Something popped up the other day in relation to an Inspired Blade swashbuckler who (understandably) really wants to be able to deal slashing and bludgeoning damage without switching weapons. However a lot of deeds specify that the swashbuckler must be wielding a one-handed piercing weapon.
Weapon Versatility allows the user to switch between dealing piercing, slashing or bludgeoning damage with the same weapon. Does using this feat change the base weapon to the corresponding damage type?
Or to put it more succinctly: If a character is using Weapon Versatility to deal bludgeoning damage with a rapier, is the rapier treated as a one-handed piercing weapon, or a one-handed bludgeoning weapon?
Hey, Mark! while I understand you can't mention anything specific, I wonder if you could answer a couple questions about Pathfinder Unchained.
1- One of my biggest grips with 3.X/PF is how little mobility martial characters have. Most of them can't move 10ft without losing most of their effectiveness. What are the plans, if any, to address this issue?
2- Martial characters, ironically, have very little martial flexibility, as they usually have to hyper-specialize and spend an unreasonable amount of resources just to be passable at doing something other than full attacking. Can we expect to see different tactics becoming more viable without the need for extra long feat chains?
3- In fact, is there anything that addresses feat chains and feat taxes? Or will we still need to fulfill pointless/boring/underwhelming prerequisites that the player doesn't want/will never use?
4- Are there plans to make the game less... Uh... "Rocket-taggy"
I will say that I'm very interested in addressing many of those ideas. I've mentioned the sheer difficulty of #1 previously in the thread. Several of our sections are certainly meant to be able to improve most of these, but I can't comment on the final state of them yet.
About #4 though (not saying nothing in Unchained could potentially help with that, but—), rocket tag is somewhat of a playstyle thing as well. In my games, despite a high level of optimization from the players, there is less rocket tag simply because of the necessity of sussing out any misdirections from the enemy lest you tag poorly and pay dearly for it. For example, in a post far back in this thread, I listed my three layers of misdirection that I used for the BBEG of Rise of the Runelords Book 6 when I ran it in my games. For style points, I put the first layer of misdirection in exactly the same position that the adventure assumes
While I have your attention, I just wanted to say good morning, and hope you are doing well.
Good morning TOZ! I am indeed doing well, and I hope you are too.
Something popped up the other day in relation to an Inspired Blade swashbuckler who (understandably) really wants to be able to deal slashing and bludgeoning damage without switching weapons. However a lot of deeds specify that the swashbuckler must be wielding a one-handed piercing weapon.
Weapon Versatility allows the user to switch between dealing piercing, slashing or bludgeoning damage with the same weapon. Does using this feat change the base weapon to the corresponding damage type?
Or to put it more succinctly: If a character is using Weapon Versatility to deal bludgeoning damage with a rapier, is the rapier treated as a one-handed piercing weapon, or a one-handed bludgeoning weapon?
In my game, you'd still okay, but conversely you couldn't use that feat to use, say, a club with Slashing Grace. In the same way that a morningstar is still a piercing weapon in my mind even though it does B and P and a cestus is still a piercing weapon even though it optionally does B. That's probably the least confident I have been on any of these personal rulings I've made on this thread, so I could probably be persuaded to reverse my position by my players if they had a compelling argument, but either way, only one or the other would work.
Hey Mark, which do you have more fun rolling: a fistful of d6's (such as from a blast spell or sneak attack) or one or two dice + numbers?
A fistful of die has a bit of a giggly joy to it that few dice + numbers just doesn't have, but for gameplay, streamlining, and speed, it's generally better to add just a few things than to add lots of things.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hey Mark, which do you have more fun rolling: a fistful of d6's (such as from a blast spell or sneak attack) or one or two dice + numbers?A fistful of die has a bit of a giggly joy to it that few dice + numbers just doesn't have, but for gameplay, streamlining, and speed, it's generally better to add just a few things than to add lots of things.
My question was in the context of just the feel of it, but I applaud the completeness of your answer. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About #4 though (not saying nothing in Unchained could potentially help with that, but—), rocket tag is somewhat of a playstyle thing as well. In my games, despite a high level of optimization from the players, there is less rocket tag simply because of the necessity of sussing out any misdirections from the enemy lest you tag poorly and pay dearly for it.
