dakuth's page

Also, the Distance weapon enhancement doubles the range of a weapon. The Far Shot feat reduces the penalty by half, from -2 to -1, for each range increment.

So a normal composite longbow has a range of 110ft. A distance composite longbow has a range of 220ft. Someone with the farshot feat and a distance composite longbow could shoot 1100 ft away (5th range increment, normally would be a -8 penalty) with only a -4 penalty. For reference, a range of 1100 ft is roughly a 1/5th of mile. Without great bonuses to perception you're unlikely to even be able to see that far away, especially with everything (that is probably) in the way.

Realistically, bows can shoot much farther than you can see (at least a little tiny arrow.)

If you are that highlevel/skilled at shooting at range I wouldn't put it beyond you to land a arrow within 5 feet of something you know about (but can't see.) 50% miss chance, because you can't see it, but still - you could drop an arrow in the square.

And if it was a large object, that you could see... someone with all those feats, by design, should be able to do the ridiculous and touch that wagon from 1/5th a mile away.

Yes, if you are building scenarios for random parties, something almost none of us will ever or should ever do (most of us will be designing for our home games, and should be tweaking even prepublished paths to challenge the specific party), you cannot assume the party will have a specific tactic. But almost all parties will have a mix of close range and short range, AoE and targeted. Many will have battle field control (smoke, grease, etc.) especially at moderate high levels.

*gasp* *choke* I rather hope not everyone customizes their encounters to suit their party. Don't your players find that unfair and disingenuous? Maybe not. But I know many groups would. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say it's a pretty even split between GMs that like to set up encounters specifically to challenge their PCs, and those that like to design them without the PCs specific abilities in mind (I can't remember the name of the two styles - is it free-form and post-hoc?)

Actually, I'd err more on the side of GMs leaving them as-is, because I expect a lot of them use published adventures, and a lot of THOSE would leave them untouched.

I know I personally much prefer this style, because it rewards (or punishes) players for clever tactics and preparedness. Didn't bring a way to see invisibility? Oh, too bad. Wait? You did. Oops, guess you kill him easily then.

As to the boggarts and dragon scenario... my party would probably have a few AoEs up their sleeve for such a scenario, but clearly the dragon is the bigger threat. As is, no-doubt, the idea here, they'd have to make a judgement call at the time as to whether they should thin the Boggarts out, and try and focus-fire the dragon. They would definitely go for the dragon, but not at the complete exclusion of the boggarts... it all depends on positioning and initiative, among other things.

Kain Darkwind wrote:

I agree. The blatant use of very clear language which covers the effect on spells cast into or out of the AMF makes me question my original thought about RAI being no casting allowed.

Prior, I assumed suppression was for any ongoing effects which were brought into the AMF, and that casting into or out of the field were impossible. Reading the rules on the AMF however, really make that an unlikely reading of RAI.

For those curious as to the "brokenness attempted" here, we were buffing when fighting a beholder while in its anti-magic cone, in preparation for surviving its eye rays when it dropped the cone. Pretty sure mirror image was the main buff in question.

Interesting discussion and exactly what I was looking for. In my reading, it seemed like you could (to my great surprise) cast out of an AM field without any problems at all - also that it did not block line of effect, so you could cast through it.

It seemed to be against the RAI.... but the RAW did seem to give those options. The meant that AM fields were actually quite good defensive buffs. One could hide in a field to make oneself immune to spells (at least for the duration) and launch one's own offensive spells out without a problem. I thought maybe this was the idea? Seemed odd though.

So, gonna address a few things here.

I've always followed the Magic Items Compendium rules for improving magic items by paying, and adding stats to appropriately slotted items so that a fighter can have a belt that does more than just giant strength. Still, things can get monty haul, but allowing people to pay to increase items lets them keep their special weapons. I also played around with a system where a ritual could transfer bonuses between weapons. So, when you find a +2 spear, you could transfer the +2 to your rapier instead. The system was capped so the number bonuses couldn't exceed the highest item, and the total bonus couldn't exceed the highest bonus. The abilities could be mix and matched as long as they stayed within those guidelines. The transfer process left one weapon with no magic and strictly masterwork. It worked alright. There was a little pushback, but I pointed out that 50% of the cost of +3 sword was less than the amount of money it took to legitimately raise a +2 sword to +3. The mechanic could get a little wonky, but otherwise it kind of stopped weapon glut.

