TheDrone's page

Take it easy. I didn’t realize there was so much animosity towards facing.

Another factor is I just like the extra options facing gives with the additional modifiers involved in attacks. I can see your point, but again, I do feel facing makes more sense. Where D&D/Pathfinder is ‘not reality’ it is nice when you can inject as much realism in mechanics as possible so you can relate to it more.

Where, I agree, a skilled fighter can defend himself at all angles, it is of course not going to be as easy if someone is coming up to him from behind. Therefore, the +10 to hit for the attacker (when attacking from behind).

But won’t approach anything else on the subject as it is technically off-topic and if people are going to get snippety about it.

You're just lucky you didn't ask about hide in plain sight.

Zurai wrote:

DragonBringerX wrote:

For a single action at 3rd level...a mage can deal scorching ray 4d6 (or 14 fire damage...that can crit.

A fighter could deal with a great sword and 18 str (2d6 + 6) so 11.

Uh, 2d6+11 averages to 13, not 11. Also, that greatsword wielding Fighter probably has Power Attack, so it's 2d6+9, or 16 average damage ... that crits twice as often as the scorching ray.

ah...math issues...your right about that. it is 12:15 am where I am...starting to get sleepy. any hows, like I said earlier, not trying to start a war or say anything is unbalanced I just don't really see how any effect that adds multiple dice cannot get a critical but spells can. I just don't really agree to say that their exclusive enough or limited enough to warrant such a deviation in the trend of rules.

Spells like vampiric touch, scorching ray, shocking grasp, etc. Even these ranges are made moot with the new metamagic feat in the apg (what it is called, ranged spell i think?).

I do agree that it does seem like it is uncommon enough, but it still just seems like a huge deviation. Read the book from chapter to chapter and you get hit with rule after rule about added dice don't crit, but added solid bonus' do...but spells do. really? It would seem though that no one else (except my group) agrees with me on this one. I guess were just missing something...

The spells are base damage. At lvl 5 you do 5d6 damage with schocking grasp. Period. Scorching Ray you do 4d6 damage. Period. If you have some feat or ability or item that added 1d6 fire damage to any fire spell you cast, then that would not be doubled like the original 4d6 fire damage would in the event of a crit.

When you gain levels in a spell caster class, you don't get "bonus damage" you get an increase in "base damage." That's just how the class works.

No different than a fighter taking weapon specialization or increasing his strength modifier.

Technically, no, but unless there is some game balance problem that I'm not seeing, I don't know why it shouldn't be allowed. It's actually a pretty interesting character concept.

I'm with this one. The Catch Off-Guard feat effectively gives you "proficiency" with improvised weapons, so if you wanted to take focus etc. for improvised weapons, I would allow that. It definitely sounds like a GREAT concept. One I was planning on using the next time I got to make a character.

I'm assuming you can take this right? As long as you meet all the prerequisites?

Quick question.

Fighter is walking by and doesn't notice a rogue behind cover using stealth...

Could the rogue not FIRE, beginning a surprise round, and score sneak attack should he hit since he's flat footed(as long as the Fighter doesn't have any funky feats preventing flat footedness), and then, should he win initiative, gain sneak attack again because of flat footedness of the fighter?

Can you take a 5 foot step in a surprise round?

If you can, then you can just wait until whoever is within 5 feet while under cover, start a surprise round (since they didn't "percept" you under cover of course), and get a possible two sneak attacks that way.

James Jacobs wrote:

Plotty Fingers wrote:

Plotty Fingers wrote:

Blue_Hill wrote:

Check this thread RotRL Level Up Points. Very useful advices.

My players are going to be 16 level when they meet Karzoug. Hopefully THE fight will be memorable. ^^

So, my players are 16th, but with 4 co-horts so a party of 8.

any advice for beefing up the Big K?

to be clear:

4 16th level characters
4 14th level characters

Karzoug's still going to be tough... but the problem is that the PCs outnumber him and thus simply have more actions. My suggestion: Add more bad guys to the final fight.

that should work nicely. Thinking Beefed up Leng Buddies.

Game is tonight. Will be posting post-battle/outcome and Pictures tomorrow, no matter how it goes.

This battle is rapidly approaching, and was curious how this went for everyone else... I want to make this memorable too, because the stakes are a bit higher than just "saving the world."

Man, I guess I'm running a "Superpowered" campaign then... lol

So I was thinking about how much gear I just gave out to my PC's, and it was quite a bit, but I was curious about something.

