Monster Hunter

dariusu's page

Goblin Squad Member. 72 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a comment on something mentioned in the beginning of the thread... The original poster is correct that in 5e that you can cast a bonus action spell, a regular action spell (cantrip only though), and a reaction spell in the same round. You can’t cast all three in the same turn but can in the same round.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t think rangers are “hunters” first and foremost. I think they are protecters of regions of wilderness


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
3. This thread assumes that Alignment in PF2, like in PF1, is largely objective rather than subjective. By this we mean that, while there are some exceptions to the rule, generally speaking, in Pathfinder, good and evil are non subjective terms.
Inquiry: Who sets the objectives for objective good and evil? The creative director? The development team? Paizo as a whole (and if so, through what system do they settle disagreements)? Gary Gygax? HWalsh (there OP)? The current GM?

On a case by case basis usually the Current GM following the examples given in the books. There are some things, however, that are actually just evil.

For example:
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil.
Consuming the Flesh of an Angel? Automatically evil.

Why is consuming the flesh of an angel automatically evil? I know catholics are taught that they are eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood every Sunday, could possibly be a similar situation, no?


I believe these are called Yugolothsin 5e. They are detailed in the Monster Manual. Basically they are greedy mercenaries. According to 5e lore the most powerful Yugoloth is the General of Gehenna. They were created by the night hags of Gehenna at the behest of Asmodeus but they lost control of them.


I also like the changes to the Ranger in general but not the way they do favored enemy really. I am thinking about kind of reversing it and making the bonus to armor class and/or saves against attacks by that creature type.


The monster by type pdf is on the tome of beast kickstarter page in the latest update.


I agree that the dogmole rage seems patterned on 3rd edition version of rage, I personally dont think that is bad really. I cant find any swarms in the book that are made like 3rd edition swarms though. I thought 3.5/pathfinder swarms auto-hit basically. All the swarms in tome of beasts have an attack bonus.


Well there are multicolored cards so I guess it could be multicolored. There are also colorless cards so maybe a category for them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I use the wounds table from the DMG but I roll 2d20 and take the highest. That makes the chance of a minor wound much greater than getting an eye put out.

Also, I allow players to negate a possible wound by taking a temporary -1 to AC if they are wearing armor appropriate to the wound (like the armor got dented or something). They can remove the penalty with a short rest (like they bang out the dents).


There seems to have been a price drop on the PHB on Amazon.com and it is currently back up to #28 in all books. I guess that is good, but could it be a bad sign?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass, Kingsmen. These all came out after 2006. It takes years to turn these stories into movies, so you shouldn't usually see things that current anyway. The "cinematic universe" may not depend on the comics, but like I said, their continuing gives the movies and shows a constant source of stories and writing talent. A healthy comics industry means more stories, characters, and hopefully good writers.


much of the last iron man movie was based on the extremis storyline. They will do Civil War in the next Captain America. There are many more examples. The comics are mined for stories for the movies and shows all the time and the continuing existence of the comics is a constant source of new stories and writing talent to develop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Like I said before, 5E is a placeholder produced so that WotC execs have an answer to the "oh but you do still produce the original thing, right?" question from video game/movie makers.

I doubt the movie studios care. An active and in print RPG line won't increae ticket sales. Marvel Studios does't consult the comic company to see what they're doing. Instead, the comics leap to accommodate what the movies are doing in the hopes it boosts their sales.

I don't see a huge release schedule as a good thing or even desirable. Monthly books proved to be detrimental to 3e and 4e, leading to bloat and a short edition.

I've been thinking of RPGs in terms of board games more at the moment. Board game expansions are released few in number, when something large and noteworthy can be added to the game. But games only require a handful and then stop doing accessories. It's not a continual stream of products.

The game doesn't *need* constant sourcebooks. And neither do game stores or players. Or even the publisher, as the best selling books are the core books, which can generate a sustained profit. Accessories are great revenue in the short term, but quickly exhaust the edition. Constant accessories really benefit the game designers who write the product and are kept in work.

D&D is a big brand. There's nothing to be gained by focusing on the single audience of tabletop RPGers. Spreading out products to board gamers, miniature gamers, video gamers opens up more wallets. Profits don't rely on a single group.

