So I know there is already a ton of discussion around Wind Walk but I have a new wrinkle with regard to this most discussed spell. This particular line of questioning came from our group recently fighting the
Spoiler:
Wendigo in the Anniversary Edition Rise of the Rune Lords. In that fight it mentions that the Wendigo grapples targets, then casts wind walk, pulls them high into the air (600 feet) then drops them.
This however was challenged by the group as to how a Wendigo manages this as the spell states it takes 5 rounds to change from physical to gaseous form (and vice versa). It seems an unreasonable tactic as lets be honest a LOT can happen in 5 rounds and it would seem rather unlikely that a Wendigo would stand there getting hammered on for 5 rounds.
RAW seems to support that while the spell may be instant the change to gaseous form or out of it always requires 5 rounds. However the logistics of the Wendigo combat led us to believe that perhaps you are instantly gaseous on casting the spell (or instantly physical on dismissal) and that only changing into and out of the gas form after the initial cast (while the spell is still active) takes the five rounds.
The other issue I have with the Wendigo's combat actions is that the spell says specifically that each person affected by the spell becomes and individual cloud. This would seem to imply that even if the Wendigo grappled you and then turned to gaseous form, as the target transforms it would become and individual cloud, and easily be able to drift apart.
I've been looking for a recording of the goblin song in Burnt Offerings, but all I can find is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7zTUIYQVpY
While it probably sounds more or less like goblins singing, I have trouble making out the words and I have the lyrics in hard copy, so it's not much help as a "game aid". Does anyone know of another recording anywhere?
I made one a while back, I only ask that you let me know if you like it.
I have a WIP of the song in Goblin as well, as I imagine they would be singing in their native language, I'll post once complete. I can say that my group liked it, please let me know your thoughts.
I can only guess that this has been discussed before:
The scenaro:
A player builds a character (using a point buy system) nuking INT, WIS, or Both to buff his more number affecting or physical skills, then proceeds to play the characters at his own intellegence rather than the intellegence of the character?
Obviously there are some stat penalties associated with low INT and WIS scores, but they do not seem as penalizing in the majority of games. This is partley because most games use combat as a primary ecounter type, but also as I see it, encounters that are intellectual are generally done outside of PC stats and dice rolls, meaning it is more often the player and not the PCs intellegence which is tested.
One option of course is to not allow scores below 10, but I am curious if others have encountered this, find it is a problem, or use other methods to add in flavor that can come with a really dumb characters into the game?
((It has been my experiance that majority of players do not play down to their characters intellegence/wisdom, though the few I have seen make for some great RPG scenes))
So I will have a summoner in my group for the first time very shortly, and I am currently thinking through how I will run/handle the summoner's eidolon.
From my perspective I think the Eidolon brings with it a great opportunity for some interestings scenes involving the Eidolon/Summoner, Eidolon/Group, and the Eidolon/Environment dynamic. With it being such a major potion of the Summoner's abilities, I certainly don't want it to become another case of the amazing appearing disappearing familiar/animal companion, ever present when needed but never present when not.
I am leaning towards me being the life behind the eidolon, allowing the player to issue commands to it as wanted (an all dice rolls for the creature), but I would be the one interpretting the commands and being the personality behind the creature (understanding the concept that the eidolon is an extension of the summoner). Please note, I am a fair GM and I am not looking to 'hurt' my player in anyway buy this, aka the 'wish' spell debate, but I have only known a few players who can run two different personalities, and beleive that running it this way may add to the game more.
Tissue is to Kleenex
Copy Machine is to Xerox
In-line skates is to Rollerblades
RPG game is to DnD
I call Pathfinder, Pathfinder, DnD, and or sometimes "its like DnD 3.75" generally followed by "not that 4.0 crap".
I call 4E, Hasbro's dumbed down version of DnD, which is really World of Warcraft in paper form (to really make the licensing lawyers froth at the mouth)
I have been playing DnD and other RPGs for 20 years now, and the only form of DnD I am moving forward with is Pathfinder.
Paizo - Gary would be proud
Hasbro - Umm... I do like Monopoly Deal
4.0 Upset me about as much as when Gen Con moved from Milwaukee to Indianapolis (I am from Milwaukee).
I would still say no relative change to the mechanics or the roll. If anything I might add a negative to the roll for trying to steal something so large, especially if the weapon is peace tied, or in a scabbard (generaly a tight fit) etc... But its a situational thing.
The TWF applies your weapon or unarmed (not Natural) attacks.
So if attacking with a sword in your main hand and a bite, you would apply the (main hand) TWF penalty to your main hand (as if you are wielding a light weapon in the other), and the -5 (secondary natural attack) to the bite.