Yes, I agree. In our games Rocket tag hardly happens at all.
So, I dont think Pathfinder NEEDS to be changed to make it less "Rocket-tag" I think that others who are concerned about rocket-tag maybe need to adapt- IF you dont like rocket tag. Of course if you like rocket-tag, then great! To each their own. Blaming Rocket-tag, which is entirely a construct of your tables style, on Paizo is like blaming Mark here for the fact your table always has those extra hot Cheetos for snaks everyone at the table hates.
Mind you, there are a few small things in PF that do adapt themselves well to Rocket-tag, and certainly Paizo can alleviate them to a degree.
In my game, you'd still okay, but conversely you couldn't use that feat to use, say, a club with Slashing Grace. In the same way that a morningstar is still a piercing weapon in my mind even though it does B and P and a cestus is still a piercing weapon even though it optionally does B. That's probably the least confident I have been on any of these personal rulings I've made on this thread, so I could probably be persuaded to reverse my position by my players if they had a compelling argument, but either way, only one or the other would work.
Good call on Slashing Grace, I hadn't considered that aspect of it. I think I'll let it fly and see how it works out. Thanks!
It's difficult not to have rocket-tag fights when a Barbarian, archer or casters can kill/neutralize most enemies in a single round with even moderately optimized characters.
Rocket Tag is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's pretty difficult to avoid once the game hits the double digits. Adding more enemies doesn't reduce rocket tag, it just adds more racers.
But I digress... Here is my question for Mark.
Is there any chance that we will see (in PF:U or any other book) some sort of an unarmed (and unarmored) combat variant that can be applied to all classes?
There are many characters in fiction and mythology and didn't don armor and fought unarmed, but didn't feel like Monks (or spell casters, who have more unarmored archetypes than martial classes, for some reason).
(Also, rolling 1d3 sucks).
|
Mark, could we get the spell Enlarge animal. Same as enlarge person but
just targeting the animal subtype. For Rangers, Druids and hunters.
I understand that enlarge person works because of share spells but IMO
Enlarge animal would just be simpler to use at the table.
Have you seen Sean's tech eilodon?
I have two questions, Mark.
Dazing Spell. This appears to go off the Cantrip Daze which is a enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting] spell. Does that mean that creatures which are immune to those effects are Immune to Dazing caused by the Metamagic feat?
Slashing grace: this refers to "one-handed slashing weapon.... When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed" Does this mean it only applies to the Weapon category of "on handed" or any slashing weapon used in one hand?
It's difficult not to have rocket-tag fights when a Barbarian, archer or casters can kill/neutralize most enemies in a single round with even moderately optimized characters.
Rocket Tag is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's pretty difficult to avoid once the game hits the double digits. Adding more enemies doesn't reduce rocket tag, it just adds more racers.
But I digress... Here is my question for Mark.
Is there any chance that we will see (in PF:U or any other book) some sort of an unarmed (and unarmored) combat variant that can be applied to all classes?
There are many characters in fiction and mythology and didn't don armor and fought unarmed, but didn't feel like Monks (or spell casters, who have more unarmored archetypes than martial classes, for some reason).
(Also, rolling 1d3 sucks).
Rolling 1d3 is always less fun for those of us who enjoy the random factor, for sure. One interesting thing to note, that I noticed when a friend sent me some character builds, is that with brawling armor enhancement, unarmed strike with no other enhancements is probably the best build right now for TWF damage in light armor at many or all levels depending on the class (while crit-fishing is best for on-hit debuffs, and for some classes at the highest levels). He demonstrated with some ranger and rogue numbers that seemed pretty persuasive. So we would want an option that lets unarmed characters do things that were more awesome without increasing their damage edge over other choices for TWF.
In terms of unarmored characters, right now wearing no armor and using mage armor is often the best option for characters with particularly high Dexterity, but I think it would be cool to make an ability that just gave them the ability to grant themselves mage armor so they don't have to rely on a wand or somebody else. This would be a better solution in terms of self-reliance, with an eye on not creating some kind of universal feat that added a different type of bonus, making unarmored an absolute must-take for all super-high-Dex characters (it's right on the edge, currently, and there are a lot of cases where it is definitely the best already).
