In our game we have a paladin, barbarian, and gunslinger.
Paladin = deals decent damage (even more against specific types, which pop-up with regular frequency), can take plenty of hits, and heals. Nice skill bonuses as well.
Barbarian = deals a lot of damage, and can take tons of hits.
Gunslinger = deals an obscene amount of damage. A reasonable amount of skills.
And then there's me, the witch. :-|
Side note: what I tend to love in my chars are (1)high skill points, (2)asymmetric tactics, and in-your-face (3)damage.
I love the flavor of the witch, I love the style, I have used every munchkin resource on the web to try to build my witch into 80% damage-dealer and 20% misc. I have failed. At level 10, here is how my witch stands.
Witch = deals low (arguably very low) damage. High amount of skills. Mediocre asymmetric tactics.
(1)Skills: Yes! One of my loves is fulfilled.
(2)Damage: In my group, my damage output is pathetic. I could honestly just deal no damage and it wouldn't make a difference.
(3)Asymmetry: While my witch does have some capacity for asymmetry, since the rest of the group is tactically symmetrical, this is situational at best. It's not worth it to me to try to guess and waste a spell slot on a situational spell.
While there have been a few moments where I contributed in a big way I truly feel like a PC witch was designed to be a support character, which is just not me. I have held out till level 10 in the hopes that I'd get more powerful as time goes by but it's just not happening. Most of my powerful spells are effectively "save-or-be-screwed" spells and guess what? The Big Bad will almost always save (in fact, they've only ever not saved once). This may be due to really good rolls, or it may be due to the GM not wanting his dramatic boss battle to end in the first round (which is not an irrational desire on his part), but either way...
Lightning Bolt is probably my most-used spell.
I dunno...should I give up on the witch and reroll or what? Advice, please.
This Page: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/invisibility.html#_invisibility
indicates that they get a +20 to stealth while moving, and a +40 while still.
Yes, that's a bonus to stealth checks. You apply that bonus to any stealth checks you make while invisible.
Ooooh, I thought we were all on the same page (just using different terminology), but I see where you're getting it wrong now. You don't have the 3.x background of us grognards.
Firstly, you're not reading this part:
Quote:
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving.
This is the only part of the invisibility spell (barring other magics) that allows for someone to detect an invis person. "IF A CHECK (re: to detect) IS REQUIRED..." IF A CHECK IS REQUIRED. It does not say "If a check is required use DC Table X OR perform a stealth check." The fact that the +20 and +40 mentioned in the spell description EXACTLY ALIGNS with what is said in the invis description should end any confusion:
Quote:
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active (re: MOVING) invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check.
Why you're thinking there are "two different things" is because of missing historical knowledge perhaps. Back in 3.5 (which as we all know PF is built on), skills came in two varieties: passive and active. STEALTH was BOTH passive and active. Spot was passive only. Search was active only. In PF they combined Spot/Search into one: Perception. I think when they wrote PF, in this one instance, they did not clearly articulate that distinction that invis is--mechanically--just a passive stealth bonus.
My examples are dead on accurate and align with both 3.5 and PF. My first post above cannot be much more explicit. I think confusion will continue to abound until a developer steps in. I did hit the FAQ button, I recommend every one reading this do so.
At this point I think everything's been said on this subject.
I think this has turned into a terminology convo. Most of us all have matching numbers. It's really just what those "numbers" are called that we're talking about now. Some call it a "perception DC" (as per the verbiage in one rules section) and some call it a "stealth bonus" (as per verbiage in another rules section), but the numbers still all match up. There is congruence and all is well.
This is incorrect. While invisibility does grant a bonus to stealth checks, it also has effects that apply even when you are not using stealth. Such as being visually undetectable.
I think you may not have truly read the specific text I posted my friend. :)
The 1st Fact makes it clear that detecting an invis person is perception against stealth. The "DC" you mention (referenced in the 2nd Fact) 100% mirror the bonuses mentioned in the 1st Fact.
