paul halcott's page

If you can receive temp hp from multiple sources do they all stack? For example, if you have Aid cast on you, Would Divine power add more or just replace what was lost?

Check here.

He's done a lot of work, so we don't have to!

Awesome! thats great. Nethys, thank you so much!!

Is there someplace this can be found? I know many of them are region spacific, but I am not a stickler on that aspect much. As it stands now, my players and I have to go through a boat load of books to find them. Just looking for a time saveing resource.

I've been thinking of buying the 3.5 supplement "Dungeons and Dragons Adventure - Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde" and i was wondering, how easy/difficult would it be to convert the whole supplement to Pathfinder? Is it worth buying it to convert or should i just not get it?

Thanks in advance,

Akatori

I have it. I ran it as 3.5 game. We really enjoyed the adventure. I cant imagine it would be that hard to convert, as the bulk of the rules are the same. Mny monsters from it should be eas to find already converted.

Personally, yes it would count as the fighter is attempting to break the grip of someone who has had extra training (i.e. the feat) in grappling.

This is the way I see it as well. Grappling is about more then just the initial grab, its also about holding on and/or controlling the victim after you have them in your grasp.

Back when I was in the Army, we would start on Friday right after the final formation, and play through until PT monday morning. We would catch a little sleep as needed and stock pi;e the food and snacks to minimize other breaks in the action. Crazy days. We hit all the classics, Temple of Elemental Evil, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors. My favorite hands down was Vecna Lives.

After reading the thread on entangle and invisiblity, it got me thinking. If an invisible caster casts an offensive spell (like Vampiric touch), does that end the invisiblity effect? I assume yes. Would I be right in that?

"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
Seems it depends om where the spell is cast.

Because while I agree it's lamentable that there aren't currently Monsters to fill every role in the Bestiary, I also find that to be an unrealistic expectation. To my mind, if you're limiting yourself to "Just Core, Nothing Else, Never Make Your Own Monsters", then you're going to need a lot more than one or two critters lying around to really make the Monk ability worthwhile, and there just isn't that kind of space in the book.

Joe, I see your point and I agree. I understand this is an international site for a game that spans the globe. Having said that, I live ion the USA. Thanks to our economy, my using just the core books is less by choice and more due to financial necessity. So, I dont have access to the books outside of the main 2 core rule books.

I thought from what I remember of the arguements about how bad the fighter class was in 3.5, the chief complaint was dead levels. Seems that this monk ability is very limited and situational at best. That would make it all but a dead level. I think the concept of we will put it in because we plan to make it useful is a terrible thought. Until it becomes relevant by the later books being released, its remains useless. Even after they are released, information in the core book should not gain relivance by something presented in a supplimental, optional book. Anything not in the core IS supplimental and optional for use.

I say house rule a replacement ability. Something with a similar intent. Maybe somethin g like a Paladins smite evil, on have it be a Smite chaos. Either way, while I agree it is broke and you shouldnt have to invent a fix, in the end, all rules are optional if the DM and his group deside they dont like them. It seems to me it is better to make a fix that fits your game then leave it as it is if it seems useless in your game.

Again, the question was aimed ay info on the ranger class they mention in the world book. I will assume that either it has not been released anywhere yet, or the idea has been shelved.

Twowlves wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

I'd say you can shoot a short bows, but not long bows.

Shortbows from horseback, yes. Longbows from horseback, no. Neither when prone.

Composite longbows can be used on horseback too.

This makes no sense to me. The only difference is the way its constructed. Why would that make a long bow usable from horseback??

Has this one been converted to 3.5 at all? Sounds like a fun one. I was a bit too young when it came out to be gaming, so I missed out!

It shouldnt be that hard to convert it yourself. A little time consuming, maybe. I am doing that with the 'Against the Giants'. It should be fun. Its gonna need much work though. One area has like 50 trolls in one room, a hydra in the next, and a dozen or so fire giants next to that. That area will need some revision work, I think.

On some levels the looser rules mean that the DM could choose whatever fit the story and mood, which was great for the hardcore role-players and storyteller-type DMs. But it also made abuse of power difficult, slowed down the gameplay something awful, and could lead to disputes.

I'm not sure I understand this point. If I read what you say correctly, actually Role playing in a Roleplaying game is bad, but blatent abuse of power is good. Is that correct???

It is and I'll say why. It's a 2 round kill in the best of circumstances; monster needs to move into you and is unable to chew through your pitiable AC for the kill. Monks are part of the one-trick pony world for the most part; sure they can charge-grapple casters, but mostly they are there to punch things. And as a one-trick pony, you expect way more advantages; Pally two-handers are a good example here. Instead, there's no melée class that you can point to that can't do your trick better.

