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

Archaeik's page

1,156 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Wildshape functions as a spell in all respects, including the polymorph subschool. I'm done talking to a wall here.

Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability's description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

It is a departure from how it functioned previously, but given the large amount of combat goodies the revision has, I have no issue with unchained monks having to wait until their turn to attempt to remove the toxin.

It's a little sketchy, and pricey for low levels, but it seems to work.

Beaststrike Club

Rikkan wrote:
The sentence above it explains that wild shape is a polymorph effect, not actually a polymorph spell. Thus that sentence does not apply to wild shape though.
Wildshape wrote:
This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here.

(The changes are not to overall function of the polymorph subschool, I assure you.)

Triune wrote:

I'm actually gonna disagree with the other replies here, as they're not really "stacking". Wild shape doesn't increase your size, you become a set size, and increasing or decreasing effects go from there.

Otherwise small druids that wildshape into medium animals could not grow, but medium druids could. Also animals that advance into large versions wouldn't be able to benefit from animal growth.

HOWEVER, under the polymorph rules, it states you can't change size via spell while under a polymorph effect. So unless you can find a way to increase size that's not via a spell, you're out of luck.

Transmutaion(polymorph) wrote:
You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.

Do what you want for your own games, but it's not intended at all, any way you slice it.

AerynTahlro wrote:
I just paged through almost every domain/bloodline to try to find a Supernatural ability that was based on a ranged touch to see if it contained "this ability provokes", but I couldn't find one for precedence.

If the rules assume that all ranged attacks provoke AoOs by default in every case, I don't think there needs to be a precedent.

In fact if you did find one, it would be many points in your favor, as it would suggest that provoking in that case was abnormal.

And while I don't personally subscribe to the philosophy that consensus establishes truth, it's quite unlikely that the majority opinion/understanding/interpretation is wrong in this case.

Feel free to write up a FAQ request though.

You are correct that Enlarge Person is not a polymorph, but it prevents stacking anyway.

Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.

Wildshape as a (Su) ability is indeed magical.

Okay, for some reason, I glossed over the crunch text in favor of the name.

I wouldn't expect that "loaded" argument to fly for PFS, but I'd also expect a lot of variation across other tables.

As to Vital Strike: this has be clarified to require "an attack action", not merely "an attack". I do not find the language used for Target of Opportunity to be ambiguous.

Regarding (Su) vs ranged attack priority in the rules, I was under the impression that the default for ranged attacks is always provoke, but it does seem, from a glance at the combat section, ranged (Su) are immune by virtue of ranged touch spells being expressly called out(?)

This seems like a weird spot in the rules that makes any ranged (Su) [and (Ex)] that much more desirable. (Essentially I'm saying it's troublesome that there's a seeming internal inconsistency, where other rules seem to interpret/intend that activation and attack are 2 discrete events in some instances but not others.)

I still suspect the intent is that all ranged attacks provoke, but I'm less sure now. (Time to do some sleuthing.)
EDIT: I'm seeing a consensus that agrees with my initial assessment.

to add some rationale, the issue with ranged attacks is that you are diverting your attention from the baddie who is threatening you, regardless of the source of the ranged attack

I would concede, however, that the rules are a bit unclear in this area between spells getting a specific section and "ranged attack -- provokes:yes" being under the "standard action" section of the chart.

The primary issue I see with any argument negating AoOs on ranged (Su) is that it effectively does the same for ranged (Ex), of which there are a lot, namely class abilities (lawls Gunslinger).

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them. Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components (such as wish).

It seems to me that it's intended to use all the rules for SM, but with the benefit that it's a much longer duration.

The 30ft limiter is right there in the Trick Shot description

Trick Shot (Ex): At 3rd level, an archer can choose one of the following combat maneuvers or actions: disarm, feint, or sunder. He can perform this action with a bow against any target within 30 feet, with a –4 penalty to his CMB. Every four levels beyond 3rd, he may choose an additional trick shot to learn. These maneuvers use up arrows as normal.

RAW Feint normally only benefits melee attacks, but it's very likely the intent here is to expand it to attacks from your bow as well even though it is not mentioned.

