Thedukk's page

Still no actual date though? Sad.

Massive Damage + Clustered Shots uses the full damage from the attack.

I did find new players to my group seemed to get a lot from the 1st edition one, I'd definitely buy a new one.

No he doesn't. A wizard that knows Heal* (level 1) also, already knows Heal 2, Heal 3, Heal 4, Heal 5, Heal 6, Heal 7, Heal 8, Heal 9, and Heal 10.

All he has to do is prepare it each morning into the appropriate slot.

*Note: Heal was chosen because I was too lazy to look up a better first level spell that was also short to type.

Wow, I hadn't noticed that. Yeah, I'm hoping for spontaneous heightening to be.. spontaneous in the final version. Sorcerers should be able to do basically the same things with the spells they know as a wizard (or, for other bloodlines, whoever else).

I started reading this thread thinking "2x per day, heighten a spell, that spell stays heightened until your next daily preparation". After realizing the wizards heighten for free, now I'm in "just let me choose which level I'm casting it as when I cast it".

My biggest issue with ancestry feats over the life of the character is.. you're probably with a mixed-bag of random races while you adventure, but your Dwarf picks up ancestral hatred or rock runner while you're doing that? Really hard to feel like that's an organic thing that happens.

The power level thing is also an issue, since you're not looking at Forlorn the same way at 17 as you are at 1. Perhaps they should have level-dependent bonuses? Even if it's as slow as +1/5 levels, looking at a +3 is MUCH better than a +1, if you want people to care about their higher-level choices.

I would like to point out on the "how do I know it's a magical sword?" side of things: Runes are the only way for a weapon to be magical now. Seeing a rune sounds easy to me, and the GM can easily say "that's the same rune that gives the figbter's sword the Flaming ability."

The biggest change I would suggest is to have the hardness reduction stated as reducing damage dealt to an item, then calculate dents based on damage taken, to reduce the complication some people are having understanding. At least, I think that is a better way to clarify how I read that working.

That said, until I see official word posted about this, I'm praying to Pharasma that my players just don't use shields. I'm pretty sure the intent is the multiple dents version, but the RAW is straight up no dents, which makes shields super-powerful.

I'm going to have to have a friend mark my book with the uncommon and rate things, the orange and red look really similar in the printed book.

Nevermind, I found an actual rare item. The printing's reds are inconsistent, so I was struggling to see which red was meant to be orange. Anyone curious about this: look at the Antimagic Field spell.

They clarified this at GenCon after being asked about this and said that -ALL- classes are Trained in Unarmored Defense.

Have they posted it anywhere? I keep seeing this and "Alchemists get 3+int skills", but I would feel MUCH better about saying it while testing the system that they built if I could see where they said it.

Step 1> Add more ancestry feats, with better ones at higher levels.

Step 2> Demote the weakest feats to "Level 0 Feat"

Step 3> At creation you get 2-Level 0 feats and 1-level 1 feat. Keep the Anc. Feat progression (5-9-13-17).

Also, the level 5 racial weapon feats are weak. I think they should grant expert in your racial weapons.

I like this idea. I haven't gotten to play yet, but when I heard about ancestry traits, I thought we were going to start with the races being basically the same as the races in 1st. With ancestry being a broader term, I was looking forward to feats based on where you grew up, what your parents taught you, stuff like that.

If you look at the list of animals for animal companions, Ape and Wolf are both listed, so I would say Big Cat is your answer. I would still check with your GM.

Acid Pit says it affects objects after three rounds and has an order in which it affects them. Does this mean you roll for the topmost qualifying item every three rounds? A possible RAI I can see would be that you roll for everything on the list, one at a time, every three rounds, but that seems unbalanced.

There is precedent for Kasatha using two two-handed weapons, see ** spoiler omitted **

For those of us without the book, could you spoil it? :P

Thedukk wrote:

Here's what I see when looking at the pieces of this puzzle:

Two-Weapon Fighting: "Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting."

There is no restriction on what types of weapons you use listed in the feat.

The normal listing for using two weapons without the feat says: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light."

Again, no restriction on what types of weapons are allowed. This does bring up a point for GM rule though, in that it specifies different penalties for off-hand and primary hand attacks, either of which could apply to the weapon in your primary and one off-hand.

Two Handed Weapons says: "Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon (see FAQ at right for more information.)"

Which doesn't say you can't have just one. In fact, per RAW, you'd be able to do this and you'd get 1-1/2 STR to both weapons' damages.

I do think it'd be nice for Paizo to clarify. As this is the only race where this situation can even come up, it's likely they simply didn't consider this option for the Kasatha.