And it's not like they're not releasing any product. Assuming they don't release anything before July 2015 other than the Elemental Evil book, they'll have released seven products over a year, almost one every other month. That's really not slow. It's far more than 13th Age or Numerera.

Your first point isn't really accurate. The Marvel movies and TV shows do follow what happens in the comics much of the time and not the other way around nearly at all. The Marvel movies and shows are using recent comic book events. Guardians of the Galaxy is a good example. The movie was based off of the 2008 comic series.

Creative people at Marvel Comics are writers, producers and creative consultants on many of these movies and shows.


goldomark wrote:
dariusu wrote:
It has been out 6 years and is the number one Pathfinder book. That is one of my points. The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook is in the top 5 on Paizo's own website. It is quite often near the top on Paizo's own site.

Yup, that is because core books are what sells the most. To be expected since it is the first thing (and only one) you need to play.

Quote:
I don't know what the sales on Amazon is vs the sales on Paizo's own site. Anyone have that info?

Nope.

Quote:
Do you think it is a lot more than a site like Amazon?

Yes. I mentioned the advantages of using the Paizo store. I forgot to mention the cheaper PDFs they sell. As you pointed out, some of PF's books rank higher than the core book on the Paizo store's top 10 seller list. We can infer that more are sold from the Paizo store than amazon (where they never go above the corebook).

Quote:
PDFs are not quite necessary when you have an online DB of all the rules anyway.

We do not get fluff and art from the free online database. PDFs have a higher value. Besides, by your logic we do not need to buy any books either, since everything is free on the net (d20PFSRD).

Quote:
I personally

Personal anecdotes are not interesting data points. Sorry.

Quote:
My point is that 5th edition sales will settle at some level and that level might still be more than Pathfinder.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Quote:
Most of the sales seem to come from core books.
Strange business move, no?

I originally kind of responded to your post about the drop in 5th edition Player's Handbooks sales and how it is not surprising, "For March, the projected sales of the PHB are 216 books!". I think your exclamation mark is used to show the sadness of how low it is going to go. You used data from novelrank.

Take any book of a similar rank. It has a similar drop in sales for March. Here is the psychiatric manual that was in a similar position as the PHB when it came out http://www.novelrank.com/asin/0890425558. It shows similar Feb sales and similar March sales. I don't think they have much to do with each other. They came out at different times in addition to everything else.

So everything probably drops a lot in books at least on Amazon in March. Take this top 100 novel "the Martian" http://www.novelrank.com/asin/0553418025. Same deal.

Does that happen with all books? Is that site accurate? I don't know.

You provided the website and it shows that the PHB is selling about 10 times what the pathfinder core rule books is selling. My point ultimately is that the PHB has to drop a lot and/or they have to sell many times the amazon sales on paizo.com in order to be selling more. The PHB is not dropping in rank that fast, it has been out for 6 months.

Maybe the guy from Paizo can just say if they sell at least twice as many book on Paizo.com than on Amazon.com per month?

EDIT: I mean Pathfinder RPG books on that last sentence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It has been out 6 years and is the number one Pathfinder book. That is one of my points. The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook is in the top 5 on Paizo's own website. It is quite often near the top on Paizo's own site.

I don't know what the sales on Amazon is vs the sales on Paizo's own site. Anyone have that info? Do you think it is a lot more than a site like Amazon? Like many times more? Amazon is usually quite a bit cheaper than Paizo (not including shipping, this makes Amazon even cheaper) and PDFs are not quite necessary when you have an online DB of all the rules anyway.

I personally usually see if a book is out on Paizo.com and see if it is cheaper on Amazon.com before buying it on Paizo.

My point is that 5th edition sales will settle at some level and that level might still be more than Pathfinder. Most of the sales seem to come from core books.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

According to Amazon, the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is the best selling Pathfinder book. It almost always is except for a short period when some new Pathfinder books come out. The Pathfinder Core Rulebook is currently #3863 in books and the 5e Player's Handbook is currently #103.

Almost all of the 5th edition books are higher than almost all of the Pathfinder books most of the time. The highest charting Pathfinder books look to be some of the older books in general also.

According to that website the Player's Handbook has hovered around #100 in rank all last month. It is still about that. Those sales estimates might be low by that website's own admission.

