cercanon's page

32 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


vuron wrote:


No transformation is not a more powerful effect. Getting small boosts to stats and BAB are generally not worth giving up spells. A member of the warrior class is a significant reduction in party power and that's basically what the transformed mage is turning into.

Further the safe precedent for an ability score is +1 to a stat. While in some cases that can result in a +1 to hit, the actual effect is roughly +.5 to hit if you use it on your strength stat.

+1 to BAB is different that +1 to hit because a +1 to BAB can potentially result in more iterative attacks and/or give access to better feats.

I'd probably limit maximum safe effect to a +1 insight bonus to hit rather than a +1 inherent to BAB.

I see where your coming from, but I'm not so sure. The role that this (wish for full BAB) will be helpful is martial attacker. Transformation is more powerful in that regard. Not that it matters much, this isn't key to my point.

You are correct about +1stat, or +.5hit. For some reason I was thinking +1hit.

Getting additional iterative attacks or better feats is just more reason why this Wish would be too much.


BQ wrote:
For charm based effects I'd say that a character under charm person in a combat would seek to end the combat nonlethally.

I think this is right, but the problem with Charm is mostly outside of combat where behavior can be more varied.

Illusion is problematic in combat or not, equally.


Hmmm, I can spend 25k gold to entice a DM to screw me over? What a bargain!

Really though, when it comes to Wish granting permanent combat effects, the precedent is 1 Wish = +1 to hit. I would consider that the safe limit.

This mage is asking for potentially 10x this effect at 20th level. Even better, it's not a typed bonus, so reading a book for another +inherent bonus is completely possible.

IMHO, this shouldn't be doable unless it was on duration. 1hour/level, or 1day/level if you're feeling generous. For context, Transformation is 6th level and a more powerful effect, but it's 1round/level.


If you're asking about RAW, there are only three things in the pathfinder core book that can take a mounted rider off his mount and put him in the dirt:

1. Unseat
2. Making the mount "fall" combined with the rider failing a DC15 ride check.
3. Making the rider unconcious (50%, or 25% if military saddle).

We can go round and round about the myriad ways to make a mount fall, but it seems they are all pretty straight-forward in the rules. One complication around "trip" weapons is the uncertainty over whether you need a trip weapon to trip at all. There's a thread on this forum dedicated to getting a straight answer from the devs, and they have beeen unresponsive so far.


James Risner wrote:
Isn't there a rule in Mounted Combat section or in Ride that limits what you can do if your mount takes a move action?

Yes, it says this: "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack."

This can be interpreted two ways, either you get to take a move action while your mount moves then attack at the end, or you literally have to "wait" while your mount moves and the attack action is the only thing you can do in the round.

I'm thinking specifically of sheathing a sword as a move action, drawing a lance as a free action (glove of storing), then attacking at the end of the charge.

"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge."

This implies that even on a charge you can potentially take a move action while the mount moves (i.e. it's not your charge action, so you get a move in addition to your attack action at the end).

What does everyone think about this?


A Man In Black wrote:

Illusions are both completely gimped and completely gamebreaking.

They're the last 1e/2e holdout of spells with vague, broad effects adjudicated by GM fiat. This means that they're exactly as powerful as the GM allows them to be, which can be extremely powerful or completely useless, depending on how good the player is at convincing/sweet-talking/negotiating with/fooling the GM.

You're right that there are lots of illusion spell niches unfilled, but before you fill them you're going to have to write some illusion rules at least as rigorous and consistent as the rules for flinging fireballs or charming people. That's a tall order, one so tall it didn't even get done for Pathfinder.

Not to distract from the illusion focus of the thread, but Charm (and sometimes Dominate) is just as bad as Illusion.

Exactly how much will a trusted friend and ally do for you? What is the most favorable way to perceive my words and actions? What actions are against the nature of my thrall? This will vary from DM to DM, and even session to session depending on the situation.

I have experience with enchanters and (long ago) illusionists, and the frustration is the same.


The Druid animal companion rules determine a mount's size. This is the only reason why certain mounts are prescribed at certain levels.

