Goldsmith

That Crazy Alchemist's page

Organized Play Member. 643 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 643 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

As someone who hates the existence of Eldritch Heritage for basically giving any class the most defining feature of another class, I can't say I much like the idea of this since it just does the same thing to another class. I mean, why stop there, why not have a feat that grants Spell Schools, or one that gives Sneak Attack Progression, or Bomb progression, Lay on Hands, or Wildshape. Why even have classes when we can just give any class another classes best features for the price of a feat or three. But I digress...

As for balance, I'd say this is quite a bit stronger than Eldritch Bloodline. With Eldritch Bloodline, you start at the lowest rung and have to work your way up the feat chain to get the best stuff, regardless of your level. With your feats they can just go straight for the best goodies from the Oracle with the very first feat, as long as they meet the level requirement.
To balance this, I would put a cap on the level requirement of the revelation you can pick for each one.
So the first one might say "you may only choose a Revelation that a 1st level Oracle could choose"
The next one might be for 7th level, the next one for 11th or whatever. Make them have to climb the ladder, don't let them start at the top.

Dark Archive

It is likely intended to have been a polymorph effect, but just got left out. The blood hag is even a shapechanger, a subtype that all have some kind of Change Shape Universal Monster Ability, which specifies that it is a polymorph effect.

So RAI probably not. But RAW, sure I guess, though I'm not sure how it'd be making claw and bite attacks as a fiery ball without limbs. If it's your game, run it how you'd like, but if it were my game I wouldn't give it the attacks.

As for your second question, that's a pretty clear Yes, the blood hag would provoke.

Dark Archive

Oozemorph, a poorly designed archetype to a poorly designed class.

Dark Archive

Ah I see what you're saying, missed that the first time. I think you might be right there.

Dark Archive

I'm with LordKailas. In the case of the Forest Dragon, the sorcerer DR specifically isn't DR/slashing and bludgeoning. You gain DR against piercing, which means that if damage you are inflicted contains a piercing compeonent, regardless of other types, then you gain DR against that damage.

This is one reason why I dislike that DR is written as "what damage you DONT reduce" whereas resistance is written as "what damage you reduce".
Inconsistency in rules formats like this always bothers me...

Dark Archive

Meteor Hammer wrote:


Benefit: If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you rather than knocking her prone.

You may use this weapon in two different ways:

Meteor: In meteor mode you use it as a double weapon.
Fortress: In fortress mode you cannot use it as a double weapon but gain reach and a +1 shield bonus to AC.
Switching between these two modes is a free action decided at the start of your turn

Bolded section explains it pretty well. Not understanding where the confusion lies.

(Also, it looks like you created 3 of the same thread on accident. Might want to go delete the other 2)

Dark Archive

Since there are no rules for this, "enraged" isn't a defined condition and isn't specified in the creatures statblock, so it just means angry is all.
To me a creature trying to kill you is angry. Therefore, if you are in combat with it, it's spines generate heat.
But you are the GM, you can rule it however you'd like.

Dark Archive

A "regular move" seems like pretty unambiguous wording and that it's pretty clearly supposed to be a move action spend to move your character. Pathfinder doesn't actually have a word for that so "regular move" is the closest we'll get.
(Honestly, it should be called the Move Action, and what we currently call a move action should be called something like a Minor Action, but that's a different discussion)

Dark Archive

Don't let RAW get in the way of what makes sense, or ease of play. If you're going to let a little bit of ambiguity in the text of single spell cripple your game to that degree while you hash out the infinite ramifications of what such an interpretation would allow among your players then you're going to have problems.
Just take the more sensible interpretation and don't overthink it so much.

Dark Archive

Try to imagine it like real life. If you and I are facing each other.
Can I throw you a ball without needing to move my feet? Of course! I could move my head and upper body around all I wanted and I'd be able to throw a ball at you no problem. That's what not having any cover is.
Now say there's a 1 foot pillar in the way, is it still possible for me to throw you a ball without first moving my feet? Of course, I can just peek around the pillar and throw it to you. That's regular cover. I can still see you and throw something at you without needing to move somewhere else but only if I move my upper body in just the right way.
No imagine there's a 10 feet wall between us. Can I still throw the ball to you without moving my feet? No, no matter how I bend and twist my upper body there's simply no possible way to throw the ball to you. I'd have to move my feet and get to a place where I'd be able to see you. That's Total Cover.

