Waffle_Neutral's page

When you advance an animal companion from medium to large, does it get reach to match its size? Horses and camels don't have reach, but what about apes or constrictor snakes? The large apes in the bestiary have reach, but there are no large examples of snakes.

Michael Brock wrote:

I've talked to the Design team about this topic. Here is a summation of their response:

There is no explicit rule in the Core Rulebook that says a Medium creature can't ride a Medium mount, but it is implied in secondary rules, such as the description of the riding dog and horse and the description of the paladin's divine bond. And it's explicitly called out in the beast rider archetype: "The animal chosen as a mount must be large enough to carry the beast rider (Medium or Large for a Small character; Large or Huge for a Medium character)."

Yes, the beast rider archetype (UC page 36) offers Medium riders extra animal companion choices, and at that level some of those cavalier's companions will be Medium rather than Large. But at the "you can't select things unless you can use it as a mount" rule still applies. So unless you're beast rider level is high enough to make the animal in that list mount-appropriate for you, you can't select it as a mount. It's presented the way it is so we didn't have to have separate 4th- and 7th-level lists for Small and Medium characters (space is short, and writing it that way is cumbersome because at 7th level you'd either have to look at two lists, as in "anything from the previous list plus these new ones," or repeat all of the 4th-level list in the 7th-level list).

Another way to look at it from a different situation. The fighter class gets bonus combat feats. But that class feature still follows the normal prerequisite rules for selecting feats—a 2nd-level fighter can't select Weapon Specialization because he doesn't meet the "fighter 4th" prerequisite. A 2nd-level fighter arguing "but it just told me I can select a combat feat, and Weapon Specialization is a combat feat!" doesn't hold water; you don't meet the prerequisites, so you can't select it.

This is the PFS ruling on medium characters and medium mounts.

It means that a medium creature, such as a human, can never ride a mule, a donkey or pony!

And in the description of Ponies in the Bestiary it says, "Ponies are smaller breeds of horses better suited to halflings, gnomes, and dwarves," except dwarves are too big to ride ponies, despite strong literary precedence.

So by being a medium-sized Beast Rider instead of a normal Cavalier, you give up heavy armor, your mount loses light armor, and you don't get anything until level 7 to make up for it.

I was really hoping to build a He-Man and Battlecat, but he's starting at 5th level.

I'm looking at the Beast Rider Cavalier in Ultimate Combat and it says that at 4th level a medium cavalier can choose from a list of animal companions. The problem is that most of these companions don't become large until 7th level.

Does that mean you can't even take them or can you still ride them even if they are the same size as you? Can a small cavalier choose from this list as well?

You could toss a torch down a hole.

I'm pretty sure the only reason Barbarians can't be lawful is so that you don't have multiclassed Barbarian/Paladins or Barbarian/Monks.

That's true, but it's relatively cheap and is great against everything that doesn't have fire resist.

The best skeletons are bloody, burning kitten (young cat familiars) skeletons. They move at a speed of 40. They are diminutive, so you can fit a bunch of them in a single square. They never have to hit anything, they just have to move next to a creature, and, when it's turn starts, it take 1d6 points of fire damage per kitten. If it attacks and gets killed, it explodes for another d6 fire damage, but that's no big deal because it's also bloody and will come back to unlife in an hour.

For regular animate dead, they cost four 25gp onyx gems to make, but only have 1 hit die each, so you can control 4 times your level worth of them. So a level 5 cleric can spend 2,000gp on a pride of 20 bloody, burning kitten skeletons and command them to stand next to a creature and do 20d6 fire damage with no save every round.

Probably a JuJu zombie of something that was a good class.

Maybe a JuJu Sorcerer or Barbarian (Hey, that +4 Str and Dex ain't too shabby, especially with Rage).

Undead are immune to morale effects such as barbarian rage. Really, they should just be immune to fear, because intelligent undead seem to get angry all the time.

Keeping wish-slaves is the riskiest thing you could possibly do. You have a group of mortal creatures who hate you that you trust to make wishes that will benefit you.

For my upcoming session, I have a few holiday things planned. The solstice is coming and a thick fog bank has covered the land. A seemingly jolly, fat fey creature, Krampus, has lost his way and his flying reindeer refuse to fly blind.

Luckily, the party wizard, who definitely has his name on the naughty list, will be followed by a Nightmare, whose rider was killed by the wizard in the last session, who wants the wizard to be her new wicked master (this will be a warning to the player that his character is turning evil, but no bad deed go unrewarded).