Hmmm, I have to try some of these other sheets. What I can add is that I think Hero Lab is not NEARLY as good as it could be. Here are my issues:
- No GM/DM style stat block generation
- User interface is very borning, these are games of imagination after all
- User interface, even though it is boring, is not very intuitive, for example to many links as opposed to visible buttons. Background interferes with highlighted, non-highlighted features, to many pop ups verse trees, drop downs, or list boxes, no multiple deletes or clear features.
- Character sheet output has same issue as interface, in my opinion you should always have the option for a sheet that looks simular to the publishers version and a DM/GM stat block option.
There is a game called Amber which is a diceless game system. You could use concepts from that game for your PBEM.
Otherwise I generally ask for a strategy from my PCs, and then roll a series of random d20s for each person which gives a guide as to how well there strategy worked. Bonuses are added to each die roll based on their stats and how they are applicable to the given strategy. Then be descriptive about what happens. If anything changes let them know and adjust there strategy, rinse, and repeat.
The sleight of hand DC should remain the same, invisibilty does not make it ANY easier to pull an object of someones person.
What it would do is greatly reduce the chance for the target to notice the attempt, the attempt however could sill fail. So I would say the DCs would remain the same, after all the DC fo 20 for a person holding an object has more to it than site, the person could move right as the attempt is made, or it could be tied tighter than it looks, attached to an alarm device, or lots of other situations were being invisible does not at all help.
I agree with markofbane here, Paladins absolutely do fall for doing non-good or non-lawful actions, it may not be immediate (depending on the action), but as soon as they slip from Law or Good, they are not LG, and as such they have fallen. So a paladin may never have done an evil thing in his life, but if he breaks flouts the ideas of law (of legitimate authority) he can still stop being a Paladin.
Nuetrality is not a true state its an inbetween state. Its a balance between law and chaos, and good and evil which are the the black and white of each axis, or true states. So a non-lawful action is Chaos, and a non-good again it Evil.
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Obviously there are no clear rules to quote here, but this is how I would think about it. First its fantasy so anything should be possible, and throwing a table would make for an awesome scene.
So what can a person reasonably (even in a fantasy world) throw? I would almost say that to throw something, any significant distance (even with the feat), you need to be able to pick it up and lift it above your head. This gives a limiting rule (reality), yet still allows for it to happen (fantasy). So throw a 200lb table, sure if your strength is 15 or greater. But is weight the only factor? We all know that some light objects are light enough to pick up, but big enough or shapped wierd to still present problems. However I think its easy to put a consistant rule in for that as well, and basically say that you can throw an item no greater then 1 size category larger than yourself. So a table that takes up more space than 5x5 would be considered large, and could be thrown.
If you still feel like strength should be able to overcome the size of the object, you could say that for every category larger than what you could normally lift (with the above rule) you consider the weight of the object doubled for determining if it can be lifted about the head (and as such thrown).
I think this would then cover both weight and size of objects, as for damage. I would say try to find a weapon like it, but most things hit like a club (and then the size category can be used to adjust that).
Like I said not official rules by any means, but I think the above allows for anything to happen, while adding some consistency to the decision.
If you are worried most about the demon arriving, give them some type of warning that gives them a fair shot at least. Perhaps they start having nightmares or an ominous feeling partway into the night? This may not account for spells but may give the PCs a change or more-than-normal chance to don armor.
Its not perfect, and its not RAW, but I think it is in the spirit of the game. I think it amplifies if there is a cleric or divine caster in the group with an opposed alignment.
I agree. If there is an onset time, you do not take any damage until you fail the first save, the onset time takes place, AND you fail your first cure save.
If no onset time is present you take damage immediately following the initial save.
My mistake, it was in the first few posts, but I agree the matter (initial saving throw) has been firmly beaten to death and my post is extremely unnessecary now.
All afflictions grant a saving throw when they are contracted. If successful, the creature does not suffer from the affliction and does not need to make any further rolls.
Break down:
* ALL afllictions, not limited to onset or not.
* Contracted, so no difference between ingested, injury, etc..
* does not need to make any further rolls, ..period.
Right I agree, the character is not just stading at the feet of the giant slicing at his big toe. Its all about how you see the fight and how you describe it, sure the dice might say hit just like any other, but in your mind perhaps the character spring boarded off the arm of the giant (as he swung) and thrust for the creatures throat. It gets even more exciting when a threat to crit, or a crit occurs... then some outrageous descriptions should be in order, and if you play with the three nat 20s in a row insta kill rule, some spectacular scenes have occured (like the decapitation of a dragon, as the hero rides its back!)
Sure in game turns it was just a roll of the dice and an attack, but in your imagination it can be much more, that is after all why we play this game right?