The lines you draw between the corners of you and your target are checking your sightlines. Seeing if there is a way to see your target while in the space you are currently in.

Dark Archive

Spell-likes are still spells. The only real difference is in how they are cast. But after they've been cast they are identical in every way. Same bullet, different gun.
So yes, it'd be the DC of a spell.

Dark Archive

Raw, there's nothing stopping you from creating multiple non-contiguous area effects with shapeable spells. I personally am of the opinion that that is not RAI and will always houserule that shapeable spells must be contiguous in my games.
But RAW, yep, your player is correct until you houserule otherwise.

Dark Archive

The easiest and likely most intended interpretation is that Wish cannot be used as a divination-like way to DIRECTLY gain information about an MB target. All your examples about using Wish to teleport things that contain information to you, or to summon things to retrieve the information for you, or any other indirect and non-divination-like way should work just fine, all the others that function like divination magic would indeed fail, yes.

Dark Archive

Sir Tain Doom wrote:


Whilst I really appreciate your answer, especially as it confirms my reading of the rules, your 'make sense' explanation doesn't make sense to me as Force Ward has no effect on a grapple unless it is a free grapple. This is illogical to me, think I will house rule this one so that this type of creature grapples as standard action with a free attack on a successful grapple.

Thank you for your reply.

Sounds like you've already got it sorted out. But I feel the need defend my "make sense" argument a bit just in case

A grapple is a full on bear hug, tentacle wrap, or whatever. Your whole body is involved. A grab is simply a limb reaching out to snag someone so that the subsequent full body grapple can then commense.

A limb can be deflected, swatted away, or whatever, an entire body cannot, or at least not so easily. Ever had someone try to grab your arm? How about try to hug you when you didn't want to be? One can be batted away with a hand. The other requires a you to fight them away or dodge completely out of the way.

This is how I imagine Force Ward works. It tries to deflect oncoming attacks rather than being a wall or sheild against them. It sort of swats them away like you would to a hand trying to grab you or a ball being thrown at you.

Dunno if that made it make more sense or not. Either way it doesn't particularly matter lol.

Dark Archive

Force Ward would not protect against grapples since grapples aren't "attacks" in the technical sense, since an attack requires an attack roll, which grapples do not make, they make CMB rolls.
It WOULD protect you from the free grapple granted by Grab since the grapple is riding on an attack. But the fact that it's a grapple is irrelevant, the ability negates ANY effect that occurs from being hit by an attack.

If you are looking for a "make sense" answer for how force ward would protect you from a grab is that you can look at it like a force field. It's not a solid "shell" that an enemy could just pick up with you in it. It's more like an intangible force that reacts and repels attacks as they happen. A creature trying to grab a Force Warded creature would find his tentacle simply sliding off him as it tried to get traction.

Dark Archive

Reaching Vines doesn't appear to be a reach weapon so I'm not sure the reach weapon rules apply here.

And this isn't a one-off corner case issue either, there are several occurrences of this issue in the game. The White Haired witches Prehensile Hair which similarly has a specified reach of 10 without stating that it is a "reach weapon".
An Eidolon with the Reach evolution is the same way (yes I know the Large evolution states it's interaction with the Reach evolution, but as has been pointed out numerous times in the past, the Large evolution and Enlarge or other size changing effects are two very different effects)

Seems like an issue that I'm surprised has never been officially cleared up.

Dark Archive

Reaching Vines:

Source Alchemy Manual pg. 10
Price 4,000 gp; Slot wrists
Cytillesh spores seeded beneath the subject’s skin enable the subject to extend and contract fungal vines from its wrists and forearms at will. The subject gains two vine attacks per round, which count as secondary natural attacks with a reach of 10 feet. These vines deal no damage, but the fungal-grafted creature can attempt to pull a struck target up to 5 feet toward itself, as the pull universal monster ability (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 303).

If a player were to have this Fungal Graft and then quaff an Enlarge Person potion, what is the reach of the Reaching Vines?

A) 10ft, because Enlarge says that only your Natural Reach increases, and Reaching Vines doesn't use your Natural Reach?

2) 20ft, because Enlarge Person doubles your reach

Three) 15ft, because Enlarge essentially just adds 5ft to your attacks' reach.

IV) 0ft, because reasons...

=) Orange, because the voices in my head told me so.

