# My PF Questions



## SeaJay (Mar 14, 2011)

I thought I'd lump all my PF questions here instead of barraging the forum.

page 170:*Tremendous Strength*: For Strength scores not shown on Table 7–4, find the Strength score between 20 and 29 that has the same number in the “ones” digit as the creature’s Strength score does and multiply the numbers in that row by 4 for every 10 points the creature’s Strength is above the score for that row.

Could someone provdie an example here please? It's confusing me. Let's say a creature has a strength of 42.

Thank you


----------



## Volaran (Mar 14, 2011)

For example, a creature has a strength score of 35.

You would locate 25 on the Carrying Capacity table.  For Str 25, light load is anything 266 lbs or under, medium is 267-533 lbs, and heavy is 234-800lbs.

Then, to find out the capacities for Str 35, multiply by 4.  Light load is 1064lbs or lower, medium is 1065-2132lbs, heavy is 2133-3200lbs. 

If the creature's strength was 45, you'd multiply by 4 again to get 4256 or lower for light, 4257-8528lbs for medium, and 8529-12800lbs for heavy.


----------



## SeaJay (Mar 14, 2011)

Volaran said:


> For example, a creature has a strength score of 35.
> 
> You would locate 25 on the Carrying Capacity table.  For Str 25, light load is anything 266 lbs or under, medium is 267-533 lbs, and heavy is 234-800lbs.
> 
> ...



Awesome. That's what I thought it might be but wasn't sure

Thank you


----------



## SeaJay (Mar 19, 2011)

A friend of mine who knows his 3.5 inside out, told me that Fighters are weak compared to the other classes. They get screwed when it comes to feats and all that. 

Has PF rectified this at all?

Also, what is a Gish Prestige Class and why does trying to multiclass without these still suck?

If that makes sense


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 19, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> A friend of mine who knows his 3.5 inside out, told me that Fighters are weak compared to the other classes. They get screwed when it comes to feats and all that.
> 
> Has PF rectified this at all?




In PF, as in 3.x and legacy D&D editions, spellcasters "win" at higher levels. PF improved the lot of nonspellcasters, and gave them many, many more options and abilities so that the difference is not as marked as it is in, say, 3.5, but the Cleric still has a good shot at being as good a fight as the fighter, and can do even more besides.

So, yes, PF has rectified this, but it is not entirely solved. 



> Also, what is a Gish Prestige Class and why does trying to multiclass without these still suck?
> 
> If that makes sense




A Gish is a fighter-mage, and a Gish PrC is one that makes a fighter- wizard multiclass actually effective.  If you don't take levels in such a class, you will not be an effective character. But, see also the Magus base class in the Ultimate Magic playtest.


----------



## SeaJay (Mar 19, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> In PF, as in 3.x and legacy D&D editions, spellcasters "win" at higher levels. PF improved the lot of nonspellcasters, and gave them many, many more options and abilities so that the difference is not as marked as it is in, say, 3.5, but the Cleric still has a good shot at being as good a fight as the fighter, and can do even more besides.
> 
> So, yes, PF has rectified this, but it is not entirely solved.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the info Patryn


----------



## SeaJay (Apr 29, 2011)

Not so much a question, more an observation and a whinge. I was playing 3.5 the other night, I had a ranger, 5th level. Best he could do was 2 attacks a round with his bow, doing 1d8 damage on both attacks. Pretty lame  I thought. Especially as the cleric, two fighters, and even the thief were doing considerably more damage.

Now for a question. I heard there was a Pathfinder Basic game in the works. Is this true, if so, when can we expect to see it?


----------



## IronWolf (Apr 29, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> Now for a question. I heard there was a Pathfinder Basic game in the works. Is this true, if so, when can we expect to see it?




Yes, there is a Pathfinder Intro/Basic set in the works.  I believe they hope to have it ready for the holiday season, but a formal release date has not been announced to my knowledge.


----------



## SeaJay (Apr 30, 2011)

Has anyone tinkered with the damage system in d&d? It's probably the biggest gripe I have with the system, regardless of edition. I know my last few entries make it look like I'm just complaining, but in truth, I really like PF, but I want to sort one thing out before I delve into it for real.

Damage for me, for the most part is too low.

In my last d&d campaign, I introduced Fate Points, and one of the things you can do with them, was, if you rolled a maximum on a damage dice, you spent a Fate Point, and re-rolled the damage dice adding the result to the first. If that came up a maximum, you got to re-roll that too, and so on. You only needed to spend the single Fate Point in order to initiate the damage re-rolls.

This obviously made the game more deadly, and there was a healthy respect for opponents, regardless of what weapon they held, or who they were. 

Have you done similar?


----------



## IronWolf (Apr 30, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> Has anyone tinkered with the damage system in d&d? It's probably the biggest gripe I have with the system, regardless of edition. I know my last few entries make it look like I'm just complaining, but in truth, I really like PF, but I want to sort one thing out before I delve into it for real.
> 
> Damage for me, for the most part is too low.




I have not tinkered with it at all.  From my experience low damage has not really been an issue.  At 9th level we are starting to get to the point the optional massive damage rule can come into effect.


----------



## SeaJay (Apr 30, 2011)

IronWolf said:


> I have not tinkered with it at all.  From my experience low damage has not really been an issue.  At 9th level we are starting to get to the point the optional massive damage rule can come into effect.



I think a lot of my misgivings, or all actually of it, stems from the fact that I like my players to have a healthy respect in combat. Not running scared, just enough to make them reallise, that guy with the dagger 'could' make my life very difficult. The fact is, right now, a dagger wielding opponent is more or less laughed at.


----------



## Erekose (Apr 30, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> Has anyone tinkered with the damage system in d&d? . . . Damage for me, for the most part is too low . . .




Conan RPG has a higher damage system - eg all weapons tend to do a higher damage die (shortsword is d8 rather than 1d6) but I suspect this is an artefact of armour providing damage resistance . . .


----------



## Dingo333 (May 1, 2011)

Personally, I don't think damage is too low, true I also look for way after way to maximize my own damage output, but at the same time I am building glass cannons

Like today, I let a new person (new to the group and PF) play one of my backup charracters, A barbarian (really liked the concept and is sticking with that sheet). If he had taken the full attack at the end of his charge (pounce via rage power) he could have ripped the troll in 2 and killed it (no fire or acid damage, but he also didn't use the fix for that). His 1 claw did 40 damage and he didn't take his second claw attack or bite (this was also not a crit).

The troll next to the one he attacked, attacked him and dealt ~50 back (3 hits, and rend). Yeah he has almost 300hp, but a fighter in the group had 2 on her and was down to 20ish from ~130 from 2 trolls in 1 round.

