|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Also, something I was wondering about earlier today: Doesn't the "if your mount travels more than 5ft" language prevent mounted pouncing anyway? At least before 14th level (ouch, by the way) when you can take the Mounted Skirmisher feat?
No, because if you are charging, the description of Pounce delimits the number of attacks possible.
If you are a Barb, you only need Gr Beast Totem to full attack. (which saves you Mounted Combat feats)
Docile quality or not, aren't hooves secondary natural weapons anyways?
This is the mistake made in the other thread I mentioned. I even quoted the relevant part in my OP.
If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.
If a horse has only hooves, they are treated as primary.Docile is required to knock this back down.
Re: Combat Trained, the authors get around Docile being lost by adding a Bite attack to the Heavy Horse, rendering the "one type" clause inapplicable. (NOTE: "Combat Trained" doesn't actually change the hooves to primary, in theory it just removes Docile, allowing them to be treated as primary if all conditions are met.)
I found another one in this line of thought that makes less sense to lose than docile.
Weak Flier (Ex) wrote:
An archaeopteryx can't hover or fly up at an angle greater than 45 degrees while flying.
It's one thing to argue that a caster is reasonably more combat trained (ie not skittish), but it's quite another to argue that you shift into a better version of the creature. (Although I will concede that a PC is unlikely to have a minimum Str score)
When I searched, there was all of one instance of this question, buried in a thread, and it wasn't answered. (not to mention the asker incorrectly addressing it in his next post)
As I understand it, certain creatures have the docile quality to "force" their secondary natural weapons to stay secondary since it is the only type of weapon they have.
If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.
Since Docile is not listed as an acquired SQ in any of the Beast Shape spells, does this mean a caster shifting into a horse or emu, etc, conveniently gets to ignore the SQ and treat those attacks as primary?
Pretty confident this is RAW, but it seems like an oversight for RAI. But realistically, the rule also shouldn't automatically be "the Beast Shape limitations only apply to positive SQ" either.
The Behemoth Hippo remains slightly superior based on the small boost in strength (and reach) of shifting into something Huge.
The Carnivorous Crystal (Cave Druid) offers the most dice that I'm aware of however.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
So we're clear, THIS is specifically the text used to justify Vital Strike at the end of a mounted charge.
Mounted Skirmisher (Combat) wrote:
I'm not sure where this question belongs, it's not a rules questions, it's more of a design inconsistency question.
The velociraptor in bestiary 4 seems to have Improved Critical w/o actually stating that it does. It seems like every other bestiary entry I've seen with an improved crit range either explicitly has Imp Crit as a feat (bonus or otherwise) OR a Special that does a similar thing.
Why this is pertinent to Wild/Beast Shape is that those feats/specials aren't granted by the spell, meaning that a PC never gets to use them.
Scout's Charge 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.
Seems pertinent for barbarians.
It's certainly not unfair for class features to have counters, whether directly, like this, or reach weapons like yours.
I'd say "used as" does not constitute the offhand weapon becoming light.
I can potentially see a very strict GM taking issue with this, but that does not make such a ruling rules accurate.
Double weapons comes with benefits and drawbacks, generally one benefit is effectively wielding 2 1H weapons without the additional penalty normally applied for doing so.
With the proliferation of material, there are a number of double weapons that use what would otherwise be a light weapon for one or both ends.
I'd say you should get the benefit of Impact regardless whether or not the attack is offhand, provided that the actual weapon it is applied to would not otherwise be considered light.
Are there not ways to use Stunning Fist with other weapons?
I assume you're talking about Ki Focus.
I would expect this property to apply to EF/PK/ToS equally as well.
Just to note, the brief description of the feat from the table.
Punishing Kick* Con 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8 Knock down or push back foes with unarmed strikes
Similarly, Elemental Fist
Deal 1d6 energy damage with an unarmed strike
and Touch of Serenity
Foes hit by unarmed strikes cannot attack or cast spells
So it is 100% clear what the RAI is for these feats.
Creating a Diversion to Hide wrote:
You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
The way I read it, if you make a successful attack, you may spend a move action to move, making a Bluff check (opposed by Sense Motive), which if successful, allows you to make Stealth check(at -10) if you can end your move in a square that offers cover/concealment. (Abilities that modify stealth like HiPS notwithstanding.)
I think the benefit of this judgement is that normally, the action economy would be Standard:Bluff->Move:Stealth, so this allows you to get the attack in addition.
A little late to this party I guess, but a few things to add...
The Cleric's Spontaneous Casting entry only prohibits orison and domain slots from being converted. If we follow the logic that this doesn't apply exclusively to Cleric spells, then a wizard's school slot is also available for conversion as it is not explicitly prohibited.
