Torchlyte's page

I wouldn't say I hate it, but it does annoy me. I think it grates on me because it sounds rustic, though, not because of its widespread use.

Imagine two identical rogues standing side by side. The rogues have the Opportunist rogue talent, Combat Reflexes, the Paired Opportunists teamwork feat, and Fortuitous weapon enchants on their longspears.

Now a lion charges the rogues head-on such that it ends up adjacent to both of the rogues. Assuming all attacks hit, how many attacks of opportunity are possible?

Here's what I have:

Each of the rogues gets two attacks from the lion's movement due to their Fortuitous weapons. Rogue A can use his Opportunist talent to get an additional attack because rogue B hit the lion. Similarly, rogue B gets his own additional attack through his Opportunist talent. Do any of these attacks allow further bonus attacks through the Paired Opportunists feat?

This does not allow you to take more than one attack of opportunity against a creature for a given action.

What constitutes a "given action"? Does it have to be an action undertaken by the target? Consider that the Opportunist rogue talent fires off of your ally's action, not the opponent's. What about Fortuitous - does that also activate Paired Opportunists?

Suppose A1 and A2 refer to rogue A's first two attacks, with B1, B2, etc. being analogous for rogue B.

The most liberal interpretation I have is:

Lion moves, provoking A1, A2, B1, and B2 due to Fortuitous. A2 and B2 cause B3 and A3 respectively due to Paired Opportunists. Rogue B's hit permits A4 through A's Opportunist talent, which in turn allows B4 due to Paired Opportunists. Then Rogue A's hit permits B5 through B's Opportunist talent, which causes A5 due to Paired Opportunists.

So, 10 attacks at the most... but it could be as few as 6 if Paired Opportunists is interpreted to not allow any additional attacks in this scenario.

What sayeth thee, Rules forum? How many attacks, and why?

By RAW it seems that taking it off will bring you back to square one as far as having to then wait 24 hours.

Losing your permanent stat bonuses is a real pain. As a Wizard with a Headband you're changing DC's, spells per day, and skills. Then when you get it back you get it to some things but not others until your 24 hours have passed.

Value of time = value of scroll of mirror polish - value of polishing materials

The value of a person's time varies from person to person, and in this case it depends on the situation you're in.

A wizard I played with once used prestidigitation to produce a shower of chalk that let us see an invisible familiar. We ended up crippling the quest's boss at the end from having eliminated the one ally the GM thought he was absolutely certain they'd have at the end even if we did everything else right (which we did).

I would expect it to work just like powder.

Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals whether an invisible creature is there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/gear/advent uringGear.html#powder

According to the terms of the duel, the opposing caster is a 20th level sorceror with the Imperial bloodline, so Energy Drain wouldn't work.

Furthermore, that bloodline is only available to humans, so if you want your sorceror to have that bloodline, you have to play a human.

Hence the Thanatopic metamagic.

Rynjin wrote:

The real question here is, why weren't they using bows in the first place?

At the start, a few of the bandits were using bows, and a few were using melee. Once the barbarian went king-sized, all of the bandits moved out to range and used bows.

This is actually a bad strategy since the player can then charge them and attack them from an adjacent square. They'll still provoke if they five-step to shoot and if they try to switch weapons... they provoke.

Benign.

Tyranus Dragonsbane.

One of your party members, jr.

In most situations it also doesn't make sense for real foes to target your items since the effects are long-term and in the short-term they're getting killed because they didn't do HP damage. You might try reasoning along those lines if your GM insists that he's trying to play your opponents 'optimally'.

Poison is not supposed to be used in pitched battle. That's never what it's been for. Poison is supposed to be administered in secret, by stealth or by guile. Sneaking into an enemy camp and poisoning their stew or wine, for instance. Or firing that one poison-dipped arrow from the shadows. If you're trying to use poison AFTER rolling initiative, you've messed up.

But the poisons aren't deadly enough for that to be effective.

I'm partial to the Mind Blank + Greater Invisibility combo, depending on your buff guidelines. There are plenty of ways to get around it (not True Sight or See Invisibility, though), but it's one more thing your opponent has to know how to counter.

