yeti1069's page

Some things I used in my kobold game with a similar theme:

Players tracked kobolds to a library. The shelves held large tomes on them (over a foot tall, some books almost 24 inches), and it's dark inside. Some kobolds are hiding on the shelves, between books. Some are low to the ground, while others are a little above, getting higher ground to-hit bonuses. They have cover against attacks, and would scramble around on the shelves to hide, or surprise players elsewhere. Some would be atop the stacks with alchemical items to hurl down at them, and crossbows

Their leader was a kobold ninja, Namtab, with Vanishing Trick and the feat that grants kobolds gliding wings. The kobolds had set up a couple of traps in the shelves, while a few hid somewhere else in the room, waiting for the PCs to get into the aisles before flanking them.

When the tide turned against the kobolds, Namtab went to a window, spread his wings, and made his escape.

In this case, I had the kobolds using a trapmaker's sack, which the players ended up claiming as a reward (though they haven't used it much). It's a cool item in any case.

I liked a couple of kobold sorcerer's with the kobold-archetype/bloodline? Where they can set traps of their chosen element (acid, since they're blackscale). Lay a few of those down, then ambush the players.

Use tiny traps that are a nuisance in the midst of fights (thunderstone, blinding powder, trip line...).

I like kobolds lancers or archers mounted on giant geckos.

Similar to the first scenario, the players followed the kobolds to their lair, and discovered that the entryway's rock was very porous (lava rock), some of the holes large enough for kobolds to stand in without squeezing. Some of THOSE they dug out into a network of connecting, small, tunnels, which they used to get above, behind, or ahead of the PCs to harry them with crossbows.

For one of the major fights, I used a synthesist summoner kobold done up as a dragon. This was a serious boss fight for when the players got to level 3 or 4, so it's a bit higher than CR 2, but it was amazing.

• Pyripnon, Avatar of Rhindvuthak (the black dragon), Synthesist 6, CR 5
In draconic “Fall before the mighty Pyripnon, Avatar of Rhindvuthak!”
If anyone speaks in a language he knows, repeat in that language
When using acid breath “I melt you like great Rhindvuthak!”
When attacking near a pit “Watch step! Big fall for big ones.”
If hitting hard “Kobold no wimp! Kobold DRAGON! Kobold kill!”
“Look! Kobold fly! Kobold smash and bite!”
When hurt enough to go heal “You wait, Pyripnon back soon. Make better,”
Then “Dragon kobold back for soft ones!”
“Rarrrr! IRK! Pyripnon go now. Eat nasty ones later!”
Init: +7; Perception +10
Speed: 40 ft., Fly 40 ft. (good)
AC 21; 13 touch ; 18 flat-footed (+3 Dex, +6 NA, +2 shield)
Acid Resist 5
HP 33+46 temporary (e)
Fort +6, Refl +7, Will +7; Evasion; +2 vs. poison/paralysis; +4 morale vs. enchant
Melee: bite +9 (1d6+4) 10 ft. reach, 2 claws +8 (1d4+3), tail +3 (1d6+1) push 5 ft. w/ CMB
Draconic Breath: 30 ft. line of acid (2d6), Refl DC 18 for half
Str 16, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 11, Cha 13
BAB: +5; CMB +8; CMD 21
Feats: Improved Initiative, Draconic Aspect, Draconic Breath
Skills: Acrobatics +3 (+5 Balance), Know (Arcana) +10, Linguistics +10, Spellcraft +9, UMD +9, Stealth +11, Perception +10, Fly +13, Craft (Traps) +4, Profession (miner) +2
Fused Link (sacrifice HP to prevent damage to eidolon’s temp HP)
Devotion, Dragon-scaled (acid)
Spell-like abilities (CL 6): Maker’s Jump (Dimension Door 1/day); Summon Monster III 4/day
Spells (CL 6): 0 – Acid Splash, Daze, Detect Magic, Message, Read Magic, Resistance
1st – (5) Grease (Refl DC 12), Infernal Healing (1 round cast, 1 min., fast healing 1, can’t heal damage from silver or Good weapons/spells/effects), Magic Fang, Rejuvenate Eidolon, Lesser (1d10+5)
2nd – (3) Evolution Surge, Lesser (gain Trip on bite); Create Pit (Refl DC 13; 30 ft. deep, 160 ft. range, 7 rounds), Protection from Arrows (DR 10/magic vs. ranged, until 60 damage)

Languages: Common, Draconic, Dwarven, Giant, Gnome, Undercommon, Elven, Orc, Halfling
Fly checks: Fly half speed or make check; Hover 15, turn up to 45 degrees and spend 5 ft., ascend 45 degrees at half speed, descend at any angle at normal speed, turn more than 45 degrees and spend 5 ft. DC 15, turn 180 and spend 10 DC 20, fly up at more than 45 degrees DC 20; collision while flying DC 25 to remain airborne; if fail any check by 5+ fall to ground
Tactics
Before combat:
1st – summon eidolon (before showing up)
2nd – Protection from Arrows (moderate abjuration)
3rd – Magic Fang (bite) (moderate transmutation)
4th – Fly to combat area
Once combat begins:
Always -- If at any time 3+ creatures are lined up for a breath attack, swoop down and blast
Always – Substitute HP damage for eidolon’s health at 1 HP for every 2 temp HP
Always – If eidolon goes below 20 HP, or real HP goes below 5 and eidolon has more than 15 HP damage, fly up out of range and cast Rejuvenate
On following round – if not hit that round, cast Infernal Healing; if hit, fly higher, and cast next turn
Always -- If spells are a problem, fly up and cast Resistance
1st – Charge down at a random creature and pounce while in the air still (if two creatures are near each other, bite farther creature, tail slap an adjacent creature away)
2nd – Fly up and Create Pit under anyone that looks/has been particularly troublesome
3rd – Fly-pounce at someone near pit and tail-slap them in
4th – Cast Grease on edge of pit or on weapon of anyone doing a lot of damage a round
5th – If not taking much damage, fly up, cast Evolution Surge
6th – Land and go toe-to-toe with anyone near edge of pit
If eidolon and caster are below 5 HP, and there’s more than 2 people still standing on the battlefield, use Dimension Door to flee.

deft shootist is really really bad, because it takes up useful feat slots, that could be going to improved initiative, iron will, improved critical, etc.

Also, you don't need rapid reload until you will be actually using a gun, like 5th level. until that time, use a bow. guns are really really bad until you get dex to damage, and all your feats work for a bow as well (deadly aim, rapid shot, etc.) It is also much cheaper until you can comfortably afford alchemical cartridges.

And if your character is being played as someone who is a gunslinger, and not simply as a pile of stats, do you hang up your guns for a while and use a bow instead?

Also, being able to avoid AoOs can be VERY important, especially when you're provoking 2 per shot. Not saying Deft Shootist is a great feat, or that taking two mediocre prerequisites doesn't hurt, just that dismissing it as really bad, when there isn't really anything that accomplishes the same goal, is kind of overstating things.

Yes, we have rules for fear. We also have rules for distraction, which can be a result of fear. One of those rules involves not being able to take 10.

Yes, it is simple and objective to say that none of the consequences of failure can be a distraction. It just ignores all facts of reality. People get distracted when they have more at stake. This is a fact. People can fail more because of this distraction. This is a fact. People tend to be less consistent in their results when they have more at stake. This is a fact. There have been scientific studies to this effect, and claiming that you can't be distracted by what might happen if you fail is just wrong.

And all of your "what ifs" just prove my point. If you don't claim that nothing about possible failure can distract someone, then you have to acknowledge the need for a GM to decide when someone is distracted and when they aren't. Like I've said, it depends on the circumstances, and making broad rulings can't help anything.

Well, this IS the Rules forum, so making broad rulings is kind of the point...

How can distraction result in fear? I think you have that backwards.

Don't claim nebulous "studies" in support of a point. First, this game is necessarily an abstraction of reality, so there's some degree to which going into the psychology of things is well beyond the scope of what the game rules should be doing.

Second, you can look at tons of examples where that's simply not correct--there are people who rock climb ALL THE TIME and don't die, even when doing something incredibly difficult. The parallel here is that they're taking 10, and their 10 is high enough to succeed. Those people who fail, I'd say, didn't notice something was amiss (a loose rock), or had other challenges that pushed the DC higher (the wind picked up--might rule that as a distraction--or the rocks were icy, or their hands were getting cold), or they were distracted by something else like a bird flying nearby, or someone shouting to them, or they became fatigued or exhausted, or they were trying to rush things, and were rolling hoping to get a high roll to do something quick/more efficiently, figuring the odds of their succeeding would be good, and instead rolled poorly.

The very nature of many professions requires that the professionals NOT allow fear to affect how they perform, or they simply don't acknowledge the fear, or don't think about the consequences. Have you ever gone climbing? You don't think about the two thousand foot drop below you, you think about your next handhold and your next foothold--there IS no drop below you. Haven't you ever heard of "crunch time"? That's when the stakes are high and you buckle down and kick ass. Now, perhaps you could say that's getting OFF of taking 10 and going for rolling hoping to keep rolling well, but sometimes it's simply casting aside distractions and taking the time to make sure you do something RIGHT. Maybe that's take 20, but it can't be if there is a consequence for failure. For those situations, we have take 10.

If we couldn't take 10 when there was some negative consequence for failure, why would there be take 10 rules? After all, if we want to guarantee success when there is no penalty on a failed roll, we have take 20, which we expressly cannot use in such circumstances.

Why is a GM deciding when my character is distracted? How does he know if my character's 5 ranks, and Skill Focus, and +2/+2 feat, and high ability score and +5 magic item ALL improving my capability with a skill haven't left me feeling confident even in the most dire of circumstances? Or cocky even? What if he feels like he can waltz past any hazard? Are YOU going to interject and tell me how to play my character? Tell me that he's distracted by the pit yawning below him, even though he's done that 100 times? Or that he can't take 10 to sneak by the dragon at level 10, even though he COULD sneak by the 2 orcs at level taking 10, even though they were just as likely (or even more so) to kill him?

On the one hand, we have your position, where you need to weigh every single action the character has taken, every trial they have endured, every decision they've made, AND every obvious or semi-obvious outcome of their failed check to decide whether they are permitted to take 10. Has he bested this challenge in the past? Has he done so often? Has he done something more difficult objectively (higher CR)? Has he done so subjectively (higher CR compared to the level he was at the time vs. the current CR against his current level)? Is he the sort to laugh in the face of danger (whether bravely or foolishly)? Is he immune to fear? Does he have a death wish? Does killing 2 hydras single-handedly equate to sneaking by a dragon when you have backup? Was he distracted by the sleeping hydras? That's either arduous, hard, or you're not being fair and relying on GM fiat (what you want to see happen) rather than on what makes sense for the game and characters therein.

On the other hand, you say, "Is he trying to do two things at once (2 skill checks), being attacked, rushing, or focused on something else (like a conversation)?" No? Then he isn't distracted and can take 10. Yes? Then he can't take 10. That's easy.

