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
151 to 200 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Oh, and apologies for posting a question here if that was not proper procedure. Where is one suppose to post questions for the FAQ?

In any event, thanks for taking the time to respond.


Why NN 959 is incorrect. In short it detail specific rules vs general examples of how the rules work. This post is also to take this conversation away from a non-rule debate area.


Link to my previous post detailing "0" vs "-"


JohnF wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
On the ranged touch attack spell add me to the list of people that don't like the ruling.

I don't like it, either. The "one action, one AoO" position was at least cut-and-dried. Now, though, the camel's nose is under the tent wall, and I'm sure we're going to see arguments for three, four, .... different attacks of opportunity as any provoking action is sliced-and-diced into an ever-increasing number of 'events'. That way madness lies.

It is still cut and dry. If each act would provoke on its own then it provokes. If it would not have provoked otherwise then it does not.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

Just to be clear, I am not going to be answering additional FAQ questions in this thread, as this is not the place for it. Start a new thread please...

However

Since this one has turned into a big discussion, I will say this.

Until a Paladin hits 4th level, he is not considered a spellcaster. He does not yet have the class feature that defines him as such. You cannot infer his caster level backwards because he has not yet gained the feature that gives him a caster level. He has no caster level, not 0, none. Hence, he cannot use scrolls until he reaches 4th.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Why can he use wands but not scrolls?

Trio,

The reasoning that is employed is that he can't make a caster level check because he has no caster levels. One could use an effective level of 0. However, the popular and long standing tradition is for people to insist that since the Paladin has no caster level it must be viewed as "undefined" and no math operations can be performed. You might view it as a technicality that prevents scroll use.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

How does a paladin make a concentration check to avoid losing a spell without a caster level? Or are wands undisruptible?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Jiggy wrote:
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?

Because that's the only thing in RAW that would lead one to the conclusion that T/D/S use a 'weapon' and most other CMBs don't.

What does 'in place of [melee] attack] MEAN in the context of the game?
AFAIK, it means a [melee] attack must be being initiated already (or in the abstract state of about to be initiated, with all supporting means required to make it reality having been 'decided'/fixed), and you 'instantaneously' substitute the CMB effect for the normal resolution of the attack... But for an attack to be initiated in-game (or be on the verge of being initiated), it needs a specific form... usually a weapon*.
If you are taking an AoO, that depends on the specific weapons used to threaten for the AoO, and same for normal attacks, whose threat area transfers over to the 'in place of an attack' maneuvers. Obviously, if we are to be able to distinguish from a 'melee attack' vs. non-melee attack, there needs to be a 'weapon' choice/usage already decided/initiated/implicated. That's the basis for 'in place of an attack' leading to being used via a weapon, because otherwise there is no special wording which would distinguish T/D/S from other non-weapon maneuvers in regards to using a weapon or not.
If Paizo didn't feel that said wording was sufficient to 'accurately' convey that fact (even if they have a FAQ clarifying it further), they would have Errata'd the rules text to make it say what it should... but they find it sufficient, so I proceed from the point that the RAW for T/D/S (which isnt' different from Charge Bullrush) *IS* sufficient to imply(/require, as per my above understanding) the associated weapon usage.

Now, that wording being present under the Charge Bullrush rules would normally be clear enough,
so the question is just being posed because Charge Bullrush WASN'T specially noted
along with the other 'weapon maneuvers' even though those maneuvers called out by said FAQ
don't have any special wording in RAW to make them special (compared to Charge Bullrush).

* although the RAW could be read as allowing to substitute T/D/S for a Grapple/Overrun/other CMB check, since that's a melee attack... Watch out for those Sundering/Disarming Wolves!


Cheapy wrote:
I think people are getting too worked up over flimsy pieces of magical paper.

It's important to me because I've DM'd for a couple of groups with a paladin and no cleric and I wanted to drop some important divine scrolls into adventures at low levels. I wouldn't mind seeing a seperate thread about this. NN 959 seems to have a reasonable point.