Staff of the Master (Necromancy) is a handy item.

Edit:

Definitely take Craft Wondrous Items if you can use it to double your WBL.

Feebelemind is a handy spell.

You could also be a Thanatopic Enervation/Energy Drain-mancer.

Yeah, I found the mirror one day when I decided that my Witch was going to opt out of the AC arms race.

Some options:
Cloak of Resistance
Headband of Alluring Charisma
Mirror of Guarding Reflections
Jaunt Boots
Boots of Levitation
Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier
Mnemonic Vestment
Gloves of Arrow Snaring
Plague Rat Belt
Handy Haversack
Wands of Invisbility, Fly, Glitterdust, etc.

a 2nd level wand is 4500, not 1500

Wand price is Spell Level x Caster Level x 750.

As for the OP's contention, yeah it's true that if you're taking the Healing Hex anyways you're better served by a Wand of Hex Vulnerability than CLW. That is, assuming the target has lost above a certain threshold of hp and you're not topping off.

I just watched our 14 con witch have to burn 3 hero points and 2 combat-healing "rescues" from the party healer (me) to avoid dying (not just going into the negatives, 'cuz she did that) from "incidental" damage. She wasn't even being attacked, she just rolled crap for saves and happened to be within AoE while the villain was trying to stop the rest of the party.

It's stories like this that pushed me to spec Slumber Hex/Save-or-Die. It's not my fault!

Friend of mine had a weighted dice, which was rounded edges with a metal bolt glued into the 1 face.

I rolled 6 1s with that sucker in a row during a test.

So either I have the luck of a guy who's directly under a carpet bombing, or it don't make a lick a difference.

My understanding is that it makes a difference, just not the one you were hoping for.

Good luck convincing the spellcaster (in character) that he deserves less of the party's loot.

Awaken is also a great tool. Especially if the GM rules a mated pair of awakened Deinonychus produce awakened children. Allows you to have handlers in the exhibits without them being obvious to the guests.

Nature always finds a way. In this case, the way is somebody who thought Awakening the raptors would be a good idea.

*cough*

Earlier, I wrote:

If you're suggesting that "full" means anything more than 100%, where do you draw the line?

Full means that it is not reduced, not that it is set to a specific amount.

But you're not normally doing +6.

You're doing full damage at +4.

+6 is what happens when you apply a modifier beyond that, which multiplies your full damage by 1.5.

If I have a container which holds 4 apples, and put 4 apples in it, it is fully.

If I then multiply the contents of the container by 1.5, I now have 6 apples.

But my container is still full with only 4.

If the box is full at 4 and then gets multiplied, then being told that I get a full box does not preclude me from multiplying.

+4 damage for an 18 Str is not reduced.

It is if you normally do +6 damage.

If I say that a glass is full, you wouldn't assume it was overflowing ;-)

Any overflowing cup is also full.

More to the point, your physical analogy has no representation for the increase in damage from using a two-handed weapon.

Edit: Since we're using analogies, it's like... one car goes 20 miles on a gallon of gas and the other goes 30. Same full gallon, different consequences.

A magical curse that only targets one person and isn't contagious doesn't strike me as any better or worse than stabbing people.

You don't think torturing somebody to death is worse than killing them cleanly? That is, assuming this is a curse that does something nasty and gradual like make them starve to death.

Full is indeed equal to 1.0 (aka 100%).

If your Strength is 18, and your modifier is +4, then dealing your "full Strength bonus to damage" is dealing +4 damage.

Full means that it is not reduced, not that it is set to a specific amount. Nobody in the real world uses the word "full" to imply a restriction or diminish something.

Hand-wave implies the decision was made irrationally or without much thought, and there is nothing to suggest that's true in this case.

In my mind at least, hand-waving only implies that you're ignoring something because it's inconvenient.

Even if a monk were wielding a temple sword two handed she would deal 1.0 strength damage.

Do you have a source for that?