But the Krampus is not what he seems. My plan was to make him a troll as well; green skin and very grinch-like. His bottomless bag of holding is not filled with presents, but instead is a portal to a demiplane where he keeps the children he has kidnapped (in fact, he has already kidnapped one of the party Bard's wards) to torture for being naughty and later devour.

My hope is that the party will use the flaming Nightmare to guide the sleigh, it may choose to follow Krampus over the Wizard, before uncovering the truth. But they might just try to kill him and take his bag of holding filled with presents.

I really hope they don't read these boards.

Vital Strike and Sunder can stack; you can only make 1 Sunder per round (you can't do it as an AOO, nor as a Full Attack Option RAW), and you apply the base damage dice bonus to the sunder damage, which is amazing.

Why can't you sunder multiple times as part of a full attack or AOO?

It says, "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack." There's no restriction on how often you can do it.

Today's post on the Howling Tower blog suggests a great idea. Get rid of the Perception skill. It outlines 4 different replacements, but the best is the fourth. This particular post uses 4th edition skills as examples, but there are parallels in Pathfinder.

Option 4 is to eliminate Perception as a skill. Drive an ice pick into it. When some sort of perception is called for, use the skill that most closely relates to the situation. Here are some examples, in 4th Edition wrapping.

-Finding a secret door? Thievery or Dungeoneering.
-Tracking a monster to its lair? Nature.
-Spotting the lich's phylactery? Arcana.
-Picking out your contact among all the bar's patrons? Streetwise.
-Noticing the fang marks on the corpse's wrist? Heal.
-Hearing someone sneaking up on you? Stealth.
-Spotting the demonic cult tattoo on an assailant's arm? Religion.

This is my top contender. Not only does it a) work and b) make sense, it also c) steers some attention back onto skills that are all too often overlooked. When was the last time your DM called for a Streetwise check? How do you suppose that makes the bard feel? This approach works so well with the skills in 4th Edition D&D that I wish it had been the official choice.

A phalanx fighter from the APG can wield any pole-arm with one hand, but he has to have a shield in the other, which you could bash with.

You win initiative and move in front of a monster with your weapon drawn. Your ally casts invisibility and moves behind the monster while drawing his weapon. It's your turn again and you attack the monster. Both you and your ally are threatening the space from opposite sides, but neither you nor the monster are aware of your invisible friend. Do you still get the flanking bonus if you don't know you're in a flank?

BlueAria, that is for magically sleeping people. Its typically assumed that screaming Red Alert! Red Alert! will wake anyone that is not magically sleeping. - Gauss

This is the way I play. The DC to notice the sounds of battle is -10 (which should include the sound of weapons clanging and men yelling) and the DC to make a perception check while asleep is +10. Those add up to a DC 0 perception check. The person on watch in a typical huddled-around-a-camp-fire setup is no more than 10 feet away, making it a DC 1 perception check. Unless you dumped Wis and never put any ranks in perception, this should be an auto-succeed.

Camp ambushes suck for the party anyway. The fighters have changed out of their heavy armors and into their chainshirt night gowns. The wizard's protective magic is likely expired. It will take anyone asleep at least a round to stand up and ready a weapon or shield. No reason to make these, usually random, encounters unduly hard.

I see where the confusion comes from. On page 144 of my Core Rulebook under Weapon Qualities it says the text I quoted, but on page 141 there's the contradicting passage you guys quoted.

I also found this FAQ that relates. James Jacobs confirms that a wizard can wield his quarterstaff in one hand and cast a spell.

Here's the text for the Double Property.

Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if

fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the
normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two
weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon
and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as
a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double
weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the
weapon can be used in any given round.

All double weapons are listed under two-handed weapons, but they can all be used as a one-handed weapon. One of the defining characteristics of one-handed weapons is that they can used with one hand.

From Ultimate Magic.

You can wield a quarterstaff as either a two-handed or one-
handed weapon.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus (quarterstaff ), base attack
bonus +5.
Benefit: By employing a number of different stances
and techniques, you can wield a quarterstaff as a one-
handed weapon. At the start of your turn, you decide
whether or not you are going to wield the quarterstaff as
a one-handed or two-handed weapon. When you wield it
as a one-handed weapon, your other hand is free, and you
cannot use the staff as a double weapon. You can take the
feat Weapon Specialization in the quarterstaff even if
you have no levels in fighter.