You have gear such as say a belt of physical perfection +6, and then a Manual of Quickness of Action +5 that are of about the same value. One is consumable, the other is worn.

Do you calculate how many Tomes or Manuals a PC has consumed in their character wealth? My gut answer is no, but that seems like a big bonus if the character is supposed to get another Quickness of Action worth of items since he followed the manual for the +5 Dex. Then again, it's a huge hole in the reverse.

Just curious what you all do for this.

TheDrone wrote:

This has nothing to do with the books... but I would say that a keen rapier and improved mark wouldn't stack. It doesn't make sense to me that a keen rapier would be 15-20 in my hand and 11-20 in your hand. The improved mark ability would get "absorbed" by the keen.

Now, if your swashbuckler had improved crit and improved mark, I could get behind that being a 11-20. Your training has effected the rapier, not an enchantment.

Why doesn't it make sense that a weapon has a different crit range in different hands? If i have Imp. Crit. and you don't, won't the crit range be different? Not really understanding your point.

As to whether a rapier wielding swashbuckler can break the 15-20 rule(which i wasn't aware of and can't find a reference to)
: a rapier has a crit range of 18-20;
if i have Imp. Critical or a keen rapier - 15-20;
if i have Imp. Mark - 13-20.
If it was gonna happen you should apply the Imp. Mark last IMHO.

Going by what JJ said, that can't happen. What's the deal then?
If this is an official sourcebook, we've obviously got a problem.

Oh it was just my opinion, probably should have just kept it to myself.

I don't think swashbuckler is a pathfinder class. As a pathfinder design goal, they don't want to exceed the 15-20 crit range as an internal rule, be it by enchantments or abilities.

grr, I wish I had that book right now. It's hard trying to pick up on issues with second hand info :(

How is the improved mark ability worded? If it just adds +2 to the weapons base threat range, then you have to deal with timing calculations.

Fun math time.

Keen doubles the weapons threat range.

Rapier 18-20
+2 improved mark
16-20
keen
11-20

Rapier 18-20
keen
15-20
improved mark
13-20

But... that's unpossible!

So the question becomes whether keen affects improved mark. If improved mark specifically affects the BASE threat range, then keen or imp. crit would I think push it to 11-20. Again, this is without the book, just what has been said on thread about it.

I'm trying to decide whether it's worth tossing down 10 bucks for the pdf. However, the comments about all the errors and missing info in the book aren't exactly making me excited ;p

This has nothing to do with the books... but I would say that a keen rapier and improved mark wouldn't stack. It doesn't make sense to me that a keen rapier would be 15-20 in my hand and 11-20 in your hand. The improved mark ability would get "absorbed" by the keen.

Now, if your swashbuckler had improved crit and improved mark, I could get behind that being a 11-20. Your training has effected the rapier, not an enchantment.

I knew it wasn't based on how much you move in the round. The wording in James' post threw me off a little though, so I was just making sure I understood him correctly.

What I want to know is the jump check modifier for a 7th-level monk with 16 Dexterity, max ranks in Acrobatics, and the Fleet feat four times.

That seems pretty easy. 3 (dex) + 10 (ranks) + 16 (+4 speed bonus x4) = 29

Can you combine Power Attack and Combat Expertise when you're attacking so that you would gain a larger attack penalty for an increase to both damage and AC?

Though it seems a little counter-intuitive, I don't see why not. Each declaration doesn't use an action so they look compatitible.

Landir wrote:

You are quite right when you think about 3 attacks, just miscalculating the bonuses

First main hand attack: Long sword(+6 BAB +3 STR bonus -2 Two weapon penalty =) +7
Firs Off hand attack: Short sword (+6 BAB +3 STR bonus +1 Light weapon Training -2 Two weapon penalty =) +8
Second main hand attack: Long sword(+1 BAB +3 STR bonus -2 Two weapon penalty =) +2

Why is this way? Wieldin two weapons(or a double weapon) allows you to make only one attack per round with your off-hand weapon and if your off-hand weapon is light your penalty are less than the ones you get with a non-light weapon.
Further more, the extra attack is gained at the highest attack bonus that you have, +6 in this example

Naturally, you can choose to revert the order of the two first attacks, making the sequence: First off hand attack +8, First main hand attack +7, Second main hand attack +2.

Hope this helps^^

Landir could you point out to me where in the rules it explains that the off-hand weapon only gets one attack per round and that it is at the maximum BAB? I'd appreciate it, thanks.

