Two quick observations.
First, Strength penalties or damage won't lower your weight limits:
PRD, Glossary, Ability Score Damage, Penalty and Drain wrote:
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:
PRD, Glossary, Ability Score Damage, Penalty and Drain wrote:
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?
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:
PRD, Feats wrote:
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 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?
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.
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. :)
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.
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?
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
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?
Miss Kitty wrote:
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):
PRD, Combat wrote:
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.
PRD, Combat wrote:
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.
Dreaming Psion wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Robert Brambley wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Allia Thren wrote:
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?
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.
Jeranimus Rex wrote:
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?
Evil Lincoln wrote:
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?
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.
My interpretation is that this is in fact not correct. Here are the rules in question:
PRD, Combat wrote:
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.
PRD, Combat wrote:
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.
LG Medium Humanoid (Dwarf)
Init +2; Senses Darkvision (60 feet); Perception +3
AC 16, touch 16, flat-footed 13 (+2 Dex, +1 dodge)
hp 11 (1d8+2, +1 fav. class)
Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +5
Defensive Abilities Deep Warrior
Spd 20 ft.
Special Attacks Flurry of Blows +3/+3 BAB +1; Grapple +6 (+11 to maintain)
Str 18, Dex 14, Con 15, Int 9, Wis 16, Cha 5
Base Atk +0; CMB +4 (+6 Grappling); CMD 20 (22 vs Grapple)
Feats Dodge, Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, Monk Weapon Proficiencies, Stunning Fist (1/day) (DC 13)
Traits Fortified Drinker, Poverty Striken
Skills Acrobatics +6, Climb +8, Survival +8
Languages Common, Dwarven
SQ AC Bonus +3, Ancient Enmity, Craftsman, Deep Warrior, Hardy, Slow and Steady, Stability, Stonecunning +2, Stunning Fist (Stun) (Ex), Unarmed Strike (1d6)
I plan on using both the Monk of the Sacred Mountain and Drunken Master Monk archetypes from the APG. The last one will be part of the RP for why his CHA is so very abysmal; he's a drunk, even by Dwarven standards. The character traits and racial abilities were also chosen primarily for background purposes rather than optimization.
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.
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. :)
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.