Sarhuin's page

Sorry! More HotA questions here. . . I'll be playing a rogue/wizard in our next campaign so I want to understand how certain abilities/conditions will interact.

If a wizard with HotA is invisible. . .is his weapon also invisible if he sends it from his person to attack, or does it "wink" back into view?

Can invisibility be placed on weapon itself and be used to sneak attack ?

Could this be coupled with a permenancy spell for a nearly constant easy source of delivering sneak attack damage?

Would you need Detect(see) invisibility active to do any of the above with HotA?

I would assume that anything that would apply to invisibility would also apply to greater invisibility.

Thanks for your cogitation in advance!

Not sure if it is OK to copy/paste the text directly from the alpha book so I will summarize the feat:

"Subtract your dex modifier to ranged attack rolls for one round and add the same amount to ranged damage rolls for that same round"

Does this apply to rays? Some feats expressly state "ranged projectile weapons", but this wording avoids mentioning them specifically so I'd lean towards it working for Rays. . . though I'm not sure that was the intention of the feat.

Certainly, range touch attacks are much easier to hit than regular ranged. . . but then again the characters making such attacks are generally weak in BaB so this might not be overbalanced.

This would, however, make ray of frost a 1d3+4 damage spell (For a character with an 18 dex) that could be used all day long albiet with circa a 50% hit chance (as opposed to a 14 hit which is, um, better than 50%)

So, I was wondering what the community's take was on this feat and what the implications of allowing it to synergize with rays would be.

Thanks!

No ideas? (bump?)

Did a quick search and didn't find anyone else asking this question so I figured I'd ask (sorry if it is a repeat):

Can a multiclassed Rogue/Wizard sneak attack with Hand of the Apprentice? It doesn't threaten foes, and therefore can't flank, but if there was another condition that caused a foe to lose its dexterity what would prevent a sneak attack?

Also. . .does the +damage from Int get multiplied with a critical hit with a weapon wielded by the Apprentice?

And, though it isn't quite on topic, is an Elven rogue proficient with an elven thinblade? (Racial states that you can use it as a *martial* weapon if it is a racial weapon, but rogues aren't expressly proficient with martial weapons other than the Rapier. . . but the rapier does share weapon focus/etc. with the thinblade. Not sure what to think here.

Thanks for looking and helping!

~S

Hey, I read through a couple other threads, and I didn't find any satisfactory answers to the questions I have, so, I figured I'd post them and see if there is a consensus. This will be a bit long, so please bear with me:

Sorry for the lengthy questions, but here they go!

Question 1:

When do level requirements come into play in regards to enchanting Arcane Bonded items for Wizards? (elaboration below)

The arcane bonded item enchants. . . Have level requirements been removed? In 3.x, for example, creating a ring of counterspells requires: Forge Ring, Imbue with Spell Ability and a "level" of 11. (Is that level in line with the level required to cast the spell "Imbue with Spell Ability"? I don't have the SRD available, darn websense! So I'm looking at crystalkeep) . . .and then if you look at the rings of protection (+2 for example) there is an additional requirement of "Creator must be at least 6th level" (in addition to Forge ring and Shield of faith). Now, my guess is the "level" mentioned in the first example is the level of effective use? (like with a wand of fireballs) and the 2nd is an actual caster level requirement for forging the item.

Now, I notice in the Alpha2 doc, for example:

Necklace of Adaptation
Aura Moderate transmutation; CL 7th
Slot necklace; Price 40,000 gp
Description
This necklace is a heavy chain with a platinum medallion.
The magic of the necklace wraps the wearer in a shell of
fresh air, making him immune to all harmful vapors and
gases (such as cloudkill and stinking cloud effects, as well
as inhaled poisons) and allowing him to breathe, even
underwater or in a vacuum.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, spell; Cost 20,000 gp

The first bolded section is, I would guess, the effective level of the item in question? (In terms of what level the item operates at for things such as dispel, caster level checks, etc.) I am assuming that this is not a requirement for creating the item as it is not listed in the construction requirements. So, a wizard with a necklace as his bonded item, could enchant said bonded item at first level if he had 10,000 gold (1/2 price enchanting for bonded item)?

