Trista1986's page

The rule in question is not quite how it's being described.

The rule in question is not that he can't stealth, it's that he doesn't get the additional +20 from invisibility spell because he's being observed by sound. Invisibility does not make you magically silent. If you have already been seen and go invisible then they are using perception/auditory to observe you. You can still stealth, because you have concealment, you do not gain the extra +20 to the roll since they already know you are there. If you were to have used invisibility before anyone knew you were there then you would gain the +20/+40 because you are not being observed. If there is more than one creature and battle is still going on then the pinpoint DC would rise because of the distractions.

This is the major problem with combining Spot/Listen and Move/Silently that I've been telling people since Beta. You will have people who can't common sense out the difference between hearing and seeing and will overpower the spell invisibility. You already get a +2 to hit, they are denied Dexterity and you have a 50/50 chance to be hit yourself. Oh and now apparently you can't even be detected...ever by anyone except someone who min/maxes perception, and even then only on a really high roll.

Nicos wrote:

Grick wrote:

Trista1986 wrote:

Mirror image says that whenever you are the target of a spell there is a possiblity that it hits the figment.

That's not what it says.

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

Yes but the Faq implies that you can not target the caster for the same reason you can not target a image.

Read my post with the two qoutes from mirror image. It specifically says spells that don't require attack rolls work as normal. In short there is no chance to target anything other than the caster unless an attack roll is involved.

Figments can be targets too. You are not saying you target the wizard, you are picking an image/wizards and guessing which is which. The developers that have "ruled" on this have no reasoning for any change, except for only the possibility that they shrug and go game balance. That is not enough to make a game good. Sometimes the odds are stacked against you and you have to overcome the odds. Are all encounters balanced perfectly? Absolutely not! It's up to player ingenuity to come up with ways to defeat an encounter and that way of thinking will totally immerse a player into the game. It will make it exciting and thrilling to adventure and defeat that insidious wizard, but apparently the developers don't care about that. They care about cookie-cutter same old boring encounters that are only countered by the same old effects.

I think this might be a problem because many of us played 3.5.

In 3.5, Mirror Image did work against Magic missile. And vice versa.
Cleave did as well.
It was a popular move vs Vrocks who loves casting mirror image to remove their images.

In PF, Mirror Image doesn't work against Magic missile (bypasses images now, damaging only caster), neither does Cleave. You can't remove images without hitting or dispel magic, making mirror Image more powerful.

3.5's ruling was more logical and so peope argue for it.

PF might be more a "game balance" issue and breaks versimitude/immersion.

Game balance is everything isn't it? No it's not. Not all the classes are built to be able to counter everything else. Well since WOW was all whiny kids saying it's not fair, and 3.5 was let's have fun, let's see which game resembles WOW more.

Trista1986 wrote:

Please point out where it uses the wording "when the caster is targeted normally"

It says this:

Quote:

Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead.

Magic missile does not require an attack roll.

It also says this:

Quote:

Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments

Magic missile does not require an attack roll so why my earlier verbage was incorrect the idea is the same. Targeted spells don't require attack rolls, and therefore will always hit the caster.

Mirror image says that whenever you are the target of a spell there is a possiblity that it hits the figment. Well Magic Missle says that a missle of magical energy darts from your fingertip and strikes it's TARGET unerringly. That leads me to believe that the image is your TARGET.

Trista1986 wrote:

Thats my problem. There is no errata.

Errata changes existing rules which are mistakes.

The official Paizo FAQ clarifies how existing rules work, without changing them. Since the rule is correct, and doesn't need to be changed, something that is clarified in the FAQ will not be changed via errata.

Trista1986 wrote:

By my ruling I would also say that since the attacker is technically picking a target (one of the illusions or the actual wizard)that he can target with a magic missle since no where in the spell does it say that it auto-hits.

If what you're saying here is that you can send each magic missile after a different image, intending to destroy some images instead of all hitting the caster, then that is incorrect.

Mirror Image (page 315): Can I use magic missile to destroy one or more images from a mirror image spell? No. Magic missile targets a creature and does not require an attack roll, so it bypasses all the images and always hits the caster. —Sean K Reynolds, 02/15/12

Trista1986 wrote:

I just want to clarify that I'm not saying that he cleaves and hits the wizard. He just simply cleaves and has another chance to hit the wizard. In the same sense he also has the chance to hit another illusion.

