My character has a really powerful Holy Sword. Its +5 and guided so that it uses wisdom.
He is all about fighting the undead so if he can get the last two possible pluses he's likely to opt for Lifesurge to complete the weapon.
At this point I'd consider any sort of reasonable protection to keep this weapons from the hands of evil. What do people suggest would be possible for a high level cleric....
I am currently 11th level but I have two levels of Monk.
The idea at this point is to build like the character will reach 20. This character has had his own path so far and I think he would benefit from the Scroll Master ability. Monk2/Pathfinder Savant 3/ cleric 15 should still give him 17th level casting so he'll just reach 9th level spells.
I have a cleric who will take the Pathfinder (or Arcane) Savant PRC for 3 levels. His chief goal is the Scroll Master ability.
What 2 spells should he add to his casting list?
I'm thinking Permenancy and Greater Teleport. The other choice is to pick two 8th level spells.
Any other advice? Its a cleric of Pharasma.
Just want to say that Monster Races are a real challenge to add to a gaming world. If everyone is a good guy or a bad guy the whole party can expect welcome in places. If your party plays for both teams your list of allies grows thin.
Kobolds are deadly vicious critters (This goes for most monster races) that kill in great numbers and by deception. Even your average shop keeper will know your character sure isn't normal for a civilized city and would probably breath easier if your character was in little pieces. You won't fair any better in Kobold lairs with the rest of the party.
Racial hatreds, bounties and laws make it more than a matter of... "Yeah I'm a monster, isn't that special ?"
Many social settings necessary to adventure development break down if you have obvious racial hatred being the first thing a party confronts in a given situation.
Pretending a player's race is simply ignored for game reasons can become very unsatisfying. Goblins and Kobolds being treated as ugly Halflings sort of ruins the game immersion for me.
A faction for the cheese makers!
I mean really, who would begrudge these tireless patient collectors of edible culture? They deserve their own faction. The other factions laugh at them so....
I am Hero and I stand in the name of the CHEESE!
These are my pungent side kicks, Camembert, Stilton and old Blue.
The simplest thing is to duplicate the thing they are using to find the machine in the first place.
They place the rod into a control panel with four holes. They have the option of waiting for the other rods to come to the machine or put it in failsafe where it will try to find the three missing rods.
I'd say that every day after the first that the character stays in one place there is a chance of a random encounter equal to the number of days spent. This roll is once each day for each week spent in the same place.
So his 22st day would have three 21% chances of something happening.
Then I'd make the table.
Floods, cave ins, being discovered - I think those would be the worst.
I'd let them investigate ways to suppress the curse: working for a diametrically opposed deity, spending _all_ his time in prayer, not drinking to the point of attribute loss.
If he's discovered some would want to capture him\her either to move, kill, or simply experiment on the character. Wizards and Clerics might be interested in using the magic he\she represents.
At least thats my .02
I think there is a seldom mentioned advantage here that may actually be the primary value of the publications - structured fiction.
As a DM I justify game purchases all the time in terms of "this will be useful" or "this might be very handy if the players do ....". The truth if I'm really honest, is that I get to read the stuff in its entirety first and I like that. Modules and supplements are sort of like my fantasy football league. I rank the baddies and goodies, compare their stats and enjoy the sense of travel before my players ever get to see any of it.
I don't think there can be too much content myself. There can be too little time to enjoy it.
My understanding is that sneak attack from a spell affects the target as a number of extra damage dice of the same type as the spell.
Sneak Attack with acid splash and you do extra acid damage.
I'm making a sorcerer Rogue and I'm trying to pick spells known.
If you attack you do damage or not. Your targeting, mindset, and game framework is to do damage.
I think that according to the rules if you attack a human with positive energy you simply waste your attack. You can't actually damage the target so there are no damage dice and hence no sneak attack dice. I'm not sure you should even get any healing for an attack.
If you were to do damage it would be the effects of more positive energy to cause harm to vulnerable spots. It would not represent a positive energy increase. That would be like creating more rope, food or gold.
