tricky bob's page

That was fast!

Thanks.

For example Manoeuvre Mastery?

Ok ok.

So why is healing the dude about to hit the deck a bad option? That's in-combat healing.

Why is Channelling in combat considered a bad option?

I've been reading a lot of class guides and one thing keeps coming up - action economy

What is action economy for Clerics during encounters?

It seems to me that healing during combat is pretty much frowned upon. Apparently it's a wasted action. So this begs the question - what is the cleric doing in combat.

Obviously there are different builds but I'm mainly interested in non-combat builds. The fighty Cleric is going to be, well, fighting! But what is the caster-type build Cleric doing?

If Channelling is a weak option and casting healing spells a futile attempt to compete with monster damage output [at least until the Heal spell comes online], what is considered good action economy?

You're missing my point. My suggested Solutions are not needed for regular character deaths.
I was suggesting a way to deal with players that are deliberately killing off character to gain something. Players like that need severe consequences to persuade them from messing with the DM's hard work trying to run a campaign.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

As Roberta Says: If you lower their level as punishment you're in danger of falling into a cycle of deaths due to the characters being too weak.
.
.
.
.

My advice:

1, Reduce starting money down a level. Two levels if you want to make a point or be extra hard.

2, Reduce their stat buy fund by 1 or 2 points per death.

You now have players that don't want to die.

If those two methods don't work... it's time for different players.

Interesting thread. I would have thought [hoped] that by page 5 lantzkev might have grown up a little but alass I fear I've just "handwaved" by not detailing his shortcomings.

To the OP. You've opened up an interesting debate about the Monk, I think you're right, the monk isn't even best at being the monk, which adds weight to the general opinion that the monk sucks.

If, for example, you were a Catfolk attacking with your claws only and you have BAB +6/+1 do you get the secondary attacks because your claws are counted a primary weapons.

So from 2 claws +10, to 2 claws at +10/+5

I think you only get the secondary attacks with actual weapons but I'm not sure. Help!

There are some nice neck items for over-coming DR in the UE.

Natural weapons with good strength will punch through the other DR's. Remember you'll have 3 attacks at full bab and strength [dex], what you lose via DR, you'll gain through landing more hits. Amulet of Mighty Fists will magic up your natural weapons [imo, others may disagree].

A level of Barbarian [Beast Totem, lesser] would net you..

+2 Fort
+1 bab
d12 hit points
a 4th natural attack with full bab and strength [dex].

+4 Strength
+2 Con
+2 Int
Breath Weapon
Form of the Dragon [for another breath]
Blindsense
Claws & Bite
+3 Natural Armour
Energy Resistance
Great Fortitude/Blind-Fight/Toughness

...a little more than just +2 to hit.

My Bard 5/DD 8 would beg to differ.

AC 35
+21 to hit
4d6+30+2d6 damage before inspire/haste/good hope.

But hey, each to their own.

Nice mini-guide.

So many options, thanks for highlighting them!

The math doesn't add up to your wildshape AC.

How much have you spent? +5 everything! Can you really get all that for 240k - pretty good if you can.

I thought Armour didn't work in wildshape.

EDIT: I can't add up! But still your DM must be crazy - how on earth does he challenge your party, he'd need CR 20 critters!

I feel for you, as I have one also!

Mine also looks up all the monsters after every session and comments on anything that didn't happen correctly even though I've stated, on many occasions, that I change the monster abilities so that "out of game" knowledge is kept to a minimum and the Knowledge skills actually mean something.

He just can't help himself - which eventually lessens his enjoyment.

Use the Monster Advancer Here

I'd like a PF UA too! It was my favourite 3.5 book.

tricky bob wrote:

Someone's tired.

Boils down to, you don't get to Pounce, get over it.

Shorter Bob:

I can't back up my RAI statement, so it's "Because I said so."

I think you'd manage a whole thread by yourself. You seem able to ask and answer your own questions, and others by putting your own words in their mouths, congratulations, you win...something.

tricky bob wrote:

meatrace wrote:

Okay. Simple logic here. Let's try this.

Mounted combat lets you charge while on a horse.
Pounce says you get a full attack when you charge.
Therefore you can pounce while on a horse.

You can full attack when you charge with pounce, so if you say you can't pounce while on a horse that means you can't charge while on a horse since you can full attack whenever you charge.

If you can't charge while on a horse then the mounted combat rules are nonsensical.

So your options are:
A)You can pounce while mounted.
B)You cannot charge while mounted.

Your logic is flawed.

Instead of making baseless assertions, I challenge you to prove me wrong with the rules.

Arr, you one of *those* people.

The answer is C)

A simple *no* would have sufficed.

Someone's tired.

That's your example of balance?

No, actually that's yours.

Arguing for something that clearly isn't a go-er at the vast majority of tables just because it might allow X to do something like Y is weird.

Boils down to, you don't get to Pounce, get over it.

Ooooh the Caster Defense League in full swing!

