TriOmegaZero, remind me what that did again?
Con to Will saves and you did not fail Fort saves on a nat 1.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the only thing that auto-fails on a Nat-1 are attack rolls?
So even if you roll a Nat-1 on a fort-save (or any other save), if your total is high enough you still succeed.
|
Con to Will saves and you did not fail Fort saves on a nat 1.Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the only thing that auto-fails on a Nat-1 are attack rolls?
So even if you roll a Nat-1 on a fort-save (or any other save), if your total is high enough you still succeed.
Saving throws also fail on a natural 1.
At least they do in PF1 and D&D 3.5 and earlier.
Huh, seems you always learn something new...
IIRC we never had a situation where this would have mattered, but I thought only attack rolls would automatically fail/succeed on a natural 1/20.
Good to know, I guess.
Automatic Failures and Successes: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.
...
Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.
So, not only do saves fail on a nat1, but they are subject to additional penalties when doing so. But also this is one of those official rules almost everyone just assumes is ignored, like 30% of all magical weapons glow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic items having better save DCs would have been nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saving throws also fail on a natural 1.
At least they do in PF1 and D&D 3.5 and earlier.
Huh, seems you always learn something new...
Yeah, attack rolls and saving throws are the only things I am aware of that are automatic failures or successes on a natural 1 or 20. Also, stabilizing is an automatic success on a natural 20, but a natural 1 is not an automatic failure.
It's hard to cite a negative, but I don't think there's any other d20 rolls affected by natural 1s or 20s.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah attack rolls and saves are the only ones that have the automatic success on a natural 20 and automatic failure on a natural 1. Though I do wish combat maneuvers worked that way as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah attack rolls and saves are the only ones that have the automatic success on a natural 20 and automatic failure on a natural 1. Though I do wish combat maneuvers worked that way as well.
Combat Maneuvers count as "Attack Rolls", but maybe I've houseruled so long ago it feels like a real rule :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
And...
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.
I can see it argued either way, but I couldn't find an official interpretation. Most people I saw as a result of a Google search feel confident that a natural 20 or 1 on a combat maneuver has the same reaction as they do for an attack roll.
The "attack roll" term is not the same as the "attack action" term.
*You can't perform the combat maneuver without using an attack roll to resolve it.
*You can't perform the attack action without using an attack roll to resolve it.
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's reasonable grounds here to state that a Combat Maneuver Natural 20 always hits, and a natural 1 always misses because they are attack rolls, and therefore the automatic hit and miss rule should apply.
Now that doesn't necessarily mean a natural 20 can allow a tiny creature to grapple a colossal one, because of the specific limitations for grappling meaning you can't even make the attempt.
But I dunno, a 5% guaranteed chance of a disarm, trip or what-have-you is hardly a game-breaking rule, and unlike critical hits for damage, you only succeed at the check without further benefit.
I'd rather encourage the gamble or long-shot than just say no.
Again though, it's just one interpretation and a different reading could lead a different GM to a different conclusion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's always the arguments of what do the rules say vs. what should the rules say. And when the rule is ambiguous, that just muddies the waters.
But putting aside the rules that have been quoted, I agree with you Dudemeister that it's a reasonable interpretation that aligns with similar rules and encourages varied tactics in combat.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't get what makes this ambiguous. A combat maneuver requires an attack roll. An attack roll succeeds on a natural 20. Where is the grey area?
I am sure I have said this before but I do still think that anyone should be able to use a wand.
I am sure I have said this before but I do still think that anyone should be able to use a wand.
For balance purposes? I guess you could say the same thing about a scroll. I think that thematically, someone messing up when reading a scroll or using a wand fits a lot of fantasy lore.
Well maybe for balance purposes you could require the user to have a mental stat high enough to cast the spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always wanted a bunch of skill-based classes. Not one class with a bunch of skills, but something more like how the Bard or the Rogue can get a bunch of extra utility out of skills like Perform and Disable Device that other users of those skills cannot.
I'd want one for Craft (alchemy) that can create higher damaging / more effective examples of current alchemical toys like alchemist's fire, thunderstones and tanglefoot bags.
