Ilarris Zeleshi

dragonhunterq's page

Organized Play Member. 4,018 posts (4,137 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 11 Organized Play characters. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 4,018 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

If it's from a spell. SLA or supernatural ability no attack roll is required - it is automatic..

touch spells in combat wrote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

The rules draw no distinction between melee touch and range touch in respect of this.

It's a little hard to justify not extending the rule to other abilities where there are no rules..

Seriously consider riding your big cat, it means your attacks all benefit from flanking too.

Either way I share avr's scepticism regarding distracting charge.

To be fair all you really need to be an amazing melee hunter is outflank, paired opportunist, pack flanking and combat reflexes - anything else is just gravy..

I'm a big fan of the one level dip of wild child brawler for all the brawler goodies and full animal companion and minimal downside..

Mostly I assume that players have an appropriate home. It's rarely relevant, gives them a hook into the campaign and isn't punitive to the WBL if only one person wants to purchase a place.

DC40 for any scroll casting at 20th level - not all scrolls are at the minimum caster level.

Technically and somewhat less seriously,, as I can't think of any specific reason you'd need to, but DC 41+ if you ever need to emulate an ability score of 26 or higher..

Not in any game I run, excluding insanity and related situations, and it is self evident enough to me that I don't feel a need to justify it. I suspect that there are many who would disagree with me.
This is very much an 'ask you GM' issue.

Nyerkh wrote:

The wording is a bit strange, so you might have to actually get an actual nat 20 on the attack roll but I don't think so.

I'm really not sure how you can find another way to read "If you roll a natural 20 on an attack roll" as anything other than ... uh ... needing a natural 20 on an attack roll.

I'd be interested in how you would word it so it was clearer..

Also it is a third party feat so flagged to move to third party forum,,,

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It clearly differentiates between the attack roll and the roll to confirm - I suspect you and your fellow players are conflating the two..

So the feat is in two stages.
First your initial attack roll has to be a natural 20
Then if you confirm that critical - by any means - you increase the multiplier by 1.

I imagine the bracketed bit is to make it clear that the second step doesn't require a roll if you can confirm a crit by another method, to distinguish it from the first ste which requires a natural 20.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WabbitHuntr wrote:

My contention is that a Buckler can be enchanted as a weapon. If the character has the ability to use a Buckler as a weapon then he can do so w/o penalty otherwise it is an improvised weapon.

Upsetting Shield style and Rondelero Swashbuckler give the ability to use bucklers as weapon.

But if you want RAW, just add the Folding enchantment to a shield bashing shield and turn it into a buckler

** spoiler omitted **

And since that ability is undeniably RAW it seems a little ridiculous to simply not allow a Buckler to be enchanted as a weapon w/o having to jump through this hoop

Once you turn iyour weapon-enchanted folding shield into a buckler it is no longer a weapon and therefore can't benefit from effects that only apply to weapons..

Forgo - "to go without or lose the right to".

When a term does not have an in-game definition you use the normal English definition. If you lose the right to something/or are without it it is no longer available - I really don't think you have a case at all. Plain English is simply not on your side.

There are no rules that inherently grant you tangible benefits while in the presence of your god.or in a sacred space.

As noted there are several things you can add - be sure to keep an eye on how that affects the challenge of the encounter - for example unhallow imay count as a CR5 hazard (depending on how you read the trap/environment rules and potentially increases the encounter challenge by 1) and normally requires a level 9 caster..

I would probably keep it simple and liberally apply the +2/-2 "GMs friend" modifier for favourable circumstances and/or a timely cure moderate wounds or negation of an attack once or twice in the encounter - again keeping an eye on the challenge - as GM you don't need everything to be a formal effect .

1 person marked this as a favorite.
leadership wrote:

...and how many followers you can recruit. ...

...or follower you are trying to attract)...

You don'y have to recruit 'em.

Also worth noting that followers follow different rules to cohorts regarding death.

leadership wrote:

Followers have different priorities from cohorts. When you try to attract a follower, use the following modifiers.

...Caused the death of other followers -1...

