There are rules for flanking BECAUSE there are no rules for facing. Sneak attack used to be called "backstab." A thief (rogue) had to be "behind" the target to use "backstab." With no "behind," or "front" for that matter, the flanking rules were written to determine when a "backstab" could take place.heres a few questions
if there is no facing, why are there rules for flanking?
"flanking" doesn't toally eliminate "facing" the former requires the latter to an extent. to flank is to accept that facing is there in some form. it is merely a different incarnation.
|
All the things about pricing things the same as comparable items is relevant but this is even more significant:
If my players want to design their own items, that's fine. However, I have the final say as to whether or not it exists in game. Also, the more unique the item, and the more it fits your character concept, the more likely I will allow it.
Custom magic items are all 100% house rule and need to be agreed on by the GM. Otherwise you have gloves of continual true strike and other idiocy. The core book says the guidelines are a starting point.
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point.
There are rules for flanking BECAUSE there are no rules for facing. Sneak attack used to be called "backstab." A thief (rogue) had to be "behind" the target to use "backstab." With no "behind," or "front" for that matter, the flanking rules were written to determine when a "backstab" could take place."flanking" doesn't toally eliminate "facing" the former requires the latter to an extent. to flank is to accept that facing is there in some form. it is merely a different incarnation.
Yes, you have a facing. However, you can look in any direction you want at any time (I ask that you find rules saying you can't do this on a general basis) so it simply doesn't matter.
People are saying there are no facing rules, not that there's no "facing".
The "different incarnation" you are speaking of is exactly that. You can face any direction you want at any time in combat. Therefore, there's no "gettig behind someone" without adding additional rules: ie a House Rule.
Flanking is about dividing attention between two threatening targets on opposing sides. It is the current incarnation of facing in this game, which doesn't allow for bypassing shields or the shield spell based on wordplay or spell descriptions.
That is the point being made here. You can't simply say "I'm behind the guy" to get past the shield spell, because there's no actual rule for "getting behind the guy". You can only flank, and that still doesn't get past the shield spell.
a dragon's claws aren't capable of fine motor skills, only gross, if a dragon is using gross motor skills to cast a spell, a sorceress should be allowed to use her legs and feet too. legs have the the same if not better level of flexibility than a dragon's claws. the claws interfere with a dragons motor skills. the human leg is only interefered with by external sources.
here is another thing
in the hands of the right player, 2WF can become 3WF, simply by the rules in the bestiary for MWF, and thinking, my feet can be a 3rd weapon.
claws get in the way of using fingers to manipulate. if a dragon is using a hand substitute that is crude at best. and nowhere near capable of any bit of precise finesse. in other words, lacking any fine motor skills. the grappled sorceress should be able to use her legs and feet as well. the dragon is using gross motor skills, which feet can do too. oh wait, this can be used to bypass the no spells while grappled. making monks weaker.
So does this mean that Lizardfolk can't cast spells? How about the Green Hag? A Half-Dragon? A Rakshasa, who by the way, has actual spells in his bestiary entry.. not spell-like abilities, spells, with somatic components!
The rules specifically mention that claws can be in place of hands (gripping things):
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam).
The section on casting spells with somatic components doesn't mention the degree of finesse required:
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
Note that it doesn't mention any actual rule other than needing the hand free. It doesn't say what kind of hand is required. It doesn't say whether pointy bits at the tips of the fingers will make things fail.
Nowhere in the description of dragons does it state that they have four legs (unlike the animals out there that DO have claw attacks on their legs).
If your imagination brings to mind a picture of a dragon with forelimbs that are feet instead of hands, that's simply your own opinion.
If that is how you want your Dragons to be run, then that's cool... as the DM it's totally your perogative.
However, saying that people with claws can't cast spells normally... or using that as a backwards attempt at allowing your Humanoid sorcerer casting spells with his feet, is simply asinine at best, and trolling or being argumentative at worst.
And quite honestly, what does a Dragon's spellcasting have to do with the Shield spell placed in a magic item anyways? This discussion (if it needs to continue at all) should really be placed in it's own thread instead of derailing this one unnecessarily.