Trolls are a CR 8 creature, maybe they were advanced, but we almost lost that fighter and 2 other characters did die (they drowned after being tossed into a nearby river by the trolls)

Maybe it is the dungeon we are in but today made the 4th and 5th death during the crawl (level 6 of a 16 level dungeon). So is damage output low? You wouldn't be able to tell from our group thats for sure


----------



## SeaJay (May 1, 2011)

Dingo333 said:


> Personally, I don't think damage is too low, true I also look for way after way to maximize my own damage output, but at the same time I am building glass cannons
> 
> Like today, I let a new person (new to the group and PF) play one of my backup charracters, A barbarian (really liked the concept and is sticking with that sheet). If he had taken the full attack at the end of his charge (pounce via rage power) he could have ripped the troll in 2 and killed it (no fire or acid damage, but he also didn't use the fix for that). His 1 claw did 40 damage and he didn't take his second claw attack or bite (this was also not a crit).
> 
> ...



If that's the case, then yes, damage is deadly enough, but I was coming more from the player character's point of view. Wherein a 5th level Ranger could only attack twice with his bow (the rapid fire feat) and only do 1d8 damage twice. Against 5 HD opponents, this wasn't all that much.


----------



## Shisumo (May 1, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> Wherein a 5th level Ranger could only attack twice with his bow (the rapid fire feat) and only do 1d8 damage twice. Against 5 HD opponents, this wasn't all that much.



Every time you say that, it looks wrong to me.  Would you mind posting your build?  I ask because I would expect a 5th level archer ranger to be doing something more like 1d8+7 or so per shot, and I wonder if maybe something is getting overlooked somewhere.


----------



## SeaJay (May 1, 2011)

Shisumo said:


> Every time you say that, it looks wrong to me.  Would you mind posting your build?  I ask because I would expect a 5th level archer ranger to be doing something more like 1d8+7 or so per shot, and I wonder if maybe something is getting overlooked somewhere.



I should add we are playing 3.5

I don't have the build with me, the GM keeps the character sheets. Can I ask where the +7 damage comes from?


----------



## Shisumo (May 1, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> I should add we are playing 3.5



Ah, okay.  That explains at least part of it.



Malgwyn said:


> I don't have the build with me, the GM keeps the character sheets. Can I ask where the +7 damage comes from?



Well, a lot of it depends on build, of course, but a "reasonably" optimized* Pathfinder ranger by 5th level would probably have a composite (+2) bow and the Strength to back it up, a +1 bow, and be using Deadly Aim for a -2 to hit and a +4 to damage.  Deadly Aim really is pretty key for archer power in Pathfinder; it makes a pretty hefty difference.

*Pathfinder, like most variants of 3.x, rewards system mastery. I am not advocating for One True Wayism, however - play the way you want.


----------



## IronWolf (May 1, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> I should add we are playing 3.5
> 
> I don't have the build with me, the GM keeps the character sheets. Can I ask where the +7 damage comes from?




_Topic drift...._

In the last 3.5 campaign I played in I was doing better than 1d8 at 5th level.  Search around for some swift hunter builds.  I found the build pretty good and not too cheesy (some exceptions).


----------



## Scott DeWar (May 1, 2011)

Shisumo said:


> Well, a lot of it depends on build, of course, but a "reasonably" optimized* Pathfinder ranger by 5th level would probably have a composite (+2) bow and the Strength to back it up, a +1 bow, and be using Deadly Aim for a -2 to hit and a +4 to damage.  Deadly Aim really is pretty key for archer power in Pathfinder; it makes a pretty hefty difference.
> 
> *Pathfinder, like most variants of 3.x, rewards system mastery. I am not advocating for One True Wayism, however - play the way you want.




even as 3.5 you could have a strength bo of +2 or +3 w/ str to back it up and +1 magic as well, so there should be a +3 on that d8 damage at the least as a level 5 character.

The only explanation is that the dm is running a low magic and low gold reasource game.


----------



## SeaJay (May 1, 2011)

Scott DeWar said:


> even as 3.5 you could have a strength bo of +2 or +3 w/ str to back it up and +1 magic as well, so there should be a +3 on that d8 damage at the least as a level 5 character.
> 
> The only explanation is that the dm is running a low magic and low gold reasource game.



My ranger had Strength 10 and no plus modifiers


----------



## SeaJay (May 1, 2011)

I notice the Core Rule book has everything, both player and gm guides.

I want to use just the standard PF rules, so woud it be worth me getting the GM guide?


----------



## IronWolf (May 1, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> My ranger had Strength 10 and no plus modifiers




Point blank shot at least?


----------



## IronWolf (May 1, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> I notice the Core Rule book has everything, both player and gm guides.
> 
> I want to use just the standard PF rules, so woud it be worth me getting the GM guide?




The Gamemastery guide is more of a how to be a better GM, how to run and manage a campaign, lots of NPC types to use as a GM, etc.  It is a great book, but it isn't going to bring a lot more rules to the table.

If you are looking for more options for your character you are probably better off to look at the Advanced Player's Guide.  It will have lots of options for player characters.  Great book.


----------



## SeaJay (May 1, 2011)

IronWolf said:


> Point blank shot at least?



An extra +1 within 30 feet


----------



## IronWolf (May 1, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> An extra +1 within 30 feet




Yeah, you'll need it though with a 10 strength.  And looking at that swift hunter build could help you get skirmish damage as well to boost the damage.


----------



## Scott DeWar (May 1, 2011)

IronWolf said:


> Point blank shot at least?




low strength build to 5th level:
point blank  +1/+1 with in 30 feet
weapon focus +1 attack
weapon specialization +2 damaage
favored enemies +2/+2 or +4/+4

total potential here is +6 attack +bab+dex and d8 +7 damage.


----------



## IronWolf (May 1, 2011)

Scott DeWar said:


> weapon specialization +2 damaage




Needs fighter levels for that, right?  I know my normal GM house rules to be allowed to be taken by other classes though. 



			
				Scott DeWar said:
			
		

> favored enemies +2/+2 or +4/+4




Yeah - favored enemy bonuses are good for boosting effectiveness as a ranger.  Especially if the GM doesn't shy away from enemies that the ranger chose as their favored enemy.


----------



## Scott DeWar (May 1, 2011)

Best thing to do is for gm to run game unaltered for favoritism, and if fav enemy is a particular encounter-great. That keeps things random and such as that. Maybe for occasional encounter geared for the Ranger.


----------



## SeaJay (May 1, 2011)

For now I am going to go with my Fate Point homebrew rules.

Basically, if you roll a maximum on the damage dice, you can spend a Fate Point and re-roll it. If that's a max, spend another and re-roll that. At higher levels this may have to be tweaked or dropped but for now, we'll see.

