Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

The FAQ That Time Forgot

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Every once and a while I like to take a break from my current design challenges to tackle some frequently asked questions from our files. We've got some bigger issues to tackle soon, but these are a start.

Ultimate Combat seems to imply that the Totem Warrior archetype (from the Advanced Player's Guide) allows you to take more than one type of totem rage powers. Is this an erratum for the Totem Warrior archetype?

No, the line in Ultimate Combat is in error. We will get that fixed in the next printing. Until then, the restriction on only taking totem rage powers from one group remains in place.

When you cast a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch attack, such as scorching ray, and an enemy is within reach, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity?

Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity, one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events. As a note, since all of the rays are fired simultaneously (in the case of scorching ray), you would only provoke one attack of opportunity for making the ranged attack, even if you fired more than one ray.

The Greater Trip feat allows you to take an attack of opportunity against a foe that you trip. The Vicious Stomp feat allows you to take an attack of opportunity against a foe that falls prone adjacent to you. If you have both these feats and trip a foe, do you get to make two attacks of opportunity (assuming that you can)?

Yes, the two triggering acts are similar here but they are different. One occurs when you trip a foe. The other occurs when a foe falls prone. It requires a large number of feats to accomplish, but you can really pile on the attacks with this combination.

Does the ring of continuation (Ultimate Equipment, page 168) allow you to cast time stop with a duration of 24 hours?

This item has had some unintended consequences and needs a fix. Change the second sentence of the description to read as follows: "Whenever the wearer of the ring casts a spell with a range of personal and a duration of 10 minutes per level or greater, that spell remains in effect for 24 hours or until the wearer casts another spell with a range of personal (whichever comes first)."

Charm person makes a humanoid "friendly" to you, as per the rules found in the Diplomacy skill, but it also allows you to issue orders to the target, making an opposed Charisma check to convince the target to do something that it would not normally do. How does that work?

The charm person spell (and charm monster by extension) makes the target your friend. It will treat you kindly (although maybe not your allies) and will generally help you as long as your interests align. This is mostly in the purview of the GM. If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play. For example, if you use charm person to befriend an orc, the orc might share his grog with you and talk with you about the upcoming raid on a nearby settlement. If you asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand. If you asked him to help you till a field, however, you might need to make that check to convince him to do it.

That about wraps it up for this week. Keep those questions coming.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Frequently Asked Questions Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
51 to 100 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Hopefully the next FAQ thread will be called "The Stars are Right for FAQs" or something to that effect! Thanks for addressing these questions, Jason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lobolusk wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Man, I should've taken that bet on how fast someone would complain about this not being flurry of blows.
it was more of a passive aggressive joke. that complaint, I have stopped lovign monks and now play brawlers and unarmed fighters to have my monster puncher.

Jokes are supposed to be funny...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Jason,

I think Paizo needs to devote more time on errata/FAQ answers. With the prodigious amount of PFRPG materials that have been released the need for clarifications is great and it would be ideal if this were a monthly occurance. It could be 3 or four questions thats it nothing long. Maybe from you for the PFRPG rules, someone else for the Golarion setting material.
But this is sorely needed.

I understand everyone at Paizo is super busy. But maybe you guys could hire someone part time/temp to get the answers from the staff and compile it for vetting and release to the public.

Here my FAQ request: Thassalonian Specialist: I understnd that being a TS locks you into a specific school and prohibits you to two specific opposition schools for 2 identical spells per spell level known. However it says nothing about the School Powers.

Do the Thassalonian Schools have the standard school powers?

Do they have school powers at all?

How do the Sub-Schools interact with the Thassalonian Specialist?

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Shivok wrote:

Jason,

I think Paizo needs to devote more time on errata/FAQ answers. With the prodigious amount of PFRPG materials that have been released the need for clarifications is great and it would be ideal if this were a monthly occurance. It could be 3 or four questions thats it nothing long. Maybe from you for the PFRPG rules, someone else for the Golarion setting material.
But this is sorely needed.