Is your issue with SUCCEEDING at these difficult/dangerous tasks, or with not having to roll for them?

Personally, I LOVE take 10 as a GM, because every now and then I can lull the PCs into thinking they can get by taking 10 and then they run into something with a higher DC for some reason, and they fail, sometimes spectacularly. As a player, it means that I don't have to zero out a skill in order for me to be able to do something consistently.

After all, the INTENT of take 10, is that a person should be able to make a standing jump of 5 feet every time unless there are outside mitigating factors, and it really shouldn't matter whether the intervening 5 feet is ground, water, snakes, a 10 foot pit, a 100 foot pit, a pit with spikes, or a precious mirror you don't want to step on and break.

If nothing else, just remember this: D&D and Pathfinder are about HEROES, and heroes don't fail stuff like that without good cause. Also, MAGIC! The wizard gets to skip most of these challenges by casting a spell...are you going to penalize the fighter who has invested heavily in his skills to succeed at something the wizard is doing effortlessly because somehow the fighter is distracted by the danger of failing, even after all the practice and training he has had, and all the times he has succeeded?

In response to thorin001, Cevah, and yeti1069, the reason it's harder to sneak past a dragon than a castle guard is the same reason some people fail tests even when they know all of the material: we are imperfect creatures. If you are trying to sneak past a dragon, chances are you are going to be terrified, or at least extremely nervous. This causes people to be less able to calmly carry out their task. That is a fact. It doesn't make the task impossible, it doesn't make the task more difficult per se, it makes the character distracted. If the character is distracted, they cannot take 10. That comes directly from the rules. And worrying about being eaten if you get caught is something completely different than "the task at hand" which is trying to move stealthily. In much the same way, thinking about the difficulty of climbing a wall doesn't distract you from climbing it, but thinking about the possibility of falling into lava might, because that is something other than the task at hand. Another separate factor is time constraints. These are most often not an issue, but, especially when combined with dangers resulting from failure, might be distracting because they distract the character from simply completing the task in the best manner possible. The person Cevah quoted specifically mentions being in a rush as something that could prevent someone from taking 10. And finally, yeti, a person could sneak past a guard and a polymorphed dragon in the same way because it's not about the danger. It's about the character's perception of danger, which affects their nerves and their ability to act without being distracted.

That's being needlessly inconsistent with how the rules work.

If you're scared because you're trying to sneak past a dragon...we have rules for fear; use them! Add the Shaken condition, maybe, or a circumstance penalty. Maybe activate the dragon's frightful presence and have the player roll a Will save.

What if the adventurer has killed a dragon before? Is he still too distracted to take 10? What if he's kill 5? What if he killed the last dragon he encountered in one swing? What if he's bigger than the dragon?

What if he's just the sort of person who simply isn't concerned with such things? Maybe he's got a death wish? Maybe he's a paladin and is immune to fear? Perhaps he has confidence in his friends and feels assured that if he wakes the dragon, one of them will take care of it quickly by pouring molten gold over its head?

You should never be distracted by the task you're performing. That goes against the point of the rules. Differentiating between sneaking by a dragon and sneaking by a guard is subjective. At what point do you disallow someone to take 10 sneaking past that guard?

If you alert the guard he will:
-turn and run away
-sound the alert
-which will bring more, low level guards
-Which will bring a tougher guard
-which will bring a tough enemy wizard
-which will bring a dragon
-which will cause your mission to fail (need to get in and out
without being noticed)
-which will delay your reaching someone being tortured
-which will delay your reaching someone dying that you can save
-which will delay you long enough for your soda to go flat
-turn and attack you with a dagger
-turn and attack you with a longsword
-turn and attack you with a greatsword
-turn and attack you with a pistol
-turn and attack you with a rifle
-turn and attack you with a bazooka

A simply, objective way of looking at the way take 10 works by asking yourself: What happens if I fail? That result, CANNOT BE A DISTRACTION BECAUSE IT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF YOUR USING THE SKILL.

Climbing over lava can't be a distraction, because the only way for that lava to be a danger is if you fail, therefore your whole attention is on NOT falling in the lava, such as by focusing on your task and taking 10, rather than being careless or taking unnecessary risks (rolling a d20 when you know you can scale that wall with ease).

Again, at which point is it distracting?
-10 ft off the ground?
-20?
-40?
-100?
-200?
-500?
-a mile?
-lava below?
-spikes below?
-Does your answer to the above change when the character is level 5? 10? 15? 20? Does it change if they have 10 HP? 50? 100? 200? 500? 1,000?
-monsters below?
-CR-3?
-CR-2?
-CR-1?
-CR+1?
-CR+2?
-CR+3?
-if you're scaling the wall to avoid falling into something dangerous?
-if you're scaling the wall to reach something dangerous?

What situations that involve you using Perception are distracting enough to not allow taking 10 on Perception because of what you're trying to perceive?

What situations that involve you rolling Appraise are distracting because of what you're trying to judge?

What situations that call for rolling a Knowledge check are distracting because of what you're trying to recall?

Do you see how inconsistent your viewpoint is?

If you want to disallow taking 10 to sneak past a dragon, come up with a better reason:
-maybe he also has to use Acrobatics to balance on all the shifting gold underfoot
-maybe he is also trying to look for traps at the same time

OR, just impose some modifiers: he's scared, so he gets a -2 penalty.

OR, you know, let the person take 10 if they want to, but the dragon notices him anyway, because the dragon has a very high Perception, or was just pretending to be asleep, and even though the character was focused on their task, they simply weren't good enough, without getting lucky, to avoid detection. THAT'S how taking 10 is supposed to go! You think you can accomplish a task with your tried and true level of focus and skill, so you approach the task in that fashion, but sometimes you misjudged, or something unexpected comes up, and you fail.

Take 10 doesn't mean you automatically succeed, it means that you are consistent on the tasks that aren't supposed to be challenging for you. If you're a neophyte weaponsmith, maybe you take 10 on a dagger and succeed, get cocky, and take 10 on a masterwork composite longbow and you fail. Meanwhile, the master smith is taking 10 and succeeding on that bow, but then fails when he tries to do the same with what he thinks is a piece of standard iron, but finds out is actually adamantine.

There are so many ways to deal with these situations WITHOUT neutering the take 10 rules that I can't understand why so many people want to arbitrarily deny players that option.

So what stops people in a world without a proper take 20 from just taking 20 times as long (like normal), rolling 20 times, and hoping they get that nat 20 jackpot? Because that's exactly what the take 20 rules simulate.

On a slightly more relevant note, I'm on the side of "unless you're in combat or something is doing something to you, you can take 10". It's just a time-saving mechanism to give you an "average" result. Lets me ask the trap-spotter for his take 10 and tell him what he sees. At a certain point this makes him able to see all traps. This isn't a problem because he's high level and focused on perception, of course he can see traps really well. And when I say "something is doing something to you" I do mean it has to actually be interacting with you. Having a conversation, throwing things at you, whatever, just something that actually requires your attention. Not "but it's a bigger monster so you have to pay more attention to it".

Then we get into "realism". Can I drive a car daily without causing an accident/running a red light? I certainly hope so. Can I operate an oven without giving myself severe burns? Yes. Do I still screw those up sometimes? Also yes, but I always have an excuse (and it's usually talking to someone). So as a fantasy adventurer, can I jump a 5 foot gap? Yes. Does it matter how deep it is? Not as long as I don't look down. Can I give a room a once over and not miss the plaid elephant? Depends on its stealth.

Yup.

Taking 10 is also about committing your standard amount of attention/focus/skill to a task. And, generally, we can perform the same relatively simple tasks again repeatedly without risk of failure...until something else changes things, such as our becoming fatigued, or being distracted by something unrelated, or by conditions getting worse.

Drive 10 blocks down a straight road with stop signs. Are you EVER going to fail that check?

Now, do it tired (fatigued for a -2 penalty to Dex).
Now, do it while it's raining (circumstance penalty).
And dark (circumstance penalty).
And the road is rough with potholes (circumstance penalty).
Now, do it VERY tired (exhausted for a -6 penalty to Dex).

Or try taking 10 when some maniac is swerving all over the road (DC goes up for defensive driving).

Similarly, your Perception check while driving should note what other drivers are doing when they signal properly, when you're spaced properly, when everyone is obeying traffic laws, etc..., but the DC may be higher than your Take 10 can achieve for some kid stepping into the street from behind a parked car.

You could also have a fairly standard pack of bandits (in the level 1-4 area) who are inspired to greater feats of prowess by a bard in their group who's perhaps a little higher level, or who has obtained some magic item that improves his abilities a bit.

Sometimes, just finding the right combination of buffs can make even low-level enemies relevant (to a degree). Plus, it can be satisfying for players to mow down a group of 20+ bad guys who are still somewhat dangerous (ie., they can land hits, can deal damage, but are going down quick due to mediocre/poor AC, and low HP).

Honestly, I think Combat Expertise is the worst of the bunch.

It has an ability score requirement that most characters who would actually want the feats locked behind CE won't have.

It's a gatekeeper for a rather large number of feats/feat chains.

It has ZERO interaction with almost every feat that requires it as a prerequisite (CE is downright detrimental to using combat maneuvers, for example).

As stated earlier in the thread, it essentially works just like fighting defensively, has some overlap with fighting defensively (Stalwart feats, for example), yet doesn't gain any of the benefits aimed at fighting defensively (ie., Crane Style, and numerous other feats, class features, and traits), and is often worse than fighting defensively.

It mirrors Power Attack's penalty vs. bonus progression, but at a worse rate of return, and without any special benefit to a combat style well-suited to using the feat (I'd probably increase the defense bonus for characters wielding a single weapon in one hand with either no offhand weapon, or a shield).

It rarely gets used.

Could add in some tripping to jack up those attacks even more:
1. Master of Many Styles Monk – Combat Reflexes, Panther Style (H), Snake Style
2. Monk – Snake Fang
3. Swashbuckler – Panther Claw
4. Monk
5. Monk – Extra Panache
6. Monk – Panther Parry
7. Lore Warden Fighter – Dodge, Mobility
8. Fighter – Combat Expertise
9. Fighter – Improved Trip
10. Fighter – Greater Trip
11. Fighter – Vicious Stomp
12. Fighter – Power Attack
13. Fighter – Felling Smash
14. Fighter - Spring Attack

Move to an opponent; provoke an AoO on the way, Panther/Snake/Parry chain, get to opponent, Power Attack and trip, 2 AoOs, back away from opponent, possibly provoking more AoOs from first enemy/new enemy.

If you can use an immediate action and a swift action in the same turn (immediate eats up swift action on the NEXT turn), you could conceivably get 3 attacks against anyone you pass on the way to your Spring Attack target, 3 attacks and a trip on that target, and 3 attacks at anyone you pass as you leave. You could also sub one of your AoOs from being attacked/missed while moving for a trip, which will generate 2 attacks if successful, so you could actually be doing 4 attacks to anyone taking an AoO against you.

