Taem's page

Well, I guess I had already made up my mind before I even wrote that post, so I'm a bit jaded. The monster they are fighting is this one from the d20 pathfinder srd: Link . I was not about to let them fight a CR 11 monster and defeat it so easily! One attack a round for a CR 11 monster seems a bit low. They are making short work of it [the dread wraith] without using these type of tactics, so I had to improvise.

Thanks for all the input guys!

I don't see how you draw that ruling from the bolded line. It specifically says that spells and magic weapons do half damage. Your interpretation halves the non-magical and elemental damage, while leaving the enhancement bonus unhalved.

The way it works (and you're free to house-rule it differently), is that anything that would bypass DR/magic does half damage, and anything that wouldn't does no damage. Shooting a crossbow bolt from magical crossbow makes the bolt with all the non-elemental damage it does a magic weapon, and it'll do it's full damage to a monster with DR/magic (it doesn't do 1d8+3(crossbow mastery), subtract the amount of DR, then add +3 from the magic). Likewise, it'll do it's full damage (halved) to an incorporeal monster. The elemental damage (which bypasses DR/magic because it's elemental damage) is delivered separately, and is also halved unless it's force damage, the same way spells are.

Right, I actually ruled that way initially because I figured, "if the weapon has a "+" on it, it's a magical weapon... so all damage from it is magical." And then I halved the elemental damage. But then I started over-thinking it and realized that the elemental damage was not magical like a fireball is, but elemental as per its own description, and also realized that the physical attack of the weapon is physical, not magical. The "+" from the magic supposedly helps you hit better by aiming more true, thus the +attack/damage, so the weapon itself does not do magical damage, but physical damage enhanced by a better strike from the magic itself. Thus the only real magical damage is from the "+" itself! Anyways, I think your deciphering is correct to the letter of the law, but I think mine makes more sense in the game... and anyways, it's making the battle last a bit longer also :D .

One more question:

The Dread Wraith was taking a bit of damage, so the DW and it's spawn, being above average intelligence, went down into the earth waiting for the wizards multiple Ball Lightening spells duration to end, then both of them came up from the ground and attacked another summon, but this time I ruled since they are incorporeal, they occupied the same space as said creature with the intention of giving themselves 50% cover, so if they were attacked, there would be a 50% chance to hit them, and a 50% chance to hit the summon.

I see nothing in the rules that says incorporeal creatures can't occupy the same space as corporeal creatures, so do you think I did this right?

Thanks guys. Life saver! We ended the session a little early. The dread wraith managed to spawn two additional normal wraiths from monsters the characters summoned to protect them from the wraiths - oh the irony!

Anyways, after a little research, I think you are all wrong and right at the same time!

From the Pathfinder SRD

Incorporeal (Ex)

An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source. Although it is not a magical attack, holy water affects incorporeal Undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature (except for channel energy). Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.

From what I see here, any magical spell or magical attack that is based on corporeal means, such as elemental or physical damage, is reduced by half, but pure magic damage does full damage. This means his crossbow actually deals 1d8 (crossbow: physical) + 1d6 (sonic: elemental) + 1d6 (fire: elemental) +3 (crossbow mastery: gains +1/2 dex modifier to damage) and all of this damage is divided by two. THEN you add in the +3 magical damage from the crossbow itself because THIS is not divisible, since it is non-corporeal. Anyways, this is how we resolved combat for this.

As for elemental fire and sonic being magical, I think you are incorrect. The fireball spell specifically says it is "magical fire", whereas the fire from the greater crystal specifically says it is only "elemental fire". Not sure about the sonic, but I believe it is also elemental and not magical by nature, perhaps emanating from the elemental plane of energy to get its power?

My players are currently fighting a Dread Wraith.

The creature is incorporeal, and says only magical weapons can hit it.

One of my players has a crossbow +3 with the sonic (+1d6 sonic) affix on it, and a greater crystal of fire attached (+1d6 fire). If I'm understanding the descriptions of the affix and crystal correctly, they add elemental damage respectively, but not magical damage, such as with fireball. This says to me that the most the player with the crossbow can deal is 1d8 (crossbow damage) +3 per fired bolt.

Is this correct?

But then I got to thinking, and the actual damage from the bolt is physical. So technically, only +3 damage would be inflicted with each hit.

But then I got to thinking even more, and technically, the bolt itself is non-magical, only the crossbow...

Help! Not sure what to do!

I would REALLY like to see an Epic Level Book from PF!!!