Name your wolf "Dog", and the problem goes away. Or you could arbitrarily make your 1st level dog medium along with the +2Str, -2Dex, and 1d6 bite that goes with it. The dog would be slightly stronger than a starting wolf, but it'd be slower and lack Trip.


stormraven wrote:

So you have a Monk (level irrelevant) that is slinging an @ssload of shurikins using Flurry of Blows. He expends a Ki point to tack on one more attack (a-load +1). Can he use the Rapid Shot feat to make it a-load +2?

Please note - I'm aware that the -2 to Hit on every shot due to Rapid Shot might make this an 'iffy' tactic. I'm just wondering if it is possible according to the rules OR (as with Two Weapon Fighting) the feat doesn't work with Flurry of Blows.

Thanks!

Edited a typo

Yes, I think you are right. A Shuriken is a ranged weapon, and there's nothing that precludes rapid shot and flurry from stacking.


Morgen wrote:

If you for some reason make something like a bard/wizard, you probably need all the help you can get.

Agree, it would be a pity ruling, something to make the poor drooling multiclasser feel a little better. :)


Zurai wrote:
No. Adjacent requires two objects to be in adjoining spaces. The mount and rider share the exact same spaces. It's just like the "are you your own ally" question: no, you're not, because ally is a term for a relationship between two entities.

"No." sounds so final. You must be equally certain that reach weapons can attack tiny creatures occupying your own sqaure.

A rider and his mount are in adjoining "spaces", just not adjoining 5 foot squares. If you're saying adjacent means neighboring 5 foot squares, and only those squares excluding your own, then not only do we get crazy rules scenarios but it's also unsupported in the rules as far as I found.

Not sure how this is like being "your own ally". A mount is its own creature with its own actions and attacks. Just because rider and mount share space and initiative for combat doesn't mean they are one creature.

If the rules prohibited teamwork feats from working with mounts that would be totally fine and understandable for balance reasons, but then I would say that ruling should apply to any animal companion whether you sit on it or stand next to it. No need to rules lawyer "adjacent" IMHO.


I'm heartened about the responses so far. I started reading this thread with the dread expectation of "it works for us in real life, so why is it wrong in my fantasy game?".

I agree that the obtained information has nothing to do with the truth, and everything to do with stopping the pain. Torturees have a reason to conceal the truth (otherwise why let things get this far?), so the information should be false to some important degree, maybe a half-truth at best.


Seems clear from the start that a rider shares his square with his mount, but I'm not sure that answers the "adjacent" question. Seems to me that two creature literally on top of each other are even more adjacent than two creatures laterally next to each other.

I really dislike these non-sensical semantic distinctions. It's why I play PF instead of 4E.


Skeld wrote:
Telrathel wrote:
I thought you could use vital strike when you charge cause you can use it during an attack action, figured the use of charge action had an attack action inside of it and was simply a combo of the attack and move actions.

Nope. A charge is a special kind of full-round action. VS, IVS, & GVS all require an "attack action" which, it has been stated by Jason, is a type of standard action. Since you can't use a full-round action in the same round you use a standard action, you can't use a charge with a VS.

-Skeld

This opens up a bizarre scenario where if you are staggered, you can charge and use Vital Strike.

"If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn."

When someone concludes that a charge is not an "attack action", that's probably a good sign that things need to be re-evaluated, IMHO.


Not sure when the Adv Player's Guide became "final" since I just looked at it for the first time, but Oaths are gone. Point moot.


I think this could be a fun idea if you could pair with Spring Attack. Your damage would be relatively poor for a 20th level character, but you'd also be untouchable.


wraithstrike wrote:

I don't care much for monks myself, and the official loss of improved natural attack does not help at all. However the OP wanted to play a monk so I was going to lead him to the best source I could find.

I totally agree, and my comment wasn't meant as a criticism of you. Regardless what anyone thinks about any class, if you have fun playing a class it doesn't matter much or little DPR they do.


My group recently ran into the new Dispel Magic, Great Dispel Magic rules and I really like the change.

Losing AoE does hurt flexibility, sure, but the single target effect is just as powerful as before. Having AoE dispel at low levels is also a bit overpowered, as described by others above.