If your distance of run in a round is 120 and you are 90 away, you will obviously get to the person in a faster time than the round is technically over, but do you get an attack, or is the move used up so you can not attack. Substituting other numbers in the equation of X' away and what is the result. 50', 70', 110'.
No, if you chose to run/sprint that is all you can do in a round.
Quote:
And on the flip side, if you get initiative and reach that person (melee range) in your turn, does that range character on his turn still get to fire? I see you say the orc can take a 5' step back and then take a turn, but I didn't know you could take a move action and then take an action as well.
You can get more than one action on a turn but they are limited depending on the action, in general you get one move and one standard action each round. The move here however is limited to just your base move (for example, in most cases 30').
Yes but the character does not have to use the weapon in the off-hand. In true historical fencing (fighting, not the sport with foils) the off-hand weapon is more often than not used defensively (to simply set aside the opponents blade or close a line), until distance is closed. So its pretty easy for me to understand that they can choose to use the weapon offesively (TWF), use it defensively (TWD), or simply hold the weapon.
Otherwise you would also have to say that if they are holding a potion (or any other object) in one hand, they get a penalty to attack. In my opionion what they are holding weapon or otherwise makes no difference, so long as they are choosing not to use it.
The TWF feat does not mean the character does not know how to fight with only one weapon. They can certainly still choose to not fight with the other weapon they are holding, as it say "You CAN fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands." not you MUST fight with.
The rogue would still be able to sneak attack with a spell due to flanking, right?
Yes
Quote:
Can you use a ranged touch attack spell against a target you're in melee with? Granted, he'd provoke AoO's from everyone around him...
Yes
Quote:
To the original question, what if the rogue was using Greater Invisibility? Would that change anything? Someone in another thread said the target would be aware of the rogue, but not know where he was.
Knowing where an invisible creature is all about perception. If an invisible creature does something that alerts a target to their presence they still need to make a perception check to know where they are. I would say unless they pass that perception the target may still end up with a frozen spleen. (page 197 PRPG, Ignoring Concealment)
To stay on task, the debate is not about if you can sneak attack with a spell, its about weather talking "in a strong voice" while stealth negates stealth.
I also interpret speaking in a strong voice as speaking at least in normal conversation level volume, not whispering (again other wise this negates the need for silent spell, or at least severly reduces its value).
I also agree if used to open combat, against unaware targets, then surprise rules take place. If the rogue was within 30' they could use there free standard action to make a sneak attack (ranged or otherwise). After all if a wizard can get off a spell then why couldn't the mage/rogue.
I think all that said, the question is very much answered. So long as the target is unaware of the rogue (or flat-footed from some other condition) he would be able to cast a spell (standard action casting time only) (at normal volume a.k.a. strong voice) and have it be a sneak attack. However, at that point I would also say that the rogue is no longer stealthed, the target is observing them (sight and/or sound), so all rules for re-stealthing would apply.
If a rogue wanted to snipe with a spell, I would also probably increase the penalty to maintain the obsured location as in most cases talking is louder than a whirling dagger, bow string, or crossbow (all which can be properly silenced and still function). I would most likely increase the penalty by -8 to -10 depending on distance.
Final note, someone mentioned spells are not attacks, this is not true. Page 208 PRPG, Special Spell Effects - Attacks. "All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."
If a Wizard/Rogue is stealthed and wants to use a ray (with a V component) to sneak attack will it work without being silenced (silent spell feat)?
In other words:
Would the fact that they have to talk ("in a strong voice") negate their stealth and make there target aware of them (ie giving the target back his DEX)?
OR
Would it simply give the target a new perception check againts the wizard/Rogue? This leads to additional questions like, shouldn't the target get a big bonus to his perception? (I mention this as nothing in the rules actually supports this)
In 3.5, the official stance for Chill Touch was that you cast it, got one free attack with it on that first round, and then if you had more rounds left you could use normal iterative attacks to deliver it. As these were unarmed it could provoke, which is why it was popular as a monk. Take a level dip in Wizard, get the feat that increases your caster level by 4 (to a maximum of character level) and a Monk 4/Wizard 1 could use Chill Touch on 5 of his flurrys with each casting. :D
Again though, that is no longer an option (in PRPG), as this spell is now curbed by the following rule:
"PRPG Page 216, under Touch Spells and Holding the Charge:
..Some touch spells allow you tot ouch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell."
Which means even a monk, whose flurry of blows equates to a full round action, could no longer cast the spell AND do a flurry of blows, as this spell ends at the end of the round it is cast. It does however lead me to beleive that this rule may have been written to prevent this case, but in effect also really reduces any benefit from the additional touch per level increase.
