packerfanjeff's page

I've read the past posts (some of them years old) about this spell. Seems very high level for what it does, but oh well.

Reading the spell description, it seems as if the authors basically threw in most everything that they could think of that this spell could help. My question is: Does it help with Spell Penetration? Given that it's 8th level, I'm assuming that spell penetration could be lumped in with one of the categories in the spell description (such as "attack role...since spell pen is a part of that...or opposed ability...)?

Jeff

yeah...the issue was whether powerful enough undead, by virtue of their power (how strongly evil are they I guess) could bypass it...similar in theory to the plus of a sword bypassing certain DR. At a certain point, a creature will be considered to be the equivalent of a +5 weapon which bypasses alignment DR anyhow....just how not how that is calculated. Our group (for a variety of reasons) are skipping ahead to the end of an Adventure Path, and so we are all going from having made 12th level last session to starting at 18th level for the final chapter. I was trying to decide if the 20th level paladin DR 10/evil was worth it or if I should take Ranger (to get a +2 vs the undead we are facing) or a fighter level to get an extra feat etc. Is there a table or formula to see how monsters are translated to that table to bypass DR restrictions (like I mentioned above)?

ok Sniggevert....your interpretation actually makes sense and would actually make it useful.

What the heck good is 20th level paladin ability DR 10/evil?

If I'm understanding it correctly, DR 10 unless the attacker is evil. Well - duh - isn't a Paladin ALWAYS fighting evil?

To me - ever since I've read the DR rules years ago, it's backwards...(just like bad guys have DR 10/good).

Know I realize that PC's get pimped in this since they have to have a good aligned weapon to get through the "/good", but, unless my DM has been running it wrong, the "10/Evil" was bypassed by any creature who was innately evil.

(As I type this, now I'm wondering if maybe that is the problem and we have been running this wrong all of these years? For example, if a PC with DR 5/Evil faces a giant or a dragon, and they do not specifically have evil aligned weapons...do they still ignore the DR 5?)

Jeff

exactly....really makes a huge difference. For a 13th level fighter, fighting himself (except for this feat), the stagger crit tipped it by more than 10% in favor of the feat (again...depends upon your crit threat range for sure!)

Jeff

sorry - was away for a few days.

I had the fighter fight himself, so that all other variables were eliminated. I admit that this is not realistic from a "what would you really face" standpoint.

regarding a post a few posts above where it's hardwired in. Mathematically, that is not how you maximize your damage, but to each his own. [DEPENDING UPON the ratio of your base damage versus the extra damage from power attack]

Why do I say this? Think of it this way. Yes - you'll do more damage with your first swing. However, the reason your total damage is less is because you end up missing more on your 2nd or 3rd swings.

So - let's say your base damage is +18...and PA adds a +8. So on your first hit, assuming you hit, you are doing a +26 instead of +18 (assuming no crit). Now, if you drop from a 20% change to hit on your 3rd attack to needing a nat20, over all, you are doing less damage (if you were to run this combat over and over again).

My simulation I ran did 5,000 combats (and I could do more, but that's where I stopped), so by increasing the opponent AC by 1 each time, I was able to see where the winrate peaked, which is how I was evaluating this.

note: if your base damage is low compared to the PA extra damage, then of course that changes things, but I tried to pick realistic base damage for the level of fighter I was simulating.

Jeff

Just like my previous post, I modeled a fighter fighting himself with Stagger Critical on vs off. Stagger Critcal (and obviously Stunning Critical even more so) is hugely worth it.

Staggering critical gives you at least a 10% advantage vs yourself...and even more, depending upon level and AC and how often you crit (i.e. it's worth less if you don't at least crit on a 17).

Strongly recommended to take that feat at 13th level.

Jeff

Hi,

I thought I'd share with you the modeling I did. I was curious when it made sense to use Power Attack and when it didn't. For example, is the plus to damage worth the fact that you are giving up successful hits? When? What Armor Classes? As I wrote months ago, I created a massive (more than a 32000 row spreadsheet) simulating 400 combats per sheet using the random macro in excel to do actual combats....taking into account multiple swings (if I wanted), critical hits, AC etc to see how combats would be affected. I picked a fighter stat and had him fight himself. One copy of him had Power Attack turned on and the other didn't. Then it would be easy to see when the PA copy of him won combat and when did he start losing combats because PA started to harm his chance of victory.