That's the issue; people talk about the monk like they can do some neat flexible tricks that Nobody else can do; they should be able to, but they can't. They are about on par with a non-caster Druid without an animal companion, and just don't have the flexibility/ac of the fighter or the sustainability of Paladins. Of course their will save is a good bit better than the fighters, but even that is just on par with the pally.

I am not sure I follow some of the reasoning here. It seems to me the general opinion is if the monk cant kill the monster in less then 2 rounds, it is horribly inferior. At the same time, if he dies in a round or 2, that is bad as well. Am I understanding the logic here?

I knew that info was there. I was more looking for info on the ranger class they refered to in the campaign setting book. My reference to the lack of info in the core rules was more statem,ent adding to a question about weather this was evidence they just abandoned the idea of the class. Since that class grew in a region with no magic, I was interested in how that would change the base ranger class.

Please forgive my vagueness. I dont have my books with me.
In the world book, they mention a specialized ranger that uses firearms but give no details. The core rule book, IIRC, doesnt give any info on firearms (I know that IS in the world book. Has this been developed somewhere in another book? If not, does anyone no if plans are in the works for this? Thanks for any info you can give me.

Max Money wrote:

So I have a question; what do you want a new non-caster to be able to do? There are only so many ways to kill a critter without spells really.

I think it would be brilliant if we saw more non-spellcasting classes introduced in the future. We have far too many options for spellcasters already. To reverse the argument, what is there that wizard cannot do? Why do we need so many spell casters when simply selecting the correct feats and spells allows for a completely new concept? If we can create so many variation spellcasters we can do the same for non-casters.

I agree! if the wizard is the ultimate class after you get past the low levels, he should have no problems filling every role these other arcane caster class do. What is gained by adding more? Just about any answer given for this could be used to justify non-spell caster classes.

The table "Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values" has prices for "other" bonuses to AC and saves (2.5x and 2x the price for a "normal" bonus, respectively). I'd use that as a starting point, but don't be afraid to say "no" if it proliferates too much!

Missed that all together. Guess I should have read to the last page! Thanks for pointing this out.

I have a player who wants to make items that give a luck bonus. My first reaction was 'No Chance'. the concept of adding another layer of bonuses that stack to through numbers higher seems a bit gratuitous. However, I try to not make decisions that way. I went through the book to find examples where the luck bonus is granted. I found 3, Divine Power, Divine Favor and a Sorc bloodline ability. Granted, I might have missed some, but I tried to be thorough. Even if I did miss some, it seems that luck bonuses are hard to come by.

Having said this, are there rules for making items that give specific bonus types? If not, how is the bonus type determined if a pc wants to make magic items. And mostly, am I wrong for the base assumption that allowing him to make luck bonus based items will quickly create a situation that can get out of hand and therefore I should stick to my guns and say no.

paul halcott wrote:

Somebody did. They had rules for just that sort of thing in second edition in the DMG in the class discription section. I never saw anybody use them.

Don't you mean 2nd Ed Skills&Powers? I actually played a game with that, and it was brutal. Fun, but brutal.

No. The DMG. Pg 22.

lordzack wrote:

I don't want to have a Monk class. Either everybody should be able to do Wuxia stuff, or no one should.

A couple years ago, I was a student and had a lot of free time on my hands. I played many role-playing games, and there was always some distinction between the characters' "classes". I then thought about "what if"... what if there was NO classes at all. I liked (and still like) D&D, though. So I thought about a D&D-like system where every class ability could be bought in exchange for a number of prerequisites and experience points (there were two XP numbers : gotten, and spent). So, everyone and their pets could be able to flurry, wear armor, wield two-handed axes, cast spells, pray deities for miracles, and do psionics... in exchange for many experience points. Like "multiclassabilitying" ;-)

So what? So anyone could do Wuxia stuff after some training.

It never saw the light of day, though (I left school and began "real" work). Perhaps someone else thought about this and published it somewhere on the net... if so, be kind and tell me.

(sorry for the threadjack)

Somebody did. They had rules for just that sort of thing in second edition in the DMG in the class discription section. I never saw anybody use them.

I am trying to wrap my head around this. So does this mean if the caster steps up into the middle of his 6 melee friends, he can cast one touch range buff and effect them all? that one Cure x Wounds could effect the whole party if they all stood around the cleric while casting? thats seems a bit much.

To cast a spell from a scroll that you are not high enough level, you need to make a caster level check. The DC is Spell's caster level +1. Now, I assume the spells caster level would be the level needed to cast the spell on the scroll (Like, 5th level for a fireball penned by a 5th level caster.) But how is the caster check made? Would it be d20 + you current caster level. With the above fireball spell on a scroll (DC6) being used by a 3rd level wizard, he would need to roll better then a 3 on a d20. Is this right?