I'm not sure where it states it in the book, but when you look at Improved Two Weapon Fighting, the "Normal" or "without this feat" text describes that you can only make one attack with your off-hand reguardless of base attack bonus.

Acrobatics vs CMD is a good start. if the dragon flips maybe use its CMB vs a climb check or just allow a climb/reflex to grab on.

also do the dragons get AoO's?

is the player trying to do things "Shadow of the colossus" style?

You know, I hadn't been giving the Dragon's attacks of opportunity. I might just do that. It makes sense as you are "moving through" a threatened area.

Shadow of the Colossus, wow that's a reference to be sure. I had to look it up. Fun game!! ;)

I think that's an accurate view of what he's doing or trying to accomplish. Balancing on top and battling a bigger than he is creature.

So this has come up a few times during my Rise of the Runelords campaign, and has been effective enough, just wanted to throw it out there to see what the DMing bretheren would do.

A rogue got a flying carpet (i thought it was harmless enough when I rolled for it) but then the rogue get jumping on my dragons!! He said he wanted his character to balance on the dragon, there's no rule for this, so I ruled that he could use his acrobatics check vs. the dragon's CMD. Since he's riding the dragon, he asked if it was considered flat-footed, I thought yeah ok, sounds like it makes sense, the dragon couldn't defend itself effectively (and it's natural armor was high enough it was still hard to hit.)

Does acrobatics vs. CMD make sense to you? Would the dragon be flatfooted? What would you have the dragon do if this pesky half-elf kept jumping on it?

Just tossing out things for ideas. It's pretty effective a distraction. Would it be as simple as the dragon flying way way up, turning upside down? I could grapple him in the most recent adventure, but he could still escape and get back on enough for the witch to fireball him to death.

You guys are WAAAAY over thinking this and forgetting a few things.

If the beholder wants to get a surprise round, he does. The perception check is to see if any of the PCs get to act on the surprise round. Initiative is rolled and anyone who made the perception check gets to make a standard action in initiative order. Normal combat proceeds in initiative order after the surprise round.

If the rogues do not have a weapon out, or do not have quick draw, good luck doing anything substantial.

The perception check is to see if you can act in the surprise round, that's it. It's not as game breaking as it's being made to be.

Ainslan wrote:

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Int is not a dump stat, it's really that simple.

Again, if Int if not a dump stat, what is?

I am not saying you can not dump it. I am saying that if you do you can not expect not to have to deal with fewer skill points from having done so

In the case of the OP, yeah he is screwed. He could put that 5 a few places none of them great but he chose INT. which is fine, but he has to deal with that choice.

I am failing to see what the big deal is, every other ability works this way why should we make an exception? The -3 eats the extra +1, that simple.

So if I have this cool concept where my Paladin is going to have a 5 INT, talk funny and be generally slow at book-learnin, but be really good at swimming/climbing/jumping trees/riding horses/praying to deity that's ok.

But if I'm not that creative, thoughtful, or what have you, or I just crunch numbers and I just put my stats there because that makes the most sense by the numbers, thats not ok?

I still noticed something weird related to this. When stealthing, you try to move silently and unseen. However, when you become invisible, you gain a +20 to Stealth.

Let's say some guy wants to infiltrate a castle at night. He becomes invisible and gains +20 to Stealth. The odd thing is, he also becomes more silent, since Stealth now covers being silent AND hiding. How's that possible? Since when did becoming invisible made you more silent?

It's one of those weird things... if you can see something, you're more likely to hear it. If you can't see something, you're more likely to not hear it.

It's like... I'm freaking blind without my glasses. I can't quite describe it, but when I take them off, suddenly EVERYTHING is less clear, hearing included. And when I put them back on everything is normal again.

Imagine hearing something, just a small shuffle, and look back and see nothing. Would you think you A.) really heard something and investigate further even though you can't see anything, or B.) see nothing and shrug your shoulders that your mind is playing tricks on you again. Since there's nothing there most of the time for a guard, he'll probably go with B.

Seems perfectly ok to me.

You only get your base attack bonus, not any strength bonuses, when you release a dancing weapon, correct?

An official response is pretty rare. In truth, I don't really see the confusion. Mithral makes the armor be treated as a lighter category, the only exception being for Proficiency. Seems pretty cut and dry.

I agree. The only case it cannot be one category lighter is in the case armor already considered light armor.

