Soverayne's page

Agreed Other Guy. People whine but spells were so optimal to begin with.

If it's not a buff, it's crap!?

Maybe people will stop complaining about casters being completely gimped by the new action economy rules then. This seems to balance it out...and then some.

So, with this system does it mean you can cast 3 spells every 2 turns (provided you do nothing else)?

On page 102...

Advanced actions are more complicated; you must

commit 2 or more acts to perform them. Some advanced
actions require more acts than you can possibly commit
during a single turn. In this case, you must continue
committing acts toward that advanced action over
multiple turns until the advanced action is complete.

On page 105 under Advanced Actions...

Cast a Standard-Action Spell (Complex; 2 Acts): You

cast a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action. This
isn’t an attack action, even if the spell requires a ranged
attack roll. If you provoke attacks of opportunity when
casting the spell, you don’t provoke attacks a second time
when making the ranged attack roll

So does this mean you can spend 2/3 of your actions to cast the first spell, then start casting the second with 1/3...then complete it on the 1/3 of your next turn and then do another spell with the last 2/3?

I know Swift Spells are limited to once per turn but are standard actions limited in any such way?

No, I mean regular spells. Not quickened.

Each "Cast a Standard Action Spell" takes 2 actions. Just spread 3 spells over 2 turns.

So, with this new system could you...

Does this mean you can cast 3 spells per two turns?

It specifically states you can spread Advanced Actions over multiple turns.

Turn 1, Spend 2/3 on spell. Spend 1 on next spell.

Turn 2, Spend 1/3 on previous spell to cast. Spend another 2/3 to cast second spell.

??

Well I don't know what alignment your group is summoning but a protection from X will prevent any of those from being effective.

Protection from X is pretty standard on all peeps in our game; a potion of protection prevents mind control as well.

This is a partial help because if you don't summon alignment based creatures it doesn't help much; but most of those outsider summons are pretty boss.

The reason it is there is because they are "Rakes" but because you only get them on grappling it would be unfair for them to be considered two attacks towards your maximum limit. Claws counts as two attacks, bite counts as one, slam counts as one, wing buffets counts as two, hooves counts as two, tentacle counts as one, pincers counts as two. But rakes counts as one. The reason it is stated as counting as one is not to limit the number of times you can attack with them, it is because they are a special case where you get two attacks toward your evolution limit at the cost of one because they can't be used like normal attacks.

Every other evolution gives attacks in a ratio of 1:1 while Rake gives them at a ratio of 2:1, hence the unique text.

-------------------

Max. Attacks

"This indicates the maximum number of natural attacks that the eidolon is allowed to possess at the given level. If the eidolon is at its maximum, it cannot take evolutions that grant additional natural attacks. This does not include attacks made with weapons."

It does not limit the number of times you can attack. It has nothing to do with the usage of the natural attacks. It simply limits the evolutions you can take.

Ok I think you are convincing me here. But let me see if I have this straight: If you have claws that counts as possessing 2 attacks, bite is one, hooves are 2, etc.

If the above statement is correct I see where you are coming from. And while that doesn't limit the number of attacks you can make in a round it's pretty close (rake being the tipper here).

However, and I apologize I derailed this a bit with not understanding it, are you going to get all these extra rake attacks by adding more limbs(arms) evolution with more claws evolution?

Because claws can only be applied once to the limbs(legs) evolution. Which means a quadruped pouncing will only have 2 claw attacks. Which means only 2 possible grab attempts since you have to specify which kind of attacks grab works on?

IF this is the case I think again my original conclusion holds true...you are spending alot of evolution points to get something that does really great damage but you sacrifice other areas as well.

Natural Attack limit doesn't limit the number of times you can deal damage per round, it just limits the number of evolutions you can take that add natural attacks. I shouldn't need to take Rake multiple times...

Pathfinder SRD wrote:

"This indicates the maximum number of natural attacks that the eidolon is allowed to possess at the given level. If the eidolon is at its maximum, it cannot take evolutions that grant additional natural attacks. This does not include attacks made with weapons."

I agree. You only need to take it once. Rake says anytime you succeed on a grapple check. And with Grab you have to choose what attack it works with (claws). But what I didn't notice is that you can only select claws once for legs. So you couldn't pounce with a quadruped's back legs as claw attacks.

As for number of attacks the SRD seems pretty plain to me.

This indicates the maxiumum number of natural attacks that the eidolon is allowed to possess at the given level.