Dark Archive

Templates were not made with players in mind, they were intended to be used only by monsters. Therefore there are no rules for handling that kind of thing.
By allowing your players to take templates you are in Homebrew territory, and you'll need to come up with something on your own.

Dark Archive

I think we can chalk this up to a difference in playstyles really.

I prefer to play on a grounded ruleset that tells me and my fellow players exactly what we can do, and the GM's job is to fill in the cracks where the rules aren't covered. The GM is a moderator, rather than a god.

Whereas you prefer to play with a softer ruleset where the written rules are usually adhered to but ultimately it's the GM's job to tell you what you can do. The GM is a god, rather than merely a moderator.

Neither playstyle is worse or better. Just different. I wouldn't want to play at your table and you wouldn't want to play at mine. Nothing wrong with that though :)

Dark Archive

Oddly worded, and odd dice usage. But it's definitely (1d2+1) per 2 caster levels.

Dark Archive

Dasrak wrote:


This doesn't actually help you catch up, since this FCB is so powerful that it's effectively become the default. It's not that humans are ahead, it's that non-humans are behind, because human sorcerer has become the gold standard for sorcerers. If we were to have a serious conversation on the merits of Wizard vs Sorcerer vs Arcanist, I would be presuming the human sorcerer favored class bonus is in play in that discussion.

Of course, but I was discussing means of mitigation, not completely removing the negatives. If there was a way of doing that it's be broken as hell, and no one would ever pick anything other than Crossblooded.

The point I was making here is that the existence of the human favored class bonus actually mitigates the damage significantly.

Let's compare spells known of different kinds of level 11 sorcerer's:

9/5/5/4/3/2 (28) - non-human vanilla sorcerer
8/4/4/3/2/1 (22) - non-human Crossblooded sorcerer
11/7/7/6/5/2 (38) - human vanilla sorcerer
10/6/6/5/4/1 (32)- human Crossblooded sorcerer

Non-human Crossblooded sorcerer's have about ~27% fewer spells than the vanilla counterpart (ouch).
While the human Crossblooded sorcerer has only about ~18% fewer spells (less ouch).

Because of the Human FCB the penalties for Crossblooded are only about 50% as bad as they seem at first glance.

Dark Archive

7 year necro. Not bad.

Dark Archive

Crossblooded has become a bit of a dirty word on these forums, so you're going to get a ton of people who will act like it's the worst possible choice you could ever make as a sorcerer.

When in reality its actually a very good archetype, one of my favorites in fact, assuming you understand what you are getting yourself into and are ok with it, or know how to mitigate it.

Obviously, Crossblooded's glaring problem is that you get 1 less spell known per spell level. On the surface this hurts, especially when you realize that everytime a sorcerer gets a brand new spell level, he only gets one spell known at that level. Which means a crossblooded gets 0 at that level.

Additionally Crossblooded sorcerer's can't trade out powers for blood mutations, in particular the fan favorite, Blood Havoc.

These things hurt. But there are ways to mitigate them.

1) Be human. Humans favored class bonus lets them add one spell known per sorcerer level they have, of a level one lower than their highest level spell they can cast. This helps a TON and almost completely mitigates the problem entirely. The thing this doesn't help with is the fact that you are 1 level behind normal sorcerers in terms of access to higher level spells.

2) Metamagic. Particularly things like Intensify and Empower. You might not get to have any spells known at a new spells level, but you still get the spell slots of that level. Use them for casting metamagic'd spells. Sucks that you don't get new toys as quickly, but at least you aren't wasting anything.

3) People like to say that Crossblooded can't get Blood Havoc. That's simply not true. A sorcerer is also able to trade out a bloodline feat for a blood mutations like Blood Havoc. You get your first bloodline feat at 7th, but honestly that's not terrible

Crossblooded are not the garbage that people on these forums would like to make you think. You will have fewer options than a normal sorcerer, true. But given that you have two sets of bloodline powers to choose from, BOTH bloodline arcanas (many of these are incredible), and can create some fantastic combos by mixing these, the crossblooded archetype is probably the best choice for a more focused sorcerer build. And let's face it, if you aren't trying to make a focused caster, just be a wizard instead.

Dark Archive

Quixote wrote:


Allow for what should obviously be true, stopping short of mechanical benefits that begin to go beyond what you paid for.

I agree. This is actually the point I've been trying to make from the beginning.

