Nothing requires you to take a damage dealing cantrip that has a DC.
Detect Magic, Shield, Mage Hand, Message, and Guidance are all pretty darn good spells for a Rogue to have at his/her disposal, and probably of far more long term use than a damage dealing cantrip. A Rogue has other ways to do damage besides cantrips.
Later, I'll see if I can post a link to the Tower of London Museum employee doing a back flip while wearing an actual suit of Medieval plate armor.
(Ie., if you're strong and explosive enough to do a back flip, it doesn't take that much more to do it wearing a properly fitted suit of plate mail. They really don't weigh as much as people think, and the weight is spread very effectively over the body.)
Go for it. That's an infinitely superior option to just having the wizard recast it the next day.
It hasn't evolved remotely far enough that the circumstance in the OP would qualify, though. Common usage today includes " illogical situation, or a problem in which the solution is denied by the problem itself." (Merriam Webster)
The usage in this thread is just incorrect.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Try reading the beginning of the thread. Here's the original post:
"Am I wrong? It really seems like we're still in a situation where a 1-die upstep in damage is nowhere near good enough to make up for the longer reload time, and that's before considering bows got sweet upgrades (deadly, propulsive?) while xbows got nothing at all.
What gives? Will fantasy rpgs ever deliver a crossbow that doesn't feel like a drag to choose?"
"Yeah, it looks to me like crossbows are generally bad."
"I think the regular crossbow can be decent if your class has some feats to support it, but in general it's definitely a worse option than a bow."
This entire thread was started by someone complaining that the crossbow was inferior to another option. He described the crossbow as "a drag to choose."
It's irrelevant how the discussion has morphed since the beginning, as I was commenting on the original discussion.
The book is called Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. It's about the European theater of World War II, not Vietnam.
Here is the quote from the book loosely referenced above:
"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle."
A true Catch-22 is an inescapable loop.
Edit: Another definition of Catch-22 in the novel that has always stuck out in my mind is one that is something like: "They can do anything to you they want to that you can't stop them from doing."
Resource management and number of encounters per day really aren't necessarily the same thing.
Some players constantly nova their abilities, even when unnecessary, thereby always hitting far fewer than the theoretical encounters per day before deciding they need to rest.
Other players will only use limited resources when absolutely necessary, making due as well as possible by coming up with clever tactics to replace those resources. These players will often see far more encounters per day than the theoretical number.
The number of players who will tailor their play style around the expected encounters per day is so vanishingly small as to be irrelevant.
Granted, anecdotal evidence is always suspect, but I'll give it to show my experience. I have been playing D&D since 1978. I've played Basic, AD&D, AD&D 2E, D&D 3e, D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, D&D 5e, and now Pathfnider 2e. At no point in that 41 year period have I ever worried about hitting a theoretical "encounters per day" number as either a player or as a DM designing home-brew adventures. It's not necessary. As a player, I do what I need to do to achieve the adventure results without dying; if that means one big combat in a day or 20 small combats, so be it. As a DM, I'm far more concerned about having interesting combats and compelling story lines than I am about whether or not I'm hitting an "encounters per day" number; the players themselves will determine how many encounters they're willing to deal with on a daily basis.
I think the problem is less that this weapon exists and more on the mindset of people who think you need to hyper-optimize everything you do in a pen-and-paper RPG played with a group of other humans. Yes, I understand that some people enjoy doing this, which is fine. What I don't understand is people that think you MUST do this.
A character doesn't need to be perfectly optimized to be useful to the party and fun to play.
When I've run players with similar character concepts in the past, I would just let them re-skin the new shape to look like what they wanted. We'd figure out how to make it work as well as possible. That T-rex would be played like a really huge wolf, for example.
Obviously not a purely rules-legal way of doing it, but I doubt many people would complain.
How much of a trap are the alchemist's bestial mutagen and the sorcerer's Dragon Claws and Glutton's Jaws?
These topics have amused me for years; they came up since the beginning of these forums.
If option A is mathematically the strongest, a vocal group will assert that options B-Z are all "garbage."
If one weapon build has a DPR of 10, and another has 8.5, the latter is "unusable."
This place needs eye-roll emojis.
I don't really think it's necessary, in my experience.
In almost 10 years of running Pathfinder campaigns, the hypothetical "number of encounters per day" never happened. It all depended on the circumstances of the moment how the players felt they needed (or wanted) to behave. I've never played with a group that was this heavily focused on daily resources and how many encounters they did in a day.
Of course, I'm sure other people have players that are hyper focused on daily resource allowances; that's just completely outside of my experience.
High CHA doesn't necessarily mean friendly. Being charismatic means you have a certain compelling ability to influence other people. Some people are charismatic and jerks (Steve Jobs), some are charismatic and murderous (Hitler, Charles Manson), some are charismatic, likable, and humble (Abraham Lincoln), some were charismatic but brusque (Arthur Wellesley the Duke of Wellington), etc.
