Hellknight

knightofstyx's page

Goblin Squad Member. 287 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 287 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Ryoko wrote:

We need some clarification on a Oracle revelation, Moonlight Bridge.

1) Can the bridge be created to go up or down from your current position?

2) Can more than 1 bridge be active at a time?

3)Can the bridge be shaped, say in a zig zag to go around obstacles that may be in the way?

1) Nowhere does it say that it cannot. It says to treat it like wall of force which is inherently vertical.

2) It is a supernatural ability that only ends after a) the oracle has passed across it or b) 24 hours have elapsed. Therefore as many bridges as the oracle has uses can be created.

3) No where in the wall of force description or moonlight bridge description is this forbidden.


As written, creatures with the Grab ability will indeed get to use that ability on an attack of opportunity.

In regards to Daniel Moyer's statements about Spring Attack tactics:

Threadjack:
It is completely feasible for an incorporeal undead with any sort of intelligence to use this tactic. I would whole-heartedly agree that unintelligent undead should not be permitted to do this, though.
For example, shadows have an intelligence of 6. This level of intelligence denotes more than just a feral/instinctive understanding of their own capabilities. Shadows should be dastardly enemies using pockets of darkness and the very walls, ceilings, and floorspace as locations to hide and launch attacks. In fact, every incorporeal creature I could find had at least an intelligence of 5 (from the Bestiary or Bestiary 2).
Now, if Daniel's problem lies in the DM switching the monster's feats around to include Spring Attack I can begin to understand the issue. However, even without the feat, the tactic is still extremely useful because it denies enemies some attacks against them. In my opinion (thus the realm of DM fiat), as long as the enemies fit the flavor or the story and skill level of the players, the DM should not pull punches.


I don't believe anyone else suggested this, but you could attempt to overrun your way to the teleportician. Incorporeal undead don't typically have great CMDs and even if you don't have the appropriate feat, the best they will get is an AoO.

It does seem that the party has gotten themselves into a sticky situation though. It might be best for the teleportician to consider the party a lost cause, teleport to a safe haven, and hire more adventurers.


I FAQ'd it good.


ryric wrote:

The math teacher in me won't let this go; knightofstyx calculated the odds of consecutively rolling 1s on d4, d3, d2. Not the odds of failing the first roll, then rolling a 1 next time, etc.

That's assuming I haven't made a silly mistake. Probability is tricky to wrap one's mind around. I think the decreasing die types method works to exactly the same odds over time.

** spoiler omitted **

Ah, so I did. Damn... No excuse for poor math I suppose.


james maissen wrote:


If I roll a 1 on the d4 then its active again. Otherwise the next round I roll a d3 and on a 1 it's back. If not then the following round I roll even/odd and on odd it's back otherwise it's the fourth and final round that it returns.

This way I can roll in the open and no one knows when it comes back until it does. Keeps it both secret (from me and the players) while out in the open at the same time.

-James

You're short-changing the dragon when you do this.

Statistics:
By the book, rolling a d4 once (whether behind the screen or not) means that:

There is a possibility that the dragon must wait 1 round- 25%, 2 rounds- 25%, 3 rounds- 25%, and 4 rounds- 25%.

Using your method this varies (when considered from round 1):
1 round- 25%
2 rounds- 1/4 * 1/3 = 8.25%
3 rounds- 1/4 * 1/3 * 1/2 = 4.13%
4 rounds- The remaining percentage is the difference of the others but brings the chance to 100% = 100 - 37.38 = 62.62%.

This means that there is a 25% chance that the dragon only has to wait 1 round, but there is an increasing chance that the dragon must wait for 2+ rounds. In the first round the chance of only having to wait one round is the same in both techniques. In the second and subsequent rounds, however, the odds of it taking longer increase.

The gambler's fallacy is what makes it seem like the 2 and 3 round options are equally likely to the other two options when considered against the RAW method.

Here's another way of looking at it:
If you look at the example for the second round (discounting the first round's odds) the odds look better:
RAW: 25%
Your method: 1/3 = 33%

And the third round (discounting the first and second rounds' odds):
RAW: 25%
Your method: 1/2 = 50%

And the fourth and final round (discounting the first, second, and third rounds' odds):
RAW: 25%
Your method: 1/1 = 100%

Using this line of reasoning may make it clearer that you are favoring the dragon's breath weapon coming online later rather than sooner.

Then again, it's your game. Maybe you don't like to use breath weapons as a DM.


I had this discussion with James a while back:

Linky


This is solely in the realm of houseruling:

If a player wants to learn a new skill (one that he/she previously had no ranks in,) my players must announce that they are practicing that skill from a capable source (book, PC, NPC, etc.) Then, when they actually level, I allow them to put one rank in that skill and become trained in it. That represents the learning curve.

After they have achieved this, the amount of ranks I allow them to put into it is unlimited (except as permitted by RAW).


Sheboygen wrote:
Diffrn't strokes for diffrn't folks.

I was just pointing out that said wizard could indeed fly all day long, effectively.