Edit: I missed the reply from JB. I see it now.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
How does a paladin make a concentration check to avoid losing a spell without a caster level? Or are wands undisruptible?

Wands don't provoke.

Quote:
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.


i don't believe they're subject to other concentration checks either, e.g. Grappled, Weather...


Quandary wrote:
i don't believe they're subject to other concentration checks either, e.g. Grappled, Weather...

They aren't because you are not casting a spell unless you are either casting a spell, an SLA, or using a spell completion item.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

So a paladin who takes damage from a readied attack while using the wand has no risk of losing the spell?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

Reading comprehension is an issue here. You'll note that there is no specific requirement that you have a caster level of 1 right?

If you can tell me who has more caster levels, a Wizard or Fighter, then you can evaluate someone without the ability to cast spells as having zero caster levels.

It's pretty straight forward. Insisting that one can't use an effective caster level of zero is what's convoluted.

A man without legs has zero legs, as does the color blue.

They nonetheless lack legs in qualitatively different ways.


N N 959 wrote:
Reading comprehension is an issue here. You'll note that there is no specific requirement that you have a caster level of 1 right?

Yeah, I definitely agree that you have some reading comprehension issues if you can try and make the statement that no caster level requirement exists despite the core text clearly stating that caster level is a requirement. Your crusade to make 'no caster level' the same as 'caster level 0' the same as 'you are a caster' through some bizarre malformation of the transitive property is refuted pretty clearly by a dev saying 'nope, that's not how it works at all', so you might want to find a way out of that hole that doesn't involve a shovel.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So a paladin who takes damage from a readied attack while using the wand has no risk of losing the spell?

Correct. :)


Let me just repeat this for you to make it clear:

Skip Williams, one of the authors of D&D 3.5 says the effective castter level in this situation is zero. The rules for scroll use are taken verbatim from 3.5.

I was hoping Jason had read that and would confirm it for PFS, but such was not the case.


Steve Geddes wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

Reading comprehension is an issue here. You'll note that there is no specific requirement that you have a caster level of 1 right?

If you can tell me who has more caster levels, a Wizard or Fighter, then you can evaluate someone without the ability to cast spells as having zero caster levels.

It's pretty straight forward. Insisting that one can't use an effective caster level of zero is what's convoluted.

A man without legs has zero legs, as does the color blue.

They nonetheless lack legs in qualitatively different ways.

Yes. So the answer lies in the context.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

Let me just repeat this for you to make it clear:

Skip Williams, one of the authors of D&D 3.5 says the effective castter level in this situation is zero. The rules for scroll use are taken verbatim from 3.5.

I was hoping Jason had read that and would confirm it for PFS, but such was not the case.

It might depend on one's philosophy of the relationship between 3.5/PF.

.
Personally, I see them as similar games with common terminology (and even common paragraphs/sections). That doesnt mean that determinations/understandings from one carry over to the other.

It could well be (and appears to be here) that the PF designers took the wording from a 3.5 section but applied a different interpretation. Their job was mammoth enough as it was - it would have been a bit much to expect them to trawl through every 3.0/3.5 developer's comments/FAQs treat those as part of what they were revising, dont you think?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

Reading comprehension is an issue here. You'll note that there is no specific requirement that you have a caster level of 1 right?

If you can tell me who has more caster levels, a Wizard or Fighter, then you can evaluate someone without the ability to cast spells as having zero caster levels.

It's pretty straight forward. Insisting that one can't use an effective caster level of zero is what's convoluted.

A man without legs has zero legs, as does the color blue.

They nonetheless lack legs in qualitatively different ways.

Yes. So the answer lies in the context.

What I meant was that "-" and "0" arent the same (even excel wont treat an empty cell as zero if you format the relevant sections as text instead of the default number).


Steve Geddes wrote:


What I meant was that "-" and "0" arent the same (even excel wont treat an empty cell as zero if you format the relevant sections as text instead of the default number).

