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

1,126 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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:

Archaeik:

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.

G'night~

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.


DungeonMastering.com 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

Quote:
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?)

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


I don't see anywhere in the template that alters type. PFRPG is much more static in that regard than previous versions, a Celestial Dog is still an animal.

Also, you seem to be correct about the limitations of summoning animals...
vs undead, you'd do well to pick a different creature type.

Further, DC 20 is to train the animal in that trick.
It's DC 25 to push an animal to perform a trick it is capable of doing, but not trained. (And a full round action)


Ector777 wrote:
OK, I understand the common opinion. Can I order a summoned elemental to attack the object then? The elementals have INT 4, and they aren't animals, so there are no clear way to "communicate" with them.

The easiest way would be to have the right language: Aquan, Auran, Ignan, Terran... however they should be smart enough to understand gestures of some sort (again, possibly a full round action).


The ability is worded terribly.

RAW, a case can be made that the 2 situations you cited aren't "reach weapons" because they do not gain the "reach" weapon property, however, RAI, both the synthesist and the paladin are attacking from reach and probably should not be subject to an ability that seems to exclusively target adjacent melee opponents.

Although, there is room to inflict the save on anyone using natural weapons, as part of their body is technically in range. I'm a bit surprised this isn't expressly mentioned.


Dema_89 wrote:
Rennaivx wrote:
I'm not an expert, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. The first specifically says you can use Bluff instead of Intimidate to demoralize a foe, and the second specifically says you're using Intimidate to demoralize a foe. Sounds like it could be a fun character. :)

Thanks, i'm also the idea it will work, i just wanted to be sure because with all the "specific overwrite generic" rule one can never sleep good.

Thanks again

Taunt is written kind of awkwardly for its (apparent) intent.

I can see a RAW stickler wagging their finger at you, but RAI is likely that "you can substitute Bluff for any Intimidate:Demoralize skill check"


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I understand your reference now.

I also fully understand a different reading of Broken Wing Gambit.

I just believe that one can dismiss a different interpretation, based solely on the category a feat falls under.

Imagine, if a player wanted to use Monkey Style, to give himself a better chance at jumping over a gap, by adding his wisdom to Acrobatics.

Would he have to start a fight first?

Re: Monkey Style

Just about every style feat has 2 entries
A) a flat benefit
B) an entry with the clause "while using this style"

I understand that *some* individuals seemingly parse it differently, but it's a pretty asinine position imo.
(However, even if it's intended that you need to use the style, I don't recall activation being limited to combat.)

Re: BWG
The table text also supports your position btw, which may add credence to the notion that that word "also" was not omitted by accident.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Archaeik wrote:

Two words: Dimensional Savant

although I disagree about many of the assertions that you often qualify without it

I don't think I understand your reference, or what it is you are disagreeing with.

Seriously? That feat lets you flank with yourself and be multiple locations at roughly the same time (same initiative count), effectively enabling activation of just about any TW feat. Without it, you are usually up a creek to use them solo.

I disagree with your RAI that BWG can be solo (and/or that the activator gets an AoO), but will acknowledge the RAW can be read to support it.


Handle Animal full round action to push it to attack DC 25

I honestly don't expect a creature with Int < 3 to consider an object to be an "opponent".

I could be convinced to grant a bonus to the HA check since it is clearly friendly/helpful to you.


Two words: Dimensional Savant

although I disagree about many of the assertions that you often qualify without it


I appreciate the analysis, however it almost completely ignores the source material. (I believe the earliest printing would be RToEE for 3.0, later adapted in Complete Divine. As this is a thread about RToEE, that is my focus.)