Compare that sites estimates of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. It sold 127 on Amazon.com last month according to them and will sell 26 this month. It is the best selling Pathfinder book.


On the other hand, the Pathfinder Core Rule Book is the #1 Pathfinder product on Amazon and #3448 overall. Also, the PHB was #106 last time I checked.


Of topic of course, but I think "Eyebite" comes from the idea of the "Evil Eye" originally. "Mal de Ojo" in Spanish as you probably know, Keichiku. Maybe a better translation?


Steve Geddes wrote:
Ellestil wrote:
I think it would be perfect business for paizo to make/convert their modules to be 5E compatible. Spend the same amount of effort on the product but reach twice the customers.

In my view, such a conversion is not a negligible effort, so I don't think the boost to customer numbers is quite as free as this suggests.

Also, although I don't think they're true competitors, I think there is a certain conflict for market share between PF and 5E. As such, one of paizo's great strengths when marketing pathfinder is their awesome adventure support. If those adventures were also available to players of D&D then pathfinder loses some of its competitive advantage.

I think they spend most of their AP budget on art though, don't they? Compared to making the art, coming up with characters, and planning the plots and dungeons and such, the stats seem the smallest amount of work in an adventure.

I think some people might play Pathfinder now just because Paizo's APs are built with it. Who knows how many others will play something like Tyranny of Dragons though because it is the only AP officially available for 5th edition though. My group is in the latter. I for one would like to play in some of the great Golarion-based APs in 5th edition though.


I have played a lot of 3.5/Pathfinder and I like it but my big gripe with it is not the rules and calculations that you can do before playing. It is the things that you constantly have to refer to while playing. Some examples are the 11 different types of concentration checks in the Pathfinder core rule book, or the rules for Dispel Magic (are you targeting the spell, a creature, or an area?). Memorizing these is not easy and it can get annoying to have to look up the rules over and over, and it slows the game quite a lot. Grapple is another classic example.

The best part of 5th edition is that these types of rules are simplified. Otherwise it is a wash to me. The customization level seems about the same for characters, monster and the rules set in general.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
Logan1138 wrote:
lorenlord wrote:


...Like I said before, the only thing I wish they would've done is spread the saves around the abilities more, so there's more of a downside to dumping stats.
I was surprised to see that compulsion spells like Charm Person and Command (to name a few) were Wisdom saves when they seem like natural candidates to be Charisma saves.
I think they decided Charisma is almost specifically related to outsider/undead sorta stuff ---- banishment, possession, haunting, etc. The only exception I found was Nothics, who require a Charisma save in order not to reveal a secret about yourself to them.

I think even a spell or 2 each level that targets a specific save is enough to make those saves important. Saves like Charisma and especially Intelligence seem to have been made more rare mainly due to so many creatures in the Monster Manual having such low scores in those stats. So many creatures were made with low Intelligence and Charisma probably for RP reasons.


Since I have already DM'ed RoTRL already basically, I would opt for something a bit later and different in tone. I concur with Wrath of the Righteous I think.


Werecorpse wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Werecorpse, I think Bounded Accuracy will help in the department of keeping monsters relevant to higher level characters.

Kind of does but AoEs and the PC power level and copious amounts of healing negates it. I have used 40 Kobolds on PCs at elvel 8 and 40 hobgoblins at level 12. They can get a few hits in but are mostly bait for level 3 spells.

Depleting PC spells and then hitting them with stuff that matters kind of works.

This is an interesting result, I would have thought they would be a decent threat in 5e, especially with their ranged attacks and pack tactics/martial advantage. I can certainly understand AoE being a crucial part of such an encounter. I hadn't really picked up that 5e allowed copious in combat healing.

Was this against 4pcs?

I guess some of my assumptions may turn out to be incorrect.

This looks like it is as designed. The idea if I remember is that lower level creatures in 5e would become the equivalent of what minions were in 4e. Minions in 4e were creatures with one hit point that basically always died with one hit or an AoE. They came in higher level versions though so they could still threaten to hit and do some damage to higher level PCs.