There is no cumulative clause like there is for cohorts. Doesn't matter how many die - still just a -1 penalty..

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Multipliers don't follow normal maths in Pathfinder.

CRB common terms wrote:
Multiplying: When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

100* (10+9+1+1+1=)22 = 2,200

Still a lot of bodies...

Gorgon blood mixed in mortar stops "magical travel" through walls (scroll to uses) - again GM fiat whether that works at all or stops ghosts

I'm not convinced it is mind affecting. It seems more like a toxin/physical effect to me.
Are there any other mind affecting effects that require a con save?
Are poisons/diseases that affect the mind or mental attributes 'mind affecting'? I'm not aware of any being expressly so.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


incorporeal special quality wrote:
It has no Strength score, so its Dexterity modifier applies to its melee attacks, ranged attacks, and CMB.


Yup, I'd take away it's strength score and replace weapon finesse with a another feat.

Only reason I can see for it to have a strength score is to interact with it's daggers and scrolls, but if you treat it's personal daggers and all scrolls (and writting based magic items - maybe) the same way a ghose treats "treasured items" - that'll cover that if you really need to cover the minutiae (i.e it just works and don't worry about it :)).

Yes, you are the GM, and the rules on CR are more guidelines than hard and fast rules - mostly because depending on the equipment you choose you may well not make the encounter much more challenging, or if you get it right you can make it more challenging than the +1 indicated.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have a lot of superfluous information there. Much of it is completely irrelevant..

First and most importantly, the rules do not distinguish between PCs and Monsters for how rules affect them (unless called out specifically) - the rules are exactly the same.for everything..

For DM1

natural attacks wrote:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes,

seems pretty comprehensive to me - explicitly you can mix weapons and natural attacks - the "pathfinder 2talon attacks or 2 attacks" is largely bad rules interpretation - especially the second answer.

For DM2

unarmed attacks wrote:
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks)

.A natural attacks is an unarmed attack that counts as armed - it is unarmed as you are not wielding a weapon, but it is counted as armed - so you threaten with it, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack with it etc.

For everyone

multiple attacks wrote:
A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.

Unless you are taking the full attack action (or have another ability that explicitly permits it) Any character whether monster or PC can only make a single attack - even if it's entry lists (for example) 2 claws..

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Filthy Lucre wrote:

it will also produce situations where low level monsters stay threatening for longer.

This is one reason, to avoid this. Low level critters shouldn't stay threatenng for longer.

MrCharisma wrote:

No they don't stack.

MITHRAL wrote:
Weapons or armors fashioned from mithral are always masterwork items as well; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below.
Or rather, the masterwork benefit is already included in the stats.

That's not what it says though - nowhere does it say that the benefits of masterwork are included and costs are not the same thing as benefits.

Any suggestion that they stack is vehemently opposed, but no-one has ever satisfactorily explained the rules support for it.

Elven chain is a unique item and not overwhelmingly compelling as it is treated as light armour including for proficiency - which normal mithral chain doesn't.

Quixote wrote:

You are correct; leather armor with no max Dex would be better than mithral breastplate if you had a Dex of 30+.

Really not sure what you're going for, though. So I can't weigh in much as far as the other things. I have ideas, but I can't be sure until I get a little more info.

To be fair not 100% sure what I'm going for, just floating ideas and seeing if anything sticks for some badass or interesting leather armour. Something thematic considering the multi-eyed beast it originates from.

I agree with Dave, If you don't have a relevant casting ability score it reverts to the default for spell trigger items.- minimum ability score to cast the spell. Similarly if you don't have a caster level (or your caster level is lower) use the default caster level of the staff.

So, I'm considering including leather armour made from a [protected intellectual property] that is naturally bouyant. If I make it so that it has no maximum dex am I right that you need +10 dex modifier to better Mithral Breast Plate (+6 AC +5 max dex)? Is there any other effect of no max dex that I'm overlooking?

I know I could just give it a +9 or +10 max dex, but no max dex sounds way more awesome...

I'm also thinking of adding a minor bonus to fly checks to hover/not fall. or maybe a boost to saves vs gaze and ray attacks? any better ideas out there?