And Excel will evaluate blank entries to zero if you don't. It will even put a "-" in it if you ask it to.

The caster level is not defined as "-". The text says they have no caster level. Nowhere does it say put a "-" in for caster level and not a zero.

Let me repeat something:

No where does it say to put a "-" in for caster level and not a zero.

Essentially this topic is kind of moot. The 3.5 author (the source of the rule) says it is defined as zero and Jason has decided that it's not.

Not really much point in talking about - vs 0 as that isn't even in any of the rules or texts on the subject.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

It might be useful to you in the future if that is some philosophical difference between the 3.5 developers and the PF developers. (I have no idea if it is an actual point of difference, but it might be).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

This used to be a useful thread.


Steve Geddes wrote:
It might be useful to you in the future if that is some philosophical difference between the 3.5 developers and the PF developers. (I have no idea if it is an actual point of difference, but it might be).

Sure. And feel free to point me to any if you think it's relevant.

Maybe Jason hasn't seen Skip's treatment of the topic and who knows, maybe he'll see it differently if/when he does. <shrug>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blope wrote:
This used to be a useful thread.

And now it's just "-"


Guys you should keep the "- vs 0" talk here


Grimmy wrote:
Guys you should keep the "- vs 0" talk here

Thanks.


Steve Geddes wrote:
It could well be (and appears to be here) that the PF designers took the wording from a 3.5 section but applied a different interpretation. Their job was mammoth enough as it was - it would have been a bit much to expect them to trawl through every 3.0/3.5 developer's comments/FAQs treat those as part of what they were revising, dont you think?

No, I don't think that would be too much to expect at all, considering the game is supposed to be backwards compatible with 3.X and little "tweaks" like this can potentially create major inconsistencies.

tl;dr - If you're going to copy/paste a rule, you should stick to how the "borrowed" rule works.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
blope wrote:


This used to be a useful thread.

Now it's just some thread in which I used to post.


First

@ You Know Who You Are: I think that it's really selfish of you to hog this thread as your own personal playground for your hobbyhorse, when there are several other interesting issues to discuss. Of course you're allowed to stubbornly refuse to accept a dev answer; but I think that your behavior is terribly inappropriate for this thread, which is all about actually wanting an official ruling. That's "official ruling", not "official approval". Totally different. You already got the ruling; please take your approval-seeking somewhere else. Thanks!

Second

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.

That and Ciretose and I don't agree on most things other than Monks need fix.

:P

I don't know what was in that thread, and I don't care. Here's my answer: The save is based on the subject's willpower, so the simplest interpretation is a subjective perception of harm. Whatever they would care about. A miserly sociopath, a rootless do-gooder, and a devoted family man could be immune to different orders, due to their different perceptions of "harm".


Third

Quandary wrote:
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.

I didn't read that as saying that you could make the subject commit suicide (which is explicitly disallowed). I thought he was talking about the subject killing himself to avoid doing something diametrically opposed to the core of his being -- such as slashing the throat of his beloved daughter -- even if you successfully made all of your checks, and the GM didn't count it as "obviously harmful" (which I would interpret subjectively, but that's just me).

I've seen that trope more than once in mind control scenarios in fantasy and science fiction. The subject could be smiling and enthusiastically obeying his beloved leader, even while sobbing and crying tears bloody from the strain. Where his actions might go, nobody knows.


Fredrik wrote:

...I didn't read that as saying that you could make the subject commit suicide (which is explicitly disallowed).

I thought he was talking about the subject killing himself to avoid doing something...

Essentially it was just the manner in which Jason phrased things, suggesting that the target could/would kill themself instead of following the 'badbad' command, which would mean suicide WOULD be the outcome of the spell.

Again, I'd just go with the concept of 'things you could tell somebody to do while still being their friend',
so commands which might provoke such a scenario just can't possibly work in any way.