If you used a couple of AoEs on a group of 40 kobolds and the DM had them grouped close together you should be able to fry them all at level 8. Hobgoblins really don't have many more HPs than kobolds. A fireball spell should kill a hobgoblin or kobold even on a passed save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
One could have differentiated without stripping out 80% of the game. The Monster Manual is just a tragedy in how boring it is.
The 5E Monster Manual? Out of curiousity, what exactly do you find boring about it? What do you feel has been stripped out of the game?

They have stripped out a lot of variety of monster abilities. Most monster powers I read give advantage or disadvantage. That's just boring to me. I know that others will think its great.

Monsters can't even be built with power attack as far as I can tell. It's just...meh.

Many seem to think that some monsters hit too hard for their level in 5th edition.

Many of the creatures that had no special abilities before in 3.5e like goblins and kobolds, have special abilities that affect how they fight in 5th.

I don't see why you can't increase the CR of a monster by 1 and give them an ability that simulates a feat like great weapon fighting.


I think one of the reasons the saves in 5e were not evenly distributed is that many creatures, like animals for instance, have some stats that are always low (like intelligence). This makes them extremely vulnerable to spells that target that stat.

That being said, the percentage of STR, INT, and CHA save spells being lower just means that the ones that target those stats will be more frequently used.


pming wrote:

Hiya.

dariusu wrote:
It goes off of total level for all of them. That character casts all of his cantrips as a 20th level character.

Nope. Re-read the info on Multiclassing on page 164 (?) of the PHB. Basically, it's kinda convoluted. The Wizard and Cleric add together, and you get 1/3rd of your Fighter level (rounding down...so 1 level). This gives you a "Level 10 Multiclassed Spellcaster" (there's a table for it in the Multiclass section that tells you how many Spell Slots you get). The level at which you cast the spell, I believe, is the actual level of the class you have (in other words, 5th for Wizard, and 4th for Cleric). The Warlock is the fly in the ointment; They have "Pact Magic", and there are rules for that in the Multiclassing section as well.

As I said...convoluted.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

The table is for spell slots. This question is asked and answered many times on the 5th edition Q&A thread on the WotC web site. The consensus is character level with backup from twitter posts from the devs.

EDIT: Here is one of the twitter posts.


It goes off of total level for all of them. That character casts all of his cantrips as a 20th level character.


My biggest concern would be adding treasure. It seems difficult to know what magic items should be given to the PCs since they are not assumed in 5e, and the normal amount of 3.5/PF magic items would probably be too much for a 5e game.


I feel like the hardest part of converting APs to 5th edition is figuring out what magic items to give the players. I would buy official Paizo converted APs.


If they made a monstrous compendium-style looseleaf binder with tougher pages, maybe laminated, it would be nice for a DM. The 2e ones always tore at the ring holes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
richard develyn wrote:

Don't you guys think that 5e only looks retro now because it's just come out, in much the same way that Pathfinder did when it first came out ("all you need is one book")?

I must admit I haven't looked at it - just gleaned a bit about what was going on. But how does 5E now compare with Paizo core?

Richard

The reduction in complexity is mostly in the basic rules, not the character creation options. Things like combat resolution, casting concentration, dispel magic, grapple, etc... All of that is much simpler in my opinion.

Adding more character creation options, like classes and feats and the like, wouldn't really affect, for instance, how many different types of concentration checks there are in either 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder or 5th. There are 11 in Pathfinder and 1 in 5th.

Books like Unearthed Arcana in 3.0 or Ultimate Combat in Pathfinder have offered new rules for basic stuff like combat in the past but they are almost always optional.


Zalman wrote:
dariusu wrote:

The 3.5/Pathfinder core rules have become annoying over the years though. There are just too many different rules to resolve pretty similar situations. There are something like 11 different concentration checks in Pathfinder. We have to look this up almost every time it comes up. Same goes for grappling, dispel magic and most effect conditions.

The reduction in those type of rules in 5th Edition, while keeping most of the character creation options, and reducing the need to have a certain amount of magic items(and character wealth hence being tied directly to character level), is what is appealing about 5th Edition for my group.

I couldn't agree more. However, everything 5e improves in this regard is done even better by other versions of D&D. I can certainly see the reasons for moving away from Pathfinder, but now that retroclones and OSR is a thing, I don't see any advantage to 5e in particular.