So now we circle back to the OP's actual predicament. He had a player who was attempting to set fire to a web by firing a flaming arrow at a creature inside of it, thereby damaging the creature as normal while also setting fire to the web at the same time. How is setting fire to the web, a thing he was not targeting, not an ancillary mechanical benefit the player is trying extract from the weapon which is designed to only deal damage to a single target?

Also, I'm happy for you and your table, but saying that it's not a problem at your own table is about as effective of an argument as saying that the town you live in having no gun problems is an effective argument against gun laws. Every town's different, every table's different.

Dark Archive

Diego Rossi wrote:

Actually, from what I recall of my physics lesson, it is improbable that someone standing on a metal platform will be shocked by it.

The charge will disperse in the terrain leaving the person unharmed. Electricity moves along the route of lesser resistance and normally the resistance between the platform and the terrain is lower than that between the platform, a person, air and nearest grounding point.

Besides that, the damage is 1d6, now instead of hitting a single target, from a single point of contact and grounding the charge through it, you are dispersing the charge on a wide area. Why it should do any level of damage?

Your players are working with comic book science assumptions, so why they want to complain when they get magic games science replies?

It is possible to make a trap that does what they want, but that requires some form of isolation between the metal platform and the ground.

Sure, but did you see how much explaining you had to do there? And can you imagine how much more explaining and discussion would be involved if a player at your table disagreed, nevermind which of you was actually right? I don't want to be doing that at the table. I'd much rather prevent the potential disagreements in the first place than bandy about worrying over how accurately we need to be simulating real world physics in a game of make belief. The game is complex enough.

Dark Archive

Quixote wrote:

I think the logical arguments for those three examples are:

-it doesn't "electrocute" a single target when you hit them with it. Those guys might feel a weird tingle, but that's about it.

-the acid has an instantaneous duration.

-water effective has a lot of hp, so freezing it will take a very, very long time.

So this is actually an excellent example of the point I'm trying to make. There is variation on interpreting what is a "logical assumption". To you that was the obvious logical assumption, but to me, I found something else to be obvious.

Sure you can put the GM Foot down and say, "my word is final, deal with it". But if you tell your players that electricity acts exactly how you would logically assume it does, and then turn around and tell them that, no, they cant affect everyone standing on that metal platform with 1d6 lightning damage by touching their shocking weapon to it, then you are likely going to have some disgruntled players on your hands because to them you are being annoyingly inconsistent. They might keep silent about it, because your foot is down, but they will still be disgruntled, and a disgruntled player isn't having fun.

Much easier to say that shocking weapons do precisely what it says it does. No more, no less. Then if a player asks if they can shock everyone on the metal platform you can say "no, the weapon doesn't say it can do that" and no one is disgruntled because you are absolutely right, it doesn't say that. But if you want to RoC it and say they can then they get to feel like they did something badass and clever, rather than made to feel like you just told them they couldn't do something they were lead to believe they could.

But in the end, you are right, it's really going to depend on the table you're at. How intimately they know each other, whether they are rules lawyer players or imagineer players, etc.

Dark Archive

I've had some trouble with magic missile lately too. Really makes me wonder if that's even a real spell.
Thankfully I did manage to cast burning hands the other day though in my apartment, so there's no need to delete every spell.

On a completely unrelated topic, does anyone know how long it takes for burned cat fur to grow back?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Typically when you defeat an encounter there is an expectation that there is loot. Not every battle necessarily has to have a dragon's hoard of treasure but if the enemies in question are intelligent enough to see value in objects, or tend to kill and eat other creatures who see value in objects, then most likely they have said objects somewhere, either on their person or hidden nearby.

I know nothing about Rappan Athuk but if it's a complete module or adventure path and you are fighting many encounters that logically would have loot, but have no loot listed, then I'm guessing it's intended to be randomly rolled.
There's a great random treasure generator on Archives of Nethys that I use all the time. It's pretty balanced and you can customize the rolls pretty well to account for lowering or raising the WBL as needed.

Dark Archive

True, but really, lighting your cigarette with your flaming sword has no mechanical benefit. It takes nothing for a GM to say "Cool" to that. It's the edge cases with mechanical effects that I'm wary of for things like this.
I mentioned a couple above:

- Using your shocking weapon to electrocute everyone standing on the metal platform.
- Milking your Corrosive weapon for acid vials.
- Using your freezing weapon to create an ice path as you walk over a body of water.

