kindredspirit's page

34 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Thank you for the feedback. If there, in fact, is a difference between losing dexterity vs. ignoring dexterity vs. denying dexterity, then I would read that sneak attack can only be performed in the following situations:

- against unaware opponents, which includes surprised opponents
- against flat-footed opponents
- against helpless and pinned opponents
- against opponents the sneak attacker flanks

As far as invisible attackers, and blinded/cowering/stunned defenders, the defenders "loses" dexterity, but does not necessarily suffer from the conditions above. Flat-footed also "loses" dexterity according to the combat modifier table and the appendix, but the actual entry, which trumps tables and appendices, states the defender "can't use" their dexterity, so that puts in into the group above, I suppose?

I feel like I'm splitting hairs, but I can't ignore that, after several printings and errata, "loses" and "is denied" area still listed separately as though they should be considered two separate conditions.

Thanks.


There seems to be a general concensus about when a rogue can use sneak attack. My question stems from the separate entries for losing dexterity bonuses and being denied dexterity bonuses in the combat modifiers table. This suggests a much smaller list of situations in which a rogue might be able to use sneak attack, as the sneak attack entry specifies a target that is denied dexterity. Is there a deliberate distinction between the two? Is this addressed somewhere? I can't find anything that calls those table entries into question.


KaeYoss wrote:

My assortment of small change about all this:

Cursed items: Huh? They fall off, and then they fall back on again? No. Just no. That's a rule for rule's sake, and I really hate those. Don't do this. This might seriously ruin the book for me.

AGREED!

Quote:


Special summons: ...Come on! Give the guy his nice summons back. Do away with the arbitrary limit (this one really has to go. Why should those summons be worse than normal summons???).

AGREED!!

Quote:


Maybe get rid of the extra duration, too. But at least let him have his summon casting time. Thaumaturges got that already, and they get a full, 9th-level spell list.

I like the CL+Ability Mod, or perhaps even an auto Extended Spell feature or CL+ClassLvl duration . . . but, honestly, even with the duration in minutes, your beasties will only last as long as they have HP in a combat, so the long duration might not impact the game as much as people think. I've never had any of my summoned monsters last the entire duration . . .

Quote:


Give them the fast summoning as an extra class feature even, so they can use it with their normal summon monster spells. They're summoners!

AGREED!!!


Ernest Mueller wrote:


All items should just stick with the eidolon.

Let's pretend you have to dismiss them somewhere - in combat, on a cliff - all their magic items just go falling down when they go?

When you summon them you have to spend a bunch of time gearing them up?

I'm not sure why the gear wouldn't just come and go with them. Here's my solution: a 1 point evolution for each magic item slot you put on them. "Magic item graft," call it. It lets the item work, and then it's "part of them" and can come and go with them. Adds convenience, and also imparts a cost to ladling them up with magic.

Back in the old 2nd Edition days, the same dilemma occured. Summoners wanted magic items for their summoned creatures (summon specific creature option) . . .

The answer was that, as the update implies, the summoned creature could not keep items. There WAS a way around this. If the caster could travel to and meet his eidolon on its home plane, he could give the magic items to the eidolon. Now, because the items were part of the eidolon native equipment, they would have then when summoned to the prime material . . .

Now, this could be a DM "Gimmie," or it could be a fantastic role-playing opportunity. First, the quest to find and get to the eidolon's home plane. Next . . . what is your relationship to your eidolon? As mentioned in many threads, if your eidolon is enslaved, things could get ugly when you arrive on its terf. If your eidolon is an aspect of a greater creature, how does that play into the encounter. Endless possibilities . . .

I would say, keep the rules as they are, but consider the planar travel encounters (depending on campaign flavor) for deeper Summoner plot threads . . .

tuppence . . .


Tamago wrote:
It would probably be fine in a small group, but once you get 5 or 6 players, summoning tends to be a Bad Idea because then every combat will take an hour or more. . .