So, move, provoke AoO, trip with Panther, Greater Trip attack, -4 attack against you, +4 attack against them now, Vicious Stomp. If it misses, Snake. If it hits, Parry then Riposte. If Snake hits and you didn't Riposte, hit again.

Power Attack hit your main target, trip, Greater Trip attack, Vicious Stomp at +4 attack.

Dex-focused gives you 1 stat for AC, Reflex saves, Initiative, ranged attack, melee attack, melee damage (and possibly ranged), and some valuable skills (Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Stealth).

Str-focused gives you 1 stat for melee attack, melee damage, ranged damage (and possibly attack with throwing weapons), some mediocre (but occasionally important) skills (Climb, Swim), carrying capacity, and checks to break things.

Sorry, I should have worded that better: Snowball's rubbish as something to bother enhancing with rime spell because it's single-target.

Most single-target damage spells are 'rubbish' really, although the rays at least are rays and get to count as weapons for Feat purposes and stuff; but then only really worth it if you're aiming to be a ray-specialist. Shocking Grasp's only saving grace is that it's a melee touch - so you can keep on swinging until it hits; ranged touch are worse in the fact you can waste the things. Better for a Magus, of course, with a higher BAB to start and the whole Spellstrike critical threat range and stuff (but then you need to be casting melee touch for that anyway).

I'd debate whether a 1 round staggered effect is 'a powerful debuff' - the target loses 1 move action... that's it. A Rime-blooded Sorcerer casting a Ray of Frost cantrip inflicts a slowed effect for 1 round on a failed save (only 1 DC less than Snowball too), and that's staggered plus an additional -1 penalty on attack rolls, AC, and Reflex saves, and reduces the target to half movement (rounded down)... and can fire that puppy off all day, every day.

YMMV, of course, but unless you've got 1st level spells to burn I'd not be going with Snowball (or Shocking Grasp for that matter, just to be clear).

Uh, being a touch attack is rarely a "saving grace" for an offensive spell, since most casters tend to try an avoid getting into melee range with their opponents who probably hit a lot harder--trading 1d6/level damage with someone swinging a two-handed weapon, or who is going to full-attack you is almost never a good idea, while ranged touch attacks allow you to maintain some distance. I'd say that, depending on how you want to look at things, and what you value, they're about even once you account for all the pros and cons on both sides.

Snowball is pretty amazing. How many level 1 spells allow you to impose a significant debuff at range without a HD cap? How many 2nd level spells allow you to do that AND deal damage at the same time? Rime Spell on Snowball is a pretty strong 2nd level spell, allowing a ranged touch attack to Entangle for a round, along with the chance of also staggering your target. Restrict a target to either a single attack, or a single move action at half speed, along with penalties to Dex (AC), to-hit, and making spellcasting difficult?

I think you're undervaluing Staggered. Forcing someone to choose between moving or attacking or casting a spell is a pretty good status effect. Disallowing full attacks is as well. Now, sure, if your target has pounce and a full attack, they could still use that if not too far away, but that combo isn't very common, especially at lower levels. And if you add Rime Spell, even that option is removed, since Entangled prevents charging. Staggered amounts to giving your side an extra full attack action, or preventing an attack, or allowing your team to get in better positions.

It's not the BEST debuff, but, again, we're looking at a level 1 spell here. How much do you want? Sleep is good, until you gain a few levels, and may not even be useful against a tough boss at level 1, and there are a lot of creatures that are immune to sleep and/or enchantments. At level 2 you have some better single target control options, but how many are as universally applicable? I wouldn't build a whole character around Snowball, but it's a fantastic spell to use early on, and a decent spell to have in reserve at later levels.

Gauss wrote:

Just a point here, the pro-slope arguments are missing the fact that you have to be ON the slope. That is written into the rule.

The slope only exists around the 10x10 pit. The 10x10 pit is not a slope, it is a sheer wall and as such if the pit is opened up underneath a target they cannot use the climb-slope rule.

For targets adjacent to the pit then, yes, you can use the slope rule.

Summary: you have to be on the slope to use the climb skill's slope DC. Adjacent to the slope is not what the rule is.

Please show us anywhere in the rule as written where it says you have to be on the slope? It's not there so you won't find it.

Also please explain how in the world can you be on the slope AND falling at the same time? You are either on the ground or you are falling through the air, it's not possible to be doing both at the same time.

@bookeeper, How can you defeat a 3rd level spell (mirror Image) with a free action (closing your eyes)? Or any level of spell that sets a target on fire with a water skin?

The power of a spell doesn't matter when it comes into contact with the rules of the game. If the rules say the universe works this way and the spell doesn't specifically say it changes how the universe works then the universal rules beat the spell 100% of the time.

Falling down a slope: http://youtu.be/Hn-4JziqcEI

How about looking at it from this perspective? Is there a rule for catching yourself at a ledge (a right angle)? That would necessarily be easier than either A) catching yourself on a vertical surface, or B) at a sloped ledge (greater than a 90 degree angel relative to you).

How can you catch yourself on a slope if you aren't on a slope? Why would you assume that falling with a slope within reach (as in the Create Pit example) be so much easier than catching yourself against a wall? Easier, sure, but 25 points easier? That makes no sense.

Closing your eyes to "defeat" Mirror Image isn't a purely positive solution: you end up with a 50% miss chance, and are doing nothing to erode the difficulty in hitting the target with Mirror Image up, and open yourself to everything that comes with the Blinded condition, unless you're only closing your eyes while you're making your attack rolls, which some GMs would not permit.

Your supposition about the rules of the game and how they govern the universe only works if you disregard the facts that spells often change these rules, and that there IS a design intent behind things, and a nod toward balance. There aren't many spells out there that allow a character to negate their effects through a very easy skill check, and even fewer that allow a character to semi-negate a failed save that the spell calls for with an easy skill check.

Why don't you start a thread to FAQ this to put the argument to rest?

Also, as has been said (several times by Kolo, in particular), single monster encounters are awful.

I've run several over the years, with mixed results, and have been a player in many more, often with AWFUL results.

There are basically 3 ways a single monster encounter can go:
1. The monster gets its ass handed to it thanks to the enormous difference in action economy between one monster and 4 or 5 players (not to mention that the players are all focused on one foe, while that creature has its attention divided).
2. The monster is so outrageously powerful as to be able to stand up to the combined might of several players that you're more often than not playing a game of death roulette where the creature can too easily squash any single player...and as players go down, the monster's advantage and relative power go up, making a TPK likely.
3. Miraculously, the fight feels tough, but not overwhelming, and everyone has fun.

Which of those do you think comes up more often? (Hint: it's not #3).

If APs are giving too many of these sorts of encounters, either do as Kolo suggested and double whatever you're pitting against the players, or take 5 minutes and assemble a small group of slightly weaker foes to support the big guy. You can just pull stuff out of the bestiary, if it makes sense, or the NPC Codex, or do a search on the d20pfsrd website (I do this sometimes--search for dwarf or kobold, for example, and you'll get entries for classed versions of these creatures from modules and adventures that have been posted to the site, giving you a variety to choose from).

Recently, I had the players in my game square off against a fairly tough dragon, but instead of trying to build the thing to stand up to the punishment of the whole team, I made it tough, then added in 2 kobold casters, and a swarm of weaker kobold warriors. That helped to divide the players' attention a bit, and bought the dragon some time. Truthfully, I think I could have added more of the warriors to the fight. As it was, once the kobolds were all taken care of, the dragon took a beating, even when flying out of reach of most of the characters, because everyone could bring their resources to bear on a single target who could do only so much.

If you want an example of a single monster that worked well (I thought) against a full party: back in 3.5 I designed a void mind (template) minotaur (I don't recall whether he was large or huge sized) with a reach weapon, a good attack bonus, Combat Reflexes, a big Dex, and the Knockback feat/ability, and placed him atop a fairly small platform in front of the only path leading off of it (except down). The PCs had to get past him, and he was designed to prevent them from doing just that--anyone approaching him provoked an AoO, and he'd hit them fairly hard, then get a free Bull Rush against them, knocking them back. A few of them got knocked back far enough to get sent over the edge, dropping some distance (depending on where they were knocked off) to the stairs winding around the pillar. One players spent half the fight Feather Falling thanks to his ring. The minotaur had good saves, SR, and I think probably DR. Players had to use ranged attacks, try to tumble through his reach, try to exhaust his AoOs fo the round, or hope their AC would get them a miss.

Those sorts of encounters are rare, and while this guy wasn't overwhelming them with damage, he was hitting them hard, and was himself very difficult to harm. Parts of the encounter were frustrating for the players, and it could have very easily gone sideways and killed a few, and prevented the rest from moving on.

I've used the Create Pit spell with some regularity in the games where I got to play a wizard, and I'll say that while I like the spell, it has been a mixed blessing. Kolokotroni can attest to that!

Sure, the spell takes one or more creatures out of the fight for some number of rounds, but the spell cannot be Dismissed, and it is fairly difficult to attack anything that has fallen into the hole, so what often occurs is that a creature or two gets taken out of the fight while the party mops up the rest of the monsters in the encounter... And then waits for several rounds doing nothing, because they don't want to risk falling into the pit themselves, and cannot move up to the edge, attack, and move off the slope during their turn.

There have been several encounters where the players were more annoyed with me for casting Create Pit than the GM was, because the spell left everyone standing around bored, waiting for the monster(s) to come back up, or it prevented one of the melees from getting TO the monsters on the far side of the pit, or ruined charge lanes.

Now, this wasn't too much of a hardship for my wizard, since he had the Teleportation subschool and could walk up to the edge, fire a crossbow quarrel or a spell down into the pit at the monster, and then swift action teleport 5 or 10 feet back so he wasn't at risk of falling in himself.

Of course, what often happened when everything else was finished in an encounter except for the stuff down the pit, was the party would array themselves around the pit and ready actions to attack as soon as the creature(s) rise to the surface.

There's a rules issue, and a logic issue. Glitterdust negates the mechanics of invisibility (concealment, and what goes along with that, and the stealth bonus), but it wouldn't negate the other piece of invisibility that no one ever mentions: being unidentifiable.

It negates the concealment, because that target is no longer concealed--you can see where its arms and legs and head are, and what they're doing, so you can attack and defend properly--but it wouldn't allow you to discern that that human shaped outline is Jim and not Martin if the two have roughly the same height and build. Right?

If I assume a fair slew of challanges it defaults to the latter because its incredibly advantageous to do so. No out of character knowledge required.

It's only advantageous until you run into something that you auto-fail on when you take 10...at that point, most people don't want to blunder into something taking 10 if they know that there is a chance they'll run into the same DC when rolling may have succeeded, so they will take their chances rolling. At least that's what most people would do.

I have VERY specifically and very repeatedly answered this already.

By ignoring or dismissing everyone else's points.