Having said, that, in my group, we allow for endless levels, however to balance this out, we have a static amount of hit points starting at a very low level which only increases with magical items or very slightly with physical attributes point increases. This works well for us.

The only trouble is at a certain point, it becomes a numbers fest in regards to attacking and defending, but this is true even at 10th level, so I see no difference.

What I'd like to see is new rules for Epic Feats, Epic Spell Casting, Epic Skills, etc... I really want this book!

Hi, my friend is playing an alchemist, and enjoying it(he is usually the fighter) and a question came up this week at the game...

How far can an alchemist throw a bomb? The confusing wording is that the range is listed as just that. The range. It is not listed as a range increment as most thrown weapons are.

Don't all thrown objects have a range of 10'? Considering the "blast" radius of those bombs, the thrown range has got to be bigger. I thought I saw it, but don't have the book in front of me ATM.

Taem wrote:

I think you are mistaken:

What I mean to say is that if you ever prepare more than 4 spells in the morning, then each spell is taking less than 15 minutes.

Therefore, there's something of gestalt effect for morning prep, where doing it all-at-once takes less time than 15 minutes per spell prepared.

So from the perspective of the discussion, the amount of time it takes to prepare a given spell is variable depending on the context of the preparation.

Unless you want to go ahead and say that the time is NOT variable, you're just able to "overlap" preparations by multitasking, much as a chef can cook several dishes at the same time. I think that's a totally valid explanation.

I can agree with that. But tell me, how do you feel about spontaneous casting with this system, such as a rogue-talent or feat of arcane magic? Assuming an arcane spell requires at least a certain amount of minutes of preparation time, isn't spontaneous casting a direct contradiction to this very principle of preparation? I like your guys' ideas of a magical weave btw. Very Forgotten Realmsish.

Taem wrote:

Spell Preparation Time: A "single" spell takes at least 15-minutes to prepare. To prepare all of your spells takes one-hour!

That does go in support of my statement that individual spell prep doesn't have a fixed time. It's 15 minutes, unless you prepare it with your other spells, in which case it's a lot shorter. That implies some sophisticated relationship between spells when you are preparing them — something beyond simply adding together the prep time for each spell.

I think you are mistaken:

Preparing some smaller portion of his daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state.

The minimum time for even one spell is 15-minutes.

Charender wrote:

Lets say, for example, a fireball take 5 minutes to completely cast, but I stop the casting at the last step, and leave the spell hanging. Why can't I just cast a fireball from my spellbook, and it takes 5 minutes + a standard action? Why does a wizard need rest to prepare spells?

Well, you're adding phenomena that aren't described in the system. That's cool, but look at it this way: it never says fireball taxes X minutes to prepare. It could be that all spells are prepared simultaneously in a ritual that always takes an hour regardless of the spells you prepare. You might not be "casting" these spells so much as constructing them in a ritual and storing them for later, where casting is merely the trigger.

Spell Preparation Time: A "single" spell takes at least 15-minutes to prepare. To prepare all of your spells takes one-hour!

More discussion about it here. I questioned how spontaneous casting would work with these rules, or feats/rogue-talents which allow you to use a spell spontaneously "x"-times per day.

Taem wrote:

Play with spell points instead. The D&D magic system is terrible.

It makes me so happy you can play with MMO inspired magic systems and I can play with a real, elegant, near-perfect magic system. You know, like the one in the PF core rules.

Well, to be honest, my group has played with a modified and well play-tested version of spell points since Players Option: Spells and Magic. If done right, I really don't see much avenues for abuse - and we've used the system for years! It allows much more freedom for spells, and fits most typical fantasy settings for spells and magic better than the standard d&d magic system. Like I said, it's a system we prefer.

So, in reality, it takes Casting Time + Preparation Time to cast a spell, so no spell is really less than 15 minutes. Interesting. This should make spontaneous arcane casting impossible under current rules since the actual cast time is 15-min + cast time! Does this cause any contradictions?

I understand better how PF tried to distance itself from the whole d&d model, but the old concepts are still there, regardless of the sugar and spice.

Taem wrote:

The entire concept of how D&D handles spells is broken IMO. Why would you roll a spellcraft check to "learn" a spell which you must "memorize" at the start of every day, only to forget it the second you cast it? And if you lost your spell book and had to start over, [WHY] should you be able to transpose your old spells into a new book if you have never truly "memorized" them? What is the spellcraft check for when learning new spells? Useless... Play with spell points instead. The D&D magic system is terrible.

Way to go radically off-topic to rant about a pet peeve of yours.