Thanks for the reply and confirmation on how it works. The bbeg will not be using a lance. I want to whip up on them some, but I think the lance would be a bit much. I just want to knock them about for a bit. You know, soften them up a little.

We have seven players in our game. Thankfully, none of them have ever been found of the companion/familiar/traveling zoo, so that is less of an issue. One Wizard uses Summon Undead from the SC, but only for the big conflicts.
One thing we do is we use a big white board. (You know, like the kind in schools). As the DM, I use a dry erase marker to post relevant info, and since its magnetic, each player has a magnet for their pc. For initative, They get placed in order and everyone can see where they are in the rotation. Its easy to slide the marker up or down if they ready actions. We have found that simple step allows everyone to keep focused on where they are and that helps keep things moving. The cleric knows he has two people in front of him because he can see it clearly on the board.

Not being too familiar with the original ranking system (scanned it briefly) I'd like to know what place unique class abilities play in the ranking system, for example the rogue's ability to find traps of DC > 20. I can understand rating PrCs, but does JaronK assert that as a tier 1 class the wizard is potentially deserving of a limit or ban in a "balanced" campaign? Finally, how does the class learning curve fit into the tier system?

Zo

Many of the "unique" class abilities are mimicked by spells. If you can cast detect traps, do you need a thief doing it? Do you need a fighters sword to kill the bad guy when you can roast him with a spell? My only issue is eventually, spells run out. When the caster has just used his last detect traps spell, and its just past lunch, what then? call it a day? rouges dont run out of find traps. Fighters swords dont run out of swings. This is where the whole power rank thing losses me. It seems they treat everything like a sprint and never think of marathons

I gotta admit, I dont get into the who is better then who debate on power rankings. But this does raise one question to me. If wizards are the top of the food chain, why would anyone want to play anything else. If they can fill almost every role needed, then why do you need the other roles at all?
Ever seen the old 2nd edition box set/module Dragon Mountian? The spellcasters were neutralized in there pretty quick. Bands of kobolds doing constant harrasment attacks. Didnt do much damage, but it did do a great job of limiting the rest the party got. No rest= no spells. Now, I am sure there are spells that would prevent that or even feats now in one of the 3.5 books, but it just showed that no man is an island.

So, I am planning on using the Cav. class as a BBEG in an upcoming adventure. I was reviewing mounted combat with a friend of mine. The question is: If the horse has the feat trample, and the Cav has ride by attack and spirited charge, do all of them apply in each charging pass the guy makes? Can the horse trample the poor schlep thats about to get knocked around by the knight?

IF you are not of a level high enough to cast the spell needed for an item, but you have a scroll with it, Can you use that and just take the +5 dc penalty?

For example, My 5th level wizard just picked up craft wonderous item. Now he want to make himself a bag of holding. The required spell is Secret Chest, which he cant get until 9th level. However, he found a scroll last adventure with that spell. Can he use that to make the bag and how would the mechanics shake out for it?
Thanks in advance.

As I read up on this more, it seems that, as a apell like ability, the act of using this ability in a threatened square would provoke an AoO. With this in mind can a spell like ability be used defensivly like casting a spell? I assume that if it can, then feats like combat casting would work with it.

Google Heroforge. It may not be perfect, but considering its free...

Greatsword and longsword? Using halfling weapons?

If you have three hands, I'd go long bow and long sword. Sure you do less damage, but you have everything cover from right next to you out to over 100 ft.

Of course, I jest.

One of the skill issues I have always had was Intimadate and Bluff. If you want to intimadate through force of personality, that should be a Cha based skill and be a bluff. But, you should be able to do it physically as well using a str check. As it satnds now, you can but it costs you a feat.

Cool, I guess I figured that that kind of stuff would be necessary. And I can see how having a few random items could make the game more fun.

Still not sure about the range penalty thing though... maybe I'm just overlooking something? I checked the index of the rulebook but didn't see anything...

Also, Happy Thanksgiving! Thanks again everybody for everything!

Every range weapon has a range incriment. That is in effect the maximum range it can be used without penalty. out to that range, ou suffer no penalty in its use. Beyond it you lose accuracy. For each incriment byond the first, you suffer a -2 to hit. Pg 144 spells it out pretty good.

Even weapons not designed to be thrown can be. However, on top of the normal range penalties, you suffer an additional -4 to hit. This can be found on pg 141.