Additionally, feint doesn't actually describe a specific action you take other than to say it's a Bluff check, but as a combat action it's implied that you need to be close enough to acutely distract your foe. Whether this is strictly "melee range" is a bit unclear (as very large creatures have significant reach), but I'd be surprised if it's intended to be available for use at ranges greater than 30ft since that seems to be the standard for many actions. (Colossal-tall creatures using a reach weapons notwithstanding)

FallzQuick wrote:
Magical Knack could help with +2CL not exceeding HD, but it's a trait. Does your GM allow rebuilds?

CL is not the same as +1 existing class, namely you will still delay when you get higher level spells.

Target of Opportunity wrote:
When an ally who also has this feat makes a ranged attack and hits an opponent within 30 feet of you, you can spend an immediate action to make a single ranged attack against that opponent. Your ranged weapon must be in hand, loaded, and ready to be fired or thrown for you to make the ranged attack.

The ray itself is ephemeral, existing only in the instant it is created and fired. As such, it is never ready and "in hand" when the AoO is triggered even if your holy symbol or focus is. Also, I see no way to reduce the activation time of channel (material weapons can make AoO's because the rules say they can). Even Quick Channel can't get around this restriction as it would still require an extra swift action in the moment you are taking the immediate for the AoO.

Those issues aside, I do agree that, in principle, rays would be eligible to make the AoO granted here.

However, I can potentially offer a "workaround", take a look at the Conductive property for ranged weapons. If you absolutely need to target touch AC, I can't help you though.

Edit: also keep in mind, assuming there are any GM's out there who would consider allowing this combination, while Channeling itself doesn't provoke, the ranged attack granted by Channel Ray still does.

Trekkie90909 wrote:
scizore wrote:
The scizore grants a +1 shield bonus to AC, but if you attack with the blade, you lose the AC bonus that round and take a –1 penalty on attack rolls with the scizore.
Think of the scizore as a klar; it's a shield if you don't attack with it, it's a weapon if you do attack with it. You gain the shield bonus when not using it to make attacks, you lose the shield bonus when you make attacks. If you have trouble thinking of it that way then try this: It's exactly the same as if you had a buckler strapped to an arm wielding a dagger.

The difference between a Klar and Scizore is that the Scizore does not count as any type of shield, so it's a workaround for monks/brawlers to get a shield bonus without losing class features. (However this also means its shield bonus can never be increased by adding a magical enhancement bonus.)

wraithstrike wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
You make a very good case, and you may be correct concerning RAI, but the barrier is not solid to an incorporeal unless it is made of force (or ghost touch), so this seems like a GM call as worst case for the ghost. (This is supported by the ghost gaining total cover inside the wall, while his opponents merely have total concealment from him.)
Whether something is solid or not is not subjective. It is objective. Going by your argument a ghost sorcerer could throw fireballs through a wall just because he can walk through it, but I really don't see that happening. However if we take the stance that solid is solid, but incorporeal creatures just bypass it then lifesense should be blocked.

Well the issue is that there are multiple competing rules. But the incorporeal entry is written from the perspective that lifesense is not the default.

The part that supports your side a bit more is that blindsight says "most kinds of concealment are irrelevant"; I don't see it as intended for lifesense to negate the detriment of attacking from cover as this would make the ability much more powerful (so it's probably best to enforce that [convenient] "most" if you're allowing line of effect).

I have much less of a concern about casting. The creature would still have to move from total cover->cover to make the attack. Targeted spells would require touch, which means only a single target could be selected. There are plenty spells that would require completely exiting cover to be effective, as the wall would block them (ones that are "centered on you" come to mind). Certain AoE's are more problematic, but lots start at the edge of your square, and even fireball can require a touch attack that I could justify invoking if it targeted a square outside of its sensory range.

I do expect the RAI is that "solid is solid" like you say, but it's not as clear to me that it's the only interpretation.

Slaine777 wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
I addressed this before. A Dread Wraith should have no issue pinpointing living creatures in the range of its lifesense (they would still benefit from concealment however). But yes, it is a wrinkle if the ghost doesn't have such specials.

I'm not sure that lifesense would help it in this situation.

Lifesense (Su) The creature notices and locates living creatures within 60 feet, just as if it possessed the blindsight ability.
Blindsight (Ex) This ability is similar to blindsense, but is far more discerning. Using nonvisual senses, such as sensitivity to vibrations, keen smell, acute hearing, or echolocation, a creature with blindsight maneuvers and fights as well as a sighted creature. Invisibility, darkness, and most kinds of concealment are irrelevant, though the creature must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice creatures within range of its blindsight ability. Unless noted otherwise, blindsight is continuous, and the creature need do nothing to use it. Some forms of blindsight, however, must be triggered as a free action. If so, this is noted in the creature's description. If a creature must trigger its blindsight ability, the creature gains the benefits of blindsight only during its turn.
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.