How does not wanting to die of excessive cheese equate to caster defence?

Okay. Simple logic here. Let's try this.

Mounted combat lets you charge while on a horse.
Pounce says you get a full attack when you charge.
Therefore you can pounce while on a horse.

You can full attack when you charge with pounce, so if you say you can't pounce while on a horse that means you can't charge while on a horse since you can full attack whenever you charge.

If you can't charge while on a horse then the mounted combat rules are nonsensical.

So your options are:
A)You can pounce while mounted.
B)You cannot charge while mounted.

Your logic is flawed.

I am gonna disagree, I don't think pounce works while mounted. You are free to rule other wise. I will allow the charge, I will not allow the pounce, they are not the same thing.

.

tricky bob wrote:

Whichever way you think about the RAW, it simply isn't RAI.

You do not get multiple attacks at the end of a charge made by your mount with any weapon. Not RAI.

No offence intended, but do you have a cite of RAI? Since it's as intended, there should be a link to a developer saying "This is what's intended." Indeed, since mounted skirmisher says "If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action" that tells me there's already room for a feat modifying a combat condition (attacking while mounting) so how is it RAI that a similar feat/trait doesn't allow it?

Else it's RAIWTTB*. I know what RAMT* would be, but not RAI.

*** spoiler omitted **

**** spoiler omitted **

Quibble...

I think the vast majority of DM's would have a RAMT answer of NO! and probably a "stop trying to break the game, munchkinface" readied action just in case!

Why the hell would anyone argue in favour of this munchkin-ism, balance is the key my friends, balance!

Whichever way you think about the RAW, it simply isn't RAI.

You do not get multiple attacks at the end of a charge made by your mount with any weapon. Not RAI.

Creatures that bestow curses with successful attacks.

Ok, Dancing or Throwing does not make sense. So why would your own fists, elbows, knees and feet damaging your self make sense?

This is a classic example of... "How much reality do you want in your fantasy game" situation.

It's all magic and therefore all kinds of crazy.

Is it possible to avoid the smoke from a bomb using Precise Bomb?

It says "splash damage" so I'm thinking that Stink bomb would effect everyone within the smoke??

Can the Alchemist add any spell via a scroll to his Formulae book, regardless of Class?

stuart haffenden wrote:

stuart haffenden wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

I removed the link from your post. While you have the Compatibility License and OGL in order, you can't redistribute the art from the Pathfinder Bestiary.

Can you at least talk to James?

You can contact me at tricky.bob@sky.com

Ok...

yay!

Treantmonk wrote:

Instead consider straight Bard...very workable.

.

Dear Mr. TreeMinky,

When can we expect some APG updated to your guides? And will you be giving the Witch a guide of her own?

+1!

Bump!

Thanks Ogredude!

A wizard that chooses to specialize in one school of magic can prepare spells in his prohibited schools by using up 2 slots.

Does this mean that he can use scrolls/wands/stave in his prohibited schools? And if so, is there any penalty for doing so?

Can Divination be a prohibited school? I know in 3.5 it couldn't but I can't seem to locate that rule in PFRPG?
I see that he gets Read Magic for free in his spellbook but that could just mean he needs to use up 2 slots to use it if he can choose Divination as prohibited.

I have the download but none of the links before Bugbear are working.

Is anyone else having this issue?

For attack lines, the use of a comma and the use of the word "and" are equal. Had we been more diligent, there would have been NO commas in those attack lines, but as it stands it's merely an unnecessary extra word.

There's no difference between "Melee gore +16 (2d8+10, slam +16 (2d6+10)" and "Melee gore +16 (2d8+10 and slam +16 (2d6+10)." In both cases, the monster can make both attacks as a full round action.

Only if the word "or" appears does the monster have to choose which set of attacks it wants to use.

Thank You.

Question: Some of the monsters that have more than one attack have the second attack listed after a "comma", whereas some have them listed after an "and".

Obviously the "and" is an extra attack when making a full attack action [full round attack], but what about the "comma" ? Is it an "either or" attack, or something else?

For example, Elephant,

Melee gore +16 (2d8+10), slam +16 (2d6+10)

Can it do both, or either?

Also it does say in the Magic Chapters that spells can be researched, so as in a game I am in at the moment, I would ask th GM to approve the research of a specific spell not in the core before adding it to a list.

Good option, that way the DM can have a look-see first and judge whether Hobinta should have access to it, rather than open up a whole can of Age of Worms!

A private E-mail would have been a better option, imo.

You can also find them here: Tricky bob's HOUSE OF PAIN.

I made up the title for him... :)

Thanks Neceros!

Or just leave your mail address here and I'll mail you!

I've been tinkering with my character sheet continually for ages. It's an Excel sheet with basic calculations. Very easy to customize.

I don't have any Web space to post it on but I'll happily mail it to anyone if you're interested. Maybe one of you guys can upload it to some free web space?

