|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Bran Towerfall wrote:
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.
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"? Nobut 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.
bold is mine
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)
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 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:
Keep in mind also that this archetype is from supplemental material.
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...
Further, DC 20 is to train the animal in that trick.
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.
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"
Re: Monkey StyleJust 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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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:
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)
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:
To add to your list:
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.
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.
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:
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".
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.
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 damageconsider 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.
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
Where is yours?Grapple
Bull Rush, Overrun, and Trip all mention a restriction, Grapple does not.
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:
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
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)?
Sandman Bard archetype gets it
numerous PrC offer Sneak Attack
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)
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
Now, those 5 are pretty heavily restricted, but I'm unsure exactly what percentage, if any, has been knocked off.
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
If EE is dissimilar, but Gore is similar
If EE is similar, but Gore is dissimilar
If all abilities were considered similar
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.
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.
This item assumes that Healing subschool effects provide actual healing, but does not expressly require that they do.Use with Infernal Healing should cause the spell to heal 1HP immediately and then provide 'fast healing 1', which heals 1HP once per round on the affected creature's initiative.
Greater Grapple also facilitates a potential 1 round Pin by most interpretations.
I suppose the benefit of using the method you suggest is the rest of your full attack, but the various Grapple focused builds all seem to have their individual perks.
This is indeed a unique entry.
Best I can tell, "Throwing" is added to an existing shield, but requires an exotic proficiency not to require an Equipment Trick(which incidentally treats the throw as improvised).
Now, the thing is that making a MW shield seem to only be able to affect the item as armor, but the throwing portion seems to be more analogous to spikes, which could be crafted as MW weapons independently of the shield. (I have no evidence to support this other than "Throwing Shield" not having an entry under "Armor" in UE.)
Further, given the separate proficiency for "throwing", it's very likely that it is intended to require separate WF, et al.
As to weapon groups: by and large, bonuses that are intended to apply to a specific mode of attack should be restricted to that mode.
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
There's no attack (typically), so it shouldn't break stealth, but if there's any visual/audio effect to the spell, that is not hidden and can possibly alert others that something happened.
If, for some reason, you are forced to roll the touch attack (such as Superstition), it probably should break stealth.
Compare Touch of Fatigue
I would expect a pre-fatigued target of LoW to become exhausted since there's no restriction on the stacking.
Now, the curious question of what happens if the other fatigue effect is ToF -- I expect you'd get some table variation, but it probably shouldn't stack since it creates a weird exception where ToF is aiding the application of exhaustion while it says it cannot[should not].
The best I can offer you as evidence
Damage reduces a target's current hit points.
Ability Damage is called out separately at the bottom of the section, suggesting it is distinct.
This topic seems to come up every so often, but usually in reference to abilities that flatly add to "damage".
Basically my argument is this
Is it possible for a Level 8 Maneuver Monk to Grapple, Pin, and then Tie Up a target in the same full round action?
Flurry of Maneuvers (Ex) wrote:
My point is that only the additional maneuvers granted by the class feature benefit from that reduction.
Even if you have Gr Grapple or Rapid Grapple, it still does not reduce a grapple check to replace an attack, so you can only get 2 grapples during a FoM at level 8; the rest of the full attack must be attacks, or actions that can replace attacks.
If the movement started in the 4th row, the 3 that he threatened have only taken a 5ft step, and so did not provoke for their movement.
The difference in what you are asking, is that approaching a Reach wielder from the corner (which he does not threaten since it's 15 ft away) still provokes if the move is more than a 5ft step because it still requires you to move through the 10ft where he does threaten.
Ki Pool (Su): wrote:
Flurry of Blows (Ex): wrote:
I said nothing about Ki Strike, which remains something of an example, but not entirely analogous as it contains "At X level" language in every permissive sentence.It remains that adding an attack to a FoB is a bad example.
The question you mean to ask is
I've seen it argued that the metamagic cost should double as well, just saying.
FAQ'd at the peril of having metamagics officially removed from the "doubled" list...
Head (Ex): wrote:
An eidolon grows an additional head. The eidolon does not gain any additional natural attacks for the additional head, but the additional head does allow the eidolon to take other evolutions that add an additional attack to a head (such as a bite, gore, or breath weapon). This evolution can be selected more than once.
While they really should have added a line to the APG (is it still on v1?), the issue is that the Head evo was added to UM.The Bite entry is in error because eidolons could only have a single head at the time of printing. The Head entry I quoted does seem to override the general restriction of taking Bite only once (and further, if you can only take it once, you can't upgrade each one? that makes vary little sense)
I'm not 100% on how this issue is adjudicated for PFS, but I imagine you can take Heads and Bite up to twice for each.