Just curious what everyone's favorite, actually used, shenanigans have been. We were trying to out shenanigans the rogue/sorcerer/monk build in our last session and my magus/sorcerer hit up on the following (after a 10d6+20 lightning bolt): cast true strike and move to provoke. Take the hit. True strike his spell storing armor's 10d6+20 shocking grasp (acid damage). With the 5% chance of auto confirming the crit (because its +31 vs touch at his level). I really need to get improved critical for shocking grasp, but that's another day. I thought it was a cute way to get two spells off without a quickened rod. What have you done in game?
Ps. Another of my favorite true strike shenanigans is to use it to ignore mirror images. "I close my eyes." Grants them 50% concealment, which true strike ignores, but ignores the mirror images because a visual figment.
Ok so there is a rogue talent ability that lets you make bombs.
The bombs made by the rogue are equal to his sneak attack.
So if they can make a 7d6 sneak attack bomb and throw it, but instead use the discovery that lets them strap it to ammo, and are firing from hiding (invisible or whatever) can they sneak attack/bomb for 14d6 total?
Now 9d6 (dip in snakebite striker brawler for 16th level 9th SA d6) and 4 levels alchemist is about as good as this would get, so 18d6 total to one crossbow bolt (with snippet goggles, from 1200 feet).
If it would work. I'm not sure you have to get rid of those bombs when you pick up alchemist, but I am sure you need to keep the bomb class feature to pick up that discovery.
I completely misunderstand Burn. First, yes, it is one THP per character level per point of burn. No idea where I got the 2 THP idea from other than reading the 2 in the section above it or something, sorry. Second: I do a blast for 1 burn 3 times - 1st one is 1 burn. 1THP / lvl. Second is 1 burn, total of 2. 2 THP / lvl. Third is 1 burn, total 3, 3 THP / lvl. Then I do something for 4 burn to hit 7 total burn. I take 7THP / lvl (total, not each round I expend more burn, as I thought above). But my burn total is now 7 and I get all the benefits of elemental overflow. I can now blast all my bolts out at zero burn (modified by other abilities) with a (let's say they are 16th level) +6, +4, +2 physical attribute (Con first I'd guess), 35% ignore crits, +5 to hit with kinetic blasts, and +10 to damage with kinetic blasts. I took 7x16, or 112 THP. I'd have 217 HP until I rested. Then the burn THP and my bonus 48 HP from the +6 Con would go away.
So the limit would be another 105hp / 16 = 6 more burn (13 total).
And the only real downside to all of this is if I get mashed in the head by someone who can deal out 105 HP of damage (because 105 real HP worth of damage would mean I only have 112 thp, night night time... though I'd still be 112 points (+Con) from actually dieing).
OK. I think I get it now. Thanks for helping me understand how this is even remotely viable.
I don't think 2e character creation is any more difficult than 1e. The ABCDEFG style of character creation is fine.
The advancement is whacky. Basically everyone gets 8 stat points every 5 levels, or 40 additional stat points. Start with 60 (10s) and add 16 points(14?) to make a base character. This means that every character at level 20 could become a straight 18 (40 points) with one 22(16 pts). That's pretty whack.
The multiclassing is a mess. You have to "stay in" a class for 4 levels, basically. Why?
SPELLS? A complete nightmare. Why divide all the magic up into arbitrary types? Why stop at 5 or 6? Why not have mutant superpower type magic? Why not call advanced tech magic? Sigh...
The whole "temporary/permanent" ability score increases is because of two thing: Spells and grabby rule mongering players.
You don't get to start casting 8th level spells if you just cast a 2nd level spell to up your INT /Cha / Wil more and it is only a temporary boost. Magic items granting benefits take "24 hours" to "work" to keep players from just handing items with "permanent bonuses" to another player IN GAME so they can then cast 8th level spells on the fly (ie. let's all share the circlet of vast intelligence when we need to cast higher level spells or make skill checks).
Bryan Bloomer wrote:
I have hated this since the early days. We were young back then, in the 1970's... 1980's... and we let GMs run all over us. And we even played a game that was 99% GM Fiat with some fake numbers thrown in... two counting Anime High School (I think it was called)... but I digress... In modern times, I much prefer non-cheating GMs who roll dice in front of you instead of behind a screen AND non-cheating players who roll dice in front of everyone as well and don't cheat on their character builds.