I think that we're in violent agreement, for the most part. I wouldn't fault a GM in a home game who maybe erred more on the storytelling side of this storytelling game, and used charm person to evoke the pathos of that dramatic trope. But I'd need to use a different spell myself, since the way I read the rules on the game side, it could never happen that way with this spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I can honestly say this is the first time I've seen Excel's data formatting used to back up somebody's opinion about Pathfinder.


One of the examples given in the Charm Person thread was a Succubus using her Charm Person and Telepathy abilities to portray herself as some guardian angel to a mother. That's one check.

Then she uses her abilities convince the mother that her children had been replaced with demons. That's a second check.

Then the Succubus tells the mother that the only way to save her children, is to drown the demons. That's a third check.

Then, the Succubus orders the mother to drown the demons. That's a fourth check.

That's only one example, but does it violate the 'obvious harm' clause of Charm Person? If I could convince someone that X (kids) is Y(demons) then could I further convince her to destroy X?


About the AoOs for casting rays, to be sure I got that right:

- casting and firing them while being threatened now provokes twice
- if I cast defensively I provoke once for shooting it but if I'm hit I can't lose the spell because it is already cast
- if I cast a ray quickened I provoke once for shooting same as above
- Could I deliver my ranged touch spell as a touch spell instead? And if that works will the touch part provoke?


Umbranus wrote:

About the AoOs for casting rays, to be sure I got that right:

- casting and firing them while being threatened now provokes twice
- if I cast defensively I provoke once for shooting it but if I'm hit I can't lose the spell because it is already cast
- if I cast a ray quickened I provoke once for shooting same as above
- Could I deliver my ranged touch spell as a touch spell instead? And if that works will the touch part provoke?

If you cast the spell you don't lose the spell if hit while firing, but if the spell is disrupted before you fire the spell is lost.

You can not deliver a ranged touch attack as a touch attack. The rest is correct.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbranus wrote:

Could I deliver my ranged touch spell as a touch spell instead? And if that works will the touch part provoke?

To my knowledge, you can only deliver a ranged touch spell as a melee touch spell if you are a Magus with the Close Range arcana. While using the ability, it does not provoke (being a melee attack).

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JohnF wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
On the ranged touch attack spell add me to the list of people that don't like the ruling.

I don't like it, either. The "one action, one AoO" position was at least cut-and-dried. Now, though, the camel's nose is under the tent wall, and I'm sure we're going to see arguments for three, four, .... different attacks of opportunity as any provoking action is sliced-and-diced into an ever-increasing number of 'events'. That way madness lies.

There is a very cut and dry way to see that they are the same Action (game term defining simple or complex sets of actions) but they aren't the same action (English noun used in a colloquial way) or the same triggering act, the consequences of the AoO:

* successfully hitting someone as a consequence of the AoO triggered by casting a spell require a mandatory concentration check to successfully complete the spell;
* successfully hitting someone with an AoO when he is making a ranged attack has no consequences on the ranged attack, he still get to complete it and to apply the result of the attack, regardless of its nature, be it a ranged attack spell, a missile weapon or a throw weapon.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
concerro wrote:
Umbranus wrote:


- Could I deliver my ranged touch spell as a touch spell instead? And if that works will the touch part provoke?
You can not deliver a ranged touch attack as a touch attack. The rest is correct.

A magus with the correct arcana can.

If a feat or class ability change the attack so that it is no longer a ranged attack you shouldn't provoke. but changing a ranged touch attack into a touch attack require a specific ability, it is not a normal option.


I had the idea when I read that to target someone with a spell you have to either be able to see him or to touch him.

So if I touch someone and cast a ray at him it's still a ranged touch spell and thus it would provoke 3 times following this FAQ.

- for unarmed touching someone without a held spell
- for casting
- for ranged combat


Umbranus wrote:

I had the idea when I read that to target someone with a spell you have to either be able to see him or to touch him.