Mark, could we get the spell Enlarge animal. Same as enlarge person but
just targeting the animal subtype. For Rangers, Druids and hunters.I understand that enlarge person works because of share spells but IMO
Enlarge animal would just be simpler to use at the table.Have you seen Sean's tech eilodon?
Animal growth's existence makes another animal growing spell much less likely for us.
I've seen the product announcement for Sean's class, yup!
Sorry to bother you with this but are Skills considered Class Features? Ergo could two archetypes that modify a class's skills not overlap or could they?
Strictly speaking, I believe they can't stack. In my games, if they don't touch each other, I allow it. For instance, if one adds Ride and another adds Stealth, OK. But if one subtracts Knowledge (Religion) and adds Ride and the other subtracts Knowledge (Religion) and adds Stealth, then no.
What Season 0 scenario should I run on 27 Sept?
You've chosen the Season already, but not the tier? First tell me which tier you're running, and I'll suggest from there!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have two questions, Mark.
Dazing Spell. This appears to go off the Cantrip Daze which is a enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting] spell. Does that mean that creatures which are immune to those effects are Immune to Dazing caused by the Metamagic feat?
Slashing grace: this refers to "one-handed slashing weapon.... When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed" Does this mean it only applies to the Weapon category of "on handed" or any slashing weapon used in one hand?
1) Dazing Spell is not mind-affecting. It is, however, a seriously problematic metamagic feat in many regards. After allowing it in her Kingmaker game, Linda came up with a series of ideas for ways to fix it, and I added to her list until we came up with something good. Starting in her next game (Carrion Crown), we're going to implement those changes and see how it goes!
2) As I mentioned earlier upthread, it means the one-handed category of weapons. It was one of my first moments of confusion in the ACG when I saw that myself. I knew it would be like Helen of Troy, if ships were posts.
Rolling 1d3 is always less fun for those of us who enjoy the random factor, for sure.
Yeah, but d3 are sad... :(
...And having to divide the result by two is annoying. Easy, but annoying, like most math in 3.5/PF. It's not the difficulty that is the problem, just how often you have to do it. (I just graduated at mechanical engineering, so math is most definitely not a problem for me... But it can grow boring when I have to do it all the time).
One interesting thing to note, that I noticed when a friend sent me some character builds, is that with brawling armor enhancement, unarmed strike with no other enhancements is probably the best build right now for TWF damage in light armor at many or all levels depending on the class (while crit-fishing is best for on-hit debuffs, and for some classes at the highest levels). He demonstrated with some ranger and rogue numbers that seemed pretty persuasive. So we would want an option that lets unarmed characters do things that were more awesome without increasing their damage edge over other choices for TWF.
Personally, I'd be happy with a variant that gave them IUS and icnreased IUS to 1d6 (I'd be happy with 1d4, but that would mean that Small unarmed character would still have to divide their die result. :P)
In terms of unarmored characters, right now wearing no armor and using mage armor is often the best option for characters with particularly high Dexterity, but I think it would be cool to make an ability that just gave them the ability to grant themselves mage armor so they don't have to rely on a wand or somebody else. This would be a better solution in terms of self-reliance, with an eye on not creating some kind of universal feat that added a different type of...
I like the idea of allowing 1st level characters to choose to trade their armor proficiency for a Dodge bonus equal to one of their mental attributes, similar to monks, but not as good. e.g.: A Swashbuckler, Rogue or Bard could switch his light armor proficiency for adding Cha as a Dodge bonus to AC. Better armor proficiency could get a scaling bonus (+1 for every 6 levels for medium armor and +1 for every 4 levels for heavy armor, for example).
It would open so many character possibilities. I'd no longer have to take Monk levels to play characters inspired by heroes who fight without armor but are nothing like Monks (or casters), like Zorro... Or 90% of comic superheroes.
And Monks would still have the advantage of having an untyped bonus (that applies to flat-footed AC, unlike Dodge bonuses) and scaling IUS damage. (Also, I'm hoping Monks get cool toys in PF:U).
Anyway, thanks for the reply.