In a magic world with tons of magic, the two spells my mage might be able to use to fix an issue won't work and the fighter can't knock it down either? Then what am I even playing for. To do nothing? To spin my wheels for two hours trying to figure out that ONE WAY the GM decided you could get by something? Frag that nonsense.
The one thing PFS has allowed me to do is play a mage - finally - after nearly 40 years (and only one other real mage character ever). No more fiated "the spell you just cast successfully, and normally would affect this and work, doesn't." SO INFURIATING. To the point of never bothering with mages. In 40 years of gaming! Looking back, wow... it all goes back to bad GMing.
So I say bring on PFS and its "rules" - it is for the betterment of us all! No more fiats! If I download the adventure and read it, it better say what you said it did!
(this being said, I would like to point out that in my first ever "gm session in PFS" last night, there was an option for Roidira to punish those who continued to refuse her offers, and I did make a little of that up - per RAW in the module - so there is still some flexibility for GMs to screw with the players from time to time... or never is nothing... or whatever comes under her black feathers...)
Boots of the Cat. 1000 GP. "Saving would be flyers for decades now. Get yours in matte black or new tabby colors! Tiger prints available upon request."
A few memorable deaths of mobs and players come to mind.
First level campaign and we're playing with (I'll call him) stupid player #1 and stupid GM #1. GM let us make our characters however we wished, warned us that we would probably be taking on evil monsters, and we could optimize however we wished with a point buy. Stupid player #1 decides that a necromancer is the way to go. Won't give it up. Wants to play an evil character. Meanwhile players 2-6 are busy making up a dwarf twf(double weapon) barbarian rager, a paladin, a cleric of some good god, a rogue, and a ranger with some sort of double bow (as I recall).
First combat in: This is where the stupid part of stupid GM comes in - sends in 2 owl bears and a troll (yeh, against level 1 party). Stupid player #1 decides to attack the party and help the "obvious winners" of the encounter. Casts a spell at the cleric. OK. Wahtever. Idiot. Paly drops protection from evil ring, right next to him, then the ranger drops two arrows into his head (one with a nat 20). Dead. Idiot. Whatever. Dwarf rages, runs up to one of the owl bears, stupid GM smirks "whatcha gonna do?" I hit it. OK. No problem. 8 damage or something like that. Owl bear's turn. Miss. Miss. Miss. Miss. WTF? Yeh, barabrian rager is wearing best medium armor with best ac bonus. Rogue goes and flanks, hit 16 damage (max w/o crit). Barbarian comes up again before owl bears and does a full attack on it: crit. confirmed. 34 points. Owl bear dies. Owl bear decides (GM) to attack the rogue instead (because hey, why not metagame if you are the GM, right?) Miss. Miss. Turns out the rogue also has a 20+ AC. The rest of the combat(s) went just the same and we just decided not to play with that player or GM again after the player says aloud "I'll just roll up another necromancer." (First, it was point buy... oh... my... god). Because we just sort of got the implication that this first encounter was the "easy" one that he had planned... for FIRST LEVEL CHARACTERS. (yeh, that is two CR 4, one CR 5 mob in a single encounter, nearly 150 HP... vs what turned out to be about 50 hp worth of first level characters).