I'd rebut you, but, see off-topic. Short version: you're railing against a strawman version of the D&D magic system that you perhaps even believe is the actual system, but isn't.

Calm down there tiger. This is the general discussion thread, not the rules thread. I feel what I mentioned fits inline with this general discussion, unless for whatever reason, my perception of magic in Pathfinders threatens the way you perceive the game in some way. If not, then take a hike - I wasn't talking to you anyways.

@Topic: Does it say in PF that each wizard has a different way of writing the same spell, like I spell APPLE, but you spell it APLLE? If not, then I don't see how each spell would not be very similar, if not identical for copying and learning purposes. If so, then what about it is so unique as to require one hour of study to understand a spell you already know? The handwriting? The texture? Did the caster add some personal flair to the spell? If so, why can't this be easily ignored? I'm sure a spells structure is similar to grammatics or arithmetic.. it's got to follow some rules and guidelines, right? Else magic would be unusable.

@RavingDork: Strictly playing RAW, if you lost your own spellbook, you could use somebody else's with spells you've already learned so long as you follow those rules.

Taem wrote:

Why would you roll a spellcraft check to "learn" a spell which you must "memorize" at the start of every day, only to forget it the second you cast it?

Please point out a single reference to memorizing spells in D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, or Pathfinder.

Go on, I've got time.

The twentieth century called, it wants its rant back.

Forgive me. 2nd edition terminology applied to the same sacred cow with a different name. If you guys can't see through the smoke and mirrors, then I've got nothing for you.

Under Wizard: Spells, the wizard must "prepare" his spells ahead of time at the beginning of the day. "Preparing" a spell takes 8-hours of rest and 15-minutes to 1-hour to consume a spell-slot... how original. I wasn't aware finding your spell components took so much time.

Wizards also must have access to their spellbooks to study from...

Adding Spells to a Wizards Spell Book and Spellcraft state that you have learned and understand how to use the spell. Tell me, why is a spellbook necessary if your character has already "learned" and "understands" the spell? Can anybody tell me what "preparation" actually means if not "memorization"? How exactly do you prepare a spell slot to accept a spell?

If you still cannot see the similarities, then I cannot help you.

The entire concept of how D&D handles spells is broken IMO. Why would you roll a spellcraft check to "learn" a spell which you must "memorize" at the start of every day, only to forget it the second you cast it? And if you lost your spell book and had to start over, [WHY] should you be able to transpose your old spells into a new book if you have never truly "memorized" them? What is the spellcraft check for when learning new spells? Useless... Play with spell points instead. The D&D magic system is terrible.

Typically, I like playing characters that require a lot of role-playing, i.e. Rogues and Bards. Heavy fighter types are also fun as no-brainer tanks. Recently, I've enjoyed the Alchemist, and would also highly recommend that class! It is unique, new, and fun - not just a rehash of different core class skills.

Thanks guys, that answers my questions.

...if cast on someones nose? Back in AD&D, we used to have a wizard who abused this spell to no end. I see in Pathfinders, it gets no saving throw, but what about if you made the focal point on someones nose? The obvious side-effects being temporary blindness.

I want to include the AD&D version of Greek fire in my campaigns, but on a much more realistic level! Greek Fire was similar to how Napalm works now, a thick gel-type resin that burned for a long time before extinguishing, unable to be put out by water (rumored to actually react violently to water). It was mostly used in navel battles and is historical fact.

As a DM, I want to include Greek Fire in a historical campaign setting, but instead of naval battles, I want to have the stuff above the catwalk surrounding a castle, near the entrance where boiling oil would be poured. I need some rules ideas for damage to characters trying to use a battering ram to break the castle gates when this stuff is sprayed at them!

Thanks for suggestions ahead of time.

Snorter wrote:

The biggest headache, as a GM, regarding swarms, is the continuation of the 3.5 rules that each is a 4-square entity.

Perhaps for pen&paper games. I play with a VTT so all of the tracking is done for me. No muss, no fuss. :)

That has got to be one of the coolest programs I have seen to date!

Taem wrote:

What happens when fighting on a greased surface, because fighting is not the same as walking?

Nothing. "Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed."

I'm not sure I would agree with this based on the description of combat being a fluid flow of attack, defend, and move; in AD&D, especially Players Option, it was pretty much stated that throughout combat, you don't just stand there; you move to avoid blows, dodge, jump, move left and right. We've always played that the DM can move engaged pieces a square in any direction during combat to account for this.

EDIT: But RAW, yes, I do see those are the rules. Thank you.

