Eviana Nirgassan

starwed's page

Organized Play Member. 15 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


I was kind of expecting that to be the entire point of the archetype!

I've noticed several small inconsistencies that are obviously caused by last minute rule changes (e.g., the Sleuth archtype's reference to something called "inspired strike".) Perhaps this is something similar.

"Ignoring some logic; does it say that creatures with darkvision can't see shadows (either variety?)"

Regular shadows won't ever exist in conditions where there's no light, so it hardly matters, does it? :)

When pushing up, you're working against gravity.

So if you allow it, you could do something like: calculate the number of squares you'd move horizontally, take the square root (rounding down), that's how much vertical lift it provides.

I remember yet another related issue a while back: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ls6q?APG-Eidolons-and-natural-attack-damage

Note that the chart in the bestiary has very suspect math: 2d6 => 2d8 => 4d6

The average damage of that progression is: 7 => 9 => 14

To play devil's advocate, the rules say only that you get the +2 bonus when attacking with a melee weapon.

They do not say that you only count as flanking when getting that bonus -- and in fact, the rules state that both characters are flanking the opponent:

When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

You only get the +2 bonus when you make a melee attack, but Sneak Attack doesn't care about that, only whether you "are flanking". And the rules for determining whether you are flanking only care that you threaten.

So a truly pedantic reading of the RAW would say that you can flank, and thus sneak attack, due to snap shot. Also, it would be common sense that either you are flanked by two people or are not -- saying that one person flanks while the other doesn't is a little odd!

But the most important point is that none of this was considered by the designers when writing Snap Shot or the Sneak Attack rules, and so probably shouldn't be allowed. :)

Traits are an optional rule, and how many you get is up to the DM in the first place!

So it wouldn't be crazy to ask if you can apply traits to your Eidelon instead, but you need to ask your DM, not us.

Yes, because the mystic theurge increases your caster level. This seems pretty black and white to me. :)

he adds the level of mystic theurge to the level of whatever other arcane spellcasting class and divine spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Consider the scenario: your party is attacked by a group with a crossbow wielding rogue, and you are last in the initiative order.

Now, he doesn't come close enough to provoke an AoO, so he hits you with a sneak attack. Ouch.

Now change the scenario: You have a manservant who happens to be carrying (for reasons unknown) a bag full of rats. He managed to get a higher initiative than the bad guys. On his turn, he unleashes the rats. The rats scurry by you, provoking an attack of opportunity. You skewer one, and are no longer flat footed. The rogue still hits you with a crossbow, but no longer gets sneak attack.

It's a thought experiment designed to highlight an odd consequence of allowing AoO to negate flat-footedness. Personally I find it convincing enough -- an enemy provoking an AoO shouldn't somehow help you out defensively.

(There used to be a similar but more broken exploit using Great Cleave and Combat Reflexes -- when the rats run by you, you kill them all with AoO, then cleave onto the guy your actually fighting. It allowed you to get your Dex modifier in extra attacks per round, which is clearly ridiculous but allowed by the RAW. So a lot of us would recognise 'bag of rats' as an allusion to this type of rules abuse.)

There's a specific rule governing multiple castings of the same spell -- by default such castings overlap and do not stack.

This is an exception to the general rule that untyped penalties do stack.

Well, in 3.5 (and earlier) disjunction wasn't a magical effect in that sense -- it was instantaneous, and permanently nullified magical items.

PF made it significantly less of a nuclear option, but it does introduce this amusing quirk. :)

I'd probably house rule that a disjunction effect is not ended by another disjunction. But RAW it probably would be.

They definitely seem to stack as written:

Improved Natural Attack (feat) wrote:
The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category.
Improved Damage (evolution) wrote:
Select one natural attack form and increase the damage die type by one step.

Though of course, neither stacks with itself. (And there were similar feats/abilities that didn't stack in 3.5.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Probably the best way to handle it is to read the rules! :P

According to the half dragon template: "the half-dragon can fly at twice the creature's base land speed."

According to the monk class feature: "...a monk gains an enhancement bonus to his land speed."

So the two simply don't interact -- the half-dragon flies at twice the base land speed, and the monk bonus doesn't enter into it. If the flying monk does cause problems, remember that it has a default maneuverability of average.

I'd just treat the natural attack progression as going from 2d6, 3d6, 4d6. That's a steady increase of 3.5 avg damage per bump.

If the middle stage were 2d8, you have an increase of +1 for the first bump, and +6 for the second, which doesn't make much sense.

Additionally, the rules for increasing regular weapon damage go 2d6, 3d6, 4d6. Everything points to the stated natural attack progression simply being in error.

Abraham spalding wrote:
Also how do you limit a wizard's spell knowledge then? Does he suddenly get all the spells available on the spell list like a cleric? Probably not, but why doesn't he, and where does he keep his spell knowledge then?

That's somewhat irrelevant... what limits a sorcerer's spells known? What limits the spells a wizard can memorize per day?

There's a distinction to be made between forcing a wizard to spend resources in order to learn spells, and tying that knowledge up within a physical object which can be destroyed.

Personally I like the flavor of spell books; it's the easiest way to rationalize the cost and method of learning new spells. But it could be neat to have a side-bar of alternatives. (The wizard tattoos them on her body, or learns to read particular patterns in the natural world.)

At-will abilities are awesome because suddenly, you don't have to worry about whether a particular use is optimal. You can use them for comedy, to needle another player, or for a dramatic flourish.

Make a rogue's talent a scarce resource, and it'll probably only be used in combat. That sounds less fun to me... and if you've made the game less fun, and haven't solved any balance problems... what have you accomplished?

I can understand not wanting rogues to have magical talents in the first place, but am a bit baffled by those who are ok with mage hand 2/day but not at-will.