Taman's page

Cavalier oaths : a few thoughts.

First of all, a distinction is usually made (in *real life*) between an oath (a vow) and a promise. An oath/vow is made to God (a higher power) whereas a promise is made to a human authority or institution. An oath/vow is binding and permanent. It is a spiritual transgression to break a vow and some sort of atonement is needed. A promise, on the other hand, is also binding but the promise can be lifted by the authority figure to which the promise was made. For example, a roman catholic priest makes a promise of celibacy (not a vow/oath) which includes a call to chastity (sexual abstinence) during the entire time he serves as a cleric. But he could have this promise lifted (e.g., in order to marry) by the institution to which the promise was made (e.g., a church).

On the other hand, a religious priest or Brother/Sister (a *religious* priest is a priest that is part of a religious order) makes an *oath* (vow) of chastity, which means that he/she makes the vow to God : it is spiritually and personally binding. It cannot be broken or "lifted" without spiritual transgression ("sin").

It is not clear in the Cavalier description if he swears the oath to his chosen order or to his deity (or to himself). It seems however from the description that the oaths spoken by the Cavalier are temporary promises rather than long-term, binding ones (which is fine as long as the meaning in the context of the game is clear). As someone pointed out, the "oath of chastity" is more like a temporary ascetic sacrifice that that the Cavalier chooses to do rather than the equivalent of the real-world "vow of chastity".

It has to be made clear I think if this oath is meant to be an oath of *chastity* (i.e., sexual abstinence) or *celibacy* (i.e., no marriage and no singular "romantic friendship").

The wording "The cavalier swears to avoid temptation" seems opened to interpretation (again, coming from a *real world* perspective). All the other oaths are made for a specific goal, but "avoiding temptation" is pretty general and relative (if not darn right impossible). "The cavalier must avoid all physical contact with members of a gender he is attracted to for 24 hours to complete this oath." This is more specific, but what the cavalier actually swears in this case is not to avoid temptation, but to avoid "physical contact" with the opposite sex (you can have no physical contact and still be tempted, as y'all know).

My suggestion (something along those lines): Oath of Chastity: For ascetic purposes and to avoid sensual temptations, the cavalier swears to refrain from contact with members of the opposite sex. This includes talking to, staring at, or otherwise doing any activity that would involve touching or interacting with a person of the other gender [except perhaps in a battle situation, if that person happens to be your foe?] If the cavalier succeeds in avoiding all such contact for 24 hours, he completes his oath and receives a +1 morale bonus on saving throws against enchantment (charm) spells and effects as long as he respects his oath. This bonus increases by +1 for every five levels the cavalier possesses.

I think this can create interesting role-playing situations!

Pardon for the long, over zealous post :)

Thanks everyone! That was helpful. I didn't know about the change from 3.0 to 3.5 regarding damage reduction. Makes more sense now.

3) It would be awesome if it included at least 3 of these:

a) Char-sheet manager (with export and print capabl)
b) Item cards (similar to game-mastery cards)
c) MAP/Handout viewer/manager
d) PDF/Rules viewer
e) Encounter/Trap/Monster generator/creator
f) Encounter Moderation (rounds, inits, effects)
g) Spell/Power quick-rule referencing cards

Great ideas. I would add Fumble, Critical hits with a shake of the iPhone/iTouch!

I need help to understand the monk's ability (the ki strike) to overcome damage reduction. Our party had to fight a (3.5.edition) dragon with a resistance of +4/adamantine. My monk character is a 13th level character overall, but a 7th level monk. He wears a magical Monk's robe, and therefore he treats his unarmed strikes as if he was a 12th level monk.

His unarmed attacks are treated as magic weapons ever since he reached 4th level (cf. ki pool description), but they're treated as if they were magic weapons with what enhancement equivalent (+1,+2,+3 or +4) ? Would the Monk's robe increase the bonus equivalent of such attacks?

The Monk's description states that the Monk can overcome adamantine resistance at level 16. Does it mean that the weapon enhancement bonus equivalent of his unarmed attacks will only be +4 at that level (using the table on page 562)?

If the character casts "Magic Weapon" (he's also a sorcerer), giving his unarmed strike a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls, does it increase the weapon enhancement bonus equivalent (i.e., does it stack?).

While we're at it, does the Smite Evil (SUpernatural) ability of the paladin (adding the Charisma bonus to the attack rolls) increase the weapon enhancement bonus equivalence for the monk's unarmed attacks?

Thanks for your help!