Bolding mine.

I could be wrong but I think being in the wall blocks line of effect even for incorporeal creatures.

You make a very good case, and you may be correct concerning RAI, but the barrier is not solid to an incorporeal unless it is made of force (or ghost touch), so this seems like a GM call as worst case for the ghost. (This is supported by the ghost gaining total cover inside the wall, while his opponents merely have total concealment from him.)

Rikkan wrote:
Byakko wrote:

All creatures can use iterative-based unarmed strikes. Usually, this is a poor choice for the creature, but not always.

Just because a creature's stat block doesn't specifically list this option doesn't mean it's not possible for them to use it if they desire.

Does that mean a greater shadow can unarmed strike people and drain strength multiple times?

I realize this was addressed, but not sufficiently to my liking.

While it's true that the UAS of a shadow could not affect corporeal targets without an intervening ghost touch item of some kind, it's touch attack is not strictly a natural weapon that could be used as part of a full attack, it is a (Su) ability that takes a standard action to activate. This is true of every incorporeal stat block I've seen.

Hydromancer wrote:

The best we have is a precedent in The Divinity Drive (part 6 of the iron gods adventure path.)

RAW, the off-hand greatsword would receive full 1.5x str because the rules for 'half damage' are strictly tied to one-handed and light weapons.

Except the AP is not written this way.

If you're going to cite it as precedent, then use what was printed.

Melee +1 shock chainsaw +16/+11/+6 (3d6+5/18–20 plus
1d6 electricity), +1 chainsaw +16/+11 (3d6+4/18–20)

The difference is exactly her Str mod(+1), so it's obvious it doesn't apply to the offhand

May be I didn't make it clear enough. An existing natural weapon (bite in your case) is not augmented by a similar ability unless that ability says it is.

Additionally, if an increase says it adjusts the damage to a specific die size, that's all you get (ie. it is not a stackable increment -- however this does not prevent it from being augmented by spells/feats until you get into the realm of multiple actual/effective size category increases per the recent FAQ)

There doesn't really need to be a ruling about this (although it seems like I have seen the occasional comment on similar topics).
Damage stacking from multiple bites is purely houserule territory because each bite defaults to being its own distinct weapon.

If you are talking about Vestigial Arms, they are specifically restricted from being used in a way that lets you take more attacks/actions per round than you could make without them.
That discovery is primarily dedicated to utility rather than prowess.

If you are talking about actual additional arms (many examples, Kasatha, ceratin Sahuagin, Mariliths etc). Those arms do allow the offhands to be used for more attacks.

Cap. Darling wrote:
is there a greater version of multiweapon figthing?

Pathfinder cut those feats.

There is much disagreement, but ITWF/GTWF should still be available with MWF as the prereq.

I'd forgotten about that detail if I ever even ingested it, now to hopefully make it stick.

Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Could a ghost weilding a brilliant energy ghost touch weapon attack from cover?

This is highly dependent on how you interpret BE.

BE doesn't indicate that it ignores cover, but a lot of people indicate that since most cover is, in fact, nonliving, that it should behave that way... but what happens when you get disarmed, does it simply fall to the center of the world? (Also, could a ghost even hold one [even with ghost touch]?)

The simplest answer is to let it do what it says it does, ignore armor/shield and be made significantly of light, but not entirely.
ie. it still has enough matter to prevent it from being brought entirely inside another object/wall

Slaine777 wrote:
The other issue is the ghost can only sense adjacent squares. It can't sense the square the melee fighter is in. The ghost has to pick a square to attack. Even if the fighter isn't in the square it might be close enough to take the readied action to attack it back.

I addressed this before. A Dread Wraith should have no issue pinpointing living creatures in the range of its lifesense (they would still benefit from concealment however). But yes, it is a wrinkle if the ghost doesn't have such specials.

