ZappoHisbane's page

I use major image to create incorporeal creatures (such as spectres, wraiths, shadows, and ghosts); that way the lack of touch (visual, audio, smell, and thermal) when their weapons pass through the 'incorporeal' beings doesn't strain their sense of disbelief.

Master Arminas

I was just about to mention this. With the thermal effect you can make them "feel" deathly cold too. Makes for a great distraction + fear effect against lots of mooks.

Now, I know that armor bonuses don't stack, so lets get that right out of the way. However, if I were to wear Quilted Armor (from the APG) under heavier armor would I still get the benefit of the DR3 vs small ranged weapons?

Two quick observations.

First, Strength penalties or damage won't lower your weight limits:

Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense.

However, ability drain will:

Ability Drain: Ability drain actually reduces the relevant ability score. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to lose skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. Ability drain can be healed through the use of spells such as restoration.

Second, and I could be wrong on this, but wouldn't Bloodline Arcana abilities (like adding +1 per damage die rolled) only apply to spells cast as a Sorcerer? Not to mention caster level? If I'm a Sorcerer 1/Wizard 19, I've got the fabric of the universe at my fingertips, but that Burning Hands spell I figured out back when I was 15 still only does 1d4+1. Or am I wrong on that?

Lots of good, well thought out stuff

We'll have to agree to disagree on some things then. First, even with using the armor/shield costs provided, the tables do not provide a market value of a force effect AC. This would be worth more than normal bonuses since it protects against incorporeal attacks. Plus the immunity to Magic Missile that Shield gives as well. So either the player is getting a good deal, or there is GM fiat required.

As for 4,000 GP for an always-on Protection from Evil item... +2 Deflection bonus (8,000 GP), +2 Resistance bonus (4,000 GP), immunity to almost an entire school of magic that happens to be most melee-type's Achillies heel (priceless?) Oh, and the only drawback is that it only works against the most-likely alignment that I'll be fighting? That's worth far more than 4,000 GP in my book.

You also suggest that 4,000 GP is acceptable for a Ring of Enlarge Person. I'd also have to take exception to that. Enlarge Person grants a +2 size bonus to Strength (which means it'll stack with more common Enhancement bonuses), gives you a -2 penalty to Dex, and makes you Large size. While the these changes do come with negatives (net -2 AC, potential squeezing issues), the benefits (at least +2 ave damage, reach, +2 CMB, +1 CMD) generally outweigh them. More importantly however, the benefits outweigh those granted by a Belt of Giant Strength of the same cost (4,000 GP, +2 enhancement bonus to STR).

Since my original question has been answered, I'll pose a new one along the lines of the current direction of the thread. Since I think 2,000 - 4,000 GP is too little to pay for an item of Enlarge Person, how much would a use-activated (i.e. I can turn it on or off on command/at will) item of Enlarge Person cost? Thoughts?

Frankthedm wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Why?

Because custom items are optional, the table prices are only guidelines to be used when a comparable item isn't available and many people will feel the item is worth more than 4000gp.

All of the rules are optional. The item creation rules are not called out as being any more optional. They are actually rules too. Merely effects not called out as being part of the formulas require ad-hoc adjustments. The rules themselves are not optional, and are clearly used throughout the rulebook. However, what is created within those rules is just as subject to GM review and potential banishment as anything else within the rules (that is to say, everything). A good GM however will rarely if ever have to ban anything that is made with the item creation rules proper, just like they will rarely if ever have to ban other portions of the core rules.

So you're okay with an always-on ring of True Strike then?

Edit: Or Mage Armor, Protection from Evil or Shield for that matter?

Let's look at the full text:

Improved Critical (Combat)

Attacks made with your chosen weapon are quite deadly.

Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.

Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.

Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.

Note the phrases I've put in italics. The full text makes clear that you choose a single weapon, and you get to double the threat range.

I'm doing the Barb4/Sorc1/DDX build mentioned by Zolthux above right now, and having a great time. Your BAB suffers some, but the STR bonuses tend to make up for it. Being able to cast Shield on yourself prior to Raging is also pretty sweet.

I'm considering seeking out Enlarge Person on myself Permanently, since it's a buff that happens to my Barbarian almost every combat. At this point, the cost of the spell and casting itself is quite doable, just a matter of finding a 9th-level wizard willing to do the deed.