This is very true. To mitigate this, my DM had me pick a few different creatures that I regularly summoned and keep seperate stat cards. The extra actions still cause a bit of delay though.

The rest of the group, as far as I could tell, was perfectly happy with my monsters. The monsters were still too weak to take away from the party, but they did provide enough tactical advantage to really help the party members shine. The Rogue ALMOST ALWAYS got to use Sneak Attack because my monsters were there for flanking support. The Cleric could actually do his buffing while my monsters held off enemies, then he actually got to participate in the fight as well. The Fighters appreciated the HP soakers so they didn't have to withdraw for healing so often, and I could help with protecting spellcasters while so the party could focus on tactical supremacy when engaging the enemies. The character was very powerful, but in a support role so everyone won. I only played the character to about 13th-14th level though before the game ended, so I can't really speak to epic level scenarios . . .


I'm a huge fan of summoning. Many of the reasons for this are outlined above. I've never expected my summoned creatures to take down a boss; it an unrealistic expectation (though not impossible).

While summoned creatures do have limitations, a character focused on summoning is a force to be reckoned with. In 3.5 anyway, feats and abilities that reduced summoning time (Rapid Summoning), buffed summoned creatures (Augment Summoning and Imbued Summoning), and increased duration (one of the best uses for Extend Spell), can make summoned creatures very potent.

As mentioned before, the sheer versitility of summoned creatures is nearly limitless (yes, the eidolon is versitile, but it's always the same creature and only modified upon new level acquisition). The fact that the type of monster doesn't have to be specified during spell preparation allows scenario specific adaptability.

Positioning summoned creatures - provide flanking, cut off escape, threaten unreachable spellcasters, attack flying creatures, etc.

With a tiny bit of munchkin, a lone 3rd level caster can kill off an entire 10th level party in a matter of a couple rounds (literally, it's so bad my last DM just told me "H3LL N0!"

Seriously, existing rules can create a summoner that's every bit, if not more, potent than the Summoner class.

Conjuration specialists are awesome. You can do the same thing with the Summoner, and you can keep your Eidolon fresh for the BBEG showdown!


I think I'm with the majority on this one . . . "nerf" the eidolon, but not the Summoner. Then again, I'm not a fan of the center-stage eidolon anyway . . .

tuppence for the message board . . .


lastknightleft wrote:
Instead of his fantastical eidolon he just calls up a summon from his spell like ability and buffs that instead, the character is far from useless without his eidelon . . .

You have a strong point here. The fact that the Summoner's SM ability lasts for minutes rather than rounds further affords the opportunity for summoned-buffing. I enjoy summoning a lot. I can see this being a more fun class if the player tones down the impact of the eidolon (i.e. don't have the eidolon around all day, every day); summon the eidolon when the team needs the boost or the firepower.

With this, the Summoner could serve as the party's sage and tactical supporter (buffing, flanking, battle preparation, etc), thought the Summoner would still wisely remain in the background much like the Wizard.

This idea works for me . . .


Why are we being so aggressive toward anyone who isn't thrilled about the direction the summoner class has gone. I feel like his tone has been very conciliatory, and you all are responding by saying, in so many words, "Well, you're stupid and don't...

I completely agree. I've been bludgeoned about the head and face for my dislike of the Cavalier . . . and I dislike the Summoner even more. I agree that the pet should not take center stage of the character (and the party!). The foresee this class, unless solely used as a BBEG or SMEBG, will do more to disrupt games than contribute to them.

I'm definitely not feeling it . . .


Given an INT of 18, a Witch can duplicate a successful Diplomacy check for 24 seconds???

This seems a little on the week side . . . recommend at least Class Level + INT modifier, or perhaps an effect that lasts until the Witch stops + a number of levels equal to the Witch's INT modifier (similar to Bard-type abilities).

Great concept though . . .


I don't know about the summoner being inconsequential. The spell list is something they did very right with this class. He has a great list of crowd control and utility spells and, if you like them, summon monster spells.