Animal Fury (Ex): While raging, the barbarian gains a bite attack. If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at the barbarian's full base attack bonus –5. If the bite hits, it deals 1d4 points of damage (assuming the barbarian is Medium; 1d3 points of damage if Small) plus half the barbarian's Strength modifier. A barbarian can make a bite attack as part of the action to maintain or break free from a grapple. This attack is resolved before the grapple check is made. If the bite attack hits, any grapple checks made by the barbarian against the target this round are at a +2 bonus.

I gather that the concern was that you'd have to use the Animal Fury bite damage to activate the bonus? But as you can see, the language says "a bite attack", so you should be fine to use the higher die. (To answer your question more directly: Animal Fury is not modified by other bites; effectively you have 2 different, overlapping bites since you don't have the 2nd head/mouth needed to employ them both concurrently.)

jhansonxi wrote:
This seems to imply a different number of hands are needed to grapple, or that both hands are depended on for initiating a grapple but not for maintaining it. Is this true?

Yes, the Grappled condition models merely getting a "hold" on someone. Pinned is closer to full on wrestling.

jhansonxi wrote:
If a target is too large for Grab but the Feral Gnasher still performs a grapple, and chooses to damage the opponent, can both bite and weapon (or unarmed) attack damage be used?

No, you have to pick one, the list of choices is exclusive.

I'll assume you've poured over the Polymorph subschool already, but I think it's pretty clear:

You change form, but not type (and I assume subtype is included here), but you lose all Ex and Su that depend on form.

This covers pretty much all Dragon abilities.

Effectively you do change type, but without actually changing for the purposes of things that rely on type (like favored enemy or bane).

Essentially the issue is deciding which abilities are attached to the body(lost) and which are attached to the soul/mind(kept).

And it does say the GM is the final arbiter, so if you want to say that since the subtype is retained, that it must be attached to the soul, I don't see an issue with it, and it helps keeps some flavor.
Likewise, immunity to sleep and/or paralysis would also be good candidates to keep.

The tricky part is keeping it (relatively) consistent across the board. Are all immunities attached to the soul, etc?

Regarding type/subtype features, I don't see a particular issue with losing them while polymorphed as most of them relate to the body... you call out darkvision as a common feature, but it's also clear from the polymorph section that the authors consider it to be primarily physical in nature, so I'm not sure I understand the concern.


Spells: A dragon knows and casts arcane spells as a sorcerer of the level indicated in its specific description. Its caster level depends on its age, as shown for each type.

I suspect the intent is that they don't have a spell list until the age category when they gain 1st level spells.

Okay, reevaluating the comments, it appears I inferred something you possibly did not intend?

The issue I'm bringing up is specifically related to melee attacks.

W (wall with Large+ incorporeal)
X (empty)
F (melee fighter)

If the fighter only has 5ft reach, he cannot ready a melee attack vs the incorporeal because it occupies a square outside of his reach.

He could however ready a ranged attack, or an attack with a reach weapon.

You still misunderstand, it moves from total cover (cannot be attacked) to cover (can be attacked), this does not change the targeting rules, or let you somehow target its limbs/weapons.

The entry implies this change is very brief, and indicates that therefore the only way to attack before it returns to total cover is a readied action.

I don't think you can ready a melee attack vs a creature outside your reach without Strike Back.

Strike Back (Combat) wrote:

You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.

Being able to ready an attack vs an incorporeal who moves from total cover -> cover is not permission to effectively gain the use of this feat.

Edit: to be more clear, the readied attack you make targets the creature in the square(s) it occupies (the square(s) with the wall).

wraithstrike wrote:
Another thing to remember is that even a large incorporeal creature or one with reach such as a ghost touch longspear is subject to the readied attack. The rules specifically say the creature must stay adjacent to the object's exterior and the rules also say that the creature only has cover while attacking. They don't say if the creature is large or has reach that it gets an exception.

Wouldn't the creature need blindsense/sight (or life sense) to manage to attack at reach from inside an object considering they are only normally aware of adjacent squares?

But I don't agree with you. Normally it requires the Strike Back feat to target someone outside your reach with a melee attack like this. I read the readied action portion of the incorporeal entry as a reminder that the ghost decreases his cover briefly rather than an explicit exception to the existing rules.

Thanks all, that is pretty informative; the bit about readied actions vs stealthed(concealed) targets is a bit confusing, but makes things fairer. But it does seem like the readied attack should suffer miss chance? (unless it's worded in some way about seeing the ghost, which would make it happen immediately following its attack -- personally, I would probably fudge most readied attacks in this direction anyway)

Stealth wrote:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.