I'd want one for Craft (armorer/weaponsmith) that can help allies don their armor in the morning so that it has a masterwork bonus for the day (or even better performance if the armor is already masterwork), or sharpen their weapons at the start of the day to give them a small damage bonus, or modify a weapon to have a particular trait, like deadly or disarm. Stuff that any old yob with those craft skills cannot do. A 'blanche' of silver or cold iron for your sword? Anyone can buy that. The warsmith can 'blanche' your breastplate to count as adamantine (DR 2) for the day, before the coating flakes off and becomes useless.
Diplomacy (diplomancer!).
Handle Animal (1st edition Ranger with a bunch of animal friends!).
Heal (heal the party without magic!).
The various Knowledge skills (3.5 Archivist, no spells, just monster lore out the wazoo buffing his allies with *knowledge!*).
All skills that could become the center of an entire class.
And I could see one based on Use Magic Device that doesn't cast spells, but can fool any item to work for them, so carries a bunch of wands and scrolls, and can even use something like those feats that allow you to 'trick' items into creating different effects, based on their school of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if the Alchemist got bonuses with alchemical items and could even enhance them. Also an ability to create alcemical items without gp costs for x number of times per day would be cool.
I wish there were mid and high level alchemical items as well.
It would be nice if the Alchemist got bonuses with alchemical items and could even enhance them.
I wish there were mid and high level alchemical items as well.
I think it could use one or the other, but not both. The problem with adding progressively more powerful and harder to create items is that the modifier on your skill can easily reach very high numbers. So, it's intrinsically hard to balance.
Also an ability to create alcemical items without gp costs for x number of times per day would be cool.
Like the druid's herbalism? I'd consider that a failed experiment. Hardly anyone seems to allow that at their table.
Like the druid's herbalism? I'd consider that a failed experiment. Hardly anyone seems to allow that at their table.
What's the issue with that ability? I've never encountered it.
|
|
It would be nice if the Alchemist got bonuses with alchemical items and could even enhance them. Also an ability to create alcemical items without gp costs for x number of times per day would be cool.
I wish there were mid and high level alchemical items as well.
The idea of a crafting pool of daily consumables seems like a great idea for an alchemist or poison crafter or even sort of temp enchanter who can daily enhance the armor or weapons (or craft daily potions or scrolls), that last only for the day and can't be sold. Allow a 'brewer' character or 'scribe' to have a few daily scrolls or potions that only they can use, but not send their WBL on fire using their class skill to 'make alchemy' or 'make poisons' or 'enhance gear' or whatever.
As long as the 'temp gear' crafted can't be sold or mistaken for long-term alchemy (or potions, scrolls, weapon/armor enhancements, poisons, whatever), it could be a cool option.
Item enchanter mage "Today I can give your bow the flaming property, to annoy those ice trolls and winter wolves we are expecting to face again. Tomorrow, maybe we'll meet the witches themselves, and spellscribed armor of resist energy (cold) will prove a sounder investment?"
|
Like the druid's herbalism? I'd consider that a failed experiment. Hardly anyone seems to allow that at their table.What's the issue with that ability? I've never encountered it.
I think the one time I encountered it, the problem was that there wasn’t an expiration on the free items made, so the druid could build a stockpile over travel days that was fairly ludicrous.
|
|
I think the one time I encountered it, the problem was that there wasn’t an expiration on the free items made, so the druid could build a stockpile over travel days that was fairly ludicrous.Like the druid's herbalism? I'd consider that a failed experiment. Hardly anyone seems to allow that at their table.What's the issue with that ability? I've never encountered it.
If the herbal 'potions' specifically A) were not usable by others, B) not sellable, and C) only lasted 24 hours, like an alchemist's extracts, I think Herbalism could be usable, ish.
(It also implies the ability to make these 'fake potions' really really fast, but I don't recall it giving any actual mechanical guidance there, just to default to the usual potion prep rules which, IIRC, are 1 / day, takes all day, which makes the higher level Herbalism option of making multiple 'potions' a day pretty worthless. "Ooh, if I ever can find a demiplane where there are 48 hours a day, I can make two potions a 'day!'")
Perhaps the herbal potions were meant to be cobbled together during the hour of prep time a Druid prepares her spells, like various other features that just sort of get folded into 'prep time' like those Boons that you can get for doing something your god likes every day?