There is simply no advantage in precision healing. If there were the Clerics would have had the ability long ago.
And then we roll for sneak feeding. I give you a leg of chicken but I do it so well you can eat for a week off it, because I sneak fed you.
And the rope gets played out for climbing as part of a sneak attack. Here's 50 + 5d6 of rope. Good thing I sneak attacked it or we'd never have enough.
I'm going to start counting the treasure with a sneak attack roll. How much gold is 100gp + 5d6 sneak attack? Make sure the rogue counts your money.
1: By definition a sneak attack must do damage to have bonus damage dice.
2: More importantly your example is flawed. You present harming\healing as mirror situations but they are not. Just because you can deal in negative or positive energy doesn't mean the methods are equal and opposite.
Harming is actively defended against. Greater vulnerabilities are given more protection. If I take a pencil and push it into your knee (a normal attack) I do so much damage. If I manage to push it into your eye socket (a sneak attack) I do precision damage with substantially the same effort. Overcoming your defenses or knowing your weaknesses allows more efficient harming. The game allows this increased damage without tracking the details.
Healing is more abstract and typically not opposed. Since the game mostly doesn't detail the nature of hp loss there is no way to target the worst areas. Healing assumes no opposition and already represents best efforts - the most healing you can do at your power level. My cleric can heal 1d8+1 hp by touching you anywhere on your body. She cannot be clever and focus her healing on your optic nerve to critically heal your sneak attacked eye. To suggest that a negative sneak attack would get bonus healing power is to assume that there is a precise target denied other healers or tracked by the game.
The negative\positive mirror is seductive but it is inaccurate.
If that's how you choose to interpret it. You are suggesting he gets a bonus to maintain an attack.
I think its also fair to interpret the bonus as applying only to resisting an opponents initial attack to grapple the halfling.
"Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect."
During your initial resistance you have the most mobility and control of the situation. This seems like something a clever halfling would be good at.
After being grappled, or starting a grapple, I think its harder to argue the halfling has any particular strategic advantages. To break a grapple the halfling would need CMB so this wouldn't work particularly well. I think the rule is intended to make them more slippery not better aggressors.
I'd be inclined to think that resisting a grapple specifically talks about escape ie escape artist or breaking a hold.
Combat Maneuver Defense: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers.
Its not that hobbits get any bonus to enforce their will on the enemy but they are very squirmy and inherently difficult to hold on to.
Grapples can be reversed and there is a clear aggressor and defender in a grapple situation. I don't think this bonus applies when the hobbit is the aggressor.
ie... He gets no racial bonus to pin the green dragon or maintain an attack only to escape it.
That is one way of looking at it.
The double weapons in question are two handed weapons first.
First off there is the argument that we are not talking about real weapons but classed weapons. This is convention and rule design not physics.
Secondly, if you appeal to physics. From the center of a double weapon you still benefit from two hands, either to control and propel momentum or to punch and pull (at the same time) to create more controlled force. A blade pushed into the foe with one hand can be pulled across the foe with the other and the movement of the shoulders. A weapon driven into the foe can have its attacking end pushed up by the rear hand.
My reading of how the rules were made (Pure conjecture) is that someone made the rules for fighting with two short swords and then simply added double weapons so they wouldn't be left out. I don't ascribe great realism to the example. It seems more convenient than accurate.
The two strongest arguments against the sense of the current example is that 1) it provides no synergy for two hands working together and 2) that a double weapon may not even be wielded that way (with one hand) and stay a double weapon.
As you say, 2 hands are committed for the whole round. That to me makes it a 2 handed weapon attacking. Pretending to better accuracy when so many other elements are completely fantastical or vague seems to needlessly nerf the weapon design.
You could make up a rule for them running out but that would only lead to players carrying two or three of them. Wouldn't change much.
After each use a player might roll a percentile and if they roll below the spell level the pouch might fail\be empty. Below would mean it would never fail on 1st level spells.