A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.

full =/= 1.0

Possess object functions like magic jar. Magic jar has the following:

magic jar wrote:

You can't choose to activate the body's extraordinary or supernatural abilities.

This heavily implies that supernatural abilities are part of a particular body and not the soul as the target's soul is no longer in the body yet it still calls them out as not being options. It's not a direct yes or no. However, it would seem the answer is no, you cannot use supernatural abilities in another body as yours are housed within your body elsewhere while you inhabit another creature or object in the case of possess object.

Only some supernatural abilities are dependent on the body, others are granted by class (such as in the case of Witch hexes). Consider the following text on Polymorph spells:

While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.

???? Reflex negates means that when you make the reflex save it'll negate the spell. It doesn't mean you get a save when it's cast. The description in the spell clearly states when the save takes place, and yes the spell is negated once the save is made. No where does it state what you're saying. I actually can't even guess why you'd think this.

Saves in that part of the block are normally assumed to occur when the spell affects a target. Compare it to Hold Person, which has a a similar entry but implies in the description that there is an initial save.

Because there's lots of ways for a caster to cast spells in such a scenario. And it only takes one spell to instantly disappear and come back mad as all hell.

Maybe I'm ignorant, but it seems to me that there aren't all that many, especially at lower levels. Few people prepare Burst Bonds on a typical day and Dimension Door isn't going to guarantee a successful escape.

She has played thé part of major source of info. As thé bbeg just looks at thé party as a minor annonce right more them thé real threat to his power they will one day become. She is lawful evil to à tee so she shouldbt be hacking innocent people, but an disagreement on what to do with à child pickpocket could be fun. The beat part is there hasnt been à physical side to their little love story, à couple (dates or interactions) but she always leaves him hanging. She does understand hé is à paladin of Srenea, and like to point out that their vids have even worked together before.Thanks for thé opinions and advice keep them coming .

You can hand-wave it if you like, but Antipaladins are chaotic evil.

And honestly, anyone who actually uses "tie up" to try and restrain a mage is an idiot in the first place and deserves their impending dose of murderhobo.

Why do you say that?

edit:ninja'd

I won't claim to be an expert, but examining the problem it seems like your best bet is to run a simulation to approximate the answer. I threw together a spreadsheet with 50 trials and all of them managed to get to 12 before 1000 rolls.
Mean: 126.32
Min: 4
Max: 506

For 11...
Mean: 99.86
Min: 5
Max: 661

edit 2: justaworm, obviously you did way more trials so your results are more probable, but I'm surprised that your averages for 11 were so close to the ones for 12.

His stance on sale price is RAW iirc, the appraise bit is an optional rule.

The only things I really disagree with from that list are loot/CR, material components, and blank rooms. I guess the role playing part, too, but I do think that you should emphasize roleplaying between characters rather than talking about your interaction with the barmaid.

As for your question, I certainly disagree with my GM at times. He often takes a non-RAW approach when I think RAW is fine, then takes the RAW approach in situations where I think the rules aren't well-designed. I think it's just a matter of accepting that you won't always get your way (but speaking up if a particular issue is a big deal to you).

@Torchlyte:

The Agile weapon property solves dex-focussed problems.

I'd rather have +1 damage and attack on my 3/4 (most of the time) BAB class. I mean, assuming that it's a comparison between Strength and Dex builds. If you're already a Dex build, then Agile is good.

Whoops, the 20-point stat block I have above should have 14 Wis.

Strongly consider going DEX with weapon finesse to reduce MAD.
Stats should be DEX>CON>WIS>CHA.

Dex builds do very low damage on a non-sneak attack. They also tend to get combined with Two-Weapon Fighting which puts you behind when doing anything other than a full attack (and sometimes even then). As a Ninja, one of your main features is being able to vanish and then sneak attack, but that only applies to your first attack. The fixation on dex-based TWF rogues (or ninjas) is one of the reasons they are seen as a poor class.

This can work with 3-4 levels monk and rest ninja.