*Edit*
a dragon's claws aren't capable of fine motor skills, only gross, if a dragon is using gross motor skills to cast a spell, a sorceress should be allowed to use her legs and feet too.
Please cite your rule where "a dragon's claws aren't capable of fine motor skills". If you say something you need to back it up. You can't just say something like it's fact and then go "I win!".
And please do so in your own thread. Have some courtesy.
i guess there is no point in arguing. is there. i give up. this could have been easily fixed if it said "Free Limb" instead of "Free Hand" which could've save a little page space. it makes me want to type a houserule allowing spellcasters to use thier feet too. a humanoid foot is just as manueverable as a dragons claw if not more so, theres the issue of the claws sprouting from the fingers, the size of the creature, and how humanocentric the explanations are. said houserule may come in the form of a feat in another thread.
|
As dragons are intrinsically magically and ancient beings, I wouldn't be surprised if the standard, arcane, verbal/somatic/material-style magic was created by dragons, and the pretty delicate forepaw of the dragon was the original fine motor skill limb that somatic components were developed for, and that humans later learned how do duplicate these movements with their fragile fingers.
However, I would totally allow an arcane caster to take a feat that allows her to cast spells with her feet :)
Dragons often appear to have opposable thumbs. Their hands are very big and scary, but I'm sure a dragon could hold a pen (of appropriate scale) and write if it really wanted to.
I think I'll let monkey wizards use their feet for somatic components now.
:)
|
This thread has officially degenerated into absurdity.
I will say only this: In my personal opinion and estimation, a great deal of the game's most prominant problems (including but not limited to the relative inability of the rogue to inflict sneak attack damage to a non-flanked foe in melee) would be fixed by implementing facing logic.
But, lemme look around for a facing thread to Necromanse instead of using this one...
If somatic components require hands, how can Couatls cast spells?
Also, flanking in no way requires or implies facing.
|
|
[...]flanking in no way requires or implies facing.
If it doesn't imply facing, then I don't understand why a PC with a threatening monster in the square south of her and a threatening monster in the square Northeast of her isn't flanked, or rather why neither of those creatures receive any bonus to attack the PC.
I would agree that facing is clearly nowhere in the PFRPG rules. I would stipulate, however, that flanking would make a great deal more sense conceptually if it was. As would a great number of other things.
OK, see you later, maybe we can disgree about something else.
Mr. Fisshy, if facing was intended they would have used rules more akin to the tower shield. So you have a shield on your let arm, does that mean that this shield bonus doesn't apply if flanked? No. You are looking too deeply into the spell and interpreting flavor for game mechanic. If flanking was supposed to remove the effects of a shield spell they would have stated as such.
No, by RAW his pricing is NOT correct. It's not even close. The FIRST rule of custom item pricing is to compare it to existing items. You don't get to pick and choose the rules AND claim you're following the RAW.
Since this topic has become a rather focus with details, I have to say that you are a bit mistaken. There is no "FIRST rule", the text states that the "easiest way to come up with a price is to compare to the new item to an item that is already priced". This however isn't very precise if items doesn't have the exact same effects, since you can't use the framework for pricing given by table 15-29.
Regarding item creation of this pair of "Shield Gloves", assuming you follow the RAW forumlae, a spell-like effect with constant use is (spell level x caster level x 2000 GP x duration multiplier listed in the item creation section).
Assume for a moment the character makes these Gloves using that formulae, the caster level would be a minimum of 3rd level surely - I have never seen items with a caster level less than 3rd that arent expendable items and I'd challenge anyone to find a Pathfinder item that is a non-expendable item that has a CL less than 3rd. (There isnt any in the 3.5 books either, all items have a minimum level of 3rd)
So the formulae would look like Level Of Spell (1) x Caster Level (3) x 2000GP x 4 (The Spell is rounds per level)
24'000 GP would be the value of the item, or 12'000 GP to make it.
You cannot make item with a caster level of 1st or 2nd that arent expendable, it doesnt make sense.
|
Regarding item creation of this pair of "Shield Gloves", assuming you follow the RAW forumlae, a spell-like effect with constant use is (spell level x caster level x 2000 GP x duration multiplier listed in the item creation section).