Trust me when I say that getting more involved in the FAQ and errata is very high up on our priority list. I hope to make this a more regular feature in the near future.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Jason,
Trust me when I say that the above post is probably one of the ones I like reading the most.


Tels wrote:

I think one of the big hang ups for Charm Person, is what does 'obviously harmful' mean, or is that a GM question? Does it mean causing harm to anyone, or causing harm to oneself? If it's causing harm to oneself, does that mean emotional harm? Physical harm? Financial harm? Political harm?

That was kind of one of the things that really blew up the Charm Person thread awhile back.

In the end both sides were wrong (or both sides were right?) the important thing is that in the end is a pure DM call.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Shivok wrote:

Jason,

I think Paizo needs to devote more time on errata/FAQ answers. With the prodigious amount of PFRPG materials that have been released the need for clarifications is great and it would be ideal if this were a monthly occurance. It could be 3 or four questions thats it nothing long. Maybe from you for the PFRPG rules, someone else for the Golarion setting material.
But this is sorely needed.

I understand everyone at Paizo is super busy. But maybe you guys could hire someone part time/temp to get the answers from the staff and compile it for vetting and release to the public.

Here my FAQ request: Thassalonian Specialist: I understnd that being a TS locks you into a specific school and prohibits you to two specific opposition schools for 2 identical spells per spell level known. However it says nothing about the School Powers.

Do the Thassalonian Schools have the standard school powers?

Do they have school powers at all?

How do the Sub-Schools interact with the Thassalonian Specialist?

And it's interesting that you chose as your FAQ request an element that doesn't show up in a hardcover rulebook at all, but is instead a specific rules element from Golarion.

In this particular case, since I'm the one who designed the Thassilonian Specialist, and since it's rules implications should speak as much to the intended world flavor as it does to the rules themselves... I can answer this for you here and now! :-)

Thassilonian specialists say nothing about the school powers because they don't change those at all. They have standard school powers, in other words, for their chosen specialty. They CAN NOT choose sub schools at all—Thassilon was all about specializing in the seven Thassilonian schools. That also means you can't pick divination as a Thassilonian specialization.


Odraude wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Man, I should've taken that bet on how fast someone would complain about this not being flurry of blows.
it was more of a passive aggressive joke. that complaint, I have stopped lovign monks and now play brawlers and unarmed fighters to have my monster puncher.
Jokes are supposed to be funny...

I laughed and every one is a critic.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Lobolusk wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Man, I should've taken that bet on how fast someone would complain about this not being flurry of blows.
it was more of a passive aggressive joke. that complaint, I have stopped lovign monks and now play brawlers and unarmed fighters to have my monster puncher.
Jokes are supposed to be funny...
I laughed and every one is a critic.

Now that was funny. Maybe not in the intended way, but still.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
And it's interesting that you chose as your FAQ request an element that doesn't show up in a hardcover rulebook at all, but is instead a specific rules element from Golarion.

Thats why I mentioned 'someone could answer golarion stuff' :v) I knew you'd answer that. Gracias!

Quote:
In this particular case, since I'm the one who designed the Thassilonian Specialist, and since it's rules implications should speak as much to the intended world flavor as it does to the rules themselves... I can answer this for you here and now! :-)

Wow another questioned answered we're chipping away at the FAQ mountain already. woohoo!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Shivok wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
And it's interesting that you chose as your FAQ request an element that doesn't show up in a hardcover rulebook at all, but is instead a specific rules element from Golarion.

Thats why I mentioned 'someone could answer golarion stuff' :v) I knew you'd answer that. Gracias!

Quote:
In this particular case, since I'm the one who designed the Thassilonian Specialist, and since it's rules implications should speak as much to the intended world flavor as it does to the rules themselves... I can answer this for you here and now! :-)
Wow another questioned answered we're chipping away at the FAQ mountain already. woohoo!

