Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I see your collective points, and admit I spoke with haste. I guess I was just mildly disappointed that this book didn't really provide my current shield fighter with the zomgawesome options I was expecting, and that a number of those clash with the 3.5 material I am still using.
As for the tower shield, good thing I stopped using it, as apparently I was doing it all wrong. The feat description itself doesn't really state it, and the official Pathfinder SRD lists the Tower Proficiency Feat as - and I quote - no penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.
Odd. Here's what I found, from the PFSRD:
You are trained in how to properly use a tower shield.
Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency.
Benefit: When you use a tower shield, the shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength and Dexterity-based skills.
Normal: A character using a shield with which he is not proficient takes the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.
Special: Fighters automatically have Tower Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
And from the tower shield item description:
The TS Prof feat just repeats the text from the armor and shields proficiency section, when it describes the consequences of non-proficiency in armor and shields.
Tower Shield is interesting, but I don't think I've ever played a 3rd Ed character who used one, just because I didn't want to take the penalties for it. There are advantages, of course, like being able to use it for cover, and some of the shield fighter's and phalanx fighter's abilities work better with a tower shield, which was intentional, because I wanted there to be a little more love for the tower shield in the game.
In fact, the cover, expecially used with prepared action, was the best, smart use for towershields.
remember that Tower Shield can be dropped quickly. Advance with cover, and drop and start the slaughter was one option in certain situations.
Nevertheless, with this new class features, things could change in better..
Odd. Here's what I found, from the PFSRD:[ooc]Tower Shield Proficiency (Combat)
...
The TS Prof feat just repeats the text from the armor and shields proficiency section, when it describes the consequences of non-proficiency in armor and shields.
If you look at the feat's brief description here, you'll notice it says "No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield", which is how I always interpreted it. In hindsight, it's actually a bit misleading:
- A character uses a tower shield without being proficient in it. He takes the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.- A character uses a tower shield with the due proficiency. The shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength and Dexterity-based skills.
See what I mean? The way I read it, the only part also applied to the penalty on attack rolls. Which is how I've always played it, rejoicing in the fact that the Fighter, as a weapons expert par exellance, finally got his due and an edge over other shieldbearers by being already proficient in the Tower Shield.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Odd. Here's what I found, from the PFSRD:[ooc]Tower Shield Proficiency (Combat)
...
The TS Prof feat just repeats the text from the armor and shields proficiency section, when it describes the consequences of non-proficiency in armor and shields.
If you look at the feat's brief description here, you'll notice it says "No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield", which is how I always interpreted it. In hindsight, it's actually a bit misleading:
- A character uses a tower shield without being proficient in it. He takes the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.
- A character uses a tower shield with the due proficiency. The shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength and Dexterity-based skills.See what I mean? The way I read it, the only part also applied to the penalty on attack rolls. Which is how I've always played it, rejoicing in the fact that the Fighter, as a weapons expert par exellance, finally got his due and an edge over other shieldbearers by being already proficient in the Tower Shield.
Here's the cut and paste from the page you linked. I'm still not seeing where it says "no penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield."
Tower Shield Proficiency (Combat)
You are trained in how to properly use a tower shield.
Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency.
Benefit: When you use a tower shield, the shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength and Dexterity-based skills.
Normal: A character using a shield with which he is not proficient takes the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.
Special: Fighters automatically have Tower Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
The "Benefit" does say that "the shield's ACP only applies to STR/DEX skills," but I'm not seeing the part where it talks about ignoring the -2 attack roll penalty being ignored. You just got the "flat -2" crossed up with the "if you're not proficient, -ACP to hit" - one doesn't replace the other; they BOTH apply separately. Prof only gets rid of the latter, not the former.
Anyway, regardless, fighters do get a leg up by getting this as a free feat, which nobody else does. And, as you noted, the shield fighter or phalanx fighter (now I can't remember which one) does explicitly reduce this attack roll penalty. So you got that goin for ya. :)
He was looking at the feat table on page 116 of the Core Rules where it says:
Tower Shield Proficiency*
No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
He was looking at the feat table on page 116 of the Core Rules where it says:
Tower Shield Proficiency*
No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.
AHA!
Thanks for that. I was seriously puzzled, because I was not seeing that text anywhere.