That is number of attacks, not number of evolution attacks. No other evolution (see Claws, see Hooves, see Pincers, see Sting, see Tail Slap, see Tentacle, see Wing Buffet, and see Gore) has the text that Rake does:

An eidolon grows dangerous claws on its feet, allowing it to make 2 rake attacks on foes it is grappling. These attacks are primary attacks. The eidolon receives these additional attacks each time it succeeds on a grapple check against the target. These rake attacks deal 1d4 points of damage (1d6 if Large, 1d8 if Huge). This evolution is only available to eidolons of the quadruped base form. This evolution counts as one natural attack toward the eidolon’s maximum. The summoner must be at least 4th level before selecting this evolution

Emphasis mine.

So an Eidolon can never attack more times than this number (the exception as far as I'm concerned is Rake since it clearly stated it in the SRD. And that line was added as a FAQ from this thread here:
Eidolon-Rake-Maximum-Attacks

Honestly each Rake attack could be considered a separate attack by any DM that counts towards the maximum number of attacks an Eidolon can make in a given round if they wanted to be mean but I always err on the side of the player.

Really now that I go over it again with a quadruped with pounce you can only have 2 claw attacks to grab with on the legs unless you start adding more limbs(arms) for claws to go on.

Which again gets into spending a lot of evolution points.

Brf wrote:

The Rake rule for Eidolons is confusing, but I am pretty sure that Rake is only supposed to be applied when you do the "Damage" option for your grapple, which is a separate action from combat maneuver that gives you the grappled condition.

That's the confusing part. Rake, Rend, Pounce, Grab, etc. All have counterparts in the universal rules for creatures.

Pounce: Lacks the same language as universal. From the FAQ this is considered a different ability.

Rake: According to the FAQ it follows its own rules.

Grab: No ruling thus far.

Rend: Works the same as the universal rend.

I have no idea what the intent of the rules are because they're so convoluted. But... the only ruling we have on Rake is the following:

"2. The eidolon version follows the eidolon rules." - Jason Bulmahn

If that's the case then Rake should work every single time a grapple check is successful.

"An eidolon grows dangerous claws on its feet, allowing it to make 2 rake attacks on foes it is grappling. These attacks are primary attacks. The eidolon receives these additional attacks each time it succeeds on a grapple check against the target. These rake attacks deal 1d4 points of damage (1d6 if Large, 1d8 if Huge). This evolution is only available to eidolons of the quadruped base form. This evolution counts as one natural attack toward the eidolon’s maximum. The summoner must be at least 4th level before selecting this evolution."

So... what is a "check"? Like I linked in my OP, the Grab evolution, Greater Grapple, and Improved Grapple all give bonuses to grapple "checks". If they're meant to work on the very first grapple, then technically Rake should as well.

Meaning this tactic for colossal damage output is legal. But I don't want to use it if I'm wrong.

FOR THE GRAB ISSUE:

Since the Eidolon has a specific rule that changes how its Grab ability works it overrides any conflicting rules in the Universal Monster Ability.

FOR THE RAKE ISSUE:

Well the evolution counts as a natural attack. So every time you use the 2 free attacks that counts as a natural attack.

So if you pounce you could Claw, Grapple, Rakex2. That is 2 natural attacks (the good thing on the rake is you get 2 for 1 because it specifically states the evolution is only 1 attack for the 2 rakes).

Let's look at a summoner's eidolon max attacks at different levels:
1) 3 Max Natural Attacks
5) 4 Max Natural Attacks
10) 5 Max Natural Attacks
15) 6 Max Natural Attacks
20) 7 Max Natural Attacks

So at level 10, for example. You could charge and Bite, Claw, Rake, Claw, Rake and you are done.

If at level 20, you invested into Rake, and 2x claws evolution you could choose not to bite and instead Claw, Rake, Claw, Rake, Claw, Rake, Claw. You could not Rake again as you've hit the maximum number of natural attacks.

Granted each Rake above is 2 attacks which amounts to good but not crazy damage.

That being said this seems perfectly legal (if a bit cheesy). Generally monsters that grab maintain their grapples but I see where this is more advantageous.

In addition your Eidolon can only use this ability against something at least one size smaller than it. Which limits its effectiveness as monsters quickly grow in size and Eidolon's must spend alot of points to increase it's size.