Also... anyone who has Golarion questions can always head on over to the "Ask James Jacobs" thread. I keep a pretty good watch there. Not the best place to go if you have crunchy non-Golarion rules questions though... those questions are best utilized via this FAQ stuff.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Wait, I am confused by the Totem Warrior FAQ.

Is there no way to gain both a Beast totem and Fiend totem power?

Does the archetype no longer give you access to both?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matrixryu wrote:
On the plus site, you don't have to worry as much about accidentally deactivating the ring by casting a random spell with a range of personal now that the list is a bit more limited.

I'm not so sure this is true.

Now it only works on 10 min./level or greater spells, but it still seems as though casting ANY personal range spell stops its extended duration just as it did before.

In short, if I cast Shapechange, it can last 24 hours, but then if I cast Shield, I lose the 24 hour benefit of Shapechange, causing it to end if its surpassed its default duration.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait, I am confused by the Totem Warrior FAQ.

Is there no way to gain both a Beast totem and Fiend totem power?

Does the archetype no longer give you access to both?

Yep, they are "nerfing" the Barbarian to one Totem only. Totem Warrior Archetype now does nothing. Sad, but true.

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait, I am confused by the Totem Warrior FAQ.

Is there no way to gain both a Beast totem and Fiend totem power?

Does the archetype no longer give you access to both?

It never did, apparently.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It would be nice if the "Totem Warrior" archetype allowed any Totem rage power, but were restricted to choosing Totem rage powers only.

That seems a better change, and keeps it relevant.
At least it seems better than just wiping it from existence.

That is my opinion.


Wow I remember some of those threads got locked and I thought no one was ever going to answer them! Very cool that you were listening and thinking about it after all!


@ Grimmy:

I look forward to our recently locked discussion getting some love in the future!


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am still glad for the FAQ though.

By the way, you guys are based in Redmond right?


FAQ answers are like pizza...

Even if it's not the one you wanted, it's still good :)


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I would like to have seen some FAQ regarding some of the many unarmed strike questions.


littlehewy wrote:

@ Grimmy:

I look forward to our recently locked discussion getting some love in the future!

Yup! My faith in Paizo is restored.


Wow it got locked "blinks" i missed that.


Oh man. I remember the threads about ranged touch attacks and AoOs.

Good times!

Good to see the FAQ threatening to recover from its long hiatus.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

It would be nice if the "Totem Warrior" archetype allowed any Totem rage power, but were restricted to choosing Totem rage powers only.

That seems a better change, and keeps it relevant.
At least it seems better than just wiping it from existence.

That is my opinion.

What about the prerequisites of those totem powers? A bunch of totem rage powers have non-totem prerequisites. So now you can't select those? So now you have to add even MORE lines of text to a book instead of replacing them!

Note that the "error" is in Ultimate Combat, not Advanced Player's Guide, meaning either the former book alters the later (which means anyone who buys the previous book will NOT know of the new rules change) or you have to alter a book to accommodate a ruling that was made after the book came out in the first place.

Its a printing nightmare.

Osirion

I refuse to accept two attacks of oppourtunity for casting one spell. I can't hold the blasts and decide not to fire them till later, they happen instantly when i cast the spell, therefore only ONE attack of oppourtunity should be provoked, at the instant the spell is executed. Less dice rolls per action please.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You can houserule it VikShade, but it fits with the rules. You're not getting two AoO's for one action. You get one when you start casting the spell (IE: When you quit paying attention to the guy next to you and start muttering the words and making gestures). Then, you complete the spell (a standard action takes a second or so) and then you reach out with your hand and they go after your hand and try to chop it off because you're too busy aiming it at someone to keep them from chopping it off.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
hogarth wrote:
The charm answer didn't really clear things up for me; the example of tilling a field is still within the vague range of something a friend might do for you. How about ordering a man to murder his wife and children?
Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness. Tilling a field might really depend on the creature (I dont think Orcs care much for farming), but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).