The question is though, do I need to also factor in the cost of replacing all my equipment with large-sized versions? Ordinarily when the buff is cast, all my stuff gets enlarged too. The trick is that if anything leaves my "possession it instantly returns to its normal size." So when I take my armor and weapons off to go to sleep in my big bed, I'm going to have problems.

Is there any arguement to be made that the Permanancy negates this part of the spell? That everything that is enlarged becomes permanently so, unless a Dispel Magic wrecks the whole thing?

Apologies for the thread necromancy, but I have a related question.

What if the natural attack is good enough to hit touch AC, but not normal AC? That would suggest that I touched the target (thus the spell discharges), but wasn't able to get through its armor (so no claw damage). Is this correct?

Afraid I'm too lazy to wade through the entire thread, so I'll just post my idea and hope it overlaps enough with someone else to count as another vote. :)

The main thing would be some type of bandolier, gloves, or something to make thrown weapons more viable. Enchant a bandolier like a weapon, and any (non-magical) weapon stored in it gain its enhancements for one round. This would allow a character build to focus on thrown weapons and the like, which is currently prohibitively expensive if you want more than 1-2 attacks.

Sometimes, though, adding additional pricing to such features is impossible with no rules to go by. For instance, how do you price the exploding self destruct ability of a staff of power?

Everything in the Staff of Power except for the Retributive Strike and the double-damage thing can be figured out with pricing formulas. So work out the price of everything you know how, and whatever you've got left is the value of the stuff you don't. Obvious reasoning perhaps, but there it is.

Eventually, someone will create a very powerful build for any class. Banning a class every time that happens is a bad idea. You could always go for a commoner campaign though.

You're nuts, commoners are completely OP, what with their... uhm... stuff. Yeah.

Perception as a high save is just the perception skill with a penalty attached.

Except that it stops being a skill point tax, since by most people's standards its the most important skill in the game and you'd be silly not to put ranks in it.

That said, I don't think I'm one of those people. I rather like the fact that you can choose to have an inattentive character if you think it fits the flavor, or simply feel that skill points are better spent elsewhere to match your concept. I also like that you can have another character in the same party that is an awesome tracker and scout, head and shoulders above everyone else. Gives them a little place to shine. Yeah, I think I like it the way it is. :)

Looking for 2-4 mature players for a biweekly Tuesday night game. Go here for more info: http://www.meetup.com/Scarborough-Pathfinder/

You're aware of the threat long before anyone else, absolutely. Question is, why aren't you sharing this with your party? You're not being cheated by someone else going first, because it's not a competitive game, its a cooperative one.

In the case you mention, where you've spotted/heard a group of orcs a long way off and decide to lob a fireball...why not take a free action and say "Psst, there's a whole bunch of Orcs right over...there. <boom>"

In this case, the way I see it is the fireball initiates the combat, and was a surprise round. If there's a diviner in the group, their spider sense tingles and they might even get to go first, but that doesn't mean they can do anything.

There's no real problem here at all.

And just to be completely complete, from the PRD itself:

Paralyzed: A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions.

I've been idly working on a Fighter Crossbowman archetype build, and it got me thinking. The archetype gets a damage bonus (+1/2Dex, then +Dex) when making a Readied attack with a crossbow. This is great and all, especially when you're focusing on the enemy spellcaster, since they then get a chance to lose their spell. But what about other characters? If you're setting up a shot (with a crossbow or anything else for that matter), waiting for a specific opening, shouldn't you be rewarded if that exact opening comes to pass? The risk is that you don't get to act at all, and you've basically wasted a standard action, potentially your turn.

So, what do you all think? Is giving an additional reward to a ready-er, like applying a circumstance penalty to an attack roll or skill check on the victim, seem appropriate? Is it overpowered? How bad of a penalty should it be?

Agreed with all others who say that worship or belief is not required for Raise Dead and the like. I have to wonder what effect will have on the Wizard too. Mayhaps he won't be quite so sure in his beliefs after he's had a stint in the afterlife. Sounds like good roleplaying opportunity to me.

The problem with catfolk, is that it is so firmly (choose another word) established as fetish material prior to paizo taking it on board and making it a new race. Now they could make this a joke and run with it, by giving the catfolk the special ability "yiff".

If they want to borrow from popular fetishes, that is fine then, but I want my Goatse men. I want it as canon tomorrow!