To the point of ghost touch items. (Although this does appear to be 3.5 content)

Challenge Rating: +0.

The ghost died with a strong attachment to a specific item or set of objects. A ghost with this ability may choose a number of items it died with equal to its Charisma modifier to carry with it into death. The ghost continues to be able to use and benefit from these spectral duplicates just as though they were the real things. Weapons and armor are treated as having the ghost touch special ability, while other items act as being incorporeal themselves and can be manipulated by the ghost. Regardless of the type of object, all selected items are treated as being part of the ghost’s form and cannot be disarmed or removed from the ghost (even by the ghost). Should a ghost be destroyed, its equipment reappears with it upon rejuvenating. (CR +0) Occasionally, and at the GM’s discretion, the transition into death might imbue a single ghostly item with strange powers, granting it powers comparable to a magic item suited to the ghost’s character level.

As far as can tell, this gets around the wall issue :o

I'm not if finding if this is specifically addressed yet and just want to make sure I'm reading it correctly

Incorporeals inside of an object (most often a wall or floor) have total cover but can only sense adjacent squares (targets have total concealment).

If they attack an adjacent square, they suffer the 50% miss chance, but are reduced to having normal cover vs readied actions only.

1)Since Stealth may be used while you have cover, is it legal for an incorporeal to attempt to attack from stealth (opposed by the Perception of everyone who can see the attack) to also deny dex on top of already targeting touch? Would a successful Stealth check deny readied attacks? (a single party member yelling a warning out of turn should effectively shut this tactic down)

2)If it has Flyby Attack (or Spring Attack with a Ghost Touch weapon), is stealth broken merely by exiting the wall? (My reading is that their touches are always(?) supernatural abilities requiring a standard action and not able to be substituted for an attack.)

3)If it has Greater Blindfight and Shadow Strike (say a Ghost Rog5/Asn10), would it qualify for Sneak Attack while attacking from inside the wall? (Death Attack still requires an actual melee weapon attack)

4)Conductive (+Ghost Touch) weapons seem rather powerful for ghosts/incorporeals? Does anyone think this addition deserves a CR bump? I gather they still target normal AC?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The argument isn't that you aren't holding the weapon, but that the weapon(ray) doesn't exist at the time of activation.

Byakko wrote:


I read what you wrote, but there's either a FAQ or a paizo staff post somewhere stating that you can use a single limb for a sequence of unarmed strikes.

My google-fu is failing me, however, and it's late. I'll let someone else find it if they're up for it.


Look again at the part I bolded from the UMR.

FoB allows what you say, and any single limb can execute a single set of iteratives.

If the intent has changed from the UMR entry, the UMR entry needs to be updated.

I am well aware of the UAS rules and the minor variation between standard and monk versions.

Please reread what I was trying to say.

Essentially at this point, without solid clarification about how things work, it's a meta game about limbs and offhands specifically with regard to UAS.

You can effectively avoid using your actual [off]hands, but you'd need 2 kicks and a headbutt according to RAI.

Byakko wrote:

Not being able to perform a natural and weapon attack with the same limb is basic stuff, guys. There's a reason I use kicks in my examples.

Btw, Skylancer, your first line didn't make sense. Two weapon fighting IS attacking with off hand attacks, in general. The FAQ doesn't contradict this.


Anyway, my previous post was just a leading question.
Now for the kickers (heh):

A normal humanoid can attack with a one handed weapon and add an "offhand" unarmed strike kick.

If one of these 4-armed creatures desired, could it make an "offhand" unarmed strike with a kick?

If so, would it have to give up one of its 3 offhand "hand" attacks?

Further, could it give up multiple offhand "hand" attacks to perform multiple offhand kicks?

If it's an iterative attack in addition to those you get from BAB, it's supposed to be treated as an offhand.

Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.

"hands" here is a simplified description of the overall UAS rules.

By extension, it's implicit that "both" assumes you only have 2 hands. A race with more than a single offhand should not be penalized for not explicitly addressing this matter.

Now, with kicks you run into another meta issue where it's also not defined that they work the same as hands/arms, but RAW, without Flurry you are forced to use a 2nd limb[hand] to make an offhand attack, so you should only be able to substitute a number kicks equal to your number of legs.

edit: clarity, not all monks retain FoB

Please find me an entry of a multiarmed race without special rules.