Yes, we know the rule of thumb is "text > table," but if you see what seems like a self-explanatory note in a table, you might not think it necessary to look any deeper than that.
He was looking at the feat table on page 116 of the Core Rules where it says:
Tower Shield Proficiency*
No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.AHA!
Thanks for that. I was seriously puzzled, because I was not seeing that text anywhere.
Yes, we know the rule of thumb is "text > table," but if you see what seems like a self-explanatory note in a table, you might not think it necessary to look any deeper than that.
Talking about a similar issue, the table entry for Perfect Strike reads
Roll twice for unarmed strikes and take the better roll
while the text for Perfect Strike reads
You must use one of
the following weapons to make the attack: kama, nunchaku,
quarterstaff, sai, and siangham
Always making sure to get their hopes up before they get there, huh?
|
... and on the opposite way, the text for cosmopolitan is 'gain two new languages' which is relatively meh, but the actual feat gives you two languages and two mental stat skills as class skills, which is much more impressive. If the text had been gain extra languages and class skills it would have been far more interesting and I'd have probably jumped straight to it for a read!
Ok, this might sound like a weird question, but how big is the pdf file?
53.4 MB
I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.
All in all the choice of which races received which favored class bonuses seems somewhat arbitrary (half-orcs favor sorcerer, really?). Since the core rules allow players to choose their characters' favored class freely, shouldn't the APG reflect that too? I would have preferred that all the races be treated as humans; with a favored class option for every base class. Seeing as how a human sorcerer now has the means to gain an extra 20 spells known during his career, I can't help but think that my gnome got cheated.
Meh.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Downloaded it and quickly flew through it. Looks great, but I can't find in it where it mentions starting ages for the new base classes. Did I miss it somewhere?
I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.
All in all the choice of which races received which favored class bonuses seems somewhat arbitrary (half-orcs favor sorcerer, really?). Since the core rules allow players to choose their characters' favored class freely, shouldn't the APG reflect that too? I would have preferred that all the races be treated as humans; with a favored class option for every base class. Seeing as how a human sorcerer now has the means to gain an extra 20 spells known during his career, I can't help but think that my gnome got cheated.
Meh.
I've gotta figure you've read this...?
http://paizo.com/store/downloads/pathfinder/pathfinderCompanion/pathfinderR PG/v5748btpy8dmh&source=search
I haven't, but presume it as some gnomish stuff of value.
|
Has anyone noted how the inquisitor's slayer, and true judgment ability mention how the bonuses from judgment still work in rounds while the judgment ability mentions nothing about rounds being used.
I remember while in the beta the Inquisitor's judgment started at a +1 and increased every round but it seems that was taken out however it looks like the two aforementioned abilities weren't changed to reflect this.If I'm wrong can someone explain what im missing
The lvl 2 Inquisitor's spell "Flames of the Faithful" also mentions the increasing bonus, on p. 222
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.
<snip>
Meh.
The current theory is that the gnomes are already 'the best' at sorcerer because of the charisma bonus and didn't need a more favoured approach.
Kind of like how in 3.x the Elan charisma penalty kept them from being the race best suited to Wilders. Else their powers meshed too well.
I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.
<snip>
Meh.
The current theory is that the gnomes are already 'the best' at sorcerer because of the charisma bonus and didn't need a more favoured approach.
Kind of like how in 3.x the Elan charisma penalty kept them from being the race best suited to Wilders. Else their powers meshed too well.
Well, the humans got a +2 CHA bonus, too ( if they want ), so what's the reason they get a fantastic special and the gnomes and halflings get none? ^^
He was looking at the feat table on page 116 of the Core Rules where it says:
Tower Shield Proficiency*
No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.AHA!
Thanks for that. I was seriously puzzled, because I was not seeing that text anywhere.
Yes, we know the rule of thumb is "text > table," but if you see what seems like a self-explanatory note in a table, you might not think it necessary to look any deeper than that.
So the table description is not misleading; it's just plain wrong. And as the text itself doesn't explicitly state that the penalty on attack rolls is also cancelled out, one can be led to false assumptions. *sigh* Goodbye tower shield fighter...
Thanks for clarifying my point, Justin Franklin.
He was looking at the feat table on page 116 of the Core Rules where it says:
Tower Shield Proficiency*
No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.AHA!