So if I touch someone and cast a ray at him it's still a ranged touch spell and thus it would provoke 3 times following this FAQ.

- for unarmed touching someone without a held spell
- for casting
- for ranged combat

Which is seriously breaking my suspension of disbelief.

And yet, you only get one AoO when someone moves through your threatened squares, regardless of how many they move through.
Really?
Seriously?
Can gaming get back a little realism, please? Just a lil? :P

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:


Can gaming get back a little realism, please? Just a lil? :P

Of course we can. In that case, the moment that Huge Giant with his Huge Greatclub hits your Medium sized humanoid, he should be dead regardless of hit points because you know, physics and biology!


Good stuff! Hit Points are stupid. :P

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:
Good stuff! Hit Points are stupid. :P

Games that try to be realistic are ---> that way.

This is D&D. It never meant to be a medieval life simulator, it's meant to be a wargame with some rules to support acting out tacked on. Every time D&D tries to go full on realism (drowning/falling rules ahoy) it just doesn't work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:


Can gaming get back a little realism, please? Just a lil? :P
Of course we can. In that case, the moment that Huge Giant with his Huge Greatclub hits your Medium sized humanoid, he should be dead regardless of hit points because you know, physics and biology!

You mean that physics and biology that would make Huge Giant collapse under its own weight or some other physics and biology?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Re HP:

One of the best examples of wounds/vitality I read was in the Stargate RPG.

When O'neil barely pulls his head back and the staff weapon hits the wall next to him? That's vitality damge.

When Jackson gets shot (again) by the staff weapon in the chest? That's wound damage.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

I had the idea when I read that to target someone with a spell you have to either be able to see him or to touch him.

So if I touch someone and cast a ray at him it's still a ranged touch spell and thus it would provoke 3 times following this FAQ.

- for unarmed touching someone without a held spell
- for casting
- for ranged combat

Which is seriously breaking my suspension of disbelief.

And yet, you only get one AoO when someone moves through your threatened squares, regardless of how many they move through.
Really?
Seriously?
Can gaming get back a little realism, please? Just a lil? :P

You still have to have Combat Reflexes (or some similar ability) to get multiple AoO's against anything. If someone moves through multiple threatened squares, they're still provoking multiple AoO's (last I checked). You just can't necessarily take all of them. The ruling involving casting rays doesn't inherently give anyone extra AoO's.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
MythicFox wrote:
You still have to have Combat Reflexes (or some similar ability) to get multiple AoO's against anything. If someone moves through multiple threatened squares, they're still provoking multiple AoO's (last I checked).

Check again.

PRD: Combat wrote:
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If someone moves through multiple threatened squares, they provoke multiple attacks of opportunity, in the sense that they provoke in any square they leave, but the opponent can only take advantage of one of those opportunities. Which opportunity he takes advantage of, if any, is up to him. Additionally, he provokes against anyone who threatens.

Example :

1234567
000B000
A======
000C000

Character A starts in column 1, and runs along the line indicated toward column 7. Both enemy B and C threaten the same squares, in column 3, 4, and 5 directly between them.

Character A provokes when he leaves column 3, column 4, and column 5. Enemy B can use the provoked AoO at any point along, either when leaving 3, 4, or 5. By the same token, Enemy C can also take advantage of the provoked AoO at 3, 4, or 5. They can even choose different ones. B can choose to use the provoked AoO at 3, while C can use the one at 5. The quoted text above simply means that B can't get more than one AoO on A for moving through.

I'm stating this, because it could be construed from how the above was written, that you can only provoke one AoO from any enemies for a move, meaning only B or C could attack, not both. That's not correct, obviously.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
JohnF wrote:
MythicFox wrote:
You still have to have Combat Reflexes (or some similar ability) to get multiple AoO's against anything. If someone moves through multiple threatened squares, they're still provoking multiple AoO's (last I checked).

Check again.

PRD: Combat wrote:
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.

Huh. My bad, then.

151 to 200 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.