I think having the target commit suicide is outside of the remit of the ability,

perhaps barring if the creature was already considering/amenable to suicide. (e.g. Samurai culture)

Overall, I'd say: the target should only take actions that would result in it still being able to be 'your friend'.
Actions that push that limit should suffer harsh penalties to the CHA check.
I guess if you are somehow getting huge mods (such as Bard assistance, etc),
you could get the target to do some very dubious (re: friendship) actions,
but I still think the 'and still be your friend' guideline seems the most reasonable/logical...
Probably would be nice to have it explicit in the rules of course.


My FAQ request brought back from the dead:

Do Bullrushes not normally use weapon attack bonuses, but DO use them when Charging?
I ask because the wording for the default ability uses the EXACT same 'in place of [melee] attack' wording which is used as the sole indicator that the Trip/Disarm/Sunder/etc Maneuvers DO use those attack bonuses.

Quote:
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.

I am OK with this on a certain level, and using weapons to Bullrush doesn't really seem too far out (at least in cases like a Spear), but I'm not sure why it's so important that you must be making a real-deal Charge to do so... And I'm just dubious that the INTENT is to allow this, even if the RAW does. But on the other hand, a Charge requirement isn't that far out, so I'm ready to be happily surprised that this IS the real intent.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

WOOOOOOHOOOOOO! Good to see these posts starting back up!

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

When you cast a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch attack, such as scorching ray, and an enemy is within reach, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity?

Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity, one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events. As a note, since all of the rays are fired simultaneously (in the case of scorching ray), you would only provoke one attack of opportunity for making the ranged attack, even if you fired more than one ray.

I was one who argued that there would only be one AoO. Interestingly, I thought back to this issue a few days ago and was starting to lean towards reversing my original position. It's good to know we now have an official answer! (At least I was right about scorching ray).


Matthew Morris wrote:
Faqman wrote:
Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity, one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events. As a note, since all of the rays are fired simultaneously (in the case of scorching ray), you would only provoke one attack of opportunity for making the ranged attack, even if you fired more than one ray.
Does this mean if an archer full attacks with the bow, he can draw an AoO from each time he fires an arrow? What about manyshot?

Manyshot is only 1 act. It just releases two arrows. As for a normal iterative shot, I have no idea.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I would like to have seen some FAQ regarding some of the many unarmed strike questions.

That probably won't happen until they start to "rework" the monk, since things will most likely change at that time.


Concerro still at 100% for long debated threads.


Is there any chance that the FAQ will be added to the Errata documents? Or perhaps released on it's own?


mdt wrote:
You can houserule it VikShade, but it fits with the rules. You're not getting two AoO's for one action. You get one when you start casting the spell (IE: When you quit paying attention to the guy next to you and start muttering the words and making gestures). Then, you complete the spell (a standard action takes a second or so) and then you reach out with your hand and they go after your hand and try to chop it off because you're too busy aiming it at someone to keep them from chopping it off.

That's kind of like suggesting that, when in melee range of an archer, you'd get one AoO when they nock, another when they draw the string back, and a final one when they aim and release.

Is pointing your finger at the target of the spell not "part of casting the spell?" It seems like it would be part of the somatic components.

(ie: I think this was a poor ruling.)


Zarthon wrote:
Is there any chance that the FAQ will be added to the Errata documents? Or perhaps released on it's own?

FAQ's are just the devs telling you how the rules work, and they don't go into the errata documents. Errata is an actual rewriting of the rules. The errata for the ring will go into the errata document.


Neo2151 wrote:
mdt wrote:
You can houserule it VikShade, but it fits with the rules. You're not getting two AoO's for one action. You get one when you start casting the spell (IE: When you quit paying attention to the guy next to you and start muttering the words and making gestures). Then, you complete the spell (a standard action takes a second or so) and then you reach out with your hand and they go after your hand and try to chop it off because you're too busy aiming it at someone to keep them from chopping it off.