DM is useful all the way to 20th now. It's not a throw-away any more, and gives the caster effective dispelling at higher levels from both 3rd and 6th level slots, as opposed to just 6th before. If you look at both DM and GDM together, it's a net win IMHO.


wraithstrike wrote:
I just remembered Treantmonk's monk guide, but BobChuck beat me to it.

The Treantmonk guides are great, sure, but even the Monk guide can't polymorph this turkey.


Madcap Storm King wrote:


What dungeon has 5 foot corridors? Also: Squeezing.
-That Crazy Kaiser

I didn't say dungeons have 5' corridors, but they are frequently 10'. Most will recognize the jeopardy of a party bringing 10'x10' mounts into 10' corridors where combat or traps could occur. If your corridors are devoid of action and merely serve to shuttle you to the next room, then you could probably disregard my point.

james maissen wrote:


If your campaign includes it you have armbands of reduction, 2k item that is basically a reduce person for like 1-2hours.

I half agree. If you use reduce person, then your medium mount is useless unless you are also reduced and you take the Strength hit which is really the only con to being halfling in the first place. Doable I suppose if you're really set on that human bonus feat.

You could reduce animal on your otherwise large mount. It's Druid/Ranger only and it'd have to be paired with reduce person, but it's still a good mounted option I admit. I should say small characters are the easiest and most practical way to make mounted combat work, but with magic anything is possible.


William Saxton wrote:


- Move 40'
- Ride in a dungeon
- Make full-round attacks while moving
- Have him actually attack in a pinch!

So this is actually a BIG advantage for a halfling!

I've been putting together a mounted halfling archer, so these rules have been bouncing around in my head. To correct one of your points, your mount can DOUBLE move while you get a full ranged attack.

Move 80' (or 100' with the right mount) with a full round of attacks for a -2 hit penalty with the Mounted Archery feat. Or your mount could run, terrain permitting, for 160' (200') of movement and a -4 hit penalty. Crazy good.

Finally, and this can't be overstated, only the halfling (and gnome) can really pull off mounted combat in many games. The most common criticism for mounted combat is that large mounts can't follow you into a dungeon or other typical adventure locales. A small hafling riding a medium mount has no such problems. That's something which is hard to put a value on.

Cerc.


BTW, have you ever considered that you're playing Charm Person too powerfully for a first level spell? Seems like a pretty basic litmus test


Paul Watson wrote:


I suggest you reread the Beta then as that is EXACTLY what it says. Page 208.

Beta wrote:
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way.

You have to present an excuse why it's a good idea. If you went "Fred, build me a house!" he'd say no. If you asked him to help you with some work but you get called away as it starts, then that's an unfortunate accident. And then you get delayed, well, these things happen, and suddenly Fred's done a load of work for you but it seems reasonable because he believes the excuses you give.

The spell description explicitly states he's going to give you the benefit of the doubt over everything. But you disagree that has any effect, so of course the spell seems crippled to you.

Huh? I'm quoting that part of the spell, and the rest too. No need to pretend I'm unaware of what the spell says. What you are saying is inconsistent with the fact that the target "might" not do what you say. This is fundamental to the fact that the target has free will and can tell you "no" for reasons of his own. He is not dominated, and you do not have control over him. He doesn't have to suspect that you are a bad person to deny you (strawman), which actually would not be allowed by the spell. But, he could say "sorry, I have a family to support, I don't have time to help you right now, friend". Lol, it's not that complicated..... It's a first level spell!

I'm really starting to repeat myself here. I apologize.


Paul Watson wrote:


Fine. I'll play this game of semantics, if you want. The Beta says "The target views your words in the best possible light." So if you present an even slightly plausible reason, it will be taken in the best possible light, which is to be believed as the best possible light certainly isn't "he's trying to exploit me", now, is it?

I'm not playing a semantic game at all (except that the exact effect of Charm highly depends on semantics and how your GM interprets). Changes were made from 3.5 to PF. You really shouldn't cite the PHB in a PF discussion.

Besides, both 3.5 and PF say "might believe you" or "might be convinced". I'm not sure that aligns with your absolutist interpretation of "perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way".