Force Domain (Faerun)

This is primarily my issue with the original version of the conversion you chose to modify as well, because nowhere in the source does it suggest that "ghost touch" has anything to do with the theme of the domain and seems more like a)a self serving and capricious choice by the author and b)an easy out in lieu of coming up with something more force-centric

Note how the 3.x power is both self only and 1/day (and ostensibly a free action considering how it seems to be intended to work)

I agree with your assessment that a weird "immediate standard action" is out of place for PF, but he also reversed the polarity on the ability

If I were to rewrite it, I'd keep it as a free action, self only ability usable once per round and probably go with times/day == WIS (though 3+WIS is hardly OP)

Regarding Magic Missiles... I suspect granting it as 2nd level is intentional because divine casters already have nice things.
Also, it is not out of line in terms of a design choice as numerous "cross class" spells granted in similar manners are not given at the lowest possible spell level. (Further, I know of at least 1 prestige class that allows you to learn otherwise unobtainable spells at the cost of +1 spell level in your book/repertoire)

But I'm not intending to be over critical, as there should be lots of room for variant subdomains under Force, regardless of which is considered prime. (Namely, that a "Shielding" subdomain could quite easily focus on defense and include ghost touch powers)

That said, I am in no way surprised Paizo has omitted publishing an official update to this particular domain


Thank you, this is a much better version than that conversion you linked to first.

However, I do have some critiques.

Force Bolt
We have a model for this in the Sage bloodline (although I suspect it might not have been published when you posted this)
In essence, it should either damage or bull rush, but doing both is a bit too powerful for a 1st level power (allowing the caster to select either pushes the limit, but may not break it). I suspect most players would prefer a damage version.

9th spell
Other sources, including the 3.5 adaptation, replace this with Crushing Hand, which is much more in line with the power players should wield.

However, I am inclined to adhere more strictly to the 3.0 source material for the sake of this module (especially considering players shouldn't be using this domain, since they likely won't worship Tharizdun).

Still, Annihilation is a ridiculously powerful spell because it replicates the functionality of 2 artifacts...
To bring it more in line with the philosophies of PFRPG, I'd suggest the following changes

Annihilation
School: Evocation (Force)
Level: Sorceror/Wizard 9, Force 9
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V,S
Range:: Medium
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Reflex partial
Spell Resistance: Yes

Using a blast of dark force, you tear a temporary hole in the fabric of reality. This hole takes on the form of a sphere of annihilation. You control the sphere as if you possessed a talisman of the sphere. Targets of this sphere may make a reflex save that negates cover to reduce their damage. A successful save deals only 5d10 damage, but anything killed by this damage is still annihilated. At the end of the duration, the hole seals itself and the sphere disappears.

Perhaps the damage should be higher, but I extrapolated from disintegrate... I suspect the only way to dial in on an 'equitable for 9th level' figure would be lots of play testing.

My logic
1. it is essentially an instakill on everything if a save is not added
2. it is essentially acting like a Trample (hence reflex)
3. controlling the sphere remains a free action
4. it can affect multiple targets per round (see 1)

concerning point 3, an alternative might be to make the duration: "concentration, up to 1 round/level", but that seems too far


While I agree, I want to detail why.

Dual Cursed modifies Oracle's Curse to have 2; 1 that progresses, and 1 that doesn't.

The Halfling FCB, increases your level for determining the effect of your Curse, but you do not have 2 separate Oracle's Curse abilities, so there is no choice to be made.


I didn't see this listed yet (from UC)

Strangler (Combat) wrote:

Throttling the life out of enemies is second nature to you.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, sneak attack +1d6, Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit: Whenever you successfully maintain a grapple and choose to deal damage, you can spend a swift action to deal your sneak attack damage to the creature you are grappling.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
thaX wrote:

It is the Archetype that turns Dagger sneaks into D8's. I also have a trait that adds to it.

I was grappled and had the small Karambit in my Adventurer's Sash.

Ah it wouldn't work because grappled doesn't deny you Dex to AC just reduces Dex itself. Nothing in that Archetype to sidestep that I'm afraid.

I think he's under the impression that attacking with a weapon your opponent doesn't know about causes them to be denied dex; but this is not the case.

I'm very curious how he starts a round grappled but not in combat? (which is what I suspect it would take to employ Underhanded in this situation)


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Which if we were working from those tables and the wording of Sneak Attack would mean that Flat-footed doesn't allow Sneak as it is "loses" not "denied".