If what you're saying here is that you can use cleave, miss the wizard but destroy an image, then use cleave to take another attack at the wizard (or a figment), then that is incorrect.

Cleave (page 119): Can I use this feat or Great Cleave (page 124) to cleave to or from an image created by a mirror image spell? No. If your initial attack hit the caster, you can’t cleave to an image as if it were an actual creature. If your initial attack hit an image, you failed to hit your intended target (the caster), and therefore can’t cleave. As you can’t specifically target an image (because you can’t tell the...

So they completely changed the effect of figment spells then...

Please point out where it uses the wording "when the caster is targeted normally"

What if I read what is written too and come out to a different conclusion. I did and funny enough in this case in was prefectly in sync with the clarifications given by the developers (of course it's not always though, like with the Monk Flurry/TWF - I don't like that ruling). In fact Mirror Image was always done that way for Pathfinder anywhere near where I play. I suspect it might be a regional thing? Anyway I don't think there is need for an errata however, a FAQ seems reasonable enough.

I will reiterate my statement that if anyone continues to disagree I think they are just being stubborn.

The problem is every other previous system has been done the other ways, including D&D games including baulders gate series. Until "Pathfinder" errata's this it will never be the rule.

Trista1986 wrote:

Threeshades wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Stubs McKenzie wrote:

So, close your eyes and you suffer 50% miss chance, then any other miss chance you would have already.

Miss chances don't stack or repeat.

As far as your response purely to the previous post goes you're correct, but in case of mirror images, the spell does not impose a miss chance.

It just randomly determines wether the attack goes against the caster or one of the images, not using any sort of miss chance percentile die. So i don't see why you wouldn't first roll for the miss chance for being blinded and then determine which of the images or the caster you attacked. Or the other way around.

This is exactly how it works. but it seems magic missle bypasses almost all illusion spells anyway so why ever bother with illusion. It's worthless.

Because not every mage has magic missile prepared or enough to of them to stop you and the shield spell exists. Not to mention not all your opponents are magic users.

My problem is that it's written as a figmental Iluusion spell and always has been. If the developers want it a different way then they need to reprint it to say it's a phantasm effect. That would end the debate as by definition would work that way.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Stubs McKenzie wrote:

So, close your eyes and you suffer 50% miss chance, then any other miss chance you would have already.

Miss chances don't stack or repeat.

As far as your response purely to the previous post goes you're correct, but in case of mirror images, the spell does not impose a miss chance.

It just randomly determines wether the attack goes against the caster or one of the images, not using any sort of miss chance percentile die. So i don't see why you wouldn't first roll for the miss chance for being blinded and then determine which of the images or the caster you attacked. Or the other way around.

This is exactly how it works. but it seems magic missle bypasses almost all illusion spells anyway so why ever bother with illusion. It's worthless.

Trista1986 wrote:

concerro wrote:

Trista1986 wrote:

concerro wrote:

"Target" based spells such as charm person and magic missile allows you to select a target without a chance to accidentally select the incorrect target. That is another reason why magic missile will never hit an image by accident.

The mirror image spell also assumes you are always aiming for the caster. This was discussed in detail in another thread. In short you can never really aim for an image, barring house rules.

RAW...Magic Missle does not do that.

I have an unconscious cat and Cast Silent Image right next to it. Magic missle in no way allows you to auto-hit the real cat to finish it off. It only allows you to auto-hit your intended target, be it the real cat or the fake cat thats up to the random die-roll.

Also for all purposes, silent image is basically a weak version of mirror image. Both spells are figmental as well.

I was talking about mirror image, not magic missile. Note the bolded area. They could go back and errata mirror image to make the RAW match RAI more exactly, but the point of mirror image is to make it so that attack roll based attacks miss by aiming for the caster. Target based spells still hit the caster. If mirror image could also cause you to accidentally target an image with any target based spell the spell would be too good. The fact that magic missile does hp damage instead of doing other things to you does not changed the fact that it is a targeted spell.

In short I am still correct.

PS:Silent image is not like mirror image. Being a figment is not enough.

Until they do errata it the RAW does not support your idea, and since this has been argued since 3.5 and possibly even Ad&d, I'm gonna take an educated guess and say they intend for it to work as an illusion spell and not an abjuration spell like you have mentioned.

Your guess is doesn't seem to be correct given the clarifications that have come out by the...