Again, you're choosing to ignore the vast amount of mainstream, non-furry, non-fetish examples of feline humanoids out there, that existed long before the furry fandom. Not to mention ignoring the fact that Furry is not a fetish, except to a specfic subset of the fandom. Just like, oh, halflings are not a fetish, except for those who have a thing for hairy feet. If such a player goes on and on about their hairy feet, then yes its an issue. If not, who cares?

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Miss Kitty wrote:

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

Deviantart and in particular this author, has images of animal people that you can use.

On Deviant Art, there are several excellent images by Vshen: Tygra, Cheetara 1, Cheetara 2, Panthro 1, and Panthro 2. And these by Dave Rapoza: Lion-O 1, Lion-O 2, and Cheetara.

Fetish material for sure, even when not-nude. Yep, can't take paizo's catfolk decision seriously. Such a bad move.

Wait, what?! How is any of those images considered "fetish material"?

Methinks the Loyalist doth protest too much.

One other thing to note is that all of the bonus feats granted to an Arcane Duelist, with the exception of Combat Casting, have Fighter Level prerequisites. Where we see language that specifically says whether or not prerequistes have to be met is when a character has a choice of feats to make from a list of possibilities. Since these feats are simply assigned and the character is given no choice in the matter, I would assume that prerequisties are waived.

That still doesn't answer the original question though, since Penetrating Strike has a "backdoor" prerequisite listed in its benefit. I like Aeshuura's idea, since all Arcane Duelists will have one (and only one) bonded weapon.

The other solution is of course to just take Weapon Focus at some point before 14th level, but it seems a bit of a design flaw to force you to burn a feat slot in order to use a class feature.

Forgive me if this question has been asked and answered, but I didn't find it on a quick search.

The Arcane Duelist archetype for Bards in the APG gain Penetrating Strike as a bonus feat at 14th level (and the Greater version at 18th). Normally this feat has a prerequistite of Weapon Focus, which I assume is waived as its granted as a bonus feat. However, the text of the feat specifies that its effects (ignoring some DR) only apply to the weapon that you have Weapon Focus in.

Does an Arcane Duelist need to take Weapon Focus to benefit from this feat? If not, how does it function for them?

Where in the core does it say your allies provide cover against you? The only way you can justify it is reversing what is said about enemys provding you with soft cover on 196, though that would be stacking two negatives of the same category. If you can not stack bonuses from the same category, I would rule you can not do the opposite.

Sorry, wish it worked that way but it doesn't (bolding mine):

Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.

The rule is for all creatures, including your enemies. And since the rules work the same for good guys and bad guys, soft cover applies to everyone. If you're a fighter toe-to-toe with an enemy, and an enemy archer shoots at you from behind him, you get cover. Thus, the same applies to when you're shooting at an enemy with a friend in the way.

Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

Also note here, that the penalty for shooting into melee is a -4 to your attack roll. The Soft Cover provides +4 to the target's AC. Not to mention the causes of the two modifiers are different. Soft Cover could exist without the melee penalty, and vice versa. They definitely, without question, stack. Thus, there's an effective -8 to your attack roll (or +8 to their AC, however you want to look at it). This is why Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot are such important feats.

A belligerent (but not completely buffoonish) NPC that insisted on fighting but getting creamed just prior to their engagement with the villain can give them visual evidence. Be careful this happens prior to the PCs arriving or getting involved, as some may feel duty bound (or just wanting bragging rights) to save the NPC.

The trick here is to make sure you show the NPC as competent beforehand, even a badass. This is the Worf Effect.

The preliminary revisions for the Stealth skill (read them here) state that any standard action basically breaks Stealth. Sniping also isn't possible with spells because it's a special Standard action. That said however, you might be able to cast a touch spell, hold the charge, and then sneak up on someone to deliver it to their flat-footed touch AC (AC - Dex - Armor - Shield - Natural Armor = Very low AC). That said, I wouldn't try to base a character around that one little trick.

Still, nothing wrong with your concept per se, I rather like the idea of a spellcaster who tries to stick to the shadows. If I were DMing, I'd certainly give appropriate modifiers to casting silently and the like to your Stealth checks (or more likely, to Perception trying to pinpoint you). Right now though that is definitely DM's discretion.

Wow, that's a lot to cover in one post. Since no one else has, let me see what I can offer.