You can already fight with a quarterstaff one-handed, because it's a double weapon. Why is this restated in this feat? The only thing this feat does is let you take another feat. If you're taking this, you're probably a monk, and there are so many better options.

I don't think it's more over powering than leadership; maybe even a little weaker. It doesn't get as many abilities as character would get and doesn't have as much versatility.

However some of the special purpose powers do seem a little too strong. Being able to cast a 4th-7th spell at-will is extremely powerful. It also doesn't make much sense to me, since they can't cast any 1st-3rd level spells at-will unless it is controlled by the GM, who best not abuse its power.

I'd probably disallow it as a cohort, but if the player expresses an interest in an intelligent item, I'd probably just include one in a treasure hoard or use it as a major plot point in a campaign. There's just so much cool stuff you can do as GM with an intelligent magic item. It could be the Big Bad Evil Guy (kinda like the One Ring from Lord of the Rings) and trick the party into setting its plans into motion.

Negative level is worse. I agree with all the reasons other people have mentioned, but the worst part to me is that you loose one of your highest level spells memorized for each negative level.

Spell casters don't lose any spells, but their caster level goes down.

... For each negative level a creature has, it takes a

cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls,
combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense,
saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature
reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative
level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level
lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as
spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters
do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative
levels. If a creature’s negative levels equal or exceed its total
Hit Dice, it dies. ...

About bringing characters together and starting the story: taverns are boring and overdone. And what if one of your characters is a teetotaler? The Paizo modules and adventure paths I've looked through / played through have character traits that link the players into the story somehow. They're varied and specific to each story, but provide a lot more flavor (and storytelling hooks for you as a DM) than "so you're in a tavern one night and ...". Avoiding the tavern cliché is probably one of my favorite things about Paizo's adventures. It's a tough thing to do, and they do it well.

It may seem overdone for us blooded veterans, but everything old is new if you've never played before.

There are many ways for your party to meet one another. You basically need a way to bind them together. Many times the future party members are in an location (sometimes a tavern) when something happens that requires people to do something (it falls under attack, someone tacks up a bounty poster, someone from a nearby village is begging for aid).

Sometimes I start the adventure and simply state that the party already knows each other. One player is the Count's son and the others are retainers in his household and have known each other for years. Sometimes they all have the same employer.

A golem may not have eyes, but it does perceive the world somehow. If whatever magical sensor is covered in glittering dust, it's blinded.

MacGurcules wrote:

The Grab ability says that you automatically deal damage from the Grab attack whenever you successfully maintain a grapple and the Constrict ability automatically deals whenever you make a successful grapple attempt, either the initial attempt or to maintain. Neither replaces the regular action you get. You can still use that action to deal damage, move the grappled opponent, pin, etc.

Right so in the case of the chuul the OP used if he started his turn with a victim grappled he could grapple for damage once (and deal bonus constrict damage) and be done.

Alternatively, he could full attack, dealing constrict damage twice.

It gets even worse when you're looking at a creature that doesn't have constrict like a bear.

A dire bear can full attack dealing 1d6+7, 1d6+7, and 1d8+7.

Or it can maintain its grapple and deal 1d6+7.

Why would a bear ever bother grappling?

So they can hold onto their prey and keep it from escaping. They have a lot of hp and can take a beating. They only have a 2 int. They are pretty focused on either catching food and eating it, or ripping something to shreds for coming near its cub.

More inteligent creatures might view the situation more tactically and realize that not every situation calls for a grapple, but when you see a greatsword-wielding fighter, you grapple him to deny the use of his best weapon.

As DM, I like to offer the party back-up in the form of the NPCs Traitoro, Murdera, and Betrayu. For some reason, they usually turn it down.

Or check out the Pathfinder Society Field Guide for a few rules dealing with PCs and businesses.

Also ** spoiler omitted **

Interesting.

The next campaign I run will focus on the heroic adventures to be had while running your own small business. Basically, the party will inherit an old, run-down inn from their estranged relative. He is somehow related (through the use of his long elven life and polymorph and enchantment magic) to all the party members (who will meet for the first time when they all show up to claim their inheritance thinking they are the sole beneficiary).

