While the fact it is a penalty can make things weird, I think the more relevant information from the ability is
"This penalty does not stack with itself and cannot reduce an ability score below 1."
What this means is if you do the -10 penalty, and then 3 dex damage, their effective Dex will be 1.
If you do 6 more pressure point strikes, it would still be 1.
So you're right in saying that you need a lot of pressure point strikes to get him truly to 0, but you're wrong in saying that HM + PP = effective 0, because HM can never actually reach 0.
Dire Mongoose wrote:
This was exactly what I was wondering...I mean I don't like to consider myself an expert on the realms but just from quickly breezing over the 3e campaign setting book it's already acknowledged that guns exist, as well as various machines and higher-end technology in general.
The AD&D books only pushing this line further with mentions of tech that seems like it comes out of a sci-fi setting rather than a fantasy one.
But then again, what really separates sci-fi from fantasy in the first place?
And since now I'm just rambling I'll just hit submit before I go too far off topic.
I'm finding these quite interesting but I have to ask, do you also house-rule that ranged touch spells don't draw AoOs?
Pathfinder SRD wrote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
Quotes and additional points
You know, in retrospect I would look upon our posts and realize it comes greatly down to one's interpretations.While you count omission of truth as lying, I count getting paid for a job is not inherently evil, even if for greedy reasons.
So I take back my previous statement saying you were wrong, and just throw the Paladin/Anti-Paladin issue into the air as "depends on the group and the way that group determines what's moral/amoral."
However I would add that the assassin issue you mentioned is definitely one that holds true. Since when were all assassinations done for entirely evil reasons?
Don't believe me? Ok, let's look at the Paladin vs Antipaladin. The Paladin is barred from lying ("Oh the innocents you want to kill because they were framed for a murder you committed but I can't prove it? Hmmm, tell you the truth, that they're in the closet and fall. Tell you they're not in the closet and fall...draw steel, in this hospital, villain!"), they're barred from cheating ("Sorry, I could have used loaded dice to win your freedom slave-woman, but it's against my code. You won't mind being the gnoll's sex slave, will you?"), or even working with evil people ("Gods no! I refuse to work with that lout. It's in my contract! If you want me, I'll be in my trailer!").
... Sorry but, are we talking the same Paladin who would simply avoid answering in such a case? Not being allowed to lie doesn't mean you must tell everyone everything, nor does it mean you must tell entire truths. The same paladin who would see it's his duty to smite the foul beasts known as gnolls, especially if they wish to take slaves? I mean I know smiting everything that moves is frowned upon, but that seems like one of the times where you smite (and maybe power attack) without hesitation.And as I recall the Paladin is capable of working with evil for the greater good, as long as they ends justify the means, and they end the association once it's no longer for the benefits of everyone, as well as receive an atonement spell for every evil act committed during the alliance.
Meanwhile, the Antipaladin...well his code says that he has to do evil - whatever his idea of evil is. And he can use any method he deems is fine within his evil. He can also happily work with good characters as long as it gets the job done. The antipaladin can save the innocents, cheat to get the gnoll slaves free without violence, and look and laugh as the Paladin throws a hissy fit because his evil-dar is going off. The antipaladin then goes "Ok guys, let's leave Mr. Good to moan and complain. Those kids need to be saved, and I want to get paid; so here's the plan...".
And this is the same Antipaladin who may never commit an altruistic or good act? Who must always be committing to actions that have EVIL ends? Always having to impose tyranny, take advantage of people, and always punish those who are good and just? The same antipaladin who can only work with good people as long as the ends are evil and he does his best to defeat whatever good alliance it is from within?
Sorry for going off on that little sidebar, but those comments irked me.
Unless you're speaking of the 3.5e Paladin and Paladin of slaughter, in which case the first quote is right, and the second quote is even more wrong as the Paladin of Slaughter had to ALWAYS commit evil acts, not even being allowed to commit good acts that would result in evil later, they were the ones that if they saw a little lady crossing the street, doing anything outside of breaking her kneecaps to make sure she gets hit would cause them to lose their powers.
Evil campaigns in general can be immensely fun, the only issue is that a lot of people (at least from what I've noticed) can't tell the difference between say, Bram Stoker's Dracula evil and LOLKILLBABIES evil.
Hmm...I need to do some number crunching on this but perhaps:
BAB: 1-5 attacks are normal as they are now.
BAB: 6-10, this is where things get changed up a bit. Suddenly your longsword is doing an extra d8 of damage, you're adding 1.5x your strength modifier (or 2x when wielding two handed), your weapon's enhancement bonus is multiplied by 1.5x as well, as are weapon specialization/training bonuses.
BAB: 11-15, your skill enhances further when you attack your series of rapid swings and strikes (which still take only one roll) are finding more weak spots, cutting more into the foe, you're dealing 3x dice of damage as the normal weapon now, adding 2x your strength modifier (or 3x with two-handed weapons), your weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon specialization, weapon training bonuses multiply by 2 as well.
BAB: 16+, you reach the pinnacle of fighting prowess, when bounding through the battlefield your attacks come in with an unmatched ferocity, when they find undefended points your opponent quickly learns that the fight is serious, now your attack is dealing 4x dice of damage, 3x your strength modifier (or 5x with a two-handed weapon), your weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon specialization, and weapon training are also multiplied by 3.