Please state if you want it in .xls [95-2003] or .xlsx [2007]

tricky.bob at sky.com

No not every spell will be at their highest caster level. Potions, wands, and scrolls will tend to be lower. Also you'd pick the highest level spell as well... IIRC that's what it said in the preview for the Cleric.

--Vrock the Cradle

Sure I get that, but the BBEG usually casts all his buffs from his own spell list, as do many other monsters.

The spell DC is the way to go. For example, if the Wizard is flying around and the fighter can't get to him... the DC for his fly spell is going to be an easier target than 11 + his caster level.

Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell’s caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.

Wouldn't all the buff spells cast by the evil wizard be at the same caster level? So you've either going to get the first one, or none of them?
And,
Why would you pick: d20 + your caster level vs. 11 + caster level of spell

..over this...

You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area. You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends.

Isn't, 11 + caster level of spell, always going to be higher than the spell DC of 10 + Int/Wis/Cha mod + spell level unless you target the highest level spell he has?

A 11th level Wizard casts his highest level spell, Globe of Invulnerability [level 6], he has an Int score of 22 [+6], so DC 22, or Dispel check of 22 [11 + caster level (11) = 22]. Any other spell lower than his highest level spells will be easier to dispel targeting the spell DC rather than his caster level.

tricky bob wrote:

Paizo, please look into this. Hobby Games are far better [and no I don't have any connection with them].

We sold in the past to Hobby Games and would do so now. We aren't exclusive with Esdevium, so Hobby Games could have placed an order if they wished to, just like any other distributor. For some reason, they didn't. I've know their manager, John Maitland, for quite a long while and would have no problems selling to Hobby Games.

-Lisa

Thaks good to know, thanks.

Still, telling Local Game Stores utter rubbish about release dates is really not on. I encourage Paizo to address this issue with any distributors doing so.

I've had a look at UK google and a number of stores are giving next Wednesday as the release date. Maybe they have the same suppler.

If so, they too are not being told the correct info.

Myself, I now have 8 copies, ordered from one of the lucky few stores that did get stock from Esdevium on the correct day, and I've given a copy to my local games store... one of the stores that Esdevium didn't tell me about! Needless to say, they are NOT happy.

Paizo, please look into this. Hobby Games are far better [and no I don't have any connection with them].

tricky bob wrote:

My local store phoned me today to tell me that Esdevium Games [main distributor in UK] had not delivered any of the 12 copies he ordered. He was also told that the release date was next Thursday, and he would only get 3 copies!

I phoned Esdevium Games myself and asked if the PF core rule book was released today... answer, "Yes"!
I then told them where I live and asked them to direct me to a local store that would have copies... answer, "Sorry, all our copies were given to London based stores, you'll have to order one from them"!
They didn't even tell me about my local store existing! WTF.

6 of those 12 books were reserved for my gaming group.

I'm Disgusted.

Please use Hobby Games in future.

I'm sorry, bob. My LGS (in Manchester) had 30 copies delivered on Tuesday, but I don't know how many he ordered.

The store is fanboy3, if you're interested. Try www.fanboy3.com or phone 0161 247 7735

Yeah, Manchester vs. little town by the sea...!

My local store phoned me today to tell me that Esdevium Games [main distributor in UK] had not delivered any of the 12 copies he ordered. He was also told that the release date was next Thursday, and he would only get 3 copies!

I phoned Esdevium Games myself and asked if the PF core rule book was released today... answer, "Yes"!
I then told them where I live and asked them to direct me to a local store that would have copies... answer, "Sorry, all our copies were given to London based stores, you'll have to order one from them"!
They didn't even tell me about my local store existing! WTF.

6 of those 12 books were reserved for my gaming group.

I'm Disgusted.

Please use Hobby Games in future.

Since I can use a piercing weapon to slay one opponent and then, with cleave, kill his companion with whom he was flanking me, the visuals just aren't going to make sense.

Actually you can't! Cleave requires the second target to be adjacent to the first target, not adjacent to you! Great Cleave requires the same condition.

I can picture a Fighter swinging his Greatsword, trying to cleave through multiply foes...

I can picture a Fighter using a huge Backswing to make an Overhand Chop against his foe to deal extra damage...

But seriously, can you do either of those things with a Piercing weapon?

Can you...
Cleave with a Ranseur? [piercing]
Cleave with a Club? [bludgeoning]

I can see a overhand chop/backswing working with a heavy flail [bludgeoning], but not with a Scythe [slashing]!

Do we just apply the Feats and ignore these obvious gremlins?

Depending on your DM...

In the DnD V3.5 Players Handbook 2 the Beguiler has a Surprise Casting ability, that if the PC has Improved Feint allows the PC to do the feint as a swift action.

In my games, I had a player that really wanted this for a Rogue character so I "created" a feat called Surprise Feint which could be taken at 6th level and had Improved Feint as a pre-req, and allowed feinting in combat as a swift action.

YMMV...

--- david
Papa.DRB

Are you free Tuesdays?