As for your table, I actually use something kind of like it in my head. I just take the average party level and divide by two. That's the maximum effective enhancement bonus that weapons and armor can have at that level. So if the party is averaging out at 8th level, the max weapon/armor available is a +4 (be it a +3 flaming longsword or a +4 light steel shield.)

Admittedly I don't hand max level items out very often and do restrict wizard spell selection heavily.


Sheboygen wrote:

Furthermore, the spell Fly only lasts a maximum of 20 minutes (at caster level 20) without the aid of Extend Spell - which would increase its duration to a measly 40 minutes (hardly enough time to fly all day) for the cost of a 4th spell level slot. Realistically you may be able to squeeze out two hours of flight in a day tops (and that's with a generous application of items/scrolls, and far too many spell slots dedicated to doing so); most of that two hours (or less) would be better spent scouting/doing recon out of doors instead of flying through a dungeon for fear of falling into a pit trap the rogue should have located/marked/disabled/found a workaround for.

May I introduce you to someone? Sheboygen, this is Overland Flight. Overland Flight, this is Sheboygen. I'm surprised the two of you haven't met:

Overland Flight
School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 5

Components: V, S

Range personal

Target you

Duration 1 hour/level

This spell functions like a fly spell, except you can fly at a speed of 40 feet (30 feet if wearing medium or heavy armor, or if carrying a medium or heavy load) with a bonus on Fly skill checks equal to half your caster level. When using this spell for long-distance movement, you can hustle without taking nonlethal damage (a forced march still requires Constitution checks). This means you can cover 64 miles in an 8-hour period of flight (or 48 miles at a speed of 30 feet).


There once was a time when I ignored the 'wealth by level' guidelines. I simply gave and took when I saw fit for the fun and playability of the story.

Then I decided to grow up and 'play by the rules'. My players quickly became bored with the monotony of such a rigid system of imposed 'fun'. This also caused me to be bored running the games.

I have since gone back to the days of ignoring 'wealth by level'. After all, it's a game. We all get to be kids when gaming.

My advice, do it however you want. Do what's fun for your players and fun for you.


Caineach wrote:

I will replace that 6 with a new 6.

6. Opponent is flat footted. You won initiative.

Fair enough.


Zurai and RD, I've actually been silently on your side for this entire battle. However, Jason said he's going to work on the issue and get back to us. I find it odd that you would then commence to remind the Lead Designer of his own rules.

Let the man think on it and get back to us.


Caineach wrote:


6. Opponent is prone.

Basicly, you only need to cast defensive normally if the opponent can take an attack of opportunity.

Admittedly they will take a -4 to the AoO, but they still receive one.


Since I seem to have started a firestorm around this topic, I guess I should at least give my reasonings.

1) My group doesn't min/max so the summoner is actually quite weak in this party (Rogue, Fighter, Oracle, Summoner, Monk - all stealth focused.)

2) The feat is "Augment Summoning". I'll be damned if I don't let it apply to every swinging tentacle the summoner, you know, summons.

3) *And perhaps the most important* My wife is playing the summoner. So I show a little bit of favoritism. I hear love does that. (Doesn't mean I wouldn't allow anyone else to have the feat apply to the eidolon, though.)

In my opinion, the game is a lot more fun if you don't optimize and the everyone just has fun. As to why the feats don't apply by RAW: I don't care. I just wanted to voice how I run things because no one had brought up that point yet. Heck, maybe I'm the only DM that is nice to his summoners.


Gjorbjond wrote:


That should only work if the eidolon is summoned with the Summon Eidolon spell, by RAW.

Sorry, I was solely in the realm of GM fiat.


If anyone would like to play a summoner at my table, I allow augment summoning to be applied to the eidolon in addition to the SLA. /threadjack


Never ran it, but I've heard tales.


In regards to the "Did they keep the 'take feats once' general rule?" I can't find the RAW for it just yet, but it implies that you can take other feats as many times as you want if the rule is missing. Imagine taking a feat like Alertness several times. It is unnamed so the bonuses would stack.

Also, imagine what that would mean for toughness.

Edit: You people beat me to it...


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The 3.5 version had the standard 'must apply to a different weapon' clause. PF left that line out, so go wild.

ORLY? I did not know that. Hmm... *brain esplodes*


No, the feat applies to a different natural attack each time it is selected.


While I have had such an item in my games before, it was never a purchasable one.


Gorbacz wrote:

Yawn.

Teleport: All creatures to be transported must be in contact with one another, and at least one of those creatures must be in contact with you.

Eww, yeah that presents a problem. Guess I should have read the entire spell listing.


Since cure light wounds is on the ranger's spell list he won't have to make a UMD check unless his caster level isn't high enough to cast the spell.

Edit: I'm an idiot. He doesn't need to have the appropriate caster level. Just have the spell on his list. My goof.


Small threadjack here. My apologies.

In response to Caineach's comment earlier about averaging hps, I agree that NPCs hps are to be averaged. However, arguing whether the animal companion is an NPC is nebulous but it's cut and dry that the eidolon is not an NPC.

Definition of NPC: "These are characters controlled by the GM."

The GM never gains any sort of control over the eidolon unless he/she utilizes charm/suggestion effects. The eidolon is supremely under the control of the summoner.