One test I ran was for 14th level fighter (+30/+25/+20/+30 .... 4th attack hasted attack) 180 HP each, +18 to damage, AC33, keen longsword, so critting on a 17). fighting himself with PA would mean the other copy of him was +26/21/16/26 but a +26 to damage).

Before reading the answer below....think about it. When would you use PA? All of the time? If not, how high of an opponent AC before you would say....um now....I have too poor of a chance to hit?

The break even was ~AC32. Surprising I'm sure. The benefit of the extra +8 is dampened by losing the +18 etc.

I ran a second test for a 7th level fighter. Basically the same thing. Greater than +2 above his base (best) ToHit, and he starts to give up victory (fighting himself). It starts to slope down quickly too FYI.

So - consider this your tip for the day all of you fighter types. Now, your mileage may vary. The lower your base damage (as compared to the Power Attack damage) and the results above would be changed too. For example, and I didn't do this, but if you were only a +2 to damage and your PA gave you +8 more, then of course, that rule of thumb above would be different, but I'm not worried about the outlier conditions of some no strength fighter using PA, so I didn't model that.

Enjoy.

Jeff

PS: Just like last time, someone asked for me to send them this spreadsheet. This thing is so complicated, many many long formulas in each cell, that it would be nearly unusable by someone, even if they were proficient in excel. For example, here is one of my cell contents:

=IF($B$5>$C$5,IF(AND(C11>1,OR(C11=20,D11>=O_AC-O_dex)),"hit","miss "),IF(AND(C11>1,OR(C11=20,D11>=O_AC)),"hit","miss"))

I'm not sending it to anyone.

right....probably so.

thanks

I agree....that's why I wasn't wanting to change....just turn it off for a it. presumably the celestial being is "intelligent", so my question seemed to have some merit and possibilities. I know I can't change from Acxiomatic round 1 to something different round 2.

summon celestial spirit...

Some abilities you can click on / off and don't have to use the whole duration at one time (many examples...Barbarian Rage...etc).

The RAW are silent on the Divine Bond. 1min/lev...can I click it on...then turn off..then turn back on during the duration of the 1st usage?

Why would I want to do this?

Suppose I'm an 11th lev paladin and pick Brilliant Energy fighting some giants and then a Spectre shows up. I would want to click it off when fighting the Spectre (since I can't hurt him otherwise) and then click it back on when switching back to the giants. I'd be happy to concede that the clock is still ticking (i.e. the celestial spirit is only next to me for a fixed amount of time).

Jeff

My character is a Paladin, and we are going into an evil temple during tomorrow's gaming session. We know that there will be evil divine casters, undead and probably an Anti Paladin (just guessing, but if I were DM that's what I'd do).

Since my Paladin could easily end up fighting the AntiPaladin, which means our aura's cancel each other out etc etc, I'm thinking that I am for sure going to have Corruption Resistance as a prep spell. 9th level paladin gets (in effect) a DR10 against the AP Smite Good etc. My question is to see if there is a better list of what else Corruption Resistance helps against.

"You grant the touched creature limited protection from magical effects that inflict damage based on the target creature's alignment, such as holy smite, order's wrath, a paladin's smite evil attack, or an unholy weapon..."

So, for example, I'm thinking that it would help against "Channel Negative Energy", since that is obviously alignment based. And while the AP ability "touch of corruption" would logically seem that it should be included, the writeup does not say anything about affecting (or not affecting) anyone of a certain alignment, thus I would say no (using the RAW). Unholy Blight, since alignment is mentioned in the spell description, would be affected.

I think I'm approaching this correctly, right?

Jeff

thanks for the posts above...I had seen the "temporary" notation in those spells but never understood the point that was trying to be made...makes sense.

I'm going to try to find out where "temporary" is mentioned and let my group know.

Jeff

I disagree. As I said in a different post 2 minutes ago - it's a question of what trumps what.

It's a question of what trumps what. Can God make a Rock so big that he can't move it? Paladin is immune. PERIOD. Anti-Paladin negates immunities. PERIOD.

The Paladin immunity does not say it works against everything but Anti-paladins.

I would argue that RAW is inconclusive at best.

Probably a fairer thing to do would be to say that the higher level char (which is usually the bad guy in most campaigns) would have the "slightly" stronger aura and would win.

waiting to see a FAQ on this one. To say that Anti-Paladin always trumps Paladin seems overly tilted towards that spectrum of equal (and opposite, diametrically opposed) chars.