In our game, the players keep them. It allows them to track where the have been and plan where they want to take the character. Since we all use some form of digital character sheet, when I need to see them for some reason, They just email me a copy. I like having my own copy of their characters, however. It allows me to track things like the real value of the gem they blew the appraise check on, or the complete powers of that magic item they found and have only sorta started messing with. Plus, knowing that I have a copy on file helps keep honest people honest. Years ago, we had a player who was making changes between sessions because he figured nobody would notice. It was only by accident some one did catch on. He got mad, said it was his character and he would do with it as he wanted, then never showed up again.

I'm playing an archer type character in my current game. How would the folks on the boards feel about a feat that allows characters to attack with a bow in melee without provoking attacks of oppurtunity? There is a first level ranger spell called Arrow Mind that allows you to do this. I was thinking of creating a feat that would allow it. Any opinions or ideas? I think it would be really cool, I just am not sure how to tell if it would be too powerful or not. It doesn't seem that it would on the surface, but there could be things not so evident that would have an effect on it. I appreciate any advice or insight anyone may offer.

I seem to recall an ability in a Prestege class that had that effect. Maybe the Order of the Bow initiate? Also, while I am not a huge fan of the 3rd party material, I think one of the Mongoose press books had some feats along those lines. Prooly in The Quint. Ranger book.

The rules say: No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum move,ent for the round.
So does that mean you cant move beyond your base movement rate? Or is a larger number, like running you get 4x your base?
If you do make a jump that carries you beyond your base, would that then count as a double move action?
In my group, the party is about to hit 5th level. If my math is correct (always in doubt), the monk, with the expenditure of a Ki point should be able to clear almost his whole 40ft move before he rolls the dice. A good roll will put him well beyond that. Knowing the player as well as I do, he will want to do the fancy kungfu movie flying leap kick stuff for the cool thematics of it, so I figure I should have my duck in a row before hand.

My first thought is if he tries an attack like that that takes him beyond his base move and manages to get the roll, treat it like a charge. If he is just covering distance (say jumping a gorge)it would count towards a double move and he could finish his move when he landed. Is this the correct reading and application of the rules?

Never mind . I found it in chapter 7 about not being subject to crits, but isnt this different then a crit?

So I did a little digging and drew some parallels to existing spells and their mechanics.
Rusting Grasp (Druid 4) says specifically it can be use in this way. If you go at the armor, you are fine, but if you go at the weapon, it says you will draw an AoO. I think I will use that precedent. If for no other reason then it might keep this from becoming a common occurrence. He can do it, but it might cost him.

As far as not being able to do precision damage on items, while I agree, I would like to be able to back my play with something more then a simple 'I dont like it so no.' Could you point me to it in the book. I have looked under the combat section and the rogue class description and cant find a direct statement of that. Maybe I'll check the equipment section next.

Viletta, I think you are missing a major factor. At some point, it seems this game became unfun for either the player or the dm. regardless of the rules, it wasn't fun. The player proving he is right on his interpretation or the dm being right based on nothing more then I am dm therefore I am right. In the end, it really doesn't matter. The 2 have come to a place they feel they have irresolvable issue with each other. If the player backs down, he will always fell he was cheated and attitudes between them will get worse, and in the end there is a good chance this issue could break the game. Sadly, the same is true if the dm backs off his stance at this point.

As far as an authority goes, there is no authority over our group above the decision made by our group. We know what works for us. We keep it fair to the spirit of the game we want to play.

You have the right to your opinion. Just remember, when it comes to someone else's game, your opinion has no value unless that group chooses to to give it validity. So far, your argumentative approach merits you nothing in my eyes. Of course, that too is just an opinion.

But spell resistence can be voluntarily lowered. Granted, it is a standard action and one not likily in battle, but still the option is there all the same.

Greatings all. A few weeks back I posted a related question. Now I am trying to work through the mechanics of it.

Basically, the party's Cleric has the Artificers Touch power through one of his domains. Now, he has started talking about using that ability to target the gear of the bad guys. If and when he does it, is it safe to assume that:

1) the power would cause this to be an 'armed' unarmed attack, much like touch range spells, and as such this part does not provoke an AoO?
2) it would be an attempt to Sunder, and as such this part would provoke the AoO?

If I am wrong on my first assumption, and he tried this trick on someone with Combat reflexes, would he be subject to 2 AoO's (one from attacking unarmed and one from Sunder) or is the sunder considered just part of the attack and as such is truely just one action with one AoO coming at him?

He has also talked about possibly taking a level in rogue. Would the Sneak damage also add to this. I have always assumed if a caster/rogue hit with a touch spell on a sneak, it applied, so why would/would not this be the case? My first thought is it should stack. Is it far fetched that his God might have given him insight into an unseen weakness in the item? On the other hand, as he advances, that could be a hassle to deal with.