I'm relatively new to 3.x, so what Adventure Path should I run first? I'm looking to keep, what I think will be the best, 'Kingmaker' until I cut my teeth on something else.


----------



## IronWolf (May 1, 2011)

Scott DeWar said:


> Best thing to do is for gm to run game unaltered for favoritism, and if fav enemy is a particular encounter-great. That keeps things random and such as that. Maybe for occasional encounter geared for the Ranger.




Totally agree.  If the GM runs an unaltered game a player can usually figure out smart favored enemy choices.  The issue is usually only if the GM suddenly steers away from those favored enemy choices when he would have not normally done so.

Sort of like I joke with the paladin in my Kingmaker game that all enemies from here on out are going to be neutral in alignment!  Darn paladin smiting!


----------



## IronWolf (May 1, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> I'm relatively new to 3.x, so what Adventure Path should I run first? I'm looking to keep, what I think will be the best, 'Kingmaker' until I cut my teeth on something else.




There are several AP threads floating around.  Take a read through this one:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/pathfinder-rpg-discussion/304243-pathfinder-adventure-paths.html

and see if that helps narrow things down a bit.


----------



## Scott DeWar (May 1, 2011)

IronWolf said:


> Sort of like I joke with the paladin in my Kingmaker game that all enemies from here on out are going to be neutral in alignment!  Darn paladin smiting!




that would be epic uber wrong!!


----------



## concerro (May 2, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> Not so much a question, more an observation and a whinge. I was playing 3.5 the other night, I had a ranger, 5th level. Best he could do was 2 attacks a round with his bow, doing 1d8 damage on both attacks. Pretty lame  I thought. Especially as the cleric, two fighters, and even the thief were doing considerably more damage.
> 
> Now for a question. I heard there was a Pathfinder Basic game in the works. Is this true, if so, when can we expect to see it?




Your 3.5 rules guy should be helping you out here. They can only keep up with the fighter when fighting a favored enemy or if you use the guide variant, but even without it they should still be able to out damage a cleric. 

This is my 6th level ranger's results from a PBP combat I did.   Attack 1 Many shot, rapid shot, and deadly Aim 
1d20 + 13 ⇒ (9) + 13 = 22      If the shot hits 2d8 + 16 ⇒ (8, 3) + 16 =* 27*  Attack 2 
1d20 + 13 ⇒ (13) + 13 = 26           If the shot hits  1d8 + 8 ⇒ (3) + 8 = *11*
  Attack 3 
1d20 + 11 ⇒ (6) + 11 = 17      If the shot hits 1d8 + 8 ⇒ (2) + 8 = *10*
  Attack 4 
1d20 + 9 ⇒ (20) + 9 = 29      If the shot hits 1d8 + 8 ⇒ (7) + 8 = *15*

That is a combined 63 points of damage in one round.


PS:I just read that you are still using 3.5. I would suggest looking up a swift hunter build in that case, and I would also suggest getting a strength bow.


----------



## concerro (May 2, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> I think a lot of my misgivings, or all actually of it, stems from the fact that I like my players to have a healthy respect in combat. Not running scared, just enough to make them reallise, that guy with the dagger 'could' make my life very difficult. The fact is, right now, a dagger wielding opponent is more or less laughed at.




Any weapon can be dangerous. It all depends on the build, more than the weapon(melee) to be honest.


----------



## SeaJay (May 29, 2011)

I've this irrational beef with errata. What 'print' edition is the current Pathfinder core rule book in?


Thanks


----------



## IronWolf (May 29, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> I've this irrational beef with errata. What 'print' edition is the current Pathfinder core rule book in?




I believe it is in its 4th printing based on the errata documents available listed here:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 23, 2011)

I'm confused with how many spells a sorcerer has at first level, and how many she can cast. 

PAGE 71: [A] sorcerer can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table 3–14. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Charisma.

Then

PAGE 71: Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by her Charisma score; the numbers on Table 3–15 are fixed.

Assuming a Charisma 15 then:

A Sorcerer can cast FOUR 1st and ONE 2nd per day, but knows only FOUR 0 and TWO 1st?

She can cast spells but doesn't necessarily have access to them yet?


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 23, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> Assuming a Charisma 15 then:
> 
> A Sorcerer can cast FOUR 1st and ONE 2nd per day, but knows only FOUR 0 and TWO 1st?
> 
> She can cast spells but doesn't necessarily have access to them yet?




you are correct on the number of spells known. a sorcerer can cast 3 first level and 0 2nd level spells at first level sorcerer. they can't cast 2nd level spells until 4th level.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 23, 2011)

Scott DeWar said:


> you are correct on the number of spells known. a sorcerer can cast 3 first level and 0 2nd level spells at first level sorcerer. they can't cast 2nd level spells until 4th level.



I think with the Charisma modifier, the spells cast is also right.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 24, 2011)

charisma mod does not allow you to cast spells higher then allowed on the chart. First level characters can only cast first level spells.


----------



## Urlithani (Jul 24, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> Awesome. That's what I thought it might be but wasn't sure
> 
> Thank you




Just in case you don't want to do the math, this might come in handy someday in case you want to create Atlas, or show off to the serving wenches in the local tavern.  (taken from 4chan, of all places...)

Mount Everest ============ 2.909836E13 tons ::: STR 256 = maximum carrying capacity of 32,369,622,321,725.44 tons
Earth's Moon ============= 8.099453E19 tons ::: STR 363 = maximum carrying capacity of 88,544,371,553,805,847,756.8 tons
Earth ==================== 6.584767E21 tons ::: STR 395 = maximum carrying capacity of 7,555,786,372,591,432,341,913.6 tons
Jupiter ================== 2.092848E23 tons ::: STR 436 = maximum carrying capacity of 2,224,423,508,090,917,681,459,363.84 tons
The  Sun ================== 2.191874E27 tons ::: STR 486 = maximum carrying  capacity of 2,277,809,672,285,099,705,814,388,572.16 tons
Betelguese  =============== 3.069650E28 tons ::: STR 505 = maximum carrying capacity  of 31,691,265,005,705,735,037,417,580,134.4 tons
Supermassive Black Hole == 8.112647E33 tons ::: STR 595 = maximum carrying capacity of 8.3076749736557242056487941267522E33 tons
Average Globular Cluster = 1.102311E35 tons ::: STR 614 = maximum carrying capacity of 1.1630744963118013887908311777453E35 tons
Milky Way Galaxy ========= 2.204623E39 tons ::: STR 686 = maximum carrying capacity of 2.5044782205381070910904371106978E39 tons
Virgo Supercluster ======= 2.204623E43 tons ::: STR 752 = maximum carrying capacity of 2.3192775006471848067197147003554E43 tons
Observable Universe ====== 3.306934E49 tons ::: STR 855 = maximum carrying capacity of 3.7414441915671114706014331717535E49 tons


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 24, 2011)

Scott DeWar said:


> charisma mod does not allow you to cast spells higher then allowed on the chart. First level characters can only cast first level spells.



