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.
ryric wrote:
Ah, so I did. Damn... No excuse for poor math I suppose.
james maissen wrote:
You're short-changing the dragon when you do this. Statistics: Then again, it's your game. Maybe you don't like to use breath weapons as a DM. 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):
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:
And the third round (discounting the first and second rounds' odds):
And the fourth and final round (discounting the first, second, and third rounds' odds):
Using this line of reasoning may make it clearer that you are favoring the dragon's breath weapon coming online later rather than sooner.
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:
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
|