Nope it's still heavy armor. Now if it was medium armor then yeah it would work. However it is not and does not count as such. If it did ya wouldn't need the heavy armor proficiency to wear it.

The line "Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. counts for things like chain mail allowing ya to move 30' and not 20. But ya see heavy armor ya still move 20 so those 4 of 12 types are outside the "Most of" range anyhow

Mithral armor no longer changes base type like it did in 3.5 So if it's heavy armor making it mithral does not change the fact that it is heavy armor

So no it does not work for fast move as that ability does not work in heavy armor

I think you're getting tripped up on the fact that the barbarian would need Heavy Armor Proficiency to wear the armor with no penalties. ( I couldn't say what the penalties are for wearing an armor you aren't proficient in. )

The "most" blurb in mithral is because light armors do not go one category lighter because light is as low as it can go. From the SRD:

Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than steel but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor, and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. This decrease does not apply to proficiency in wearing the armor. A character wearing mithral full plate must be proficient in wearing heavy armor to avoid adding the armor's check penalty to all his attack rolls and skill checks that involve moving.

If the barbarian was proficient in heavy armors, and had a mithral full plate, he would absolutely gain his movement bonus in that armor.

Just to add to the debate...

There is nothing that I can find that would preclude using mithral as the base for the celestial armor. Since it is the magical enchantments that make it light, the mithral would still apply, just only reduce ACP and boost max dex. Of course, it would make it more expensive, but hey, it's worth it.

And, as to the speed reduction, it says treat it as light armor, and it only requires light armor proficiency, so I'd say no, it doesn't reduce speed either.

I dunno about the mitrhal, it says it's made of silver and gold and is so fine and light that it can be worn under clothing as to not to betray it's presence. It is also a medium armor (chainmail) that is considered light for ALL purposes including proficiencies.

Mitrhal doesn't have any of those properties, so it if WAS made out of mitrhal, it would cost extra, but not add any extra benefit.

James Jacobs wrote:

meatrace wrote:

So does Celestial Armor reduce your speed like medium armor does?

Nope. Because it's not medium armor. It's light armor.

Not disagreeing necessarily, because that makes more sense given its stats, but it never says so in the writeup only that it is +3 Chainmail, and Chainmail is medium armor.

Add this to the heap of errata if it works as you say.

Are you sure about that? I would look again ;)

Nah; celestial armor only requires light armor proficiency to avoid the penalties. It's a pretty solid armor choice for bards or rogues as a result.

I wouldn't run it that way. The total cost is closer to that of a +5 enhancement bonus worth of stuff, (maybe +4?) and the difference of those two would have to be paid.

Thought that's not THAT big of a difference of cost actually... crazy.

Rithralas wrote:

I always played it that the standard action would be only a single bite or a single claw.

I always did too, but now I'm not so sure. So if a creature's option is 2 claws, the first one is run normally and the second at -5 as a single standard action? A 4 tentacle example is given in the PRD. Are all 4 allowed to attack as a standard?

Now I'm confused.

That's a great point.

So if I have a Stone Golem at 2 Slam Attacks (at +22 from pathfinder beastiary (from memory, maybe be off)), and he moves more than 5 feet and makes a standard attack action, does he get 1 slam attack at a higher bonus? If so what is the bonus (or penalty for using 2 slam attacks)

I've never done this, I'd just read out of the book and gave him a single +22 for a standard attack action, or 2 +22's if he used a full round action.

As a DM, if I was running a game where a substantial number of PCs or monsters were tiny, I would consider recentering the combat scale.

In other words, large=huge, medium=large, small=medium, tiny=small.

Not perfect due to the inconsistent scaling that exists between medium and small creatures.

I have actually played around with combat scale being dynamic, ie. the smallest size creature in the combat always takes up one square with a threatened area of one square, and anything bigger is scaled up accordingly. It is actually fun, a medium sized PC then actually FEELS like a giant when battling tiny creatures.

I was actually thinking the same thing...

If ALL the PC's (or a majority of them) are tiny, then why not rescale the game to tiny? The game is essentially about the PC's anyway.

Another thing to consider, and this may not be considered a cut and dried solution, but the spell only affects 10 cu ft, + 1 cu ft./level.

at level 11, thats 21 cubic feet. Note that this is NOT 21 10 foot cubes, but less than one 10 foot cube. At 9 foot tall, that leaves at best a 1 x 2.33 x 9 volume of stone that can be affected by this spell.

The volume of the Golem would be up to a DM's decision, but a 9' humanoid shaped block of stone takes up a bit more than 21 cubic feet of material in my book.

