ZappoHisbane's page

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?

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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 don't think there's much open to interpretation.

Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll:

A wizard can also add a spell to his book whenever he encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.

Italics mine. These two words indicate two separate steps. Deciphering is covered here, earlier in the section:

To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in another's spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell's level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.

Note that the DC's for these two checks are different. I don't think there's any doubt that there are two steps. So what does the Alchemist get to skip?

An alchemist may know any number of formulae...An alchemist can also add formulae to his book just like a wizard adds spells to his spellbook, using the same costs, pages, and time requirements. An alchemist can study a wizard's spellbook to learn any formula that is equivalent to a spell the spellbook contains. A wizard, however, cannot learn spells from a formula book. An alchemist does not need to decipher arcane writings before copying them.

Since deciphering arcane writings is a specific step noted, we can thus safely say the Alchemist doesn't need to do that step. Everything else however applies the same to the Alchemist as it would the Wizard. So if you want to copy formulae from spellbooks, you're going to need a Spellcraft check good enough to hit DC15+spell level.

The intent is to make them wary and add to the dangers of the game to make them still wonder should they just do this or should they take precautions. with some of the new methods IE. skill points is there any need then to tie oneself off to insure they dont slip and fall or have someone fly up and secure a second rope etc etc . with the new skills it pretty much eliminates that and I want to put the mystery and wonder back into the game. with a DC of 5 the most they could miss by would be 4 which is not enough to garner the4 threat I intended as a counter balance to making the climb with just one roll. therefore the 1 became the counter balance not the actual 4 that it would ordinarily be. Cause mostly by the condition of the surrounding environment not the characters skill set.

I would have set the wall you describe at a DC15 (10 for rough surface with handholds, +5 for being slippery/crumbly). Characters who are decent at climbing can take-10 and make it automatically. Those who can't can either risk it, or improve their chances by having a capable climber use Aid Another, drop a rope down (DC5 if knotted, DC10 if not), or any other of the myriad ways of improving a skill check. Tying off a character with a rope has no affect on their Climb checks, but it will stop them from falling if they do slip.

In other words, if the characters who aren't good climbers are reckless and just go for it, they've got real danger of falling to their death. If they stop for a moment and think it through though, work as a team, then they can probably get through it. Sounds exactly the way its supposed to work to me.

It's not such much that they can't pick up a sword and swing with it. Would they know what to do with it? most likely not. Even with training, and even if it is smart, it is still a monkey. I wouldn't say it could if I was dm'ing, but your DM might be more giving then I am. Ask them! :)

Watch the opening scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey to see what happens when apes move from INT 2 to INT 3. :)

According to the magic section they are equivalent for the purposes of casting. If they were not then why would the rule even exist?

In my mind it's actually a clarification of the 3.5 rules. In PF you need a full-round action to start casting a 1-round casting time spell. In 3.5 this was not explicit, thus it was possible to interpret the rules as allowing you to move, spend a standard action to start casting, then on your next turn spend a move action to finish casting.

Now, it may be that that interpretation for 3.5 is wrong, but at least PF makes it clear that you need a full-round action.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

As per the above posts, +14 or more to the total fly skill modifier gets you auto hover... if you're a wizard that's too cheap to put ranks in fly, well, cast levitate + fly and stop whining! :)

Why the hell should a Wizard waste points in a skill that is ENTIRELY pointless for every single creature that flies via magic? Much less a skill that is completely useless for Humanoids. Fly should automatically allow you to do a number of things because it is magical flight. You aren't trying to flap your wings and stay in the air.

I disagree. Someone who puts practice into things should be better at it than someone who doesn't. Note that you don't need to make Fly checks for normal movement. It's only when you try to do something fancy, or under adverse conditions, that you need them.

Morgen wrote:

Well we've got a skill for climb, a skill for swimming so why not a skill for flying?

Indeed we do. And the moment you gain a climb or swim speed, those skills become more or less useless.