It's very poorly worded, but again makes complete sense. "Stealth" is a combination of passive and active. Even though John isn't actively stealthing, he still gains passive stealth bonuses from invis. That passive stealth is where the confusion lies.
A similar example is if I fall asleep in high reeds. I am not actively stealthing, but still gain a passive stealth bonus due to the high grass (let's just say +10). If you walk by, it's an opposed check to determine if you'll spot me:
Me: 0+10
You: 1d20+perception rank
Invisibility is no different. Please reread my earlier post. It'll click in a second. :)
Count Ruge, those facts have never been in dispute. The dispute comes in when John Doe starts actively stealthing. What is the total that Jane's perception check has to meet there for her to notice John?
The answer is staring you in the face my friend. :)
As we've already established from the facts above, "detecting" an invis person is an opposed check, not a hard coded DC. Jane just has to roll a higher perception than John's stealth roll. That's all. In the examples above, John isn't trying to actively stealth, so he gets a 0 active stealth bonus plus an X passive invis bonus. To determine what Jane has to beat, just replace the "0" with "1d20+(stealth rank bonus)" in the examples.
I think where you're getting thrown off is when the sentence in Fact 2 mentions a "generally...DC of 20 to detect an ACTIVE invis person." This is really just restating (in a poorly worded fashion) that a moving, invis person--who's clearly not actively stealthing--has a total stealth roll of: 0+20, as we saw in examples 2 and 4.
Hope that helps.
Edit: if the question is "if Jane is trying to not just detect an invis John, but pinpoint him, does John get any extra bonuses?" Then I think the 2nd link answers that as well. John also gains another +20 bonus to his stealth. This is because Jane is no longer just trying to detect a presence, but specifically determine Johns location. No easy feat.
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving.
Bottom line: "Mechanically speaking, invisibility is just a stealth bonus. +20 if you're moving, +40 if you're not. Capiche?"
Example 1: Standing Still:
We have two Player Characters. John Doe is standing still, invisible, but doesn't care about being sneaky, so he's not actively stealthing. Jane Doe gets a perception roll to "detect" him. Let's say she has +2 to perception.
*the reason John has a "0" and not "1d20" is because he's choosing to not actively stealth.
Using the above fact, it's very obvious that it's an opposed check to "detect" an invis person and NOT a hardcoded DC. No matter how high Jane rolls, she won't "detect" John in this example.
Example 2: Moving:
This time John Doe is moving about, invisible, and doesn't care about being sneaky, so he's not actively stealthing. Jane Doe gets a perception roll to "detect" him. Let's say she has +2 to perception.
*the reason John has a "0" and not "1d20" is because he's choosing to not actively stealth.
Using the above fact, it's very obvious that it's an opposed check to "detect" an invis person and NOT a hardcoded DC. If Jane rolls at least an 18, she will "detect" John.
...now let's use the exact same examples with the "other" invis fact...
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check.
This link continues with a table of modifiers that affect perception, including one that describes a +20 to perception DC if the invis person is standing still.
Bottom line: "Mechanically speaking, invisibility is just a stealth bonus. +20 if you're ACTIVE (aka, moving), +40 if you're not. Capiche?"
Example 3: Standing Still:
We have two Player Characters. John Doe is standing still, invisible, but doesn't care about being sneaky, so he's not actively stealthing. Jane Doe gets a perception roll to "detect" him. Let's say she has +2 to perception.
*the reason John has a "0" and not "1d20" is because he's choosing to not actively stealth.
As before, it's an opposed check to "detect" an invis person. John gets a +40, same as before, because he's standing still.
Example 4: Moving:
We have two Player Characters. John Doe is moving about, invisible, but doesn't care about being sneaky, so he's not actively stealthing. Jane Doe gets a perception roll to "detect" him. Let's say she has +2 to perception.
Witch is grappled by warrior before she looses her hair. The witches normal Cmd is atrocious, however, her hair grants a significantly higher strength str and thus a better Cmd. So...does her hair, in effect, act as a global str buff affecting all her str-based rolls?