Assume for a moment the character makes these Gloves using that formulae, the caster level would be a minimum of 3rd level surely - I have never seen items with a caster level less than 3rd that arent expendable items and I'd challenge anyone to find a Pathfinder item that is a non-expendable item that has a CL less than 3rd. (There isnt any in the 3.5 books either, all items have a minimum level of 3rd)
So the formulae would look like Level Of Spell (1) x Caster Level (3) x 2000GP x 4 (The Spell is rounds per level)
24'000 GP would be the value of the item, or 12'000 GP to make it.
You cannot make item with a caster level of 1st or 2nd that arent expendable, it doesnt make sense.
Ok, yes it does say "compare to other items of the same level" and all that fun stuff. But why can it not be less than 3rd level? You as the crafter are allowed to set the caster level, IIRC. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know (so as not to make any future mistakes in crafting AWESOME items).
EDIT:
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.
What your proposing isnt logical however, otherwise people would use the minimum caster level for every magic item they could concieveably make. Some items demand the caster level be several times the plus offered by the item and that CANNOT be lowered than this listed minimum of 3 times the plus offered by the item (look at Bracers Of Armor, Cloaks Of Resistance, and any Magic Weapon and Armor)
You cannot have wondrous items 'exploit' a loophole that seems evident in the text, because look through the whole book, and any 3.5 supplement, you WILL NOT find any magic items who have caster levels lower than 3rd, especially in the Wondrous Items sections but you WILL among low level potions and scrolls. The whole idea of lowering the caster level is for more powerful items, that let you reduce the caster level to the minimum for the spells you require to enchant the item, so its for saving a little money.
But what your proposing is horrendous for the world of Pathfinder, where everyone will have constantly active (AND CHEAP) 1st level spells on items, Shield, Entropic Shield, Protection From Evil, Sanctuary, Disguise Self and many many more. You'd end up with every player character and NPC running around in (broken) cheap and powerful magic items. The whole idea behind the minimum caster level of 3rd is that it makes having these items plausible, theyre worth the money but bad guys all over the game world wont be able to afford them either. Whats good for the goose is also good for the gander after all.
No items other than expendable items tend to have caster levels of 1 or 2 (such as potions, low level scrolls, etc). Its common sense/logic to prevent this from spilling over. What may seem restrictive for you is restrictive for the bad guys too...if a DM was to houserule that a character can make magic items with a caster level of 1, the every bad guy should be tooling up with them and thats a self defeating strategy since AC would outstrip peoples chances of hitting by miles of the same or lower levels.
|
|
What your proposing isnt logical however, otherwise people would use the minimum caster level for every magic item they could concieveably make. Some items demand the caster level be several times the plus offered by the item and that CANNOT be lowered than this listed minimum of 3 times the plus offered by the item (look at Bracers Of Armor, Cloaks Of Resistance, and any Magic Weapon and Armor)
You cannot have wondrous items 'exploit' a loophole that seems evident in the text, because look through the whole book, and any 3.5 supplement, you WILL NOT find any magic items who have caster levels lower than 3rd, especially in the Wondrous Items sections but you WILL among low level potions and scrolls. The whole idea of lowering the caster level is for more powerful items, that let you reduce the caster level to the minimum for the spells you require to enchant the item, so its for saving a little money.
But what your proposing is horrendous for the world of Pathfinder, where everyone will have constantly active (AND CHEAP) 1st level spells on items, Shield, Entropic Shield, Protection From Evil, Sanctuary, Disguise Self and many many more. You'd end up with every player character and NPC running around in (broken) cheap and powerful magic items. The whole idea behind the minimum caster level of 3rd is that it makes having these items plausible, theyre worth the money but bad guys all over the game world wont be able to afford them either. Whats good for the goose is also good for the gander after all.
No items other than expendable items tend to have caster levels of 1 or 2 (such as potions, low level scrolls, etc). Its common sense/logic to prevent this from spilling over. What may seem restrictive for you is restrictive for the bad guys too...if a DM was to houserule that a character can make magic items with a caster level of 1, the every bad guy should be tooling up with them and thats a self defeating strategy since AC would outstrip peoples...