The rules don't say anything about setting material components down, polymorphing, and then picking them up after you change though....

I've read a lot of posts - most agree (as did one of the designers) that elementals can cast somatic. My question was therefore about the third requirement - material components...which many (although not all) evocation spells require.

I'm in a campaign playing an Evoker and just made 9th level. I learned Elemental Body II. I have read the Polymorph text and understand the intent (I believe) of the spell components language. But why couldn't I put some spell components in a sack (or whatever) on the ground, cast the spell (say....Air Elemental) and then pick them up after casting the spell and then cast spells (using those components)? My DM is taking the wording literally and, so far, not permitting any work-arounds. Is this violating the spirit of the spell or doing a game unbalance thing? I offered to have him charge me an extra round of prep time to pick out a couple spell components and also offered to have him limit the number I could do this with (since, presumably, my wizard robes and all of the pouches for convenient spell component use would be more awkward when I'm not wearing that robe in elemental form).

I'm not trying to break the system, but rather, just have some fun with my wizard in situations where I can fly around as an elemental :)

Thoughts?

Jeff

so empowered, maximized scorching ray (say, 7th level caster, but that doesn't matter for my question), has what damage? 4d6 x1.5 if empowered only. 4x6 if maximized only. 4x6 + (4d6 x.5)?? I'm thinking 4d6 empowered really becomes 6d6? maximize the 6d6 = 36? I'm guessing, based upon previous posts, no?

agreed. Any maybe i'm being too much of a wordsmith, but RAW on page 565 say the application of any SPELL....and fast healing is not a spell. /shrug/ I guess you could logic it either way.

I would say that fast healing only stops bleeding critical up to the damage it can heal. For example, if you were bleeding for 4d6, would a fast healing of 1 HP per round stop it? Probably a more realistic (but more paperwork to track it) would be that a tiny fast heal would slowly heal it up but you are still taking the massive bleeding damage until it's fully healed. 4d6 / round is not impossible if you took four bleeding crits in a round (for example). Unlikely, but no where near impossible to happen with higher level fighters and haste etc.

agreed. The DM came to the same answer and no XP was going to be lost. He mentioned via email that technically dead chars shouldn't get a share of the final foe, but decided to keep it simple/fair for all and just gave out shares to everyone. We all agreed.

Thanks

situation: A couple characters were 1000 XP from next level.

Our medium level party had a LONG session and got lucky on a couple of fights (we were within 2HP of a TPK...but won).

Those couple characters (mentioned above) will be earning enough XP to push them all the way through next level and potentially into the next level. Yes - we were lucky on this fight for sure. But by being victorious (medium advancement table), none the less, this happened.

OK - so in 1st edition, you could get within 1 XP of the following level and all additional XP was lost.

I don't see any such rule in PF. Does that mean that a 10th level char (1000 xp from 11th) could become 12th from this session? (again - ignore comments about how it's possible to have gotten that much XP etc etc).

Jeff

oh i got that - I was I guess trying to game the system by activating it the round before combat (knowing it wouldn't actually kick in without a combat swing)....

so basically, could you activate it and not swing in that round was the subtle point.

we discussed this in my campaign, and the DM didn't interpret the rules to prevent personal spells from being eligible for potions...I kind of thought it did, but let it go.

ok - you convinced me....sound logic. Thanks.

Happler: if I'm for sure going to attack next round (i.e. I'm currently in the final round of prep) I don't see what different it would make "free action" vs "immediate action". Let's say, in the round of prep, I move points to AC upon my initiative sequence in the prep round....it would seem that my point and Tarantual's would be feasible/correct.

Description

A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.

So - does this mean that I can't use this "free action" until my initiative turn in the combat round...(first round)? Or, because it's a "free action", can I do it prior to my opponent attacking me (suppose I lost initiative this fight).

Second, if the answer is "yes, start of his turn = start of your action", then that brings up a follow-on question:

Even though I can't get the bonus unless I wield the weapon (see errata), that doesn't clearly state that I couldn't still redeploy the AC in a prep round, right? If I know we are attacking the next round, I would think I could redeploy the bonus in the prep round (which would then be in effect until my 1st action of the next round (first round of combat)) if I knew I wanted/needed it for this fight.

Thoughts?