Come on...first one to provide insight gets a HOMEMADE COOKIE! You won't find a better deal anywhere!
That's a good one Sic_Pixie. Unfortunately, the real spoiler here is the fact that it's on Hermea.
http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Hermea
No clue how a changeling was brought on as they only allow humans (and rarely elves and half-elves).
Every single child raised there is monitored, gauged, profiled, and studied, so it's almost a certainty that the witch-in-question is known as a witch (pops would probably have to clear the patron with the Council).
Any evil/killing of one of his experiments (i.e., a citizen) would be relentlessly rooted out by Mengkare himself.
Actually, directing the actions of an animal (soon to become familiar to the prospective witch) and speaking through it is the very least ability IMO of any being who can become Patron to witches.
Possessing the bunny, you mean? Yeah, I suppose that makes sense too from a fictional/background standpoint, but the rules do state that the witch chooses the animal, not that the patron chooses. Obviously from a metagame standpoint it's kind of irrelevant.
I'll just jump on the "that's way too many players, especially for a new gm" bandwagon.
Regarding how to nicely convince folks not to come, you can just tell them "sorry, but this is a game and the game rules only allow for a max of 5 players at most." Odds are that none of them have the rules anyways. ;) Compare it to some other game that only allows 3 or 4 players.
But the adult thing to do would just be to tell them that you're new and you're not going to exceed 4 players. Personally, for a new GM, I think 2 or 3 players would be the ideal training wheels.
p.s.--expect someone to suggest that "can't everyone come, but only 4 or 5 will play". Do not accept this. Those extra folks will be a distraction at best. :-/
I'm mindblown that no one has mentioned DungeonPainter. It's a free, web-based map builder created by one of the Fantasy Grounds (free plug for the best Virtual Table Top...in my humble opinion) forum members. Build out a map, add all kinds of stuff, export it as an image file.
No bunny is going to hop up one day and be all like "sup? So you trying to learn magic?"
Provided the PC performed some sort of ritual (which wouldn't need to be more complex than speaking her wish for magic out loud in a sacred place of sorts), I'd call that a perfectly valid background for a Witch.
The familiar is just an animal until after the pact is made. This is RAW.
The familiar has a very low initial INT. This is RAW.
The familiar and the witch cannot speak at all (barring some sort of spell, etc.) until the witch hits 5th level and the familiar gets the "Speak With Master" ability. This, as well, is RAW.
So no, the scenario you describe could not happen unless you are saying the "otherworldly being" is taking the form of a bunny (i.e., it's not the familiar-to-be)? That would be kind of *eery cool...
*edit: as long as the bunny had glowing red eyes and spoke in a voice like thunder
If I had to do it I'd let her be contacted by a familiar soon after she begins hitting the books for arcane training.
No can do. At first level, the familiar has an INT of 6 (won't be having sophisticated convos with anyone). Additionally it cant "speak with master" at all until 5th level. Remember that the familiar is just a spell storage device chosen by the witch-to-be as the conduit through which "The Power" funnels it's magic to the witch.
1) pact with otherworldly power goes down
2) witch picks familiar
3) otherworldly power funnels power into animal
4) slowly the familiar gains abilities as the witch levels, until it eventually has average human INT and can talk
Just making it clear this ain't no Druid we're talking about here. No bunny is going to hop up one day and be all like "sup? So you trying to learn magic?"
I've read enough lore over time that I think it's safe to say that a Mage can tell the difference between a hex and an incantation. She could hide it for a time perhaps, but not for long. :)
To answer your question, I think they leave it purposely ambiguous for a reason, but one thing is clear: "...the witch draws her magic from a pact made with an otherworldly power." So the witch-to-be is basically just a commoner. She has no innate abilities at all. This is not the kind of person a super powerful otherworldly entity would bend time and space to contact. No...more likely this is the kind of being the witch gets in contact with because she is powerless, and has no skills at magic like "father" wants her to have. So, she draws the pentagram at midnight, summons something from beyond the beyond, and cuts a deal. She gets magic, and the being gets....???