To get 2 Claw Evolutions (2 pts), Grab (2 pts), Rake (2 pts), Large (4 pts), and flying (2 pt) it costs a total of 12 evolution points which means you are at least 9th level (8th level for races that add 1/4 pts) and at this level you have no ability increase, no natural armor increase. You sacrifice alot to gain this damage.

Honestly I think it's pretty balanced for what it costs. I just think maybe you think you are getting the rakes for free but Eidolon's are always constrained by their natural attack limit.

Just take leadership and take a monster cohort.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCohorts.html

Griffon. Cohort level 8.

You use your extra feats for a feat. You can now fly.

Stop crying.

Sorry Tom S 820. You are wrong.

Should have kept reading under that link.

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Second part quickly defines that a larger sized weapon steps up a level. Therefore a large greatsword is unusable for a medium character.

Got to be the Bandersnatch. Kind of high CR but the thing is vicious mean.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary3/bandersnatch.html#_bandersnatc h

Has the player even expressed concern over her fighting capabilities?

I know it's alien for some people but many players are perfectly happy being just average in power or even sub-optimal if it suits their play style and role play.

Just want to make sure.

Arkwright Wrote:

I was hoping that the bag's extra-dimensionality-timey-wimey nature allowed anything to go in and out...

I've played games where we house ruled that and it makes sense but the bags themselves say that sharp objects can pierce their non-dimensional spaces from inside (destroying) them which even though they are larger means they are just as fragile as a real bag. Which would mean the openings are restrictive.

But play whatever way is fun.

You can't put skeletal elephants in a bag of holding 4. Sure the actual volume fits but the elephant could never get into the bag's opening. Even though the other side of the bag may be large enough the bag itself is 2 feet by 4 feet.

That's a 2 foot opening I'd think and even if it was 4 feet skeletal elephant can't squeeze through either. It might just be bones but you can't break it apart and stick it in one bone at a time.

Skeletons are not amorphous. It's the same reason water elementals can't flow through cracks without DM intervention.

But if your DM is crazy enough to allow it rock on. Just didn't know if you realized that.

I'd think if my best friend IRL told me my children were demons, I'd still get a second opinion...

I don't think people understand that a charmed person isn't thinking clearly. It's not something you can really wrap your head around. You might never be able to imagine doing harm to your children even under those absurd claims but a charmed creatures as per the PRD:

Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.

Your not dominated but your perceptions, your thoughts are not the same. It's not mind control but it is brainwashing.

This isn't just friendship. This is magical friendship. But to each their own on interpretations. That's why DM fiat exists. I've seen some people convinced of some insane things just by people in real life (cults, etc.) where they will disown children and this is from people who are just good speakers.

Maybe you can't imagine it but people are weak-willed.

Charm is that powerful. It really does let you command someone to do nearly anything.

The "Friendly" it turns you is so far beyond what is listed on the diplomacy chart. You are their most trusted friend and ally.

You can command a person to kill his wife but the spell clearly states you must convince them. So you, who are their best friend beyond any other tells them, "I saw your wife cheating on you. Dirty woman deserves to die. You should end her to teach her a lesson."

At this point two things happen.
1. Opposed Charisma Check to convince them to do something they normally wouldn't.
2. You gave them an order to commit an act they are violently opposed to (assuming they had a good relationship) and they get another save.

At this point the person has failed:
1. A will save to be charmed.
2. An opposed charisma check.
3. A third will save.

1st level spell or not that's alot of chances to roll high on the dice. And if you have a 15th level character charming commoners well, that's just mean and they will never pass anyway.

Tels is absolutely right. You can command people with Charm but it is much more difficult to do. The charm section of the PRD is very clear.

I know you loose the spell but does it do you also provoke? I've always thought that if you fail not to provoke ... you still provoke but I am reconsidering my thought process.

If you fail to cast defensively you do not provoke; you LOSE the spell but you do not provoke. There is a fighter feat called Spellbreaker in the core rulebook that allows them to attack those that do fail to cast defensively.

Spellbreaker (Combat)

You can strike at enemy spellcasters who fail to cast defensively when you threaten them.

Prerequisites: Disruptive, 10th-level fighter.

Benefit: Enemies in your threatened area that fail their checks to cast spells defensively provoke attacks of opportunity from you.

Normal: Enemies that fail to cast spells defensively do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

I first came across this while viewing a flow-chart under the grapple rules at www.d20pfsrd.com. I know that its not an official site but it gave me pause.