I like the idea of allowing 1st level characters to choose to trade their armor proficiency for a Dodge bonus equal to one of their mental attributes, similar to monks, but not as good. e.g.: A Swashbuckler, Rogue or Bard could switch his light armor proficiency for adding Cha as a Dodge bonus to AC. Better armor proficiency could get a scaling bonus (+1 for every 6 levels for medium armor and +1 for every 4 levels for heavy armor, for example).
It would open so many character possibilities. I'd no longer have to take Monk levels to play characters inspired by heroes who fight without armor but are nothing like Monks (or casters), like Zorro... Or 90% of comic superheroes.
A Zorro-style character is a cool idea, but philosophically I am usually opposed to adding more attribute bonuses into the mix rather than just choosing an amount (which of course would increase at certain levels) because those can be pretty unpredictable, snowbally, and wind up causing your martial toy to get diverted in an odd way by someone who isn't the intended target, like a full caster. That way, you can do the math to figure out how to make it balanced with other options in a way that won't be too weak if the character doesn't keep up that ability score or vastly strong if the character skyrockets the score, which allows the rule to stay more constant across many different tables. One way to do it that could be pretty reasonable (spitballing the numbers, they would need to be adjusted) is to let characters trade out their armor proficiency for a +3 armor bonus to AC for being unarmored that represents making the most of the scenery and panache as your armor (duck behind the apple cart, block one foe with another, etc), raising by 1 for every 3 character levels, to a maximum of a +9 armor bonus at level 18.
I'm cool with anything that lets the character fight without armor and not be minced meat by the end of her first encounter. I like the attribute bonus just because it seems more flavorful than a random +X, but as long as it makes the concept viable, I'll take it.
I'm cool with anything that lets the character fight without armor and not be minced meat by the end of her first encounter. I like the attribute bonus just because it seems more flavorful than a random +X, but as long as it makes the concept viable, I'll take it.
It's definitely easier to flavor with a stat bonus, but from my perspective, I'd rather have to think about how to put in a cool flavor but have a bonus I can rely on than have a built-in flavor but an unpredictable bonus that gives some characters not enough of a boost to survive their battles and other characters way more AC than they would have gotten for having armor and paying a bunch of gold for it.
When the playtest comes out, I am guessing you guys will see at least one instance of that philosophy (come up with cool non-ability-score fluff and create a predictable bonus so you can use it in some really neat and unusual places that would be too dangerous and swingy to allow an ability score to add to, since ability scores could vary from a penalty all the way up to +13 [or more for some ability scores that have non-enhancement non-inherent ways to boost them]). My goal is to make rules that let people do more cool things than we used to be able to do, but with an eye for being careful of those edge cases and thus not releasing something that is raising the bar universally. The last thing I want is to lead moreso to something like this: "Hi guys, here's my level 12 Arshea Oradin, PEACH. I took Sidestep Secret for Cha bonus to AC instead of Dex. And then Paladin means I smite for a deflection bonus equal to Cha bonus to AC. And I traded armor proficiencies to get a dodge bonus equal to my Cha bonus to AC, which is cool because I get an armor bonus equal to my Cha bonus to AC from Arshea. And when I fight defensively, I get a different dodge bonus equal to my Cha bonus to AC. So with my 33 Charisma (started with 20 from Point Buy, then I got an Anarchic Gift from a redeemed succubus because I found the rules for one of those, for +4 sacred bonus, 3 from stat raises, and a +6 item), I get 65 AC from Charisma alone, plus 3 from fighting defensively and more from my other stuff."
The thing is, except the Cha dodge bonus, all those other things are real things. It's over-the-top compared to an ordinary situation, but it's a bit of an extreme example of why I'm gunshy about adding stat bonuses as a different typed bonus to something.
|
|
I'm cool with anything that lets the character fight without armor and not be minced meat by the end of her first encounter. I like the attribute bonus just because it seems more flavorful than a random +X, but as long as it makes the concept viable, I'll take it.It's definitely easier to flavor with a stat bonus, but from my perspective, I'd rather have to think about how to put in a cool flavor but have a bonus I can rely on than have a built-in flavor but an unpredictable bonus that gives some characters not enough of a boost to survive their battles and other characters way more AC than they would have gotten for having armor and paying a bunch of gold for it.