If the meta rule wasn't thought to be significant, there wouldn't have been such a giant uproar over Vestigial Limb (nor would it have required so-called "reminder text", because it's not)

Multi-Armed (Ex) A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands.

The meta rules have always been that additional arms grant additional offhands, the bestiary is full of them.

darth_borehd wrote:

Is a character allowed to attack with a two-handed weapon or make two attacks with dual-wielded weapons and then also add a kick attack?

Would that be treated as two weapon fighting as if the kick was another "off-hand"?

Would Unarmed Strike be required?

Especially no to this part, you need additional arms (such as Kasatha) to actually gain additional off-hands.

Also I assume the last question means the feat Improved Unarmed Strike...
It's not "required", but if you don't have it, UAS attacks you make will take an additional penalty to inflict lethal damage AND provoke attacks of opportunity, so it's best to have it.

I agree that racial modifiers refers to the adjustment you would make to generated stats (rolled, point buy, et al.), and is just codifying how to do a full build for a PC or NPC.

The reason that it's not redundant is that it's easier to adjust the class appropriate NPC elite array (which advanced serpentfolk should use) than to fiddle with "how do I adjust the base '10, 11, 11, 10, 11, 10' to match the elite array?"

Memorable should never trigger twice for a action, and it shouldn't be able to boost the cumulative effect of 2 separate actions.

RAW, Frightening only ever produces 1 round of frightened regardless of how many rounds of shaken >=4 it converts. Only on a crit can Memorable boost frightened in this scenario. wrote:
Related-question, since I'd be moving at full-speed & I ended up with the AoO anyways, is there any reason to not at least try? Does using Acrobatics this way 'use up' an action or could I still have used both my Move + my Standard Action to move again, with the DC to avoid being +10?
Acrobatics wrote:
In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics. When moving in this way, you move at half speed. You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes. You can use Acrobatics in this way while prone, but doing so requires a full-round action to move 5 feet, and the DC is increased by 5. If you attempt to move through an enemy's space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.

You also risk losing your ability to complete your move if you choose not to use acrobatics, but only if your opponent chooses a combat maneuver that restricts movement instead of a normal attack or if they have Grab.

Also, as the player you are not supposed to know how many AoO's a creature has left w/o prior experience (on that character) or a successful knowledge check to identify its abilities, (or whatever other in-game ways exist to know).
Most creatures only get 1 AoO per round, but expenditure should not prevent the player from being able to declare and roll an acrobatics check in this manner, with failure stopping their move and provoking (even though the opponent could no longer act on that opportunity).

edit: also, depending on your reading, this may apply

If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.

so failure could end up being quite bad

Since there still seems to be some confusion for the OP and it hasn't been specifically addressed yet.

Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.

The only possible argument for combining these two abilities is that Battle Form(Su) is a static change (always to Medium) and therefore not technically an "increase" in the sense that it doesn't care about your original size (iow it's not an increment to base size).

However, in context, that position is quickly demonstrated to be contrary to intent as it is a familiar only ability and I don't know off any familiars larger than Small, meaning that Battle Form is always an increase.
Further... only the polymorph rules can reconcile the statement "(this stacks with the normal Strength adjustments for increasing in size)", as the only other part of the rules that deals in this language is the Bestiary where it describes monster advancement (usually coupled with increased hit dice).

Ergo, Battle Form doesn't stack with Enlarge Person because they are both magical effects that increase size, and if it's not part of the Polymorph subschool, you only receive the listed +2 Str.

ps. in case anyone cares, there are polymorph spells that don't remove your base form (specifically I'm thinking of Animal Aspect), so there may be some extreme corner case reasons to argue RAW vs RAI on this point until it's FAQ'd or errata'd.

Abilities are written with a single class in mind, so in this case it means Inquisitor levels.

However, RAI, I'm inclined to say they intended it to say "total levels"(or hit dice) to be more consistent with other abilities that are restricted by hit dice. This is also how I would run it.

wraithstrike wrote:

This is one of those abilities that I would say would be negated. It should have to hurt just like stunning fist IMO.

From a flavor perspective I don't see anyone being shaken by an attack that did you no harm.

Reversal: Stunning Fist calls out damage and this one only calls out the attack landing. I don't like it that way, but it seems to work even without damage.