Taem wrote:

What happens when you "run" through a greased surface?

You can't. When you enter a square with grease in it, you make a DC10 Acrobatics check. If you make the check, you can continue to move at half speed. If you fail, you stop moving and make a reflex save vs falling. (And if you fail by 5+ you fall)

Thank you, that makes a lot of sense, however, you don't think you'd suffer the initial Reflex save when entering the Greased square?

I appreciate the rest of your reply. Very insightful and helpful.

the Save related to any spell is 10+Spell level+Casting Modifier+ Misc. Modifiers (spell focus, etc)

it's in the class description IIRC, if not it's definitely in the magic Section of the Core rulebook.

Oh, thank you! I guess that was kind of obvious.

Please help me! On the surface, this spell seems totally useless, but I'm sure its not!

Pathfinder has no Concentration skill, so casters need not worry about loosing their casting spell, and no damage is listed, nor any mention of any negative effects the swarm might have on characters within the swarm, such as lack of vision, -attack rate, -movement, anything...

Also, the Area of Effect is a Swarm... what does that mean? How big is a Swarm on the battlefield? one 5'-square? If there is no limit, why can't a wizard make it 100' and keep concentrating to summon more critters until the cloud of vermin is enormous in size?

This spell seems very poorly worded to me and in its current state, is very confusing.

Another thing.

The spell Web uses a Reflex save to avoid getting stuck, but as a DM, I will rule that you NEED traction to push off the floor to "free" yourself from the web. Does this not seem logical? To continue my point, I'm going to have an NPC caster "quicken" Grease and Web together in the same round on the PC party when they get too close. I need a Reflex DC to break free that makes sense for the situation.

Also, if the Grease will light on fire, this would be the perfect trap because the webs also burn causing damage. I honestly can't think of a better low level spell combo.

The Pathfinder SRD says:

A grease spell covers a solid surface with a layer of slippery grease. Any creature in the area when the spell is cast must make a successful Reflex save or fall. A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Acrobatics check. Failure means it can't move that round (and must then make a Reflex save or fall), while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Acrobatics skill for details).

What DC is the initial Reflex save? It is not mentioned, only an DC 10 Acrobatics check to "walk" through an area.

What happens when fighting on a greased surface, because fighting is not the same as walking?

What happens when you "run" through a greased surface?

What happens if you light the grease on fire? How much damage will it do (per round) to those stuck in the grease?

As a DM, I like to create my PC's Cohorts by hand, usually giving them a class that is similar to the PC's, if not identical. Once I have this all figured out, I play the NPC for the initial encounter and adventure that follows, then at the end, role-play the NPC deciding the follow the PC. At that point, I allow the player to take over the NPC. If I don't then often times, the game night can turn into a "me" fest, where I end up talking to myself in the voice of several different characters. Other than prominent NPC's and monsters, I try to let my players play the characters.

I liked how in the first editions of Call of Cthulu, there were no real classes. You could be a Detective, or Reporter, or whatever, but it was a "role" more than a class with abilities. However, CoC didn't take it's skill system very far.

Then there was Battletech. I'm not sure if Mechwarrior uses the same game system, but I do believe the first editions of Shadowrun had similar rules to Battletech. In that system, you used all D6's for everything! Every level increase, you got to put points into your current skills to improve them by D6, or get new skills with enough points. You could also improve your health, ability to dodge, etc. It was completely up to you how you wanted to improve your character. The sky was the limit and no skill was overpowered, so it was very balanced and customizable. And the funnest part was earning enough cash to build mech's. But that's not what I'm talking about... Just looking for a system that's similar to both of those two mentioned systems (CoC and BT). Damage was different in BT; you had a finite amount of life; the D6's were rolled like in Heroscape where the higher dice won and did damage over the lower one (or "soaked" the damage); excess dice were direct damage. I'm pretty sure this changed when Star Wars came out and introduced the more cinematic "damage soaking" rules, and was reflected in new versions of Battletech, but since I haven't played either in over 16-years, I really can't say anymore.

...I'm looking for a system that has the following criteria:

1) All characters have access to all skills, thus no real classes, but perhaps arch-types
2) When you level up, you can gain "skills" every X amount of levels
3) Also when you level up, you get a certain amount of "power" which you can put into your "skills". In this fashion, spells and attacks are all equal in power without requiring class levels because their power is derived from how much "power" you invest into each skill, but do you choose to invest into your attack, your dodge, your health?

I know I've played a system similar to this in the past. Was it Battletech? I have no idea. Thoughts? Suggestions?