Stupid player #2: Party got to a mountain with a cave in it. Wasn't particularly supposed to go in. One member, stupid player #2, decided he would explore it. Started walking in. Party was like "what? why? it is obviously not where we were going" but he insisted. Didn't bring food or water or rope. Just started walking down the tunnel. OK. You walk for two hours. OK. On with the adventure for the rest, you have reached your destination. SP#2 you realize that this tunnel probably doesn't end. "I keep walking." OK. On with the adventure. Players get about halfway through, so at this point we are about 2 hours in in real life. SP#2 do you turn around or keep walking, at this point it's been about a day, you are tired, blind, hungry, and thirsty. "I keep walking." OK. On with the rest of the adventure. Complete it, get loot, etc... but still a little more to do. SP#2 it's been three days now, do you turn around. You realize that because you didn't bring food or water you are probably already dead. Do you do anything else? "I keep walking." OK. Finish up with players, and wrap up the adventure. Now, at this point, it has been about five hours real time. He's done nothing, said pretty much nothing, and just sat in his chair quietly watching the adventure. SP#2 You kept walking? "Yes." Ok. You saw a light above you for a bit, but then your feet got really hot, as something seemed to be pulling at your legs dragging you downward. "Do I need a roll?" No. The sensation is only momentary. And then it all fades back out to the black cavern you have died in. You realize somehow that you are in hell. There is no exit to this cavern which you have chosen to needlessly walk down to your death. "Oh. Ok." - and he was fine with that ending. Five hours! Some people just cannot be helped.
The most glorious low level death belongs to my brother though. We're in the woods, he's got a grappler character, and we come across a bear. He figures, "easy kill, easy experience." Bear won initiative. Bear claw claw bites. We have long had a "all rolls in front of everyone" rule, so no fibbing or GM fiat allowed. Brother's character died in one go. Laughter is had by all. Even my brother laughed at this one. We could have easily just left the bear alone (what the rest of the party decided to do).
I had to necro this thread just to reply to this statement: "We'll do a test. I'll take 10 fairly strong guys and have them try to hit a moving target that doesn't want to be hit. You take 10 super intelligent but really weak guys and have them do the same thing. We'll see how it goes."
My reply: No group of really strong guys has ever hit Mars, but groups of really smart people have.
The PFS alignment system is about moral relativism. Nobody who is evil thinks they are evil. Devils just make binding contracts, it is the stupid soul's fault if they fail to complete it and are damned to hell because of it. Undead (mostly) have no Intellect, so they don't think they are evil. A zombie doesn't even know what good and evil is.
So to ask "do you think this person thinks they are evil" - the answer is almost always "no." Most people think they are doing what is best, either for themselves, or for other people, or both.
But a LG paladin can still kill things. And we still consider them less evil than a zombie that has never eaten or killed anyone (thoughtlessly, I would point out - the paladin killed things ON PURPOSE). And it is that PURPOSE which is where the moral relativism comes in and denotes GOOD and EVIL. To what end does one do something.
Demons/devils are a corruption of "good souls" and thus when they do something the purpose is to corrupt/destroy more souls. Thus it is said to be evil. Even if summoned through no fault of their own and forced into contract.
Paladins are saving souls (good or otherwise) and thus when they do something the purpose is to save/redeem more souls. Thus it is said to be good. Even if committing mass genocide against devils and demons spilling forth from the Worldwound for the minor infraction of setting foot on the Prime Material plane.
Throw in 100 deities and it all, of course, gets hazy. But the moral relativism remains: Just because YOU think you are good doesn't mean that they system set up of alignments in PFS thinks you are good. It explains what each alignment means, and if you fall into it. Moral proselytizing about how righteous you are to eat humans probably won't get you very far in a human dominated culture.
But I hear Dwarf jerky is good eating!
First - if I were playing an entire AP I'd never min/max my character. So getting rid of the 8 and 7 would be my first stop gap. It is ok not to get that +1 dex bonus. Honestly. It is ok. Don't make an ugly weak character. The musket is 1/3 of your light carry capacity at 8 str.
Next I'd go with a lighter gun (but then again, that is me, not you). Reload times are manageable with charge cases (makes it a move instead of standard so at least you fire once a round). But you don't get to move and fire with the 2 hander.
Don't know what else to tell you.
Son and I discussed a Homunculus and permanent magic jar character, with a clone in backup storage in case the person (in homunculus' body) dies to far from his real body. Seemed feasible at the time, but we didn't really flesh it out (get it, wink wink, nudge nudge).