Lets also look at the Hold Person and Hold monster spells. They provide an interesting granularity of definition, a very specific difference between Persons and Monsters, surely both Creatures. Then lets look again at constructs / animated objects and plain objects, and the specificity of the spell description's Target of Stone or Stone Object.

In light of this thread, I know I would rule that the spell would not work on the golem, but at the time, depending on time constraints, I may have ruled otherwise and later, after the session, rethought the ruling.

This, 21 cubic feet is actually rather small. A 3x3x3 foot box is 27 cubic feet. Not sure what to equate this to, but it's a lot smaller than a full stone golem I suspect.

I'd say you could turn one arm or leg, or maybe it's torso into whatever shape you want, but that'd be about it. It'd take some negatives to to hit and movement or maybe AC, but wouldn't be outright disabled.

Unfortunately yes, it is a rogue ability based on rogue class levels.

That is a very creative backstory. I wouldn't have any problem houseruling the ability in the way you describe. Minor and major magic I wouldn't have a problem house ruling in the way you describe for a theif/mage as well. The opposite? (A mage levels contributing to resiliency or fighter levels contributing to minor/major magic?) No.

The game system doesn't penalize you for multiclassing. It rewards you for staying with the same class. I wouldn't went straight rogue, but I wanted to go Shadowdancer because I liked the idea of it. That's just how it goes.

Sneak attack goes off every attack a rogue makes, so yes on all blows.

To expand on that, sneak attack damage applies as long as a sneak attack condition is in place (hidden, invisible, flanking, etc.).

By the same token, when I was younger I could play through Super Contra without losing a single life. Now, I'm back to being lucky to make it to the second level.

Abilities come and go. Why can't I swap out a feat I've never used? Why can't I let some skill fall to the wayside while I train up in another area? This is just a realistic as not being able to get rid of something you picked up at the start of your career.

This.

It's really not that big a deal. Especially if you're looking at trading a weapon focus. Say you're been using a rapier all this time, but want to use a mace because you've seen some things that make you realize that a rapier just isn't as combat effective as a mace in certain situations.

I've had characters trade full levels away. One person took a level of paladin but it just didn't fit the story, so he swapped it for a level of cleric (he was lvl 9 cleric/1 paladin, went to 10 cleric) the other character was going to go for arcane archer, finally took the level of wizard and decided that arcane archer wasn't the way she wanted to go. (About the same situation, 8 ranger/1 wizard, went to 9 ranger)

One-zy two-zy stuff a campaign isn't a big deal. Sure if you're completely overhauling your character every session there's no continuity there. But if you've got in game adventure downtime, and your player announces that they're going to focus on training in a new weapon, why not award Weapon Focus for free?

This is all weapons based, but a free skill point and a free feat here and there isn't a bad thing. I'm not sure how you would word it in game, but a mage "training to maximize his spells" could earn maximize spell for free. Or maybe he had maximize spell and found out that heighten spell would be better, so he started studying heightening instead of maximizing.

As long as enough time passes between each use of ability it's fine in my book.

In my opinion, "flat-footed=being denied your dex bonus to AC." That's how it's listed on the character sheet.

I've always looked at it this way and that's how I see it. So the way I look at it, uncanny dodge would protect against any instances where the rogue (or barbarian) would be denied their dex bonus to ac.

I really haven't the foggiest clue on why the ability was worded like it was. I think they wanted feint to work against a character with uncanny dodge. It's created some strange consquences though.

It does need to be errataed. There are a MULTITUDE of ways to interrpret this ability.

Quote:

Having said that, tactful language can go a long way to keeping even a disagreement civil and about the facts and interpretations at issue.

I don't think that can be repeated enough, Robert.

mynameisjake wrote:

That having been said, one of the consistent themes on the boards is gratitude to Paizo for actually paying attention to these discussions. I absolutely love that. Not only did Paizo save the d20 system (which earns them my gratitude), but they are also professional game designers, something that is far more rare than most people seem to realize (which earns them my respect). They are not just some random posters. They are the authority on the game. You don't get to appeal to them for rulings, then dismiss them for not agreeing with you. And you especially don't get to say that they don't understand the rules that they, themselves, wrote.

I think I can definitely agree with everything you say here, Jake.

I don't get the impression that James was at all taken aback by debating this issue (which is as much about "why" it works one way or the other as much as the ultimate outcome), but if he thinks my participation here is counter-productive or offensive, I would certainly take him seriously about that.