If you are permitted 3rd party feats you also have Lightning Swap from Dreamscarred Press' Path of War.

I'm more than happy to let someone declare their intention to attack to gain the benfit of CE to move prior to an attack. If they then decide not to/are unable to attack they lose that action. Simple. Effective.

OgreWarHulk wrote:

Alright, I've about had it with this counter. I've never been able to use it because of my GM's ruling on it.

But if a spell like fireball (area effect) doesn't speciffically target me. Can I still use Disrupive Wave against it?

pfsrd wrote:

Disruptive Wave
Discipline: Mithral Current (Counter); Level: 4
Prerequisites: One Mithral Current maneuver
Initiation Action: 1 immediate action
Range: Melee attack
Target: One creature
Duration: Instant


By sensing the ripples in reality caused by powerful magic, you are able to anticipate and strike before a spell takes effect. You can initiate this counter in response to being targeted by a power, psi-like ability, spell, or spell-like ability. Make a charge attack against the originator of the effect, moving up to twice your speed towards them as normal. If it hits, it deals weapon damage as normal, possibly interrupting the effect and increasing the DC of the Concentration check to not lose the effect by +4.

I need to know because it's been wasting a spot in my selection of maneuvers for a few years.

Your GM is quite correct. Fireball does not target. This counter does not work against AOEs.

hexcrafter magus wrote:
Hex Magus (Su): At 4th level, the hexcrafter magus gains access to a small number of witch’s hexes.

um! what is the argument that you get access to hexes at 3rd level again - because that seems particularly unambiguous. You may get an arcana at third level, but you don't have access to hexes to take one.

It takes an extremely...optimistic....reading of the rules to think you can take one at third level.

1) This depends on your GM, the rules on where ACs appear from are vague, the rules on replacing an AC kinda points to one not being immediately available. So, unless it's a core part of your character, where I would assume you've been developing it as part of the unspoken background that many characters require, you'd likely have to perform the ritual for replacing an animal companion in my campaigns - subject to anything you can point to (be it campaign events/background/rules) to persuade me otherwise.

2) IF you have persuaded me that you have a suitable beastie following you, then MAYBE it could be repeatedly infused with the power of an AC and reduced to normal animal otherwise - at least until it got annoyed at your fickleness/being used and abused and wandered off. Again though, largely up to your GM.

3) no, you have to have a domain power it can replace.

4) no, it only grants access to domain powers. .

Domain powers are a subset of your full domain, and while inquisitions are interchangeable (to an extent) with domains, they can;t be interchangeable with a part of a domain. The Icon causes you to retain part of your domain abilities, so you you don't ever have the full domain to swap out.

Each time you switch animal focus on yourself you start a new '1 minute' use. There is no wording that permits you to change your aspect once you have selected it - you select one type of animal to emulate when you activate it and that is your lot until you activate it again..

The only reason you can switch freely on your AC is you never run out of 'minutes' if you do so.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artificial 20 wrote:


>>> AB|

Consider the above very crude ASCII.

You have walked along a hall, and stopped just before a corner. This spot is marked as A. The square above is a wall, the square to your right (B) is the junction of the corner.

You cannot move diagonally from A to C because of the corner. You can go A B C, but this is not diagonal movement. If an obstruction was occupying B, say for example, a hostile creature, you cannot simply diagonal past them.

You can move diagonally past an enemy - explicitly.

CRB measuring distance wrote:
You can move diagonally past a creature, even an opponent.

What you can't do is move diagonally past a solid object that runs along that border - such as a wall. Basically look at what is in your way. if you can step over it (such as a pit) or it doesn't fully fill the space (a small tree) then you can move past it diagonally.

If, however, you are trying to step around a big impassable object that either fills the square or runs along that edge such as a really big tree or a building (or a 'designated exception' type creature that fills the entire space - such as a gelatinous cube) then that's a big no.

Quite correct - I skim read and didn't get that far :)

OzzyKP wrote:
Oh, I've thought of another question, is there a Handle Animal trick to getting your animal companion to enter a style stance?