When the playtest comes out, I am guessing you guys will see at least one instance of that philosophy (come up with cool non-ability-score fluff and create a predictable bonus so you can use it in some really neat and unusual places that would be too dangerous and swingy to allow an ability score to add to, since ability scores could vary from a penalty all the way up to +13 [or more for some ability scores that have non-enhancement non-inherent ways to boost them]). My goal is to make rules that let people do more cool things than we used to be able to do, but with an eye for being careful of those edge cases and thus not releasing something that is raising the bar universally. The last thing I want is to lead moreso to something like this: "Hi guys, here's my level 12 Arshea Oradin, PEACH. I took Sidestep Secret for Cha bonus to AC instead of Dex. And then Paladin means I smite for a deflection bonus equal to Cha bonus to AC. And I traded armor proficiencies to get a dodge bonus equal to my Cha bonus to AC, which is cool because I get an armor bonus equal to my Cha bonus to AC from Arshea. And when I fight defensively, I get a different dodge bonus equal to my Cha bonus to AC. So with my 33 Charisma (started with 20 from Point Buy, then I got an Anarchic Gift from a redeemed succubus because I found the rules for one...
Shame on you, Mr. Idle-on. What do you have against paladins of Arshea? Oh, oh, can we do an adventure where we redeem a succubus? Can we?
The thing is, except the Cha dodge bonus, all those other things are real things. It's over-the-top compared to an ordinary situation, but it's a bit of an extreme example of why I'm gunshy about adding stat bonuses as a different typed bonus to something.
I understand. like I said, I'm fine with anything that makes the concept viable. The current rules make it very difficult to fight without armor, save for a few archetypes (and most of them are casters, for some reason).
The way I tried it in my games was limiting the "unarmored" variant to only be taken at 1st level, and it only replaces armor proficiency you get from class levels, not from feats... So a Wizard/Sorcerer/Arcanist would have to multiclass to get Int/Cha to AC. Losing a CL and delaying their casting progression for a bonus to AC isn't exactly a great deal from an optimization perspective.
A much simpler idea would be limiting the dodge bonus to BAB +3... This way they can survive low levels and not have insurmountable AC... At least not without sacrificing offensive power and waiting a few levels.
I mean, there are already many ways to get Int/Wis/Cha to AC, but many (martial) classes that could use these options don't have them available or have to bear with a bad archetype for it (like the Paladin archetype that loses Detect Evil for the ability to detect... Creatures with a Ki Pool? WTH?)
I haven't seen many Monks or Kensai Magi with absurdly high ACs... At least not ones that managed to maintain their offenses up, but I suppose it could be possible. (A simple Breatplate is already the same as a Attribute score of 22, so even a casting-based Cleric would have a hard time matching that, at least before 10th level or so).
Anyway, thanks for the reply. I'll stop pestering you with this idea... For now. ^^
Mark,
Are you aware of the fact that Ettins, Ogres, and Derro (I'm sure there are some others) are not proficient with the weapons listed in their stat blocks (due to changes in creature type/subtype when converting from 3.5 to PF)?
Yup. Humanoid should probably have "and any weapons mentioned in its entry" too!
Whoop! Are you going to work towards an FAQ/errata for that?
Do you watch college football? If so, who is your team? #fearameer
It's on my list, but it's not near the top yet, since the Bestiary entries themselves would be correct with the change made, so for someone inserting the monsters in their game, they aren't affected by it directly, if that makes sense?
I don't generally watch games, as I prefer playing something to watching. But that's my own personal bias. I know I'm pretty rare in that.
Doesn't matter anymore, Mists of Mwangi was semi-randomly selected.What Season 0 scenario should I run on 27 Sept?You've chosen the Season already, but not the tier? First tell me which tier you're running, and I'll suggest from there!
That is a good choice. It would have been near the top of my list for 1-5.
Not that rare my friend.
Maybe not. But the percentage of people who like to watch is certainly very high.
|
Trying to make a simple question out of a long thread:
If are holding the charges of a spell with several charges like Chilltouch or Frosbite, you can deliver multiple touch attacks in a round thanks to a high BAB?