This is fairly pedantic, as we have numerous instances of FF being called out as vulnerable to SA

Scout(Rogue archetype) wrote:

Scout's Charge (Ex): At 4th level, whenever a scout makes a charge, her attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target were flat-footed. Foes with uncanny dodge are immune to this ability. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

Skirmisher (Ex): At 8th level, whenever a scout moves more than 10 feet in a round and makes an attack action, the attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target was flat-footed. If the scout makes more than one attack this turn, this ability only applies to the first attack. Foes with uncanny dodge are immune to this ability. This ability replaces improved uncanny dodge.

To add to your list:

Climb wrote:
You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand. While climbing, you can't move to avoid a blow, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You also can't use a shield while climbing. Anytime you take damage while climbing, make a Climb check against the DC of the slope or wall. Failure means you fall from your current height and sustain the appropriate falling damage.


Shadow Well (Sp): wrote:
At 9th level, you can use the Stealth skill even while being observed and without cover or concealment, as long as you are within 10 feet of a shadow other than your own. In addition, when within an area of darkness or dim light, as a standard action you may choose to switch places with a willing ally within 60 feet, who must also be in darkness or dim light. At 13th level, you can instead switch the positions of two willing allies, each of whom must be within 60 feet of you. Unless otherwise noted, this travel is identical to dimension door. You may use the ability to switch places once per day at 9th level, plus one additional time per day at 17th level and 20th level.

So it's fairly feat intensive, Skill Focus(Stealth), Eldritch Heritage(Shadow), Imp Eldritch Heritage(Shadow Well) <- also level 11


Are you trying to use a 5ft step to trigger a feat that needs 10ft+ of movement? Seems pretty cheesy.

But upward movement doesn't have to cost double, only when it's done quickly.

Fly wrote:
Without making a check, a flying creature ... can rise at half speed at an angle of 45 degrees

Then it lists the DC to rise at an angle greater than 45 degrees.

Also, keep in mind that your uphill example might require a climb check as part of that movement, which would also cost extra movement unless you had a Climb speed.

Combat:5-Foot Step wrote:
You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.

The issue with moving up, is that it applies a movement penalty (effectively costing 10ft of movement), otherwise, you probably could 5ft step upwards.

Also, addressing my opening question --even though you spend 10ft to move 5ft in this situation, it still only counts as 5ft worth of movement for Wind Stance because that's all you've done.

I'd have to search a bit, but I know there are a couple of abilities out there that allow you to move 5ft w/o expending a 5ft step under very strict conditions. (I think at least one is worded "even if you've already taken a 5ft step") It might be somewhat rules sketchy to effectively combine them with a 5ft step to combine a 5ft rise with the rest of your round, but it doesn't seem unreasonable either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:

Ignoring all the gaining abilities before you have them nonsense, Sohei weapon training absolutely stacks with base Fighter weapon training, per the Myrmidarch FAQ I posted earlier. The Myrmidarch and Sohei abilities even use the same base phrasing: gain Weapon Training as the fighter class feature. So a Sohei 6/Fighter 5 will have +2 Training in one group, +1 Training in another group (1 of these two groups must be a sohei group depending on which of sohei 6, fighter 5 was reached first) and can flurry with both groups. The exact interaction only becomes unclear when you multiple archetype modified weapon trainings that are mutually exclusive.

I was going to make a similar argument, and I do think the intent of Sohei class feature is to stack with any other Weapon Training, but Myrmidarch contains the following, which Sohei lacks. They are using it to make a counter-argument.

Weapon Training (Ex) wrote:

At 6th level, a myrmidarch gains weapon training, as the fighter ability, adding an additional weapon group every six levels after 6th (to a maximum of three groups at 18th level) and increasing the bonus on attack and damage rolls for weapon groups already chosen by +1.

This ability replaces the magus arcana normally gained at 6th, 12th, and 18th levels.