Thus, since the eidolon is not an NPC, all of its hp are to be rolled upon gaining a new hit die.

"To determine a creature's hit points, roll the dice indicated by its Hit Dice. A creature gains maximum hit points if its first Hit Die roll is for a character class level. Creatures whose first Hit Die comes from an NPC class or from his race roll their first Hit Die normally."

Caineach is correct in stating that the eidolon wouldn't gain max hp at first hit die, though.

/threadjack


Caineach wrote:
Because animal companions and the Eidolon are assumed to be NPCs and have average HP for all levels and not roll. They also do not recieve full HP at 1st level.

Can you point out where you found this information, please? I've started looking, but if you can quote a selection it would save me the time.


It could be that the player of the summoner rolled really well when the HP were being rolled for the eidolon.

In my game, the summoner's eidolon has 37 HP at 3rd level (Serpentine Form).


Nope. Looks like you've hit the major points. Since wizard has a huge list of spells to choose from they didn't give wizard the UMD skill. It would upset game balance if the wizard could heal himself reliably and function as utility and nuker.


Looking at the RAW it looks like Teleport is kosher for Reach Spell.


Pathfinder 1/week
Star Wars Saga 2/month


Regardless of what Rotten Tomatoes thought of it, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. However, I didn't view it in 3D though. I'm not on that bandwagon yet.


There's a goblin in group I'm currently DMing for right now. He manages the "human-lands" issues by dressing up as a kid and pretending to be the half-orc fighter's son.


He didn't specifically state it, however, most abilities that allow you to see through deeper darkness also permit one to see through mundane darkness.

Also, the way I stated my answer was ripe for misinterpretation.

Restated: The character would observer his or her surroundings with normal color vision as long the character were in normal lighting conditions deeper darkness not withstanding.


Carbon D. Metric wrote:
knightofstyx wrote:
My experience of pre-3.X? Illusions. I hate illusions.
Disbelieve EVERYTHING!

That was actually the solution to one of the predicaments.


A ranged touch attack is not needed because using a CLW on an ally requires no touch attack.

"Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks."


It would be normal color vision in normal lighting conditions.


My experience of pre-3.X? Illusions. I hate illusions.


It also seems that your summoner might be using the HP transfer ability incorrectly. Your summoner cannot transfer HP whenever he/she wants. The ability is only usable if an attack would send the Eidolon back to it's home plane which is not when it would reach 0 HP, rather when it would be reduced to a number of negative HP equal to its constitution score.

"Whenever the eidolon takes enough damage to send it back to its home plane, the summoner can, as a free action, sacrifice any number of hit points. Each hit point sacrificed in this way prevents 1 point of damage done to the eidolon. This can prevent the eidolon from being sent back to its home plane."

"Eidolons are treated as summoned creatures, except that they are not sent back to their home plane until reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to or greater than their Constitution score."


My bad for not keeping up with my comics...


Specifically this line in the spell:

"If cast on a creature, nondetection wards the creature's gear as well as the creature itself."


There's also a size issue. Either that avenger is about 10 feet tall or she shrank Amiri's sword.


Themetricsystem wrote:
imaginary friend.

Hah!


The biggest gripe I had was that psionics didn't fit the flavor of my setting. If it did, I would have allowed it as a DM. That was during 3.5 when the books were released. Now that my setting can possibly support it, I would probably take a second look at it if one of my players was interested. I would definitely allow it if Paizo releases an updated system that is easier to integrate.


SLA's are subject to interruption. Casting whilst in a grapple is usually a difficult proposition (depending upon the target). This should have made the demon in question roll for concentration.

However, the interruption doesn't matter because demons cant force teleport anyone (as already discussed). Sounds to me like a cranky GM just wanted to off someone. I know what that feels like. It's all too easy to feel like you're losing the game when your monsters keep dying. It's a trap. Just my 2 cp.


DM_Blake wrote:


But I hear your objection and I'll note that in our campaign we don't require a paladin to have a free hand to heal himself either.

+1


I got the privilege to see Jason's costume up close. Admittedly, it was in passing on an escalator. However, the attention to detail blew me away.

Count my vote for Jason as Damiel, the iconic alchemist.


I'm sorry, I should have been clearer.

Leave that stuff up to the DM_Blake. Cheers!


Leave that stuff up to the DM.


Aside from game balance, think about the instantaneous amount of time a fireball would affect them. Its duration is already "instantaneous". Which means it does most of its damage in brief instance.

In order for something to actually be burnt, it needs to be in contact with the burning effect for at least a second. Time stop makes you move so fast that the instantaneous effect wouldn't even be in effect for a thousandth of a second. Such a brief exposure isn't long enough to affect anything.

That's my logic behind it. However, logic + gaming = fail. So it's probably a game balance issue.


Name Violation wrote:
just that casting. nothing has a "pass the save once and you're immune to all castings of that spell by anyone in the future" clause, otherwise they'd have their buddy cast it with a purposly lowered save dc and be permanently immune. why wait for the enemy to do it

+1

1 to 50 of 287 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>