It was stated that if awake the dragon would devour the rogue. I closed this loophole already.

No you didn't. You may have said this in one response, but your general assertion has been simply that sleeping dragon disallows taking 10, without any further qualifiers (you say basically the same thing further down in this response).

If you need to get technical the rule is if you are in danger or not, not if you THINK you're in danger or not.

Which has been expanded upon and clarified by one of the game's developers (several times) to indicate how that should be interpreted.

Let's look at it another way...if you're climbing a wall, and are 5 feet off the ground, can you take 10? What about at 10 feet? 50? 100? 500? What if there is lava at the foot of the wall? Does the difference in height change whether or not you can take 10?

If you want to get thematic, you never have trouble starting a car until a serial killer is lurking underneath it.

No. It's not that the characters in films suddenly are incapable of starting their car when danger is near, it's that the CAR decided to act up in THAT MOMENT, because it's more suspenseful. It has nothing at all to do with the person.

The guard can only find you by succeeding at a spot check. The dragon can spot you (with blind sense) byThe guard can only find you by succeeding at a spot check. The dragon can spot you (with blind sense) by waking up to go to the bathroom at any moment.

I find the idea that you are not in immediate danger while sneaking past a sleeping dragon to be sheer torture of the english language. IF that was the intent, it missed by a mile.

First, the sneaking individual could be outside the range of the dragon's blindsense. Does THAT change whether or not they can take 10 in that instance? After all, now the dragon is just as capable as the guard of noticing you, and they may be equally as deadly, or the guard may be even more dangerous, yet we have an example from SKR of taking 10 to sneak by the guard, so why not the dragon? Also, even if you're sneaking closely past a dragon, you could take 10, succeed on your stealth, but still wake the dragon because it smelled you--it may now wake up knowing someone is there, but not be able to see or hear them.

The intent is that immediate danger, for the purposes of disallowing taking 10, should come from something BESIDES the task you're performing.

Part of your problem is that you're not applying the RAIndicated evenly across the different skills and scenarios.

I'm pretty sure the pro take 10 crowd would have issues with a lot of those.

The only thing thats immersion breaking is the characters knowing the difference between the other worldly being that's controlling them is saying "10" or rolling a solid polyhedron to decide their fate. Otherwise its a case of "This only happens at the worst possible time"
the PLAYER would know something is up because they can't take 10, but the character wouldn't.

Immersion breaking for the PLAYERS. Sure, good players can RP around their personal knowledge, but it's still not a great idea to tip your hand in such an obvious way. It's like someone searching the door for traps and your getting a big smile on your face, hesitating, and saying, "No. You don't notice any traps." Why do that? It should be a surprise, and stopping someone from taking 10 because YOU know about something dangerous that they don't does the same thing.

The concept of taking 10 isn't immersion breaking on its own--it's representing a character taking a little extra time, with a little more focus, to perform a task the way they should be able to repeatedly. It means they're not pushing themselves to try and do something better than usual.

By your reading, someone putting a gun to your head and shooting you if you miss the freethrow isn't a threat, because the freethrow is directly related to the consequences. As long as you make the freethrow you're fine, therefore you can take 10.

No. The gun pointed at their head is completely separate from taking the shot. It's being added in, and would count as an immediate danger and distraction.

Consider this...if you use climb, you'll be climbing something, and will almost always be in danger of falling some distance and getting hurt.

If you are using stealth, you are NECESSARILY trying to sneak past SOMETHING, and the consequence for failure will almost always be unpleasant, and will usually be dangerous.

When making a free throw, you NEVER have a gun pointed to your head, so that is clearly not something that is part and parcel to the task.

Here's what you do:

Look at the party's level. Select a relative difficulty (normal, hard, epic), which adjusts the CR you're looking at. Use challenges that fall within that CR. See what happens.

If a character has invested enough into a skill to beat, say, a trap DC by taking 10, you can mix in a couple of more dangerous traps. That doesn't invalidate their investment, and doesn't conflict with the idea of taking 10. In fact, if you have some trap DCs that are player's skill -5, some that are player's skill, some that are player's skill +2, and some that are player's skill +5, you'll have a fair distribution of results. If they take 10, they'll disable the first two, fail to disable the third, but not set off the trap (and can then roll), and fail to disable the last and set off the trap. If they encounter any traps after that last one, the chance of their taking 10 goes down, because they're now concerned about blowing it on another trap. That then means that their chance of failing on the rest of the traps goes up, because now, rather than remaining coolheaded and relying on their experience, they're a little uncertain, and are rolling instead of taking 10.

BigNorseWolf, your concerns with taking 10 only apply if the players have out-of-character knowledge of the specific challenges, or always take 10 regardless of outside circumstances. The first is possible, but you, as GM, get to make behind the scenes alterations that can throw their assumptions out the window, and few players ever take 10 all the time, because they know that they will occasionally run into tasks for which a 10 will result in failure, and because most players enjoy rolling dice.

As an example from my own game, the party rogue had been forgetting to take 10 for several traps and failed a couple dramatically, so he started taking 10, and managed to succeed on some traps that I wasn't super concerned with, while for some others he failed to disable the trap, but since he didn't set it off had a fair idea of what the DC was, and on some he succeeded when he rolled, and on some others he rolled terribly and set the trap off. Then when he took 10 on a trap that I, as GM, really wanted to see get set off at least once, he failed, because I'd used a spell on that trap raising its DC by 5.

Onto other points:

Your dismissing the guard example as not being equivalent to the dragon doesn't make any sense. A dragon isn't necessarily any more or less dangerous than a guard--you don't know if the guard is a polymorphed dragon, or is 10 levels higher than you, or will signal to the dragon you didn't see, just as you don't know if the dragon you're sneaking past is a low enough CR to not be all that dangerous, or if it happens to be uncommonly friendly.

SKR's point about distractions besides the task you're performing indicates that something directly related to the skill you're using shouldn't prevent you from taking 10. Something you're sneaking past figures directly into your using stealth. Jumping over something, whether dangerous or not, figures directly into your using Acrobatics. There is no difference between leaping a chasm with spikes and lava at the bottom, and sneaking past a guard carrying a concealed bazooka, or sneaking past a sleeping dragon.

If you want examples of other things, besides combat, that could interfere with a check...
-a noticed trap
-a trap that has gone off and is continuous (maybe continuously firing darts through the area you need to sneak)
-having to also carry something important/fragile/dangerous while sneaking
-communicating telepathically with your team
-trying to appraise the loot the dragon is sleeping on while you're sneaking
-having to balance at the same time, because you're trying to move stealthy across a narrow ledge, or a slippery surface
-or climbing while sneaking

There are plenty of things that can prevent a character from taking 10 on a check, but they should be unrelated to that check, not the REASON you're rolling the skill in the first place.

Allowing and disallowing the usage of the take 10 action based on your (the GM's) perception of what is and isn't a distraction can be immersion breaking or confusing for players. YOU know that the thing they want to sneak past is exceptionally dangerous, but they don't, so can they take 10 or not?

Using the dragon example...can they take 10 if they don't know the dragon is there, but they know that there's a guard? What if they just know that there's SOMETHING nearby, but don't know what. If they just think they're sneaking past a guard, can they take 10 or not? Would you stop a player who wished to take 10 in that circumstance to tell them that there is more danger present than they know about?

Wouldn't it be better to allow them to take 10, and THEN have them discover there was something else to worry about there? They sneak by the guard, but wake the dragon overhead, or they sneak by the dragon, while blundering into the trap they didn't notice, or they take 10, because they are confident in their ability to stealth, but in this case they've underestimated their opposition and fail.

This is how take 10 is supposed to work--it's a decision on the player's part based on their confidence and the circumstances. That's why OTHER things can be distracting: you, as GM, can fairly disallow taking 10 by indicating the darts flying through the area you need to traverse, or the trap trigger they noticed when they approached, or the additional concentration required to also maintain their balance crossing that narrow, rain-slick walkway without giving away any unknown details about the task they're trying to accomplish.

In the case of making a jump, think of taking 10 as taking a moment to judge the distant, planting your feet properly, and leaping with the form you've practiced, while having to roll means you're making that leap without dropping into routine, you're just leaving the ground and relying on your experience to get you to the other side.

As another example, you could compare taking 10 to basketball, where taking 10 is liking making a free throw. Players have a set routine that they go through every time they take a shot, say, bringing both feet up to the free throw line so their toes touch it, dribble the ball once, then slide one foot back and to the side just so. And a player who is skilled enough, will make that shot nearly every time. "But wait!" you say, "even the best shooters miss on occasion." Well, sure...that's because they're fatigued (and dropping their Str/Dex has lowered their skill below auto-success when taking 10), or they're distracted by the crowd (maybe a -2 circumstance penalty), or are concerned with the standing of the score between the two teams, and their concentration falters, so maybe they have to roll, or take a circumstance penalty.

Now, look at a player during normal play, standing at the free throw line when they receive a pass, and then shoot. They're not taking those extra steps from before to line up the shot and fall into an established rhythm, so they can't take 10, despite the fact that they are essentially taking the same shot as before. You could say that this is due to the danger of "combat", but if there isn't a defender nearby, they may be unable to take 10 simply because they don't have the time to line up properly (remember, taking 10 also generally requires more time for the task).

Parachute pants that cast feather fall 3/days when you fall

And if you shout the command word: "Stop!" hammers fly forth.

Also, if the dragon has gathered any intel on the party, and one of the casters often use a spell that is on the dragon's spell list, consider letting the dragon have a Ring of Counterspells charged with that spell.

Some good thoughts and suggestions!

Mage Armor is going to be there mostly to get the dragon's AC into the right range for characters to not be hitting him too frequently, although, given the research front, I may lean toward Shield: the sorcerer they had with them previously killed the dragon's avatar (a kobold synthesist summoner whose eidolon was designed to mimic the dragon: wings, long neck, bite, claws, acid breath weapon) and a few other notable foes with Magic Missile as the final shot (the avatar was slain as it was trying to escape, and had out distanced all other attacks available at the time), so he may want to gird himself against that.

He'd have received some information about the PCs, but not too long before they arrive...maybe 2 or 3 days, and would get some reports of what's been going on in the lair on the way in (the PCs haven't managed to kill off everything they've fought, and survivors have escaped late in battle).

I like the connected pools of water idea--the dragon could dive off the dais, spend a round or two underwater...maybe he has some way to heal himself down there? And then resurface elsewhere. It could be connected pools, or just a large, deep pool over which the dais extends like a shelf, rather than springing up from the bottom like an island...