I think the Summoner himself will become an afterthought in the game. The design is right, and the spell list is right, but the slow spell progression will set the Summoner in the "only if I have to" mode. In fact, most of the spells are geared toward buffing (either the Eidolon or other party members), so the Summoner will likely never directly engage an enemy unless pressed into it.

I love summoning. I really do. My only dislike is the pet.


Of all the class concepts so far, I hate the Summoner the most. The heriocs have just shifted from the PC to the PET. Not only a bad move for the Summoner; the Eidolon will now be the centerpiece of most parties...well, at least they have a mascot. It will pretty much dictate the party theme as though; it's hard to represent the Knight of the Golden Dragon when your Summoner is stroking the fur of his pink octopus thingy...no good at all.

Having said all that...barring a few minor here's and there's, the Summoner was designed very well, so congratulations there. I really like the customization, and with the same attention would have gone into the Oaths, Orders, Curses, etc.

It will be a great addition for the game, but only if campaigns are re-designed around the idea of the Summoner...or, the Eidolon, since the Summoner himself is now inconsequential . . .


Zurai wrote:
Netromancer wrote:
The -2 wisdom is not enough of a negative to balance out the cha and dex bonus as well.
While I agree that they're probably too powerful, this made me scratch my head in confusion. -2 Wis is a much worse penalty than -2 Str, which is what Halflings get for the same bonus stats, and people say that Halflings are the weakest core race.

. . . except that . . . nevermind, Netromancer already said it . . .


Oh. I suppose mechanics are the only real consideration for the Cavalier.

I don't know that it'll ever matter anyway. I can't recall a mount every being used for anything getting from town A to town B. Though one of my groups did ride a flaming ship into battle once . . . that was fun.


Why does a Cavalier need a special mount in the first place?

Why not just give the Cavalier the ability to treat any mount as having the general purpose of Combat Training (see Handle Animal). I mean, there is already emphasis on a Cavalier's ability to train animals.

This rids the class of any Paladin/Druid overlap, reduces the Cavaliers dependency on a specific mount (though he could have a preferred mount that is additional trained), and it allows the Cavalier the ability to saddle up and charge into battle any time a suitable mount is available.

Modern movie reference: how often to you see a cop scream "police emergency," pull someone from their car, and speed off after the bad guy? That's heroic. You see the cop refuse because it's not HIS squad car.

Kind of out there, but I hope you see my point.


halcyon wrote:

Instead of trying to create an ability that allows the cavalier to force his focused target to deal with him, why not give the class abilities that let him make himself much harder to avoid. E.g., movement through threatened squares, batting feeble sword swings from mooks aside as he closes on his chosen foe with single minded determination or being able to charge through occupied squares (bonuses to overrun or being able to overrun multiple foes), heedlessly trampling those foolish enough not to dive for safety as he closes in upon his hated enemy or a big bonus .

Instead of forcing his opponent to stick with him, let him just be much harder to get away from. Maybe his dedication is some complete that at higher levels he just ignores some kinds of magical barriers (or gets a save to ride through them or what not) and movement impairing effects.

Also, if the goal is to have him challenge a target and then engage it, it could be facilitated by mechanics that reward closing with the target (while at the same time enhancing his ability to ignore others and pursue his chosen foe) (e.g., a scaling bonus to AC if he ends his turn closer than he started to his chosen foe)

I'll leave it to better rules-mechanical minds than mine to come up with what would be balanced, but hopefully you get the general idea.

I think you have an awesome idea here. It also lends more to the concept that a "challenge" is more of an internal effect than an external effect.

Designer Gods - please make note of halcyons suggestions!


The teamwork concept was more of what I was getting at; a character capable of coordinating/forcing movement, breaking formations, disrupting a BBEGs control over his minions, etc.

The monk ability merely mimics what a fighter can already do.

Like I said . . . just a thought . . .