I play a lot of poker. This isn't just a gaming thing. Some people are just straight nasty. Some know it. Some don't. Over the years I've gamed with all sorts. The convulsive snorter sucking in boogers to keep for some future glue experiment. The "rug yummie" eater (literally ate things off the carpet and chewed rocks, rarely chose to sit in a chair unless forced to). The barefoot hobbit (no shoes, ever). The hairy wet ape (need I describe the smell?). The jock fresh from the workout. The nerd fresh from the sock drawer. The pot head who brought a cloud kill spell with him. Halitosis man. A guy who didn't bath or change his clothes for a month as an experiment. Breastfeeding mom (I have nothing against this, btw, just pointing out yet another thing at a public table). To much cologne man's man. Mr. "let me see that" who takes things without asking. Mrs. grabby, his "wife." Oh... I could go on... but I guess I already have. 40+ years... lol. Good times.
Dispatch a Tarrasque suppression force of 2 Annilliator, 8 Myrmidon, and 16 Gearsmen robots
Hmmmm.. Tarrasque KO'd AC is still 37,
Gearsmen: +10 Spear (the only thing that will hurt is the 1d6 lightning). +4 to hit unconscious. So +14. They need a 23 to damage it. So that's not gonna help much ("on a hit" being the important part of the charged weapon (Ex)).
Annihilators come closer to harming it: +28 Claws, Need a 5 or better. So 75% success rate. 2d6+12, though. 19 average is going to knock T down 4 points per claw. 6 damage a turn average. Regens 34. Two Chain guns: +19 (14 or better to hit, unless they go vs touch at 1st range increment, but no feats to indicate this) 8d6, infinite ammo is a good call. 3.5 x 8 = 28 - 15 = 13 with each, 26 damage * .35% = 9.1 ave damage. Regens 25. T is still winning.
Damage output (average) for non-crit (that only happens 5-10% of the time, but so does missing, but would be somewhat statistically significant with 4x multiplier - the actual average damage for 20 rolls is 14 according to excel, so it wouldn't even average out to getting past T's DR): 15.1 damage each per turn. T is still healing 9.8 damage a turn... Uh oh! It's waking up!
Quick, hit it with the force lance 20d6 - 120 max damage, half is fire (immune) so 60 max, 35 average. Times 2. OK. Now we're talking. 70 damage every 3 turns... wait... it just healed 120 (well, about 30 actually). So we are keeping it under at this point.
In context it could eat a solo annihilator for breakfast without breaking a sweat. Nice.
<edit: I think I am 5 off on the AC, 37 - 5 for 0 Dex = 32, +4 to hit = 28 effective>
What we really need here is something with an infinite supply of bombs or some other touch attack. Suggestions?
Yeh, Ex ability - so it's not even a spell like ability or magical (SU) ability. But generally, when it acts like the spell and the spell says "1 round/level or 1 round" the level is the Class Levels instead of Caster Level (levels in Gunslinger, since it originates from that class). No, there isn't really RAW to cover this, per se, explicitly. Fortunately the Fear spell says "level" and not Caster Level... so there is that...
The rules are specific enough in that case. Overflow is lethal. Lethal is treated as hit point damage. So overflow non-lethal is eligible for power attack.
But how do you calculate if you hit in the first place? You do a power attack BEFORE your damage is calculated. Ergo, Power Attack applies to non-lethal attacks as well as lethal attacks. It is just a logical conclusion. You are not going to go back (no RAW FOR IT) and re-calculate the hit. Nor to re-calculate the damage. THUS, if non-lethal overflow happens, and is treated as HP damage, NON-LETHAL is AT FIRST treated as HP Damage when you do the calculation of Damage.
The statement about "effects that do not deal hit point damage" in the Power Attack description have already been pointed out as something completely different. This refers to spell effects that don't damage a target that still require an attack - such as non-hit point dealing touch attacks. ie. You can't take a -2 to hit and do 4 points of damage on a paralysis SU/SA or something that does only Stat damage, blinds, stuns, or otherwise doesn't deal hit point damage. The confusion with non-lethal is DA and your own. Nobody else is confused by this. You never adjust the roll after you declared the attack and calculated damage. No RAW for THAT.
Whenever I think of 20th level Rogue I always think of Autolycus from Xena / Hercules - The Prince of Thieves. Here we have a normal human that can swipe things from anyone, at any time, as easy as taking candy from a baby. Yes, Xena could go swipe for swipe with him because she was basically the star of the show and a bit of a rogue herself, but Hercules never managed the same. Nor did anyone else on the show(s). Palm a gem the size of his fist? No problem. Dance on clothes lines? No problem. Pick a lock without even looking? No problem. All without any magic or Godlike abilities.