For this fight I do want to play the dragon fairly intelligently. I know that he's only got a 10 Int, unless I bump that with the other age category stuff I'm incorporating (a possibility, since he's going to be around 200 years old). The primary reasons are that, in the past, of the few dragons we've fought in our D&D "careers" few of them have been much more than brutes with a nasty breath weapon (I haven't run a dragon fight before, and the other frequent DM in our group handles fluff and flavor much better than mechanics and encounter design), and the players have acknowledged this a few times during the sessions leading up to this encounter, citing both the basically animal-level intellect his dragons have exhibited, and their assumption/assurance that MY dragon is going to be played to the best of its capabilities, since I put more thought into how creatures should behave, and into designing interesting, varied, and challenging encounters. So, sure, I could soften up the dragon a bit by playing it down somewhat, but I feel like I really want to give them what they've been expecting, even hoping for: a nasty, intelligent, incredibly dangerous, and deadly dragon fight. That's why I started the thread...I wanted some outside input, and some people to bounce ideas off of to get my own thoughts rolling.

That said, I think having the dragon devote some energy toward the dwarves is reasonable, especially since it was dwarves that slew his father two centuries ago...and they're going to remind him of that all through the fight.

I feel like Globe, while appropriate, would just be too punishing for half the party. The oracle has Dispel Magic, so it might be worth tossing out something of this caliber that he can deal with in that way, but I'm not sure I want to go to this extreme--it leaves the witch with nothing but Hexes (and he's taken Flight and Healing, so I think he only has Evil Eye as an offensive Hex...maybe Cackle, but I'm not sure), basically nothing else for the oracle to do, but Dispel, and really nothing for the sorcerer. All of that said, I think I also may want to save this for when they fight the lich wizard down the line; he's definitely more casting-focused than the dragon, so something like that would be more thematic there.

I'd forgotten that Confusion isn't single target, and actually hits an area...that sounds pretty good! Between the NPC dwarf mooks, the PCs, and the NPC dwarf heroes (and maybe some errant kobolds for comedy), that could be fun. Definitely leaning in that direction now.

Wall of Ice is also a pretty decent one, but I may save this for when they head north and are fighting more cold-themed foes.

I'd similarly forgotten that Dispel Magic lost its AoE version to an exclusive deal with Greater Dispel. Trying to think of which spells would be important enough that he'd want to Dispel them: the oracle has Aqueous Orb, which isn't going to do much to the dragon, but it will wreak hell with his minions, the sorceress has Glitterdust and Flaming Sphere (and with a fire damage focus with her bloodline, it can be fairly dangerous), and they're likely to all have up Resist Acid (10). Still, the dragon has good saves and SR, so Dispel may not be necessary for anything but stripping their Resist Energy, and that's not critical.

Aqueous Orb...part of me is tempted to use it, since the party has just started employing it and have discovered how ridiculously incredible it is (they got a taste of it a while back when I used it, and nearly drowned one of them...though they finished the fight by dropping the wizard who cast it into his own Orb, where he promptly drowned to death), but it's also an incredibly dangerous spell, and I'm not sure I want to add that into this fight. Although...they DO have a few items that can allow them to stay underwater for a long period of time without drowning...

Suggestion is a possibility, as is Slow--the latter is especially attractive (from my perspective) because I've got so many characters with multiple attacks in the group (the range has 2 claw attacks, the teifling has TWF and a bite he only just realized he could combine with his shortswords, the monk has flurry, and the fighter has his second iterative).

I had considered Stinking Cloud, but I've noticed that, for the most part, making a character nauseous for any period of time just totally deflates them at the table.

Use terrain in your encounters. Put archers and spellcasters on elevated terrain (on a balcony, a branch, a ledge, up a hill, on top of a flying mount, etc...).

Throw in some difficult terrain to make charging and 5-ft stepping difficult.

Include obstacles that provide cover and break up charge lanes. Also useful can be narrow spaces too small for PCs to get through without squeezing, but large enough for their smaller opponents to move through easily.

Include hazardous terrain (fire, pits, etc...) that characters (PCs or NPCs) can be bullrushed into, or that have to be avoided. Sticking those archers and casters on the other side of a large hazard works, too.

Mix traps INTO your combat encounters. I had one encounter that I ran where the players were fighting in a hallway beset on both sides by minotaurs when the floor opened up beneath them, but it wasn't just a pit trap--it was two adjacent pit traps with a wall separating them. One player managed to avoid the traps and was standing on the narrow ledge dividing the two traps, while other characters were outside the pits on either side fighting the minotaurs who were trying to bullrush them into the pits. A couple of players who fell in opposite pits tossed a rope over the dividing wall to the other character who acted as an anchor so the other player could climb out of his pit, then pull up the second character.

Another encounter I ran included a spiked floor trap that, when the spikes came up, pinned characters in place if they got hit by the spikes. Meanwhile, there were undead with reach weapons standing outside the dangerous area, and one crawling on the walls and ceiling all attacking the now immobilized party. Some of the undead were behind a defensive barrier (imagine replacing the glass screen at your local bank with bars), and the switch for activating/deactivating the trap was back there with them.

When you use spellcasters, change up their spell lists, and look for spells that have interesting effects, rather than ones that simply cause damage. A single caster throwing down an Aqueous Orb in an otherwise unimpressive fight can really make that encounter memorable. Especially if the players manage to get the caster into his own Orb! Beguiling Gift them a poison, or an addictive drug. Use alchemical weapons like tanglefoot bags or smoke sticks to challenge them in different ways and redefine the encounter space. Foes with darkvision in a Darkness spell can be quite tough if few if any of your PCs have darkvision themselves. Personally, I prefer this sort of fight in a space large enough that characters without darkvision have room to maneuver outside of the Darkness spell--if everyone is effectively blind, with no way around it, that can be frustrating, but if they have options that will be more interesting.

Weather effects can work well.

Put the players between two opposing groups with equally valid reasons to side with one or the other: who do they fight against? What do they do? This could also mean that they're in a fight with NPCs from more than one faction.

Include other sorts of hazards in a fight. For instance, I ran one encounter where the players were fighting kobolds on a street surrounded by burning buildings. Periodically, they would hear groans or crashes from the multi-story building nearest the zone they were fighting in, then, partway through the encounter the building collapsed. Anyone within 20 feet of it had to make a Reflex save against getting buried, and those within 30 feet had to make a save to avoid the debris and fire sprayed out of the collapsed structure. In this case, the players were wary enough of the building that they gave it a wide berth and managed to get a fair number of kobolds into position between them and the building, so when it came down, it buried many of their foes.

Having to travel THROUGH a burning building can also be memorable: you've got smoke, low visibility, fire, collapsing ceilings, walls, and floors.

Flooding tunnels, shifting floors, climbing encounters (the players are climbing while being attacked).

Fights with a LOT of minion-type foes that have been buffed just enough to be a little bit of a threat (like 16 base CR kobolds with Weapon Focus, and supported by a bard).

Encounters where you're trying to avoid collateral damage or protect someone.

Chase scenes can be fun! The Game Mastery Guide (and on the PRD) has rules for adjudicating these.

Enemies could use harrying tactics in a running battle, leading or pushing players through traps.

Somewhere between Lawful Neutral and Lawful good.

Lawful because the world has an internal consistency, and I'm something of a rules lawyer as a player, so as a GM, definitely going in that direction. Also, because I hold players accountable for their actions, both in general, and, to a slightly lesser degree, in regards to the local laws of wherever they are.

Neutral-Good because, ultimately, I want the party to succeed, and will grant them some leeway, or even save their asses on occasion, but at the same time, I don't want to make things too easy (in fact, I like to make things fairly difficult at times), and will allow them to suffer consequences of their actions.

Class: Storyteller?

I'm not thrilled with some of the feat taxing in the system, and especially dislike some of the awful prerequisites still tied to some feats (Int for Combat Expertise, for example, when most of the characters that would want the feats that CE is a prereq for reserve Int as a dump stat, and the fact that CE and Int end up having absolutely NOTHING at all to do with all of the feats for which CE is a prereq). I also dislike that most feats don't scale. At some point +1 here or there is going to mean less than it once did (if you're hitting on a 2+, that +1 isn't as relatively meaningful as it was when you needed to roll a 10+ or 15+).

All that said, the single biggest change I would have liked to see in regards to feats would be for all characters to gain an additional bonus feat slots every X levels to be used only for racial feats. A lot of those are pretty cool, but very few of them are worth enough to warrant giving up a feat that contributes to your combat, or core, abilities, and many of the better racial feats also come saddled with a lot of prerequisites (Aasimar wings, for example).

This would go a ways to making race choice more important, and making two characters of the same class, with the same feats, but of different races actually feel different in some more significant ways.

Of course, this change would require some races receiving some more support in terms of the feats available for them.

It's this part that leads me to what I believe is the intent:

Quote:

The tree generally only swallows one foe whole at a time, letting its other captured victims dangle and ripen until it is ready to feed on them.

The tree is incapable under RAW of having multiple captured victims dangling at once. Dead victims, perhaps, but not captured.

It could conceivably incapacitate and bind someone, then hang them before moving onto its next victim.

I'll agree, though, that the rules don't handle the iconic monster that can grip multiple enemies at a time, or hold one foe while attacking others.

The kraken, probably the most recognizable example of this, cannot hold aloft 2 or 3 people while it's destroying a ship. This is a significant failure on the part of the rules to simulate well known myths and monsters.

Classes with 2+Int skills per level. I think it's stupid to balance characters by limiting their skills that much.

What I tend to do is bump the 2+ crowd up to 3+, then give every class an automatically increased skill, or choice between 2 skills. That does a little to allay any concerns rogues and such may have about their territory being encroached upon.

Wizards get Knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft as an auto-skill, for example.

How has this not generated a FAQ yet?

Questions on Glitterdust:

1. Does Glitterdust continue to affect the area of its effect after the initial casting of the spell (if someone enters the area, are they subject to the dust)?

2. Once applied to a creature, does casting Invisibility upon that creature negate the effects of Glitterdust?
2a. Can the dust itself be turned invisible?

3. Does Glitterdust emit its own light?
3a. Does Glitterdust function in total darkness, visibly outlining creatures even for those viewing with only normal sight (not darkvision)?

4. Is Glitterdust a physical substance?
4a. Is Glitterdust (the substance) considered mundane or magical?
4b. Does Glitterdust suffer a 50% chance to not affect incorporeal creatures?

If it wasn't for D&D, I wouldn't understand any Imperial measurements :)

I think that if you quizzed a large random sampling of my fellow Americans you would find that many of them don't, either.

I know very few people who know the proper conversion of ounces-->cups-->pints-->quarts-->gallons, and almost NO ONE who can convert those volumetric measurements to their corresponding weights.

Great success!

So what I ended up doing, is I took a standard hydra (5 heads),with each head being a different element and color with a breath weapon (I did 3d6 for each weapon), elemental absorption for each element present in a head (that head, and the body absorb the associated element) and applied the following:

Fire (red) - If the head or body is damaged with a piercing or slashing weapon, the attacker takes 2d6 damage as its boiling blood spews out. Anyone that fails their Reflex vs. the breath weapon catches on fire.

Cold (white) - If the head or body is damaged, attacker is subject to a Chill Metal effect (wooden weapons) or 1d4 cold damage (natural or unarmed attack), and anyone that fails the Reflex vs. breath must make an additional Fort save or be Staggered for 1d4 rounds.