For me at least, "other versions" don't have 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder-style multiclassing. I happen to prefer that. That is just one thing. I didn't have much confidence in 5th Edition during the playtest but they managed to cobble together a bunch of things that are basically done in other editions, but not all of them, and it works.


Cptexploderman wrote:
Adjule wrote:
I believe Cptexploderman is saying 5th edition is a repackaged SAGA system. But, since I am not him, I could be wrong.
You are correct sir. 5th different in many ways to the Saga ed. but the feel and the character builds feel like Saga. Again this just my opinion. I've watched 5th live streamed and read much of the PBH and it doesn't thrill me. I'll be keeping with Pathfinder.

The only thing I see to be borrowed from Star Wars Saga Edition to 5th Edition seems to be the condition track. I actually see similarities between the changes introduced into the 3.5-to-Pathfinder-switch and Saga Edition. For instance, many of the classes in Pathfinder had Saga Edition-like "talents" added at even levels to pad their level advancement. Feats are given at odd levels like in Saga Edition.

-----

On the topic of the original post, my group will be switching to 5th Edition after we finish our current Pathfinder campaign. A lot of people site "rules bloat" as an issue with Pathfinder, that there are too many options in making a character or something. I've never had a problem with that and neither has my group.

The 3.5/Pathfinder core rules have become annoying over the years though. There are just too many different rules to resolve pretty similar situations. There are something like 11 different concentration checks in Pathfinder. We have to look this up almost every time it comes up. Same goes for grappling, dispel magic and most effect conditions.

The reduction in those type of rules in 5th Edition, while keeping most of the character creation options, and reducing the need to have a certain amount of magic items(and character wealth hence being tied directly to character level), is what is appealing about 5th Edition for my group.


It might be "good" that INT gives you more skill points in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, but it doesn't make sense in many cases. Why does high INT give you more Acrobatics skill for instance?

INT is a dump stat as much as any. Although it has the fewest spell saves tied to it, it can be targeted like any other stat as a save though, and is tied to knowledge skills, which are an important set of skills.

I don't think spell selection is more complex in 5th edition. Firstly, you don't have to refer to another chart in another part of the book to determine if you have bonus spells per/day to cast, and therefore in the case of some classes, more to prepare. Secondly, you don't have domain spells to pick, you just get them. Thirdly, you can choose whatever spells you want equal to your casting stat + level, up to your max spell level. That isn't more complex inherently. It is sometimes a hassle to fill up lower level slots with lower level spells in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, especially when creating NPCs. In 5e, you don't have to worry about that. I would say it is a wash.

One part of gear in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder is more complex than 5th, I would say: AC. When first learning that system in particular. Calculating your AC vs. Touch AC vs. Flat-footed AC is a bit confusing and time consuming.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
dariusu wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
..."Here's the rules for free!...
I don't think they have a choice with respect to the rules for Pathfinder being "free". Isn't that part of the OGL?

That doesn't mean they have to provide the PRD.

I don't get why WotC thought OGL was so awful. Oh no our market is increasing but OUR market share is decreasing in percent! Argh! Players using our rules for free, growing the hobby and extracting whales! How dare they!

NOTE: Pathfinder is a free-to-play with micro-transactions.

Apparently there were other sites hosting Pathfinder's OGC before Paizo was. Makes sense for Paizo to keep people on their own website than have them looking elsewhere for content that can be posted for free.

I don't think WoTC thought OGL was awful at first; they did create it after all and reserve the right to change it at their whim. It does allow the Pathfinder RPG to exist though, which did kind of cut into WoTC sales.

By the way, I like Pathfinder and have been playing it for a few years now.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
..."Here's the rules for free!...

I don't think they have a choice with respect to the rules for Pathfinder being "free". Isn't that part of the OGL?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see it flipped around and see a version of Golarion converted to 5th edition.


Even if concentration was just boiled down to one roll instead of like 10 that you have in the Pathfinder CRB would be nice...


Dispari Scuro wrote:
Only movement causes AoOs? So there are no concentration checks in 5e?

Only movement out of a creatures reach in most cases. There are concentration checks in 5e but only for getting hit while concentrating on a spell. Casting a ranged spell in while within 5 feet of a creature causes disadvantage on the attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd actually really like to see 5th edition versions of some APs


Kenjishinomouri wrote:

I haven't actually gotten a copy of the PHB yet, but I read the basic rules and liked some of the concepts presented.