I think this because there are examples of other items in the Alpha2 document that list specific class/level requirements for their creation. Example:

Phylactery of Positive Channeling
Aura Moderate necromancy [good]; CL 10th
Slot phylactery; Weight 1/2 lb.; Price 11,000 gp
Description
This item is a boon to any character able to channel
positive energy, increasing the amount of damage dealt to
undead creatures by 2d6. This also increases the amount
of damage healed by living creatures.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, 10th-level cleric; Cost
5,500 gp

Here it specifically says the creator must be a 10th level cleric, so I am guessing that it would be impossible even for a Wizard with an arcane bonded necklace to create this?

Question 2:

What are the rules surrounding enchanting Arcane Bonded Items with multiple effects?

For example, could a wizard make his arcane bonded ring into a ring of feather falling and a ring of wizardry? What, if any, would be the limit to 'stacking' abilities into the bonded item?

Can you enchant non arcane bonded items with multiple effects? I did notice this line in the Alpha 2 document: Multiple different abilities: Multiply higher item cost by 2 example: Helm of brilliance So I would guess you could create such items. . .and, it would follow, that you could create said items with the Arcane Bond. . . although I would think there should be some kind of built in limit (like 2 effects?) otherwise you might end up with things like a ring of Wizardry 1 2 3 and 4 all wrapped up into one for 1/2 price! While that'd be neat, it probably is broken.

Thanks for reading these rather long winded questions!

~S

Actually, Sarhuin, the reason your post comes across as snide is that your comment about 'closed minds' is completely unnecessary to make your point. If you have something to add to the conversation (and it seems you do), by all means, go nuts.

But the comments about people's minds being closed, and so on, are useless, inflammatory, and unpleasant. I think that's what we can all do without.

O

Understood. Though, how can I express my dismay at seeing a statement that is absolute in a thread discussing changes? When someone tells me that something is going to be one way, no questions asked, it makes me feel like my thoughts and feedback are useless and will be ignored.

That is what I am trying, perhaps poorly, to express. I feel that a single polymorph spell can work (and does), and that if changes do need to be made it can be done within the rules of a single spell, not with ~26 (if you give 4 levels to every creature type) separate spells.

That is what I am trying to express.

Please avoide the snide commentary here - frankly, the closed mind seems to be yours (and in other posts you have made).

The thing about polymorph is that it is complex to adjudicate, and can be abused while remaining within the letter of the rules. Jason has addressed this issue in the rules and in the thread above. While I don't doubt that the polymorph substitutes presented here could be made a bit less complicated (especially the higher level ones) the basic premise to me seems sound - a reasonably predictable outcome, scaled to level.

If you find my commentary snide, I think that is on you, friend. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't make me snide. :) I'm simply speaking my mind. When someone says "that is final", it is pretty indicative of a closed mind. I have said no such thing, and am more than open to changes, just not the ones presented in the Alpha 2 document.

I don't find polymorph or any of the other shifting spells in their 3.5 form at all difficult to adjudicate, which is probably why I have problems coming up with ways to "make it better". In this system you add in at least 9-12 additional spells with their own rulesets. (if this, then that, etc. ad nausium). It is far simpler and more intuitive, for me anyway, to turn to the "unicorn" page in the MM and use those stats, or whatever creature I decide to be. Takes no more time to do that than to readjust my ability scores.

This system is also pretty unbalanced when it comes to size differences. If a player has a gnome wizard with an 8 strength and he becomes a huge bear. . .his strength is only a 14? That bear might collapse under its own weight!

Someone on one of these threads had a stellar idea of having 'known shapes' and keeping them on 3x5 cards. I think that goes a long way to keeping things manageable, and doesn't needlessly complicate the game.

SirUrza wrote:

I don't like that polymorph is gone.

I am sorry that you feel that way, but considering its problems, polymorph, as a single spell, will not be coming back.

It sure is disheartening to see a lead designer with such a closed mind on the subject.