As I said, I don't know that this would be so great. Most games do not want to track this sort of thing.
Vuron, that seems like a reasonable argument.
I don't know that its much of a difference though because most dual wielders I've seen use the same weapon in both hands (gaining the weapon focus/specialization) advantage and I don't think the double weapons do huge amounts of normal damage.
Still a good point. Thank you.
Also thanks to everyone of FAQed this thread.
The first part of the two handed weapon series Two-Handed Fighting (Part One) actually has wording that is much more clear. They do not limit description to attack 'rolls' and discuss actually fighting with each combat style.
2 handed fighting pt 1 wrote:
The pdf also defines "one handed" "light" and "off hand" weapons in meaningful association.
I'm not sure that this is fair. Perhaps two handing a weapon deserves more damage but it is certainly clear. Whatever pathfinder intended they could have been much clearer drawing on this pdf or making a clear change.
This is satisfyingly clear. I'm not quibbling that it is 3.5.
I have seen this example (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060912a) and it is clear. It doesn't reword the rules for 3.5 or Pathfinder but this is the official example from 3.5 so far as I can tell.
It just isn't written in the rules.
'Simpler and more consistent' to just get rid of double weapons and two handed weapons entirely. Then A will always be the same.
This may be your belief but that is simply not objectively true. I have seen no comprehensive or exclusive logic for this question.
TWF uses one example with a one handed weapon in one hand and a light one handed weapon in the other. The feat was probably written for two weapon wielding rogues. In spite of 2 handed combat never mentioning damage it is assumed that all two weapon fighting follows that example. Not just for hit probability, the focus of the combat and feats, but also for combat style and hit resolution (Damage). I don't know of another 'attack roll' that determines handedness for damage.
It is not clear whether the description of how the feat functions has any bearing on another type of weapon. Any description of damage based on handedness comes from a third source (the description of weapons on p141).
These double weapons are two-handed weapons. You cannot attack with them in one hand and have them be double weapons that is plain.
The issue is the strength and intent of the feat description describing how the attacks occur. The only plainly stated weapon penalty is "The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon."
Abraham spalding wrote:
Um no. It says you have an off hand attack that uses a light weapon.
It describes two ends. It certainly doesn't say off hand attack.
Abraham spalding wrote:
That would be a second penalty beyond being 'light'. The weapon is not just in my off hand, you're penalizing my primary hand as well. Two handed weapons have better damage bonuses than single weapons - that is plain.
Abraham spalding wrote:
It has nothing to do with "if it's light or not" it's completely to do with the fact that it is a off hand attack.
"The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon."
That's pretty clear. If it said the 'small end' of the weapon were light would you rewrite the weapon to make a small end do less damage? Even if you couldn't find it in the weapon description?
Abraham spalding wrote:
It hasn't been ignored at all. Two weapon fighting is the feat and framework for this combat. The double weapon description details how the weapon changes. It attacks as if light. This is a feature of the double weapon.
Abraham spalding wrote:
fighting with two weapons means fighting with an off hand attack -- just like the rules for fighting with two weapons state.
You have a primary attack and an off hand attack. In each of these cases, as I stated, the weapons are being wielded by two hands. If you fight with it in one hand you can't use it as a double weapon. The to hit penalties make sense. That's what the special attack is about but changing the weapon form doesn't. Its just like iterative attacks the chance to hit is reduced but its still the same weapon.
Certainly if you tried to wield it with with just your off hand you'd take penalties, you couldn't even double attack. This is being fought with 2 handed though. That's where you look to determine strength damage bonus.
The two weapon fighting feat is even more clear.
Two Weapon Fighting Feat wrote:
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Chapter 8.
It explicitly talks about a attack rolls and doesn't talk about the resolved attack or damage rolls at all. The fighting style doesn't change damage except as stated in the weapon description. In this case the second attack with a double weapon is treated as a light weapon.