Personally, I find the highlighted portion to be a reminder, rather than the enabling factor that separates the 2 abilities.

Also, I think the author of Sohei would have said soemthing similar to 'A Sohei may use FoB/Ki Strike with any weapon from these groups in which he also has WT' if he wanted to limit it... because it's so much easier to expressly limit the ability than to assume people will understand that it is.
Further, I expect that Sohei WT stacks just fine in PFS. (Although there may be just enough wiggle for them to enforce variation at their tables.)

The examples are few, but we have sufficient places where classes (although perhaps more often archetypes) reference another; the best of which may be the Oracle's Curse, since it's "levels or HD other than Oracle".
Channel is bad comparison because it's power relies on class levels(vs number of acquisitions), and very few classes allow their levels to stack for the purposes of Channel.
So, yes, WT depends on class levels, but indirectly. In theory, you could write a feature along the lines of "these levels stack w/ fighter levels to determine WT", but I don't know of one; and the WT FAQ makes it abundantly clear that any class feature which scales with 'how many times you have it' stacks with itself, no matter the source. It is not limited only to the Mydmirarch.


The cap isn't affected by Empower, but I would argue that the Empower amount is "in addition to" and doesn't consider caps.

Compare any damage spell. An empowered 10d6 Fireball does 10d6 +50% damage. I don't see why it would be any different for Mirror Image.


Quote:
You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

afaik, nonlethal damage is still damage

consider the case of delivering a CdG with a Merciful weapon, or a sap. The damage is nonlethal, but the save would still be based on damage dealt.


The issue is that it says "attack rolls".
I read through the item and couldn't make a determination.

I suspect it's one attack, but at best it's incongruous with itself.


Yes, I concur with your previous post. Grab is restricted. Tetori overrides that restriction with a specific rule.

I know of 2 other ways to increase your Grab category
Powerful Shape (during Wild Shape only)
Brutal Pugilist 5 (Barbarian)


Avatar_name_1 wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
Avatar_name_1 wrote:
I later found out that it's impossible to grapple things two size categories larger than you so that last part is weird. I'd rather it be
I think this was true in 3.x, it is not true of PFRPG. You can grapple any size creature afaik.
Can you please link your source? I can't find that anywhere.

Where is yours?

Grapple
Bull Rush, Overrun, and Trip all mention a restriction, Grapple does not.


Avatar_name_1 wrote:
I later found out that it's impossible to grapple things two size categories larger than you so that last part is weird. I'd rather it be

I think this was true in 3.x, it is not true of PFRPG. You can grapple any size creature afaik.


I doubt it.

Bodyguard (Combat) wrote:

Your swift strikes ward off enemies attacking nearby allies.

Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes.

Benefit: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally's AC. You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally's attack roll with this attack.

Normal: Aid another is a standard action.

Bodyguard doesn't mention aiding anything other than AC.

Further, "when an adjacent ally is attacked" is clearly intended to mean "when an adjacent ally's AC is targeted by an attack".

I realize this sort of diminishes the usefulness Aid Allies to certain types of allies (such as someone with Snake Style), but Aid Allies is merely reiterating the standard Aid Another options, making it clear that it applies to all types of uses. Bodyguard is simply 1 type that has a specific limitation on how it modifies Aid Another.


While I've also contemplated why IG is worded the way it is, I'm fairly confident that it does not grant you more benefit than indicated.

That is to say
-the HD are classless/raceless
-the HD do not increase your BAB as we would otherwise expect(you gain a competence bonus instead)
-the HD do not increase saves (although you gain a competence bonus to Fort saves)
-the HD count as "regular" only "for determining the effect of spells that are HD dependent" (Note: it is implied here as "spells that target you", but as written it would also apply to a spell you cast that has an effect based on your HD [independent of any CL])

Now, I do think you have a reasonable RAW argument, and overall, it really doesn't matter too much if they work together since it's a very specific and otherwise suboptimal combination. But, RAI, it likely doesn't work.