These are all things I've had players try to do, and many more. And while a GM is well within their rights to allow or disallow things like that (I allowed some and not others), the fact is that simply leaving it up to logical assumption is actually pretty dangerous as a GM. What one player might consider an obvious assumption of how a magical weapon would react to the world around him, another player or even yourself, could have an entirely different assumption.

Every table is different, and rules based on assumptions is just a recipe for table arguments. Players do not like it when a GM tells them they can't do something that they assumed they'd be able to do.

This is why I find it best to stick to RAW as a blanket ruling, then allow or disallow on a case by case basis. Keeps all the players at your table grounded in a consistent rules set that lets them know exactly what they can and can not do without even needing to ask, but still allows plenty of room for the Rule of Cool to bend the rules a bit for added enjoyment when a player asks if he can do something and won't piss them off if you decide to say no.

Dark Archive

Lanathar wrote:
I just don’t believe the intent of the item is you can cast a level 6 maximised blast glyph onto the gorget so it discharges for 40 points of damage on a successful hit. It seems rather strong. Although at the level that works (11+) perhaps i am getting worried over nothing as 40 damage with reflex half once per day at best is not really earthbreaking ...

If your concern is about balance, remember that they are still needing to spend the higher level spell slot to cast the metamagic'd Glyph of Warding. Its not like they are getting anything for free here, a scaled up amount of resources is being spent to achieve an appropriately scaled up level of power effect.

Level 3 spell + guardian gorget = level 3 spell cast as immediate action.
By making it a level 6 spell the equation becomes:
Level 6 spell + guardian gorget = level 6 spell cast as immediate action.
The equation is still balanced. Scaled up, but still perfectly balanced.

Dark Archive

If you're going cross blooded, make sure you're Human. Those bonus spells known every level will make up for your lost spells known. You will still be a full spell level behind a wizard, but as you mentioned, with metamagics (especially Intensify) it really won't hurt all that much.

Dark Archive

Applying metamagic to a spell doesn't make it a different spell, just tweaks what it does. This is also why you are unable to bypass the "one ongoing spell effect of the same same name" rule by simply using metamagic.
For instance,you can't cast Bestow Curse on someone to give them a -4 penalty to their rolls, then cast Heightened Bestow Curse to try and make it a -8. It's not a new spell, it's the same one with tweaked effects.

In short: yep.

A more difficult question though would be: can you apply Greater Glyph of Warding to it. I'd say, by RAW no, but would be perfectly reasonable for a GM to allow.

Dark Archive

5 year old Necro that took 8 posts before anyone noticed. That might be some kind of record.

Dark Archive

So the problem with it actually giving off heat is that, while it says the flames don't hurt you, it says nothing about your gear. Since we are dealing flaming arrows, then storing all those flaming arrows in your quiver is absolutely going to set your quiver on fire.
"But Mr. Crazy Alchemist, flaming weapons can be turned on and off"
You are absolutely right, Voice in My Head, however seeing how that is a standard action to do so, I severely doubt players want to have to draw their flaming arrow, spend a standard action to ignite it, the NEXT TURN fire the damn thing.
Sure you can houserule to ignore that standard action, or houserule to ignore the fact that if you are choosing to interpret them as giving off heat then it needs to be igniting your gear. But the simplest solution is to just interpret it as not giving off heat since it doesn't say it does. That way you aren't needing to houserule anything, and it solves many of the questionable dilemma above, or the inevitable future dilemma that will occur from such a ruling.

Dark Archive

Net-Soul wrote:
Are there any good rules for a tiny familiar "riding" along a medium creature. I have one that would want to keep touching a friendly target for multiple rounds.

As long as you don't mean "mounting" when you say "riding" then yes, a tiny creature already can occupy the same square as a medium creature without any need for special rules.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I've found is that BBEG encounters are as difficult as the situation they are in rather than the BBEG themselves. The moment combat begins, the party is going to unload everything they have at him. An entire round of casters unleashing their best spells and martials focus firing has a way of reducing BBEG's many levels above the party to low health more often than not. A BBEG has to use the ability to prepare to his advantage.
Be up high so the fighters have trouble reaching him, have protection spells precast, have tons of minions or a few large bruiser minions in there too so that the party needs to split their focus, add lava pits or traps throughout. It's an undead, use that to your advantage, and fill the room with poison gas.
The trick is to put them on their toes rather than overpowering them, because any well put together party will plow through any encounter that simply tries to overpower them. Parties are extremely single-minded and will try to end encounters fast. Set them on their toes right from the get go and don't let them dig in, and you'll have a good battle.