The only reason 2 handed people can't do it because Paizo's FAQ said it can't happen anymore. Before that FAQ nothing was stopping it. It is just an example of the players coming up with unintended results.

Can you link to that FAQ? I can't find it. I did find something interesting, though: "Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

This pretty blatantly states that it only applies because using two hands is considered all your hands (normally). This suggests that if you have more than two hands, you could get away with it.

EDIT: There's a good chance that's the one you meant... o_O

Here's what I see when looking at the pieces of this puzzle:

Two-Weapon Fighting: "Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting."

There is no restriction on what types of weapons you use listed in the feat.

The normal listing for using two weapons without the feat says: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light."

Again, no restriction on what types of weapons are allowed. This does bring up a point for GM rule though, in that it specifies different penalties for off-hand and primary hand attacks, either of which could apply to the weapon in your primary and one off-hand.

Two Handed Weapons says: "Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon (see FAQ at right for more information.)"

Which doesn't say you can't have just one. In fact, per RAW, you'd be able to do this and you'd get 1-1/2 STR to both weapons' damages.

I do think it'd be nice for Paizo to clarify. As this is the only race where this situation can even come up, it's likely they simply didn't consider this option for the Kasatha.

Thanks for the reply!

They would of course get their save either immediately after the 1d2 con damage or immediately before they would suffer the 1d2 again which is DC 13.

(Caveat: the following is all opinion. Please let me know why you think differently!) I believe the intent is actually to allow the automatic poisoning because 1d2 con damage would not be out of line as an additive effect caused by a fourth level spell for an alchemist. It cannot cause more than 1d2, as once the target is poisoned additional poisonings from multiple bombs will only increase the DC for the save. The alchemist gets access to this at 12th level, when sixth level spells begin showing up. Fortitude saves at that level are typically between 12 and 16, allowing for an almost laughable save depending on what you are fighting.

An example of this intent could be gleaned from Cloud Kill which will begin to show up a full two levels before Viper Admixture. It deals 1d4 con damage with a fort save for only half. This could be considered automatic. It can either hit the target twice or hit multiple targets if positioned correctly. This is a poison effect that will deal damage regardless of you making a save or not.

The DC for a minimum caster level cloud kill is 15+ casting stat (5-ish around this level I believe, so I would hazard to guess an average DC of 18-20).

To me it sounds reasonably in line with the power level of other effects unless I'm missing something big.

Any thoughts on this?

So, per RAW (even though I wouldn't let anyone use lasers in my campaign in the first place, much less get the skills/feats required to do this) you can make a laser pistol.

The DC is 23, you have to have 5,000 GP in raw materials (per Craft), and you need to succeed on that save until your Craft result * the DC equals 100,000 (price in SP). You can only make that check once a week normally, which means this is going to take a while.

Doing quick math in Excel, I find that average rolls with a +33 in whichever craft (most likely Mechanical?) would only take you 100 weeks. If your GM gives your character a couple years (just shy of 2 if you use the Earth calendar of 52 weeks in a year) of downtime, you MIGHT be able to get this to work. Of course, a single failed check could cost you 2500 GP and add a week to this number, and then there's the fact you need access to a Military Lab, which requires 100 charges per day to be operated. To get that power, you could be lucky enough to find a working Military Lab with a working generator, pay for the ability to use one, or find one that works but doesn't have a generator, which means 10 batteries per day, at 100 GP each would end up being 700,000 GP worth of batteries.

Fabricate says that you still need to roll for "articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship", which sounds to me like "don't bother using this for a laser gun". Sure, you might get some refining of the basic materials, but that likely won't cut much off your crafting time.

Short answer? RAW says yes to crafting but no to Fabricate. It'll be a major pain, plus most games won't be happening in an area/setting where you even have the option. Also: very impractical. o_O They really don't want people doing this.

The Alchemist's fourth level extract 'Viper Bomb Admixture' states that when the target is successfully hit by one of the vipers coming out of the bomb that they are poisoned via the Venomous Snake's Poison ability.

Does this admixture auto-poison the target?

Here's my reasoning:

PRD's rules for poisoning for why it should:
* When you are initially exposed to a poison (whether during your action or someone else's), you must make a save to avoid being poisoned.

* Success: You resist being poisoned. You do not suffer any ill effects and you need not make any further saves.

* Failure: You are poisoned and immediately suffer the listed effect. You will need to make further saves to avoid more damage and cure the poison.
Exception If the poison has an onset period, failing the initial check does NOT cause you to suffer any effects.