It is perfectly true that if you fight with two separate weapons the one if your off hand does less damage but these weapons are two handed weapons. They can't even be used one handed and still be double weapons.
You can make them one handed weapons for the purpose of dual wielding but I think you are adding rules to make two handed weapons behave as one handed weapons. Says so.
An orc double axe (15lbs) is the heaviest exotic weapon in the core rules. If using it as a light double weapon really changed its damage wouldn't it receive some sort of penalty, or something to address its weight?. The two weapon fighting feat and combat rules don't address weapon damage.
All the penalties they talk about are on your attack roll, like it says in the feat. Damage and Strength Bonus are a function of the weapon description, and that's still 2 handed and 2 handed light.
This is a friendly discussion. I hope I have supported anything that I have said.
I am not trying to be obtuse.
I have nowhere said that you get 1.5 with both ends.
You have a number of attack changes for a two handed weapon. See twf and double weapon, and combat rules. For the sake of two weapon fighting the attack is resolved as a normal attack (In this case 2 handed) and a light attack. "The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon." With TWF this gives you -2,-2 to hit.
You're still wielding a 2 handed weapon. There are rules for light 2 handed weapons.
Primary attack is 1.5
The weapon doesn't morph because you attack with it twice. You just have to attack differently with a penalty, like iterative attacks.
The entirety of the rules wrote:
Even with "A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon."
Show me a single damage reduction in the two weapon fighting rules. It says "The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon." That is the only limitation on the type of the _extra_ attack.
Table 8-5 on page 195 lists attack bonuses and modifiers. When did attack penalties become damage penalties?
The description for double weapons says _nothing_ about the primary attack. It describes an extra attack - an extra attack that is treated as a light weapon.
If I say that the extra lunch you will receive has pickles, I tell you nothing about the original lunch.
There is no logical basis for modifying the first attack which is a blow from a 2 handed weapon. People are so used to two weapon fighting being about two rapiers or kurkris etc... that I don't think they consider the merits of a double weapon properly.
A double weapon starts with two ends. It is intrinsically different from two single weapons. If you take away this extra ability is the first attack still transformed into a one handed attack? no.
Ok, In the spirit of being clear.
1. Two handed weapons are wielded with two hands and have a damage bonus for doing so.
2. Attack Penalties are just that.In and of themselves they do not affect damage rolls on a successful hit.
3. The rules for two weapon fighting state that:
"Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the offhand end of the weapon was a light weapon."
The rules for fighting with two weapons concern themselves primarily with frequency of attacks and attack penalties.
I read the above passage to mean you may swing a two handed weapon (this is the category of weapon we're talking about) normally 1.5x damage. With a double weapon you may also take a second attack in the style and frequency of two weapon fighting. Penalties apply as if the offhand side of the 2 handed weapon is light.
4. Page 141 describes the various strength bonuses to damage. A light two handed weapon receives no extra strength bonus but is _not_ 1/2 strength.
In this interpretation the frequency and chance to hit for a double weapon is modified by the attack penalties for two weapon fighting. The damage of the weapon is determined as if it is a light weapon. The double weapon does have its damage reduced for its second attack from 1.5 to 1. in a similar way that two one handed weapon goes from 1 to .5.
I don't think it says anywhere that the off handed end is treated as a one handed weapon for damage, TWF and Weapon Type discuss attack bonus\penalty only.
In two instances the rules say the off hand end is treated as 'light'. There are rules for two handed light weapon damage. They receive full strength bonus but no deductions
I am not sure that is the intent. How does this interpretation not follow your PSRD quote?
The penalties for Two-weapon fighting clearly stick to the attack bonus and frequency of attacks.
Damage definitions for Light and Normal weapons are clear within the Two Weapon fighting Rules. The core has rules for light weapons wielded in both hands - No Bonus. I think all the rules have been followed.
Double Slice is a separate feat. It's still a fine feat for single weapons.
More leverage and momentum is logical for a weapon wielded with two hands. I don't see anything that says its no longer a two handed weapon for the sake of its damage done.