Yeah, you'd want to get to 4 so you can get the Monk's ki pool and +3 BAB. Sacrificing BAB on a sneak attack character is a bad idea.

Human Monk 1 Ninja 1

Str 18
Dex 14
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 7

Buy a Mage Armor wand and you'll be fine, especially if you choose your feats and archetypes carefully.

Pretty good.

A few of the lines could use some work and they went a little overboard with the zooming and panning in parts.

Arthur C. Clarke didn't write Pathfinder and his opinion has no logical basis (because magic doesn't exist).

Also, I definitely wasn't clear enough with my prior comment. I meant that you are already suspending disbelief because magic exists in this fictional world. Not to mention a bunch of other animals that would be physically impossible (yet continue to function in an AMF, if we go that route).

According to Paizo, the size, shape and chemical composition of a creature's brain has no affect on its mental capabilities.

<sarcasm>Seems legit.</sarcasm>

And let's not get started on the whole magic thing.

Edit: Looking at it from another angle, would you argue that a squirrel-polymorphed character should have his mental stats adjusted?

Edit 2: That kind of reminds me of Animorphs.

@ OP

Hopefully this was agreed by player and gm b4 session.

If not, kill the char cause the gm hates pallys...

I expect this thread was to raise a discussion... Not actual play?

Yeah, this isn't a situation that has actually arisen, just a thought that occurred to me. It's interesting how complicated everything seems all of a sudden, even though objectively we kill evil NPCs all the time who might have families. Not that I'm saying the game has to reflect that kind of conundrum, it's just food for thought.

Detect evil has lots of limitations.

Not if you're a paladin and you can reduce it to a move action.

Mount is good.

Augury.
False Life.
Fog Cloud.
See Invisiblity.

Suppose you are playing a Paladin and your character's mother pings as evil. What do you do?

Your biggest challenge is making sure that nobody casts detect evil.

Not like it matters what the exact cr number is...you are never going to fight Tar Baphon alone. He is surrounded by liches, vampires, bodaks , raveners etc...fighting in negative energy filled dungeon, good luck.

That's not in his stat block.

Holy Smite, maybe?

Honestly Blaster Cleric is a tough sell.

Edit: Fireball.

Edit 2: Spell Specialization should be a priority feat for you. Hope you have 13 int.

Very interesting read. I like how it originates in a forum post, gets posted to a wiki, then a blog, and ends in a forum post.

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. Let's forget Mage Armor for now and focus only on the Shield Spell, plz:

Shield: Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you.

Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect.

I have yet to see an argument that explains how does a Monster's touch attack, that according to the rules needs to literally touch the foe through physical contact, affects the foe that's behind a hovering tangible shield of force which is not in contact with the subject, since it hovers, without getting through the shield's defense, +4 to AC?

Btw, this has nothing to do with ghosts and incorporeal attacks.

The hovering force is just flavor for the +4 Armor bonus, except where the rules specifically state otherwise. It's not sensible in a simulation sense, but then neither is the idea that it doesn't stack with a physical shield.

It should be apparent how relative matters become when discussing alignment, especially at the societal level. I'm sure those who actively pursued the witch trials felt they were doing God's work and following the mandates of the Church; hence, it could be argued they were behaving in a Lawful Good manner (from a gaming perspective). However, living under those conditions must have been tyrannical and brutal; hence, more of a Lawful Evil environment (from a gaming perspective).

Insofar as they were deluded and not actively lying/exploiting the situation, they could still be LG.

There are certainly examples in religious texts, but I suppose what the OP is asking for is historical.

How about the Mormons (the actual ones, not their offshoots)?

I feel like there'd be some Buddhist monk groups that would fall in here as well, but I lack specific knowledge.

@blackblooktroll, Hmm: It seems like the tone isn't as oppositional as you're suggesting.

Prevention is good:
Buff your saves (Cloak, Con Belt, Heroism).
+1 Reflecting Mithral Buckler.
Ring of Counterspells.
Amulet of Netted Stars.
Wand of Greater Invisibility.
Improved Initiative.
Veiled Eye (headband slot).