How about combining Scorpion Style with Vital Strike? Is it possible? Scorpion style says : "to use this feat, you must make a single unarmed attack as a standard action". Vital strike can be a single unarmed attack as a standard action. So...

According to the Beta rulebook, being proficient in the Acrobatics skill increases the Dodge bonus when fighting defensively or using full defense. If being proficient = having 1 rank, then I believe it's too easy to obtain the Dodge bonus increase. It makes taking 1 rank in Acrobatics more powerful than taking a Feat.

Initially I thought of this idea should be implementd as feats but honestly it makes sense to apply it to the existing mechanic.

Bull Rush as it reads currently seems to be missing the key element of what happens when the person being bull rushed is driven into another person or a solid object (door, wall etc.)

As every hockey player knows, bull rush + wall= pain, so I propose the following expansion to the Bull Rush rules.

(Expansion in bold)

[...]On a successful Bull Rush, if you choose to move with your opponent, and the opponent's movement backward is impeded by a wall or solid object, the opponent takes damage from being pinned between your body and the obstruction. The damage is equal to 1d6+ 1 1/2 times your Str. Modifier. The damage increases by 1d6 for each size category you are larger than your opponent.
The opponent is allowed a reflex save to halve the damage.
Special:
The damage values for armor spikes and/or shield spikes are added to this damage.

If the movement of an opponent subject to a successful Bull Rush enters another enemy's space, that opponent is also subject to a Bull Rush but gains a +4 to the Bull Rush DC. If this check is also successful, both opponents are moved to the maximum distance.
If the second attempt fails, the first...

"As every hockey player knows, bull rush + wall= pain". Haha. True enough. Fortunately, not 1d6+ 1 1/2 times the Str or poor 1-level commoner hockey player leaves the arena on a stretcher at every hit!

However, I like the idea of specifying what happens when someone is bull rushed into a wall or a solid object.

My suggestion:

"If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back
5 feet. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds the DC
you can push the target back an additional 5 feet. You can
move with the target if you wish but you must have the
available movement to do so. If the target is pushed back into a wall or a solid object, he suffers damage equal to your unarmed damage + Str modifier. Damage values for armor spiked and/or shield spikes are added to this damage. If your attack fails, your
movement ends in front of the target.

Hey there Everybody,

For the sake of compatibility and a number of power balance arguments, I think these bonus hit point rules are going to remain an optional component. I like that a number of them have become quite popular, but with favored class bonuses, HD increases, and a number of other factors, I am strongly thinking that these should remain a tool for those who need them, but not a mandatory, assumed component.

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Great. I love optional rules. 2E had many of them if I remember correctly. Don't hesitate to put the good ideas and rules that have become popular in the design forums as optional in sidebars. It gives more room to the GM to run the kind of game he wants.

It would be useful if the Combat feats were grouped together on Table 6-1, like Item Creation Feats and Metamagic Feats are.

I don't know if it has been done elsewhere, but I thought it would be interesting to have a thread where people can suggest either additional Combat maneuvers (using the proposed Combat maneuver system) or adding options to existing ones.

One maneuver I think would be cool is some sort of GRAB AND THROW maneuver, whereupon on a successful maneuver check, you manage to throw your opponent 5 feet sideways (right or left). If your attack exceeds the DC by 5 or more, you can throw your opponent an additional 5 feet (thus creating the possibility of an attack of opportunity on the foe from a nearby ally). Like other combat maneuvers, a special feat could be necessary to avoid provoking an AoO to perform the maneuver..

Instead of being a different maneuver altogether, it could be part of the TRIP maneuver if the attack exceeds the DC by 5 or more.

Other suggestions ? I know someone mentioned "THROWING SOMEONE" as part of the GRAPPLE maneuver, once the foe is pinned...

I for one really enjoyed the simplicity of the new (PF BETA) combat maneuvers system. We playtested it and it came up in several situations. Players thought it was good. As others pointed out, perhaps lower the DC a bit (12 seems a good number), perhaps allowing dodge bonuses as well to add up (for some maneuvers at least). But most of what has been suggested in this thread seems a step back towards the complexity of 3.5.

MHO.

I would leave initiative as it is - i.e., outside the skill system. As others pointed out, it is not a "skill" that is much useful outside of combat situations.

But I *would* like to see the static +4 bonus of the feat somehow improved.

Something like :

Improved Initiative (Combat)
Your quick reflexes allow you to react quickly to danger.
Benefit : You get an additional 1d4 bonus on initiative checks.
Special : You can gain Improved Initiative multiple times. Each time you take the feat, you use the next greater dice value (1d6, 1d8, 1d10 -- maximum 1d12) as the bonus to the initiative check.