Regardless of the oppinions on weather this is a good or bad plan on the players part, it is how he is planning his character, so please stick to the relevant details and avoid any issue on TO or sub-optimal builds or any of the other metagaming concepts.
Thanks in advance

Suit yourself. I don't think that rule applies in your case. In fact I think it rather ridiculous.

None of the examples attached to the rule even talk about the situation you are asking about. The rule is explicitly talking about walking into a narrow space between two physical barriers, among several other things that, according to physics, make these penalties absolutely out of place for your scenarios.

The rule says:

It only says into a space. No other considerations are give about why the space is smaller. It would seem that, in his example, the only reason you would move into these space would be because the ones adjacent where occupied. So, if they were trying to fight from that area, they would be squeezed in a tight space with a limited range of movement to manouver.

Disallowing debate is bad. It's the height of tyranny to refuse your players the chance to explain themselves. And it's saying, "I am right. I am always right. If you disagree with me, you are wrong, no exceptions." That's just not something the DM should be saying, particularly since it's entirely possible for the DM to be flat wrong, and interpret a rule incorrectly and in such a way that ruins the game that the player agreed to come and play, rendering their perfectly valid and legal and fair character pretty much unplayable.

It's abusive and disrespectful of the players; your friends.

While you are right to a point, I feel you are completely wrong in the end. From whats been said so far, the DM has tried to talk to the player in question. It seems the players style simply doesn't mesh with the rest of the group. You seem to be suggesting the group as a whole should be willing to compromise their enjoyment so one guy can play the game the way he wants because the book says he can. How do you see that ending? The one with the most time and energy invested is probably the guy running the show. Even if he is completely wrong, if the rest of the group is happy with how things are going, its not going to change. The best thing they can do is simply part ways on good terms. A drawn out debate wont change anything if the group as a whole doesnt like the one players style of play, legal or not.

The problem is that the only real nerfs to spellcasters are the spell nerfs, and adding spell options reverses those nerfs even when you comb out all of the problematic non-core spells. It's an old problem that non-core material benefits wizards and clerics more than pretty much anyone, but it's magnified by the non-spell buffs those two classes received.

Is there a thread here somewhere that lists or at least discuses these problematic spells from the Spell Compendium in PF? I have a player who has recently asked if I would allow spells from that source and a resource like this could cut down my time spent looking into the various spells.

Great! Thanks for the info.

It is never right to just kill his character off without any real chance to defend himself or avoid it. If you have a problem with the player, take it up with the player. This is a serious group issue, and passive-aggressively offing the PC will resolve nothing. At best, it will fester for a time to come and make the matter worse and worse. At worst, it will explode immediately.

Also, consider the possibility that he ain't the problem. There are many DMs who consider the mere act of playing the game to any sensible degree the height of min-maxy munchkining, when in reality it is they who are at fault. Just saying he's a munchkin ain't evidence. Put up his sheet, state some actions, say what's actually going on, or there ain't gonna be a whole lot of real help anyone can give you beyond knee-jerk bad advice.

I disagree. In the end, the DM is running the game. If the DM has 4 people in the group, three are there to have fun and just play a game and one wants every possible advantage they can get, it disrupts the game for the group. Not that the one is breaking rules, but his style of play doesnt fit the world the DM has created. There for, his character IS the problem. If he wont listen to reason when approached about it, get rid of him. We had a situation like thata few years back. After a while, everybody at the table started to have issues with him and soon after the game fell apart because.

As the guy running the game, he doesnt have to defend the statement to any of us that he feels this guy's a munchkin. We may agree or disagree, but in the end, if he feels he is disrupting them game, then he is. His perception is his reality. I can say this, just killing the character wont fix the issue if its the guys gaming style at the root of the problem.

We have a union plumber, an admin asst, UPS driver, a Mechanical engr, an Accountant, a Soldier, and a recent grad of a Pharmact tech school.

How about if you had an item like an Amulet of Mighty Fists, +1, and you wanted to add Flaming or some other ability. Safe to assume the same rules apply?

Farmerbob posted:
Yes to the first, and no the second. You can move and ready an action to attack if a spellcaster starts casting a spell. However, you cannot attack and ready a move action, because readying an action is a standard action. You could however, ready a move action if someone approaches within 5' for example, if you didn't attack or use any other standard action.

Then this seems confusing to me. Readying is a standard action. If you take a move action, then use a standard action to ready an action, How can you take another one as an attack? Or is it because, regardless of the actual action, it counts as a standard action?