I do have some questions that would effect gameplay, however. How exactly does stealth work? I understand the basic concept behind it, and I saw the sniping section, but how does spellcasting work with stealth? Can you remain hidden as you cast spells (I understand that having a fireball streak out from your position would be a giveaway, but what about a mind effecting spell?). Also, what about Supernatural Abilities, such as the Revelations, can I use those from hiding and not be seen? It seems that this set up will be more efficient if I can do that. The Cloak of Darkness seems to promote hiding and casting spells/using skill from the hiding spot.

"How exactly does stealth work?" Hehe, what a loaded question here on the boards. Stay tuned to the blog, there is a apparently a revision to the Stealth rules due out in the next week or or so that is supposed to make things clearer. In any case, casting spells while hidden will most likely break stealth, especially if they have Verbal components (which must be spoken in a strong voice). If you have the deafness curse however this won't apply. Supernatural abilities don't have components, but if they're a standard action they may still break stealth. Depends on the final text of the revision and (more importantly) what your DM says.

For the Misfortune Revelation, can you use it on allies? It only mentions creatures, which means I would be using it... a lot. If I could also use it on players, I would be able to help them by using it when they roll poorly to try and boost their combat abilities.

Nothing that says you can't, good thinking. The daily limit of once per target still applies though.

Can the Fortune Revelation be used more than once on a single roll?

No, because you can normally only take a single Immediate action per turn.

Revelations: These were the early ones I was thinking of taking. Anyone have advice on a different order/different Revelations to take?

Level 1: Misfortune
Level 3: Gift of Madness
Level 5: Fortune
Level 7: Cloak of Darkness

I'd consider swapping around your level 3 & 7 choices. Gift of Madness isn't all that hot until 7th level because of the 1 round duration. Meanwhile, the Cloak of Darkness will be more useful earlier on, giving you decent armor and that bonus to Stealth which will also be nice early on. I'd also consider the Extra Revalation feat and take Pierce the Viel, so that you can see in the darkness you'll be looking to take advantage of.

Roll the die. Its not that bad. Its not that big a deal. The game is SUPPOSED to be risky. Combat and danger are supposed to be hectic, chaotic, and prone to chance. Where is the thrill, where is the risk, where is the excitement if you KNOW you absolutely can't fail? That's boring as hell. Its not an encounter its background scenery.

How do we know that we can't fail? I don't know what the Perception modifiers of all the enemies in the room are. Nor do I know their CMDs (vs Acrobatics or Escape Artist), their HD+WIS (for Intimidate) or their BAB+Sense Motive/WIS (for Feint). I can make an educated guess to form an expectation though, which goes back to the part about taking-10 that I quoted before.

When I build a skill-oriented character, I want them to be skilled. All these special things that they can do, they don't contribute in the same flashy ways that a Wizard casts spells or a Fighter spills blood. So when I do use them, I want them to work. And frankly, by the time I've gotten to 10th level to take Skill Mastery, I expect them to work. Which makes those times when taking-10 turns out to be the wrong decision to be all that more dramatic.

In other words, different strokes for different folks. You say it's "boring as hell." I think you need to add another two words there: "for me." Because without that, you're telling everyone else that they're doing it wrong, telling them what the "game is SUPPOSED to be". No offense, but I don't think you're qualified to tell me what I'm supposed to like about the game.

Dire Mongoose wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't see how. It doesn't take that long to roll a die.

But it generally weakens skill-based characters a fair bit (because you need a lot more ranks to be guaranteed success on easy rolls), and frankly they're already probably the weakest classes in anything but an almost-no-combat game.

Therefore I think it makes sense to round in favor of the ruling that makes them better rather than worse, since they need the help.

I can't see one of the rogues' signature abilities being of much use then, as you'd be handing it out to everyone.

No, because Skill Mastery: Stealth is still useful in Combat, like its always been. If there are conditions in Combat that allow use of the Stealth skill (concealment or cover, not going to hash out the other Stealth thread all over), everyone can take advantage of them, sure. Only the Rogue with Skill Mastery can do it in Combat. Oh, and likewise with Acrobatics for moving about without an Aoo, jumping etc. Bluff checks for Feinting. Intimidate to demoralize, for those thuggish Rogues out there. Escape Artist for being Grappled. Do I have to go on? Skill Mastery still has plenty of value.