Not being a game designer, I'm assuming that new class concepts are incredibly hard to come by. Original is a pretty high bar in and of itself. Add Necessary, Interesting, and Fun to the list of requirements and the task becomes monumental.

But, is it too late for new class ideas in the APG. So far, I'm not too keen on the first two releases (sorry guys). I've been told not to criticize without a suggestion . . . so here it is:

Very Basic Concept: Pathfinder has introduce a new mechanic into the game, Combat Maneuvers. The game is looking for a battlefield control class, comparable to the v3.5 Marshal. Why not build a class around the ability to add a characters "controller" class level (or 1/2 of) to the CMB? Add a few team buffing abilities and you already have a welcome addition to any adventuring party. With all the CMs available, you already have built-in variety for the character without adding any new mechanic.

Just a thought . . .

P.S. If this has been done before, please tell me where . . . because I missed it.


tejón wrote:

I totally disagree with you on what the challenge represents, flavorwise. The target is irrelevant; when the cavalier issues the challenge, he's psyching himself up with bravado: "I'm gonna take that bastard down!" It doesn't matter if the opponent is completely unaware of the challenge, because the opponent is not the one affected.

In short: Don Quixote was a cavalier.

Except that later, for some reason, the target can't ignore the Cavalier. Why not? If I (the challenged) see that my opponent (the Cavalier) is "in the zone," then I'm not going to stand there and let myself get pulvarized. If I'm intelligent, I'll defend myself (possibly run). If I'm a caster, I'll Calm Emotions. If I'm unintelligent, then how am I being affected, anyway?"

The mechanic doesn't make sense. It doesn't reflect what's happening. It won't play out as intended.


Quote:


No intelligence/sentience is required and no acknowledgement of the challenge is needed. The challenge, RAW, would indicate the Cavalier's focus, not the opponent's.
Quote:


Ok, IF the ability is completely driven by the Cavalier, why can they only do this to one target.

I've seen a few comments now discussing whether the Challenge ability ability effects the creature, or if it is internal to the Cavalier. The way it is used indicates that it is internal to the Cavalier, I agree. But, it must in some way effect the creature as well, given that later, the challenged creature is unable to take it's attention off of the Cavalier (words to that effect, anyway).

I find the other class abilities just as confusing. They either overlap, mimic one another, or are circumstatially irrelevant. You might as well just just give your Cavalier +1 vs. charm, unless your game sessions just happend to revolve around romantic encounters and the Cavalier is just the one standing against the wall. I see no role-playing value in any of the Cavalier Oaths than can't, or hasn't been, summed up in any decent character background.

As far as being sold as a battlefield manipulator, I don't get that either . . . especially if there is a Bard in the party. There is too much overlap in the classes. Also, charging the BBEG isn't exactly what I would call dictatin the flow of battle. Besides, if the BBEG and all his SMEGs decide to pay attention to the Cavalier, he dies. Then, the Bard in the party could tell the world how brave he was.

I'm not a fan of the Cavalier.


I love Pathfinder.

Having said that, I'll say that both classes this round are disappointments to me.

The Cavalier seems what the old Bard was; an ineffective collection of existing class abilities. I don't see using this as a player or GM, and I can't imagine anyone being happy playing this class. Sorry.

The Oracle is a bit more interesting, but I will likely use it as an NPC class. Again, I don't see anyone being happy playing this class.

Unless there is something that I'm missing . . .


Quote:
Are you calling them 'Muls' or something else? It'd be cool to see something up on the homebrew forum for your race.

I'm calling them "Muls" for now, for lack of a better name. I've only playtested them a couple times, and they seem just as compatible as the Half-Orc. Without all the fluff (don't have it on-hand), this is what I came up with (keeping in mind I take no credit for originality):

* Medium creature
* +2 to Constitution score
* Darkvision 60'
* Endurance as a bonus feat
* Dwarf-blood (count as humans and dwarves)
* "Resilience" (require only half the normal time to recover from fatigued and exhausted conditions)
* Common and Dwarven as automatic languages

That's all, nothing too fancified. They are obviously best suited for Barbarians, just as Half-Orcs were.