I thought the scaling rules were in the core rules. This is why I can't understand most of this thread.

Pg. 553:
"Adding New Abilities
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a
magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch.
Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing
magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites
required of the new ability to be added to the magic item
restrict the type of additional powers one can place.
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as
if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item.
Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword,
with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword
minus the cost of a +1 longsword."

The drawback is that the players rarely find an item that they actually want to keep. They're much better off hanging on to the weapon they've had since level 1 and keep upgrading (or "scaling" if you will) it.

The upshoot is that when they DO find a new weapon that suits, it's a momentous occasion.

dakuth wrote:

The shooting from around a corner is covered in the *cough* cover rules. Total cover is only achieved if they CAN NOT draw a line from ANY corner of their square to ANY of your square's corners. So if you are drawing a line from one of your corners to one of theirs, logically you do not have total cover - ergo they can see you. Of course, you almost certainly have partial cover.

It's still cover, it works for Stealth and for this discussion. They cannot see you because you are using Stealth.

[begin nitpick]
I did not say you have total cover, but you still have cover and since less than half of you is visible, you still have the full cover bonus (+4 AC, +2 Reflex).

Partial Cover =/= Cover
Cover =/= Total Cover
Partial Cover, Cover, Total Cover = Different kinds of Cover bonuses all good for stealth.

Total cover means they cannot attack you and they have no line of effect to you. When you peek from around the corner you still have Cover and can still attack someone while having the full bonus from cover.

However, if some GMs want to declare that you have partial cover when you take the shot that's fine. It still allows for sniping. Just be aware that the character will have Cover against retaliatory attacks.
[end nitpick]

Ah yes, you have cover so you can stealth - so long as you take the -20 penalty for having shot this round - you certainly have some cover and so can stealth. You asked if shooting around that corner like you stated was possible and I was just pointing at that it is definitely covered in the cover rules by reading in the "draw a line" sentences.

As to the nitpick... that's not how I read the cover rules. In pathfinder they more or less simplified it to either you have cover or you don't. Total cover is usually obvious and means no line of effect.

There are some special scenarios, which would hardly ever come up, where the DM might grant you partial or improved cover - but the way the cover section is worded makes it seem very much like those are mostly ad hoc rules.

That's why I would, and do, play "corner" action as simply cover. They see you, you see them, except you get +4 AC. (And yes you could stealth and go for sniper shots.)

The only times I'd go for partial cover is if the player was doing something weird - like flipping a cauldron over and trying to use that as cover (I'd probably agree to count it as cover since they'd gone to the effort of flipping it, but decree it's crappy and use the partial cover rules.) and ditto (but in reverse) for improved cover.

concerro wrote:

Either you are flat-footed against everyone are you are not flat-footed at all, just like you are confused or either not confused.

I'm pretty sure I've seen abilities that make a target flat-footed against the attacker and NOT EVERYONE.

Also, the only real difference between the flat-footed condition and losing your Dexterity, is that you lose the ability to make attacks of opportunity in the former case.

You're probably thinking of "denied their dexterity bonus" - a subtle difference.

The shooting from around a corner is covered in the *cough* cover rules. Total cover is only achieved if they CAN NOT draw a line from ANY corner of their square to ANY of your square's corners. So if you are drawing a line from one of your corners to one of theirs, logically you do not have total cover - ergo they can see you. Of course, you almost certainly have partial cover.

I haven't read the whole thread but...

I find that the time a player buys a masterwork weapon, they can safely name it. It IS masterwork - that's not some lame-o thing. In the real world that is the finely crafted, highly detailed, embossed weapon that catches the eye - or if you choose one that is plain to the untrained eye, but extremely study and well-balanced to the expert.