Anyone who has gotten the book, from the basic rules I have the impression that this game has taken steps to move away from the Christmas tree effect, is this true?

How does the new warlock compare to its 3.5 counterpart?

Are there any other "optional" rules present in the phb like the multiclassing and feat rules in the basic pdf?

The "better" magic items like Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Ring of Protection require attunement, and you can only have 3 items attuned at any time. Disposable items don't require attunement of course and bunch of magic items like Sword +1 and Boots of Striding and Springing also don't require attunement.

You could fill up quite a few slots with magic items. I don't think you could get half of what you could in 3.5 though, but magic items are not assumed or worked into the CRs for encounters.

Warlocks are kind of a mix between the 3.5 and 4th edition Warlock.

No major set of optional rules in the PHB that isn't in the Basic rules. I believe the DMG is supposed to have most of that stuff.


bugleyman wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Buri wrote:
At 0 HP you need to start making death saves. Are you wanting outright death?

Is there a way to kill a creature/pc who is at 0 hp? If death is just a 50/50 chance to save with a cumulative save/fail first to 3, not sure if I find that all that dangerous.

Death should be a real danger.

Additional hits count as an automatic death-save failure. Further, anything that does your max HP or more in damage when you're at zero will instantly kill you. Finally, rolling a 1 on a death save counts as two failures. So anyone is potentially two rounds from death at any time.

Seems plenty dangerous to me.

Not to mention, attacking a creature within 5 feet of you that is unconscious is an auto-crit, which is equal to two failures.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

I'll say one thing in defense of 5e. Its still early in the release to complain about lack of option in building characters since APG didnt come out until a year after the CRB was released and the Complete books from 3.5 took longer I think (dont remember).

That being said, I'm still not liking the magic system all that much in 5e. Protection from Energy is still a 3rd level spell but only give you resistance(half damage only) to one energy and is concentration, so no casting 2 or 3 spells to portect someone from more then one energy attack, and its a concentration spell as all buff spells are.

In my opinion this spell was nerfed BIG TIME. As it is I'd have made it second level spell at most.

What I do like is that named spells are back, Otto's, Mordenkainen's, Bigsby's, etc.

More than one caster could always put up a different Protection from Energy spell on the same target. Also, the spell Fire Shield doesn't require concentration and can give fire or cold resistance. So not all buff spells are concentration.

You can get complete immunity to energy from Otiluke's Resilient Sphere.

Most of the spells don't work the same as 3rd edition. Some are more powerful and some are weaker. 5th edition Protection from Energy takes the place of 3rd edition's Protection from Energy and Resist Energy and basically sits right between them in terms of power.


Devil's Advocate wrote:
EltonJ wrote:
The 5e PHB is Amazon's Best. Selling. BOOK. now.

And right behind the PHB on the Amazon bestseller list is the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Clearly, we are witnessing the ultimate popularity contest in the history of tabletop gaming. Is D&D the more popular pastime, or will it eventually be overtaken by writing term papers?

EDIT: Actually, both are now losing to a critically acclaimed novel by Gayle Forman. I can't wait to see how her cutting-edge game mechanics "change the way [I] look at life, love, and family."

To be fair, the Pathfinder Core Rule book is the highest ranked Pathfinder book and is currently #3,171 in the "books" category on Amazon.com.


sunshadow21 wrote:
In the end, for me at least, I'm just not seeing anything worth spending money on. I'm not seeing any PR moves that hurt WotC thus far, and the system is solid, but I'm also not seeing anything that generates a feeling of massive excitement. Maybe in a year or so after we see what WotC can pull together after the core books, but right now, I'm feeling just enough interest to give WotC half a chance, and that's it. I suspect a lot of people are going to be in the same boat. I'm hearing a lot of the same talk I always do, but am still seeing in large part the same paralysis, indecision, and lack of long term commitment that has marked their actions since 4E stumbled. A solid core system and good adventure support are good first steps, but the lack of anything concrete to follow up on those initial successes is going to slow down any momentum gained by those successes. I easily see room for optimism, but not unbridled excitement; there's still too many steps they need to take to show that they have both a solid plan for development and support and the capability to actually implement it.

