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

984 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 984 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ziegander wrote:
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)

Nefreet wrote:
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.

UMR wrote:
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.
(Otherwise treated as primary according to UMR)

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.

Nefreet wrote:


THIS critter is only large-sized, but does the same damage as the hippo, which is huge.

I wonder if that makes a difference?

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Great to felling smash plus vital strike, I thought It woudl be ruled the other way :)

I recommend stephen to not post about mount charge + vital strike, not until he have everything crystal clear, otherwise it could be a forum stampede XD

Oh, I agree. I would rather get a right answer that clears up all these nagging questions. I try not to post off the cuff and have to back track.

"Yes, darling. Sorry. I'll be right there."

Off to watch some Walking Dead with the lady. Talk to you tomorrow, everyone.

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:

You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.

Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.

Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.

Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.


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.
It just seems like an odd inconsistency that a PC does get the improved range in this case, and I was wondering if it's intended?
(Are there other entries with "better than average" critical, also without feat/special?)

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.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
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...
But, it should be arguable how the material component functions while casting the spell.

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.
The other issue is you can't interrupt your attacks to cast and then resume them. Although, I would probably allow you to cast the spell immediately following the disarm, and then end your action.

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.
Specifically, the comments I've seen were about class features that add weapon properties, but I don't see how this would be different.

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.

Sarrah wrote:
Corumgoth wrote:
I'm wondering if there is any conceivable way to get a reach weapon normally requiring 2h down to 1h, either with some feats or proficiency.

Not sure how to reduce a 2hander to a 1hander, but here are some ways to make your 1hander have reach:

Skill Focus (Knowledge Dungeoneering) --> Eldritch Heritage (Aberrant) --> Improved Eldritch Heritage (Abberant): (L5 - 13 = +5 reach, L14 - 19 = +10 reach, L20 = +15 reach)

Long Limbs (Ex) wrote:

At 3rd level, your reach increases by 5 feet whenever you are making a melee touch attack. This ability does not otherwise increase your threatened area. At 11th level, this bonus to your reach increases to 10 feet. At 17th level, this bonus to your reach increases to 15 feet.

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)

Ignipotens wrote:
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!
Polymorph wrote:
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.



If a polymorph spell is cast on a creature that is smaller than Small or larger than Medium, first adjust its ability scores to one of these two sizes using the following table before applying the bonuses granted by the polymorph spell.

Creature's Original Size Str Dex Con Adjusted Size
Large –4(Str) +2(Dex) –2(Con) Medium

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.
The polymorph size adjustment only adjusts "base size", final size is still determined by the spell.
This adjustment is used because all polymorph spells are written with standard size PCs in mind.

In your case, a Large creature casting Alter Self, adjusts his stats to "medium", then applies the spell:
Medium: -2 Str(-4(polymorph) +2(spell)) +2 Dex -2 Con, use 'Medium size' modifiers to Attack/AC/CMB/CMD
Small: -4 Str +4 Dex(+2(polymorph) +2(spell)) -2 Con, use 'Small size' modifiers to Attack/AC/CMB/CMD/Stealth/Fly (etc)

"Light" is a category of weapon that further reduce the penalty for TWF when used as an offhand, they do not require you to use them as an offhand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?

Kraid_brb wrote:
DarkPhoenixx wrote:
F.A.Q. if that is what you mean.
No, i've read those, I mean if I can make my primary attack using armor spikes. The FAQs only cover "Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?"
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:
-Bracers of Armor grant a variable bonus that specifically calls out that it can be directed to armor properties.
-Ring of Force Shield only offers a flat +2 bonus. This bonus explicitly mimics a heavy shield.
-Allowing a similar item that grants an even larger bonus nearly obsoletes tower shields (even if the item can't be set for cover like a tower shield).
-Even if you restrict additional bonuses past +2 to item properties, you're starting to heavily encroach into the realm of actual shields. You will need to be very careful to price so that it is not an automatic purchase for every caster class. (the existing ring requires no proficiency since it has no penalties)
-Part of the issue here is the force effect that applies universally and is difficult to negate/ignore.

Going by Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values, a "shield bonus" falls under AC: other, and uses a formula, bonus^2 *2500.
(I'm not actually sure how the price of RoFS is derived, it appears to be this, 2^2 *2500 = 10k, with an ad hoc reduction, -1500, for also having to wield the shield(?))
Pricing it as "armor" shouldn't be considered appropriate as the existing item clearly does not use that formula.

Even using that formula, you may ultimately find such an item to be underpriced.
Bracers of Armor work fine as a "slot swap" because you aren't bypassing the necessity to wield something (and they can't wind up significantly more powerful than standard armor). Hand->(anything else) can be a very powerful swap if you aren't careful (this categorically includes items like wands also).

Although, I'm in the camp that says the shield created by RoFS must also be wielded in a hand to grant the bonus.
For a magus, this means he shouldn't gain the benefit during any action that involves somatic casting or otherwise requires a free hand. (unless his other hand is available)

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 unconvinced it should be another +8, but I also suppose it's not entirely unreasonable. I might cap this item at +5 (requires CL of bonus x3 rather than x2), but I'd need to see how the item was being used by players.

I'm a little skeptical of the price using this formula.
For your example, a "RoFS of Light Fort", would cost 22,500g "base".
It's probably still appropriate to apply the 15% reduction, I'm not sure, that price is 19,125g. This puts it a little over double the cost of a +3 shield(the equivalent bonus), I think that's relatively fair given the (greatly) increased utility over a normal shield.

karossii wrote:

Archaeik; the initial AoO is triggered on stepping into the 10' threatening zone. The 'enters' aspect. The target could stop there, and prevent any further AoOs; assuming he has reach himself.