Sorry, I wasn't implying they could be cast, only that she'd have more choice when she could cast them. Hence my sentence which said 

"_She can cast spells but doesn't necessarily have access to them yet?_"


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 24, 2011)

My humble apologies. My blood sugar was going haywire at that time and I was supposed to be headed out to a wedding about that time. I see now. Then the answer is yes.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 24, 2011)

Scott DeWar said:


> My humble apologies. My blood sugar was going haywire at that time and I was supposed to be headed out to a wedding about that time. I see now. Then the answer is yes.



That's ok, I'm just glad I got it right and I can continue to digest the rest of the book

Thanks for the input


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 24, 2011)

*Salute*


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 25, 2011)

Page 181 AoO

So you can both withdraw and then immediately take a 5' step on your turn?


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 25, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> Page 181 AoO
> 
> So you can both withdraw and then immediately take a 5' step on your turn?




You can't take a 5' step when you withdraw.

Combat - Withdraw

5' steps can only be taken when you have made no other movement in that round.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 25, 2011)

IronWolf said:


> You can't take a 5' step when you withdraw.
> 
> Combat - Withdraw
> 
> 5' steps can only be taken when you have made no other movement in that round.



Thanks for that

I asked because the example says:

Seoni moves away using a withdraw action. The first square she leaves is not threatened as a result, and she can thus move away from the goblin safely, but when she leaves the second square, she provokes an attack of opportunity from the ogre (who has 10 feet of reach). She could instead limit her movement to a 5-foot step, as a free action, and not provoke any attacks of opportunity.

So it's '_either or_', and not '_in addition to_'


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 25, 2011)

Excactly - that why they say "She could _instead_ limit ..."


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 26, 2011)

Combat page 187: Casting a Spell

"_A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell_."

Just to confirm, a standard action spell goes off the same round you begin casting it?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 26, 2011)

Yes, as do spells whose casting time is 1 full-round action (e.g., a sorceror using a metamagic feat on a spell with a normal casting time of 1 standard action).


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 26, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Yes, as do spells whose casting time is 1 full-round action (e.g., a sorceror using a metamagic feat on a spell with a normal casting time of 1 standard action).



Ok I'm confused.

It says in the book that 1 full round action spells are cast on you next turn on your initiative:

"_A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action.  It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round  after you began casting the spell_

Then it says "_Spells that take a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that you begin casting..._"


----------



## Volaran (Jul 26, 2011)

A spell that has a casting time of "1 full round" takes up all your actions for that round, but you get to use the full effects of that spell, whatever they may be.

A spell that takes "1 round" to cast, is technically a full round action, but is actually taking even longer to cast.  You're still continuing to cast the spell while everyone else in the initiative order acts again, and you finish the casting just before your next turn.  The spell doesn't come into effect until the beginning of your next turn, and you can act normally.  You can also be attacked by other people while you're doing this, which may force one or more concentration checks in order to complete the spell.

The most common spells with 1 round casting times are the summon spells.  So, for example, you have a sorcerer casting "Summon Monster I"

Round 1: Sorcerer begins casting.  This uses up all his actions.
Round 2: Spell complete.  A celestial eagle appears and begins to move at the sorcerer's direction.  The sorcerer also has his full range of options for this round, so he can move, cast again, etc.

It also might go like this.

Round 1: Sorcerer begins casting. This uses up all his actions.
Enemy fighter gets to go.  Notices the sorcerer is casting, and shoots an arrow at him, which hits.  The sorcerer takes damage, and is forced to make a concentration check to finish casting his spell.  He succeeds.
A second enemy fighter gets to go, and also shoots an arrow at the sorcerer, hitting him and forcing a second concentration check.  This time the sorcerer fails the check and the spell fizzles.
Round 2: Nothing is summoned, but the sorcerer can act as normal.

So, unlike normal casting, where you only generally need to worry about concentration checks if you're casting defensively, grappled, or drawing attacks of opportunity, a spell with a 1-round casting time offers more opportunities for foes to interrupt the casting.  A spellcaster attempting this will likely want to make sure that he is unseen, or otherwise protected before beginning.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 26, 2011)

Thank you for that clarification


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 26, 2011)

Page 218: “_When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit_”

I’m not sure I understand this, what’s it saying?


----------



## Dingo333 (Jul 26, 2011)

Say you make camp, your watch is not for 4 hour

you get 4ish hours of sleep/rest then are woken up for your watch, during your watch, you remember no one casted alarm and proceed to do so.

2 hours later, your shift is over and you can get another 4 hours.

when you wake up, you can prepare your spells again, but you can not re-prepare the slot you used for alarm 6ish hours ago


----------



## Volaran (Jul 26, 2011)

So, say a wizard normally goes to sleep at midnight and prepares his spells at 8am.

If he's not interrupted, everything is cool.

If he's woken up at 5am by a surprise attack, and uses some of his prepared spells (say 2 castings of magic missile and one fireball), he can still go back to sleep when things are done, and prepare spells in the morning.

However, since those spells (2 1st level spells and one 3rd level spell) were used in the 8-hour period before he prepares his spells in the morning, those spell slots are unavailable for preparation/use that day.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 26, 2011)

This internet thing is amazing! I'm amazed at how we managed to play before its arrival.

Thanks both


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 28, 2011)

From page 398: _For example, using this chart, four CR 8 creatures (worth
4,800 XP each) are equivalent to a CR 12 creature (worth 19,200 XP)._

The math works, as 4,800 x 4 = 19,200.

But when I try the same with 6 CR 12 Creatures at 19,200, I get 115,200 xp and not 102,400 as shown on the table.

Am I wrong to think this is all based purely on multiplication?

-----------------------------------------------------------

What mode of calculating xp do you use, exact, abstract, something else?

-----------------------------------------------------------
What exactly are all the 1-3, 4-5, and 6+ headings for on table 12-2, 398?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 28, 2011)

Generally, every doubling of the number of monsters increases the CR-equivalent by 2.

So two CR8 creatures are roughly equivalent to a CR10 (8+2); 4 of them (2 * 2) are roughly equivalent to a CR12.

8 would be roughly equivalent to CR 14; 6, though is somewhere between a CR14 and a CR12, so the number should be pretty close to the CR13 value.

This calculation method tends to break down once you start hitting really large numbers of opponents; 128 CR 1 orcs are not a realistic challenge for level 15 characters.