Dual wielded kukri's and falcatas etc... eat double weapons for lunch. I think this is better balance too.
I think single attacks are pretty clear. What isn't clear is what changes when you use both ends of the weapon. Seemingly your other hand disappears rather than contribute.
@Abraham, I think you jump to calling it an off hand one handed weapon without support.
I don't see anything that contradicts my example.
Attack penalties - as two weapons - check
This is consistency imho.
Two weapon fighting - as if you attack with a normal and a light weapon. This is important because it's a reduction in the attack penalty.
You have to describe the weapon as handed and offhanded because the rules aren't biased to favour 'left' and 'right' hands. You have to follow the rules for Two Weapon Fighting or people would be simply doubling their attacks. The core rules draw a distinction between off handed weapons and the end of a two handed weapon. The results of the whole attack are described as:
"Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make
Notice it says 'light weapon' not "off hand weapon".
So by RAW, I read it as a two handed weapon, that gains an extra attack with one end, as a light weapon. IT makes in game sense as well. In terms of momentum and control by two limbs it should have a bonus.
Two Handed - primary 1.5 x damage
That's my reading anyway.
It's consistent with most of the game where a feature or power is added without rewriting the original.
Question: Does it say clearly anywhere that a double weapon doesn't get a _damage_ bonus for using 2 hands? I'm hoping there's something very clear so I can see if this is cheese or detail.
The description accompanying a double weapon says (PSRD*):
Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
Two-weapon combat says (PSRD):
Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon.
Damage from Strength bonus reads (PSRD):
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.
In the case of a double weapon (for the sake of this example) you are wielding it with two hands. I'm not trying to tie this into the one handed double weapon argument.
Damage is not an Attack Penalty
If the second attack is a two handed light weapon attack you don't get the strength damage bonus but do you suffer the off hand damage reduction?
It makes a certain amount of sense that you get more leverage\power with both arms (and it happens to bolster a less popular weapon style).
Two handed fighting with a Gnome Hammer:
Attack penalties - as Two weapon fighting.
Damage Penalties as a two handed medium and two handed light weapon:
1 1/2 x damage and 1 x damage.
Do you improve upon each attack by half damage?
I think your system breaks down if you allow containers full of things to be in your 'handy slot'.
I'd rather ask players to interact with their inventory and simply explain how they have made items super easily accessible.
Packing strategy has other implications for role play too - character appearance, picking pockets, concealing weapons\magic. If a player simply has two amorphous slots they don't have to consider their characters quirks.
I'm fine with a rule of thumb that a player can likely create 2-4 items they can get as a swift action.
In this case I don't think so.
You might choose to try and sleep but since there was no action on your part to give you the save chance there is no basis to resist it.
I'd probably let you use your stat bonuses as a negative just because I think you should always control your character but by RAW I think the elements of the save are autonomous and automatic.
Some DM's might even roll for you and simply say 'You wake up'.
If they were unconscious at any time in their capture, they would not get to wake up. Guards who knew they were that dangerous would not let it happen.
The only way they might get to survive would be some sort of Running Man thing where they are given a path to certain death rather than execution.
I don't think you were unreasonable. Whats to learn, you steal from a town it fights back. Don't steal or don't get caught.
Snorter might have a point.
I can see them crippled and then killed by the new sheriff in the town square. Wouldn't even be a judgment thing just a reputation exercise. The town will not feel safe if they think the guards are defenseless and the guards will want to nail them to a wall somewhere to save face.
Quantum Steve wrote:
I give Paladins full wizard and cleric spell progressions, in addition to their spells and Paladins still suck, there's just no helping them.
And everything they touch becomes good aligned and all non good aligned characters burst into flames when the touch them. My paladins spend most of their time 'shopping'.
Your problem is that the 50% rule is really there to deal with the abstraction of the simulation not punish the players. If you allow players to sell for full price you have to detail, taxes, labour costs, security concerns, theft, competition etc.... All of these things should be the typical limitations of caring about every penny. Somebody else deals with all that if you don't look too greedily at selling items etc...
