|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yes, but look at what the spell actually does. It grants you DR vs a single attack. So it would let you avoid any damage resulting from a grapple maneuver. it wouldn't, however, let you avoid the grapple itself.
Sorry Umbranus, but with regards to the 11th level ability you're missing the point:
It's the action economy: casting a spell is a standard action (usually). The ability says "when you take a full attack", which is a full-round action.
How do you cast a spell (standard action) and take a full attack (full-round action) in the same turn? Your explanation of "substituting the free ranged touch attacks for weapon attacks" doesn't make sense, because it doesn't address the fact that you can't cast a spell AND take a full attack in the same turn. Unless you're using spell combat, of course... but that point has already been addressed.
That's my point entirely. RAI isn't clear and RAW it does not work at all. I personally believe it was intended that the ability allows you to cast a line or ranged touch attack spell as a full round action to deliver more than one ray/line effect through weapon attacks as if making a full attack action.
+1 to your whole post. Absent clear text, that seems to be a good way to interpret it. It's probably how I would do it for my house game.
RAI isn't clear though. Are you suggesting that the Myrmydarch is supposed to be able to use spellcombat with ranged weapons? From level 1, or do they only gain this ability at 11th level? Can they do it with any spell, or only with ray spells? Can they do this with bows, or do they have to abide by the normal "one hand free" restriction (and thus can only use this ability with thrown weapons)? Furthermore, why is this information even in the spellstrike entry and not in the spell combat entry?
Frankly, there are million subtly different ways to interpret the RAI on this ability and none of them seems quite right. The only thing that is certain is that by RAW the ability does nothing.
—Change wasn't needed—
I should point out that you can't take Attacks of Opportunity while taking total defense, so as written the second part of Crane Riposte doesn't even work anymore.
I hate to say it, but Paizo has a pretty long record of missing stuff like this and accidentally writing rules that don't work / are completely useless. They really need to start prioritizing this sort of thing in the editing process. WOTC, for all its faults, never made these kinds of mistakes so consistently as Paizo does.
It's for this reason that I stopped DMing Pathfinder. I just got too tired of having to fix everything all the time.
You just said exactly what I was trying to say, but much more concisely and eloquently. This quote incapsulates my feelings on this matter exactly.
Sure, but I think the point people are making is that there appears to be a bias in the rules towards a "permissive" system (whereby you must have explicit permission from the rules in order to do something). This is actually how PFS operates, so I am told.
The inclusion of certain ultra specific "niche" (and I use that term generously) player options seems to reinforce this, and frankly it's not something that a lot of us like. Covering defences may not cross the line for me, but the Rumour Monger talent definitely does. The whole structure of that talent is somewhat absurd, especially the weekly limit part (the implication being that once you have used up your weekly limit, you can no longer spread a rumour).
Having to weed rules like this from the system is an exercise in futility for me. The game is just so full of this kind of stuff, and frankly I find it wearying, as a DM. The inclusion of one useless talent like Rumour Monger does little to ruin my enjoyment of the game, but the inclusion of scores and scores of such player options... it really doesn't jive well with my style of play and it leads to a feeling of fatigue with the rules system.
Anyway, that's just my own opinion and preference. I'm sure other people's experience will vary.
Well, the hardest lesson to learn as a GM is that you don't need any rules at all. After that, being able to pick and choose the rules you need versus the rules you don't is a sign of skilled GMing.
In my opinion, the inclusion of player options like Rumour Monger only serves to muddy the waters and make the DM's job more difficult. Frankly, I would probably let the player spread the rumour without even having to make a check, let alone taking a talent, if the scheme they came up with was convincing enough. If they don't have a good scheme, I might require a check. If they have no scheme at all, and they instead say "I want to spread a rumour" without further explanation, I would probably not even let them make a check and would instead ask them to elaborate.
I certainly would not require them to take a talent though.
I view this talent as a complete waste of space. In my ideal game (and I guess this is a very subjective opinion), player options would not be muddied up with trash like this. But I guess it might work well for someone else's game...
"I use Diplomacy on him".
One problem with the Alexandrian rebuttal of Rules vs Rulings should be obvious to anyone who reads it:
In the "old school" style, there is a very concrete connection between the actions of the player and the result. Pouring water in the cracks finds the pit trap.
In the "new school" style, there is very little connection between the actions of the player and the result. Pouring water in the cracks merely results in a new search roll with a circumstance bonus. You might still roll a 1 though, and if that happens, your ingenious plan was quite irrelevant. The player might as well have just said "I search again".
In other words, the scheme to pour water in the cracks to find the trap is more or less only fluff in the "new school" style, whereas in the "old school" style it is essential to finding the trap. The primary difference between Old school and New school then, is that in one case "finding the right solution to the problem" is the resolution mechanic, whereas in the other "rolling high enough to beat the DC" is the resolution mechanic.
In the first case, judicious use of DM fiat helps ensure that a logical and satisfying result follows from the players' very sensible actions, whereas in the second case the rolling of "checks" serves to potentially undermine good decisions on the part of the player.