PFS FAQ if that works for you (it should, it's a sensible ruling) - ACs know how to use their feats

phantom ability wrote:
The phantom stays fully manifested until it is either returned to the spiritualist’s consciousness (a standard action) ...

There are no other restrictions in respect of distance or LoS/LoE.

You can't harbour your phantom blade. You don't have either the phantom ability or the shared conciousness ability.

Derklord wrote:
Ah, I think I misremembered something. Re-reading, you do indeed both can attack and threaten squares you occupy (when not using a reach weapon). My bad!

pfft! there goes my new tactic for fighting gargantuan foes...


Derklord wrote:
When not using a weapon with the reach property, you can attack every square in your reach except those you occupy.

Where is the rule preventing you from attacking within a square you occupy?

-1 acp to stealth for the light shield - 3 ranks stealth

Table 10-2 is fine, it's well explained on how to use it and when it is appropriate to do so, and it is extremely useful at what it's designed for. It is still a tool though and as subject to misuse as any other tool.

As for the DCs in mirrored moon, they are not inappropriate to the task. It shouldn't be easy to half the time to search nearly 100 square miles.

You are missing nearly 20 years of history with 3rd edition and pathfinder that has lead to this point. It's kind of hard to be concise without that background.

A short answer to your specific question(maybe - there other opinions) is that they feel the need to curb some of the power of spellcasters in general and especially in regards to narrative impact as compared to non-spellcasting classes (look up caster/martial disparity if you are feeling particularly masochistic). While they could have made magic more unreliable or dangerous or any one of a number of things (most I can imagine would be very unsatisfactory in one way or another) they opted to reduce the overall number of spells available together with a reduction in the effects of spells (in very broad sweeps).

Players should not get XP for crafting. It does not lend itself to exciting tales. NPCs get the level the level they need for the story I want to tell, the explanation for their level is entirely up to me. That an NPC got better at crafting by crafting is perfectly fine by me.

Well if you think about it a hole in the ground isn't a trap, it's only the thing hiding it that makes it a trap - get rid of that and it's just a terrain feature.

trivial is easy - if the DC is equal to, or less, than the DC in the leftmost column it is trivial.

I for one do not want them to remove all GM adjudication from the game, pathfinder can handle many types and flavours of games and what should be impossible for one game might just be legendarily difficult in another - I can decide what is impossible as appropriate for my game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:

For the record, even if a character was tied up and unconscious their reflex save remained the same in 3E/PF1

For the record, no. Your reflex save dropped by the difference between your current dex mod and -5 (due to your dex being treated as 0).

And with regard to the pits as pointed out, everything gets a reflex save, even if immobilised - I assume that the stats take into account the 0 dex...
Also the damage is to the trapdoor - the pit never takes damage - as per the hardness description and the reset condition

pit trap wrote:

hardness 4(trapdoor) ...

Reset The trap still causes falling damage if anyone falls in, but the trapdoor must be reset manually for the trap to become hidden again.

The rules actually have you covered.

PTrulebook wrote:

(p336] you can usually skip rolling and assume the characters succeed against trivial DCs.

(p337) Ordinary tasks become trivial at a certain level, listed in the final column so you have some idea when these tasks no longer present even a minor challenge for the characters. Some tasks are always trivial and have no need to be rolled, like climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances. You can allow automatic successes at lower levels than listed if that makes your game run more smoothly.

If the DC is trivial, you shouldn't really be asking for rolls.

"You break that fortune cookie easily"

PTrulebook wrote:
An extreme-difficulty skill DC defeats even the most skilled characters most of the time, but it’s just low enough that there’s some chance of success. Use these DCs if you want success to be unlikely but not impossible.

There exist things that are flat out impossible, and you don't need a roll as you will auto-fail.

"I'm afraid that lock is too difficult, no matter how lucky you get you will not be able to unlock it without the key".