Princess,
I must respectfully disagree.
In a fantasy world where every first-level wizard has the ability to cast Mending at will all day, every day (or some other cantrip), it's only logical that another wizard who has invested lots of time (ranks in spellcraft), effort (the craft wondrous items feat) and expensive special materials should be able to cast a first level spell all day long as well via a magical item.
Of course, my opinion isn't necessary when the Pathfinder rules are clear on this subject.
A Hat of Disguise is perfect example of what you say doesn't exist in Pathfinder or DnD 3.5. It is a CL1 magic item, crafted with a 1st level spell, that costs 1800 gp to buy (or 900 to make).
Here's a link for reference . . .
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/wondrousItems.html#hat-of-dis guise
By that logic then why would anyone EVER cocieveably bother with a Ring Of Force Shield and similar items?, that offers a +2 shield bonus to AC, doesnt prevent magic missiles and costs more to make, AND has a caster level of 9th.
My view of things if it is this easy to make items, then why isnt every bad guy swimming in items that give a permanent Shield/Mage Armor/Sanctuary/Protection From Evil spell?, combine more than one of these things and its just plain wrong. If the knowledge to make low level items like this is common (and trust me, if a character can make this stuff by Level 3 then so can 3rd Level NPCs), and everyone will suddenly be swimming in them and then no-one wins, because every bad guy is going to have a VERY predictable selection of cheap and overly rewarding items that makes him difficult to kill and players will be struggling to even hit the opponent at all.
The "Hat Of Disguise" is an anomoly, in 3.5 it wasnt that cheap because it had a caster level of 3 minimum, and its perhaps the first and only item I have ever seen that had a caster level of 1.
If other items like Magic Weapons/Armor, Bracers of Armor, Cloaks Of Resistance have an immutably capped minimum (based on what bonus the item offers), you cant go below that. So a +3 sword is always going to be 18'000GP even though you wish you could reduce the caster level to 1st...you cannot, the item itself and how it works prevents it. Weapons for example cannot be a caster level lower than three times the weapons enhancement bonus.
It only makes sense there be a limit to how low an item be enchanted by caster level - because it presents a game breaking mechanic. Let me explain.
Starting Wizard of 6th level has 16'000GP in starting money, assuming he takes the Feat (he undoubtedly will with this turn of events), he ca buy himself an item that gives a Permanent "Shield" effect, (and regardless of how Bracers Of Armor work) an item that grants a Permanent "Mage Armor" effect (now Bracers +4 are redundant for their much higher value, this is half the price), and so on. This puts items like "Bracers of Armor" off the menu, who would ever buy it again i their right mind when a cheaper alternative is available?
1st Level Spell x Caster Level 1st x 2000 x 4 (since its a hour/level spell), 8000GP (4000 GP to make) for an item that grants a +4 Armor Bounus and only costs 4000GP to create...who'd ever buy Bracers of Armor again by that logic right?, nobody that had a shread of common sense with their characters, thats who.
Even if they didnt 'make' the item, its still cheaper than buying Bracers of Armor +4 at 14'000 GP (8'000 GP to make PLUS the item requires the caster level to be TWICE the bonus of the item)
Now if you dont want the economy of your gaming words to go belly up, it'd be wise to instate a minimum caster level for items being 3rd like it was in 3.5
Suddenly all bad guys should be tooling up with these magical knick knacks, but hell at 1st Level Caster for these items any reasonable 3rd Level Wizard/Cleric with this Feat can make an array of items for the WHOLE PARTY rather than them spending money in stores and suchlike, suddenly the economy of the game is going downhill.
"Sorry you just made those Bracers of Armor +4, theyre a waste of money, nobody'll buy them with these Uber-Cut Price Protectomatic Gloves that are half the price to make and buy!".
The "Hat Of Disguise" is an anomoly, in 3.5 it wasnt that cheap because it had a caster level of 3 minimum
False.
Other Wondrous Items with a CL of 1st:
phylactery of faithfulness
bead of blessing (strand of prayer beads)
brooch of shielding
By that logic then why would anyone EVER cocieveably bother with a Ring Of Force Shield and similar items?