Thats my problem. There is no errata. If there is no errata then it's not RAW. RAW support the way I'm suggesting and have always supported that way. This is why the debate keeps coming up. If I go to an event and the DM says a developer says it's the other way, I can simply read the spell out loud and it will be the way I say it is because that is RAW. Until an errata comes out it's not official, by definition of errata.

Trista1986 wrote:

concerro wrote:

Trista1986 wrote:

concerro wrote:

"Target" based spells such as charm person and magic missile allows you to select a target without a chance to accidentally select the incorrect target. That is another reason why magic missile will never hit an image by accident.

The mirror image spell also assumes you are always aiming for the caster. This was discussed in detail in another thread. In short you can never really aim for an image, barring house rules.

RAW...Magic Missle does not do that.

I have an unconscious cat and Cast Silent Image right next to it. Magic missle in no way allows you to auto-hit the real cat to finish it off. It only allows you to auto-hit your intended target, be it the real cat or the fake cat thats up to the random die-roll.

Also for all purposes, silent image is basically a weak version of mirror image. Both spells are figmental as well.

I was talking about mirror image, not magic missile. Note the bolded area. They could go back and errata mirror image to make the RAW match RAI more exactly, but the point of mirror image is to make it so that attack roll based attacks miss by aiming for the caster. Target based spells still hit the caster. If mirror image could also cause you to accidentally target an image with any target based spell the spell would be too good. The fact that magic missile does hp damage instead of doing other things to you does not changed the fact that it is a targeted spell.

In short I am still correct.

PS:Silent image is not like mirror image. Being a figment is not enough.

By definition of a figment spell you no longer know which one is the right one. That is what the random roll is for. If you become blind and you enemy moves, you now have to guess randomly which square he's in. Why should this be any different?

It is different because the spell(mirror image) says the caster is targeted normally which means you get to ignore the...

But you do not know which one is the real caster.

Trista1986 wrote:

concerro wrote:

"Target" based spells such as charm person and magic missile allows you to select a target without a chance to accidentally select the incorrect target. That is another reason why magic missile will never hit an image by accident.

The mirror image spell also assumes you are always aiming for the caster. This was discussed in detail in another thread. In short you can never really aim for an image, barring house rules.

RAW...Magic Missle does not do that.

I have an unconscious cat and Cast Silent Image right next to it. Magic missle in no way allows you to auto-hit the real cat to finish it off. It only allows you to auto-hit your intended target, be it the real cat or the fake cat thats up to the random die-roll.

Also for all purposes, silent image is basically a weak version of mirror image. Both spells are figmental as well.

I was talking about mirror image, not magic missile. Note the bolded area. They could go back and errata mirror image to make the RAW match RAI more exactly, but the point of mirror image is to make it so that attack roll based attacks miss by aiming for the caster. Target based spells still hit the caster. If mirror image could also cause you to accidentally target an image with any target based spell the spell would be too good. The fact that magic missile does hp damage instead of doing other things to you does not changed the fact that it is a targeted spell.

In short I am still correct.

PS:Silent image is not like mirror image. Being a figment is not enough.

Until they do errata it the RAW does not support your idea, and since this has been argued since 3.5 and possibly even Ad&d, I'm gonna take an educated guess and say they intend for it to work as an illusion spell and not an abjuration spell like you have mentioned.

Trista1986 wrote:

concerro wrote:

"Target" based spells such as charm person and magic missile allows you to select a target without a chance to accidentally select the incorrect target. That is another reason why magic missile will never hit an image by accident.

The mirror image spell also assumes you are always aiming for the caster. This was discussed in detail in another thread. In short you can never really aim for an image, barring house rules.

RAW...Magic Missle does not do that.

I have an unconscious cat and Cast Silent Image right next to it. Magic missle in no way allows you to auto-hit the real cat to finish it off. It only allows you to auto-hit your intended target, be it the real cat or the fake cat thats up to the random die-roll.

Also for all purposes, silent image is basically a weak version of mirror image. Both spells are figmental as well.

I was talking about mirror image, not magic missile. Note the bolded area. They could go back and errata mirror image to make the RAW match RAI more exactly, but the point of mirror image is to make it so that attack roll based attacks miss by aiming for the caster. Target based spells still hit the caster. If mirror image could also cause you to accidentally target an image with any target based spell the spell would be too good. The fact that magic missile does hp damage instead of doing other things to you does not changed the fact that it is a targeted spell.

In short I am still correct.