If players can sell at 100% you also optimize all the party resources because there is no penalty for upgrading their gear and they can look to buy precisely what helps them the most. At 100% sale price the whole party sells any weird magic items in favour of items with the best mechanical advantage. Effectively every member of the party gets the benefit. There is no penalty for upgrading. Adventure hoards might as well be only gold pieces because it is ultimately liquid wealth.
I have played merchant characters and simply expected that the mechanical advantage I received from being a merchant was expressed in business perks not money. In the end I think that was more fun for the whole party. I didn't have to worry about trivia and the story progressed without my character becoming an item clearing house.
It is not reasonable to give them a simple percentage gain. Most players don't merchant in game time. It shouldn't be a simple carrot that says give me more money than the next guy.
If they want higher profits let them take bonuses on personal skills and give them the option to follow business ideas.
I could see them get a bonus on the availability of merchandise and\or magic items by knowing the right people to ask. I'd stop short of significantly changing the buy\sell price by a fixed amount. If I did allow price change I'd probably allow a skill check against a table of bonuses. You could use a challenged skill check like bluff or stealth (obviously not with those skills though).
Most adventurers handle more magic that 95% of the merchants in the game. A merchant class is not necessarily about magic at all.
You'd be better off to give them a rising pool of wealth that they can call on as a dividend for being rich\connected. The money can be used for lifestyle and story elements but not for magic weapons and mechanical advantage. There would be a percentage they could happily spend on the finer things and the expectation that they'd pay back most of what they borrowed before they were allowed to get more. I think some of the noble classes did this in 3.x publications.
The DM does a great many things the players simply don't want to know about, much less do. The DM is the binding on the book of the adventure and the players are the words. They are both related but each player relies on the DM to lead and surprise - a benevolent dictator.
The story is not about the DM and every DM has to learn that. At the same time the DM holds the camera and sets the stage. Eventually, democratic gameplay can be without suspense or surprise. Its also not how D&D was designed.
I think tables should rotate who is the DM and that is a democratic influence. If your players know how much work it is they are usually more agreeable and everyone has more fun.
So that's my favourite answer.
Serial Benevolent Dictatorship
By all means make it easy for you to not duplicate your efforts.
I realize you guys have a lot of products but a window to respond to each product's shortfalls seems a reasonable thing especially if you have subscribers who trust you guys for a high quality product. "Product Discussion" would be a very logical place for the consumer.
It's not really a centralization issue because you're going to want the responder to be familiar with that product anyway.
In your shoes, I might even remove the product discussion thread if its not possible to answer questions etc... They'll just turn into a gripe session if people feel ignored.
I wanted to send you this as a private message but I couldn't see how to do that either.
Wow that seems very 1950's. Its a simple request that remedies their publishing mistake. I don't mean to sound critical but this should happen here, yesterday.
Of course they are busy etc.... but really are they watching customer reactions?
The answer is in line with the detail of your role play. Were you active in the other religion, have contacts, identity, favourite haunts? If its purely a mechanical advantage and that's all its ever been you can pretty it up but its much the same.
If you haven't drawn a religion into your character identity and this is a chance to do so I'd certainly approve if I were the DM. This should be an RP opportunity not a failing, especially if you aren't a Cleric or Paladin.
Put some creativity into it and send your DM a plan that will knock his socks off. Don't forget to include how you are ending relationships with your old religion. Perhaps you can find leaders, haunts and causes for your new religion as you say goodby to old.
55 - A scroll case, vial of ink, a small knife and a quill. The case is empty.
56 - a fine bronze bust of a humanoid (1-4 - human 5 - elf 6 - dwarf) the bust seems meant to sit on a table or alter. It is carefully made with delicate features but is otherwise unadorned.
57 - a spoiled bag of food.
58 - 3 sharpened stakes and a holy symbol inside a blood soaked bag.