Thanks for that. I was seriously puzzled, because I was not seeing that text anywhere.
Yes, we know the rule of thumb is "text > table," but if you see what seems like a self-explanatory note in a table, you might not think it necessary to look any deeper than that.
So the table description is not misleading; it's just plain wrong. And as the text itself doesn't explicitly state that the penalty on attack rolls is also cancelled out, one can be led to false assumptions. *sigh* Goodbye tower shield fighter...
Thanks for clarifying my point, Justin Franklin.
Always glad to help.
The current theory is that the gnomes are already 'the best' at sorcerer because of the charisma bonus and didn't need a more favoured approach.
No offence intended, but that theory seems flawed. With a +2 to Charisma, bonus feat and an extra spell known per level humans are clearly the penultimate sorcerers. A gnome (or any other race for that matter) compares poorly next to the human's extra spells.
The APG offers all manner of great options for a great many character, so it'll certainly be popular. I'm simply saying that the lack of options for my character (who already has a bloodline and so can't benefit from any of the new ones) has left me rather disappointed by this much anticipated book.
|
|
Well, the humans got a +2 CHA bonus, too ( if they want ), so what's the reason they get a fantastic special and the gnomes and halflings get none? ^^I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.
<snip>
Meh.
The current theory is that the gnomes are already 'the best' at sorcerer because of the charisma bonus and didn't need a more favoured approach.
Kind of like how in 3.x the Elan charisma penalty kept them from being the race best suited to Wilders. Else their powers meshed too well.
Gnomes get bonus Cha, bonus Con, a penalty to a dump stat (Str) Small size, a bonus on illusion magic (that as of the APG can become a bonus on a couple of other magics). All of this adds up. Sure, the feat and skill for a Human is nice, but it doesn't add up to all that.
Gnomes get bonus Cha, bonus Con, a penalty to a dump stat (Str) Small size, a bonus on illusion magic (that as of the APG can become a bonus on a couple of other magics). All of this adds up. Sure, the feat and skill for a Human is nice, but it doesn't add up to all that.Well, the humans got a +2 CHA bonus, too ( if they want ), so what's the reason they get a fantastic special and the gnomes and halflings get none? ^^I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.
<snip>
Meh.
The current theory is that the gnomes are already 'the best' at sorcerer because of the charisma bonus and didn't need a more favoured approach.
Kind of like how in 3.x the Elan charisma penalty kept them from being the race best suited to Wilders. Else their powers meshed too well.
Of course there is nothing stopping you from giving the Gnome Sorcerer the same favored class option as the human as a house rule. (Also I wouldn't be surprised if we see an option like this in Ultimate Magic).
All of this adds up. Sure, the feat and skill for a Human is nice, but it doesn't add up to all that.
Gnomes used to be a good choice for sorcerer; on par with humans. But tallying it all up I'd gladly trade in the gnome's various racial traits for an extra spell known per class level. Spells known are what matters most to sorcerers.
Of course there is nothing stopping you from giving the Gnome Sorcerer the same favored class option as the human as a house rule.
Except that I'm the player, not the GM.
Of course there is nothing stopping you from giving the Gnome Sorcerer the same favored class option as the human as a house rule.Except that I'm the player, not the GM.
Right well there is that.....
All of this adds up. Sure, the feat and skill for a Human is nice, but it doesn't add up to all that.Gnomes used to be a good choice for sorcerer; on par with humans. But tallying it all up I'd gladly trade in the gnome's various racial traits for an extra spell known per class level. Spells known are what matters most to sorcerers.
Of course there is nothing stopping you from giving the Gnome Sorcerer the same favored class option as the human as a house rule.Except that I'm the player, not the GM.
Then talk to your GM. I am both a GM and a player in two different campaigns. As a player, my character is a human Sorcerer, so I'm fine. In the campaign I am running as a GM, I got a gnome Sorcerer. I am giving him the option for this bonus, because I don't want to punish him for his selection of race. It's unusual as is that someone chooses to play a gnome.
In the campaign I am running as a GM, I got a gnome Sorcerer. I am giving him the option for this bonus, because I don't want to punish him for his selection of race. It's unusual as is that someone chooses to play a gnome.