To quote the pathfinder Tie-Up rules:

Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check.

So is it possible it reads like this:

Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin.

Sentence stops. Start of new thought:

If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check.

Since it says grappling and grappling is independent of pin: basically if you pin someone you can tie them up with no check. And if you are just grappling you can attempt to tie-up without pinning first but you must make a -10 CMB check.

Which way is right? I have played that you must first pin, then make a -10 check. However, when I stop to read it I can see how it could be read the other way.

Remember that you are not versus your players. Many new GMs make the mistake of thinking like a player in that you want to win.

YOU, the GM, are showcasing the players. If they WTF stomp your encounter its ok as long as they have fun doing it. Take what you learned to the encounter building table for next time. Do not arbitrarily nerf your characters if you can avoid it. It's all about having fun for everyone.

Design a premise and tell all the players to build a character that fits the concept: example...

A great time of troubles have settled over the Kingdom of NAME; monsters rampage through the countryside and bandits prowl on the roads. You, and your companions, have joined forces to put an end to these villainous times or die trying.

Something like that before or during character creation will generally make players build a character to the theme of co-operation that you want. Also making restrictions on good and promoting general teamwork also helps for new-DMs.

I would also pre-face the game for any power-gamers or min-maxers you might have with the following: "I don't mind if you power game. You are supposed to beat my monsters. But please think of your fellow players and try not to ruin the fun for them. It is never fun to feel useless. Think of them."

I think those are the major pitfalls new DMs run into as far as promoting overall co-operative play and overall fun. There are rules to learn and tricks to employ but you can learn those as you go. What I just said really should be said before the game starts rather than part way through.

I think you are confusing the RPG alignment system with actual morality.

Let me explain, the game is setup black and white. There is good and there is evil; there is law and there is chaos. Neutral would be gray but in this game it is more the ability to do either or at your own discretion as long as you balance it by doing the opposite just as much.

It's not the greatest system but it does alleviate alot of problems that morality brings up that have no easy answer and have been debated philosophically for ages...examples:

Is it good or evil to kill a single innocent child to save 100 people? 1,000 people? Millions?

Is it Lawful or Chaotic to break the law of a country to do something you know will benefit the society by deposing some corrupt politician who is using the law as a shield but really hasn't broken any laws?

See what I'm saying? The world is not so easily chopped into 9 alignments but it does help by stopping such arguments from disrupting the game.

In much the same problem the game of pathfinder and D&D have races that are inherently evil or good, etc. A goblin is 99% of the time evil; a solar is 99% good. All races that are not suitable for player characters are usually assumed to be of a specific alignment with little to no chance of choosing their own alignment. So killing a goblin begging for its life isn't evil because its evil.

Again, doesn't make sense in the real world but is there to bypass difficult questions that no constructed system can possibly quantify.

The alignment system isn't perfect but it does its job.

Paul Miller 769 wrote:

Sun Tzu would say to go for the leader true but if the real leader is the players so thats not a real option.

In Pathfinder or any d20 game. The only commodity more valuable than the gold piece is the action.

If the minions can cause damage or disrupt they are targets. Generally they will be less resilient than players. Removing them will proportionately reduce damage/disruption and remove actions.

Its always better to kill what is easy to kill first to remove enemies than to try to focus characters (be they BBEG's or Players) that will have higher defenses.

If your looking to really sock it to them look for spells that alter the terrain, especially if they all cannot fly. A grease spell works great as does entangling roots or spike stones. Slow down the melee and have a wizard ready to counterspell the casters or cast wind wall for the ranged.

Sun Tzu would make the determination on the threat he was facing rather than adhere to any rigid doctrine.

Seriously - let's say that you're the big bad guy, you're evil and you have some minor common DR (like 5/magic).

Now let's say that you are being charged by a Paladin who can Smite Evil, bypass damage resistance, deal tremendous amounts of damage to you and poses a very real and immediate threat. Meanwhile, you're also being peppered by many arrows from archers who will be lucky to penetrate your armor class and if they do will have pretty much all of their damage nullified by your damage resistance.

Who do you want to spend your time taking out? Its either take little to no damage from the archers while you deal with the Paladin or take tremendous amounts of damage from the Paladin while you deal with the archers. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I love how you quote me saying, "If they can deal damage or disrupt." and then counter my argument with my own caveat clause. Very good reading comprehension there.

Sun Tzu would say to go for the leader true but if the real leader is the players so thats not a real option.