Dark Archive

Kiesman wrote:

I've done two puzzles that I found worked really well.

One was a rotating tiles or Pipe Dream type puzzle, where they had to set a path for energy to travel to the other end. However they were fighting large-sized regenerating golems the entire time, that could not easily be permanently shut down. When the golems were standing on a tile, they could not rotate that tile.

The other actually had no incorrect answer - It has three correct answers, each with different secondary results, all of which open the door to the next room. A platinum coin on a grid on a pedestal, with a plaque saying "Show me the path to the greatest wealth". They can:

1) Take the coin, which transforms into a gem worth X gold.
2) Slide the coin to the next grid point, which doubles the coin - go for as long as it can without repeating a space, or off the table.
3) Place more coins, making a path to the edge of the table, at which point the coins all become the next highest level of coin.

I wanted a fourth solution for this one, but I could not come up with one. If anyone happens to have an idea, I'll take it for the next time I use this puzzle.

4) The Buddhist path to the greatest wealth:

There's a slot somewhere in the grid. Putting the coin into the slot, essentially "giving the coin away" grants you 1xp. For every coin they put in they gain 1 more xp.

Dark Archive

Adding additional game-halting complexity to a game whose combats are already very long and complicated isn't really a good thing in my eyes.
If your players enjoy then that's all that matters, happy for you guys. But It's going to be a hard pass from me.

Dark Archive

Diego Rossi wrote:


"Damage" isn't only the fire damage. As said above by That Crazy Alchemist if the fire damage is an effect of the spell, the dazing metamagic will affect people that have catch fire.
Probably there are plenty of other metamagics or class abilities that can benefit from that ruling.
As "it is a magical fire" is a questionable ruling, instead of having to evaluate every one of them to see if they are applicable or not, it is better to rule that it is not a magical fire.

I think I'm in agreement with you Diego. It's definitely a GM call, but the safer and easier call would be to just say no.

I'm not the GM for this game, it's a character I'm making for a campaign run by someone who is kinda new and has previously only been a player at my tables. So I can't simply "rule it and move on" as I would as a GM, nor can I simply "ask my GM" because he tends to look to me for the rules interpretations. So asking him might make him feel like he's being tested lol.
So for simplicity I'll just play it as the damage does not get added to avoid any confusion. If the GM himself brings it up, and wants to change it, that's his call.

Dark Archive

Puzzles are difficult to get to work in this game, because it's something that technically they might not ever solve, or solve too quickly.

The best puzzle I ever made was a reskinned Mastermind game. Ever played it?

The party was presented with a square room with 4 doors, one on each wall. The door they walked in from, a door painted black, a door painted white, and directly in front of them, a door with a combination lock. The combo lock has 4 dials, each with numbers ranging 1-6. As soon as a player attempted to try a combination the door behind them closes, locks and the room begins filling up with toxic gas, a quick intelligence or knowledge roll tells them they have 20 turns to solve the combination.
Each time a combination is attempted (a standard action, with a cooldown of one full round), the black and white doors open releasing a number of skeletons, painted the colors of their respective doors, into the room. The number of skeletons released corresponds to the rules of the Mastermind game. For each of the 4 numbers chosen in the combo attempt, it is rather the correct number in the correct position (black) or the correct number in the wrong position (white), or flat out wrong (nothing). But as with Mastermind they have no way to know which dials caused which skeletons to enter. They have to figure that part out through playing the game.

The players don't know any of these rules, unless they recognize the game immediately, so they need to figure it out, all while battle skeletons, and the clock.

I've run this puzzle at 4 different tables now, they've all solved it, usually within 12 turns, and they all had a great time.
You are welcome to use it if you'd like :)

Dark Archive

MrCharisma wrote:

Only when attacking someone who doesn't want to hit. You can cast Cure Light Wounds on someone without rolling to hit, unless they're undead.

Yes, but we aren't talking about willing targets here...

