|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I disagree with "all".They defined the term "ranged attack" earlier in the chapter and now want it to include "ranged touch attack" which they defined separately.
Either "ranged touch attack" is a subset of "ranged attacks" and they are all weapons, or they are not, meaning you can't gain cover vs ranged touch attacks. You can't have it both ways.
Wow, this is the crux of the issue.
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
However, Melee Attacks clearly differ from Melee Touch Attacks.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
So the issue is that "melee touch attacks" are not strictly a subset of "melee attacks", yet the vast majority of feats and rules treat "ranged touch attacks" directly as a subset of "ranged attacks". (So this is a problem because they elected to save on word count, but that's something I won't blame them for.)
Chess Pwn wrote:
Well they released the Errata for this right? And it wasn't changed. Make it seem less like a mistake and more like it was intentional now.
This kinda overlooks the sheer volume of errata that was issued for this book and the fact that at least a few items which were thought to be on the list were not addressed (although this part is sadly typical...)I think it's fine to ask for another review because it may not have actually received one (but I also think this thread is close to its diminishing returns threshold in terms of interest regarding FAQ clicks).
RegUS PatOff wrote:
Agreed, nothing about VMC or Command Undead indicates that you stack levels to determine effective cleric level. (and in fact, RAW, Power over Undead doesn't actually grant an effective cleric level for the purposes of CU)
James Risner wrote:
While that is certainly pertinent, RAI is way more obvious there than a stacking of "X in place of Y" and "add X" which is the more common scenario.Do you have any WotC commentary regarding that kind of stacking? (since you're bringing them into the discussion)
Was there a "wisdom to AC in place of dexterity" ability?
I understand, I already addressed this in my first response.A more complete analysis would use item HP and thickness guidelines.
So it appears that steel items have roughly 1/3 more HP than wooden ones. (And I'd argue pretty strenuously that the precise value for light wooden is 7.5)
Given the values above, steel shields should be 4/9 as thick as wooden ones (assuming no other dimension changes).The listed weight values don't back this up however, and would suggest they are much closer to 1/8 the thickness of an equivalent wooden object by simulationist standards, (that or the game world has some very dense wood).
I agree, it's fairly hard to adjudicate based on available examples.
You get the domain spell slots, but you do not get any domain spell. You can use these higher level domain spell slots with lower domain spells that you already know.
This is wrong, acquisition of domain spells is expressly tied to slots, not class level (like sorcerers).
Note: For some reason they halved the weight of wood when applying mithral to this item, it's not unreasonable to houserule it to weigh more because it likely should (metal items may be thinner than wooden ones, but there's a practical limit to that reduction, and comparing the few items that exist with both materials suggests steel increases the weight by ~50%; the 60lbs suggestion seems quite reasonable in this regard)
It sounds a lot more overpowered than it actually is.
Mount lacks some of the restrictive language present in Summon Monster, specifically teleportation and SLA's with costly material components, so there's almost no difference to a called creature in this respect.
Also, Augment Summons is almost guaranteed (which doesn't affect called creatures).
Touching Planar Binding, how often do you allow PCs to gain such service for free?
Ki Pool wrote:
The ki pool is replenished each morning after 8 hours of rest or meditation; these hours do not need to be consecutive.
Ki is only increased otherwise if the ability expressly states it is.Considering Ki needs rest, you would need a permanent Wis increase. But it should temporarily increase the maximum for things like Ki Leech.
However, I'm confused by what you mean "like rage"? Rage increases Con, which provides both (real) hit points and increases any DC's based on Con for the duration. Edit: nvm, I understand what you meant now, but I would not compare it to rage at all
ps. the spell you were looking for is Owl's Wisdom
Treants are indeed creatures, and can be targeted by Animate Dead.
Edit: It's subtle, but I just noticed the current wording on the PRD is different than yours.
This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive. A plant creature has the following features.
When you create a cleric character, decide whether she uses the standard form of channel energy or a variant presented here based on one aspect of her deity's portfolio. Once this choice is made, it cannot be altered.
A character who has the channel energy ability from a class other than cleric may use these variant channeling rules if the class's abilities are tied to serving a deity.
It appears to me that the choice affects all channeling possessed by a creature and that you cannot apply it "per pool".
As a matter of RAI, I would say that "when you create a[n eligible] character" means "when you first acquire the ability to channel energy".
