D&D 4E another chance but right now I don't know about available groups to play in town.
So PF and D&D 4E are different games in many concepts, similar in others, but really none of them is better than the other, your perception just depend on things you like and people you play with.
Thanks, that was what I thought, just wanted to be sure, so haste + spell combat + spellstrike allow me to make two additional attacks (of course using a touch spell), nice combo.
I have a 8th level human magus (no archetypes) who attacks with his keen scimitar a +14/+9.
Regarding the clarification that allows the use of spell combat with haste, could my magus use spell combat + spellstrike + haste to attack at +13/+13/+13/+8?
I need the proof (if it's the case) to show it to my GM in our game session tonight.
Me and my group aren't quite focused on optimization, flavor is much more important for us. For example, one of the players has a ninja with STR 12 that uses shurikens in time to time just because he's a ninja and ninjas use shurikens (of course he has a shortbow too).
I believe your monk is a good playable and versatile option. He has decent melee attack and damage, a viable ranged attack, not too bad AC.
According to the rules for Lay On Hands a paladin that's healed by negative energy and hurt by positive energy can still heal themselves. They straight up heal wounds, and can alternatively deal damage to undead creatures.
There is a FAQ that clarifies that Lay on Hands uses positive energy so I don't think the dhampir can use it to cure himself.
One of my friends is going to play a Dhampir Paladin in our new campaign (Carrion Crown) starting next saturday. Since a Dhampir functions like an undead regarding positive/negative energy, I was thinking to allow him to switch Lay on Hands/Touch of Corruption (Antipaladin's) in case he needs to cure himself, he would lose his paladin abilities if use it to harm anybody.
I also will include the cause wounds line on his spell list in order to allow him to prepare/use wand these spells, again it would be an evil act to use those to hurt anybody else.
I won't include the chanel negative energy.
What do you think, it's overpowered or not?
Regarding the Paladin's code I think it can not be problem if he limits the use of these evel spells/abilities on himsef or over a friendly undead (maybe it won't happen at all).
Sinde both feats (Power Attack and Deadly Aim) are described based on the type of attack (melee or ranged) and do not mention the type of weapon (ranged, single, martial, etc. or even melee) it seems to me that in RAI or RAW its clear that ranged attack can be combined with deadly aim always and never with power attack.
However, it is not common for us to create TPK because of some problem. In Japan, it is said that character should not be died and GM should avoid character's death.
I totally agree with this statement, as a GM I try to tell a story, I usually plan the final comfrontation since the begining and usually try to lead the players to additional personal motivations on the PC's (revenge, sense of honor, a debt) to try to stop the main villian.
The death of a PC is not a desirable situation for me but if it occours it can be explained on the continuity of the story if someone else takes his place, if the entire party is killed its a bit more defficult to explain why a totally new party is trying to take their place, and the personal motivation are just lost, it would see as a different story.
Well, iron armor definitely provides protection against iron weapons, not in the form of DR but provides protection.
As for the DR entry the "-" means that there is no way for a weapon to overpass the DR, no matters his material or his magical bonus, so the adamantium armor still keeps the DR 3 against an adamantium weapon.
I'm our last campaign I builded a table of attacks for each of the characters in the back of their character sheets, the barbarian table was something like this (not the real stats, just and example):
Normal +15/+10 (2d6+8)
And added as many entries as possible combinations, it's a bit large but it worked perfectly for them, helping them to track their modifiers and remember their attack options.
For the fighter I added one column for one handed attacks and another for two handed, you also can include a column tracking the AC (specially for the barbarian).
5E is a love letter to Old School crowd with some 3E/4E innovations thrown in. WotC is going after all those folks who play OSRIC/C&C/S&W/T&T/X&Y and have no strong brand holding them. Smart move, but is it enough to satisfy the Corporate Overbeast?
That's why they need to go after Pathfinder folk as well, here is were most of the people are.
I readed the last articles on wizard's website and depiste I found most of their content quite interesting, (it seemed to be similar with 3.x/Pathfinder, i.e. class hit dice were the same, fighter d10, cleric and rogue d8, and wizard d6), right now I really don't see the need of try another system when I feel really comfortable with the on I'm playing right now for high fantasy, of course Pathfinder.
Wizards need to make a really really great game if they want the people playing Pathfinder back.