Based on the illogic of this, I expect RAI to exclude all spells from other classes.
However, I suspect there may be an exception for Cleric spells prepared in 'arcane slots' via MT. (If indeed the requirement is "a prepared Cleric spell" as it seems to be.)
In your example, the spell does offer a save, Reflex, which you are prevented from taking. In rules terms, what you suggest would probably be worded as "automatically fail".
The point is kind of moot though as saving throws require no action, and I don't know of any way to deny one. Regardless, RAW only worries about the spell offering a save, not your ability to receive it.
Reckless Abandon (Ex) wrote:
While raging, the barbarian can take a –1 penalty to AC to gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls. The AC penalty increases by –1 and the attack roll bonus increases by +1 at 4th level and every four levels thereafter.
It appears to me that Reckless Abandon's bonus and penalty apply only while raging.
As it seemed a bit cheesy to effectively get the bonus without paying the penalty (as Furious Finish ends your rage), I thought I'd check here for other opinions.
I'm aware of this line
... A barbarian gains the benefits of rage powers only while raging, ...
but it doesn't seem to specifically indicate that this penalty persists (presumably "until the start of your next turn") in spite of its "while raging" qualifier.
To be more specific, I'm looking at a build that never ever ends a turn with an active rage.
RAW probably doesn't mesh too well with that particular sequence of events...
If the component sword doesn't force you to use both hands during casting (and I don't see that it explicitly states that it does), you should be able to cast it successfully with the same hand that has/holds the material component.
RAW probably does shut down Spell Combat entirely when your hand is no longer free.
Additionally, I'm of the opinion that magical items should, at a minimum, receive a save vs being used as a material component, or more likely should not even be a valid component. (Given the omissions in the description, I find it likely that the author was treating the sword as a focus rather than a material component. Or it was changed in editing, possibly because a focus makes it "too useful", especially so for a Magus.)
Paizo has been pretty adamant about the +10 total bonus hard limit.
I see no issue here. New Arcana is still restricted to spell levels you're capable of casting (and also presumably limited to "at the level when this ability says the spell was gained"), so EH should grant a 6/9 caster a maximum of one 4th, 5th, and 6th level spell, rather than potentially three 6th level spells known (if IEH is taken at sufficiently high level), which is the only cheese I would expect to be attempted.
Are you trying to argue devil's advocate here, saying "other means of (explicitly) learning spells not on your class list typically add them to your personal list at +1 spell level"?
Since Explosive Runes denies a normal saving throw (under specific circumstances), the dazing effect receives the will save described in the Dazing Spell feat.
In short, the effect of Dazing Spell should always receive a saving throw.
Long Limbs (Ex) wrote:
Well, Ranged Flank is a 3rd party feat, only that publisher would be able to tell you for sure, but a cursory reading suggests they could interact.
A very strict reading would say that they don't interact based on Ranged Flank giving the bonus under specific circumstances, but I find that a little asinine, as Gang Up is intended to expand the normal circumstances that grant flanking. I would still require the "unoccupied space" however, as it seems to represent "the position that grants you flanking". (That is to say, I believe the RAI of the 3rd party feat is "When attacking with ranged or thrown weapons from a distance of up to 30 feet, if the nearest adjacent space to your target is unoccupied and the opposite space is occupied by a threatening ally, you are considered flanking as if you were occupying that space and threatening with a melee weapon." *my addition in italics)
No one is complaining just curious. We actually went up against some nessian hell hounds and a red dragon recently. With the help of the witch in our party I successfully turned them to rabbits :) No need for fireballs. They also failed their will saves unfortunately, a rabbit with a breath weapon would have been awesome!
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form...
I don't see that BP offers an exception to this rule, just that a failed will save has additional losses.
I'm sure that will be poorly formatted.Regardless, unless you're only looking to boost Dex a little bit more, Alter Self is (typically) a terrible choice for big creatures.
So the answer is, yes there is an adjustment, but it's separate from the spell effect which does exactly what it says, +2 Str OR +2 Dex (and any other effects available through the polymorph).
*Upon review before posting, I see this might be confusing.
In your case, a Large creature casting Alter Self, adjusts his stats to "medium", then applies the spell:
Armor/Shield Bonus wrote:
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn't stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn't stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus.
"Doesn't stack" is not the same as "can only benefit from one".It's quite clear they overlap, except in the case of BoA.
Have I missed the stipulation being talked about somewhere else in the rules?
Armor Spikes wrote:You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
This wasn't really a rules question, Ring of Force Shield doesn't say you can do this, or even imply it, so you can't.