James Jacobs wrote:

If you DO houserule that you can cleave images, you should allow normal attacks to target them as well. Which sorta defeats the purpose of the spell, I think.

I'm not quite sure what you're meaning here. 2 attacks via Cleave would destroy the same # of images/ have the same chances of hitting the real Caster as 2 attacks via Full Attack, which is unambiguously allowed, wouldn't it? I've never suggested allowing individual targetting of images, I've just suggested that after hitting/destroying an image, the remaining images/caster as a whole present "a" (combined) target that has not been hit, and is adjacent to the original destroyed image (otherwise M.I. wouldn't have much effect if the images exactly overlayed the Caster).

Reversing my example, say I HIT the real Caster on the first hit. Images should still remain, but I cannot Cleave the Images-Caster again, because I *HAVE* already hit the M.I.'d Caster-Images amalgamation. In other words, there is an assymetric relationship between the Caster and Images: If the Caster is DESTROYED (or injured) the Images are also, but if an Image is destroyed the Caster is not. That would seem to satisfy the requirements of discrete objects, or targets of actions, because you can effect (or attack) one image but not the others. To me, Mirror Image is "imposing itself" into the target selection stage: you see the overlapping images but can only decide to attack them "as a whole", leaving it to chance which image is individually targetted/effected.

If this is too much to think about, I completely understand :-)

Even though there are multiple amalgamations of the same target, it is still ONE target. You cannot target the SAME target more than once for cleave, great cleave, or whirlwind attack.

If you want to use your full attack, knock yourself out! Those other abilities will not work base on the "each target may only be selected once."

James Jacobs wrote:

Quandary wrote:

Imagine: Mage w/ Mirror Image standing next to bodyguard.

You attack Mage, hitting and destroying an image, then Great Cleave into Bodyguard (hitting), why can't you continue Cleaving into the remaining Image(s)? They remain a valid Target (as a whole). You just destroyed the target of your previous attack.

That's the thing; they never WERE a valid target, because you can't specifically target mirror images. Since you can't actually aim at a specific mirror image with a normal attack, you can't Cleave one.

OK. Saying you FIRST attack the bodyguard, you COULD at minimum make one Cleave attack against the Mirror Image'd Mage, right?

So, going back to hitting the Mage first (destroying an Image), Cleaving the Bodyguard (hitting him), there remains a Mirror Image'd Mage WHO YOU HAVE NOT YET HIT, because the attack was targetted out of your control against an Image, which is now gone because you destroyed it. Why exactly can't you try to hit the Mirror Image'd Mage, none of whose 'components' (Mage himself and remaining Images) have been attacked by you?

Nowhere here am I saying you are trying to specifically target an Image, the Mirror Image spell itself randomly takes care of which Image is targetted, and none of the remaining images/real dude have actually received an attack from you.

You may not attack an individual foe more than once a round with Great Cleave.

Even though you have destroyed one image with your swing, you have targeted the mage, who is still one target for the purposes of selecting a target by Great Cleave, and cannot select the same target again. There is a CHANCE you may hit an image instead of the mage, but that doesn't mean you can select each image separately, even though there are multiple images. There is still only one target. You know there is only one target. The images shift and flicker so as to confuse you and make it impossible to target anything specific in that 5 ft. square that the mage is in.

This may not work for you, but this is how I'm going to run it.

You're only looking at this through the lens of a single class character, what about dual and tri class?

What if you had a rogue 6/wiz 6? Do you equally lose 1 lvl of rogue and one of wiz? What if it was rogue 11/wiz 1? Do you lose the ability to cast spells or sneak attack dice? What about Rogue 10/wiz 2? What about Rogue 7/wiz 5/arcane trickster 1? Do you lose all arcane trickster abilities? In these cases, how much damage dice do you lose on say a fireball or lightning bolt? Is it possible to tell? Is it negative levels/2 or negative levels /3 in the arcane trickster case?

All that's pretty sticky. I can live with the negative levels = -1 penatly per, but that just seems so, weak? Negative levels use to mean something, right? It was scary before...

The darkvision I am talking about is magical darkvision, cast after you've been blinded. Had the darkvision spell been cast before the blindness spell, yes, it would (in my oppinion) have been negated, meaning that the creature would be blind.

This was my point, if you reverse the applications of the spells, you end up with a blind creature with darkvision, ergo, a creature that cannot see even though he has an activie darkvision spell because he is blind.