The rules for poisoning state the initial exposure saves are to resist the act of being poisoned.

The spell itself:

When you throw a bomb and hit a target directly, up to four vipers are released from the bomb. One viper attacks the target of the direct hit, and the other vipers attack up to three creatures that take damage from the splash damage. The vipers make melee touch attacks (using your base attack bonus + Intelligence modifier) and on a hit deal 1d4 + your Intelligence modifier damage, and the target is poisoned as if by a venomous snake. Hit or miss, the conjured vipers disappear after they make the attack. The conjured snakes are not damaged or adversely affected by the bombs you throw.

The key phrase here is "..., and the target is poisoned as if by a venomous snake."

My reasoning sees the target getting auto-poisoned as it avoids any phrasing pertaining to exposure, rather it says the target is poisoned.

Can anyone tell me if there's anything I'm missing that would indeed give the target of the viper bomb a save to avoid the poison in the first place?

On a secondary note; what would be the DC of the poison? Would it change at all as it comes from a 4th level spell or does it stay as referenced?

~_~ Stupid subscription backlogging. I ended up with two books coming at the same time, which is probably how I don't have the PDF yet.

That's what I assumed they meant, but I'm pretty sure geometry teachers would cringe.

EDIT: After digging through all the "10 square foot" things on Google to finally find an example of a 10-meter-square, I found that I'm completely wrong, thanks for helping. ^_^

Kalindlara: No, they don't have to worry about those things, which is probably the mechanical reason to have them not count, because they're immune to many of the downsides casters worry about. I'm actually unsure about spell failure chance, but even if it mattered when they were making extracts, just put on your armor after, most characters don't sleep in their armor anyway.

Rynjin: That's kinda the view I was understanding, just was hoping it would make logical sense. I understand it's most likely a game balance thing, but I get annoyed at any rulebook that uses game terms and forgets that they're game terms. ^_^

I'm a bit confused, because the FAQ referenced over at D20PFSRD says that alchemists are not casters as written, but in the Alchemy ability, it says

In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then "casts" his spells by drinking the extract.

I understand that casts is in quotes, however, it says the alchemist has spells which are prepared and utilized the same game mechanics as casting when the extract is drank.

So... I think I'm missing something:

The wall is 1 inch thick per caster level. It covers up to a 10-foot-square area per caster level (so a 10th-level wizard can create a wall of ice 100 feet long and 10 feet high, a wall 50 feet long and 20 feet high, or any other combination of length and height that does not exceed 1,000 square feet).

It says 10-foot-square (meaning 10sqft, not a 10ft x 10ft square, unless I'm forgetting how area works, but then it says that a lvl 10 wizard can create a wall that is no more than 1000sqft, which would seems to have an extra 0.. is this a typo?

Bit of an old post, but if anyone's looking for a group, we normally meet in people's homes right now, but I'll have a store opening up soon, get in contact with me.

I like some of these ideas, but I'm of the opinion that a cohort should be treated like a familiar: During combat, the player controls the NPC because it's following orders (and it acts on his initiative), but outside of combat, it's a separate being and, as an NPC, is controlled by the GM. The player can still task it, but it won't be 100% loyal. The book doesn't state HOW loyal it has to be, and as someone who lost a ship to a mutiny during a game, I have to admit, there was a reason for that and it helped bring the game back to the power level it should have been.

As far as the GM creating the cohort, I'd say sit down with the player as the cohort's being made and have restrictions, it shouldn't be built as a full character, even though it's leveled down, it's an NPC and should be built as one.

I do agree the cohort should have a reason to be following the PC around, or there wouldn't be any realism, I've retired a character or two because of a loss of interest on the side of the character (Cleric running around with his brother, brother dies, he decides to go live in a temple). While you could easily build a Sakura character (following Ryu around hoping to become his student), it's better to have a character with more depth, even as an NPC.

I don't think the point of this was to say that Leadership's a bad feat, I think it was a response to people saying that (which I've seen in quite a few places here on the forums and heard from GMs and players during sessions).

Oh, and for the item creator cohort, you build that in my campaign and you'll find he's not selling to you at cost (but is saving you some money, mutually beneficial) and he might run low on supplies or have made things you're not looking for from time to time.

The only problem I'm seeing with this is that some of the Advanced Races don't have examples in any of the books I own. The Catfolk, Ratfolk, Suli, Vanara, and Vishkanya all have the standard language packages, but don't list whether or not they have a racial language. The Vishkanya also have weapon familiarity, but it doesn't list which types of weapons.