Reasons not to do this:
Even using that formula, you may ultimately find such an item to be underpriced.
Although, I'm in the camp that says the shield created by RoFS must also be wielded in a hand to grant the bonus.
If you insist on effectively making this an "unslotted shield"(ie. unwielded), the price should almost definitely be doubled (even if it's on a ring, slightly more if it's fully slotless, IMO).
There's also the issue of maximum bonus.
I'm a little skeptical of the price using this formula.
Again, that is RAI.
RAW, that AoO is vs an opponent 15ft away.
You are describing RAI.RAW, the AoO always happens before the triggering event. This makes "entering" and "exiting" synonymous as it's the same threshold.
Benefit: The barbarian can make an attack of opportunity against a foe that moves into any square threatened by the barbarian, regardless of whether or not that movement would normally provoke an attack of opportunity.
not "has moved into".
The only issue I have with this is that, RAW, it's essentially 2 AoOs for the exact same action, taken at the exact same moment. (The power offers no ability to ignore any of the other rules about AoOs, it merely "provokes" when they otherwise wouldn't.)
The rage power really needs to be clarified that the AoO happens after the movement has happened (which seems to be the intent to me). Because as is, AoOs interrupt the flow and happen before the triggering action (this is why I say entering and exiting are the exact same).
Short answer, RAW:no, RAI:yes.
Because the eidolon gives the synthesist temporary hit points rather than having a separate pool of normal hit points, effects that cure hit points don't restore the eidolon's temporary hit points. This technically leaves you unable to heal the eidolon. To remedy this, effects that specifically restore hp to an eidolon (such as rejuvenate eidolon) restore temporary hit points to a synthesist's eidolon. This does mean those spells end up as a sort of must-have "spell tax" for synthesists, but the advantage of being a synthesist is your eidolon's hp are a buffer between you and damage, unlike a normal summoner who can be targeted separately from his eidolon.
Even the Fast Healing evolution, or other fast healing or regeneration effects, restore hit points rather than temporary hit points, so they heal the summoner, not the eidolon's temporary hit points.
Should be 3. The "no offhand thing" means you don't need to take Double Slice. By the wording of PA, it should also grant you normal damage on those attacks.
You can FoB as long as you have the class feature, but the number of extra attacks is dependent on your monk level.
Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields.
When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.
The Sohei archetype can flurry in light armor, but still loses his bonus ACFAQ
Edit: for clarity
Handedness above "2-handed"(or below "light") is not described in the rules.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons wrote:
If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
RAW, it would need to be in the weapon description to do what you're asking.I know of no weapons that do this.
These penalties stack, -8 Dex, -4 to most attack rolls, must make both concentration checks to cast a spell.
There's no RAW basis to convert this combination to Pinned, which is a much more severe condition than these 2 combined.
Seems like I've seen a few penalties that call out things that are "treat as" or don't stack with but I'm drawing a blank right now. Generally speaking, if it inflicts a condition, the condition doesn't keep stacking with itself.
Thinking about it more, can't a synthesis summoner take the large evolution, cast enlarge on themselves to go huge and the wield a gargantuan bastard sword for a -2 penalty? Make it impact to have an effectively colossal weapon? I used to think you couldn't enlarge an eidolon but someone corrected me on that a few days ago.
A synthesist can get Large at level 8 or Huge at level 13, and yes, still enlarge.
Problem is, the Behemoth Hippo(wild/beast shape) is still 1 category ahead of this for total dice (with Strong Jaw), even vs Impact.
A maxed out synthesist slam attack might be able to beat this though.
Are any of those languages hardcoded like the associated skill? (bonus for Int increase or those granted by the linguistics ranks)
Or are you required to invest time to make use of these additional slots?
Is this a sufficiently grey area to require GM interpretation?
Except the question is about demoralize stacking with everything else. (the bolded clause is referring to multiple uses of demo - why else would it mention "same creature"?)
Dirge of Doom is the only thing I know of that explicitly can't stack with other abilities/effects.
This combo should be good to go.
The spell is not held in a designated limb.
If you touch anything it is discharged.
You can use any natural attack to trigger the spell effect.
Um, squeezing/shared space: This should likely be an acrobatics check. (if you touch a friend the spell would still go off)
I believe the effect can only be triggered by actions you take so, no to getting hit (unless the spell says so).
If you used an anchoring weapon on a prone opponent, would the anchoring effect keep him or her prone?
All the description says is that you can't "move away from the weapon". Even with the special full round action to move 10ft, the weapon stays with you.
You can stand up from prone, and take any other actions you normally can besides movement.
is the direction of the line set by the alchemist regardless of whether or not he misses?