I at least am not disagreeing with your conclusion (i.e. "No way should the item be that cheap!"), but I do disagree that there is *necessarily* a hard minimum caster level on items.
There isn't a single spell granting AC that is built into an item as a continuous effect, that is priced as described in the back of the DMG.
I agree, *first rule* is to compare to existing items. And *second rule* is to use the costs listed at the top of the table (AC = bonus squared * X000 based on bonus type). Only after that do you get into the use activated, times per day, continuous stuff.
By that logic then why would anyone EVER cocieveably bother with a Ring Of Force Shield and similar items?I at least am not disagreeing with your conclusion (i.e. "No way should the item be that cheap!"), but I do disagree that there is *necessarily* a hard minimum caster level on items.
There isn't a single spell granting AC that is built into an item as a continuous effect, that is priced as described in the back of the DMG.
I agree, *first rule* is to compare to existing items. And *second rule* is to use the costs listed at the top of the table (AC = bonus squared * X000 based on bonus type). Only after that do you get into the use activated, times per day, continuous stuff.
The problem I see is that rules lawyers will endeavor to furnish not only themselves but the whole party in cheap but powerful gear.
Consider then for a moment the items that Zurai has pointed out to have a Caster Level of 1st, theyre useful but nowhere as useful as a permanent "Shield" spell upon an item.And while one might compare it to other items that grant AC and calculate the bonuses based on that formulae, I can forsee a flood of low level mage/cleric players asking why the item costs that much, or why does making an item that grants a "Mage Armor" effect HAVE to be like "Bracers of Armor"?, why not just a permanent spell-like effect active on the item?, and thats where the train hits the brakes and things come screeching to a halt.
As much as I can rule that my players will have to pay the higher AC bonus related cost, they will bemoan and cry injustice that the cost for the item includes an unknown "factor" more than the continual use item formulae they plan to use is, they'll say they want a constantly active spell, not enchanting a piece of equipment to give an AC bonus, and there the fights and tempers, will flare.
Not to metion to weirdness of it all, suddenly items like Bracers Of Armor become redundant compared to a item that grants "Mage Armor/Shield" cotinually. Nevermind other potentially useful spells - Sanctuary, Protection From Evil, etc that could be made permanent and added onto items following the guidelines listed in the book or to simply have some easy 'fill the empty slot' item the player is looking to buy. This sort of thing messes with the in-game ecoomy where it comes to magic items where cheaper, less restrictive alteratives offer more (and dont have restrictive caster level capped minimums) than more expensive, more difficult to make items.
As much as I can rule that my players will have to pay the higher AC bonus related cost, they will bemoan and cry injustice that the cost for the item includes an unknown "factor" more than the continual use item formulae they plan to use is, they'll say they want a constantly active spell, not enchanting a piece of equipment to give an AC bonus, and there the fights and tempers, will flare.
That's when you (figuratively speaking) slap them across the face and tell them to stop acting like petulant children. The rules specifically say those formulas are only to be used as guidelines to start with, and then you compare the sum to existing items to determine what needs to be changed for there to be balance. In any event, the GM is the final arbiter when determining whether or not to allow homebrew items (and if he allows cheap ongoing spell items like you describe then he deserves--and has to deal with--whatever problems arise in his games, if any).
It looks to me as though you are seriously over complicating matters. If you really do believe that your players will react as you describe, that says a lot more about your players than it does the rules as written. Sit down and talk to them. Explain to them the way things are, not the way they want things to be.
Having said all that, if you think letting them have their way (and getting said cheap items) will improve everybody's fun, go ahead and allow it. In all likelihood it won't be balanced, but if everyone is having fun at your table, then balance no longer really matters (since it is a means to the fun, not a replacement for it).
|
heres a few questions
if there is no facing, why are there rules for flanking?
the concept of flanking requires the concept of facing.
if the somatic components for a spell require a free hand, why can a dragon cast spells with these components?
if a dragon can perform the somatic components with his clawed paws, why can't a grappled sorcereress use her feet for the somatic components?
the dragon has no hands and thus cannot cast certain spells, if the dragon is getting away with breaking this rule by using it's forelegs, i think the grappled sorcereress should have the RIGHT to use her feet whilst her arms are bound by grapple. a grapple binds the arms, not the feet.