Now, I am certainly not an "old school" gamer, but I do see the wisdom of a using a rulings over rules mentality when appropriate. If a player were so creative as to come up with the water in the cracks thing, I'd probably let them find the trap without a check. I believe this creates a more satisfying result for the players, and allows them to feel as if their choices actually have a significant impact on the game world.
This is wrong. Two shield bonuses from two separate shields do not stack.
The "roll a d8 and see where the missed splash weapon attack lands" thing only applies to SPLASH weapons. After all, the rule appears in the "throw a splash weapon" section of the rulebook.
Targeted bomb admixture removes the splash property from the bomb. It therefore is no longer a splash weapon. As such, you do not roll a d8 to determine where the bomb lands on a miss. A miss is simply a miss.
The operative word here is type. Type ≠ size. Type = air, fire, earth, or water. Size is not mentioned. That's why it's not one hundred percent cut and dry.
Really, that's just splitting hairs though. As per my previous post, I agree with the general consensus of this thread.
Yes, you can use the spell elemental body 3 to become a medium elemental. However, the bonuses listed under the elemental body 3 spell are the bonuses you get for assuming the shape of a large elemental. If you assume the shape of a medium elemental, then you get the bonuses for becoming a medium elemental, which are listed under the elemental body 2 spell.
This isn't one hundred percent cut and dry from the way the spells are presented, but it's the only interpretation that really makes sense to me from a RAW, RAI, and common sense perspective.
If you take the Oread monk archetype "Student of Stone", you can have Stunning Fist (imposes Stun effect) and Elemental Fist with Shaitan Style feats (imposes Staggered effect) by the time you get Medusa's Wrath at level 10. Two chances on every Flurry to impose a condition that will proc Medusa's Wrath, keying off two different saving throws (Reflex and Fortitude). A fairly good chance to proc Wrath on every flurry.
This wouldn't work too well with your multiclass Ninja, though. It really requires a single class monk.
Um, it kind of does.
It doesn't. Jiggy is right. It says that whether it is treated as one-handed or two-handed depends on how many hands you use to wield it.
This is a distinct question from whether it is a martial weapon or an exotic weapon.
A bastard sword is always an exotic weapon. It has a special exception that you can wield it without penalty in two-hands if you are proficient in all martial weapons.
One of the best things about double weapons is that Half-Orcs get Orc Double Axe proficiency for free. So you can do all the cool things the above posters have talked about without having to blow a feat. Slightly edges out going human and using your bonus feat to grab proficiecny in Sawtooth sabres, IMHO.
That's a pretty nifty trick blackblood, but a ninja's capstone ability is simply complete immunity to detection. Pretty tough to beat that.
At 20th level, a ninja becomes a true master of her art. She can, as a standard action, cast greater invisibility on herself. While invisible in this way, she cannot be detected by any means, and not even invisibility purge, see invisibility, and true seeing can reveal her. She uses her ninja level as her caster level for this ability. Using this ability consumes 3 ki points from her ki pool.
You guys are silly.
The "your version is a house rule" thing is really silly. Stop flinging mud at each other.
The truth is, there's no RAW on this. Why? Because RAW means "rules as WRITTEN."
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, there are no rules written to cover this case. There's nothing in the books about it. There's no rule about sundering unarmed strikes. There's no rule telling you the hardness or hp of an unarmed strike. There's no rule on how to use the "break an object" action against a human body. And there's certainly no rule about this particular corner case. So there's no RAW, by definition.
James has a good point: by his argument, an infinite amount of damage can accumulate to the "unarmed strike" weapon, but absent any rule that says "your unarmed strike and you share a single pool of hitpoints", none of that damage will ever get applied to the "wielder" of the unarmed strike. This is logically consistent, and not in contravention of any of the rules in the book. It's as good a ruling as any. A little silly by a strict verisimilitude standard, sure, but so are a lot of things in DnD.
Nefreet and co. also have a good argument. They are making the logical assumption that because an unarmed strike is made with the body, and a PC's hitpoints represent the ability of his body to absorb damage, therefore any damage that might be inflicted on the PC's unarmed strike should instead be redirected to the PC's pool of hitpoints. This argument is also logically consistent, and can be supported by making an inference based on the above reference FAQ entry.
Basically, BOTH of your arguments are sound. The difference is, that you're both making different ASSUMPTIONS. Nefreet and co. are making certain assumptions about the designer's intent and the degree to which the rules are supposed to model real world physics. James has made his own set of assumptions about the degree to which inferences should be made, absent an explicit rule.
So at the end of the day, you're all right, there is no RAW, and everyone keep playing the game and having fun. There's no winning this argument, so stop trying.
Well, it becomes a moot question at 3rd level when you start calculating all maneuvers at Monk level, but my ruling would be that even before 3rd level, any maneuver performed as part of a flurry would get the flurry BAB and not regular BAB.
It's not really a big deal though, because it's a only a difference of 1.
This is an interesting question, and depends on how you understand the Tetori and the grab ability. Unfortunately, the Tetori, while a really awesome and flavourful archetype, is one of those messy archetypes that lends itself easily to all sorts of rules questions and confusions.