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I call myself out as a GM all the time. When I make a mistake, be it a math error, incorrect rules interpretation, or even a story element incorrectly told, I tend to let my players know about it. They seem to appreciate the transparency and helps prevent fostering a GM-vs-players mentality that a lot of tables develop.
However, when I do call myself out, I try to be as undisruptive as possible, but sometimes you just gotta pause for a moment and go back. But I always make sure that the "flashbacks" are in the players favor, never against them.
"Oops, sorry guys, your Archer actually DID hit that guy last turn, I forgot about the entangle effect on him. Roll for damage."
Or
"Crap, forgot to mention that the huntsman at the tavern also told you that there are tons of undead in these woods, if you guys want we can say you stopped to purchase some holy water back when you were in town"

Since it favors them, and adds transparency to the game, I find my players don't have a problem with me going back and tweaking things as long as it's not too disruptive.

I think the biggest retcon I ever did was this one time where they were fighting a custom Shadow demon that cast Deeper Darkness as a free action every round and they had no light spells to stop the darkness (which I didn't realize when I made the encounter). So I retconned that they had found some "light grenades" that cast Daylight when thrown (their inclusion actually fit the story) while they were exploring the dungeon earlier. Their addition actually added a cool dynamic to the battle because they only had a limited number of grenades, so they had to ration them out and use them strategically.

Retcons can be good, but you gotta make sure it benefits the players and without damaging their sense of autonomy

Dark Archive

Countering a spell is simply a readied action. You can absolutely ready your action to cast dispel magic from your wand as a counterspell.

Counterspelling is also rarely used, and is widely considered a weak option for a spellcasters turn. Because of this, your GM really shouldn't be going out of his way to nerf the playstyle.

Dark Archive

Requires GM adjudication, but it's not a spell, therefore it's not a spell like ability. It's clearly magical so it's not an extraordinary ability, so Su makes the most sense here. But that will have to be up to your GM.

Dark Archive

Mirror Image Snippet wrote:

...Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll...

A touch spell requires a melee touch attack roll.

Dark Archive

THAT broke your GM? Yikes...

As others have stated the interaction between those two is pretty clearly defined. He could either create more than the cup can hold, which of course would make the rest just overflow. Or simply create just enough to fill the cup (casters choice).

Dark Archive

FadetoBlack wrote:


What prompted the initial question was a Flaming arrow shot into a Web spell. The archer wanted the arrow to burn a 5' hole through the Web, while I didn't (and still don't) think that it would do so. I've still been unable to find anything that rules definitively on that, and the issue of what the Flaming quality actually does seems to be at the core of the question.

If that's your situation, then that part IS defined by RAW, and your Archer is correct. It states that "any fire" can set the webs alight. A flaming weapon does fire damage when it hits something. If your Archer is actually attacking the webs (rather than a creature IN the webs), then that flaming arrow will deal 1d6 fire damage to the section of web he was attacking, which as stated in the webs description, will burn away that section of the web.

You'd have to do some pretty interesting logical gymnastics to try and explain to your players how dealing fire damage to something doesn't fall within the domain of "any fire".

Now if your Archer tried to use the flaming arrow as a torch to set the webs alight without actually using up the arrow, THEN you'd be correct, he can't do that because flaming weapons, as defined, only deal fire damage to targets they hit. But if he's using the arrow as you described, and actually shooting the web, then absolutely your player is correct by RAW.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:


You really need to have the rules explain what is "fire"?

Actually, yes. This is a permissive rules set. You can only do what the rules say you can. Anything else requires GM adjudication. The weapon is "sheathed in fire" but since being "sheathed in fire" is an undefined concept within the rules, it is up to the item to define it. Which it does. And since producing light isn't mentioned in that definition, then by RAW the item does not produce light.

However, a GM could certainly houserule that however they'd like, but that's all it'd be: a houserule.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a chef-based character once who wielded a frying pan as his primary weapon using the trait Rough and Ready:

Rough and Ready wrote:
Benefit: When you use a tool of your trade (requiring at least 1 rank in the appropriate Craft or Profession skill) as a weapon, you do not take the improvised weapon penalty and instead receive a +1 trait bonus on your attack. This trait is commonly used with shovels, picks, blacksmith hammers, and other sturdy tools — lutes and brooms make terribly fragile weapons.

It was also a paladin and was able to enchant it with his divine bond ability, it was great.

Dark Archive

The spell specifies only one target. If you were mounted and were targeted by a disentigrate spell, is your mount also hit with it?
So unfortunately, no. By RAW, it'd be just you, and whether or not you'd both be still mounted afterward is questionable.
That being said, it would be perfectly reasonable for a GM to go ahead and include the mounts in the teleport effect, I know I would at my table. But as the spell is defined it would definitely be a houserule.

1 to 50 of 643 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>