This strikes me as sort of funny. Now that the APG has been released, it seems that the perception is that any player selecting anything other than human for a sorcerer character is being "punished". I can't dispute that cause that's how I see it too. The human's favored class bonus is clearly superior to any others a sorcerer character could choose.
I'm curious; say, if a few weeks ago, your player had approached you and asked you whether, instead of a bonus skill or hit point, his gnome could gain an extra spell known each level, would you have believed it to be a fair and balanced trade off? It hadn't occurred to me to ask my GM because it hardly seems fair to equate spells known with hit or skill points.
First off, I'm of the opinion that the sorcerer class needs more spells known. The human's favored class bonus is one way to achieve that, though it leaves sorcerers of all other races out in the proverbial cold. Certainly it'd be easy to grant the same opportunity to all other races, but where does one draw the line? What's to stop a GM from house ruling all of the races' favoured class bonuses so that that character of any race can select them? Well nothing, except that that'd create a common pool of options that anyone could benefit from which, when you think about it, might have been a better way to present such an option in the APG. Simply create three optional alternate favoured class bonuses for each class that any character can select. It'd seem to be more equitable at least.
In the campaign I am running as a GM, I got a gnome Sorcerer. I am giving him the option for this bonus, because I don't want to punish him for his selection of race. It's unusual as is that someone chooses to play a gnome.This strikes me as sort of funny. Now that the APG has been released, it seems that the perception is that any player selecting anything other than human for a sorcerer character is being "punished". I can't dispute that cause that's how I see it too. The human's favored class bonus is clearly superior to any others a sorcerer character could choose.
I'm curious; say, if a few weeks ago, your player had approached you and asked you whether, instead of a bonus skill or hit point, his gnome could gain an extra spell known each level, would you have believed it to be a fair and balanced trade off? It hadn't occurred to me to ask my GM because it hardly seems fair to equate spells known with hit or skill points.
First off, I'm of the opinion that the sorcerer class needs more spells known. The human's favored class bonus is one way to achieve that, though it leaves sorcerers of all other races out in the proverbial cold. Certainly it'd be easy to grant the same opportunity to all other races, but where does one draw the line? What's to stop a GM from house ruling all of the races' favoured class bonuses so that that character of any race can select them? Well nothing, except that that'd create a common pool of options that anyone could benefit from which, when you think about it, might have been a better way to present such an option in the APG. Simply create three optional alternate favoured class bonuses for each class that any character can select. It'd seem to be more equitable at least.
Quite honestly, I think it is a fantastic bonus. I had built my Sorcerer around having many skill points ( INT 14, human, favoured class bonus = 6 SP/Level ), but I will take the extra spell every time after level three.
However, I think that the Sorcerer did need this boost. It seems clearly a stealth buff for the class so that it can compete with specialist wizards, although making it human-only strikes me as an error. I will probably make it available to all species, so that people who'd want to play something else than humans don't get discouraged from it. Although I'll probably keep it to the core races, I am not so much a fan of playing "super-special" races. :p
However, I think that the Sorcerer did need this boost. It seems clearly a stealth buff for the class so that it can compete with specialist wizards, although making it human-only strikes me as an error.
Agreed.
Yes, it looks overpowered at first glance, but it's a far more marginal benefit than at first appears. At least in my humble opinion.
Your assessment is valid. And you're right; it's not necessarily the best thing at low levels, but one is always free to take the hit or skill points instead while it's advantageous to do so. Even if they're not of the sorcerer's highest level spell, gaining more spells known is still a superior choice though; one I'd be hard pressed to forgo if I had the option, which I unfortunately don't. =/
However, I think that the Sorcerer did need this boost. It seems clearly a stealth buff for the class so that it can compete with specialist wizards, although making it human-only strikes me as an error.Agreed.
Yes, it looks overpowered at first glance, but it's a far more marginal benefit than at first appears. At least in my humble opinion.Your assessment is valid. And you're right; it's not necessarily the best thing at low levels, but one is always free to take the hit or skill points instead while it's advantageous to do so. Even if they're not of the sorcerer's highest level spell, gaining more spells known is still a superior choice though; one I'd be hard pressed to forgo if I had the option, which I unfortunately don't. =/
Talk to your GM about it, is what I say to that. I'd hope s/he'd see that it is unfair to deny you a vital bonus for choosing a race when you didn't know about the availability of the bonus and/or that it is better for diversity to give this possible bonus to all sorcerer's.