Wizards can prepare "at any time" however, taking a minimum of 15 minutes.
He should be able to prepare spells in his 9th level slots provided the duration of the bonus lasts long enough (it does).
It's a rather obnoxious way to have to do things (because the duration is unlikely to last long enough to also use them in combat). You're probably better off using metamagic, but it's safer just to prepare 8th level spells if you want to avoid all table variation.
Not really, Bestow Curse does not penalize AC to make your subsequent attacks more favorable (unless you pick the ability penalty option), so it's not really an apples to apples comparison regarding prioritization relative to an enemies weakness.
The only case where ToC significantly loses out is when your opponent has excessively high AC for their CR (not just "above average").
Touch AC is irrelevant to the current discussion however, unless you have a way to extend the duration of ToC. If you could reliably target touch AC and also personally make use of it, it's value skyrockets compared to Bestow Curse. (So Quicken SLA?)
A 5ft is a miscellaneous action that can be taken when you don't otherwise move any distance.
I know of no way to reduce maintaining a grapple to a free/swift action in order to enable a full attack during the same round.
However, you can release your current grapple as a free action which should allow you to attack with your hair each round (but this risks missing and/or failing the grapple check).
Alternatively, nothing actually stops you from making a full attack other than automatically ending the grapple when your turn concludes without successfully maintaining it.
Which is better? Making a touch attack to impose worst of 2*d20, or forcing a Will save to land a -4 penalty across the board. Not being a DPS calculating type, I don't know which is more effective. I think it would be the curse, but cannot be sure.
Statistically, the swing from 2 d20 is about -3, but you gain the added benefit of making it nearly impossible (1/400) of rolling a 20.
Considering there is no save vs Touch of Chaos, but Will negates Bestow Curse, I'd say Touch of Chaos is the clear winner here as it sets you up for more success with Bestow Curse.
Blindsense (Ex) wrote:
Using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing, a creature with blindsense notices things it cannot see. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent the creature cannot see still has total concealment against the creature with blindsense, and the creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.
Aiming a Spell wrote:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
At range:If it is a targeted effect? No. You know where they are, but if you still can't see them to target them with targeted effects.
If it requires a ranged attack roll? Yes, in which case they get their miss chance from total concealment.
Solo Tactics is an effect on the Inquisitor, not the ally, it doesn't even care if said ally would be able to take or use the feats in question.
This isn't like Circling Mongoose where you are "considered flanking", PttW gives you an actual ally which satisfies the conditions for Solo Tactics.
Domain Strike wrote:
Doing so provokes no attacks of opportunity.
Also, the purpose of using Touch of Chaos first is to "cripple" the opponent's ability to make saves vs the rest.
Channeling first wouldn't be the worst option, but it eats action economy (moreso if it's a single opponent); however, so does refreshing the amulet's Bestow Curse, so ymmv.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Even this isn't actually defined by the rules, only that the controlling grappler also gains the grappled condition.
The difference that is defined in the rules is that the controller can end the grapple as a free action, that's it.
That's not how the rules work. They have been written in a specific way to prevent what you are attempting to accomplish.
"effectively invisible" is not the same thing as "actually invisible"
I have no idea where you are construing the implication of invisibility affecting sound... the DC boost is ostensibly because you are only detectable by sound.
Some GM's may run effective == actual, but it's not in the rules.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Since it's not that type of spell, 'concentration' here must refer to concentration in the normal English sense (as it is in the Barbarian rage ability) and not in the 'concentration check' sense.
Certainly not "must", it's ambiguous enough that it probably needs clarification given that it's a specific rule for that spell and that the language used is very suggestive of using normal concentration rules.
The intent certainly seems to be that if something inflicts the "dead" condition on you independent of suffering from "hit points equal to your negative Con score", that your hit points are then reduced to an amount equal to your negative Con score.
The rule simply seems to be covering all possibilities, such that you don't have people arguing that hit point loss stops at a value equal to -Con (or is always adjusted to that once you die).
What about both attacks being done with the Armor Spikes? It's not a double weapon, so what if I brought two sets of armor spikes?
There are ways to flurry with armor spikes, Brawler being the easiest.
N. Jolly wrote:
Going to bump this, as well as asking if burn is doubled when using with a conductive weapon or not.
he may choose to expend two uses of his magical ability to channel it through the weapon to the struck opponent, which suffers the effects of both the weapon attack and the special ability. (If the wielder has unlimited uses of a special ability, she may channel through the weapon every round.)