Flanking is not a matter of facing but a matter of dividing the attention of the person. By attacking from opposite sides you are effectively spreading your attacks out across the widest possible front. Allowing the flanking bonus to come into play. If facing had ANYTHING to do with flanking there would in fact be facing rulings. Also if it had anything to do with facing would not the flanking rules have been expanded? Stating things like the person flanked needed to choose who they face or which opponent the flanked person applies his shield bonus to?
Pathfinder is based on DND. Was facing present in the past? Did shield spell or a physical shield having facing in 3.5? Does it imply ANYWHERE under shields or the shield spell that facing applies? Something like "The shield grants protection only from frontal attacks or attacks the user can see coming." What about reflex saves? Are you now denied a reflex save because someone hits you with a spell from "behind"? If so please show even one example of a facing issues in that vein in the rules.
Does it imply ANYWHERE under shields or the shield spell that facing applies?
Facing absolutely comes into play when using a tower shield for total cover (a rule that I've hated since 3.0 errata'd it in).
|
|
Does it imply ANYWHERE under shields or the shield spell that facing applies?Facing absolutely comes into play when using a tower shield for total cover (a rule that I've hated since 3.0 errata'd it in).
Touche. You are correct but that is a special case unto itself. The "facing" you refer to only applies when you wish it to apply. It is not a continuous affect. I was not considering it under general rules. It is a specific rule for a specific item under specific circumstances. If facing played a point in the game in general would it not specifically mention it? In multiple locations? Would it not state under invisibility that you could bypass someones shield when attacking invisibly. Would it not mention under sneak attack that you could get around someones shield? Would there not be specific rules under flanking addressing facing.
Now repeat after me : There is no such thing as facing in Pathfinder. Tower Shield is a VERY SPECIFIC exception because it provides cover and giving someone CONSTANT COVER in all directions for all reasons breaks the game and the tower shield. The tower shield is basically acting as a mobile wall not as a shield per se when used that way.
|
|
Now repeat after me : There is no such thing as facing in Pathfinder.
For my part, I can only repeat what I said earlier: I would agree that facing is clearly nowhere in the PFRPG rules. I would stipulate, however, that flanking would make a great deal more sense conceptually if it was. As would a great number of other things.
To elaborate, I realize that a certain amount of realism must by needs be lost in any effort to create a ruleset as robust as the 3.x/PFRPG ruleset. However, I'm certain that nobody can possibly deny that if I chuck my shoe at your head while you are facing the other way, I have a great deal better chance of hitting (or rather, of you not dodging) you than if I threw it at your head while you were looking right at me. If you extrapolate the shoe to a fireball, well then absolutely that probably SHOULD be a part of the game.
A human being cannot possibly look (or, as such, be completely aware) in all directions at all times.
Great, in PF and D&D you can, whatever. My point is, that's an undisputable point of divergence from sensual reality. As such, when people look for and even invent facing in the rules - where it does not, in fact, exist - that ought to be treated with a modicum of understanding. My pesky brain finds it pretty hard to conceive of a world in which I have eyes on the back of (and side of, and, hell, top of) my head.
|
|
Now repeat after me : There is no such thing as facing in Pathfinder.For my part, I can only repeat what I said earlier: I would agree that facing is clearly nowhere in the PFRPG rules. I would stipulate, however, that flanking would make a great deal more sense conceptually if it was. As would a great number of other things.
To elaborate, I realize that a certain amount of realism must by needs be lost in any effort to create a ruleset as robust as the 3.x/PFRPG ruleset. However, I'm certain that nobody can possibly deny that if I chuck my shoe at your head while you are facing the other way, I have a great deal better chance of hitting (or rather, of you not dodging) you than if I threw it at your head while you were looking right at me. If you extrapolate the shoe to a fireball, well then absolutely that probably SHOULD be a part of the game.
A human being cannot possibly look (or, as such, be completely aware) in all directions at all times.