There is zero requirement for someone to be friendly to be highly charismatic. The two concepts are unrelated to one another.
My suggestion is to always rebuild a dragon's feats, especially if you're using a Bestiary (first one) dragon. There are so many amazing feats available now that didn't exist in the beginning of Pathfinder, and a lot of the feats on the Bestiary dragon entries kind of suck for utility.
Consider a combination of Fly By Attack, Snatch, and Snatch and Drop.
Also, redo their spells, especially defensive spells. Consider adding a combination of Displacement and Mirror Image.
Consider the above combination in the following scenario:
Dragon prepares for fight by buffing with defensive spells including Mirror Image and Displacement.
Dragon ends first round flying 40' or so away and casts an offensive spell or a control spell. Maybe something like a create pit or wall spell to get the party split from each other. Dragon takes round of attacks in return using defensive buffs to (hopefully) survive the round.
Round two, dragon targets a character, preferably a caster (since they cause the most problems) for a Fly By Attack bite. If successful, free Grapple attempt, then continue flying another 80' (most dragons have 200' of Fly) before making a forced landing, doing a bit of extra damage to both dragon and grappled character. Party hustles to get closer, and a few should be able to make attacks. Defenses should still be up and mitigating a lot of the damage.
Round three, dragon uses breath weapon, denying the grappled character any saving throw due to the effect of the Snatch feat. Free action to drop the character (who might very well now be out of the fight) and fly away 200'.
Rinse, repeat. Teleport or cast Invisibility and fly away if things start to go sideways. Come back later for revenge, if necessary.
The biggest mistake you can ever make is allowing your party to fight a dragon in a "lair" where the dragon just has to sit there and get melee'd to death. If a lair fight is on the table, make darn sure the dragon has Teleport of Dimension Door to be able to get outside if necessary, where the dragon can then wait on the party to attack them when they come out.
I've been running D&D/Pathfinder for 35 years. I've never had a party ever tell me that dragons are easy after encountering one I've run. Usually, dragons end up being the most hated creatures by all my players. They about throw a party when they finally manage to kill one.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Except they are, to a degree. From the CRB:
"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
It doesn’t mater what the in-world justification is actually, her creators chose that outfit because it was sexy. And it also doesn’t matter that nothing sexual is brought up in the Sorcerer class write up because all the art for the Iconic of that class was designed with sex appeal in mind.
So, when, exactly did you talk to the artist who created Seoni's appearance and have him/her tell you that he/she chose that outfit because it was sexy?
Or, are you just assuming that was the only reason?
Wild Spirit wrote:
So, because Razmiran Priest is broken, the balance argument is invalid?
In our play group, we've never used CLW wands to "top off" HP after every fight. It is pretty rare to need to do that.
One problem with Pathfinder is that healing from rest is nowhere near enough to recoup HP lost in a day. Assume a typical adventure day where you do not use CLW wands all day. The party ends the day fairly beat up. Without use of CLW wands that night or the following morning, you lose a bunch of adventure time. Either you rest multiple days to get back to fighting strength, or your dedicated healer has to start the day off by blowing a large chunk of his/her spells to get the party back to a safe level of HP.
In my play group's experience, at least, if characters could heal back up to full (or close to it) after a night's rest, CLW wands would hardly ever see use.
If you're running RotRL currently and allowing access to all the current Pathfinder material, pretty much every encounter needs a re-work in the entire campaign. Those encounters were all designed when the CRB was pretty much the only source material, so enemies with class levels are full of sub-optimal spell, feat, and magic item selections. And, even with that in mind, there are often serious WTF design issues with the characters. (I mean, seriously, what wizard gets to lvl 14 without having some ability to deal with an are of Silence?)
You would need vampiric and cruel on a viscous anything just to keep yourself from suffering too much. I have never seen anyone choose to put viscous on anything, personally. I have both received and handed out viscous weapons as loot, though.
My Inquisitor of Zon-Kuthon uses a Vicious-Cruel weapon primarily for fluff reasons. He experiences pain while inflicting pain, so everyone's happy......
Instead of focusing on AC (which for some classes can be really difficult to max out), look at ways to gain miss chances. I dunno what level you're at, so I will have a hard time suggesting specific magic items.
However, Mirror Image should be a defensive mainstay for the wizard if he/she is regularly getting targeted with to-hit rolls. Spells like Blur, Displacement, Invisibility, etc. all give a miss chance. Coupling Mirror Image with Displacement makes someone really difficult to hit.
The Snake Style Feat coupled with a maxed out Sense Motive skill can be effective at negating one attack per turn.