Just curious here, did you see anything about Pathfinder that generated a felling of massive excitement when it came out? If so, what? To be clear, I am a fan of Pathfinder and 5th edition D&D (so far).


I would think that the DC for the sloped edge of the pit wall is the same DC as the pit wall itself. The edge of a wall is still part of a wall. The spell doesn't say that there is some different slope zone that occupies all the squares adjacent to the pit that has a different Climb DC.

It could have easily said it was slippery at the edge of the pit. That wouldn't ever make it easier to hold on to the edge of the wall similarly. Normally in this game, you can can basically do the most strenuous or foolish things at the edge of a cliff without a chance of falling in unless that thing really specifically moved you toward the edge, or there was some terrain feature that made it almost like a trap. Loose rubble or something. I think that is why the spell mentions the sloped edge, merely as a reason someone could fall in accidentally.


Gauss wrote:

The "Catch yourself" option is not an action. It does not require that you already be climbing. Nowhere does it state that in the skill.

What it does state is that if you are falling and wish to catch yourself you may make a check to do so. It specifically states catching yourself is not an action.

So, the only element left is, are you on the slope or not.
If you are above the pit, you are not on the slope.
If you are adjacent to the pit, you are on the slope.

Sequence 1:
Creature above pit, fails save, starts falling, attempts to perform "Catch yourself" with a DC of wall DC +20.

Sequence 2:
Creature adjacent to pit, fails save, starts falling, attempts to perform "Catch yourself" with a DC of 0(slope)+10.

Note: Sequence 2 is making a significant assumption that the slope DC is 0, however this is not stated anywhere in the spell. The slope DC is GM fiat.

In short, no, the "catch yourself" element is not mentioned anywhere in the spell but the spell is using falling and climbing rules and therefore ALL of the falling and climbing rules must be used and catching yourself while falling is one of them.

The sloped edges of the pit are part of the spell's effect. The walls of the pit have a climb DC of 25, and I think the edges of the pit are actually part of it, so the edge also has a DC of 25. The edge of the pit wall is the "slope" and the edge of a wall is part of the wall right?

EDIT: Just trying to show that the slope DC doesn't have to be GM fiat necessarily.


7heprofessor wrote:
Physically Unfeasible wrote:

All these builds, yet no one mentions Scryer 1/[Martial Class Here] 1/EK 10/Hellknight Signifier 8...

Though, admittedly, that one places some irksome restrictions, but it's still a nice package.

Edit:

Quote:
Assuming Aasimar, because Scrying is a lame school
I would struggle to disagree with this more - Acting in a surprise round is extremely useful for a gish.

I tried posting this yesterday, but it appears to have failed to post. Here is attempt #2:

Race: Samsaran

(Or any race with a spell-like ability over 2nd lvl and you don't have to be a Scryer Wizard)

Freebooter/Trapper Ranger 1/Scryer Wizard 1/Eldritch Knight 10/Hell Knight Signifier 8

Level Class BAB CL for spell access
1 Ranger 1 1 0
2 Wizard 1 1 1
3 EK 1 2 1
4 EK 2 3 2
5 EK 3 4 3
6 HKE 1 4 4
7 HKE 2 5 5
8 HKE 3 6 6
9 EK 4 7 7
10 EK 5 8 8
11 EK 6 9 9
12 EK 7 10 10
13 EK 8 11 11
14 EK 9 12 12
15 EK 10 13 13
16 HKE 4 14 14
17 HKE 5 14 15
18 HKE 6 15 16
19 HKE 7 16 17
20 HKE 8 17 18

Feats:
1. Weapon Focus: Nodachi
1. Track (ranger)
2. Scribe Scroll (wizard)
3. Arcane Armor Training (Eldritch Knight)
3. Power Attack
5. Still Spell
7. Arcane Armor Mastery (Hellknight Enforcer)
7. Dimensional Agility
9. Dimensional Assault
10. Weapon Specialization (E.K.)
11. Dimensional Dervish
13. Quicken Spell
15. Improved Critical (E.K.)
15. Critical Focus
17. Blinding Critical
19. Dazing Assault

Traits:

Magical Knack (wizard): +2 Caster level max of HD
Lessons of Chaldira: Reroll save 1/day (because its awesome, no real bearing on the build)

** spoiler omitted **...

Just a minor point about the highlighted sentence. Any spell-like ability over 2nd level doesn't help qualify for EK, only 3rd level SLAs.