This is opening a giant can of worms because "hits" is most often used to mean "defeated AC and dealt more damage than DR"

There are clear instances where it means "after defeating AC", but (RAI) I don't think this is one of those cases.

Rattling Strike is clearly a rider imo.

Bran Towerfall wrote:

i have a maneuver master/ lore warden with the flurry of maneuvers ability. i was wondering if i could use combat expertise in the middle of my flurry? i would trip at -2 to hit, then my opponent would be easier to hit while prone and maybe flanked. the effects of CE would last till my next attack.

too much number crunching cheese? lol...

Seemed like this thread pretty much determined that "attack" in this context means "attack action". (This is how I would run it as well)

So, no, FoM is a "full-attack action", and you can only activate it at the start.

Exceptions to #2

Rake may be used as part of a Pounce

Eidolon Rake triggers on every successful Grapple check (including the first)

I have to agree here, that while retrieving it gets reduced to a free action, the language about donning it is unaffected.

However, it is not unreasonable to argue that the full-round action cited includes both drawing and donning (otherwise the RAW action economy on this item is truly horrendous), which implies that donning a scizore you already have in hand would be a standard. (Has this been discussed before? Do we know if the intent on this item under normal circumstances requires a move to draw and 2 standard actions to finish donning it?)

Could he don it while moving?

*"as part of a move"? No

but you can split the full round action into two standard actions as I just mentioned above. Otherwise it would need to get reduced to a free action in some manner.

Does he need a free hand to strap it on?

I can't find this directly addressed by the rules atm, but it's pretty strongly implies that the answer is yes given how many other things need a free hand and the language about donning making it comparative to actual armor. (I'm assuming there's some type of strap that needs to be tightened here and that you can't simply slide your hand into the weapon.)

Immediate actions are out of turn, so you should be able to insert them in the most advantageous way as reactions to already declared actions, including other immediate actions.

Immediate Action: An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn.

bold is mine

Ascalaphus wrote:

@BretI I think you're overstretching the Handle Animal rules.

Animals, as defined by the animal type in the Bestiary, have no rule about what they will or will not attack.

The Handle Animal skill has an option to command an animal to attack. It then lists a limit to what you can order the animal to attack.

That doesn't mean animals can't attack other things - just that you can't use Handle Animal for that.

My problem with this position is that the additional information in the HA description essentially counts the same as a "Normal:" entry on a feat... animals, in general, don't normally, willingly, (and/or purposely), attack things outside of the list. (and even then are only occasionally found to attack things that are on the list outside of other animals)

Certainly an animal would defend itself, but it's much more likely to flee than fight.

(Also, I don't see any conflict between the spell description and HA, all rules should apply)

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

FAQ requests

1.Does the Grab granted by Final Embrace apply to all of your natural weapons (including Unarmed Strike), just one, or just one type? And are there restrictions on type as in the Eidolon entry for Grab?

2.Does the 2nd level ability Constrict(Ex) gained by the White-Haired Witch archetype qualify as a prerequisite for Final Embrace?

I'm not surprised this was largely ignored as it's a very sticky situation with a poorly worded feat...

RAW, FE indeed seems to be linguistically ambiguous about "the constrict special attack", implying that any special attack with that name qualifies as a prerequisite.

RAI, it is most likely unintended for the WHW Constrict(Ex) to serve as a prereq.
The evidence here is that specific article "the" (not "a") in front of "constrict special attack" that very strongly implies it's talking about the UMR version of Constrict exclusively.
Now, this interpretation, strictly, should also exclude the Eidolon version, which is only triggered by a successful Grab; although I do doubt that Eidolons are intended to be excluded.

The primary distinction is the action type (this would technically allow you to get Constrict damage twice for that hair, once automatically[not an action] and again as a swift), which seems very unintended.

As to which attacks can/would be modified by Grab:
As you note, again, it is ambiguous, but we do have source material that is highly suggestive of which attacks normally have Grab attached. The list for Eidolons is probably the easiest reference. It's fairly unreasonable to expect Grab to apply to every type of attack.
Also, I'm not particularly inclined to restrict the effect of this feat to a single attack or attack type until it gets errata.

Keep in mind also that this archetype is from supplemental material.
As such, it's even more unreasonable to expect the author(s) to account for every interaction such as this.

GL if this is for PFS, you'll probably need it.

1 to 50 of 1,156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.