Acid (green) - This head and body gain DR 10/-, and anyone that fails Reflex vs. breath must make an additional Fort save or be subject to a (weakened version of) dragon bile poison (DC was same as breath weapon instead of the normally very high DC; and was changed to 2 consecutive saves to end the effect).

Electric (blue) - If the head or body is damaged, attacker is subject to a Shocking Grasp spell (CL = 1/2 hydra's HD), and anyone that fails Reflex vs. breath must make an additional Will save or be Dazed for 1 round.

Sonic (silver) - Head and body gains Spell Resistance 10+HD, and anyone that fails Reflex vs. breath must make an additional Fort save or be Deafened for 1d4 rounds.

Fire or acid could cauterize any of the heads except for those elements, while cold could be used to stop up the fire head's regeneration, and electricity could be used on that of the acid's.

Now, I gave the party some info ahead of time, so they went in with a plan...a group without any previous information would probably struggle a little to figure out which head had which effect, though I made sure to describe the scintillating body, and then note that one color would stop appearing when its associated head was severed.

I think it could have done with a little less retributive damage; I think Cold could have been changed to something else...maybe Lesser Fortification (describe a rime of ice covering its vital areas).

And the SR from Sonic felt...forced. Thinking maybe keep it at just fire, cold, electric, acid, where any additional head rolls 1d4 to determine element (maybe increases the associated effects while multiple heads are up: more damage, higher DCs, more DR or whatever) with heads not being duplicated again until all are doubled. Thus, on a 9-headed hydra, you'd have F, C, E, A, 1d4 (fire), 1d3 (electric), 1d2 (cold), acid, 1d4, ending up with 2 fire, 2 acid, 2 cold, 2 electric and 1 more of any of those.

The players had to decide which heads to target first for sundering (and really wanted to sunder, since attacking the body was dangerous and somewhat ineffective, though characters poor at sundering did that), and combine to get severed heads cauterized by the appropriate element.

The party of 7 players, a level 6 changeling ranger (high Str, 2 flaming claws), level 6 human monk (flowing archetype, Crane Wing), level 6 rogue (tiefling with Slow Reactions and the -1 Str or Dex on sneak attack talents), level 6 fire-specced human magister (sorcerer with some divine healing spells basically), level 6 samsaran oracle (used Aqueous Orb to deliver some damage, buffed people beforehand), level 6 gnome alchemist (fiery bombs and acid flasks for cauterizing),and a level 5 sylph witch (debuffed a lot with Evil Eye on AC, and Ray of Exhaustion) went through probably a little over half of their resources for the day.

The fight began with the ranger being the only one the hydra could see when he approached ahead of everyone, so took all 5 breath weapons, failed vs. two, but had imbibed some Energy Resistance potions, so only got knocked down to about 1/2 HP, and could ignore being set on fire. When the rogue got around to flank on the next round, he turned off the hydra's ability to make AoOs for the rest of the fight. The retributive damage was the most significant output of the fight, I think, because with their buffed AC, the hydra could hardly hit them BEFORE loosing 6 Str, and its AC was fairly pitiful BEFORE losing 6 Dex and getting Evil Eyed...and then losing 3 Dex from the rogue. Its CMD stayed kind of competitive for a couple rounds, but the debuffs took care of that. I think that, without Slow Reactions, it would have been more of a fight, since no one had Improved Sunder. They also had sufficient access to fire and acid damage to ensure no heads grew back.

As it stood, the fight was tough, but not too life-threatening, and everyone said they enjoyed it afterward.

I think they could have taken on another 2-4 heads without too much trouble, especially if I removed one of the retributive damage abilities.

That's a weird FAQ. Titan mauler barbarian archetype calls this one out specifically saying using a 2 handed weapon in one hand treats it as a one handed weapon for damage.

By my count, they have Titan Mauler that calls it out specifically, a FAQ on bastard sword itself, a FAQ on something that allows the use of a two-handed weapon in one hand (same rule as the bastard sword), and a FAQ saying that the lance counts as a two-handed weapon still when wielded in one hand while charging on a mount for Power Attack and Str bonus.

The problem is that the first FAQ I quoted (with the lance) is worded to be a general rule, merely citing the lance as an example, whereas it appears that the developers wish for a weapons' handedness to be based on how many hands are wielding it at the time, so the lance FAQ is misleading. And that is exacerbated even more by the follow-up FAQs not being anywhere near the lance one.

They would have been better served with one FAQ that reads something like:

You determine your damage bonus from Str and Power Attack when wielding a weapon by how many hands you are using to wield it. If you use a bastard sword, or a longsword, in two hands, you gain the +50% bonuses associated with two-handing a weapon, while if you wield them in one hand, you just get the normal one-handed bonuses. An ability that allows you to wield a two-handed weapon (such as a greatsword) in one hand follows the same rule.

The lance is an exception to this rule; even when wielded in one hand, the lance is treated as being wielded in two hands when used while mounted.

That would have left everything clear, and would have helped them avoid writing 2 or 3 more FAQs on the subject.

Knick wrote:

Either way you slice it, this is pounce in disguise, and I get the vibe that the design team doesn't want more pounce. Maybe a pounce-lite where you lose your last iterative. Still good, but not AS good.

Just a thought.

Yes... yes it is... and they may want to avoid the proliferation of pounce-like abilities, but that bell can't be un-rung.

It is also a pretty silly stance to take when you're putting out the Skald which can give pounce to an entire party.

What I was proposing earlier in this thread.. and in the last thread... and for monks for a long time.. is just upping the small movement available via a 5ft step.

You can already make a 15ft step with jaunt boots (though limited to 3/day) so its not like that power is somehow unrealistic. If you lose the avoidance of AoOs, to move 15ft instead of taking a 5ft step... I think the repercussions would be pretty cool for the swashbuckler without being overpowering. Pounce, afterall, works for a barbarian in any range from 10ft to double their movement.

Heck even just "the swashbuckler can take an extra 5ft step when making a full attack" at level 6 and then another extra 5ft step at level 11 would be great.

This sounds pretty good. Could even look to the 3.5 Dervish and cop some of his dervish dance, allowing the swashbuckler to move 5 ft. after a successful attack.

Personally, I've always felt that monks should be able to use Flurry on a standard action attack (perhaps with a feat), allowing a second hit with the base Flurry, and a third when you get the next extra attack during a full-attack. So you could attack 3 times as a standard, or 6+ times as a full-attack.

I've also felt that TWF should get back the ability to make an off-hand attack as part of a standard action attack/charge (there was a feat to do this in 3.5 I believe).

And I've wanted the ability to do the same with Spring Attack (there was a feat chain in 3.5 for this, but it always felt kind of punitive...could just bake it into Spring Attack itself, some other ability worded to work with SA, or add one additional feat to accomplish this).

Oh, and ditto for Manyshot--the 3.5 version was a standard action semi-replacing a full-attack (up to 4 arrows as standard vs. probably 6 as full-attack, and with some better to-hit bonuses on the latter), and I think archers are missing a solid standard action attack. Just allowing the two arrows on a single attack (and in Shot on the Run) I think would be okay.

I suppose since it mentions conventional and normal attacks then siege weapons would also bypass DR. This would apply to giant-thrown boulders also. So in that case, dropping a boulder on someone might also apply.

It would certainly be very odd if dropping a boulder on someone was more effective than hitting them with a boulder flung from a catapult...

Does anyone disagree with what I said earlier about Derring-Do, Menacing Swordplay, Swashbuckler's Init, Superior Feint, Targeted Strike, Dizzying Defense, Perfect Thrust, and Stunning Strike being garbage nobody's ever going to want to use, so those deed slots can be freed up for other things? Not a lot of time left in the playtest, and the list of deeds really needs a lot more attention than it's been getting.

Not much disagreement.

I've already said that Derring-do is unimpressive and almost never worth the point of Panache it requires. I mentioned a few pages back, I think, that it's problem is that it doesn't facilitate characters doing something MORE than they normally could, but instead only gets used when someone is nervous about something that they can almost do. No one is going to use D-d to leap across that 15-foot chasm with a +9 jump check in the hope that they will roll a 6, and certainly no one would attempt a 20-foot chasm in the hopes that they roll a 6 and then a 5+. The only thing people will use it for are when they are just a point or two shy (a +13 jump for that 15-foot chasm), and for Acrobatics checks through threatened squares where they are screwed if they don't make a high enough roll. That this is yet ANOTHER ability that you have to use before you see the results of your roll just makes it even worse.

I'd prefer Derring-do to encourage daring action. Right now it doesn't. One of my suggestions was for D-d to grant an extra move action any time you rolled a 6 and "exploded" the die. This could be used to move and get a full-attack, or to cover more ground, or to do a bunch of cool Acrobatic things in one turn.

I think Menacing Swordplay looks cool, and was thinking about building around it a bit, but I hadn't noticed the Swift action on the first read-through. Basically worthless in that case.

Why don't you like Swashbuckler's Initiative?

Superior Feint is terrible. There's nothing "superior" about it, other than that it doesn't require two feats to perform.

Targeted Strike looks okay. I think it could stand to be changed to a Standard action, have targeting Wings change to its own effect which causes a creature to fall from flight, and targeting arms should deal damage. Otherwise, essentially getting a bunch of feats for free isn't so bad, even if their usage is a little restricted.

Agree on Dizzying Defense. If kept, and moved to lower levels, I'd prefer it to be a Free action when making an attack.

Perfect Thrust is rather poor. If this were changed to a standard action, it wouldn't be terrible (but still not very good, either).

Stunning Strike isn't bad, it just comes too late and is available at the same level as Deadly Stab, although Deadly triggering on a crit, and Stunning triggering on a hit separates them a bit. And, I suppose, if you're desperate you could spend 3 Panache on a crit to force two saves, one vs. stun, the other vs. death.

Shouldn't the Swashbuckler get Uncanny Dodge?

I'd love to see the Swashbuckler get the ability to use the Elusive Target feat from 3.5's Complete Warrior, which has 3 abilities (the feat works off of the old Dodge rules when you had to declare a target, but could be reworked a little):

-Negate Power Attack: If selected target attacks you with Power Attack active, you don't take the extra damage, but they still suffer the penalty.

-Diverting Defense: When flanked, the first attack made against you by one of the flankers who you have selected as your Dodge target automatically misses you and may strike the other flanking foe instead;it rolls an attack roll as normal, and the attacked foe is considered flat-footed against that attack. Additional attacks are resolved normally.

-Cause Overreach: When you provoke an AoO from moving out of a threatened square, if the attack misses, you may make a free trip attempt against that enemy.

I've always REALLY liked Diverting Defense in particular--it's fun, amusing, and very much in flavor for this sort of character.