Basically that turns them into a sort of Druidic 'Arcane Bond' with an extra 1st-3rd spell slot, limited to potion-able spells (or several, at higher levels) per day.
I think there was the seed of a good idea there, but it either wasn't well thought out to begin with, or got edited into nonsense during turnover (which I've seen happen, a balanced and mechanically complete idea is turned over, and is 100 words 'too long' and gets edited down to something that doesn't actually work, at all...).
|
|
1. I wish they had set limits on spells that create actual matter, like create water just as an example (and I am not talking about the 24 hour thing, that's fine, I mean the constant casting and stacking and creating in that timeframe).
I kind of like that with all magic, in a way. No casting a half dozen summon monster spells and filling the board with creatures (casting one summon monster spell to summon multiple lower level creatures, sure). No casting two flaming spheres and sending them both motoring around the battlefield.
Cast a spell to summon or conjure or evoke a thing, and if you cast it again, you are replacing the old spell with the new spell. You want two walls of fire or two grease spells, have two wizards in your party!
5e has eliminated some of that with the concentration mechanic, preventing a caster from having multiple spells 'out' at the same time doing stuff, like spiritual weapon or flaming sphere, IIRC (and that's perhaps taking it a bit further than I had in mind...), I just kind of like the idea of a spell being something that takes a little something special, and you can't just 'spam' to create a bunch of walls of ice, or cover a large area with entangle or grease or glitterdust or stinking clouds or whatever. Your magic-user is already 'breaking physics' and cheating reality with whatever effect they are producing, doubling or tripling up on it is like multiplying by one, and ends up no better off than you started.
Just a thought.
But also yes, I definitely think create water or acid splash or whatever shouldn't be an *endless* source of stuff. OTOH, after water is consumed, it 'no longer counts' as water, IMO, but as part of the consumer, and can't be dispelled or 'uncreated' by creating *more* water, at that time.
Same with magically created food. One shouldn't be able to cast dispel magic on someone who just spent three days in the desert living off of genie-created food and drink and cause them to instantly keel over of dehydration/starvation! Once it's ingested, it's not 'food' any more. It's part of the consumer, and will be treated as such, by spells like invisibility and teleport, as well!
Speaking of that, IMO, any creature with which you have the 'Share Spells' feature like an animal companion or familiar, should just automatically 'not count' as an extra creature for effects like teleport, or selective channeling or whatever. If you generate an effect that damages people around you, but not you, and your familiar is sitting on your shoulder, IMO, it should be immune as well. It's not *just* a creature, it's a *class feature* and shouldn't be damaged by your own stuff (or left behind when you dimension door) any more than any other of your class features, like your spellbook.
It is a shame we got so few creatures from the dimension of dreams, dimension of time, and the positive energy plane.
I agree, I would have changed it to a positive energy spirit.
|
|
It is a shame we got so few creatures from the dimension of dreams, dimension of time, and the positive energy plane.
You could make some whacky encounters with time creatures.
This creature has an aura of 'broken time,' make a save when you enter their aura for the first time or be randomly altered to a younger or older version of yourself, adjusting stats, and perhaps size, appropriately (if reverted to a child!). Enjoy the rest of the fight with venerable stats, or as a toddler! Maybe the effect will end when the creature dies / leaves / choose to end the effect. Maybe you'll need to find some *other* time creature to 'reset your continuity?'
They mentioned Time Elementals in a couple of books but never got stats for them. More elementals in general especially ones based on light, metal, negative energy, positive energy, wood, etc.
|
|
They mentioned Time Elementals in a couple of books but never got stats for them. More elementals in general especially ones based on light, metal, negative energy, positive energy, wood, etc.
Definitely wanted to see more elemental content for wood and metal, back in 1st edition.
Wood genies (and genies that used other than Qadiran / Kelish styles, like some who dressed in Vudran or Arcadian or (gasp!) Azlanti styles, and didn't associate exclusively with Qadirans).
Iron elementals. (and different templates for silver elementals, etc.)
Mephits for both, and also First World and Plane of Shadow mephits.