A 20th level fighter can break the rules of reality in 20+ ways (Feats). he can conceivably hit everyone within 20' (maybe 25') every round, four times a round, forever. You get a some fireballs every day? I AM A FIREBALL.
So to sum it up: Bruce Campbell plays a 20th level Rogue in Xena and Hercules. He plays a high level fighter in Evil Dead (and Ash vs. Evil). "I said the words! I said the words!"
Killing her once a day and reincarnating her is out of the question for some reason? Elf is 10% of the chart, take 10.
If this person were an Npc doing the same thing, what alignment would they be?
Pushing lawful obedience and getting the citizens addicted to enforce church attendance and self harm?
(These things seem exactly opposite CG)
there is a third party spell that adds meat back to a skeleton. Basically the reverse of the spell that strips it off the bones. Then shape as desired.
Hit point damage: Can be lethal or non-lethal.
You keep your current total of "lethal" HP and when it hits 0, you are staggered. When -1 or less you are dying.
You keep your current total of "non-lethal" HP separate (reduced by any lethal damage you've taken). When it hits 0 you are staggered. When it is more than that, you fall unconscious (not dying).
You get back 24 non-lethal damage in a day (1/hour). You also heal non-lethal when you heal normal (lethal) damage from any source.
So to answer the question: yes, it is hit point damage. It is just not LETHAL hit point damage.
Anyone who is going to argue semantics of "it says that you changed your lethal HP damage from an attack to some unknown not specified other kind of non-lethal mystery NON-HP damage because the rules don't explicitly use a term I want them to use" must simply be trying to start something. It is pretty clear that when you say "you can deal non-lethal damage instead". that it is ALSO HP damage, just non-lethal HP damage.
While I am interested, I remain very reserved. Until I see it I won't know if it is more like Vampire, Robotech, D&D, ICE, or any number of the dozens of game systems I've played.
If it is too much divergent, it will flop (welcome to 3.5the). If it is spot on, we'll still need to "rebuy everything" we've ever bought for PFS.
An adaptive rule set and simple rules corrections (ie. a whole book of FAQ clarifications for current rules with slight changes made) would probably go over better. But you've been giving FAQs away for free, so how to package them up and sell them? I get it... but remain reserved and interested in at least seeing what comes of it.
It's already annoyed me that you changed "RACE" to "Heritage" or whatever... What was wrong with the word choice? Is it a PC updated version or something?
PFS back in 2012 (Wife, son and my's first official PFS game) - My son was told by the other three players not to tumble with generic rogue because "it never works." Tumbling UNDER WATER turned out to be the only thing that saved the entire party. On the fourth try.
(We would have all died, one by one, to the Sea Hag... or drowned).
most ignored rule in any game I've played: encumbrance.
I use encumbrance all the time. In fact, I have often checked over a sheet and laughed at someone trying to carry 400 pounds of gear. Then I have asked if they are really going to go adventuring with it all... then I ask how. Then I make them drop stuff (no 2000' of rope for you!). Then I ask for the modified character sheet. And I check it over again. Then, if possible, I copy it prior to gaming so the butthurt player doesn't just write in some crap they need on the fly and try to "pass it by" me. I might also mention to them Bags of Holding are available for the relatively reasonable price of about the same as their magic weapon (if any).
Yeh, I do encumbrance like that (unless all the players are well under their thresholds or are Dwarves).
Example of application: A group of 100 archers fire at a 90 HP creature with DR 10/-. Every GM I have ever seen will say "this does nothing to the 90 HP creature, even if they all hit." Per the rule (which, incidentally, is the FIRST SPECIAL HIGHLIGHTED AND BOLDED PART OF DAMAGE, as important as adding your STR Bonus, or Getting your multiplier right, etc...) if all of them hit, the creature would be knocked unconscious by the force of 100 arrows (which didn't penetrate its skin, but did knock it out).