Jeff

yup - reminded me of a fight not too long ago where the party monk fought another monk (who won initiative) and our party monk kept getting stunned EVERY round lol....well...he wasn't laughing :)

I did my simulation with bleeding critical and then compared it to Staggering Critical. Yup....no comparision (depending upon the Fort save of whome you are fighting of course). In my case I had the foe have a Fort bonus of 15 and trying to make a 23....so he needed an 8. Still pretty effective with a weapon with a good critical threat range.

I agree that fighting myself wouldn't represent monster combat, but I was trying to do a controlled experiment, having as many things be identical as possible, so I could see the effects of 1 change etc. In my mock battles, I count victories, so to your point Mike J, whichever feat helps the guy win more fights is what I was counting. Now, I do agree that it is situational and there are some situations where AC may not be as important....like....you are both near death and so you want to take the guy down or he'll for sure take you down etc...so just trying to come up with some good rules of thumb here.

I have a math brain, and am pretty good at EXCEL, so decided to do some comparisons. What is better? Critical Focus and Bleeding Critical (for example) or two other feats I might take instead? (Greater Weapon Focus and Shield Focus....for example).

I did an expected value thing first (assuming average damage, etc) and it was interesting, but when you start to take into account actions that have lingering effects (such as bleeding critical) it became tough to do that.

So, I went nutty and started building a combat simulator spreadsheet (generating random numbers for die rolls etc)...after many hours, and several version upgrades, I built an actual combat simulator to where I could pit my 10th level fighter versus himself (for example) and then change some feats on one of them to see how much more damage I did or how often one guy won versus the other. Then, to eliminate "lucky" rolls, I duplicated this test 400 times (filling up a spreadsheet) and then ran that 400 combat test a dozen times to see on average which combination beat the other guy more often, and how much a +1AC (for example) helped. Also, I could do the whole thing again at different AC levels....obviously a very high AC has a different outcome than low AC's where a fighter hits on a 2. I also ran different weapon types though (different crit threat ranges) to see how that played out.

Been a lot of fun - learned a ton of things.

One tidbit to share is that at moderate levels (say, beefy 10th level fighter here...decent magic....decent strength, etc) +1AC is better than +1TH.

Which guy won initiative in a fight was obviously huge (duh - makes sense when I'm pitting a clone fighting himself).

Also, INIT makes even more difference when you are both hasted. Again, no surprise, but what was surprising is how much of a difference winning INIT made. With hasted foes, the guy that won INIT won on average 20% more of the time.

Finally - Greater Weapon spec is better than Shield Focus which is better than Greater Weapon Focus.

And, much to my disapointment, +1TH and +1AC trumped Critical Focus and Bleeding Critical for typical fights. Yes, it's true, that if you were fighting something with a massive amount of HP (and somehow didn't get killed too quickly yourself) over time the Bleeding damage can really add up, but with most fights lasting 3(?) rounds, the bleeding critical damage ON AVERAGE doesn't make up for the +1TH and +1AC. Yes, if you get lucky and get a couple of crits your first round, then that particular fight would be one where you'd love to have bleeding critical, but on average, it doesn't pay for itself. Now, Stagger on the other hand..... ahhhh....shhhh....don't want my DM to see this post lol.

I'm going to do some tests now on how valuable Penetrating Strike is (which, obviously will depend upon how often you face someone with DR)

Jeff

ok - that was my reading of it too

ok - I've read the posts, several times. I've read and reread the rules, several times. A simple, clear, answer to an obvious question would be appreciated, to get through my thick skull :)

If a fighter has Critical Focus and then takes Bleeding Critical, and those are the only two critical feats he has (so far), and then crits a 2nd time on the same opponent, what happens? Does a 2nd bleeding critical take effect? Or do you roll both effects (i.e. 2d6 twice) and take the higher roll?

The confusion stems from the wording specifically in the bleeding critical text which states that "The effects of this feat stack."
That tells me that it should stack (with itself). On the other hand, there is language in Bleed which says "Bleed effects do not stack with each other unless they deal different kinds of damage."

So how to reconcile those two statements? Did the author mean that bleeding damage trumps the language in Bleed (since other things, like Rogue, can cause bleed)? Or was the intention simply to mean that bleeding critical stacks with other types of critical damage, but you are limited to a single bleeding critical effect?

I'm trying to decide between Improved Weapon Focus and Shield Focus vs these to Critical feats (to build the better overall fighter once he makes 11th level...he's just made 10th now).

Jeff

PS: yes, I saw the post and answers from 2010, but was hoping for an official answer....there is disagreement in our gaming group about how this feat should be run.