If he continues to move, however, on leaving that square, he provokes a second AoO.

These are still two distinct and separate triggers.

Again, that is RAI.

RAW, that AoO is vs an opponent 15ft away.

SlimGauge wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
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.

It's not "at the exact same moment", but they are both in the same square.

1) Opponent moves INTO the threatened area
1a) Barbarian gets his Unexpected Strike

2) The opponent could just cease movement at this point (if, say he had a reach weapon of his own) and not be subject to another AoO. He could use his remaining action(s) to do something else entirely. However, if he elects to continue moving, then he'll provoke from leaving a threatened square.

Put me down for "the barb gets 'em both, provided he has combat reflexes and at sufficiently high dex mod"

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).
Additionally, such a RAW reading would prevent this ability from being used against an approaching opponent without at least 10ft of reach. Since this is clearly unintended, I would use the RAI that it happens after movement.

Short answer, RAW:no, RAI:yes.

Maybe I should have bolded the first sentence.

To my knowledge, the monk stipulation does not (and should not) restrict your ability to TWF without flurry.
It would make monks worse at UAS than everyone else.


Summoner: How does a synthesist (page 80) heal damage to his eidolon?

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 proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shortspear, short sword, shuriken, siangham, sling, and spear.

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 AC


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.

Torbyne wrote:
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.
I guess you match it if you let Lead Blades/Impact get you to Colossal+, but also only if you don't let INA stack.

A maxed out synthesist slam attack might be able to beat this though.

Lifat wrote:
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
You also gain one bonus language while wearing it.
Even more if the associated skill is Linguistics!
So true. :D

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?

lemeres wrote:
Well, if you are summoning creatures from a list that is 2+ levels lower than the summon spell you are using, you get 1d4 creatures.

It's 1d4+1, 1d4+2 with Superior Summoning.

Yes, Intensified increases the dice cap, Specialization makes you cast at +2 CL with no restriction about exceeding your hit dice.

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.

If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

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.
It is held until you touch something, or you cast another spell.

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).

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.
2a) Misses only affect squares that would be in range of a hit (and probably the square in which it lands).

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)?
Would miss be determined normally and a new line be drawn through it as a 40' line?

Assuming you want to go with option 2...
When you miss, there is no "full damage square". Full damage happens only when you successfully hit a creature. Misses are treated as targeting a square, all you get is splash damage.
There's no reason to think this attack has any special properties that cause a thrown splash weapon to become more laterally stable, such that splash damage to your intended target is automatic. My opinion is that the square hit by the miss would be determined normally and that the line should adjust to go directly between the alchemist and the square that was hit (yes, still keeping 40ft length).

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...
The spell indicates that if it's an item in another creature's possession, it must also be held. It's reasonable to adjudicate that the spell can't unsheathe weapons or retrieve other items on your person.
It's a free action to draw ammunition however, x15 might be pushing the limits of credibility, but certainly it would be either an equivalent free action to draw a handful, or at most a move equivalent, similar to drawing a weapon.
I realize RAW, we all have eyes on the back of our heads, but doesn't a quiver on the back remove line of effect to items you can't see?
If the quiver was kept tied in the front to your belt or some such provision, I think there would be little issue allowing the spell to grab these (effectively loose) items you can see. If you go by the notion that "on your back" doesn't matter, then there's no such concern about minutia.

I see no issue with having a familiar help out.

Flame Arrow should work if you're allowing magic weapons to work.

Does this count?

The difference seems to be that incorporeal doesn't automatically mean invisible the way ethereal does.

It certainly seems like they weren't consistent.
It also look like the greater version only appears in UE? If that's the case, I'm not overly surprised that an item from the CRB wasn't consulted thoroughly before making the new one.

What other items offer similar abilities?
Spell Storing is all that's coming to my mind. But (Spell level)^2 *2k is way too much for what the shield does. I'm not sure how to finagle the mathematics though.
Mimicking the weapon enchant is another way to go, but figuring it as a +1(or more) bonus also seems a bit steep.

What it does:
A single spell (up to X level)
using spell completion (must provide M/F/DF at time of casting)
scribed at half price (presumably for the reusable scroll?)

Possible methods
1. only spell level -> (2000 / 3^2) * 5^2 = 5556
2. scroll cost -> 375 *5 = 1875 ~=2000 -> 1125 *5 = 5625 (x5 can be viewed as "scribe cost x10" to represent reuse)
3. spell level * caster level -> (2000 / 3*5) * 5*9 = 6000
4. some mix of everything -> 3^2 *200 + 1/2(375) = 1988 ~= 2000 -> 5^2 *200 + 1/2(1125) = 5563

Alternatively, say it's a "fixed cost" for the half price scribing, then figure in the price of a scroll in some multiple.
5. 375 + 1625 -> 1125 + 1625 = 2750
6. 750 + 1250 -> 2250 + 1250 = 3500

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.
And you aren't targeting (only) your eidolon as a synthesist... If you were under the effects of EB and your eidolon is banished, you are still under the effects of EB. (Essentially, you become an elemental "wearing" an elemental -- although that might be hard to distinguish since both would be the same size.)

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).
Remember to apply the Polymorph entry adjustments before the spell bonuses if your eidolon is Large+.

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"
I would say this includes the size modifier, others may disagree.
"Standard" to me, means "ordinary, non-magical", not necessarily "restricted to medium size because that's standard for PCs".
Keep in mind that the material component you use is annihilated by this spell. It could get fairly pricey (although not unsustainable) to continually cast this with very large weapons.
(It's fairly laughable, although also RAW, that the M component of this spell is of negligible cost, if it's printed exactly as you posted. Pretty sloppy, even if it saved word count.)

If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can). Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.

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.

1 to 50 of 984 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.