There will, of course, be a wide variety of monster slaying and traditional fare, but my players really get into the economics of a world. The Pathfinder rules fail in providing this sort of simulation. The main problem I'm running into is that magic items (what the PCs will be hoping to buy with their profits) are so much more expensive than a mug of ale. The first thing I intend to do is drop a zero off the end of all masterwork and magic item prices and give my players far less gold so that it's a little more meaningful. A 245gp +1 longsword is actually in within their grasp if they save up their tips. As-is, magic items are just too expensive, considering they practically litter the landscape.

I also plan to have random events, such as:
-Dwarves show up: who stereotypically drink far more ale than normal customers.
-Taxation: the greedy local lord sends his tax collector to their door (maybe the PCs will allow him to take their gold only to don masks and rob him in the forest).

Does anyone have any other ideas to make this a fun and rewarding mini game?

Okay. Thank you.

Since Bashing is a property of magical armor that gives it a +1 enhancement when used as a weapon, how could I increase it beyond that? Do I treat it as a weapon and start enchanting it using the price for weapon bonuses, but would it just cost 2,000 because it doesn't have any magical weapon bonuses yet? Do I just apply Bashing to it again for another +1 bonus (probably not increasing its size again, because they are from the same source)?

If you and your group are really new, I would suggest not getting any new book if you already have the Core Rules and the Bestiary 1. There is so much in both of those books that you can do whatever you can imagine for a long time. Too many options can cause things to lose focus.

Sean Mahoney wrote:

I don't know if this would actually work by RAW or not, but since the ability requires that the target be evil, undetectable alignment MAY work since the magic of the ability wouldn't sense that the target is evil?

Sean Mahoney

Don't think it works because smite doesn't care what you detect as, only what you are.

But usually a Paladin won't waste his smite if he doesn't detect evil unless it's something super obvious, like a devil.

Well, considering my avatar, it's kind of ironic, but judging from the llama that vomited on me (and ruined a tuxedo) back in college, it's gross, but not sickening.

It's the reason I chose my avatar.

I would give the rogue a limited selection of spells (mostly enchantment and illusion stuff) and I would give bard sneak attack dice.

By the way: the "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" quote is a logica falicy.

If one has "Absolute Power," then it is impossible to be corrupt, because nothing is forbidden.

Doesn't that just prove it, though? If all the things that were once forbidden become possible for a man, then that man has been corrupted, changed or warped, from what he was before.

If a paladin sees raping and murdering innocent villagers as something that he could possibly do, he is corrupted. Now I'm not talking about him thinking it is possible that someday a wizard will cast dominate person on him and force him to. He thinks he could do it, because he believes he has absolute power and there is no higher authority to stop him.

That entry specifies abilities (i.e. Ability Scores), skill modifies, and bonus feats. It says nothing regarding the mechanics of how special attacks work. For example, without referencing the Bestiary one would have no way of knowing how Rake works for Big Cats. Any GM would be reasonably within bounds to require a save for the Spit attack by referencing how it works in the Bestiary.

But the Herd Animal Camel didn't show up until Bestiary II. There was no reference at all for Camel Spit for more than a year between when the core rules came out and when the second bestiary came out.

Camel spit allows a save--see the Herd Animal entry. Note also that some creatures are entirely immune to this due to creature type (Constructs and Undead being good examples).

But that is a completely different camel. According to the FAQ animal companions are not identical to the animals in the bestiary and do not receive all the same racial bonuses, feats, or abilities as their counterparts.

Undead and constructs are immune to effects that grant fortitude saves, but not the sickened condition itself. So when in contact with something like a camel animal companion's spit, which does not grant a save, they are still grossed out.

(edited to remove mistakes)

So the camel druid animal companion has a ranged touch attack that sickens the target with no saving throw.

If a balor, a horrific, perverse demon from deep in the abyss, that does nothing but torture souls for its pleasure, is standing knee-deep in blood and gore, and a level 1 druid commands her camel to spit on it, the balor's reaction will be, "eww, gross!" Then be sickened for 1d4 rounds.

Same thing would happen to a zombie, ancient black dragon, stone golem, jelly, or another camel. They would just be so grossed out, regardless of their anatomy, level of sentience, or own putridity, that camel spit would sicken them enough to hamper their ability to perform their everyday abilities.

Is camel spit really so vile?

Some dude waves his arms and a wall of fire erupts. You get burned, ouch. He waves his arms again and another wall of fire springs up... do you approach it?

A wall of stone appears, do you charge through it?

Knowing someone is casting a spell is not very informative.