Feedback? (I know there is another thread for Half-dwarves as well)


I personally got rid of Half-Orcs and filled the niche with the Half-Dwarf. It rids me of the implications of Half-Orc existence, and the fact that I removed Orcs (and Drow) completely because I'm tired them. I modeled after the Dark Sun concept of uber-endurance, and went from there.


paul halcott wrote:
If I read it correct, your only choice is whether to channel positive or negitive energy, and thats only if you are neutral and only the first time you use it. If you channel positive energy, and your party is being swamped by undead, your burst will heal your party members at the same time it hurts the undead.

No, you're missing a big limitation to the ability. You have to choose whether to use the energy to heal OR injure. If your party is surrounded by undead, you can either use positive energy to heal your party, or use the injury to injure the undead. Of course, you make this decision each time you use the ability.

A necromancer with undead minions would make a similar choice, with opposite effects (negative injury). Therefore, a NPC necromancer healing his minions does not simultaneously injure the PCs.


Disenchanter wrote:

Ideas I have/had:

Rogue with Catch off Guard that spends a lot of time in inns/bars/saloons. Fighting style is a lot like Mad Dog from Ong Bak. Carry a stein/mug everywhere you go...

Pipe smoker.

Shovel. Ties in well with a Priest/Necromancer. If possible get an old hockey goalie mask.

Quills, with or without poisonous ink.

Gambler with dice, cards, and coins.

I like the quill idea . . . I think I will try some . . .


Deyvantius wrote:

So my group was just subjected to a TPK at the hands of a dracolisk and so we are starting a new campaign at Level 6.

Would I be wrong to ask my DM since I am playing a Druid that I be allowed to craft my own magic items before play begins.

This would essentially allow me to have a +2 set of armor and weapon rather than a +1

To be fair though, I'd try to stick to the 25% for weapons, 25% for protective items, 25% for magic items, etc. in regards to your starting funds . . .


I have a relatively simple question regarding certain dragons' ability to Change Shape.
There are many references to dragons taking the form of a human, elf, or other medium-sized humanoid. The Change Shape ability specifically states that a creature with the ability can only assume a form one size larger or smaller, yet most (or all) of the dragons that gain this ability don't acquire it until they are Huge.

I want to say I already know the answer, but . . .
Can a dragon Change Shape into a medium-sized humanoid, despite the apparent contradiction in rules?


Is there a problem with using the character's base attack bonus for its attack value, but using the monk's base attack bonus when calculating the number of attacks in the flurry?

Tuppence . . . .


I'm currently re-working the cosmology for my next campaign, and energy types vs. elements is specifically addressed in my changes . . nothing original, just putting different pieces together for a new feel.

I'm moving away from the western 4 elements to the eastern 5 elements (with minor changes), and have complete creative/destructive cycles for them. I'm incorporating the wood elemental creature to cover the 5th element.

More to the point of the thread, I go with the idea that energy types are based on the interaction of elemental forces. For my new campaign, I am restricting the interaction to the life (positive/negative) forces on the 5 primal (wood, flame, wind, water, earth) forces. This is what it works out to:

Negative Element Positive
rot Wood fey
shadow Flame radiance
vacuum Wind lightning
acid Water cloud
ooze Earth mineral

Sonic energy isn't included because you could argue it belongs to 3-4 of the primal forces. To me, sonic energy is more of a force effect, like concussion, if anything at all. Besides, sound/silence, light/dark, heat/cold are just opposite ends of audible, visible, and temperature spectrums anyway, so I leave them alone.

Tuppence for the message board . . .