Elemental bloodlines and wizard schools and domains/subdomains for thorn magic and cold iron magic / silver sorcery.
I wanted it all!
(And I kind of wanted some *more* blending / consolidation of creature types. Giants got folded into humanoids, elementals into outsiders, but I kind of wanted fey, in Golarion pretty much 'First World outsiders' anyway, in theme, to be folded into an Outsider subtype, and for Kami and other cultures versions of such entities, sort of 'nature spirits,' to also fold into that subtype. Just as the demons, ghosts and dragons of other cultures remain Outsiders, Undead and Dragon type creatures, kami, to me, feel like 'Tian fey' anyway.)
I like Fey as a creature type and not a subtype. I have always hated the Outsider type, should have been a subtype. Elemental should have stayed a creature type. We really didn't need Monstrous humanoid and Vermin should have been a subtype of Animal.
Fey on Golarion were mostly born there and therefore native to the plane anyway.
|
|
I like Fey as a creature type and not a subtype. I have always hated the Outsider type, should have been a subtype. Elemental should have stayed a creature type. We really didn't need Monstrous humanoid and Vermin should have been a subtype of Animal.
Fey on Golarion were mostly born there and therefore native to the plane anyway.
Eh, we already have native outsiders, born on this plane, but 'coming from somewhere else,' so I'd be fine with Fey just being like that, but it's not a burning concern. I just like to consolidate things!
Total 100% agreement on Vermin just being animals, at most, a subtype of animals, and I don't even think that's necessary. Bees can do math. Various insects (bees, mud wasps, ants, spiders) have *craft skills, based on Intelligence!* The idea that Vermin have a nonability in Intelligence is just silly, to me, and nonsense as a game mechanic, since it requires all sorts of corner case subrules to except them for bug companions or familiars, creatures with Vermin empathy like mites or jorugumo, and / or races who train them to do stuff, like giant beetle-riding duergar. If a rule serves no purpose, and requires *multiple* exception rules to be written to get around it, then just freaking kill it already!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think Constructs and Undead had Con score, just keep the immunity to fort saves that do not effect objects.
I agree that vermin should have had a Int score(1). Just have them immune to fear effects. Also maybe animals should have an Int range from 1-6.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dr. Johnny Fever, the Shaman should have been the Cha based spontaneous Druid caster. Such a missed opportunity. Also we almost got an archetype that did the same thing but was changed at the last minute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish we had more types of magic, other then arcane, divine, and psychic. We would have creativity, primal, rune, shadow, sorcery, and witchcraft.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're asking for spellcasters that use different ability scores for casting spells, then I'm going to ask for an archetype for a cleric or oracle that use int as their casting stat.
A priest that keeps a book of rites and sacred ritual practices (spells!), like a divine wizard, could be neat.
I've always liked the idea of different spellcasting options. An intelligence based Bard, for instance, who keeps a sheaf of spells they've gathered together over the years, or even an Int-Bard who is reimagined as a nobleman, using inspiring leadership and not 'magical music', and having a smattering of arms training, leadership skills, and arcane magic, from his aristocratic education could be super-cool. Such a Bard would be a prepared caster, not a spontaneous one.
Or a witch being allowed at character creation to follow the path of the Bell, Book or Candle, and her spellcasting (and hexes) will be based on Charisma for the Bell, Intelligence for the Book and Wisdom for the Candle. (Those being symbolic choices, she no more has to use a spellbook than any other witch, although she may well carry a book of some sort anyway.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That player races had better/more racial abilities(Catfolk- cat's luck claws, climb 20ft, low-light vision, scent, skill bonuses, and speed 35) and better racial mods(Human- +2 to any two stats, Dwarf- +4Con +2Wis -2Dex, etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
Iron elementals. (and different templates for silver elementals, etc.)
{. . .}
Hey yeah, you reminded me: Where are my Titanium Elementals and Chlorine Elementals?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A chlorine elemental would be deadly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's an aberration instead of an elemental, but Rasputin Must Die! (Reign of Winter) introduced the trench mist...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Archives of Nethys for 1st Edition seems to be broken (not just that link, but the whole site) for the moment, so here's the d20pfsrd.com version. And although it's an Aberration, in some ways it seems like an Undead.