I don't calculate XP in my games; I just have the players level up at appropriate times.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 28, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Generally, every doubling of the number of monsters increases the CR-equivalent by 2.
> 
> So two CR8 creatures are roughly equivalent to a CR10 (8+2); 4 of them (2 * 2) are roughly equivalent to a CR12.
> 
> ...



So the advice would be to forget trying to work it out because it is not an exact science, and just go with what's printed.



Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> I don't calculate XP in my games; I just have the players level up at appropriate times.



Interesting idea. What's your criteria for deciding when they level up?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 28, 2011)

I wouldn't forget working it out, actually - I'd just keep in mind that they're guidelines, and can't be exact.  But for most purposes, they'll be pretty close.

To your second question: Elapsed time, mostly. 

For instance, I ran an adventure where the PCs started at 1st-level and were investigating some murders / a fire / a disappeared town councilman.  I had a rough plan in my head for how the adventure would go, and at key points (a discovery, a major fight, etc.) they advanced a level.

In terms of actual encounters met and overcome, they were probably well short of the recommended amount, but we didn't get to play very often, so stretching out the levels until they would have levelled normally would have mean that they'd only gain about a single level and a half in a year of playing, and that's far too slow for my liking.

Plus, I like to get out of the low levels faster, rather than slower, and then slow down leveling slightly after they party reaches 5th- or 6th-level or so.  Normally, I'd start at 3rd level in PF or 3.5, but I had a bunch of house rules that I wanted the players to get comfortable with before they hit higher levels.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 28, 2011)

It's interesting that PF gives 3 modes of xp growth as well.

I'd probably go with the middle one


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 28, 2011)

*When you roll damage multiple times, do you add any and all bonuses to each individual damage roll, or just the once?*


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 29, 2011)

I assume you mean in cases like a critical hit, where you roll damage twice?

In such cases, you roll twice, and add all modifiers twice.  The only thing that doesn't get added twice is additional damage represented as dice, like a Rogue's sneak attack dice or the flaming weapon property.

Ferinstance, consider a Power Attacking (for 2) 14-Strength 3rd-level Rogue with a flaming rapier +1 who crits a target he's flanking.

Normal damage is:

1d6 (Sword) + 2 (Strength) + 1 (Magic Sword) + 1d6 (Flaming) = 1d6+3+1d6

With Power Attack and sneak attack you increase that to:

1d6+3+1d6 + 2 (PA) + 2d6 (Sneak Attack) = 1d6+5+3d6

On a crit, you do not double the extra damage dice.  So, a critical hit with this weapon (rapiers have a x2 crit multiplier) will do:

(1d6+5)x2 +3d6 = 2d6+10+3d6 = 5d6+10

Make sense?


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 29, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Make sense?



It makes sense, I just need to wrap my head around the math

Thank you


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 30, 2011)

I'm not sure how to choose feats. 

For example, a 1st level sorcerer gets a bonus feat 'Eschew Materials', so I take that, then it says on the xp table, that I get a feat at 1st level as well. Also, I get a bunch of bonus feats from the sorcerer's bloodline: celestial.

Where can I choose this feat from?


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 30, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> I'm not sure how to choose feats.
> 
> For example, a 1st level sorcerer gets a bonus feat 'Eschew Materials', so I take that, then it says on the xp table, that I get a feat at 1st level as well. Also, I get a bunch of bonus feats from the sorcerer's bloodline: celestial.
> 
> Where can I choose this feat from?




Yes, Eschew Materials is a feat given just for being a sorcerer and then you get your normal feat at first level. If you are human you get a bonus feat for being human which can be chosen from the normal feat list.

The bloodline bonus feats don't kick in until level 7 and then at every six levels past that. These feats need to  be chosen from the bonus feat list for the bloodline. So for example, the celestial bonus feats are listed here.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 30, 2011)

IronWolf said:


> Yes, Eschew Materials is a feat given just for being a sorcerer and then you get your normal feat at first level. If you are human you get a bonus feat for being human which can be chosen from the normal feat list.
> 
> The bloodline bonus feats don't kick in until level 7 and then at every six levels past that. These feats need to  be chosen from the bonus feat list for the bloodline. So for example, the celestial bonus feats are listed here.



Ok so if the bloodline bonus feats don't kick in until 7th level, where do I choose my feats from?


----------



## Shisumo (Jul 30, 2011)

Every character gets a feat at every odd level (1st, 3rd, 5th, etc.). These feats can be chosen from the entire feat list - the only requirement is that you meet the feat's prerequisites.

Other sources of feats, such as the bonus feats that the sorcerer bloodlines offer, typically say which feats you can pick from.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 30, 2011)

Thanks all


----------



## SeaJay (Aug 2, 2011)

Touch Attacks page 187

*Holding the Charge*: 

"You can continue to make touch attacks round after round."

"You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action."

This makes it sound like you cast the spell successfully once, and then you can go aroud discharging it as many times as you like.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 2, 2011)

Malgwyn said:


> Touch Attacks page 187
> 
> *Holding the Charge*:
> 
> "You can continue to make touch attacks round after round."




We need more of the rule to see what they mean. Here it is from the PFSRD:



			
				d20pfsrd.com said:
			
		

> 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.




So if you cast something like shocking grasp, try to use it in an attack and miss - the spell does not discharge, you can try to make the attack again next round without needing to recast Shocking Grasp. If you miss again in the next round the spell is still not discharged and you can try again next round.

If you do touch your opponent the spell is discharged.



			
				Malgwyn said:
			
		

> "You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action."




This is more for spells that all you to touch more than one person which will be stated in the spell.  For example the spell teleport allows you to cast it on yourself and one additional creature for every 3 levels you have.  This section just lets you know how long it takes to touch the other people you want to use the spell on and you can touch up to 6 of them as a full round action.


----------



## SeaJay (Aug 2, 2011)

IronWolf said:


> We need more of the rule to see what they mean. Here it is from the PFSRD:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for clarifying this for me


----------



## SeaJay (Jun 16, 2012)

How are Feats dealt with in npc stat blocks in adventure modules?

For example, I took this from an early level adventure by Paizo:







Does the npc stat block include all modifiers to statistics due to the feats?

And more importantly, if not, how do you manage to keep the game moving if you have to keep looking them up? I imagine some high level npcs would have a load of feats. 

Thanks


----------



## BobROE (Jun 16, 2012)

Malgwyn said:


> Does the npc stat block include all modifiers to statistics due to the feats?
> 
> And more importantly, if not, how do you manage to keep the game moving if you have to keep looking them up? I imagine some high level npcs would have a load of feats.
> 
> Thanks




Any passive things should be (Weapon Focus, Iron Will, etc), if there not, it's in error.

Some active things may be, but will generally be called out in the tactics text in the stat block (stuff like Power Attack).

Really situational things you have to remember to apply yourself (stuff like Mobility).