Questions/Concerns: I still need to test out the actual math behind all of this.
Damage Reduction would also need an overhaul for this to work, mostly because suddenly that DR 10/Magic is meaningless to the one mighty attack that is doing upwards to 60 damage at its barest minimum.
I would point out that he says "essentially makes Vital strike a free feat for everyone."
Which has me under the impression that it wouldn't quite be Vital strike but something in the same mindset that it increases overall damage of the first attack, making it near as powerful as a full attack.
James Jacobs wrote:
... Is that a possible alternate rule sidebar for Ultimate Combat I see?
EDIT: Actually screw sidebar, it could be interesting to see a proper discussion/ruling debating on how the attacks should be changed to be a single one that doesn't lose the potency of a full attack.
I must admit, I always enjoy these threads.
Seeing one group that refuses to actually learn about what they're talking about arguing with another group who doesn't want to listen.
Puts a smile on my face it does.
Though to at least pretend to be on topic, I would simply point out that a lot of the arguments going back and forth depend strongly on player experience, the style of campaign, the occurrences thus far throughout it and a million other little variables.
A statement supporting that wizards are the end all or they aren't simply has no real effect without pages upon pages of set up to understand where the wizard is coming from.
Unless we're talking the extreme low levels then it only needs a paragraph or so on background.
I'm with wraithstrike on his first point.
I've noticed that when it comes to direct damage the non-casters are far outperforming the casters.
A crit only occurs for actual damaging spells, not energy drain, or ability damage. This was brought up in the faq, as linked below.
A rule that has worked well for me was simply make it so that any damage a caster takes in between turns adds up to a cumulative total. When the caster's turn comes up and he/she tries to cast, they have to make a concentration check of DC 10+Damage Taken+2*Spell Level.
I would be interested to see how long the two classes need to prepare for battle as well as how far ahead their preparations start, so I can gauge how screwed over they are when going against a dispelling wizard, or a foe that doesn't just wait for you to buff.
There is also the question of how many times a day they can pull off their respective buffs.
Well if you have the time, I'd be interested to see this.Assuming of course you're willing to do it at various levels (maybe 1, 5, 10, 15, 20?) instead of just at the low ones.
Perhaps the same could be said of all martial classes!
XPH introduces the epic feat "Epic Psionic Focus" which allows you to use 2 feats that require expending your psionic focus at once. You can take the feat multiple times allowing for stacking of metapsionic feats and/or other feats that require expending focus.
Excuse me for not typing more clearly, I was on my way to bed when I posted, and upon review I can see my thought processing wasn't exactly clear with that post.What I believe I was getting at was the fact that a level 9 power is 17 power points total, yet a level 19+ psion can still augment the power point expenditure beyond that. What this means is with manifesting some powers the DC is going to be even higher than a 9th level power.
I believe that's where my 'uppercap' rant was going.
Well firstly, my only experience with psionics in D&D are the 3e psionics handbook, the 3e mind's eye articles, and the 3.5e expanded psionics handbook, so I don't know DSP's stance on psionics, now with that out of the way...
I might be hated for saying this, but I've always thought it would be wise to toss an uppercap onto psionic powers besides the cap based on manifester level.
In short, I would like to see: Uppercaps on powers, DCs not scaling without some specific energy (a feat and higher PP cost perhaps?) put directly into that purpose (and no other purpose), and more powers that aren't devoted entirely to destroying enemies or self buffing.
I've interpreted it as the entire shield bonus, including the enhancement bonus that one would have on the shield to increase its shield bonus.
As enhancement bonuses don't stack I would go with the higher bonus.
So in short, a light shield with a +1 enhancement bonus to the shield bonus would provide a +2 enhancement when used to attack with the Shield Master feat. However if that same shield had a +5 enhancement bonus to attack already, the Shield Master feat would leave it as +5 for it is a greater bonus than a +2
It would be wonderful if paizo put out a psionics book that was updated for pathfinder. In fact I greatly hope for such a day for that to happen. Unfortunately, due to their seemingly tight schedule and general lack of interest in the psionics system as its known in 3.5e I doubt they'll ever be able to get the system set. It doesn't help that most people view psionics as it was set in 3.5e as outrageously powerful, and that most psionics fans see it as the best rules yet.
For a bit on my views on psionics, I have always been a fan of psionics but 3.5e rules for them seem to be lacking... definition(for lack of a better word) in some areas. While in others they seem a bit off, namely the lack of hard caps on anything in the psionics system.
But that is another discussion. And with what seems to be the majority of psionics fans wanting full backwards compatibility with 3.5e this would lead to a system that again allows a psion or psychic warrior with even a slightly optimal build to be able to outclass the other classes in the high levels and possibly epic levels.
Again I shouldn't go into such a discussion.
Addendum: If they revised it, with major changes or not I would still appreciate it. If they don't I don't mind reworking them in a way to 'pathfinderize' them and be acceptable with my group.
Last note: Excuse me if I'm mistaken on what I've perceived as a lack of interest in psionics on paizo's part, that is simply a bit of knowledge that I've picked up in my lurking in various places.
Don't forget that the +5 sword doesn't overcome /bludgeoning or /piercing