For the record, the 3.5PHB also has MassCM affecting 2HD/lvl. I think this is also incorrect, and the error transfered over to PF because it wasn't seriously considered. I do find it funny that of everything in 3.5 Charm Person, it all carried over except this replacement:

3.5
An affected creature never obeys suicidal or
obviously harmful orders, but a charmed
fighter, for example, might believe you if
you assured him that the only chance to
save your life is for him to hold back an
onrushing red dragon for “just a few
seconds.”

PF
An affected creature never
obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced
that something very dangerous is worth doing.


Paul Watson wrote:


Then you're not playing it according to RAW where "Hey, Fred, could you hold of that dragon for a few seconds?" is considered a perfectly acceptable and reasonable request (see the PHB spell description). No wonder you don't think it's powerful.

I edited my post above yours, but I don't think it alters the conversation.

If I was playing 3.5 D&D, the PHB would be RAW...


Paul Watson wrote:

Just build it in steps.

"Hey, #Fred, could you give me a hand with the deck tomorrow?" Reasonable request.
Tomorrow: "Fred, sorry, but I've been called away. Would you mind making a start and I'll help when I get back?"

Later, "Sorry, Fred, was delayed. still, you're almost done there. And as you've got all your tools and stuff, could you maybe work on the doorframes while you're here?"

And so on and so forth. Every step is reasonable. You can build up some really horrific chains of seemingly reasonable steps if you don't challenge things, and as you're talking to your best friend who you trust implicitly, why would you challenge any of the foundations of the propositions?

Or, as we're talking about Mass Charm, get an entire set of craftsmen with different skills in the same room and get them all to help.

If you had a trusted friend that tried to take advantage of you, would you let them do it?

I suppose if you play it like that it would be powerful, but in my campaigns, Charmed creatures don't have 1 INT and 0 memory. They view you as a trusted friend, but they also have zero cognitive impairment. I will admit that you can "order" a charmed creature per the spell, but we're not talking about the single target spell. You have to succeed against each craftsman individually to get the "mass" to do your order.


Morgen wrote:

Charm Person/Monster makes it so a person, monster or group of them consider you a trusted friend and ally. That's significantly more then being what being friendly should do. That's changing what the spell does and decreases it's power.

Your DC's are wrong for Knowledge Arcana, it's 20+Spell Level for identifying a spell in place. You don't use knowledge arcana for something like that thought unless you think someone is under someone's influence. That's Sense Motive's job at DC 25 to give you a hint that something might be up.

What campaign world are you playing in where there these wizards are just roaming about casting all these spells for free? What rulers are just letting random wizards cast spells in their courts like that either, that's how you end up charmed in the first place. Not only that, you can charm the darn wizards to so that's completely useless to do.

Just because you don't understand how to use it properly doesn't automatically mean it needs errata or changes. It's a perfectly wonderful 8th level spell and fits there just fine. You just need to learn to think more creatively if your going to cast more then magic missile or fireball, or move on to 4th edition where you don't have to.

So I should have said "trusted friend" instead of "friendly"? It's still not mind control.

It's DC20+spell level to identify the actual spell, sure, but it's only DC15+spell level to know there's an enchantment in place. Sorry, but once you know someone is enchanted, arguing about whether it's Charm Person or Dominate Monster is really moot as the gig is up.

You're saying Charm needs to be played intelligently, but then imply Wizards couldn't charm everyone because they'd be casting it in court... My point was that Charm is a first level effect, easily detected and dispelled.

Mass Charm Monster does not play like an 8th level spell. It's a 1st level effect that works on any creature type. The only way you get it to work on a large scale is to target creatures which are merely a nuissance. In my campaign, it's barely more than a 4th level effect, I'll be generous and say 5, because 90% of the time enemies have more hitdice than I do. On the grand occasion I encounter enemies with a few less hitdice, it will target TWO of them. Woopee. I hesitate to even call it a "mass" spell.


Frostflame wrote:
The best example Morgen pointed out was gaining political influence in a geographic region.