In Pathfinder or any d20 game. The only commodity more valuable than the gold piece is the action.

If the minions can cause damage or disrupt they are targets. Generally they will be less resilient than players. Removing them will proportionately reduce damage/disruption and remove actions.

Its always better to kill what is easy to kill first to remove enemies than to try to focus characters (be they BBEG's or Players) that will have higher defenses.

If your looking to really sock it to them look for spells that alter the terrain, especially if they all cannot fly. A grease spell works great as does entangling roots or spike stones. Slow down the melee and have a wizard ready to counterspell the casters or cast wind wall for the ranged.

Paul Miller 769 wrote:

In addition, cremation is far more expensive. I do not believe you realize just how much heat and fuel it takes to perform a full cremation.

Actually I do. It was significantly less money to cremate my mother after she had passed than to bury her. On a factor of 1/10th the cost of burial in a modestly priced casket, including the burial cost of her ashen remains.

While I see a lot of arguments against the concept I don't see too many taking a viewpoint of the evolution of an actual fantasy world. Most just reply that since it happens in our world it should happen there too, but there are two hugely important factors that don't apply in our world: We don't have real undead or real magic that are publically proven on a mass level.

Magic could easily (and I would assume far more cheaply than we can technologically) make a 'Cremation Cabinet" that could disintegrate a dead body put into it that would last entire ages without requiring fuel or expense past initial construction and that could have a limitation constructed in of only affecting unliving matter placed inside it.

I still think it would be something most societies would adopt. While you cannot stamp out all undead if you eliminate the vast maojority of usuable bodies you certainly curtail their ability to exist.

Yes cremation would be cheaper in a present day situation. We have crematoriums that create intense heat as our understanding of induction and thermodynamics allows us to do so. Also, with the earth so overcrowded land is at a premium.

In a fantasy world, at least your standard fantasy medieval world that is, land is not expensive or difficult to find. Civilization is a few cities and villages dotted amongst the landscape of a sea of wilderness.

And looking at the evolution of an actual fantasy world, as I did, your assuming the vast majority of people would have access to magic. Magic is probably easy to find in a metropolis, of which there is possibly 1-2 per continent. In a world with orcs, goblins, dragons, and other monstrous races that can lay waste to cities civilization will not and cannot grow past a certain point.

I guess if you want to play in a high magic setting where mages are everywhere it would be different but most people understand that a wizard takes years to learn his craft and that sorcerers are one in 10,000...if that common. And most wizards never go above 3rd level. Believe it or not people usually don't go looking for trouble. They prefer to stay where its safe. It's a survival mechanism.

Adventurers are rare. By my estimate there are probably less than 200 adventurers active at any time in a typical fantasy world like Toril. These people are the exceptional. People like our Lance Armstrong, Patton, heroes.

Maybe I'm off base. But that's how I see it. And even if wizard's were commonplace. Never underestimate the power of the almighty gold piece. People don't do anything for free. Ever. Nature of the human condition.

Just because something is pragmatic doesn't mean its going to happen; especially with human(oid) culture.

In addition, cremation is far more expensive. I do not believe you realize just how much heat and fuel it takes to perform a full cremation.

Despite what movies show the human body will not just burn itself away if lit on fire. You will get a charred hunk of fat and sinew like an overcooked steak.

Burying a body is economical and in reality, ecological as well, as it returns precious nutrients to the soil that worms and other recycling insects in turn spread to the surrounding area.

There are so many reasons to bury over cremate its not surprising. Even in a world with necromancers.

And I have to say that in the dark ages people believed in necromancers and the undead; yet they still buried the dead.

Also, under Wish and miracle in your program it doesn't show the list of choices you can make for a wish or miracle.

I just found this program and I am blown away. Gratitude and admiration all around to you Kyle Olson.

That being said, is there any plan or way to add custom spells and feats to the system? SOme of the games I play in grandfather a little of the old 3.X stuff in to mix it up and I just thought I'd ask if there is anyway I can enter my own things.

Keep up the good work.

Should play the witch based on Sleeping Beauty rather.

Her name is Maleficent.

Which is a play on the words

Malefic (Evil; malicious) and Magnificent.

Truly one of the best Disney villains ever made in my opinion.

My group rules that if your hasted and you vital strike you get another dice to the damage. An extra dice isn't alot of damage and the hasted attack would be at max to hit anyway so we all think its pretty balanced that way.