As to "when" this might occur...I'm guessing a being wouldn't enter into a pact with a 3 year old. I'd guess a safe bet would be at least 12/13 (the traditional start of adulthood in ancient times).
P.S.--But seriously, just 3 comments?? I expected to be INUNDATED with gift ideas! I anticipated drowning in a veritable TSUNAMI of gift ideas! You're letting me down General Chat, you're letting me down...
The goblins have committed no evil act yet, so they're neutral. As they grow up their actions will determine their alignment. For most goblins that's a tendency towards NE, but living in a different culture? Who knows.
What I don't get is the PC trying to claim that this is a neutral act? A neutral character would most likely not give a care either way. If a character is religiously neutral, then they might be trying to insure the babes stay alive to maintain balance: "we killed X number of creatures before finding the babes, now we must insure that X number of creatures live."
I can't really figure out any way that a neutral character would want to actively kill babies of any stripe.
Hmm. Let me paint a more specific scenario:
Witch is grappled by warrior before she looses her hair. The witches normal Cmd is atrocious, however, her hair grants a significantly higher strength str and thus a better Cmd. So...does her hair, in effect, act as a global str buff affecting all her str-based rolls? The way they describe the spell, it seems to be a separate "thing" with its own stats, not a stat replacement for the witch.
Let's say you were a standard surface dwelling people, looking to improve relations with a shamanic/tribal (but not unsophisticated) civilization of merfolk. You decide to take some unique gift to the underwater peeps as a token of friendship. What gift do you take?
Lol. Thanks, but do you have any references to back up this claim? I tried to use this argument in a recent game and got shot down because there is no Pre Hen text that I could see that dealt with grapple...
D.D. specifies that the caster can bring along one "willing" creature when he/she uses the spell. Is there no way to use the spell to teleport an unwilling creature? I'm looking for a Nightcrawler style "BAMF grab the person BAMF" kidnapping here. Any help would be appreciated! :)
2. I saw that. I have the same adventure. That is an error on the writer's part. It is not the only adventure with rules based errors though. There is an adventure with a paladin of Asmodeus. There is another adventure that has vital strike being used in an illegal way.
It is good for the story so I would allow it, but by the rules that illusion can't do damage, even fake damage.
Do you have a link where the author and/or Paizo discusses this error? Or is this just a guess on your part? Yes, I am running the same adventure. :)
It would appear that after level 1 witches only gain 2 new spells a level (at level 1 they gain according to their INT), whereas wizards always gain according to their INT. Is this true? Just making sure.
I'm a smidgen confused.
Does a witch's familiar "store" ALL the spells on the witch spell list and then each day the witch cherry picks the spells he/she wants to use that day?
OR
Does a witch pick spells (from the witch spell list) each level to store on the familiar and then each day picks which of the known stored spells he/she wants to use that day?
Wait...now I'm more confused. :) I'm still waking up I guess. So you all are saying that Joe Blow finds a +4 headband as loot, and when he claims it, he picks 2 skills, and those 2 skills are always +X for the wearer (X being whatever the wearers current level is)?
If my char wears a headband of intellect giving him a +4 to INT, and he levels, do I use the boosted INT to determine the number of skill points he receives for that level?
Dotted. I would pull some numbers out of the same-as-current/commonplace/mixed heritage categories and add in an animal category, like they did in 3.5. It's just cooler that way. :)
I'm planning on running about 4 PF games (each game is scheduled for 3-4 hours) for kids in the 10-14 age range. My question is, could folks point me to some modules that are relatively "kid friendly"? I know that all modules could be adapted one way or the other, I'm just trying to save some time.
By kid friendly, I basically mean modules which do not include "controversial" topics. This would probably include: alternative lifestyles, devil worship, trips to hell'ish areas, extensive demonic presence, slavery, themes of torture/rape, etc.