That's kind of like suggesting that, when in melee range of an archer, you'd get one AoO when they nock, another when they draw the string back, and a final one when they aim and release.

Is pointing your finger at the target of the spell not "part of casting the spell?" It seems like it would be part of the somatic components.

(ie: I think this was a poor ruling.)

AoO's are made per act, not per action.

Casting the spell and taking the ranged attack are two actions. RAW also supports this.

There is no AoO for knocking an arrow or drawing it back. Assuming the keep following the idea that acts provoke then each iterative attack for a bow will provoke, but I am not sure if they will, not that many archers will be taking multiple shots after getting hit the first time.

edit:Casting the spell, and the actual attack(which is what provokes) are two very different things. The only reason touch(nonranged) attacks don't provoke is because a touch attack from a spell is considered to be an armed attack, not because the attack is a part of the spell.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Quandary wrote:

My FAQ request brought back from the dead:

Do Bullrushes not normally use weapon attack bonuses, but DO use them when Charging?
I ask because the wording for the default ability uses the EXACT same 'in place of [melee] attack' wording which is used as the sole indicator that the Trip/Disarm/Sunder/etc Maneuvers DO use those attack bonuses.

What makes you think that the "in place of [melee] attack" is what causes T/D/S to use weapon bonuses? How is the former related at all to the latter?


concerro wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
mdt wrote:
You can houserule it VikShade, but it fits with the rules. You're not getting two AoO's for one action. You get one when you start casting the spell (IE: When you quit paying attention to the guy next to you and start muttering the words and making gestures). Then, you complete the spell (a standard action takes a second or so) and then you reach out with your hand and they go after your hand and try to chop it off because you're too busy aiming it at someone to keep them from chopping it off.

That's kind of like suggesting that, when in melee range of an archer, you'd get one AoO when they nock, another when they draw the string back, and a final one when they aim and release.

Is pointing your finger at the target of the spell not "part of casting the spell?" It seems like it would be part of the somatic components.

(ie: I think this was a poor ruling.)

AoO's are made per act, not per action.

Casting the spell and taking the ranged attack are two actions. RAW also supports this.

There is no AoO for knocking an arrow or drawing it back. Assuming the keep following the idea that acts provoke then each iterative attack for a bow will provoke, but I am not sure if they will, not that many archers will be taking multiple shots after getting hit the first time.

edit:Casting the spell, and the actual attack(which is what provokes) are two very different things. The only reason touch(nonranged) attacks don't provoke is because a touch attack from a spell is considered to be an armed attack, not because the attack is a part of the spell.

Attacks of opportunity aren't even per act. They're per opportunity. Each time an opponent provokes, it generates a separate opportunity even if it is the same act. So if one act provokes twice, it draws two attacks. Scorching Ray draws two attacks because casting a spell provokes and making a ranged attack in melee provokes. Shooting an arrow draws just one because it only does one thing that provokes, making a ranged attack in melee.

Now, if the archer was doing something else that also provoked while shooting that arrow, such as shooting at an adjacent Come And Get Me barbarian, then she'd draw two attacks of opportunity.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:
mdt wrote:
You can houserule it VikShade, but it fits with the rules. You're not getting two AoO's for one action. You get one when you start casting the spell (IE: When you quit paying attention to the guy next to you and start muttering the words and making gestures). Then, you complete the spell (a standard action takes a second or so) and then you reach out with your hand and they go after your hand and try to chop it off because you're too busy aiming it at someone to keep them from chopping it off.

That's kind of like suggesting that, when in melee range of an archer, you'd get one AoO when they nock, another when they draw the string back, and a final one when they aim and release.

Is pointing your finger at the target of the spell not "part of casting the spell?" It seems like it would be part of the somatic components.

(ie: I think this was a poor ruling.)