I like the way we can add charisma a few times a day but two questions on that front. Are there going to be some way to increase that via feats? And secondly I was wondering if there are plans or thoughts to change that action to a free action. Soo many abilities of the swashbuckler use immediate actions or swift actions it really leaves us starved imho

Emphasis mine. I'm noticing that a lot of the swashbuckler's abilities either eat a Swift or an Immediate Action, which is going to really limit what they get to do. In particular, having their save-ability on the same action as Riposte means that you're going to have a lot of situations where you regret using Riposte because you get called to make a crucial save before your next turn comes up. This in turn may result in players just not using Riposte in a lot of situations. Forcing decisions on players is a good thing, but making them leery to use one of their better, central abilities, because it will leave them defenseless in a way strikes me as poor design, and is not a useful decision to be forcing.

I'll add my vote to including some interaction between Favored Target and Sneak Attack that unifies the class' abilities, and that Hunter's Advance could stand to be usable more often. By that level a barbarian could have pounce (as could a druid, and a few other characters).

Maybe make it 1+Dex/day?

Unless you're suggesting that a mid-level gunslinger has a magical ability to reload a dozen times in six seconds?

No, I'm arguing that he would have an extraordinary ability to reload a dozen times in six seconds.

That's the part that I feel kind of gets lost: that high level non-magical characters are extraordinary, and should reflect that, but don't in a lot of ways. This is one of them. Look at the maneuvers from the Iron Heart discipline in Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords--the stuff isn't supernatural or magically themed, it's all "mundane", or extraordinary, but it reflects a degree of keeping pace with what the magical characters can do in the game, and what our near-epic fighter should be capable of.

You would get both DR X/Adamantine and DR Y/-. If you were hit by an adamantine weapon, you'd reduce the damage by Y. If you were hit by a normal weapon, you'd reduce the damage by X or Y, whichever was higher.

Under no circumstances would you reduce the damage by (X+Y).

Why?

Honestly, by RAW for Stalwart, they WOULD stack. Stalwart states that it stacks with other DR from class abilities (this would be a class ability), but does not make any other specification regarding stacking or other DR.

Shadowdweller wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

A stand-alone trap that deals hit-point damage is nothing but a speedbump unless it deals enough damage to kill outright. And murderous traps are... for very occasional deployment.

I agree with much of your post, but I've got to say - this one's not quite accurate. Many low-level challenges are actually based around the concept of instilling fear in the players rather than causing any serious hardship. For example - many low-level poisons have such low save DCs that there is almost no chance that they cause any serious impairment given reasonable precautions (such as use of the Heal skill). A trap that doesn't kill may very well still affect player behavior. A piddly 2 hp isn't going to do much when the PCs are supporting average hp totals of 50+, sure enough, but there's still a range in which HP loss becomes threatening in the eye of the beholder. And then there's a potential damage range at which traps CAN be lethal to low-hp characters (such as arcane casters).

These things still affect player behavior, such as prompting the party to send the beefy tank characters ahead to do the exploring. And even reward the supposedly less effective martial type characters by giving them moments to feel special.

A poison instill fear because it *could* kill. Even if it is not very common, you *could* fail all those saves in a row (specially if you have low Fort). A goblin *might* kill you, if you fail enough attacks and he hit enough attacks.

A CR 2 javelin trap does 1d6+6. It can't kill a guy with 20+ hp, PERIOD.

It can roll a crit...

I had a rogue in the campaign I'm running die because he got hit by a scything blade trap that rolled a crit on him. 2d4+4 isn't all that scary as a level 4 or 5 character until it turns into 8d4+16.

Getting kind of tired of the "this is stupid" replies to some of my queries on the boards.

I asked pointed questions, looking for answers to those questions.

Lincoln, did you have a blind oracle in a game you played in or ran? That snarky bit you posted looks like conjecture. If so, please stow it. That goes for anyone else looking to post here. That may sound abrasive, but there's no reason to come in and just dump some negativity because YOU think the idea is stupid/won't work/won't be enjoyable.

I asked for game experiences with blind characters, and suggestions for how to run a blind character in a way that gives it enough mitigation to the blindness to still be fun and playable, while not making the character equal to, or stronger than a sighted character.

yeti1069 wrote:

Quandary wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I have to say that when the rules worked as I thought they did (see the peek into my mind earlier) then everything else fell into place with no problems whatsoever.

Which seems like a pretty good guideline for rules interpretation, if one interpretation means a bunch of other mechanics need separate clarification that's probably not the best interpretation. Of course, if it's truly urgent for balance you have to do what you have to do, but Paizo doesn't seem to be saying that.

I share these opinions.

Honestly, it always seemed clear to ME that it was entirely possible to two-hand one weapon and use TWF for that and a "handless" weapon, because I took the main- and off-hand attack language to basically mean primary and secondary attack, which doesn't cause any of the problems this FAQ ruling has.

The problem is that does cause problems, balance problems. However as a house-ruling a DM might say "Ok, but you choose STR and a half on main hand, or STR on main and half STR on off-hand," and then only because of the extra penalties involved.

Edit- That's only straight up, doesn't even think about "what happens when power attack gets involved." So on 2nd examination, the ruling for 2H plus no hand weapon does require clarification for other rules... unseen consequences perhaps... but sometimes things clear to one person might not be to another due to the differences in thinking processes.

Except that it DOESN'T cause balance problems. There are so many ways in the game to get more attacks, and more than 1.5x Str in round before level 6, that this CANNOT possibly be viewed as a balance issue unless you also want to start going to change natural attacks and Flurry of Blows, and all sorts of class features, racial traits, feats and magic items to dial everything back a few notches.

Level 1 monk gets 2d6+2x Str in the round.
Several races can add a bit attack to that for another 1/2 Str +1d4 or 1d6.

A half-orc could use the greatsword and a bite for 2d6+1d4+2x Str.

A level 2 barbarian can take Lesser Beast Totem for 2d6+2x Str.
Several races can add a bit attack to that for another 1d4 or 1d6 +Str (not 1/2, because all are primary natural weapon attacks). And this version doesn't even have a penalty on any of their attacks.

A level 1 Synthesist Summoner can have 2d6+1d4+3x Str.

Then there are things like Dragon Style, Cleave, several archetype abilities... Balance is clearly NOT a problem for TWF a 2-handed attack + armor spikes.

The point about it being clear to me (us:Quandary, Malachi, et al) is that, in allowing the tactic, everything else works the way you would expect it to. There's no worrying about whether you may combine unarmed strikes with 2-handd weapons, no wondering what happens to your shield bonus to AC if you make two attacks, but don't use your shield arm for either of them, etc... By ruling the other way, doubt is cast upon a fair number of OTHER combat actions and scenarios.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I have to say that when the rules worked as I thought they did (see the peek into my mind earlier) then everything else fell into place with no problems whatsoever.

Which seems like a pretty good guideline for rules interpretation, if one interpretation means a bunch of other mechanics need separate clarification that's probably not the best interpretation. Of course, if it's truly urgent for balance you have to do what you have to do, but Paizo doesn't seem to be saying that.

I share these opinions.

Honestly, it always seemed clear to ME that it was entirely possible to two-hand one weapon and use TWF for that and a "handless" weapon, because I took the main- and off-hand attack language to basically mean primary and secondary attack, which doesn't cause any of the problems this FAQ ruling has.

SKR, just write some errata so that RAI == RAW explicitly.

The FAQ is nice, but this debate has been going on for apparently 10 years, and depending on which Dev you ask there is a different interpretation of the RAW (Not in Pathfinder, but that isn't where this originated).

SKR wrote:

If you don't understand something in PF, and there's no supplementary information available to explain it, you can look to the 3.5 FAQ to see if there's anything relevant there to help you understand. But the 3.5 FAQ is not binding to PF rules questions because 3.5 is not the same game as PF

I agree that it isn't binding, but when rules text hasn't changed and there has been no PF specific FAQ, and as far as anyone knows the intent hasn't changed, there is a reasonable expectation that an FAQ from 3.5 applies. Saying that it is obvious that it should work the new way rather than the old way is insulting. The rules have changed from 3.5, that's great. Rewrite the relevant rule to reflect that please, rather than FAQ as rule change.

This^^^^^

He doesn't have to make a build to prove it. Sneaking in an extra 1d6+ 1/2 STR every round is against the intent of the rules, and now illegal.

Riiight.

Yeah, because the half-orc barbarian able to do 2d6+1d4+3xStr in a round, without having spent one feat, used any build points, or gone out of his way to do ANYTHING, and who doesn't have a penalty on attack rolls, either, is clearly against the intent of the rules also.

Or any of the other races that gain a natural bite attack that can be used with a two-handed weapon.

Or a synthesist.

Ok, I said this before, but am going to try it again...
There are no "hidden rules" or "secret rules" or anything like that.

You can say whatever you like, but it doesn't make you correct. SKR, in one of his replies, said that there ARE hidden rules, and directly implied that the crux of the ruling being discussed here relies on them. Are you saying he's lying?

And if they aren't hidden, or secret, show me them in print, because if they aren't visible, if I can't read them anywhere, then what do you call that, if not hidden?

Now, I'm not saying that all unwritten rules need be written. As I put forth in an earlier comment, there are many unwritten rules that don't need to be written, because they are obvious, such as being unable to take actions when you're dead. We aren't discussing an obvious unwritten rule here. Anyone who claims it WAS obvious, either does so because they didn't understand the rules they were working with in the first place, felt uncomfortable about the MULTITUDE of published (written) options that break this unwritten rule and now feel justified in Paizo's supporting their discomfort, or are experiencing a bout of double-think.

Paizo, like every game company around, has basic tenets that guide the rules they make. Some are for game balance, some are for coolness factor, some are due to a legacy of how things have been done.

This bears almost zero relevance to the case at hand. Unwritten tenets like the ones you refer to work because they are consistent, or implied, or draw upon common sense (or common experience of the human condition and the physical world: ie., are seated firmly in a universal reality, like the bit about not acting while dead).

Why do you roll a 20 sider to hit? Why not a d6. Why not a marble?

BECAUSE THE RULES AS WRITTEN GOVERN THIS ACTIONS CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY. These aren't basic, unwritten tenets that guide their decisions...these are WRITTEN rules. And this is the problem with many of the posters on the side of the ruling as it stands: they keep making unequal comparisons, using straw man arguments, or unrealistic examples, or lend greater meaning to a word or phrase than is actually ever implied by the books we have. And this is the problem with the ruling: that it stems from these unwritten guidelines, which are NOT consistent across the entirety of the game, and does not explain itself fully, creating confusion, because it SEEMS like this ruling should apply to many, many more things than just spiked armor and gauntlets, yet doesn't say so, and we have zero way of knowing.

Hey there folks,

700 posts in just a few days... seems like this one touched a nerve. We understand that this might go against the way that some of you have been playing. Sorry about that, but for ease of gameplay, this is the only way that works.