My second point is that the order of the spells should not dictate the effect. If you have two spells simultaneously effecting a creature, the end result should be the same every time. If there is a darkvision and blindness effect in play on the creature, the creature should be blind, reguardless of the order of applications of the spells.

That's my take, it just complicates things if you try and do it another way.

If you REALLY want the darkvision active, I would rule the darkvision could only work in an area of total darkness, since only "darkvision" is being granted, not total vision. If there was bright or dim light around, you could still not see by the effect of blindness.

Just to be clear on this...

You do NOT get Improved Evasion when you have evasion and another class grants you evasion similar to how uncanny dodge works?

I've always wanted it to work this way, but am pretty sure it doesn't. Would just like someone else to put me in my place.

My only point would be, if you have eyes, and you are using them, Mirror Image will affect you.

If you have eyes and decide not to use them, that's fine. You take any penalties associated with that. However I would rule that since you are intentionally closing your eyes for a turn, you wouldn't be able to open them until your next turn.

If you never had eyes in the first place and rely on other senses, Mirror Image and all other spells, effects, and abilities that affect vision will not affect you.

But it starts at +1, so at 4th or 5th-level it should go up to +2.

Surprise Accuracy (Ex): The barbarian gains a +1 morale bonus on one attack roll. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. This power is used as a swift action before the roll to hit is made. This power can only be used once per rage.

4th level.

Even though you've technically only gained 3 levels from 1st level, 1st level is still a level gained. So you've gained a total of 4 levels of barbarian.

TheDrone wrote:

Touchy!

I would say no as a ranged attack cannot cause, or benefit from, flanking.

This is correct as I understand it. It would work with a Range: Touch quickened spell though.

If it's a range, it cannot benefit from flanking right? If you had other conditional modifiers that granted sneak attack (flat-footed, etc.) then you could get it from this spell, or a melee touch attack, but not from a ranged touch attack. Even using a ranged touch attack in melee.

Touchy!

I would say no as a ranged attack cannot cause, or benefit from, flanking.

Hideous Laughter says that the target can't take actions. It also says that the target can make a save every round as a full round action. Which one is correct?

I believe it's saying...

"You can't take any actions, HOWEVER, you can make a one time save on the round after the initial failed save as a full round action."

It's trying to say that if you MAKE your save in that next round, you can take no actions until the following round.

You can only take a feat multiple times if the feat states you can take it multiple times. The line that stated that in the toughness feat was removed (on purpose) and you may not take it multiple times. Dodge doesn't have a line in it that states you may take it multiple times so you may not take it multiple times.

Interesting. I didn't catch that note (or non note) in toughness. Anyone know why they didn't let you take it multiple times? I'm just curious. Did it not make sense? I don't think it would be overpowered with all the other feats you can take now.

Ravingdork wrote:

Apparently, in Pathfinder you can take feats multiple times. However, their benefits don't stack unless they say they do.

The Dodge feat grants a +1 dodge bonus to AC, and according to the Core book dodge bonuses stack with other dodge bonuses. Does that mean I can take the Dodge feat multiple times and have it's effects stack? After all, it heavily implies that it stacks with itself by calling it a dodge bonus to begin with.

Huh? I had not noticed the ability to take feats multiple times.

On a related note, does Toughness stack with itself?

As far as I remember, Toughness does stack with itself. Each time you take the feat, you get the bonus HP.

The suppressing ability could still lead to some confusion I'm afraid; what if a 'delayed' spell was cast in the Antimagic Field? Can they even be casted? For example: Delayed Blast Fireball, Symbol of X (Does it come in effect as soon as the field is removed?)

A spell cannot be cast inside an anti-magic field.

If a delayed blast fireball were cast, and then an anti-magic field engulfed the delayed blast, it would be surpressed. If the anti-magic field were removed BEFORE the intended detonation, it would detonate as normal. However, I would rule that if the anti-magic field were over the delayed blast when it was intended to go off, the blast would be surpressed and would have no effect. I believe this is consistant with how an anti-magic field works but I've been in limited battles with one, so I dunno for sure ;).

It's my job as a DM to nip things I'm disallowing in the bud before game starts. If a player comes to me before the campaign starts and has this "killer" concept of a two lance charge and I don't approve of the idea, I'm going to tell him before we start play. I make it a point to talk to my players about what they have planned before game starts so I don't have to say no in the middle of game.