I'm afraid that your changes haven't alleviated any of the old problems with Polymorph and have managed to create a more cumbersome and unwieldly mechanic. They've just shifted into new problems, as pointed out by other posters here. You're trying to use rules where a GM should adjudicate. . .this is a very bad idea. If a GM allows a player to abuse a spell or game mechanic, that is on him or her, not the system.

You've also neglected to think of the Sorcerer when it comes to having 25 different spell types (as pointed out by other posters here). I guess having this many spells makes great filler when you're writing a new book, but it isn't solving any problems.

I'm just a potential customer, so take what you will from my comments, but I hope you re-open your mind to new ideas on this subject. There are many players and GM's who've not had a problem with the old mechanics. . . what are they doing differently ? Examine that and you'll find a better solution if you're hell bent on a change. In my opinion, however, the old system was fine.

This whole mechanic is needlessly complex. Adding in what, 12 new spells? To emulate one or two? Terrible idea. If you're having problems in your game with polymorph you simply need a GM with a more firm hand and players that need to simply accept a GM ruling. To be honest, in years and years of gaming I've never run into a single problem with these spells, and have always loved the creative flexibility they bring to the game.

Also, think of the poor wizard who used to just have to memorize polymorph. . .now, he needs to decide, "Hrmm Form of Giant sounds good!. . . later that day, inside a cramped dungeon crawl tunnel they went through unexpectedly: "Gee, this giant form spell is gonna come in handy." I am completely and utterly opposed to this entire mechanic rework.

The changes to alter self are also unneccessary. 1 minute per level? Enhancement bonuses? Huh? Why aren't these size bonuses? Apparently some folks see this spell as being broken? Again, it comes down to the GM. "No, you do not have knowledge of the Ubermensch humanoid race that has 10 natural AC, fly of 120, burrow of 90, 12 arms and a bite attack! Why not? Because they don't exist in my world...and even if they did, too bad, I'm the GM and I don't want you breaking my game."

I know a lot of work and thought went into this change, but I hope that doesn't prevent the designers from taking an honest look at this mechanic and having the courage to scrap it.

In either event, I will be asking/recommending our group go with the old polymorph rules.

I had a much longer, more detailed post but it got eaten...

Anyway,

The Sorcerer seems very lost. The abilities they are granted don't mesh with what the class is. First, they have 1d6 hit points, no armor and a limited spell selection (which limits the amount of defensive spells they will have).

Now, look at the feats and abilities the bloodlines give them: Dodge, mobility, Power Attack, Mounted combat, ride by attack, Sunder, Bull rush, blind fighting and weapon finesse. Most of the bloodline "powers" at first are "punch the dragon, do 1d6+1 damage of x type". What? What the heck is the sorcerer doing punching people? What is even more astonishing is that some of these abilities actually *progress* (poison at 9th level? what?) If you're punching 9hd monsters as a sorcerer you'll be dead pretty quickly. Sure, they have touch attacks. . . but most likely they'll be delivered via a ghost hand, or some other way.

Perhaps the designers envisioned every Sorcerer multiclassing with the Monk. . .but honestly, I feel that many of the bloodline powers and feats seem "tacked on" and not very well thought out. The sorcerer is still too limited and pretty weak in my opinion.

Give them back Eschew Materials as a class feat.

Change their melee abilities to ranged type attacks. Like the Wizard has (1d6 ranged attacks, enhance them as they progress). . . remove any feats that are melee oriented, or add additional feats that aren't melee oriented.

---

The Druid:

There isn't any reason to be a druid beyond 4th level. Any decent PrC will advance spellcasting and Wildshape. There should be at least some mildly compelling reasons to stay straight classed, but I don't see the druid as having any incentive to do so. A Thousand Faces lost all of its appeal with the mangling of the Alter Self spell (which, along with all the polymorph changes needs to be reverted back to normal 3.5 rules, IMO). Timeless Body has always been fairly useless in my experience. How many campaigns use ageing? How many last long enough for age to matter? If anyone is playing a long (centuries) campaign, how many of the PC's are *not* elves already?

And the druid has less spells per day now? How is this a good thing?

The druid needs more interesting progression abilities that aren't also progressed by PrC's, in my opinion. What these could be, I don't know so I apologize for not having any good suggestions.