Which, is an interesting "never been applied" rule. Eh? The obvious discussion here is "what is a penalty" - is it only from the attacker themselves (as the d2-3 example theorizes) or is it ANY penalty (such as DR and resistances and negation abilities) to damage (where you still hit, which wouldn't count cover and concealment rolls)?
To say an ability that has "reduction" in its name doesn't "reduce damage" but instead "just makes it zero" is sort of silly, IMHO. I know that GMs have never really looked at this rule this way, which is why I pointed it out. Is it being completely ignored? Or applied right (to only attacks which negate themselves out like d2-3 attacks)? Seems like they wouldn't have to bother telling you that d2-3 does a minimum of 1 point elsewhere if they meant it did 1 point of non-lethal damage.
Make them a dwarf (or another race with Slow and Steady), reduce the movement 10', give them Run (x5 speed) - and load up with 18 str, 17 dex. Pile on Dodge, Wind Stance, Lightning stance, and 300 lbs of valuables. Now you have the fastest, safest (basically invisible) transport service short of teleporting.
You could find a spell that grants the benefit, then use the formula to create a general item cost from there.
Anticipate Peril (1st level) could grant a +5 bonus IF the device could be constructed at a higher caster level (generally this isn't allowed, but with certain feats is). The base for this would be:
Continuous with use - Spell level 1, Caster level (1-5), times 2000.
As GM I'd give someone a +5 init over a +5 sword any day of the week... given that it is replicating a level 1 spell (that isn't even "Self" only like true strike) it seems like a good gold sink. Also, that is one of the restrictions on these devices, by the way - you should not allow them to replicate "self" only low level spells, or if they do, jack the price up by 2x, 4x or 10x because these spells are designed to be more powerful CASTER ONLY spells.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Why is reading the sentence, written in plain English, using an incomplete source.
"If you move more than 5 feet this turn" = qualifier.
The qualifier is not that "there have to exist people who it is effective against or you can't move five feet." In fact, you gain this benefit against all people it is effective against that might exist, no matter if you see them, if they exist, if they are 320 feet from you, if they cast a ranged attack through a gate.... whatever.
This is not like a spell that REQUIRES a target. It is like a spell that provides a defense. You don't lose the +4 AC bonus simply because someone doesn't attack you when you cast Shield, for instance. And you don't have +4 AC only if you are attacked. No. It grants a benefit (+4 AC) to the target (you) which is effective against (unless otherwise stated) all attacks. Simply because there might be an attack to which it might not apply (area affect spells, splash effects... etc...) does not mean you don't get the +4 AC bonus (benefit... ie. in the former's case = gain concealment, which per RAW allows a stealth roll). IF you move more than 5 feet, you gain concealment. The fact is that no spell or ability protects against everything. Warping it backwards and saying that if you aren't attacked by what it is effective against you can't use it is a poor reading of a simple sentence. IMHO. You could then make an argument that if someone casts anti-magic field and there is no magic around the spell fails because there is no magic to work against. No, the spell is up and running and waiting for any magic. Just like the concealment granted here is up and running and waiting for any ranged attacks.
The fact that any time you gain any kind of concealment you can roll stealth, is really what needs to be addressed by a FAQ. Because if it didn't say that in three different places (RAW) we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it does say it in three different places. If you gain/find concealment, you can roll stealth. Clearly RAW. In three places. If you gain concealment, though, it doesn't mean everyone loses sight of you? That is the question from the "nu-uh" side. But the entire sentence in Stealth that says if you are observed you can't use stealth is in "obvious error", since the basic function of stealth is to not be seen when being in a place that is observed. But it is there in RAW too. But the RAI for that is that you can't re-use stealth after you have been seen/broken stealth. Also, that one sentence would prevent anyone working in a group to ever use stealth, as their partners would be observing them unless they did the whole "cover your eyes and count to ten" thing... which is silly.