PS:Silent image is not like mirror image. Being a figment is not enough.

By definition of a figment spell you no longer know which one is the right one. That is what the random roll is for. If you become blind and you enemy moves, you now have to guess randomly which square he's in. Why should this be any different?

daze would have the same result in loss of action as you'd have with mirror image:

daze: 1 target of your choice looses his next action
mirror image: 1 enemy has to waste one action to get rid of all those images

Trista1986 wrote:

Why yes I have heard of Tennis elbow as I've also broken many raquets and many strings as well. You know what never broke? My shoulder.

Ask a martial artist how often they have shoulder injuries :-)

And I didn't mean broken shoulders, but dislodged shoulders or strained sinew.
So you are actually conceding my point: tennis is less violent because the ball you are hitting is less likely to resist your impact. ;-)
Try hitting a sturdy beam instead of a ball and lets see how your elbow and shoulder will like it.

Trista1986 wrote:

On a right handed forehand the momentum is rotating around the left leg, which gives it MUCH more power.

Hip movement and leg placement is done in pretty much any sport... hence why I didn't talk about it. It just increases momentum.

(momentum+torque)*strenght=impact

Trista1986 wrote:

Depends on the speeds of the vehicles and other variables on the car example.

moving car vs standing wall

moving car vs standing car

A person is not a sturdy beam. They are in fact very unsturdy and even more so when wearing really heavy armor.

Not quite sure where your going with the daze argument.

Cleave also states in the flavor text that you strike 2 foes with a single strike.

Why yes I have heard of Tennis elbow as I've also broken many raquets and many strings as well. It's part of the game. You know what never broke? My shoulder.

Not to get off topic, but tennis uses momentum and torque when connecting with the ball. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=rAyQ0eP0Eh0

On a right handed forehand the momentum is rotating around the left leg, which gives it MUCH more power. I would justify the extra power being the cleave attack and the offbalance of the player accounting for the -2 to AC

Depends on the speeds of the vehicles and other variables on the car example.

I'd make it either a heal or a perception check. Either way you need to be in the guys square to do it.

DR/evil does not mean that evil aligned people will bypass it. It means that only evil aligned weapons will bypass it. Or enemies that have abilities with an evil subtype will surpass it.

Example: If evil cleric casts this spell it gives him DR5/good. A Paladin approaches and attacks the cleric. The clerics DR would still protect him unless the paladin used a smite, or unless he aligned his weapon.

Mirror image is not a miss chance, it is actual figmental copies of the wizard surrounding him. http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5mvj?Mirror-image-errata-and-contradictions#22

You still select a target inside that square to hit be it an illusion or the real thing. True strike will only allow you to guaranteed hit that specific target, but it could still be an illusion.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Actually I disagree on your (likely) answer because the entire time you are 'blind' you are also denied your dex bonus and giving your attackers a +2 to hit...

Right, but presumably opening and closing your eyes is a free / non action right? So the theoretical penalties are in reality non-existent.

Additionally, this lets you close your eyes whenever you're against a mirror image of any kind, for any reason. The 50% miss chance for "being blind" is almost ALWAYS going to be better than the mirror image miss chance. This totally ruins the spell.

You can only take a free-action on your turn. Only immediate actions can be taken on someone elses turn.

"Target" based spells such as charm person and magic missile allows you to select a target without a chance to accidentally select the incorrect target. That is another reason why magic missile will never hit an image by accident.

The mirror image spell also assumes you are always aiming for the caster. This was discussed in detail in another thread. In short you can never really aim for an image, barring house rules.

RAW...Magic Missle does not do that.

I have an unconscious cat and Cast Silent Image right next to it. Magic missle in no way allows you to auto-hit the real cat to finish it off. It only allows you to auto-hit your intended target, be it the real cat or the fake cat thats up to the random die-roll.

Also for all purposes, silent image is basically a weak version of mirror image. Both spells are figmental as well.

Also if you allow magic missle to work in the way I described it allows you a way to muck up a wizards plans who thinks they are super protected by a combination of Shield and Mirror Image. My way allows a player to outthink the mod or DM by saying that he will target the figment (which is very inventive and AWESOMELY COOL) thus bypassing the other wizards shield spell. (Well at least for all intents and purposes)

Trista1986 wrote:

Yes exactly and my point is that if you are swinging an axe through air so hard that it would go through metal plates and then also hit a target 5 feet away, you are logically able to swing through a the same air illusion and hit a target less than 5 feet away.