Possible house rule: You must take the favored class bonus once per level of the spell you are trying to learn.
Thus, you could get a cantrip or 1st-level spell for one expenditure of your favored class bonus; a 2nd-level spell will cost two; a 3rd-level spell will cost three; etc.
Possible house rule: You must take the favored class bonus once per level of the spell you are trying to learn.
Thus, you could get a cantrip or 1st-level spell for one expenditure of your favored class bonus; a 2nd-level spell will cost two; a 3rd-level spell will cost three; etc.
That'd nerf this bonus into oblivion. But if you think it is ZOMGOVERPOWERED, then go ahead, it's your game.
Tower Shield is interesting, but I don't think I've ever played a 3rd Ed character who used one, just because I didn't want to take the penalties for it. There are advantages, of course, like being able to use it for cover, and some of the shield fighter's and phalanx fighter's abilities work better with a tower shield, which was intentional, because I wanted there to be a little more love for the tower shield in the game.
A friend of mine played a 3.5 tower shield fighter, taking the -2 penalty.
It was ok, but the build was too defensive to be useful for the party. And there wasn't much to do to fix the problem.However I think that It will work better with Pathfinder, a character can take Vital Strike and a few other feats to improve his offensive abilities. I'm seriously thinking about playing a figther (or anything else plus 1 fighter level) with tower-shield for the next campaign.
With a +2 to Charisma, bonus feat and an extra spell known per level humans are clearly the penultimate sorcerers.Who are the ultimate sorcerers then?
With a +2 to Charisma, bonus feat and an extra spell known per level humans are clearly the penultimate sorcerers.Who are the ultimate sorcerers then?
Spellweavers, with all those arms. But, yeah, I don't think that's what he meant!
|
|
If you are using a Tower Shield you always get a -2 penalty to attacks, regardless of being proficient or not. Not having proficiency just makes it worse.Your point? I replace a series of standard Fighter features to make him more shield-themed, without picking or choosing. One of them happens to give me half the same benefits as the one it's replacing, essentially making him more vulnerable. What am I missing here?
Also, from the Phalanx Soldier:
Deft Shield (Ex): At 7th level, the armor check penalty
from a shield and the attack roll penalty are reduced by
–1 for a phalanx soldier using a tower shield. At 11th level,
these penalties are reduced by –2. This ability replaces
armor training 2 and 3.I thought the Fighter was proficient with tower shields, which already negates the abovementioned penalty to attack. Why bother including it?
This is taken directly from the Core Rules Book.
Tower Shield Proficiency (Combat)
You are trained in how to properly use a tower shield.
Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency.
Benefit: When you use a tower shield, the shield’s
armor check penalty only applies to Strength and
Dexterity-based skills.
Normal: A character using a shield with which he is
not proficient takes the shield’s armor check penalty on
attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving,
including
Ride.
This means there is NO -2 penalty at all IF you are proficient which this means that ALL fighters are automatically proficient in the use of Tower Shields and the only class that is unless they take Tower Shield Proficiency (There is a pre-req of having the Shield Proficiency first too).
So in saying that you always have a -2 penalty to attack regardless of having the Tower Shield proficiency is incorrect.
If you are using a Tower Shield you always get a -2 penalty to attacks, regardless of being proficient or not. Not having proficiency just makes it worse.Your point? I replace a series of standard Fighter features to make him more shield-themed, without picking or choosing. One of them happens to give me half the same benefits as the one it's replacing, essentially making him more vulnerable. What am I missing here?
Also, from the Phalanx Soldier:
Deft Shield (Ex): At 7th level, the armor check penalty
from a shield and the attack roll penalty are reduced by
–1 for a phalanx soldier using a tower shield. At 11th level,
these penalties are reduced by –2. This ability replaces
armor training 2 and 3.I thought the Fighter was proficient with tower shields, which already negates the abovementioned penalty to attack. Why bother including it?
This is taken directly from the Core Rules Book.
Tower Shield Proficiency (Combat)
You are trained in how to properly use a tower shield.
Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency.
Benefit: When you use a tower shield, the shield’s
armor check penalty only applies to Strength and
Dexterity-based skills.