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I would vote no moons but a ring made of the shattered raiment of the lost world, traveling though the night sky. It could also hold ruined cites,towers, mountain ranges and even undead of the war in an endless ring of broken glory

I'm going to continue the support for seekerofshadowlight's suggestion. This is probably the coolest "moon" idea I've ever heard. Endless opportunities for adventures and cultural influence.


These kinds of questions have come up in my games in the past. Can I whisper to cast a spell? If I ALWAYS talk with my hands, can I cast somatic spells without anyone knowing?

Every time the question has come up, I say, "No." Players would cry "Foul" is NPC's did it to them, and this option almost completely invalidates certain Metamagic feats.

Of course, anything is possible in anyone's game. It's all DM a matter of discretion. I think casting a spell is a dramatic action. Arcane words must resonate with magical force and therefore can be heard just as easily (if not more easily) than spoken words . . . kind of hard to miss.

Tuppence for the message board. Have a GREAT Game!

Oh, to answer the original question . . . yes, I enforce the rule.


OH GOD I JUST NOTICED THAT! James or Jason can we get errata for the 10' pole? I totally don't understand, is it some kind of cheddar or more like a kitten?

I'm not sure what your point is with the sarcasm, but Grandfather and Diego Winterborg (above) have very valid points.

If you're saying that the weapon descriptions should be obvious, then explain why, in your own words, the description for the shortsword is included, yet the greatclub and greataxe are not.

If your argument is that the information is already in past products of another system, your argument is equally pointless because a considerable amount of the PFRPG is detailed in past products of another system.

If you were trying to be funny, I think you missed the mark.

Be constructive, or allow those offering valid input to do so without unnecessary criticism.

Diego Winterborg and Grandfather, I'm with you guys. All the weapons listed in the tables should be included in the descriptions.

Have a great game!


I responded before in an "old rules" perspective. In a nutshell, here's what I think:
Rules don't allow it because it's unfair to Rogues (again, cry me a river). Although, it's an absolutely realistic combat option. It's difficult though, because instinct would force a combatant to react to real or perceived danger. So . . .

House Rule: Allow it, but require a special Concentration check with a DC equal to 15 + 2 for each additional threat ignored. Doing so provokes an attack of opportunity from each ignored threat, the same way making a ranged attack when threatened does. If successful, a character can ignore the threat(s) and focus on a single creature. All ignored threats treat the character as flat-footed.

The second you think this can be abused, pit the character against two rogues and see what happens.

I don't think this approach would be unfair. There are already abilities in the game that give immunity to flank attacks and sneak attack (Barbarian, I'm talking about you). If a character can force him/herself to avert their gaze while fighting medusa, they can focus on one target.


This question was covered way back in the 2nd Edition Player's Option rules when the grid combat system was introduced. Then, a character's facing was taken into account during combat, and each player received a free "face" movement during their turn, much the same way a 5-Foot Step works now. A character had "front" squares, "flank" squares, and "rear" squares. If I'm not mistaken, the a character being attacked from a flank square was at a -2 to AC, and from a rear square was at a -4 to AC.

If a character was up against two opponents that were attempting to flank him/her, the player could chose to "face" one of them, effectively putting one creature in his/her front square, and the other in his/her rear square.

D&D 3.0 (hated it) not only watered down the combat system for simplicity, it beefed up the combat potential of the more politically correct "Rogue." I'm sure the Sneak Attack ability was a key concern when deciding whether or not to keep the facing option. Heaven forbid you deny a Rogue character his/her Sneak Attack (cry me a river).

In all honesty though, removing the facing option did ease the learning curve of the combat system, as well as improve the flow of combat. Unfortunately, the new systems have exponentially increased the number of modifiers to track during combat. Part of the fun, I suppose.

Have a GREAT game.

Oh, the advice part . . . just say no. There is no end to the confusion you will create to the modern combat system if you allow "facing." Not to mention the complications in balancing classes features and what-not. If a player MUST HAVE immunity to Sneak Attack, tell him/her to invest in that fancy what's-it-called armor . . . Fortification, that's it.

The Kiv