This...isn't really how Cleave works any more thematically (if it ever did) and even if it was, have you ever swung an axe, expecting a piece of wood there, and found only air? The swing does indeed continue, but not in any remottely controlled fashion. Ditto for swinging expecting air and actually hitting something.

Trista1986 wrote:

Oh and adjacent doesn't have to mean 5 feet away anyway and 2 tiny creatures can occupy the same space and yet are still adjacent to each other.

True, but they aren't doing that, they're all just part of the same target.

An axe? no... But like in my earlier post I have swung a tennis raquet. And even though I don't miss often, my swings still follow all the way through even if I Whiff. They follow all the way through just as if nothing was actually there, actually;)

By my ruling I would also say that since the attacker is technically picking a target (one of the illusions or the actual wizard)that he can target with a magic missle since no where in the spell does it say that it auto-hits. That is just a simplistic assumption. It simply only states that it enerringly strikes it's target even if the target is in melee (thus not giving it any -4's for soft cover or fighting in melee or any AC for that matter). You may also spread your targets out if you happen to be a higher level wizard.

So say a level 5 wizard casts mirror image and gets on average 5 images. There are now 6 targets in his square. Another level 5 wizard casts magic missle because he knows about this spell and wants to give the others in the party a better chance to narrow down the "real" target. So he spreads his 3 missles out to eliminate 3 of the images making it easier for the fighter to hit the real target. Unfortunately if the "real" wizard is hit all of the images look like they were hit as well.

I think the main problem is the description the figment is destroyed. By the rules of figments which this spell is the image should only be disbelieved. If the image is destroyed then on a successful hit of the actual wizard, you should be able to now ignore the other images and pick the right target every time.

If the spell is actually intended to work the way you have described it it should be a Phantasm Illusion spell not a Figment Illusion spell. I could possibly have an outdated book, but unless it's been errata'd then it has always been figment even in 3.0 and on. I beleive it was even figment in Ad&d as well although I didn't play that system much.

I just want to clarify that I'm not saying that he cleaves and hits the wizard. He just simply cleaves and has another chance to hit the wizard. In the same sense he also has the chance to hit another illusion. It would be no exception if the illusions were in all different squares so there should be no exception here.

After rereading mirror image again I wanna say this as well.

Mirror image only says that whenever you are attacked there is a chance that the attacker hits an image instead of you. So when the image is hit (which the wording hit qualifies the feat cleave) the image goes poof. The images are so close together that even if the attack misses by 5 or less an image is destroyed. In other words it is saying that when the attacker attacks he rolls randomly to see if he hits the wizard. This is the same as if you had 5 targets and randomly guessed which one was the right one to hit

And another fact. I've played tennis my whole life and played baseball for about 10 years when I was little. Occasionally the ball-shooter would shoot 2 balls almost simultaneously. Basically a tennis raquet could be considered an improvised club and I would aim at the balls just like I normally would aim for one. I did in fact hit both balls (granted they didn't go where I wanted them) If the first ball happened to not actually be there because I just looked at the sun and was seeing things (just like mirror image)I would hit the second ball. The same applied to the reverse. If the first ball was real and the second was fake it would warrant the same effect.

If you rule out using logic like you have stated then you must rule it out completely because it forces players to be rules lawyers and stops them from thinking of interesting ways to overcome a situation. They then become mindless drones of cookie cutter boredom and the game becomes just that.

I've swung things at people and they've dodged them. How is that any different?

The issue is more that even though you hit an image, you haven't actually hit anything at all. It was something you thought was there, and then suddenly wasn't.

Yes exactly and my point is that if you are swinging an axe through air so hard that it would go through metal plates and then also hit a target 5 feet away, you are logically able to swing through a the same air illusion and hit a target less than 5 feet away.

Oh and adjacent doesn't have to mean 5 feet away anyway and 2 tiny creatures can occupy the same space and yet are still adjacent to each other.

My question is why not? You can cleave through a person wearing full plate and a shield but not air?

Any figment illusion spell has an AC of 10 for medium creatures as well. So when you roll randomly to see if an illusion is hit or not you should roll randomly first and then judge the hit on whether it was the illusion or the wizard. (Wizards usually at least have 12-13 or more AC)

Besides cleave states that you can attack a target and if you hit you can hit a foe adjacent to the original target. You are still "hitting" the image so technically by RAW you are able to cleave.