And how do you keep it moving?  Look them up in advance.  Don't really worry about it.  Make educated guesses as what they do.

Remember, your players wont know what abilities the NPCs are supposed to have so if you forget one, or make a mistake they wont notice.


----------



## Squire James (Jun 18, 2012)

If you're a DM deciding on the feat list for a fairly high-level opponent, mentally select a "theme feat" (maybe 2 if they're simple) for the character.  Make sure that feat is possible to select, then select it and its prerequisites.  Then fill in the remaining slots (if any) with things like Toughness, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, and Great Fortitude.  These add a simple mechanical bonus useful all the time in combat.

For spell-casters, pick the 5 or 6 spells he would actually use, and kind of ignore everything else.  If the spell-caster lasts that long in combat, he should either be winning or should be considering an exist strategy regardless of his actual HP total.  It's amazing how many villains can get away if they simply start running BEFORE they lose half their HP!


----------



## SeaJay (Jun 19, 2012)

Thanks all for the advice


----------



## N'raac (Jun 19, 2012)

Squire James said:


> For spell-casters, pick the 5 or 6 spells he would actually use, and kind of ignore everything else.  If the spell-caster lasts that long in combat, he should either be winning or should be considering an exist strategy regardless of his actual HP total.  It's amazing how many villains can get away if they simply start running BEFORE they lose half their HP!




What I find critical for enemy spellcasters is remembering they typically lack the party support PC spellcasters enjoy.  Their spell selection needs to reflect that.  They need ways to get away from melee, ways to interpose obstacles frustrating combatants trying to get at them and defensive spells way more than PC's ever do.

For higher level spellcasters, fourth level spells are incredibly easy to fill out.  Dimension Door.  The rest of the list is a trap to curtail your mobility.

They should also have a tactical plan written up beforehand, and followed in play.  And I agree - once they recognize they are in real danger, "win" is quickly replaced by "escape".  These aren't brave, heroic PC's who will die for their cause - they are, at heart, cowardly villains whose own skin means more than any other reward.  As well, NPC's and monsters that flee rather than battle to the death set a good example for PC's to follow in future if they are overwhelmed.  "Retreat and regroup" beats "die where you stand".


----------



## SeaJay (Jun 25, 2012)

Are Paizo planning to release a new edition of Pathfinder soon?

I ask because I'm thinking of buying the hardback and a few others too.

EDIT: Or what's the latest print edition that's out?

Thanks


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 1, 2012)

I have a Class Skill that is designated ‘Trained Only’, but I have not put any ranks into it. can I still use the skill?


----------



## SteelDraco (Jul 1, 2012)

There are no public plans for a new edition, and it's my understanding that they've stated they don't want to do one for a pretty long while.

Based on http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook, I believe they're on the fifth printing of the Core Rulebook.

Regarding trained-only skills, no, you can't use a trained-only skill you haven't put points into. That's the definition of trained-only. Any skill checks you make automatically fail.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 1, 2012)

SteelDraco said:


> There are no public plans for a new edition, and it's my understanding that they've stated they don't want to do one for a pretty long while.
> 
> Based on http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook, I believe they're on the fifth printing of the Core Rulebook.
> 
> Regarding trained-only skills, no, you can't use a trained-only skill you haven't put points into. That's the definition of trained-only. Any skill checks you make automatically fail.



Ok thanks for the information.

I was a bit confused with the 'Trained Only' skill, because it was a Class Skill for my character.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 1, 2012)

Malgwyn said:


> I was a bit confused with the 'Trained Only' skill, because it was a Class Skill for my character.




The class skill aspect makes it easier for you to be good at it... once you've invested any training at all. You get a free +3 for being trained in a class skill bonus when you invest your first skill rank into it. That's something that other characters who don't have that skill as a class skill cannot get.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 2, 2012)

Don't mean to be a pain here, but the xp award on PAGE 398 is still bothering me. To recap...

Using the chart, 4 CR8 creatures (worth 4,800 XP each) are equivalent to a CR 12 creature (worth 19,200 XP).

Nice and simple, the math works perfectly: 4,800 x 4 = 19,200.

Using the same formula, table 12.3 tells me that 6CR creatures should have a value equal to CR+5. But as mentioned, when I use this formula (multiplying 6 CR creatures at 19,200 xp) I get 115,200 xp and not 102,400 as shown on the table.

I've been told it's just a guideline, but that's a massive difference in xp I'm handing out there; almost 13,000. That's not something I can just sweep under the carpet so to speak.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 2, 2012)

Malgwyn said:


> Using the same formula, table 12.3 tells me that 6CR creatures should have a value equal to CR+5. But as mentioned, when I use this formula (multiplying 6 CR creatures at 19,200 xp) I get 115,200 xp and not 102,400 as shown on the table.
> 
> I've been told it's just a guideline, but that's a massive difference in xp I'm handing out there; almost 13,000. That's not something I can just sweep under the carpet so to speak.




You notice that the table works perfectly around powers of 2. Double the creatures, add 2 to the CR of the encounter. What you also have to notice is that the math simply *can't* be quite as tidy for increases that aren't based on a power of 2. The approximation really is fine. The difference in XPs you're giving out isn't that massive given the numbers that PCs need to advance.

If you want to be more strict about the XP budget, use the table to generate how many XPs the encounter will be worth and then use some mixed CR creatures to get it. And if you have a remainder in your budget after picking your main monsters, don't sweat it and drop it. It'll be close enough.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 3, 2012)

billd91 said:


> You notice that the table works perfectly around powers of 2. Double the creatures, add 2 to the CR of the encounter. What you also have to notice is that the math simply *can't* be quite as tidy for increases that aren't based on a power of 2. The approximation really is fine. The difference in XPs you're giving out isn't that massive given the numbers that PCs need to advance.
> 
> If you want to be more strict about the XP budget, use the table to generate how many XPs the encounter will be worth and then use some mixed CR creatures to get it. And if you have a remainder in your budget after picking your main monsters, don't sweat it and drop it. It'll be close enough.



Good points. 

Though I'm probably looking at this from the wrong angle, I can't for the life of me think why Paizo would use such a a flaky guideline. I mean, my very first attempt at using their advice, came up with the wrong result.


----------



## BobROE (Jul 3, 2012)

Malgwyn said:


> I've been told it's just a guideline, but that's a massive difference in xp I'm handing out there; almost 13,000. That's not something I can just sweep under the carpet so to speak.




Once you divide it by the number of players, 3250 for 4 (or 2166 for 6) it's not all that much XP when a 12th level character needs 95000XP to get from 12th to 13th.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 7, 2012)

Malgwyn said:


> Don't mean to be a pain here, but the xp award on PAGE 398 is still bothering me. To recap...
> 
> Using the chart, 4 CR8 creatures (worth 4,800 XP each) are equivalent to a CR 12 creature (worth 19,200 XP).
> 
> ...