Let's assume that this political agent isn't protected against charm, and that he fails his saving throw, and that you succeed in an opposed CHA check: Yes, you can "order" him to do something which isn't against his nature. But, if it were so easy and powerful, EVERY political leader would be charmed by someone. The ruler who doesn't have protections against magical control or a mage with Detect Magic is not only rare, he deserves it. Charm plays like a 1st level spell. It's weak and easily defeated.

Detect Magic is a cantrip that any wizard can cast at-will. With Knowledge Arcana, a Charm Person effect can be identified with a DC16 check. Charm Monster DC19, and MassCM DC23. These are mostly auto successes for a court mage, or mages just visiting the court.

Besides, I'm not sure that line of argument gets to my point that MassCM is inconsistent for a Charm spell or an 8th level spell.


"Game breaking" is greatly overstating things. Charmed creatures are friends not thralls. They can easily refuse to follow you, and most of your orders require a successful CHA check against EACH one of them unless they wanted to follow you anyway (lol, hey you might have a very generous DM). It would save your butt because you wouldn't have to fight them, but that assumes they are all vulnerable to mind-affecting, they all fail their save, etc. Keep in mind why Enchantment is one of the weakest schools. Anyone who has played an Enchanter in a campaign knows what I'm talking about. What about Dispel Magic or any one of the dozen plus ways to be immune to charm? In short, MassCM has all the drawbacks of the first level spell. I will credit PF with one huge win: Mind Blank no longer gives complete immunity to the Enchantment school.

Then say you do successfully charm them all. You'd have to kill them otherwise, but now they're friendly instead. So? There are a multitude of ways to avoid combat, mostly lower level than 8th.

That you get a heightened charm monster is just a consolation effect. Heightening by itself doesn't justify any spell. If it did, we would all memorize Glitterdust at 9th. But, that'd be a really dumb use of a 9th level slot because of the other options at 9th.

When I look at Horrid Wilting or even the 7th level Prismatic Spray, an 8th level spell had better do more than charm a crowd of 1-2HD townsfolk or kobolds.

Mass CM needs adjustment:
1. Bump it down to 5th or 6th level, or
2. Make it affect 2 creatures minimum instead of just one, or
3. Have it affect 1/lvl like any other Mass spell, or
4. Make the other charm spells consistent by raising their level. If Charm is sooooo good, then Charm Person at 1st is wrong, and Charm Monster at 4th is wrong, etc. I don't agree with this, but at least then the Charm spells would be consistent.


Kyle Baird wrote:

I'm w/o books at the moment. Does the Mass Hold Monster spell have the same save every round mechanic as the singular spell?

IMO, the whole series of "charm" spells are much weaker than their name.

Yes, the Hold and Charm series both operate off the base single human target spell.

Charm Person 1
Charm Monster 4
Mass Charm Monster 8 <<< Nerfed to 2HD/caster level

Hold Person 3
Hold Monster 5
Mass Hold Monster 9


Morgen wrote:

Perhaps because holding a massive horde of monsters still is much less powerful then gaining power over the minds of the same massive horde of monsters?

9th level spells should be better then 8th level spells, and charm spells especially need to be properly controlled.

I'm not sure that explains it. Charm Person is 1st, and Hold Person is 3rd. Hold is not much less powerful than Charm. Also, Enchantment is widely considered one of the weakest schools since it can be defeated so easily. I don't think there's a great need to especially control charm.

Besides, this doesn't account for the 8th level "mass" being marginally more powerful than the 4th level single target spell. If Charm Monster actually worked on a "massive horde of monsters", I probably wouldn't have started this thread.


After reading the spell, I'm quite confounded about the thinking behind Mass Charm Monster. It's the only Mass spell that affects 2x caster level in hitdice, making it pointless over it's (much) lower level single target version. You will usually get one, maybe two, targets out of this 8th level spell. Mass Hold Monster is only one level higher at 9th, a much more powerful effect, yet has UNLIMITED targets in the area.

Why deviate from 1target/lvl that all the other Mass spells ascribe to? Seems gratuitous to carve out a niche for Mass CM when the effect isn't that outrageous.

BTW, the spell description promises to affect at least 1 creature. Really.