Think of everything happening in the same 6 seconds all at once and stop thinking in turn order. It takes the same 6 seconds to cast summon monster than it does to cast mage armor, except the difference is that summon monster takes your FULL concentration in the matter. Meaning you can barely move and any attacks that hit youwhile casting will effect the outcome. Mage armor doesn't take nearly the same concentration.

I don't have any quotes, but I do have a working understanding of the English language.

Provoking attacks of opportunity wrote:

Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

They key word here is out. If you continue forward to meet the troll, there is not one point in your movement that you stop occupying a space that the troll threatens. You may be moving to redistribute mass within the threatened square but not "moving out of".

Both squares are threatened squares. You move out of on to get into another therefore you provoke.

A. Dragon is right. On a side note tho, I've never met a pathfinder GM that knows every rule by heart, so just because a GM allows a rule, doesn't mean that it's the actual rule.

It does specifically say that Elves are immune to magical sleep. In 3.5 they meditated, but they simplified it to just normal sleep in pathfinder.

tonyz wrote:

Doesn't affect blind people, either, so enemies who know what's coming and close their eyes are not affected. Of course, then they're vulnerable to other things...

I would rule that a character would have to state at the start of his turn whether his eyes are closed until the start of the next turn. If he wants to try shutting his eyes just as the wizard is casting his spell and keep them open while attacking himself, well, that's what the save is for.

That also applies to gaze attacks.

I would additionally rule that if it was someone with spellcraft, they could identify the spell as it was being cast, and receive a +2 to the save, if they had not already closed their eyes the round before.

One of the players in my group is planning on running an Armored Hulk. He would like to know if making full plate out of Mithral would call the armor Medium for the purposes of his abilities (especially movement).

Or is the armor still considered Heavy for the purposes of his skills that can only be used when wearing heavy armor?

Thanks for any help you can give!

The only Mithril armor that is actually one Proficiency less is the elven chain. It is actually considered light armor, but that is also why it's about 1000 GP more than normal mithril chain.

Yes it sure is. My Barbarian has killed a few spellcasters now from doing such then pinning them in pools of beer/poo or whatever else is handy, thus drowning them.

It is in list form. Download the PDF, it tells you what, where (page #) and what rules are changing.

the PDF is not an entirely new pdf.

I see. Thank you!

Does it individually list what changes have been made or does it just add them in to the PDF. These changes should also be made more clearly visible IMO. Such as a separate side tab on the side.

I made a new thread about my concerns with re-reading a 600 page document to look for errata's.

I guess I should be more specific. A list containing each change to the rules and then where that change is located. Basically I'm not sifting thru 600 pages of text to see if there was a change to the rules.

Is there an actual list of specific things that have been errata'd somewhere? This would be helpful for anyone who doesn't want to reread every single rule just to find what may or may not have been changed.

Neither my hard copy book nor my PDF file under Barbarian says anything about ex Barbarians so I would seriously be challenging any GM about any alignment changes. I've also never seen an actual errata page on these forums so unless there is a direct errata that clarifies everything without having to search and search then it's not valid.

Under Paladins it has to be a willing change from a Lawful good to anything else. A spell or something similar forcing onto the Paladin is not going to make them lose abilities. (Although a good Roleplayer would try to atone for it anyway)

I.e., can a barbarian who becomes lawful alignment (for any reason, whether voluntarily to temporarily learn a multiclass, or involuntarily - losing his ability to rage for the duration) and then ceases being lawful alignment resume raging?

....now stop rolling those eyes at me like that -- this is actually a serious issue.

Is it really harder to stay being a barbarian now than it is to stay being a paladin?

(Ex-ex-monks have the same problem, btw.)

I'm confused where you think it says that Barbarians lose their rage if they become lawful.

In fact I'm also confused where it says that Paladins lose any paladin related ability if they are magically turned unlawful. If such thing happens they still have not committed a violation of their code, and if they did it would be unwillingly so it still would not effect them.

I don't know about monks, never play em and never even seen one in a game.

Hrm....I think the rule clearly states itself. You can add to an attack roll, AC or Skill check. Not saving throws.

Frankthedm wrote:

A Ready action "occurs just before the action that triggers it." Because of that line, I rule a ready action that targets a character on their first action of the initiative cycle uses their flat footed AC. Not sure if that's what the rules call for exactly, but I think it works.