There is some logic behind all this, which we thought was relatively obvious. Its apparent now that it was not. The game is built around certain concepts of strength and bonus utilization. When you are using a weapon two-handed, you are getting all of that in one attack (or series of attacks if your BAB allows). If you are wielding two weapons, a one handed weapon and an off hand weapon, you are also getting all of that. Getting it all with a two-handed weapon (which by its very nature, uses up both of your "hands") and then adding in unarmed strikes gives you more than is nominally allowed. The system breaks because of the unclear nature of unarmed strikes (and other similar attacks that are not defined as specifically using one of your "hands"). What we are trying to state with this ruling is that you cannot exceed the normal limit. Otherwise, things become terribly unclear and open to a wide variety of abuses (after all, a two handed weapon does not say it uses your primary hand either.. why not get two extra attacks... that hyperbole, but the argument could be made).

I realize that there are folks that dont agree with this ruling. That is unfortunate, but at this time, we are not considering any further change to this system.

Please remember that everyone on these boards is here to express their opinions and to play nice with your fellow posters. Many of the posts in this thread cross the line and if folks cant play nice, we will have to shut it down.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

A few things...

1st - the ruling doesn't mention unarmed strikes (or any of the variety of weapons available in Pathfinder that can be used to make an off-hand attack without actually using hands, such as a boot dagger).

2nd - the rules of the game already make clear that you cannot make extra attacks just because you have free hands. Normally, you are allowed to make a single attack, or, as a full attack, make one attack with your primary, and one attack with your "off-hand" weapon, suffering the penalties for two-weapon fighting (for which there is a feat to reduce those penalties). I have NEVER EVER seen anyone argue that you could make a third attack in that instance (aside from having been granted a natural attack, such as a bite, claw, slam, gore, tail, etc...). There's no confusion, no dispute over how number of attacks works, so making a ruling to address this, is making much of a complete non-issue.

3rd - the ruling doesn't mention number of attacks at all.

4th - there are NUMEROUS ways for a character to gain more than 1.5x their Strength bonus in a full attack before they gain iterative attacks or things like Haste. A 2nd level barbarian of ANY RACE can take Beast Totem to make two primary claw attacks, each of which use your full Str bonus, or 2x Str in on full attack. Is there a problem with this? Many races can gain a bite attack, which (according to the rules on natural attacks)may be combined with normal attacks for, again, 2x Str bonus in a full attack (and at level 1) 1x Str for main-hand, .5x Str for off-hand, .5x Str for secondary natural attack. So, clearly, these "rules" aren't hard and fast, and as far as anyone can tell, this hasn't broken the game, even if you ignore casters, and just look at combat as being two guys swatting at each other.

5th - the ruling doesn't even fall under a general combat category, but under Equipment, which implies that it is merely targeting some abuse, or misuse, or spiked armor and gauntlets, yet you, and SKR keep invoking other things--unarmed strikes, the balance of utilizing X amount of Str in a round as a low level character, some non-existent, straw man arguments claiming that, without this ruling, people will be trying to gain more attacks in a round just because they have limbs available despite the actual written rules--none of which are mentioned in the FAQ ruling.

It's not merely a matter of not agreeing with this ruling, but HOW and WHY this ruling was made at all, let alone to this end.

Are you going to clarify that, actually, unarmed strikes require a free hand?

Will natural attacks no longer be permitted to be combined with weapon attacks unless you have a hand free?

Will a pair of claw attacks be changed to a primary and secondary natural attack, so that they no longer break the 1.5x Str "rule"?

That making an unarmed strike and a 1-handed weapon attack in the same round loses you your shield bonus to AC for the round, even though the hand and arm with the shield didn't figure into any of that at all?

Are handless, implicitly off-handed weapons in the system going to be re-categorized as "USELESS unless being employed to make up for having your actual weapons stripped away"?

Are monks, with their unarmed strikes, flurry of blows, and possibly two-handed monk weapons going to be reevaluated (to suck more than they already do)?

The ruling doesn't touch on ANY of that, but yours and SKR's replies seem to indicate that all of those must change. Or is it that you just really dislike armor spikes and spiked gauntlets?

This is not how it worked until this FAQ. The off-hand attack did not actually require you to not be using your non-primary hand.

So, going with what you said... What if a guy has a longsword and a heavy shield and wishes to TWF with the sword and an unarmed kick? His "off-hand" is being used, even though he is not attacking with it. So does the act of defending himself with a shield somehow preclude him from two-weapon fighting with anything other than the shield he does not want to attack with?...

I was trying to get at this, but missed, I think. Well put.

The only thing ruled out by the FAQ is two wield a single weapon with two hands to gain a 1.5 damage bonus, and also state that you're going to use TWF to, say, kick the person in the chest.

The reasoning put forward as to why you should be able to do it is because even if you're gripping your sword with both hands, your foot is still free.

If I'm reading it correctly, Sean is sort of taking a 'reductio ad absurdum' stance and saying, "Well, if you're saying that all you need is to have a free foot to be able to kick someone, then it should be okay to TWF and then kick someone too, even at first level."

I'm not a big fan of the ruling; I personally think that the penalties for TWF offset any damage increase you might get from wielding a weapon two-handed and then punching them with your spiked gauntlet.

At the same time, I'm really not certain why there's so much outrage over this. It's a game; some people seem to be treating it like the Paizo Design Team just flensed a puppy while burning a flag and wiping their butts with a holy book.

And while I don't expect anyone to really care (this is the Internet, after all), I'm with Cheapy that I'm afraid a backlash like this will turn off the design team from bothering to answer FAQs in general. I know at this point I'd question why it's worth it to bother...

My issues are with:

1) A one-word FAQ answer, particularly to something that is allowable by RAW/other FAQ answers to similar topics (see: monks).

2) The explanation that this ruling was made based on unstated rules, that are both non-apparent (the examples SKR gave of other rules that are unstated were either stated elsewhere, or follow a degree of common sense or internal consistency, whereas this does not).

After-all, if you CAN alternate iterative attacks between your two-handed weapon and armor spikes (or unarmed attacks), why can't you employ the latter with TWF?

3) The vague answering leaving other, similar questions up in the air, thereby requiring additional FAQs for essentially the same query (the FAQ does NOT address unarmed strikes being used in the way that spiked armor was asked about/answered).

4) SKR (normally very much worth reading) choosing to use a straw man to justify the ruling: some arbitrary, unmentioned extra attack not granted by any rules being used to refute the usage of actual game rules in a logically consistent manor.

Undead barbarians are few and far between for a good reason.

Ya know what, it doesn't matter. It's Saturday, I'm off for the first weekend in a while, and I don't have any need to deal with people wanting to nitpick things and dispute a ruling. See you on Monday.

Is it nitpicking when the RAW says one thing, and the ruling says another in a one-word reply without any explanation, to then ask for an explanation that makes sense?

james maissen wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

If a character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

Sure, he could make all the attacks he gets in a round.

Let's try this again.

If a 1st-level character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

Uh...what?

How about these as examples?

Character has Shortsword 1 (S1), and Shortsword 2 (S2), main- and off-hand, respectively, is level 6 with a +6 BAB, and has Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. Kick (K); Armor Spike (A)

Normal:
S1 +4/S2 +4/S1 -1/S2 -1

Can he:
S1 +4/S2 +4/S1 -1/K -1 (replacing his second off-hand attack with a kick)

S1 +4/S2 +4/K -1/S2 -1 (replacing his second main-hand, iterative attack with a kick)

S1 +4/S2 +4/A -1/S2 -1 (replacing his second main-hand, iterative attack with an armor spike)

S1 +4/S2 +4/S1 -1/A -1/ (replacing his second off-hand attack with an armor spike)

A +4/S2 +4/A -1/S2 -1 (using armor spikes as your primary weapon and one of your shortswords as your secondary)

Would you rule that you can't perform any of the above? Why?

The rules already say that you may use any weapon for your iterative attacks, so, according to those, you could attack with either shortsword at +6, then either shortsword, a kick, or an armor spike at +1.

Going back to the recent FAQ, you could attack with a greatsword (G) held in two hands at +6, then your armor spike (A) at +1, using iterative attacks, but strangely/confusingly/inexplicably CANNOT
go G +4/G-1/A-4 if you have TWF. Why is it that you can mix your two-handed attacks with armor spikes if the latter is used as part of your iterative attacks, but NOT if the latter is used as an off-hand attack? Just because you're wielding one weapon in two hands? How does that make sense? If it's merely of ruling in favor of game balance, I really don't think that's needed, given the level of investment needed in order to accomplish this.

THAT is what makes no sense.

[Edit] Note that no one is looking to add an attack with armor spikes that exists outside of the rules (ie., not as either an iterative attack, or as an off-handed TWF attack with the appropriate modifiers). It's not a question seeking to make a sort of natural attack with the armor spike. Mind, however, that your 1st level character could, depending on race, make a main-hand attack with a sword, an off-hand attack (TWF) with an unarmed strike, a claw attack as a secondary natural attack (at -5 attack and 1/2 Str) and a bite attack as a secondary natural attack (ditto).

'M SURE EXAMPLES ABOUND TO ARGUE BOTH SIDES BUT I THINK IT IS EXTREMELY CLEAR AT THIS POINT IT NEEDS A FAQ.

i'm sorry, have I have done such a horrible job presenting my case so as not to make clear the point? the manner in which you are stating the feat works is exactly the baggage I was carrying with me from 3.x until I started reading the different threads on the subject and analyzing what the actual effect would be if heightened worked in the way i'm currently arguing. honestly, I can see both sides to some extent but currently i'm leaning to the side of heighten working in synergy with other meta as I described in recent posts.

furthermore I honestly cannot see how anyone can make a logical case, from reading the feat description, that it is clearly stated without ambiguity. I personally find it to be so obviously in need of clarification that I really wonder if the reason such a call has not been made is due to the design team still being at odds over the answer.

Except there AREN'T examples to support your side of the argument.

You're just completely ignoring the way metamagic feats are stated to work. The text I quoted is from the PRD's section on how metamagic feats function. Every metamagic feat adjusts the spell slot used for a spell upward by a particular amount, and has an effect. Metamagic feats don't confer mysterious additional benefits that aren't outlined in the text of their feat. Multiple metamagics applied to the same spell add the adjustments to the level of the spell slot used together.

Nowhere does anything imply that Heighten spell would work in the way you, and some others, have chosen to interpret it. It has nothing to do with baggage from 3.x. Sure, the feat description could be cleaned up, but even its poor wording cannot possibly lead to a reading that implies that it works in the way you are choosing to view it. It's just not there.

The design team probably hasn't FAQ'ed this, because they generally don't do FAQs for things that are already covered in their rules, such as: things do what they are described as doing, and work according to the rules in place governing them, unless an exception is called out, and there is NO exception made here. Don't you think that if Heighten was designed to work with other metamagic feats in this way, SOMETHING in the text of the spell, or the description of how metamagic feats function would call this out? They specifically call out the fact that a Quickened spell doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, so why wouldn't they call this out?

Willful misreading or misinterpretation doesn't warrant a FAQ answer from the team.