Which is irrelevant really - I don't know too many DMs that continue to have the bad guys continue to fail horribly at hitting said tank that doesn't do very much damage, when the fleshy sneak attacking rogue or two-handed raving underarmored barbarian is standing there right next to him.

The problem IMO from a players perspective with these builds is that there is and always has been very limited in-game means of forcing a bad guy to square off against the guy that can't get hit.

I don't know too many DMs that tell their players exactly what AC they need to hit for the monsters after only one round. And if players don't get the benefit of knowing a creature's AC, why should monsters? If they roll, say, 16 or better and didn't hit then perhaps they've got a good inkling that the target AC is out of their league.

Now granted, if the sneak-attacking Rogue or raging Barbarian standing next to the tank are doing far more damage, that's a valid reason to change tactics. Metagaming the AC isn't.

Let's keep in mind the another part of the take-10 rule:

In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10).

A character with Stealth as a class skill, max ranks, and a high dex would probably "expect" an average roll to beat most people's average Perception checks. I would thus assume that they'd probably actually be taking 10 on it most of the time. Only when they think that they might be in some trouble and need to be extra careful would they not take-10.

As for the dragon example... you're not in combat. You're (presumably) not being distracted or threatened. There's no rule that says you can't take-10 if a failure would result in harm (that's take-20). "Immediate danger" is not a game term, it's fluff. Standing next to a sleeping dragon is not immediate danger. Making faces at it is not going to turn you into a snack (assuming its not bluffing). I think you should be allowed to take-10 in that case. Just because its allowed though, doesn't mean its a good idea. Sleeping or not, a dragon will still have Blindsense 60' after all.

Of course, now we have to go back to the Stealth playtest thread to debate what kind of checks and DCs are involved with sneaking up on a sleeping creature with Blindsense. :)

I'm all for the idea that the hero can take punishment that no ordinary mortal can stand, but in every movie you see this happening, he doesn't come out unscathed. He doesn't wade through a pool of acid, fight the troll/dragon/whatever and come out looking like he's just cleaned and polished his armour. He's usually bleeding, with torn clothing/damaged armour, probably limping and just generally looking like he's been through an epic battle.

Personally, this is where roleplaying kicks in. If I'm playing a fighter who's down to, say a third of his total HP but isn't at the point where he's likely to go down on one blow (barring a crital or other massive damage), I usually describe him as being winded, leaning on his sword a little, whatever. No mechanical effects (blame it on adrenaline kicking back in), but I don't ignore it. If he's down into single digits or close enough, that's when you start to look like John McClane at the end of Die Hard, barely able to lift your machine gun... I mean greatsword. You still do it, and even without mechanical penalties, because you're the hero.

Oh, and as for the question about how Clerics know when to heal you or not, they don't. That's part of the reason why the Heal skill is based on Wisdom, so that you can pick up on the cues that maybe Bob could use a bit of a pick-me-up, even though the lunkhead says he's just fine.

Yes, I am calling for more abstraction instead of less.

...

Perception has to not be about "seeing" or "hearing", but about noticing. How many times have you looked right at the object you are trying to find on the table right in front of you and not noticed it? Heard someone talking to you but missed what they were saying? That is perception.

Any fix to stealth has to fix perception as well since the two are interconnected by being opposed checks.

This. I like this very much.

The Righteous Might spell normally grants DR 5/Good or DR 5/Evil depending on whether you channel positive or negative energy, respectively. An Oracle of Battle gains Righteous Might as a bonus spell at 10th level, but doesn't channel energy. So by RAW they forfeit the DR. Is this an oversight, or intentional?

Note that Oracles do have to choose between having all "Cure" or "Inflict" spells on their list of spells known. This isn't restricted by alignment however, so I'm not sure how much it should count.

I bring this up because the notion that you need cover for stealth is retarded.

You need concealment for stealth, not cover.

If this were the case, it's be impossible to hide around a corner from someone, or around a pillar like in the example pictured on the blog post. These grant cover (or total cover), but not concealment. As for the invisible wall of force example, those kind of corner cases are easily adjudicated by the DM. That's why they're there after all.

But you are taking the penalty to hit for your AoO, which is made at your full BAB... you're giving up your AoO (which might hit again and deal damage) for a AC bonus (which caps at +6, if your BAB ever gets that High). That doesn't seem like a fair trade? Giving up your AoO?