I apologise because I think I have been a bit stupid here. 

I did the calculation on the calculator (as mentioned above), and the result wasn't the same as what's written in tabel 12-3 (on page 398). I think that's where my mistake came in.

The calculator result doesn't need to be the same as the result in table 12-3, because the entries on table 12-3 were never meant to be exact math formula. Am I right?

In other words, the table is right because the table gives good estimations of an encounter (which was its only purpose), and is not wrong because the calculator's result was different. 

Is that it?

I mean, if I want to know what 8 CR 15 creatures are, just look it up on the table and forget correct formulas.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 8, 2012)

Is that right?


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 9, 2012)

I don't understand the diagram on page 194.

Specifically where it says Kyra (no. 3) cannnot draw a line toward the ogre. Sure she can't, because the lines chosen are clearly obstructed by obstacles. 

What I don't understand is why they didn't choose the 45 degree angle/line that neatly bisects the ogre in half.


----------



## Noir le Lotus (Jul 9, 2012)

Malgwyn said:


> I don't understand the diagram on page 194.
> 
> Specifically where it says Kyra (no. 3) cannnot draw a line toward the ogre. Sure she can't, because the lines chosen are clearly obstructed by obstacles.
> 
> What I don't understand is why they didn't choose the 45 degree angle/line that neatly bisects the ogre in half.




I don't know which version of the rulebook you have, but on mine (5th printing), the text says : "Kyra attacks at range, and must pick one of the corners of her square to determine cover. Some of these lines pass through a solid surface, meaning that the ogre has cover."

As all the lines drawn from the Kyra's square corner can"t reach all the corners of the ogre space, then the ogre has cover and Kyra will suffer the appropriate penalty on her ranger attack.


----------



## GlassEye (Jul 9, 2012)

The rule for determining cover from ranged attacks is as follows:


> To determine whether your target has cover from your
> ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line
> from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes
> through a square or border that blocks line of effect or
> ...




The player of Kyra picks a corner and will obviously pick the corner that looks like it will be able to attack clearly.  But that player has to draw a line to each of the corners of the ogre's square (note the 'If any line' phrasing); if any of them pass through an obstruction then the ogre gets cover.  They could have drawn the line that bisects the ogre but they would still have to check the corners to either side.

Edit: Ninja'd!


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 9, 2012)

Ah right, 'any' line does make a difference. Missed that one.

Sorry


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 9, 2012)

*Page 398*: Table 12-3

I checked what 6 CR 12 creatures would be on table 12-3. The calculator said 115,200 but the table says 102,400.

Table 12-3 was never meant to be mathematically correct?

I mean, if I want to know what 8 CR 15 creatures are, just look it up on the table and forget calculators?


----------



## N'raac (Jul 9, 2012)

Malgwyn said:


> *Page 398*: Table 12-3
> 
> I checked what 6 CR 12 creatures would be on table 12-3. The calculator said 115,200 but the table says 102,400.
> 
> ...




Most tables are approximations based on rules of thumb.  If you want to math out a precise number, great - use that number.  If you want to use the table, great - use that number.

The difference is 12,800 xp divided among what, 6 characters of L14?  6 characters of L12 would be in for a tough fight against an equal number of CR 12 opponents.  The difference is 2,133 xp per character, and L12 characters need 330k, 220k or 145k xp to advance, so any rounding/error factor is negligible.

It certainly is a good argument for advancement at the speed of plot if the players or DM are going to agonize over a comparatively miniscule deviation between the chart and a precise mathematical computation.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 9, 2012)

N'raac said:


> Most tables are approximations based on rules of thumb.  If you want to math out a precise number, great - use that number.  If you want to use the table, great - use that number.
> 
> The difference is 12,800 xp divided among what, 6 characters of L14?  6 characters of L12 would be in for a tough fight against an equal number of CR 12 opponents.  The difference is 2,133 xp per character, and L12 characters need 330k, 220k or 145k xp to advance, so any rounding/error factor is negligible.
> 
> It certainly is a good argument for advancement at the speed of plot if the players or DM are going to agonize over a comparatively miniscule deviation between the chart and a precise mathematical computation.



True.

I was just concerned that because the calculator answer differed from the table's, that the table was somehow wrong.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 13, 2012)

Malgwyn said:


> *Page 398*: Table 12-3
> 
> I checked what 6 CR 12 creatures would be on table 12-3. The calculator said 115,200 but the table says 102,400.
> 
> ...




That is basically correct. There is *some* math in there but you can also say that for several CR factors on the table, there is a noticeable round-off factor.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 29, 2012)

Do all classes get the same number of advances per level? I ask because I was thinking about doing away with the level progression where everything goes up at once, and making it more gradual. 

'If' everyone does have the same number of advances (i.e. hit points, attack bonus, Fort etc save, etc), I was going to allow them to take one of those advances whenever they reached a certain number of xp.

When they take all advances that means they'd reached the next level. 

If classes don't get the same number of advances then it may not work. 

For example:

Fighter 1st level, let's say he needs 2000 xp to get to level 2 and let's say he has 4 advances.

1. Hit Point increase
2. Attack bonus increase
3. Save increase
4. A feat. 

At 2000 xp needed, he'd choose one of the above at 500 xp, 1000 xp, 1500 xp, then finally at 2000 xp, and he's 2nd level. 

So do all classes have the same number of advances per level?


----------



## N'raac (Jul 29, 2012)

I suspect you;d have to analyze what each character gets at each level, parcel it out and assess how many stages each character goes through for each level. It should be closer than it was in 3e D&D, as Pathfinder has worked to alleviate "dead levels" where all the fighter, say, received could be attack bonus and hp.

Spellcasters would be interesting to parcel out.  Wizards might get attack bonuses, save bonuses, two new spells for their spell book, an enhancement to their familiar, a bonus feat, increased caster level, more spells he can memorize at various levels, a new ability from his school, enhancements to an old ability from his school and/or a new spell level.  And that assumes he didn't swap some abilities out within an archetype.

How will this approach deal with benefits gained based on character level, rather than class level, such as a feat every odd numbered level and an ability bonus every fourth level?  I expect you have to pick your class before choosing any class benefits, but can I choose my new feat at L7 to meet the criteria for the PrC level I also want to take at L7?


----------



## N'raac (Jul 29, 2012)

And we forgot skill points!


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 30, 2012)

not all levels get the same gains, I don't think. You will see this as you research.


----------



## SeaJay (Jul 30, 2012)

Not a good idea it seems

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## SeaJay (Nov 28, 2012)

How game breaking is magic at higher levels? 