Do the HD from IG increase Special Quality DCs that depend on HD(such as poison)?
Can you gain an extra use of Stunning Fist(or similarly scaling abilities)?
That would give more weight to this interpretation.
Currently, it appears the answer to all these things is, "ask your GM".


Sandman Bard archetype gets it

numerous PrC offer Sneak Attack
Assassin
Arcane Trickster
Master Spy
Pain Taster (well it's similar to SA)

I'm sure there's more

edit: as a note, you need to be mindful combining classes w/ SA as some say that class levels stack to determine SA(like Vivisectionist) rather than just saying SA stacks(like Assassin)


Cthulhudrew wrote:
If the druid was feebleminded while in animal form, that would probably do it.

I don't think so, Wild Shape has clear durations. Further WS is a Su ability, so its use won't be affected.


Before I get into the math, I'd advise against causing the item to fill 2 item slots, it will turn into an annoying restriction that will significantly reduce its value and desirability. If it is taking up both slots, you might as well just give him both items and say they only work when worn together (and the helm affects rhinos instead of elephants).

Breakdown of the helm as best I can tell
-Gore ??
-permanent Endure Elements(cold) (1*1*2k)/2[24hr duration] == 1k
the following work with "elephants" only
-+5 competence HA 5^2 *100 == 2.5k
-+5 competence Ride 5^2 *100 == 2.5k
-+5 competence WE 5^2 *100 == 2.5k
-use activated Detect Animals/Plants (1*1*2k)*1.5[10min/level] == 3k
-use activated Speak w/ Animals (1*1*2k)*2[1min/level] == 4k

Now, those 5 are pretty heavily restricted, but I'm unsure exactly what percentage, if any, has been knocked off.
Further, it appears to me, that those 5 have also been considered "similar abilities".

Multiple Similar Abilities wrote:
For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.

The current total using "similar abilities"

4k + 0.75*(3k) + 0.5*(2.5k *3) + 1.5*(1k)[EE is dissimilar] == 11.5k

I suppose "dissimilar" is debatable, and all abilities were similar, but that still leaves us w/ 10.5k before accounting for the gore.

Either way, we're left guessing at the percentage reduction. I'll assume it was 30% (since it's the largest in the book, and these are very restricted).

8500 / 0.7 ~= 12150

If EE and Gore are dissimilar
12150 - 11500 = 650; 650 is 50% more for being different, /1.5 ~= 430

If EE is dissimilar, but Gore is similar
12150 - 11500 = 650; 650 has been halved for being similar, *2 == 1300

If EE is similar, but Gore is dissimilar
12150 - 10500 = 1650; 1650 is 50% more for being different, /1.5 ~= 1100

If all abilities were considered similar
12150 - 10500 = 1650; 1650 has been halved for being similar, *2 == 3300

Now, as BBT said, we can't actually know the exact calculation w/o the author stepping forward (very unlikely), but I do think you can use the formulae in the book to guesstimate what has been done.

I have no idea how far off I am w/ these, but a permanent Beast Shape I item would cost 60k according the formula. You're only getting 1 weapon and no other benefit. 430 seems a little low, but any of the others all seem pretty feasible, I'd probably go with ~3.3k and also call it similar for the Rhino Hide.
(The Charge portion costs exactly 1k, if you count the gore as similar, 3.3k +0.75*(1k) ~= 4k (==4050). I'd add 4k to the 9k for +3 armor, for 13,165. I realize this is ignoring that both are dissimilar to armor enhancement bonuses, but it seems to me like Rhino Hide already does that.)
If I'm mistaken about the similar abilities, it means a much greater arbitrary reduction was applied to this item, which throws a major wrench in approximating anything useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk

last paragraph of FoB

Flurry of Blows (Ex) wrote:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.


No, unless you know of a maneuver that states that you can exchange it for an attack.

Certain maneuvers can be used in place of melee attacks, but I know of none that permit the reverse.

Maintaining a grapple allows you to select an option to damage, but you can only maintain after you successfully initiate the grapple.

1 to 50 of 1,126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.