Consuming two uses is not the same as activating twice, I expect burn is applied only once.
Technology Guide wrote:
Normal: You treat all skill checks made against technology as if they were untrained skill checks. This may mean that you cannot attempt certain skill checks, even if you possess ranks in the skill in question.
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all skill checks for skills you have no ranks in. Furthermore, you can use all skills designated "trained only" untrained.
The way it's phrased, Technology treats you as untrained, but does not also make those checks "trained only".But Improvisation coupled with Technologist would let you make untrained checks for skills uses that require both Technologist and skill ranks (like disable device).
If I'm reading the ring correctly, it only grants the "Sustained Force" option from telekinesis.
The normal formula is spell level * caster level * 2000, or 5*9*2000, which would be 90k; so the ring got an ad hoc reduction of 16.6%(1/6) for only granting a portion of the spell.
Death Attacks wrote:
In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.
It's easiest to adjudicate hit points == -Con if you don't actually know that they should be lower.
The answer is #2 if they survived long enough to receive the fort save and then failed.
3. This depends entirely on the source of the damage.
Since ability damage doesn't actually reduce your score, first reduce the score from ability drain, then apply any damage.
Certain sources of ability damage(namely penalties - but some spells) can't reduce your effective score below 1, so add up all other ability damage that isn't restricted in this way first. Finally, if your score is still positive, add in this restricted ability damage, reducing your effective score to 1* if applicable.
*This is only for the purpose of determining if you qualify to become unconscious/die; penalties for ability damage still only accrue at a rate of -1 per 2 points of damage, but the effective maximum damage is equal to your ability score(after reduced by drain).
Touch of Corruption does not offer a save in addition to the touch attack. (This parallels Lay on Hands not offering saves to undead.)
Converting uses of ToC into Channel Negative Energy does offer a save for half. Cruelties do not apply to this.
I'm not sure what you mean by "through your weapon", but if you mean the Conductive weapon property, that would consume 2 uses of ToC but otherwise function as if you had used it normally (no save, cruelties apply).
This is the only other thing I could find that comes close to what you're asking about.
The expanded slots aren't restricted to casting the spells learned from the spirit, so yes.
But since you intentionally picked a controversial example, expect table variation on whether it's easy to obtain a 2nd level lattice of haste.
Lastly, 4k is 2/3 your WBL at level 4, which may be disallowed.
Blood of Dragons advances your 'effective sorcerer level' for Bloodline Powers by your DD level, therefore you would effectively be level 4 for calculating which powers you gain and how strong they are. (Yes, you get Dragon Resistances)
The breath weapon still functions off your [effective] sorcerer level, 4d6 in your case.
RAW, no, BB expressly functions on water and not oil.
It's likely not mechanically problematic to allow it to function with oils as a houserule.
There is no other reason for the spell text to indicate "concentrating on the spell" if it does not intend you to use the concentration rules, and simply a poor choice of language if it's flavor text.
You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.
A pedant might attempt to argue that Call Lightning falls under neither of these categories because you "aren't casting"(no indicated VSMF components during the action) and the spell's duration isn't "concentration"... but given that it calls out "concentrating on the spell", there are really no other rules elements available to cite. So either, it literally is not covered by RAW, or they intend you to use these rules. RAI is heavily in favor of the latter.
Targeted spells are "see or touch".
Further, targeting is done after you finish casting, not "as part of". (even if it is commonplace to know your targets before you start casting)
I don't read Spring Attack to require target acquisition before movement (but it is allowed to facilitate moving passed/behind for flank).
You do not lose a Wizard's bonus feats, and they are not tied to being a Universalist.
Arcane Reservoir (Su) wrote:
This ability replaces arcane bond.
Exploiter Exploit wrote:
This ability replaces arcane school.
Essentially you give up your familiar or bonded object, and you give up school powers/extra spells per day(for specialists).
Depending, on level and what you're trying to do with the Reservoir, it seems like it's more or less worth it... that is to say a situational +4 CL (through Spell Specialization/Potent Magic Reservoir) is pretty good, and it's available from level 1(without needing to be human in PFS); then Magical Lineage something good that also benefits from this trick and have some metamagic fun (Intensified or Empower work nicely).