Great, in PF and D&D you can, whatever. My point is, that's an undisputable point of divergence from sensual reality. As such, when people look for and even invent facing in the rules - where it does not, in fact, exist - that ought to be treated with a modicum of understanding. My pesky brain finds it pretty hard to conceive of a world in which I have eyes on the back of (and side of, and, hell, top of) my head.
You don't need to SEE in all directions, you merely have to be aware. Notice Perception includes all 5 senses, not just sight. And since this is a game that plays in 5 foot squares it's a necessary evil.
--Vrock the House!
|
|
The problem I see is that rules lawyers will endeavor to furnish not only themselves but the whole party in cheap but powerful gear.
Ultimately magic item creation is not a completely formulaic process, at some point the GM has to make a call. There are simply too many possible abuses. Re-read the magic item creation section, there are no hard fast rules in there, it's just a framework to give you a starting point.
If you let your players treat those guidelines are fast rules then there will be breakage.
So what if the Caster of a shield spell is engaged with a rogue and a wizard with a wand moves undetected into a flanking position would the magic missle be blocked?
The spell description says that the shield appear in front of the caster (toward the rogue). Or does the spell cover a 360 degree arc like a mage armor?
Mr. Fishy understands that a character could turn to block an attack but if caught unaware then you couldn't effectively defend youself. So neither would the spell as it moves to cover your facing and does not move in response to unknown attacks.
|
|
So what if the Caster of a shield spell is engaged with a rogue and a wizard with a wand moves undetected into a flanking position would the magic missle be blocked?
The spell description says that the shield appear in front of the caster (toward the rogue). Or does the spell cover a 360 degree arc like a mage armor?
Mr. Fishy understands that a character could turn to block an attack but if caught unaware then you couldn't effectively defend youself. So neither would the spell as it moves to cover your facing and does not move in response to unknown attacks.
Except there is no facing
So what if the Caster of a shield spell is engaged with a rogue and a wizard with a wand moves undetected into a flanking position would the magic missle be blocked?
Before you can actually answer that question, you have to define what you mean by "undetected".
Because, if you mean he's basically considered "invisible" to the caster of the shield spell, there are specific game rules you can look at: invisible people have a +2 to attack against sighted targets, and they are denied their dexterity bonus to AC.
Or, you could mean he's flatfooted against the attack. Which is just the loss of Dexterity to AC... unless you have improved uncanny dodge.
Or maybe you mean something else?
.
Regardless, what you speak of (being unaware, etc) is beyond the scope of the rules, hence why you aren't getting a rules answer, but a house rule answer.
If you want to make stuff up beyond the normal rules, then yeah.. go ahead, add facing rules.
That question you posed though opens a can of worms. If hitpoints aren't just "how big is your sack of meat", etc, and a 10th level Fighter doesn't actually have 30 arrows sticking out of his chest, then you have to ask the question... what if they were surprised or completely unaware of the attack?
I know I'm talking slippery slope here, but even looking at opening the rules up for shield use, even to make general rules that are simple to run, you'd at best be looking at adding "and lose shield bonus to AC" to various conditions, and then having people shouting about how "what if the shield was in the right place even though I didn't have to move it"... to which you now have to figure out a percentage of time that a shield's innate cover may or may not block an attack coming from unawares, aargh!
Nah... it's easier to run this way.
|
|
You know...I just wrote a really long explanation about facing not existing....but really it's not worth it. Mr. Fishy, you can't possibly believe the stuff your saying. The flavor text says a disc floats in front of you. It doesn't continue with "the disc" when mentioned the negation of magic missile attacks DIRECTED at you. And when it does re-mention "the disc" it says it gives you a +4 Shield Bonus to AC, which of course doesn't rely on "facing" because "facing" doesn't exist (by the rules of PFRPG, your home campaign is a different and irrelevant situation). So a disc floats in front of you. Invisible. It doesn't necessarily say the disc itself negates the magic missile damage, simply that the spell does. And since it does give you a shield bonus, which isn't reliant on a non-existent rule, it doesn't matter where the disc floats. You get magic missiles negated, and a +4 shield bonus. And a disc that floats in front of you. Invisible. End of story.