Readying an actions requires a standard action, however you can not take any actions until you have acted on your initiative. That is the reason combat reflexes is needed to make an AoO before your turn in the initiative order comes up.

PS:I am only making this statement so anyone that reads this knows that readying an action before combat starts is not supposed to happen. Even a surprise round is considered a part of combat so that is also an option, but saying you ready an action would not work because everyone would just say "I ready an action to....." before combat even started just as a precaution, and it would cause a lot of confusion over who went first.

If you can't take standard actions out of initiative then how do you cast spells (or do anything for that matter) when out of combat?

If the pc's have readied actions to attack as soon as one opens a door, you have to give the enemies a perception to hear/notice them. If it fails the pc's get the drop on the baddie. Aka Surprise round. The OP's scenario however would be reliant on what initiative each toon got. Whoever wins strikes first.

The equalizer wrote:

I don't allow more than one sneak attack per round. That was how it always was in earler editions of DnD. There isn't the clause of "this ability is usable only once per round". A level 9 two-weapon fighting rogue can potentially do 15d6+ damage. The attack bonus while probably lower than a fighter or barbarian is still doesn't balance out how far ahead they jump in terms of damage dealing ability. Regardless of whether you had a pure fighter who went the focus and spec. tree with high strength, hard hitting barbarian with high strength or fighter/barb with high strength and raging, they still can't dish out anywhere near that damage. I had a discussion with another DM about this. This other player I knew incorporated multiple sneak attacks per round into his game. Two low level devil rogues almost killed the tough fighter before he had time to do anything. Furthermore, sneak attack is desbribe as precision-based, it is laughable that an individual can make multiple precision sneak attacks in six seconds. The balance must be observed, respected and preserved but not in a jar. Nosig, thats not how the game mechanics work. Regardless of what class, the character always gets their strength bonus on attack and damage rolls. Your point is invalid.

Yep, I recall that. Actually the tough fighter was a toughness barbarian, two handed weapon, so no shield, and his hp went from full to near dead in one round. We had to cover his retreat.

Seems a bit ridiculous the multiple sneak attacks per round. Since I mainly run a beta-3.5 mix I actually compare it to the swashbuckler's precision attack (level 4). Now that gets no d6s, sits at a flat bonus, usually +3-+5 from int until mid levels, and applies to all attacks. So it is a nice little beef.

The rogue is a bit different, its d6s, one more every few levels. So it can add up nice and fast. the swashbuckler bonus gives a flat bonus, the rogue varies, but quickly goes far higher on average, and then higher again, 6d6 is far better than...

Ya and what you and many others seem to forget is that the Rogue still needs to hit his target with a 3/4 progression and way less feats than a fighter.

Ok I was concerned because It just didn't make sense that I could get Lesser restoration normally but then 1 level later get it as a bonus spell.

Why exactly does the Life mystery list spells as given at the odd levels starting at level 3 when all the other mysteries give the bonus spells at level 2. Even the mystery paragraph says that it is supposed to be every even level starting at level 2. Is this just a bad typo that progressed through the whole bonus spell section?

I wouldn't mind because it makes sense. Predator type animals should have survival as the class skill

Why is Survival not a class skill for them? I would think that most animals know how to survive quite well as they are always in the wild.

I'm not certain on the quoting of the book policy or legality but if you'll look at page 166 in the core rule book, you'll see that neutral characters have compunctions about killing the innocent while evil characters do not. He was firmly Lawful Evil.

People who aid Criminals are not innocent and Malcolm Reynolds while good hearted, was most definately a criminal

Hey everyone,

I have a weapon-related question for an Elven Druid character.

Normally, druids are not allowed to use bows, swords and rapiers, but Elves get automatic proficiency in them -- does this mean, then, that Elven Druids can use these weapons?

Also, I dimly seem to remember a rule -- probably from 3.0 -- saying that if a druid used a bow as a weapon, that druid would lose his/her druidic abilities for 24 hours. Does anything like that apply to druids in 3.5 or Pathfinder??

(I could understand bows being a weapon forbidden to druids, because they're often used in hunting animals/game, but figured I'd ask the resident sages around here...)

Thanks in advance, JohnH / Wanda

Only if a Druid uses weapons or armor that are mostly metal unless they are on the Druid list of Weapons they can use. IMO Bows are fine but X-bows are not. A Druid probably wouldn't have any problem with people hunting for food as that is considered natural to the world. Using a fireball to catch your dinner though might piss some off.