Riley Gibbs's page

OP ran my Saturday morning game, which must have concluded only just before his stuff was returned. So relieved to read this update!

Suppose you're a wizard, and you find some half-plate. Is there a good reason not to put it on? Your proficiency modifier to AC goes down, but this is more than made up for by the +5 item bonus from the half-plate. At all levels, it seems that the proficiency modifier drops by -2, for a net gain of +3 to AC for taking the half-plate.

I don't see any other penalties for characters wearing armor in which they are untrained, including spellcasters. Is this by design, or am I missing something? This is not a complaint, but it's potentially a pretty big change, so I want to make sure I have it right.

Riley Gibbs wrote:

Am I correct in reading that two-weapon fighting does not require a full attack action? My friends and I always played that you needed to take a full attack action, but as I'm reading the rules more carefully, I suddenly realize I can find nothing to support this.

Specifically, can I use two-weapon fighting for an extra attack with a standard attack action?

How does this interact with the charge action? Can I charge, make my "single melee attack" (with a +2 bonus), then make my extra attack with my off-hand without the bonus? I am inclined towards "no" on this one.

No, unless you have an archetype or ability that gives you the ability to make two attacks as a standard action (the Two-Weapon Warrior for example has his Doublestrike ability) you can only make one attack as a standard action.

Charging also only allows you a single attack, so you cannot make a second attack with your off-hand weapon on a charge.

Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.

Ah, I knew it was in there somewhere. Thanks for finding it for me! Glad to know I haven't been doing it wrong all these years. :-)

Am I correct in reading that two-weapon fighting does not require a full attack action? My friends and I always played that you needed to take a full attack action, but as I'm reading the rules more carefully, I suddenly realize I can find nothing to support this.

Specifically, can I use two-weapon fighting for an extra attack with a standard attack action?

How does this interact with the charge action? Can I charge, make my "single melee attack" (with a +2 bonus), then make my extra attack with my off-hand without the bonus? I am inclined towards "no" on this one.

Polymorph (page 159), end of the first paragraph:
"The DC for any of these abilities equals your DC for the polymorph spell used to change you into that form."

Looks like it is referring to something that was later removed.

Warlock was my favorite class outside the core. It yielded an entirely different way of playing. "Blast you. Blast you too. Hmm... think I'll blast you. Anyone need any blasting? Okay. Think I'll go back to being invisible and flying around as much as I want."

I don't think it's OGL, so one would have to recreate the warlock feel, which lies primarily in the fact that he uses an unlimited number of spell-like abilities.

Profession: evildoer.

As a new PFRPG DM, I'm looking for tips on quick conversions at the table for monsters and statted NPCs using skills, feats, spells, etc. that have been updated or replaced in the PFRPG.

A quick way to calculate an NPC's perception check, for example, would be very helpful. Thanks.

If you're really running on the fly, my chosen way to convert quickly for new skills is simply to take the highest modifier the monster has of the skills that were combined into the new one. For example, if the monster has Spot +8 and Listen +4, I give them Perception +8.

For feats, it's good to have a few vanilla feats to add onto a monster to make up for the extra feats they now should get. Mostly it's a small amount; even with 12 HD you're only giving them two more feats. In my opinion, the easiest ones to add on are Toughness, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, Great Fortitude, and Weapon Focus, as these simply add straight bonuses and do not change the way the creature behaves.

For spells, I would just ask your players to be understanding if any inconsistencies arise that they notice. Since Pathfinder is still in the Beta Playtest (and has not been out very long), I think most players should be willing to cut you slack as a GM.

To give credit where it is due, I got started on this formula earlier this evening after reading Kaizoku's post and the subsequent thread. So thank you to those guys, both for the lost sleep and for their discussion of the variables that need to be considered. I think I've covered all of them, but please correct me if there are any I have left out.

Incidentally, I ran my formula with Kaizoku's numbers (which were themselves copied from elsewhere), and got slightly higher results than he did: 38.76, 38.76, 38.76, 34.68, and 24.48, for a total of 175.44 average damage per round. I haven't tried yet to account specifically for the discrepancy.

This post is meant to provide instructions for how to calculate her average damage per attack with a weapon. You need only a firm grasp of algebra to use it.

The formula has six inputs.
A: Armor Class of the target.
B: Attack bonus of the attacker.
R: Critical hit threat range.
N: Additional bonuses to confirm critical hits.
D: Average damage on a normal hit.
C: Average damage on a critical hit.

Note: R is size of the critical hit threat range, so it should be a single natural number value. For example, a 17-20 range gets you R=4.

There are four initial calculations to make.
P(H&K^) = max{ 0, min{ 19, 21-A+B}-R } }
P(H&K) = max{ 1, min{ 19, 21-A+B }-P(H&K^) }
P(S) = max{ 1, min{ 19, 21-A+B+N } }
P(S^) = 20-P(S)

Note: The operation max{ a, b } means you take the highest value in the set. The operation min{ a, b } means you take the lowest value in the set.

Finally, your average damage is the following expression:

D•( P(H&K^)÷20 + P(H&K)•P(S^)÷20 ) + C•( P(H&K)•P(S)÷400 )

***********************
In case you were wondering:
H is the event that you hit.
K is the event that you rolled within your critical threat range, regardless of whether this roll hit.
K^ is the complement (like an opposite) of K, i.e. you did not roll within your critical threat range.
H&K^ should read H&(K^) for clarity, although I think that complement comes before intersection in set algebra.
S is the event that you confirm a critical threat roll, given that one is called for.
S^ is the complement of S.
P(X) returns a value from 0-20, reflecting how many possible rolls out of twenty will create X.