I've heard is said many times now, that spellcasters at higher levels completely dominate game sessions. There's a spell for most obstacles, and there are spells that copy or even do better what another class can do.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 28, 2012)

Malgwyn said:


> How game breaking is magic at higher levels?
> 
> I've heard is said many times now, that spellcasters at higher levels completely dominate game sessions. There's a spell for most obstacles, and there are spells that copy or even do better what another class can do.




People say a lot of things that aren't necessarily true, even if speaking from their own experience or what they read from someone else's posts on the internet.

What is true is that magic *can* have a widespread effect on the game. Spells like fly, overland flight, and teleport can substantially change how the PCs access the environment around them. Raise dead and resurrection turn death into speed bumps rather than character enders. These are things DMs should keep in mind as PCs level up and he designs more challenges and scenarios for the PCs.

That said, high level spellcasters don't dominate game sessions without key decisions being made. Some may be made innocently like making a wand of knock spells so that locks are never an obstacle. Others may be deliberate - like making a wand of knock spells so that the wizard can bypass the rogue's lockpicking skills and be the first to get to treasures locked away. Some may be made because the spellcasting player happens to like powergaming and treats maximizing his ability to neutralize the opposition as a challenge the game system presents. In any event, choices are being made that don't need to be made or that can be thought of in a different light. 

For example, rather than making a wand of knock spells with 50 charges, the wizard could scribe a knock scroll or two. They're still useful but are more clearly conceived of as back-up to the rogue if his skills are not up to the task rather than a primary lock picking tactic. Some may argue that it's perfectly rational to make the wand because it's cheap per charge. But it's also rational to let the rogue do it for free in the first place. Make the choice in motivation that promotes teamwork and wizards won't dominate sessions.

I think you'll always see magic having a significant effect on the campaign but not all really involve dominating sessions. More powerful healing spells like heal substantially reduce the amount of downtime after or between fights. Yet it's hard to say heal enables the high level cleric to dominate a session. He significantly affects the timing and flow of an adventure but because handling the heal is a brief mechanical and supportive action, it really enables other PCs rather than takes over the session. The same is true of teleport and overland flight on the wizard side of things. Major effect on what the PCs can do and, yes, the wizard is the gatekeeper to that ability. But it doesn't lead to the wizard dominating the session's actual play time which is ultimately more important.


----------



## SeaJay (Nov 28, 2012)

Interesting post, thank you for that insight billd91


----------



## SeaJay (Nov 30, 2012)

Does anyone have an npc 10th level fighter and an npc 10th level cleric, or know where I can download them? 

I would like to have them fight it out to see how good clerics are.

Thank you.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 30, 2012)

Malgwyn said:


> Does anyone have an npc 10th level fighter and an npc 10th level cleric, or know where I can download them?
> 
> I would like to have them fight it out to see how good clerics are.
> 
> Thank you.




Try here:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s


----------



## SeaJay (Nov 30, 2012)

Thank you


----------



## SeaJay (Feb 14, 2013)

This sounds like I'm bashing PF, I'm not, I'm genuinely interested in  hearing both sides of the story - which is why I'm asking this question  here. 

Friend of mine told me that one of the biggest issues with  PF/3.X, is as you rise in levels, the attack bonus modifiers renders  armour almost obsolete.

Does he have a point?

Thanks all


----------



## SeaJay (Feb 18, 2013)

Anyone like to comment on the above?


----------



## billd91 (Feb 18, 2013)

I wouldn't say a high attack bonus renders armor obsolete, however, it does have a significant effect. In PF, if an attack value gets high enough, the first attack is probably going to hit quite easily. However, since iterative attacks come with decreasing attack bonuses, the AC becomes more of a factor with subsequent attacks. Armor becomes less of a complete block to doing damage and more of a brake on how much is actually done.


----------



## SeaJay (Feb 18, 2013)

Thanks for that Billd91


----------



## Empirate (Feb 18, 2013)

As you level up, different kinds of defenses become the most important.

At low levels, AC is probably your most worthwhile line of defense, since it can outright prevent the most common effects that might take you out of a fight (i.e. incoming attacks). Good HP are important, but will run out quickly. Good saves aren't that important, since the almighty d20 still ensures very swingy results even if your save bonuses are comparatively high. Should you get your hands on a little bit of damage reduction, that's a good thing, but even at low levels, DR isn't doing much for you.

At mid levels, AC dwindles in effectiveness, but high HP can still keep you going even though you will take some hits, and good saves become extremely important to avoid a sudden end to your contribution in a fight. The amounts of DR available to PCs is completely irrelevant by now. Resistances to energy types can prove randomly useful, but full immunity is probably not on the table yet. Mobility in three dimensions and winning initiative become very, very important assets.

At high levels, high HP are of course still good to have, but HP damage isn't the most dangerous thing you will encounter, and many effects are still devastating even on a successful save (or don't allow a save at all). Your most important defenses are flat immunities to certain groups of status effects (freedom of movement; immunity to death effects, energy drain, mind-affecting etc.).
Good saves can still prevent a bunch of unhappy circumstances, but aren't to be relied upon anymore. AC is by this point near negligible, since most enemies will be able to hit with their most powerful attack forms regardless of even very high AC.
You will often need to know what you're facing beforehand, or expect to die/be made a mind-puppet/be sent to another plane of existence/be heavily resource-drained a lot. Teleport-like mobility and being able to always act in the surprise round are both extremely necessary, and at the very least not losing initiative is really the key to high-level survival.
This phase of the game is often referred to as rocket tag.


There you have it. It's not even a fault in the numbers game per se; it's more the result of what's possible at mid and high levels, it's about what level-appropriate NPCs/monsters can do.


----------



## SeaJay (Feb 18, 2013)

Thank you for that Empirate

I agree, it seems the nature of rpgs in general will always end up going down this route, especially fantasy rpgs. 

Perhaps armour that soaks damage would be more useful at mid/high levels. That way armour per se, is still important. Or at least not as redundant


----------



## billd91 (Feb 18, 2013)

Malgwyn said:


> Thank you for that Empirate
> 
> I agree, it seems the nature of rpgs in general will always end up going down this route, especially fantasy rpgs.
> 
> Perhaps armour that soaks damage would be more useful at mid/high levels. That way armour per se, is still important. Or at least not as redundant




By high levels, some of the PCs may be wearing adamantine armor, which does soak a small amount of the damage.


----------



## Empirate (Feb 18, 2013)

billd91 said:


> By high levels, some of the PCs may be wearing adamantine armor, which does soak a small amount of the damage.




At high levels, moderate amounts of DR are completely useless. Not just slightly useless. Completely useless. Above, say, 12th level or so, there will not be more than 1 level-appropriate encounter in 100 where having DR 3/whatever actually makes any difference.


----------