Normal: A character using a shield with which he is
not proficient takes the shield’s armor check penalty on
attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving,
including
Ride.This means there is NO -2 penalty at all IF you are proficient which this means that ALL fighters are automatically proficient in the use of Tower Shields and the only class that is unless they take Tower Shield Proficiency (There is a pre-req of having the Shield Proficiency first too).
So in saying that you always have a -2 penalty to attack regardless of having the Tower Shield proficiency is incorrect.
This was settled above, read Jason Nelson's posts. Even if your proficient, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls even if you are Proficient. Which is why Deft Shield is useful.
This book is chock full of advanced awesomeness!
I really appreciate the approach to the entire book, which seems to be one of offering options, as opposed to piling on "more and more." Kudos and taking this approach.
Thank you.
I'm a bit confused about the granted power for the new Caves subdomain:
Tunnel Runner (Su): At 8th level, you can move through
tunnels and caves with ease. Activating this ability is a
standard action. You can move across any stone surface
as if under the effects of spider climb. You can also see very
well in darkness, gaining darkvision out to a range of 60
feet. If you already possess darkvision, extend the range
by 60 feet. While underground, you also gain an insight
bonus equal to your cleric level on Stealth skill checks
and an insight bonus equal to your Wisdom modifier on
initiative checks. You can use this ability for 1 minute
per day per cleric level you possess. These minutes do
not need to be consecutive, but they must be spent in
1-minute increments.
Are all parts of this granted power tied to the 1min/lvl/day time limit, or is the insight bonus to initiative a constant modifier?
|
|
I'm a bit confused about the granted power for the new Caves subdomain:
Are all parts of this granted power tied to the 1min/lvl/day time limit, or is the insight bonus to initiative a constant modifier?
I'm inclined to say the whole ability is either on or off, for 1min/level/day.
I say that simply because the duration is listed immediately after the Stealth and Initiative bonuses, which would imply that, if the duration was only relevant to part of the ability, it would be the part of the description it was nearest to.
And I can't see them giving a limited-duration initiative bonus, but 24/7 spider climb.
At 17th level, the horse lord can grant his animal companion temporary hit points equal to his ranger level once per day. While these temporary hit points last, when his mount is within 30 feet of the him, he can choose to share the damage taken by his mount as if using shield other.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hire a rules editor! Jason Bulmahn has cool ideas, but either hasn't the time or the inclination to write them down in terms of the mechanics.
This is just one example I'm posting because I happened to be reading it. The examples in the core rules and in the APG are legion -- it's like a rough draft, not a final rules document.
|
At 17th level, the horse lord can grant his animal companion temporary hit points equal to his ranger level once per day. While these temporary hit points last, when his mount is within 30 feet of the him, he can choose to share the damage taken by his mount as if using shield other.PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hire a rules editor! Jason Bulmahn has cool ideas, but either hasn't the time or the inclination to write them down in terms of the mechanics.
Is this ability a standard action? Move? Swift? Immediate?
How long do the temporary hit points last, if they are not lost to damage? An hour? All day? Until your mount is no longer within 30 ft.? This is just one example I'm posting because I happened to be reading it. The examples in the core rules and in the APG are legion -- it's like a rough draft, not a final rules document.
PLEASE PLEASE read the Core Rulebook. Supernatural abilities are standard actions, unless the specific ability says otherwise.
As for the temporary HP, I would say that it lasts for the next 24h, but yeah, the wording could be clearer.
As for the temporary HP, I would say that it lasts for the next 24h, but yeah, the wording could be clearer.
There any any number of examples in which they last an hour, so who knows? And that's my point.
P.S. Thanks for the heads-up re: all (Su) = standard; I had indeed missed that one.
|
|
As for the temporary HP, I would say that it lasts for the next 24h, but yeah, the wording could be clearer.There any any number of examples in which they last an hour, so who knows? And that's my point.
P.S. Thanks for the heads-up re: all (Su) = standard; I had indeed missed that one.
Yeah, it's kinda buried in the Core Rules, but I have a Binder PC in my RotRL campaign, so I had to learn Su rules by heart :)
What I love the most about this book has to be the summoner. I can't wait to play one.
Also, with a lil' bit of tweaking you could base an entire campaign around a group of summoners, give them like five more eidolons, and call it a fantasy style pokemon game, lol.