Some love for the d12 dice :-)

Page 139 of the Beta, first paragraph. It states that you must take your attacks in order from highest to lowest, and that if you are wielding two weapons, you can choose which ones to attack with first. That makes it seem to me like you cannot swap back and forth between hands, and must choose one to attack with first, going from highest to lowest, before repeating this with the other hand.

That said, I am not really sure this is absolutely necessary.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Thank you. I've been looking EVERYWHERE for this piece information; I knew I had seen it once, but I couldn't find it again. I looked at Two-Weapon Fighting rules p. 152, under the weapon rules p. 99, and also at the descriptions of Two-Weapon Fighting feats...

That being said, do you think this information could also be mentioned in the Two-Weapon Fighting rules section for handy reference?

Also-- I'm still confused at the rules for Two-Weapon fighting using the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat. It says you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon at -5. Is it -5 penalty on your highest BAB or your second, lesser BAB ? Does this -5 stack with other off-hand penalties ?

For example, my rogue/fighter Illustriel, 10th level, has BAB 8/3. She is wielding a short sword and a dagger and she has both Two-Weapon Fighting feats (-2/-2). The way I understand it, she gets 4 attacks. First two attacks (from highest BAB to lowest BAB) would be 6/1 (short sword/dagger) ; next two attacks would be... what? First attack is at full BAB -2 : 6 (short sword) but second (4th) attack at -5...? Full BAB or second attack BAB? Assuming it's the latter (which would make sense) then what is the penalty :

A) BAB 3-5 = -2 + -2 (off-hand) = -4
B) BAB 3 -5 (off-hand) = -2
C) BAB 3 -2 (off-hand) -5 (second off-hand attack) = -4
D) second off-hand attack is at -5 period.

I think A is the right answer (or C, which amounts to the same thing), but I think it would be nice if it was clarified.

Thanks Jason for giving us this great update to our favorite RPG !

This thread-- "Critiques of the new feats" should be "sticky". I spent an half-hour looking for it. The posts have wandered a bit from the original purpose though. It would be practical if Jason copied and pasted the new feats in this Skills and Feats section of the messageboards as well.

Combat Maneuvers p.150:

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

Since the "special" size modifier doesn't differ arbitrarily from the usual size modifier, would it be better to call it "reverse size modifier"? The current "special" label forces you to read all the modifiers to understand what special means, while the proposed "reverse" label lets you rest on your knowledge of Table 9-1.

Combat maneuvers are explained some 20 pages after Table 9-1. "Reverse size modifier" would be more confusing IMO. Since the "special modifiers" are specified in the CM section, I would leave it as it is.

Also, there is a typo : "manuever" instead of "maneuver", end of 1st paragraph "Performing a Combat Maneuver".

Lets play using these rules for a bit and see how things work out.

[...]

- Disarm, Sunder, and Trip can be made as an AoO using these rules, but Bull Rush, Grapple, and Overrun cannot.

- You cannot take an AoO that provokes an AoO itself.

Playtest please and report. I think this gives the flexibility folks are after while still tamping down some of my concerns.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

If you cannot take an AoO that provokes an AoO, then you do need the Improved Trip, Improved Disarm and Improved Sunder feats to make these combat maneuvers as AoO. Maybe it would be worth mentioning in the feats' description (i.e. they allow the character to use the maneuver as an AoO).

Archade wrote:

If you want to curtail maneuvers, why not allow characters with improved trip/disarm/etc (or even greater trip/disarm/etc) to use them as attacks of opportunity? It would make those feats slighty more valuable to take ...

I like that. Allow them to be attacks of opportunity only for those who took the feat.

Aye! Another player/GM who loves Combat maneuvers agrees :-)

We've been using the adapted 4e rule for our 3.5/PFRPG BETA game and we've liked it so far. How many times our characters escaped death because of that so far! But the 1/3 of hp might be a bit much. A 10th level character with 100 hp dies at -33... I'd suggest: you die at minus your CON + 1/2 level rounded down.

Yeah, I was really hoping it would be addressed in the Beta- it was certainly mentioned during the Alpha playtest. The Necromancer really needs a bit of love before the final version comes out.

Yes, please! PFRPG designers, give necromancers something to work with. I had to peruse several 3.5 "splatbooks" to find more interesting spells.

So let's take Bloodied a step further. If Bloodied were to make a creature weaker in some way, perhaps by imposing -2 to attacks, saves, skill checks, and ability checks, suddenly damaging a creature but not killing it has an effect. And thus, area-of-effect damage can become meaningful.