I follow the rule of "if it acts like a weapon, quacks like a weapon, it can do iterative attacks like a weapon." To this end I let full-round attacks occur with Chill Touch, Produce Flame, etc without worrying about the official (and unclear, to some extent) position. Especially since the damage they do isn't exactly game-changing. That and you can't do the full-round on the first round, and if you want to cast a spell other than chill touch/produce flame (and others that don't explicitly say "acts like X weapon") you lose that spell and have to go another round without full attack ability.
This interpretation only really helps gish builds by giving them a unique tactic (since full casters would rather use higher spells anyway), and I'm okay with that.
I think that is a fine house rule resolution, but I am still curious as to an offical stance? It would be great to know the writers INTENT with the multiple touches per level or even what they were hoping to avoid with the guiding rules of not carrying these types of spells over to the next round (aka holding the charge). I beleive the intent was to add a scaling concept to the spell to allow it to remain more useful even at higher levels, but depending on ones interpretation it can scale in power faster or slower.
A. As per all the rules. This would only allow you to use additional touches in the case of attacks of oppotunity. Low scalability, as you will more often than not only use one charge.
B. Mostly by the rules, but allowing a full round (of attacks) on the same round you cast (provided casting is all you did). This would allow gish and high level arcane casters the ability to use more of the touches. Low-Medium scalability, more usable for gish characters as they may only have a few levels of arcane casting and more fighter levels giving them perhaps the same amount of attacks per round as touches. Mostly pure arcane casters however will generally still waste a high amount of extra touches. As such this method scales better for gish than arcane casters.
C. Ignore the can't hold charge rule. This allows all arcane caster and other types to use the full number of touches spread over several rounds, with the limitation as to what they can do while holding it. Medium scalability. Seems the most fair option, but I would still wonder why the ...can't hold charges for these spells... rule exsist.
D. Break actions per round rule and allow a number of touch attacks in the casting round equal to the touch per level. Very High Scalability. This in effect allows a caster to inflict a (#ofLevels)d6 attack plus possible STR damage <granted you still need to roll for each d6 hit individually>. For a sneak attack gish this would be way overpowered as if other conditions are met each attack could be a sneak attack. Clearly this seems to exceed what the abilities of a level 1 spell should be, scalability or not, and contradicts one to many guiding rules (actions per round, touches per round (6 willing),reason, etc...).
PRPG Page 216, under Touch Spells and Holding the Charge:
..Some touch spells allow you tot ouch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
This throws a big wrench in... and requires more clarification.
The problem:
If you cast the spell you can't take a full round action and get any more attacks than one free one you get with the spell. Excluding attacks of opportunity that occur in the round after you cast. This seems to nuke any reasoning for including the ...up to one creature per level... part of the spell.
Now holding the spell, and using it in later rounds, would make sense if the rule above were not in place.
So it seems to me that that spell descirption is still lacking in an explination as to how these extra touches can occur. Is the intent of the spell to allow the caster to exceed the normal rules for the number of touches it can make in a round or is the intent more that the casting of the spell becomes a free action and the caster can still take a full round action (in the round) therefore giving the oppotunity to use the extra attacks that a higher level mage might have, thus allowing more charges of the spell?
If its the first one, then the spell is much more powerful, as it would allow a wizard of 6th level to make six touch attacks in a round, dealing 1d6 with each (lets not even discuss a sneak attacking rogue. Yet if it is the second one, then the touch/level is not aligned very well with the attack iterations and full round actions. As a wizard will have 12 touches, by the time he can use more than one at 12th level (again excluding attack of oppotunity <and combat relfexes>. Granted a rogue/wizard or simular fighting arcane user could use more earlier, but would still have plenty touches in excess.
I found this sheet yesterday and I am already trying to add some custom pieces of information, I added a few Dieties, and then tried to add languages where I have now run into an issue. Hopefully this has not already been discussed, if it has I am sorry.
I first added the new languages to the Language Data sheet, and then new rows for the languages to the Language sheet, however I noticed that when I then added a language that was more than five characters long to the bonus languages field on the Racial Data sheet (for a human) that it seems to break the languages.
To recreate what I am seeing, start up a Human with some intellegance to get bonus languages. Then simply add the Darkland language of 'Aklo' to the bonus language field on the RacialData sheet, check the language sheet and you should see the bonus field not selectable. However, if you then try to also add 'Canto' on the RacialData sheet, all of the languages 'break'.
I tried to research if there is a character limitation or other restraint, but the cell should hold up to 32K of chars. My only other thought is if the SEACH function is limited in the size of the string that it can search through, but even then the string is not all that long.