Y'know what, I take it back. Just reread the language, and I think it supports allowing you to turn on CE on an AoO. It's also very smart language, because it prevents the issue on the Full Attack mentioned above. Mea culpa.

ProfPotts wrote:

The point is that if Combat Experise could be applied whenever you made an attack roll, then your high-level Greater Two-Weapon Fighting character could make six attacks without the CE penalty, then choose to apply it to his final seventh attack (which has little chance of hitting anything anyway) and claim the AC bonus all the way until the start of his next turn... when he does it again.

This is a great observation, and makes a lot of sense balance wise. This defeats a lot of my argument.

However, is there a reason to not allow Combat Expertise on an Attack of Opportunity?

Because it's again another way to avoid taking the penalty to hit. For example, you can intersperse Trip attacks with normal attacks on a Full attack. So lets say you trip the guy first (and don't use CE), and then resolve the rest of your full attack against his penalized AC. No problem so far. Then your oppenent stands up, provoking an AoO. You take the attack and declare Combat Expertise. So now all of a sudden you've got an AC bonus, but took little to no penalty for it.

Just one example, but I'm sure there are others.

You can however, use CE and Fighting Defensively vs a Square you "think an enemy is in" (or vs the Air) on your own turn - legally by RAW.

As long as you, by RAW, have reason to believe there's a foe there, sure. You can't just declare "Ah! There's an invisible Rogue next to me" <flail> Unless your character is actually insane.

That's why Amiri with her Huge Shortsword become Greatsword doesn't work. She wouldn't be able to get her hands around the hilt of a Frost Giant's Short sword. It would be a good foot around! A Large bastard sword would be awkward enough swinging around...and should be longer then she is tall (about 8' long). They did a decent job with the dimensions of it as a shortsword, although she's never seen using the shortsword as a piercing weapon, just a hugely overthick greatsword.

===Aelryinth

I actually just finished reading Amiri's "Meet the Iconics" blog post to refresh my memory about what she wields. It says its a Large Bastard Sword. I haven't read her official stat block (or anything else about her) though, so is the blog post inaccurate?

Though that does beg the question:

overdark wrote:

SRT4W wrote:

Quote:

2) I like the gunslinger. The class is fine (but shouldn't have full BAB and two good saves and d10 HD)

Then neither should fighters....

See argument like this are what I love about this place.

What is your problem with my response?

I'm guessing it's the fact that Fighters only have one good save, not two. Of course one could then simply point to Rangers & Paladins as full BAB, d10 HD classes with two good saves.

ZappoHisbane wrote:

I understood his point, but I think it's more than just semantics. Overdark seemed to think that the average roll of a d20 is 10, and gave himself a point to either side to cover himself and said that's what's going to come up on a die more often. Me saying that's wrong isn't semantics, it's math.

Well we can't use 10.5 unless you alternate 10's and 11's. Assuming perfectly balanced dice that is what the average result would be. Now as for the not ever rolling 1's and 20's I disagree with that since they are autohits and fails, and have to be accounted for.

Actually, we can (and should) use 10.5 if we're taking a serious look at chance-to-hit or DPR, or whatever. And then also take into account the auto-hit, auto-miss and crit ranges. Saying that you've got a 55.993% chance at hitting, or that you deal 35.73 DPR is perfectly acceptable for analysis' sake (numbers are random examples).

It's a little gratifing to see that I'm not the only one who noticed this and thought it was an issue.

The damage of it is rather pityful, and even a creature with 1 Wis (-5 modifier) will eventually manage a DC 15 heal check. (and most have alot more wisdom than 1)

So if they bother to stop it (because you climed on the tree and they can't eat you this round), then it will probably run for 2-3 rounds max, before they managed to stop it.

Can animals and other non-intelligent/non-sentient beings even make Heal checks on themselves? I mean, I know most animals have a WIS of 10-12 or so, and that Heal checks can be made untrained... but doesn't common sense have to come into play some?

ZappoHisbane wrote:

overdark wrote:

And besides I don't count on rolling 1s just like I don't count on rolling 20s. 9-11 is what your gonna roll most often (thats why its called average).

Psst... that's not what "average" means. If you're rolling between 9 and 11 more often than any other numbers, your die is not balanced and should be thrown out.

Did you really not understand his intent are were you playing the semantics game?

I understood his point, but I think it's more than just semantics. Overdark seemed to think that the average roll of a d20 is 10, and gave himself a point to either side to cover himself and said that's what's going to come up on a die more often. Me saying that's wrong isn't semantics, it's math.