Like Mattastrophic, I like the idea of a Wounded condition that gives a penalty to AC, attacks, saves etc. It is one of the good ideas of 4E. I'd like it if PF would integrate such a concept. I've also implemented in my PF Beta playtesting sessions "healing surges" (adapted for PF hp balance) -- mainly because our party didn't have a cleric or a paladin. But they work quite well and players enjoy them. You can't "heal" yourself more than half your total hit points however. You still need rest or magical healing for the *big* injuries :-)

I mentioned this elsewhere (in another forum thread), but this might be the right place :

Is the Black Tentacles spell description clear ?

The spell was used in our latest gaming session and there was some confusion regarding the rules.

"Every creature within the area of the spell is the target of a combat maneuver check made to grapple each round"

"Roll ONLY ONCE for the entire spell effect and apply the result to all creatures in the area of effect"

entire spell effect : i.e., spell duration ?

"The black tentacles receives a +5 bonus ON GRAPPLE CHECKS MADE against opponents it is already grappling"

But if the check was rolled once for the entire spell effect, what other grapple checks ? Or is the +5 bonus applied to the first roll result ? But if a target has been grappled on the first check and that the combat maneuver check is made against a static DC (as per the combat maneuver rules p. 150), what use is the +5 bonus since the same roll result is used for the entire spell effect?

I would understand if a single roll each round was applied to all creatures in the area of effect (to make things easier) but not one roll for the entire spell effect... Subsequent "checks" against already grappled targets become useless.

Of course, perhaps I'm just misreading the spell description.

Note- there is a typo on p. 150 in the "Performing a Combat Maneuver" section, last line of 1st paragraph : "manuever"

In other words, if you don't try to break the grapple, no more checks are made and no more damage is done. If you try to grapple back and fail, the tentacles damage you.

But that's not what the spell description says. "Every creature within the area of the spell is the target of a combat maneuver check made to grapple EACH ROUND [...] If the tentacles succeed in grappling a foe, that foe takes 1d6+4 points of damage and gains the grappled condition. [...] Each round the black tentacles succeeds on a grapple check ["you must continue to make a check each round to maintain the hold"-- Grapple p. 150], it deal an additional 1d6+4 points of damage" (PF Beta p. 204).

In other words, the black tentacles try to grapple [and damage] the target each round, but they use the results of the first roll "for the entire spell effect". So if they succeed in grappling a character with the first roll, there is no reason why the grapple check would fail the following rounds...

... unless-- somehow-- the target's CMB changes for some reason, thus increasing the DC to perform the grapple maneuver. That's a partial answer, I guess.

The confusion could be avoided by removing the "Roll only once for the entire spell effect and apply the result to all creatures in the area of effect" from the spell description. Or if the description was changed to : "Roll a single combat maneuver check each round, applying the result to all creatures in the area of effect".

Hope this makes sense.

In our gaming situation, our sorceress Alira managed to cast some spells with the Still Spell feat, but she almost died of the recurring grappling damage.

Spell description says : "Roll only once [attack roll + CMB] for the entire spell effect and apply the result to all creatures in the area of effect". But the Grapple action usually requires a successful grapple check each round to maintain the hold. Since the DC of a grappling check is static (15 + target's CMB), a character victim of a Black Tentacles' initial grapple check is automatically held the subsequent rounds. Why mention then that the "black tentacles spell receive a +5 bonus on grapple checks made against opponents it is already grappling" ?

Our party's sorceress Alira was grappled in the initial round by our foe's Black Tentacles -- DM's check beat DC to grapple Alira which was 20 (15+5 BAB+ 0 STR). Since DM rolled "only once for entire spell effect", there was no need to re-roll at +5 --- grappling Alira was automatic! And if she wanted to break the grapple, she needed to make a successful combat maneuver check at DC 15+ tentacles' CMB (15) = DC 30 !

Considering her own CMB is only 5 (BAB + STR), not much she could do.

Am I understanding the spell correctly? Why the +5 bonus if a single roll is used?

As a related clarification question, PF rules say that performing a Combat Maneuver requires an attack roll, adding the character's CMB to the result. Since the character's BAB is already included in the CMB, is the attack roll in performing a combat maneuver simply a d20 roll or is it a normal attack roll (with all usual bonuses including BAB) + CMB ???

Also, could someone help a character break free of a grapple? In the exemple above, could our fighter have helped Alira break free of the tentacles' grasp ?

I would appreciate some clarifications. Thanks!