I disagree. Knowing someone is casting a spell is very informative. You know where to target the arrows. And in the situation described in the original post, knowing that the old man in a robe started to chant in a strange language and wave his hand just before your best friend started to behave very oddly is useful information.

Just imagine if you were a stormtrooper and observed Obi-wan Kenobi say, "These are not the droids you are looking for," but were far enough away not to be affected. What would you do?

Asphesteros wrote:

The rules are very specific about invisibility (lose dex, +2 to hit) and on the result of being unaware of someone at the start of combat (flat footed, plus a surprise round) but say nothing about what it means to be unaware of someone in the middle of combat.

The new steath rules they're working on take a stab at clarifying this, but I think a fair house rule is to say an unaware opponent is flat footed against your attack (as per the begining of combat), but you don't get the additional +2 (unless your blow is also in fact invisible).

Not flat-footed... they're denied their Dex bonus to AC. Sorry if that's a little nitpicky but its a square and rectangle kind of thing.

--Like a Vrock

But isn't your flat-footed AC, by definition, your AC without your Dex bonus?

If a rogue succeeds on stealth check does he get +2 to his attack roll against his target's flat-footed AC? What about an aboleth attacking with its 15-foot-long tentacle from behind an illusory wall? In both situations, the target of the attack cannot visually locate the attacker; rendering them essentially invisible.

The monk must spend his standard to maintain the grapple, but can use that to try to pin his oppenent, which essentially takes him out of the fight. If he has the greater grapple feat he can do it as a move action and also use his standard to deal damage or, i think do something else.

The fighter is at -2 to hit, but the monk is at -2 ac from being grappled, so it pretty much cancels out.

It says evil creatures, but is a human with an evil alignment an evil creature, or is it referring to something like a devil that actually has the evil type?

I would say no, it cannot use the wand as it cannot speak Monkey - no language. Wait for improved Familiar

But it can speak a in a secret language with its master. Maybe this language is made up entirely of spell trigger words.

It seems the most effective build for this class is a heavily armored bomb thrower.

Or, perhaps, when the bombs run out, the guy in platemail who scratches dudes with his claws and then tries bite them.

Giant is the first thing that comes to mind. Odin defeated the ice giants. Beowulf killed a troll. Seems like a land infested with these creatures would be able to speak their language.

wraithstrike wrote:

The DR should apply first since it stops incoming damage. Whatever gets through is then cut in half.

But you could just as easily argue that incorporeal applies first since it prevents damage from even happening, then DR applies because it reduces damage received.

If you treat incorporeal as "half the damage of the blow is never transferred to the target" then it doesn't make sense to apply DR to the damage which never happens.

So too with energy resistance/save-for-half combos. The save for half reduces the amount of energy you are exposed to. The energy resistance then protects you from a set amount of that energy.

This reasoning does make more sense. I didn't even really think about it until one of my players brought it up at the end. Not that they were complaining about it, because it worked in their favor. It was a hard fight, and would've been much harder if I did it the other way.

In the future I'll probably do Incorporeal before DR. The party was ill-equipped and were about to flee before they got a good hit with a spiritual weapon.

Last night i pit my party against a shadow demon. It is both incorporeal and had has DR 10/ cold iron or good. They were hitting it with their magic weapons, which only do half damage, because they were not ghost touch; nor were they cold iron nor good.

Say they hit for 14 points of damage. Do i subract 10 for DR and halve the 4 for a total of 2 points of damage? Or do i halve the 14 and subtract 10 for a total of 0 points of damage?

As im writing this, it just occurred to me that if it were a mathmatical formula, it would follow the order of operations and divide before subtracting.

In last night's game i subtracted before i divided.

For every level in your favored class, starting at first, you gain the choice of a hit point or skill point. You decide at each level which one you take and which skill you put the point into. You can put as many skill points as you want in skill at level up, so long as don't have more than your total character level.

Don't forget Control Undead. It has no HD limit. You can animate them using Animate Undead, but when you have too many, Control Undead will pick up the leftovers. It only affects one undead at a time, but lasts days. So a high level caster should be able to keep it refreshed on each of his servants every few days.

Look up "monstrous players" in the core rule book index. It suggests that the more powerful races in the bestiary should be a level behind normal characters. Although i dont feel that aasimar and tieflings are quite the same power as all the core book races with all their resistances.

Theres also this advanced races guide playtest thing thats been going, which allows the creation of races using various point buys.