And besides I don't count on rolling 1s just like I don't count on rolling 20s. 9-11 is what your gonna roll most often (thats why its called average).

Psst... that's not what "average" means. If you're rolling between 9 and 11 more often than any other numbers, your die is not balanced and should be thrown out.

ciretose wrote:

Zorro is not a first level swordsman, now is he?

But he did have to train a whole hell of a lot.

Also, you can take additional traits as a feat, which in turn allow you to take heirloom weapon later on.

Interesting point; would one be allowed to substitute a masterwork (and thus enchantable) weapon for the non-masterwork normally allowed by the errata'd trait, if they took the trait at a higher level? GM call I suspect, and thus not PFS legal probably. But would it be (wait for it)... broken?

Why is this a feat? Why must whole new mechanics be feats? Shouldn't feats usually be modifiers or changes? Are we really claiming that the legions of bards who can't or won't take this feat are somehow unqualified to effectively taunt to gain a tactical advantage? Can't I use social skills to force an enemy's attention? Wouldn't that have made more sense?

This.

In fact, I think the game should have Social Manuvers, and this should be one of them. This would give CHA more to do, and serve to help those of us who prefer to roll-play instead of role-play.

That said, without those rules in place, taunting should be handled strictly through roleplay, in my opinion. At our table we handle it with a quick Intimidate, Bluff or Diplomacy check (usually no more than a move-action). Not against a specific DC, the DM just takes into account how good your roll was, considers the NPC's personality and intelligence and goes from there. Me being a rules-based guy I'd prefer something a little more quantified, but the Antagonize feat goes way too far, IMHO.

ProfPotts wrote:

As for counting as flanking when grappled... You can't make AoO when grappled, so you don't threaten (threatening being a part of the AoO rules in the first place), so you don't count as flanking.

Is that really the case? No AoO = Not threatening?

My interpretation is that this is in fact not correct. Here are the rules in question:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn...If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

Flanking

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

There's nothing that states you have to be able to make an AoO to threaten or flank. To flank, you need to be threatening a target. To threaten a target, you need to be able to make a melee attack into it's square, and be armed.

Now, it is true that the section on Threatened Squares is a subsection of the Attacks of Opportunity section. However, consider this. If you do not have Combat Reflexes and you've already taken an AoO this round, would you not still provide a Flanking bonus to your allies?

I've been following this thread off and on over the past little while, because I'm going to start playing a Monk shortly. At the risk of my sanity, I figured I'd post my build, and I'll update as interest and results dictate.

We use 25-point buy, so that makes it a little easier at least. Apologies if the formatting is a little off, I haven't done this before.

With this build I'm getting +4 to hit with unarmed strikes (+3/+3 flurry), dealing 1d6+4 damage. The party also has a Bard and a Wizard who might be willing to cast Mage Armor on me every so often (though he is an Elf, so it might take a bit for me to trust him).

Should be fun to give it a try, and as long as this thread stays reasonably amicable I'll post progress as we go along.

I'll add in my particular (double) axe to grind in this thread. When using a double-weapon and Two-Weapon fighting, are the strength bonuses on the primary/secondary attacks equal to:

A) 1.0/0.5
B) 1.5/0.5
C) 1.5/1.5
D) Something else?

Threads on the issue are here and here.

To me what's not clear is if the caster level listed with each special ability is intended as a requirement, or if it's just meant as an indicator of the item's generic caster level (used to determine the DC of identify checks for instance).

Personally, my first instinct would be to rule it as a requirement but one that can be bypassed for the +5 to DC. No idea whatsoever if that's correct or not though. :)

fireball never accidentally sets anything on fire

No? Why not?

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.

I have to say that I prefered the way WotC handeld errata in 3.5. At least they didn't limit errata to reprints (they even released 3.5 errata when the game was no longer supported, although that was some errata long overdue).

There are many things for which I prefer Paizo, like the structure of their books or the way they handle the OGL, but their editing and handling of mistakes aren't among those.

And I for one prefer Paizo's in-the-trenches approach. "Official" errata may be hard to come by, but at least Paizo staff is actually available and willing to discuss. The fact that we've seen James and others offer opinions, and then have them swayed by those of us on the boards is a great thing. Add resources like d20pfsrd.com to the mix and you're good to go.