(As I typed that...I just had an idea for my adult group involving all of the above) hahahaha
I am worried that the Assassin lacks to ability to reliably down his enemies in the first round of combat at higher levels. As several people have pointed out, the Rogue can get his damage bonus from Sneak Attack repeatedly over the course of the encounter, meaning he doesn't have to do things in one shot. The Ninja already has a similar ability to Assassinate that he can get at level 10, so I am not sure that puts the Assassin much above him.
As enemies get more and more hit points, I worry that the Assassin, even with the Assassinate power, just won't have much chance against most encounters. He will blow his load in the first round and that will be it, he is getting out done by Rogues and Rangers and Fighters (who tend to do that to everybody, so maybe not a fair comparison). Poison really doesn't do enough to give him an edge, seeing as poison is a pain to make in sufficient strength and quantity, even for Alchemists who specialize in making the stuff!
This, pretty much.
After 1st level, I don't see this build bringing down anyone in one shot. Heck, a 1st level barbarian can do similar damage with every hit that a 5th or 6th level assassin (assumimg standard weapons here) does in their assassinate round. Am I wrong? I dont think so. Current 1st level barb in my campaign does 2d6+6 damage with his great sword.
I think it's probably far too limiting to restrict one to just light weapons. Maybe triple the crit multiplier? Again, the whole point of this build is to kill fast. Against enemies post CR1, I don't see this happening.
I recently purchased the "Urban Chase Deck" from LPJ. If you own or use the product, I just have to ask, while the stats shown are fairly straightforward, the scenes/card pictures seem to make no sense? Example: one card has a pic of an open courtyard and the card title is (duh) "open courtyard." The skill checks for this chase "obstacle" are Knowledge(local) 15 or Perception 10.
Maybe I'm slow, but I don't see how this is an obstacle, nor do I see how the skill checks even relate? Can someone offer advice in this regard? There are quite a few cards like this.
Lovin it. Keep up the great work! As mentioned by others, the core of the assassin is: "I kill people." In that vein, please don't water down the damage aspect.
Begin my random musings...take them as you will. I'm not trying to direct your project, just give my thoughts on assassins. Hope it's helpful.
In my mind, non-magical assassins should come in 4 broad flavors (archetypes?) and their ability to rapidly deal huge amounts of damage should reflect that flavor. Aside from the "spy" variant, I don't see assassins as being particularly multifaceted.
1) The poisoner/face. This variant is not geared towards combat, but has an extensive skill list. Infiltration, disguise, poison, and social skills are the order of the day here. Any sort of combat is not friendly to this variant. Get in, poison the noble in some way, and get out.
2) The melee attack wet works/ninja. This variant is not geared towards poison and has less in the way of skills but is heavily geared towards stealth and dealing massive amounts of combat damage in a short time. Lengthy battles are not friendly to this variant. Intercept the noble, cut them down ASAP, and then disappear.
3) The ranged attack wet works? I guess this can be lumped into #2 though.
4) The spy/007. I'm not sure how this variant would work. A hybrid of 1 and 2 I suppose?
I'm curious if your class could support the 4 flavors I describe.
Sorry, but the initial post absolutely reeks of juvenile narcissism. The fact that this question is being asked indicates interpersonal issues inherent to the group. If everyone is great friends and this is all in-game fun, the OP would never have asked this question to begin with.
The only good rationale for PVP in-game is that it allows for issues to be resolved. In this case, if the one at the hub of the issues (the CE char) actually lives (but I doubt the GM will let that happen), then the issues will just resurface with the new chars (now specifically built to handle the CE chars attacks) and the cycle will begin anew.
The absolute worst case scenario here is that nothing is resolved and the OP begins a tit-for-tat revenge campaign of pettiness, which will just lead to ever increasing IRL irritation. By then, the GM should have stepped in though.
When introducing players to the game you will need to handhold for a while. Some players just want to play and don't care about the rules. As a DM you sometimes have to work with what you have.