Or deliver them using different limbs using two weapon combat?
Or with each attack when using a bite/claw/claw routine?
In general, held charges "live" in a particular hand (or weapon with spellstrike). From chill touch "A touch from your hand..."
The generic option to deliver a touch spell by touching is a standard action (from the Magic chapter). However, you could use the option to deliver touch spells through a natural attack or unarmed strike to deliver multiple of them, as long as you get multiple attacks with that limb. So for instance, a monk could deliver tons of chill touch spells in the same round with flurry. They would be against full AC though, of course.
|
|
In general, held charges "live" in a particular hand (or weapon with spellstrike). From chill touch "A touch from your hand..."
The generic option to deliver a touch spell by touching is a standard action (from the Magic chapter). However, you could use the option to deliver touch spells through a natural attack or unarmed strike to deliver multiple of them, as long as you get multiple attacks with that limb. So for instance, a monk could deliver tons of chill touch spells in the same round with flurry. They would be against full AC though, of course.
So the rules are:
1) you hold the charge in a specific hand.
What happen if you don't have a hand? (wildshaped druid, familiar, snake form eidolon, etc.)
You can change the hand that hold the charge?
What kind of action if it is possible at all?
2) You don't get iterative attacks with touch attack.
Mhh, I think that there are several creatures that break that rule.
Or you get iterative attack with touch attacks but not if those touch attacks come from a hold charge.
Honestly those are unwritten rules that need to be written. As something implied they work badly.
In general, held charges "live" in a particular hand (or weapon with spellstrike). From chill touch "A touch from your hand..."
The generic option to deliver a touch spell by touching is a standard action (from the Magic chapter). However, you could use the option to deliver touch spells through a natural attack or unarmed strike to deliver multiple of them, as long as you get multiple attacks with that limb. So for instance, a monk could deliver tons of chill touch spells in the same round with flurry. They would be against full AC though, of course.
So the rules are:
1) you hold the charge in a specific hand.
What happen if you don't have a hand? (wildshaped druid, familiar, snake form eidolon, etc.)
You can change the hand that hold the charge?
What kind of action if it is possible at all?2) You don't get iterative attacks with touch attack.
Mhh, I think that there are several creatures that break that rule.Honestly those are unwritten rules that need to be written. As something implied they work badly.
1) The spells section is written with PCs in mind, so presumably a held charge is in some sort of limb or appendage. The more confusing part to me is how nagas provide somatic components for their sorcerer spells. I guess by twisting their snake bodies in a certain way? Anyway, the GM and players will have to work together to figure that one out, although honestly anything you pick on a snake seems likely to discharge onto random things unless its like the head.
2) That is typically true. See the greater shadow and spectre as examples of 6 BAB creatures with only 1 attack.
Also, as always, these are my own personal interpretations I use in my own games, not official. Also, I have heard a rumor that if I post that disclaimer 1001 times, a genie will appear. Fortunately, I'm working on it!
|
|
Also, as always, these are my own personal interpretations I use in my own games, not official. Also, I have heard a rumor that if I post that disclaimer 1001 times, a genie will appear. Fortunately, I'm working on it!
How many times JJ was visited by the genie? At this point he should have at least a inherent +3 to all his stats.
|
|
1) The spells section is written with PCs in mind, so presumably a held charge is in some sort of limb or appendage. The more confusing part to me is how nagas provide somatic components for their sorcerer spells. I guess by twisting their snake bodies in a certain way? Anyway, the GM and players will have to work together to figure that one out, although honestly anything you pick on a snake seems likely to discharge onto random things unless its like the head.
The problem is that you have PC straight out of the CRB that can have this problem:
- Wizard and sorcerer familiars;- wildshaped druids.
- * -
A greater (or normal) shadow will not get an extra attack if hasted?
1) The spells section is written with PCs in mind, so presumably a held charge is in some sort of limb or appendage. The more confusing part to me is how nagas provide somatic components for their sorcerer spells. I guess by twisting their snake bodies in a certain way? Anyway, the GM and players will have to work together to figure that one out, although honestly anything you pick on a snake seems likely to discharge onto random things unless its like the head.