From the FAQ:

Quote:
However, spellcasting ability is not inclusive: it is possible (mainly through the use of spell-like abilities) to be able to cast 3rd-level spells but not 2nd-level spells. If you can only cast 3rd-level spells, that does not meet the requirement of "able to cast 2nd-level spells."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He is ignoring many points of everyone's posts and doesn't want to respond anymore in the thread he created. Those are the attributes of a good debater.


EpicFail wrote:
dariusu wrote:


...You are selectively choosing what rules to follow. You want to count an SLA as arcane without a method of determining if it is. You are just including what supports your point. The game doesn't specify if an SLA that is gained from a creatures race or type is arcane or divine without that list. It wouldn't qualify for Arcane Strike without determining what type of spell it is. A spell isn't arcane or divine unless it is cast by an arcane caster or a divine caster, and the list applies that to racial SLAs.

It is your opinion that the level of the spell is meaningless, but it is the primary reason that rule exists in the first place. Look at the save DCs of SLAs for various monsters. That list is always followed to determine save DC. Just because that particular spell doesn't give a saving throw doesn't mean it is exempt from the general rules.

I'm seeking clarity and I see none. I want a method so badly I wrote two above, either of which is very straightforward. It's amusing that someone who sees the lead sentence as clear has their entire argument fall apart when their own exposition is applies to it:

"If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed.

Your very defense of the muck that is that is rule's intro shows what a very unclear creature it really is. I simply gave you back your own logic to show just that. The level of the spell is meaningless as Speak with Animals is cast the same whether by Bard or Druid. The trap is in the wording, clearly, and you fell into that trap. The DC of the racial SLA is not by level cast, and your argument would mean what if spells were the same level??

You've done a better job at showing how terribly written that sentence is than I have. Thank you.

If anyone has anything of substance to add- great I'm all ears. But there are several posters above who
simply ignore the first sentence in the FAQ and are incredulous that there's a...

Again, "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes." is from the bestiary 1 and has been there since first printing. It did not originate from the FAQ and FAQ entries have modified SLAs since then.

You only accept "work differently" as meaning it has the same mechanical effect. I think that the developers meant the spell level as one of the ways a spell can "work differently". The evidence is all over the stat blocks of various monsters with SLAs. Being an arcane spell vs being a divine spell is also another way a spell can "work differently".

My argument was never that you could currently always ignore the type of spell a racial SLA is if every parameter of the spell was identical, including spell level across all the classes that could cast it. It was that, before there was a FAQ ruling that SLAs could be used to qualify for prerequisites calling for the ability to cast a certain spell or the ability to cast arcane or divine spells, it was not necessary to assign a spell with a type if the SLA 1) granted a save DC and the spell had the same level across all classes that could cast it, and 2) also had the same mechanical effects across all classes that could cast it. You just didn't seem to read anything past what you bolded.

As I posted before, the point is only that it didn't matter what type of spell an SLA was that a monster was using if parameter 1 and 2 were met. The version of a spell an SLA was based on was basically required when building monsters sometimes. The FAQ ruling on SLAs counting as spells for certain prerequisites has changed this as a matter of logic. You now have to assign a type to SLAs when trying to use them for certain prerequisites, you seem to want to ignore the rule for that.

Actually, nothing in the sentence "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes." excluded you from still assigning a type to racial SLAs even before the FAQ ruling on allowing SLA to count as spells for certain prerequisites. It is not an exclusionary sentence. It basically is there to give the reason the next 2 sentences exist. Not fulfilling that sentence does not mean you can't still apply the next 2. That sentence is still pretty clear when applied to monster SLAs.

You want that sentence to mean that somehow SLAs that do not "work differently" in your somewhat narrow idea and that are on multiple spell lists count as spells of every type of class that can cast them. That is just not supported anywhere I think.

This doesn't even touch on the fact there is a FAQ ruling that states:

Quote:
For spell-like abilities gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races), the same rule should apply: the creature's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.

It plainly says what SLAs it is talking about and what rule to apply to them. It does not include the sentence that you want to apply to it.

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>