The ways to re-roll stealth are listed after that nefarious sentence. Find cover. Find concealment. Bluff to move to someplace unobserved (with or without cover or concealment) - note, this implies that gaining cover and concealment MAY BE OBSERVED when you find them. There are no other qualifiers on the "find cover or concealment" - no "in an unobserved spot", no "full cover or full concealment." In two more spots, we find that using any cover or concealment allows a stealth roll. Again, no qualifiers of "full", and obviously partial allows one to be observed... and even full concealment allows one to be observed (pinpointed) in a square and attacked (though full cover blocks attacks that are not area attacks). Unfortunately, these two spots are a little nefarious as well, as they say USING cover and concealment allows a stealth roll. Not gaining, having or finding it. Using might imply "having", "gaining", "finding", "throwing it at someone"... who knows. But generally, combining it with the Stealth description we have to say RAW says you can USE it if you FIND it. Is "gaining" it the same as "finding" it? Is "having" it the same as "finding" it? That would be the semantic discussion that is left. If found, can use, is RAW. 100%.
Thanks for starting this thread. I clicked FAQ.
Here is my reasoning for Wind Stance (and Tower Shields) giving the user a stealth roll:
Per all the RAW, sure it does. Stealth requires cover, concealment, OR not being observed. Not all three.
Additionally, stealth is not "against" anyone until they observe you. Meaning, you can roll stealth whether anyone is nearby or not. You can roll stealth while alone. You can start stealth while the rest of the party can see you, but your enemies can't. Etc...
Concealment specifically states that if you get concealment, you can roll stealth. It does not specify partial, full, against moose, against ranged attacks, against one person, against a group... any time you get concealment, you can roll stealth.
Concealment doesn't state anything about being used against a "person." It is against ranged attacks and melee attacks (per RAW). And melee attacks are resolved / determined the same way as ranged attacks. So the statement "against ranged attacks" really means both against ranged attacks and against melee attacks. Though I conceded that in this instance, it might only apply against anyone who can't attack you with a melee weapon.
Wind stance specifies in the description that it makes you hard to pinpoint. This is a perception roll normally (DC 20) to even tell what square someone is in. Which means, if you accept that as part of the feat, the person moves so fast you don't see where they went. Which is the definition of being concealed... you can't see them clearly/at all.
And that is the logical conclusion I come to based on RAW. As opposed to making up a story that it is somehow the same as Blur (instead of other forms of concealment). Nowhere is RAW does it say it is the same as Blur.
"something like: Rogues do ok in campaigns I've played in"
yeh, BBT and Justin are just Rogue haters. In a campaign in the Mana Waste, a rogue would rule most of the other classes. Especially a dwarf or half-orc with dark vision as a racial ability coupled with any sort of additional range sniping. The reasons guns work so well there is because without magic, mundane things rule. A rogue is a mundane class. And discussing mundane vs. arcane, which is better? In an arcane setting? The arcane. Duh. In a mundane setting a 20th level wizard becomes a low hit point NPC.
Discussing classes out of context of the campaign is really pointless. And haters are gonna hate.
Justin Sane wrote:
Yes, it most certainly ends this exact way:
Rogue can do XYZ better than a Bard. 8+Int skills, make a specific build (as I did the other night) that a Bard can't replicate with its 6+Int (given that it only gets the bonus skills in 9 specific skills not on that build).
The result/answer - Bards just sub spells for some of the skills it can't ..... blah blah blah... "the wizard gets its 32 wishes to make up for ITS shortcomings compared to a rogue."
Then set them both in the Mana Waste and watch the Rogue kick the Bard's ass from the Western Ravage to the Sea. Hands down. Without magic, the Rogue is better. A little worse on Knowledge skills, given. But otherwise, the "Arcane Bard" has nothing on it without the magic.
...what should I do? Rogues aren't spell casters... or fighters.. or... blah blah blah...
No. They are not.
First, you did the right thing taking a race with darkvision... oh, wait, you didn't.
Step 1 - make the Rogue a Half-Orc or Dwarf, if for no other reason than it then only leaves you free to NOT dip into Shadow Dancer 2 levels for dark vision.