Some spells grant DR like Stoneskin. Other spells force an enemy to make a saving throw if they wish to attack you, such as Sanctuary (though, you cannot attack and maintain the benefit of the spell; it's good if you're casting buff spells or summoning).
Hrm. I must not have been paying attention over the 40 years I've been playing D&D/Pathfinder; I do not recall any such uproar.
There might have been such an uproar on the message boards, but I've long since learned that the message boards are far from representative of the gaming world at large. Only a VERY tiny percentage of people who play pathfinder frequent the boards with any regularity.
At the gaming table, I've never seen anyone complain or even really comment on the requirement that undead be evil or whatever concern some people must have had with spells with the [Evil] descriptor.
Saleem Halabi wrote:
It depends on the culture and experiences of the city in question. If the city as a whole is insulated from exterior conflict or wars; has strong, stable relationships with its neighbors; has a very low crime rate; and is generally well ordered, then sure, average people wouldn't be worried that much about random spell casting in a public space.
Conversely, if crime rates were elevated; if the city had strained relations with its neighbors; if the warfare or revolution had happened recently (generationally speaking); or the city was often perceived as very disorderly, then the average person's perception of random magic in public spaces could be very different.
You see, it isn't really an issue of an assumption that all spells being cast are attacks. Even if only 1/1000 of the spells a person witnesses in a major city end up being an attack type spell, the effects of that spell could be absolutely devastating and large scale. And, just about anyone in a city would know this because of all the stories that get told about powerful spell casters.
Additionally, it goes to expectation. If they see a street performer juggling balls and playing a lute, then start casting a spell, they probably would only feel a tiny bit of apprehension, if at all. They expect some sort of minor spell casting to be involved in the performance based on experience. Conversely, if they are walking down a darkened street at night heading home in a street with nobody else around, seeing someone walking towards them casting a spell will cause a very different reaction.
[Consider this; magic in Golarion is potentially just as dangerous, if not more so, than firearms in the real world. In the USA, there are literally millions of people who own firearms, and less than 1% of that number commit crimes with them every year. However, most people here who see someone carrying a firearm, other than a uniformed police officer, will at the very least be a little nervous, and far more so if someone pulls out their firearm. In a magical realm, it is reasonable for people who witness public magic to forget the 100 times they saw a street performer using Silent Image and instead remember that time last year when that crazy necromancer summoned undead on main street when they see someone randomly casting a spell in public.]
Towards the OP, in a private setting like that with a noble, it would be reasonable for the noble in question to feel insulted at the very least, and possibly threatened, depending upon that noble's specific background and experiences.
Never said every player agrees. If every player agreed, I would have written: "while all players feel Paladins mechanics shouldn't be exclusive to LG characters."
The generic "players agree" can easily be understood to be inclusive of all players. If you meant "some players," that's what you should have written, for clarity's sake. Though, it would admittedly sound far less authoritative.
It has been a huge argument; James Jacobs feels they should always be lawful for lore reasons, while players feel Paladins mechanics shouldn't be exclusive to LG characters.
To be accurate, not every player agrees with this. I'm not sure if even a majority of players agree with this. That may be a common attitude on the message boards, but most people would agree that attitudes common on the message boards are not anywhere near as common among the general population of Pathfinder players who do not frequent the boards.
(For example, I don't agree with it at all, as a player.)
Intimidation focused Inquisitor with a Cruel Bardiche; simple as that. Had two levels of Viking Fighter for Move Action Demoralize checks.
Move Action: Demoralize (huge Intimidate bonus; almost never failed).
All in one turn, inflicted a debuff effect, made an attack, and cast a spell. The Cruel enchantment just makes the effect much stronger with a very minor investment.
Just because you don't see a Jedi doing those mundane actions during the course of a movie doesn't mean they don't have to. It just means that the writer of the screenplay doesn't think it's necessary to the telling of the story.
Also, Star Wars is barely sci-fi. It's more of a fairy tale or morality play that happens to be set in a futuristic environment, but hardly touches on anything science related at all.
The bolded part is the only portion of your statement that is RAW.
Everything else is a creation of your imagination.
All of your broad pontifications of what constitute "evil" are your opinion and nothing else. They are not supported by any of the rules of Pathfinder and are completely debatable in the real world where people cannot even agree on whether or not "evil" exists.
Edit: By your same reasoning, if he saves a good person who later goes on to commit an evil act, then the paladin is responsible. It's a completely ludicrous interpretation that creates a heap of logical issues that are all based upon the fallacious assumption that someone is responsible for the actions of another person.
Matthew Downie wrote:
I have to disagree with that. A king or other head of state who dies an untimely death (such as through nefarious means, an accident, or falling in battle) would almost certainly want to come back if given the chance. If they're evil, they'd rather keep pursuing their earthly pleasures. If they're good, they'd have a sense of responsibility to their people.