Hmmm, not sure if this should work as precedent. Directed Bomb discovery
If the attack misses, roll an additional 1d8 to determine the direction of the blast from where the bomb lands.
The inclusion of additional suggests to me that the bombs still follow the standard miss rules in this case, but that you also lose control of the area.
The 2 abilities you mention happen to also include a part about "starts at the alchemist" that muddles the possibilities somewhat.
1) If you miss with these abilities, standard rules apply. You no longer alter the shape of the blast, and you cannot choose who is affected.
2) The blast keeps its shape, but moves to accommodate the miss. (Most likely, however, you should lose the ability to designate the direction/area of the cone for Directed Blast.)
1 is the most straightforward, and least fuss.
2 might be more "realistic", but it also raises some questions regarding bombs that land outside of the normal range for these abilities.
2b) Misses effect the normal amount of squares, always extending back toward the valid range. (ie. toward the alchemist)
2a creates a strange scenario where a bomb can potentially affect a discrete set of squares. (It's a Su ability, why not?)
2b let's you break the rules of these particular abilities. (ie. start at the alchemist)
RAW and RAI, I think the answer is 1, these abilities turn off if you miss.
That being said, I'd probably allow Directed Blast, to use the rule for Directed Bomb, if the player also had that discovery. (But not preferentially, the decision would be made when you took the discovery.)
If he misses the creature would the line remain in place and a new spot be the full damage square (perhaps in or out of the line)?
Regarding weapon properties: The argument for this working is that you are launching the actual item rather than some conjured facsimile. I'm inclined to say this works for the attack roll as well, because such a bonus would still be added to a weapon that you throw. Admittedly, "standard damage" may mean, "restrict to base damage", but the terminology is a bit ambiguous and IMO used inconsistently across various abilities. (As a note, "standard damage" would include any damage types the object possesses for the purposes of DR, and arguably should include enhancement bonus in that calculation as well.)
As to launching your own items...
I see no issue with having a familiar help out.
Flame Arrow should work if you're allowing magic weapons to work.
It certainly seems like they weren't consistent.
What other items offer similar abilities?
What it does:
Alternatively, say it's a "fixed cost" for the half price scribing, then figure in the price of a scroll in some multiple.
I suppose fractional calculations are also available. If you peg the fixed cost at 1500, a 5th level version would be 3000.
My opinion is that it's one of the squared formulas. Likely, you could get away with (spell level)^2 *200. (I suspect this is where the greater's "1000" comes from, they forgot the squared element. Additionally, it puts the standard version at 1800, which is very close to 2000.) Otherwise, pick your favorite or offer some different math.
Since it is listed as requiring an action, and does not give an exception to conditions such as dazed and stunned, I would say you are correct that these conditions prevent you from using this ability.
I would point out though, that as a Su ability, you need to be prevented from taking mental actions. Both the aforementioned conditions do this, but something like Paralyzed would still afford this use.
EB is a personal spell, so it goes through because of Share Spells.
As to the rest of it, it looks like you have it right... you'll lose most(there are some Sp evos) of your eidolon's powers/attacks (and gain the elemental's).
Stunning Fist is a rider on the attack and does not have to be made as part of a Flurry.
I'm not sure what else you're asking though? If the SF attempt was made during an attack that delivered a (touch) spell, both effects would go off at the same time.
As I read it, it is base damage only.
Lead Blades would not work, SoB is instantaneous, so you won't have time to tack it on between the time the swords are conjured and the time they are launched. (Lead Blades on the material component will not affect "standard damage").
Lead Blades wrote:
All melee weapons you are carrying when the spell is cast deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are.
*The only potential caveat to this would be an incredibly specific casting of Contingency. (and even this is using a loose definition of "carrying")
"damage as a standard sword of the type expended"
The penalty for not having 2 hands free is only to start a grapple (inferred from the paragraph starting with "As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe," and later "If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition.")
If this were not the case, the grappler would also take this penalty on all subsequent rounds unless he possessed one of the abilities that prevents you from gaining the grappled condition.
The paragraph I quoted mentions nothing about needing to take a penalty other than the Grappled condition.
I see nothing that changes the type of spell to arcane, you learn the spells and cast them as divine.
Versatile Spontaneity is pretty clear
When you regain spell slots at the start of the day, you may opt to prepare one spell you don't know in place of a daily spell slot 1 level higher than the prepared spell's level. To do so, you must have access to the selected spell on a scroll or in a spellbook, and the spell must be on your spell list (even if it is not one of your spells known). This process takes 10 minutes per spell level of the selected spell.
This oracle has not gained the wizard spell list (not just for this purpose, but for any others, such as wand/scroll use), only a few spells that are selected from it.