I had a player who was new to 3rd ed and who had only played 1st ed for a few months back in the day. He wanted to be a wizard. We played for a few years through level 15 and even then I needed to explain basic stuff to him.
All my players in that game never really mastered the rules. As DM you will generally know much more about the rules than the players.
This.
Important part bolded.
Rules (especially in complex systems like PF) are the number 1 thing which holds back many interested people from ever joining the hobby. Walk them thru char creation (or just give them prefabs after finding out what they want to play) using the free online char gen. Some GMs are rather analytical and take to heavy math well, and tragically expect everyone to be like that. Most people aren't.
Know your players and know your role. Sounds like a couple of yours have no interest in learning the rules and just want to game. These are almost always the best players in my experience. :)
2. They do no damage.
3. Only if it chooses to use just the tendrils. If you continue to look, under grapple it says "If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails)."
4. As above. However, it can just Pull without having to grapple first.
5. No, because if it grapples, he is already moved adjacent.
6. No, unless he has the Strike Back feat, then he can ready an action to attack it when it attacks with reach. However, in this case, the tendrils have their own hp and AC, so you can attack them.
7. The monster can choose to let go of the grapple as a free action, full attack, and Grab with one of the tendrils. Or it can maintain the grapple to deal it's natural attack damage.
I appreciate the input! So let me see if Ive got this right...
BB grapples successfully, and in the same round, can immediately move the target to an adjacent square? Or does that occur after an additional grapple check during the next round? The rules seem to indicate the latter.
The round after the initial grapple check, BB must make a second grapple check, then, if successful, may use his natural attacks in the same round, correct? Rinse and repeat for each additional round?
Please take a look at the monster at this link. His ranged attack is confusing to me, but may be obvious to some of you veterans. Here's some questions:
1.) Our friend the monster wants to use his tendrils to do a ranged attack. What is the "range" for his tendrils?
2.) He does the ranged touch attack with his +5 tendrils and succeeds. Does he deal damage? If so, what is it?
3.) Having succeeded at the touch attack, he initiates a grapple as a free action (due to the "grab" special ability). Since he is only using the tendrils and not his full body (as per the "grab" rules), he is going to suffer a -20 penalty? That can't be right, can it?
4.) Let's assume he succeeds with the grapple. He automatically pulls the hapless hero 5ft closer, correct?
5.) What happens on each additional turn? Another grapple roll to pull the hero another 5ft?
6.) Can the hero attack the tendrils that are inexorably dragging him nearer? What would be the roll?
7.) The monster drags the hero within 5ft of it, can it then do a full 2-clawed attack and roll to grapple each round? Or just 1 claw attack and grapple per round?
Let's say Sorcerer Joe, using Silent Spell, Eschew Materials, and Still Spell, decides to cast Charm Person on Tony during a conversation they're having. Let's assume his spell fails to charm Tony.
First off, I'm assuming Joe gets a surprise initiative round to start off with?
Secondly, does Tony know he's almost had a spell cast on him? And if he does, would he know it's Joe who tried? Would Tony even roll initiative?
Thirdly, and most importantly, does Joe know whether or not his spell worked? Or would he have to interact with Tony in some way (even just viewing his nonverbal behavior) to "tell" he was charmed?
I'm terrible with math, need to blow up a building, and am hurting my brain trying to figure this out.
Situation:
Assume you have a standard castle. Let's use a square "corner" tower for the purposes of this example. Assume this square tower is 30 feet wide from wall-to-wall (interior), and assume it's empty. Also, let's say it's about 8 floors high (so, plenty of weight from above pushing down).
I wish to topple this hypothetical tower, in-game. How would I do this, using actual game mechanics? A player figured they could use gobs and gobs of "Explosive Runes" to accomplish it, but according to the link above, energy attacks only do half-damage.
I guess what I'm looking for is something a bit beyond GM hand-waving. I'm looking for something like "if the PCs used these spells or items, they could blow out X number of blocks automatically, and thus cause a tower collapse." Any assistance is appreciated! Thanks