From there, the players simply buy magical upgrades as the campaign progresses. Their masterwork shortsword, which they named Schnick gets a magical enhancement after a visit to wizard. It now feels lighter, but also cuts deeper than ever before. A few months later another enchantment allows Schnick to burst into flame at will!

It is exceedingly rare for my players to find *just* the right weapon. "huh, a +2 shortsword with keen? That's actually better than Schnick! I shall call it EXCELSIOR!.... although it could stand to have one of the burst-into-flames enchantments."

I must be in a very small minority. One of my group bought the advanced player's guide... and we hated the idea of more base classes and archetypes. Couldn't see the point - nearly every concept we could think of could be covered by clever feats and items with just the base classes.

On top of that everyone loved PrCs. Every game we have ever played most players have picked a PrC they wanted to strive for, and carefully built their characters with some funky class combination to really suit their concept and then get a PrC at the end. The biggest problem we had with PrCs was no-one ever went a Core class - or even a "plain" multi-class. I have so many unbuilt concepts based around PrCs.

The rest of us chose not to buy the Advanced Player's Guide or use it for any of our adventures because we really didn't like the direction Pathfinder was suddenly going with toying with the base classes and adding new ones (all of which are, IMHO, *terrible*)

Different strokes I guess, but I suspect I'll just be sticking with the core rule book and beastiary from here on out, judging from the direction Pathfinder is taking.

I "never" go easy on my players and let the dice do the talking. There has been some really bad runs of dice rolls that make me feel terrible, but I've had to educate the players that when the gods are not with them, it's time to retreat for another day. Which they usually do.

Never say never, though... if the players were doing everything right but got screwed anyway, I do try and find any loophole I can to cut them as much slack as possible. i.e. The baddies had no interest in their comrades body and left it there, making for an easy resurrection. Also, the contact in town can loan them some half-decent gear. On returning to the dungeon and winning that previous encounter, they find their stuff. All perfectly believable, but I could have just as easily had the bad guys loot the body and burn the corpse... but I'm just nice, I guess :)

Started a brand new campaign (level 4). I started this campaign off "dramatically" by having it open with a fight with an ogre and a few orcs. I randomly determined locations, and rolled init.

The wizard - who was a new player - RANDOMLY came up nearest to the enemies. The ogre got init.

Very first swing of this campaign was from the ogre... and it crit... on a wizard.

He died in the opening dice roll. I did not pull any punches - it was all the fall of the dice.

"Fortunately" he didn't know what to spend his money on, so he 4 levels worth of gold unspent that his party members used to pay for a raise dead. Meant he had no gear and started 1 level down though.

Scrolls. Lots of scrolls.

Yes there are spells that just won't ever be memorised by a Wizard because they are just too specialised, but it seems to me that many spells are just begging for being stored a on scroll for a rainy day.

Other spells are situational, but can't be used from a scroll - like Feather fall - and that makes them prime Sorcerer spells (maybe 3rd pick for that level) IMO. A sorc with FF is pretty much immune to falling, can save anyone else that is falling nearby, but can still use those slots of useful spells of the same spell level.

Then of course a Sorc can keep up with a wizard's versatility via scrolls.

I see fictional wizards casting from books quite often, but not so often from scrolls (although they are often mentioned.) Other than that, it feels very "magiky" to me.

This is actually fairly easy:

It would be a stealth check to determine the base DC with:

(from invisibility rules)
+40 for being invisible (effectively) and standing still.
+20 if they move

Making the DC somewhere in the realm of 50-odd.

That's to determine "someone is there".

As per "The Rules of the Game" by Skip Williams, to pin-point the exact 5-foot square they are in is another 20: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040921a

Making the final DC to attack someone in complete darkness standing perfectly still...

~70. Clearly epic-level stuff, understandbly I hope :)

To go on a tangent:

+1 to the DC for each 10-feet you are from them (in this case it was 5-feet, so nothing there) and if you move through their square I'd rule a 50% chance you realise something was in that square (i.e. miss chance) Actually, to be honest, I'd be lazy and just rule they know :) But 50% seems better.

Stealth Check+20(invis)+20(standing still)+20(pinpoint)+1(per 10feet) = DC