Sageasa5 wrote:

Take a hummingbird, there aren't any stats but we can assume they have 1 HD and are Fine size, I would say they have good maneuverability. Take their 1 skill point they possess and put it in Fly (what else are they going to take, Perform: Pleasant Thrumming?), and their skill is (1, +3 class skill, +4 maneuverability, +8 size) +16.

Hummngbirds are specifically examples of Perfect maneuverability. Or should be at any rate.

Which would give them at least a +20 then. Also note that Sageasa hasn't included a Dex modifier. I don't think they'll have a problem hovering. Personally I'd put them at Diminutive size instead of Fine though.

So at 5th level that is: (+2 level) + (+4 Good) Maneuverablie = +6 bonuse

If the wizard has one rank in Fly 1 rank (+3 class skill) = +4

That would be +10 total at 5th level, or +11 at 6th level, with one rank in fly.

Not quite, unfortunately. Note the text in the Fly skill about manuverability ratings. You only get the bonus if you have a natural Fly skill. I think the reference to good manuverability in the Fly spell is a holdover from 3.5, and the caster level bonus is meant to compensate for it.

But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it isn't the rejection of physics itself that doesn't sit well with me sometimes - it is the rejection of physics without some kind of explanation (such as magic).

It's a DRAGON. By any application of physics it shouldn't be able to fly at all.

The description says the inquisitor can discern lies "as the spell", so I assume it is indeed DC 14 + Wis.

And yes, I think you can use discern lies as a target is speaking as an immediate action. I don't think it would come up very often in the middle of a fight or other initiative sequence, but you never know.

Of course, that brings up another odd situation because it's a spell-like ability, of a spell that has Verbal & Somatic components and a Divine Focus.

NPC: No! I swear I didn't steal...
PC (holding up his holy symbol and gesticulating): Houshmandzadeh!
NPC (giving PC a funny look): ...are you ok?

Ravingdork wrote:

Mithral armor is considered one category lighter than normal for all purposes but proficiency. Does that mean I can apply an armroed kilt to mithral breastplate, thereby gaining the benefits of both the plate and the kilt (and now once again treating the set as heavy armor)? What if the armored kilt is ALSO mithral? Would that mean that my mithral full plate would still be considered medium armor in most respects since the entire set is so light and mithral'ly?

I personally do not think it could be used on full plate, even if it is mithril. It specifically states that it has no effect on heavy armor and with mitril plate, you still need heavy armor prof to use so it's not changing its type, just how it acts on the wearer.

According to the description of Mithral the only thing about Mithral Full Plate that would count as heavy armor is the proficiency required. Thus I would think you could in fact keep your Barbarian's Fast Movement, your Ranger's Combat Style feats, or attach the kilt.

These spells were the specific reason that my 3.5 Illusionist took Evocation and Conjuration as his prohibited schools. Of course, it took a little imagination to be useful in combat when those spells weren't available, but it was sure a heck of a lot of fun to play. Having +5 DC total (Gnome, Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Master Specialist class feature) to the disbelief saves helped as well. :)

Let's say I'm flanking an opponent, and I have the rogue sneak attack ability. I use a full action to attack multiple times. (Using flurry of blows, or two-weapon fighting, or whatever). Does sneak attack damage apply to each successful attack? or just one?

You continue to flank on each attack, so sneak attack applies to each hit.

Thinking about it, having the passive score being 'taking 10' doesn't really make sense. A character going from passive to active could actually come out WORSE off by rolling less than ten.

This basically means that half the time a actively searching character misses what he is looking for when he would have found it were he passive. While this mimics the old adage 'as soon as you stop looking for it, you'll find it', it seems very silly to me.

Whereas it makes perfect sense to me. To me, rolling less than ten when you're actively looking indicates one of a few things:

* You're being more focused on where you're looking and you happened to look right when something happened on your left.
* You become fixated on something that looks odd, but isn't.
* Various other distractions (possibly the reasons you couldn't take 10 in the first place).

If you're trying to be thorough and not miss anything, that's what taking 20 is for. If you don't have the time (or don't want to take the time), then you're taking the chance that you might miss something. Dem's the breaks.