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
Pramxnim wrote:
citricking wrote:
They want magic weapons to be important, I think they would still be important if they just had cool abilities and property runes. Items giving number bonuses makes them necessary to have to not fall behind.
This is how I'd prefer it as well. 5e made an attempt at this, but in the end they still deferred to a +1-3 hierarchy. If PF2 is bold enough to get rid of numerical bonuses from magic weapons and armour altogether and stuck to interesting powers / property runes, I'll be very happy.
I think it would be alright if specific Properties gave numerical bonuses under circumstances. I.e. Holy weapons are guided to smite down evil and thus are magically better at helping their wielder kill evil things. Or if Fire weapons did better against foes weak to fire, and so on.

Please no. Situational bonuses are not "interesting", nor are they fun.

The bigger problem some of you have with them changing it is people like me who want magic weapons to be important. They should matter and they should matter in every fight.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:
The rules should not need to tell you that you cannot walk through walls. Let me know of a game that feels the need to tell you this so I can avoid it.
Well, I suppose you are avoiding Pathfinder 1e, then: "On the other hand, some obstacles block movement entirely. A character can’t move through a blocking obstacle."

Well, that's embarrassing... I have never noticed that :)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

In fact, if you pop over to the "top three positives/top three negatives" thread, you will see that more than one person has listed +1/level in their top three positives of PF2e.

how reliable is that thread to mirror the larger group of gamers? does it include people too frustrated with the PF2 playtest to post on a regular basis anymore? or those so frustrated that they dropped out completely? what about those that would love to post in the thread, but can't find three positive things to post? because I know I love maybe three for ideas of PF2 as iodeas, but find the implementations of those ideas lacking enough that I wouldn't exactly describe my current feeling towards them as 'positive' but as 'meh' at best.

Well, it's reliable enough that you get people like me who love the +1/level and think that if you remove it I may as well go and play another game because it's just not the game I want to play. There is a lot I don't like about PF2, but the +1/level is not one of them.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
p291 on stacking bonuses wrote:
If you gain multiple bonuses of the same type, only the highest bonus applies—you don’t add them together.
p190 on quality bonuses wrote:
Item Bonus: Weapons and skill-boosting items of expert, master, and legendary quality add the listed item bonus to attack rolls with the weapon or skill checks using the item
p371 on potency runes wrote:
A weapon potency rune grants two offensive benefits. The weapon’s wielder gains an item bonus to attack rolls with the weapon equal to the potency value. For instance, an expert dagger with a +2 weapon potency rune would grant a +2 item bonus to attack rolls with the dagger.

Not really, Incapacitate means being unable to act or respond, if you can react violently you cannot be incapacitated.

Why wouldn't you let the players decide? There is no good reason not to.

If that doesn't work for you then maintain initiative order.

Whatever way you go this is one decision that should not be left to the GM to decide.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules should not need to tell you that you cannot walk through walls. Let me know of a game that feels the need to tell you this so I can avoid it. I will not play a game that is so patronising that they think their readers need to be told this.

Kyra can attack the ogre because she can see it. You can draw a line from the top left corner of Kyras square to the top right square of the ogre. That should be sufficient for precise senses to work. The ogre would need to take an action to hide to become 'sensed' to Kyra.

I cannot see any reasonable argument that Kyra cannot see the ogre, Kyra can attack the Ogres top right square so she can attack the ogre. she cannot draw a line to the centre square so the ogre has cover.

It is that simple .

And if it's not defined, a term has it's usual English meaning. blocking terrain is terrain that blocks you - you cannot move or fire through it. If the book needs to define even basic stuff like this it will be too large to be practical.

incapacitated has it's normal english meaning if it isn't defined in game - they don't (and shouldn't) need to define every single word they use. Paralysed is about as incapacitated as you can get.

If two characters end up sharing a space one of them (GM decides) gets shunted or made prone. 'Accidentally' covers just this sort of situation.

IF you can move into a square and you can move out of a square then you can move through a square - this is self-evident and does not need further defining.

As for screening, that seems perfect to leave up to a GM's call. I can see some situations where some creatures would still provide screening and others where they shouldn't.

Gm's can and should make judgement calls. These are the sorts of situations that are varied enough that some GM discretion is desirable.

1 to 50 of 4,018 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>