Step 2- if you want a well armored/hidden/hitting rogue, take minor and major magic - shield, obscuring mist, or true strike would be my suggestion. True striking rogues are very dangerous when they apply a no save STR drain attack... repeatedly... that stacks. (A 18 str fighter who is wearing full plate will be down in 4 hits no matter the damage, as they can only LIFT AND DRAG the armor at 10 Str)
Step 3 - if you want a rogue who will eventually be able to either do as much damage as a fighter (though not a similarly built fighter due to BAB and feats), take a whip specialization, whip master tree and sap master. Now you are stunning/attacking/sneak attacking/knocking out/whatever you want to do to everyone within 15 feet of you. Lunge if you eventually get the feats = 20' (and there is another that makes it 25').
Step 4 - as a person with darkvision, get some darkness, somehow. Because most humans can't see you, you can see them, and well... Bam. Sneak attack damage (without flanking, etc.)
If only Rogues had fifty more feats they could do the whole dimensional dervish tree along with the whip tree and flank at 25' with themselves, striking everyone within a 50 foot x 25 column... alas, it is not so. You have to pick and decide what you want to be able to do.
You can also do a ranged version of a straight 10d6 eventual sneak attack rogue, and then sniper goggles and dark vision are your two best friends. Using a single feat (rapid reload) with a hand crossbow, and applying poison... of course.
Long thread about this last week:
Some people may continue to disagree and argue, but it doesn't make any sense that it wouldn't stop bleed... yeh, your wound is completely healed, but you still are bleeding like a stuck pig through the closed wound. (as it could be that you have regen 5/fast heal 5, and only taking 3 bleed a round if it doesn't stop it... for the rest of your life you could bleed every round and never get it healed, but never have fewer than max hp... stupid.).
Nothing in full round actions say you need a swift action.... but one might say that since the feat specifically says you can't combine the three to make a full attack action, that this counts for combining any of the three with anything else for a full attack action (ie. not one, two, nor three of the three can be combined to make a full attack attack with anything (the last move action, converting one of them to a move action, etc...). However, other full round actions might be valid, just not full attack actions.
So Charge, Deliver coup de grace, Escape from a net, Extinguish flames, Light a torch, Load a heavy or repeating crossbow, Lock or unlock weapon in locked gauntlet are all viable combos (and you could do 2 of them in total)... but a full attack is not.
Well, technically you spent the swift to use this ability...
Am I mistaken, or does the monk actually get 3 Standard actions AND a move action (with no provocation of AoO's no matter where they move to)? Seems like you NORMALLY get 1 Standard and 1 Move in a round. SO if this is just replacing the 1 Standard, you still get the other Move. So you COULD take 4x move actions (since standards can be converted to moves). Or 2 move, 2 standard (move, attack, move attack). Or 3 move (attack anywhere along the way), 1 standard, or 1 move, 3 standard(attack 3x then move, or vice versa)...
The FAQ makes it seem plausible to do use a 2-H weapon in 1 hand...
Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?
If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.
....but only through feats or other special ability...
Sorry, I haven't bothered to read all 94 posts in the last few days, but has anyone considered giving Timmy a whip, lunge, and all the whip feat tree feats? If possible, all the cleave and great cleave feats also. Then, once per round he could hit everything in a 20' radius. So he takes a minus on his attack for using an oversized weapon? -4? whoo... I went back and did find someone who said use one as a 2h weapon... but then also use the 2h weapon with 1 hand (if possible) at whatever negative that is, keep the twf, and whalla, multiple great cleaves in a round.
Also, with those crafting feats that allow you to get to 3.5m... good deal, now you can have your ring of wishes (use activated (thought), unlimited uses, 2.74m gp, slightly cheaper if aligned) AND your 800kgp tiny god too! lolz.
Hazards can't be disabled. Devices can. HOWEVER, that said, one must have an accessible way to disable the device. Either "Thief of Legend" (trigger and stop it mid firing) or actually have access to the mechanism. There are traps in PFS adventure paths (Council of Thieves, guillotine trap comes to mind) which cannot be disabled unless you get to the other side of them. Which makes them hazards that you would have to block somehow to cross. So don't feel to bad if you don't want to give someone a chance to disable something they can't get to.
Example, you can't disable a 10' spiked pit... you gotta go around. Sure it is a "trap"... but it isn't really disabled any way short of filling it with bodies. Note that if it were covered, the Disable Device roll would be to trigger the cover, without falling in, showing the hazard.