The problem is that you have PC straight out of the CRB that can have this problem:
- Wizard and sorcerer familiars;
- wildshaped druids.- * -
A greater (or normal) shadow will not get an extra attack if hasted?
Oh, there's lots of stuff in the CRB that gets confusing for wildshaped druids due to the way it's written for small and medium humanoids. I mean, spells with a teeny radius centered on you when you are a huge elemental can be even trickier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After you make your disclaimer enough times and the Genie appears. What are you going to wish for?
I've read the Evil Overlord guide. I'm not going to tell you until it's too late. Mwahahaha—I mean, oh, probably nothing really.
|
|
Oh, there's lots of stuff in the CRB that gets confusing for wildshaped druids due to the way it's written for small and medium humanoids. I mean, spells with a teeny radius centered on you when you are a huge elemental can be even trickier.
1) The spells section is written with PCs in mind, so presumably a held charge is in some sort of limb or appendage. The more confusing part to me is how nagas provide somatic components for their sorcerer spells. I guess by twisting their snake bodies in a certain way? Anyway, the GM and players will have to work together to figure that one out, although honestly anything you pick on a snake seems likely to discharge onto random things unless its like the head.
The problem is that you have PC straight out of the CRB that can have this problem:
- Wizard and sorcerer familiars;
- wildshaped druids.- * -
A greater (or normal) shadow will not get an extra attack if hasted?
The shadow attack is a natural attack. AFAIK natural attacks never get iterative.
So we should consider all touch attacks as a kind of natural attack, like getting a claw and using it to attack?
Oh, there's lots of stuff in the CRB that gets confusing for wildshaped druids due to the way it's written for small and medium humanoids. I mean, spells with a teeny radius centered on you when you are a huge elemental can be even trickier.
1) The spells section is written with PCs in mind, so presumably a held charge is in some sort of limb or appendage. The more confusing part to me is how nagas provide somatic components for their sorcerer spells. I guess by twisting their snake bodies in a certain way? Anyway, the GM and players will have to work together to figure that one out, although honestly anything you pick on a snake seems likely to discharge onto random things unless its like the head.
The problem is that you have PC straight out of the CRB that can have this problem:
- Wizard and sorcerer familiars;
- wildshaped druids.- * -
A greater (or normal) shadow will not get an extra attack if hasted?
The shadow attack is a natural attack. AFAIK natural attacks never get iterative.
So we should consider all touch attacks as a kind of natural attack, like getting a claw and using it to attack?
What I was saying is that creatures should definitely not break the rule of making iterative touch attacks, since you had mentioned previously seeing monsters with iterative touch attacks. Natural incorporeal touch attacks follow a different rule than touch spells and are two separate questions.
For touch spells, the relevant text is here
Touch Spells in Combat
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
So you get one touch as a free action in the round you cast. But other than that, you can touch one person as a standard action, touch six buddies as a full-round action, or start swinging against regular AC with unarmed attacks or natural weapons that are holding the charge, which follows the normal actions for that.
Another question for ya,
The alchemist bomb ability says:
Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb requires a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity.An alchemist tries to throw a bomb and draws an AoO. An NPC attempts to disarm the alchemist as part of the AoO and succeeds.
1. Does knocking the bomb components out of the hands of the alchemist interrupt the creation of the bomb and render it inert?
Another way to ask this question is what if the alchemist creates the bomb and decides not to throw it? Does that still create an AoO and would the bomb be rendered destroyed if the alchemist was disarmed during that AoO?
2. If not, does the bomb still explode when dropped? The Disarm feat says you can automatically pick up something you've disarmed. But do all potions automatically break when they hit a stone floor if dropped by a medium-sized creature?
1) Bombs specifically go inert other than when thrown appropriately by that same alchemist, so you can't Snatch Arrows and turn the tables with bombs. This also means that when you AoO with sunder or disarm (highly recommended against alchemist foes by the way!), the bomb does not explode. An alchemist simply cannot create a bomb and not throw it (unless you have that one discovery, and then you can), since it's an all-at-once thing.
2) Theoretically, falls under 10 feet deal no damage, so potions wouldn't break unless a Large creature dropped them. That said, my alchemist Rell keeps his most important potions in adamantine vials,