Why say no at all? It really isn't a big deal for this kind of thing. It's much better to let they have everything they want, and then have them deal with the consequences.

No, I already said no to the backflipping wizard. Its a case by case thing. If anyone, regardless of class they play wants to do something I find silly I'll say no. But the spellcaster can fly! or what have you has nothing to do with "can I use two lances at once"

Now I'll agree I find wizards doing flips and such is silly as hell while casting, same with rolling across the room like a ninja then casting firball. I would tell them no as well but that would have nothing to do with anyone else.

You can not use "but he can do x" as a reason to allow something you find game mood breaking. The wizard casts spells, so thats his thing, He is gonna be able to do stuff non casters just can not do. That is the point of spells

I think the really big point here is...

How often is your dual-lancer actually going to charge with dual lances?

Think of how often a mage can cast. Every round right? No matter the situation. A mage can deal super damage. Underground, flying, wherever. This is DUNGEONS and dragons after all.

How often does a lancer get to charge? How often is a lancer going to have the situation to charge with dual lances? Probably not very often.

The thing is, by stopping this, you've ruled against a very rare occurance. A charging person weilding two lances at a target.

It's not so much that "it's silly." It's that why say no? Just because you can? Because you don't like it? You have to be very careful when you start arbitrarily saying yes or no to things. It promotes a very negative environment. There is nothing game-breaking about a dual lance charge. It's a 1 in 100 shot.

I got two-weapon fighting with my rogue for a dual sneak attack flanking (quad when I get two attacks which is OH so close.) I do INSANE damage when I do this. I killed a wyvern in one volley with this at lvl 5 (pretty sure it was 5.) Is it cheesy? Probably. Why get two sneak attacks in the same round? The rules don't say you can't, but it's a bit weird to "sneak" on someone twice. The DM could have ruled "One sneak attack a round! Because it isn't realistic!" We've had numerous combats since I've gotten this idea and usage. I think i've had a total of 5-10 opportunities to do this (through to level 8). In those opportunities, I've hit on both attacks twice.

Hopefully you get my point, which is even if you did allow this, this is going to affect maybe 1 out of every 10 sessions. And he's going to miss on one of the attacks half the time.

What does dual sneak attack have to do with dual lances? A whole lot! All the game rules are made so that they can co-exist together in harmony. If you suddenly say, "Dagger's should do more damage! It's not realistic that they only do 1d4" and move them to say 1d6 or 1d8. You have now affected every class (they all can use daggers) every feat (why take any other weapon proficiency? two-weapon fighting is changed drastically).

Tumbling while casting doesn't quite cover it either. It's a bad example. I tried with the dual sneak attack, it's a bit closer though a bit more spelled out in the rules that you CAN dual sneak attack (you get sneak attack as long as the conditions for sneak attack apply to every attack) but dual lances is LESS powerful than dual sneak attack. And they happen about as frequently. (until greater invisibility i guess.)

Eh, either way it is your game and you can do what you want, but there is nothing that's going to break your game here. I'm going to start DMing soon and if my player decides to do this, I will cheer him on as he does his 1d8 damage.

And I will give him 1.5 strength damage for free, because he's using all of his body for the strike, not just his arm. And allow him to keep his sheild bonus.

Also, if the feat meant for two handers to retain the bonus it would have said so.

To be very nit-picky, there is a "weapon in your off-hand" when you are weilding a two-handed weapon.

I see no reason why you would not be able to use IBD to retain your buckler armor bonus to AC while using a two-handed weapon.

This thread has been very informative. I never knew there was this penalty to using a buckler with TWF. I always treated a MW buckler as a free +1 shield bonus on all my characters.

TheDrone wrote:

I guess the only real thing our hapless opponent could do is ready an action for when he gets in melee range?

Ready his Full Attack for when the Shadowdancer pops out of the shadows. Readied actions are the bane of HiPS users. So is a super high Perception.

It's not common for say, a fighter, to have a super high Perception. Haven't tried it in PF yet with all the skills changed. But I want to make sure I have some sort of counter for this should it be used on me for any reason, or be able to guide the DM so it's not just an "I win" button.

For me, I'll probably ready a grapple action, or trip etc.

Thanks for everyone's help!

What about the ever popular tank-mage?

Do you NEED to take the 5 foot step to stealth? It only says "normally as part of a move action." So theoretically an assassin hiding in someone's shadow can attack and re-stealth inside the shadow without moving?

I guess the only real thing our hapless opponent could do is ready an action for when he gets in melee range?