No, it's not. Because there is no action for 'knock arrow' or 'draw string back', nor even 'aim and release'. The only action is 'make a ranged attack'. Your argument might hold water if, anywhere in the rules, there was a call out of an action called 'knock an arrow' that could provoke an attack of opportunity. Since there isn't, there isn't.

There is, however, an action called 'cast a spell' called out as provoking, and another action called 'make a ranged attack' called out as provoking. Both of these actions are required to cast a ranged touch spell. You can't make a ranged touch attack with a spell if you don't cast the spell, correct? Even sorcerers still have to cast the spell. And, you can't hit someone with the spell if you don't make a ranged attack, right? The only exception I'd see on that is Magic Missile, which automatically hits (and, I'd say it doesn't provoke for the attack, since there is no ranged attack involved).


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
concerro wrote:
Concerro still at 100% for long debated threads.

Cheapy is talking in third person.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MacGurcules wrote:
Attacks of opportunity aren't even per act. They're per opportunity. Each time an opponent provokes, it generates a separate opportunity even if it is the same act.

You're both saying the same thing. It's just that the system uses the term 'action' for multiple things. The concept is, there are two things being done (activities if you will) that provoke in the case of a spell (with the exception of Magic Missile, which only has one) making a ranged attack.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
concerro wrote:
Concerro still at 100% for long debated threads.
Cheapy is talking in third person.

The Grammar Nazi is displeased with both of you.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Reloading most weapons DOES provoke AoO's, however this doesn't seem to be the case with things like bows and arrows. Why is that?


Just from memory, isn't nocking an arrow specified as "not an action", or something like that? Could be wrong...


Ravingdork wrote:
Reloading most weapons DOES provoke AoO's, however this doesn't seem to be the case with things like bows and arrows. Why is that?

Because in real life, the medieval crossbows took several seconds to reload, regardless of who you were. Heavy crossbows could take a minute to reload, easy, because they had to be whenched back, you couldn't draw it back by hand.

I know this is from a T.V. show, but this clip shows what I'm talking about (if the link doesn't work right, skip to 1:57). It shows two crossbows being used, a light crossbow, and a heavy crossbow. The light crossbow (at about 3:55) is mentioned to have an average reload time of about 20 seconds, however, I will mention the guy in the video seems to be moving slowly because I don't think he's taking it seriously. The heavy crossbow has an average reload time of about 57 seconds (mentioned at 5:06).

However, in D&D/Pathfinder, we get a move action (about 3 seconds) and full round action (about 6 seconds) for reload times for the light and heavy crossbows respectively. If we take a Feat, we can reduce these to a free action and move action.

Now if crossbows were to accurately reflect how they were actually used, they'd never be used by anyone in this game. 10 rounds to reload a crossbow? That thing better blast a hole in the side of a castle if you expect me to use it!

So in the interest of making the crossbow actually useful in the game rules, we have drastically reduced reload speeds, but instead, they provoke attacks of opportunity.


So what does Totem Warrior do?

If this archetype is purely fluff, then why does it exist at all?


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Jason explained that it was simply a place for them to talk about them in one spot.


MacGurcules wrote:

Attacks of opportunity aren't even per act. They're per opportunity. Each time an opponent provokes, it generates a separate opportunity even if it is the same act. So if one act provokes twice, it draws two attacks. Scorching Ray draws two attacks because casting a spell provokes and making a ranged attack in melee provokes. Shooting an arrow draws just one because it only does one thing that provokes, making a ranged attack in melee.

Now, if the archer was doing something else that also provoked while shooting that arrow, such as shooting at an adjacent Come And Get Me barbarian, then she'd draw two attacks of opportunity.

The act is what causes the opportunity. It seems you misunderstood me. Scorching ray as an example consist of two "acts". The casting of the spell, and the ranged attack. Both of those acts can provoke.


Ravingdork wrote:
Reloading most weapons DOES provoke AoO's, however this doesn't seem to be the case with things like bows and arrows. Why is that?

Bows are not reloaded. :)

51 to 100 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: The FAQ That Time Forgot All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.