And the BBEG? If he gets killed, is he really going to be so happy with the afterlife that they do not want the opportunity for revenge or a chance to bring their plans to fruition?
It takes a certain amount of hand-waving to assert that the reason only player characters make a lot of use of resurrection magic is because most everyone else is happy with the afterlife. And why would NPC's have their souls "claimed by a deity" any more often than a PC's? Just because, I guess....
My point was simply that the ease at which Pathfinder makes being returned from the dead causes a lot of issues that have to either be addressed or hand-waved away.
Permanent death makes the entire world make more sense. Who cares if a king, princess, or other important NPC is killed or threatened with death when all those people have relatively easy access to raise dead or better spells? Everyone important in the world would only ever die (and stay dead) from old age, including the BBEG's (after a certain level of opponent started showing up).
I'm currently working on a world where the gods of good and evil created the world to use as pretty much a chess board upon which they resolve their disputes (it actually has a pretty complicated cosmology, so I won't go into it). Part of the "rules" of the game conflict is that if one set of gods allows one of their pieces to be brought back to the board (ie., if the gods of good allow a character to be raised), then the other side automatically gets to bring back an equivalent piece to the board (ie., then the gods of evil could bring back any comparably powerful entity they wanted, too). Consequently, beings being resurrected or raised almost never happens, and priests for the entire pantheon high enough to cast such spells are knowledgeable enough about the consequences to never offer such services without direct instruction from their deity. (Mechanically, the only return to life spell in existence is Resurrection, and it is moved to 9th level).
They can ALWAYS perform an Immediate action. Which is why Featherfall is an Immediate Action spell. :P
An Immediate Action taken outside of your own turn takes the place of your following round's Swift Action, and if taken during your own turn, counts as your Swift Action for the turn. If you have already taken an Immediate Action since the end of your last turn in the initiative order, you may not take another such action until your next turn ends.
So, for example, say your character is a Bloodrager who charged an opponent on his/her action. On the opponent's turn in the initiative order, your Bloodrager is attacked, and he uses Windy Escape (an Immediate Action spell) to avoid a crit and mitigate damage from the hit. If the enemy's ally wizard then casts Create Pit on your Bloodrager before the end of your next activation, you do not have the ability to use another Immediate Action to cast Feather Fall.
I played a LN follower of Zon-Kuthon who followed a splinter sect of semi-heretical nature. They believed that the path to spiritual perfection was through the embracing of pain, like an even more extreme type of asceticism. They believed that every living soul was required to experience a certain degree of pain (physical and/or emotional) before achieving perfection; if they didn't make that payment of pain in life, they would have to pay with interest in the afterlife. So, they engaged in ritual self flagellation as a means to experience their required amount of pain before their death so they could immediately travel to paradise. The sect strictly forbade experiencing any kind of enjoyment from either giving or receiving pain, as such pleasurable emotions tainted the holy agony and failed to show proper respect. True sadists, masochists, and sado-masochists would be expelled from the cult as soon as they were determined to be violating this tenant.
In the community, they assisted those going through physically and emotionally experiences by providing spiritual counseling. They would only ever offer magical healing to prevent death, as anything more would help the subject avoid pain, which was anathema. Preventing death, however, allowed someone to experience more pain in life. And, any member of the cult who ever did receive any magical healing had to ritually purify themselves by an extensive period of self flagellation, often beating themselves into a state of unconsciousness.
This is really only part of the cult's beliefs and practices. I had it very well thought out to explain why the character behaved the way he did.
I agree with your position on when Initiative should be rolled (unless the range of the Alraune's spore attack is farther than the charge range, in which that would be the point for Initiative, or whenever else some hostile action was about to take place). In this particular example, both parties are not only aware of each other but hostile towards each other, and both intend to launch an attack on each other.
Trish Megistos wrote:
Well, not really, you still used the third level slot, but sure.
The entire text of the feat:
"Benefit: Choose one energy type: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. You may replace a spell's normal damage with that energy type or split the spell's damage, so that half is of that energy type and half is of its normal type. An elemental spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level. "
Not sure if it can work against something like a laser. It specifically states that it cuts "the weapon (or ammunition) out of the air, deflecting the attack so the target takes no damage." Energy weapons do not fire any ammunition. From a quick glance through the technology guide, it doesn't appear any mention of "ammunition" at all. This probably falls in the "Discuss with your GM" classification.
You cannot use Smash from the Air against spells that DO NOT require a to-hit roll. So, you could use it against Scorching Ray (requires a ranged touch attack) but only against Meteor Swarm if they targeted an individual with each meteor. If the meteors do not target a creature, there is no to-hit roll, so the Feat cannot be used.