The first part of the ability in question reads: "At 8th level, a tetori gains the grab special attack when using unarmed strikes" which suggests that he gains the grab ability with no restrictions.
The second part reads "and can use this ability against creatures his own size or smaller by spending 1 point from his ki pool" which creates a confusion, because those are the base size restrictions of the grab ability anyways. In other words, if the Tetori has the grab ability, then spending a single ki point does nothing. This leads to the inference that perhaps the Tetori doesn't gain grab after all. Perhaps the Tetori only gains grab when he spends a ki point.
So does the Tetori gain grab, as the first part suggest, or does the Tetori only gain grab when he spends a ki point, as the second part suggests?
Here's one possible answer I've come up with:
Originally, in Bestiary 1, grab only worked against targets SMALLER than the grabber. In Bestiary 2, they changed it to work on targets THE SAME SIZE OR SMALLER.
My theory is that Jason Nelson (I believe it was him who wrote the Tetori), was operating off the Bestiary 1 version. If you work off that assumption, then the wording on the ability makes sense. The Tetori has Grab all the time (as the wording of the ability suggests), and you only spend ki if you want to grab bigger targets than the base ability would allow. For me, that's the best way to reconcile the two parts of the ability.
You might want to ask Jason Nelson though. I'm sure he could clarify what he had in mind.
I'm not quite understanding your question. It seems to me that you might be confused about how actions and grappling work.
On a given turn, you get:
Making one attack or initiating a grapple is a standard action.
Making a full attack (several attacks per your BAB) or making a flurry of blows is a full-round action.
With the greater grapple feat, you can maintain a grapple as a move action. Otherwise it is a standard action.
Everytime you succeed on a grapple check to maintain a grapple you can:
If you begin your turn grappling and you have the greater grapple feat, if you want to maintain the grapple you must spend a move action or a standard action to maintain the grapple. If you succeed on this check, you can make another check as a move action if you like. If you have the rapid grappler feat, you can make a third check as a swift action.
Because flurry of blows is a full-round action, you can't maintain a grapple and flurry of blows on the same turn. Therefore, if you begin your turn as the controlling grappler, but want to make a flurry of blows, then you need to release the grapple.
Really, the grapple rules are extremely complicated once you start to delve into them. Figuring our exactly how all the different checks and conditions interact is surprisingly intricate and nuanced.
Might not be the easiest character to play if you don't have a very solid grasp on the rules.
Also, I'm playing a grappling monk in a campaign right now, and I'm having a blast. It's not particularly powerful in most circumstances though, so it's important to have other things you can do in combat too.
Also, monsters' CMDs scale up incredibly quickly, so you need to make sure you do everything you can to keep your grappling CMB as high as possible. At level 12, monsters with CMDs in the high 40 are not unheard of.
Initiating a grapple is a standard action.
However, with the feats you've chosen you can do the following in a single turn:
Standard action to initiate a grapple against an adjacent opponent.
I hope this helped clarify some things for you.
Just a note: She can already take extra performance, regardless of your houserule. The luck ability explicitly allows it to interact with feats that affect bardic performance. Also, because using luck is only a swift action, the preferred way of making it last is using lingering performance and refreshing it every 3 rounds.
Here's a step by step breakdown of how you calculate flurry of blows for a level 7 monk with 19 str:
1.The monk has an effective BAB of 7 (BAB equal to his monk level). Therefore, your starting point is two attacks, one at +7, one at +2 (+7/+2)
2.Flurry grants a further -2 on all attacks and adds one extra attack at full BAB, bringing it to +5/+5/+0
3.+4 for strength brings it to +9/+9/+4
I hope this clarifies things for you.
My understanding is that almost all of it is OGL, hence why it can be published on the d20pfsrd.com website. What is not OGL is all the Golarion specific fluff, hence why d20pfsrd had to remove it from their website once they opened their own online store (thus violating paizo's fair use policy).
If someone has better information than this, I would love to hear it though! I'm curious myself.
The Human Diversion wrote:
+1. That would be how I would rule it, if the eyestalk ray is a Sp ability. It's a coherent / harmonious reading of the rules, and makes for a memorable table experience! Lazer turtle FTW.
Well, if you look at the rules for transmutation spells / polymorph effects, it says you lose all your Su, and Ex abilities that depend on your original form.
You also get a whole bunch of restrictions on casting spells, but you aren't prohibited from casting spells entirely if you can overcome those restrictions (eschew material, silent/still spell, natural spell, etc.)
The will save component in baleful polymorph makes no mention of form, and grants a blanket prohibition on ALL spell casting, Su, Ex and Sp abilities.
The two sets of rules can therefore be read in harmony. Even if you don't fail the will save, your ability to make use of Su and Ex abilities that rely on your original form is hampered, and your spell casting is severely restricted. This may still allow you to do some limited spell casting and make use of some Su and Ex abilities, as well as use your Sp abilities. If you do fail the will save, then you lose the ability to use ANY special abilities.
In the case of the beholder, I think that your GM got it wrong. I can't think of a clearer example of an Ex ability that depends on form than the beholder's ability to float. Some Ex abilities don't depend on form, like a monk's slowfall for instance, or a rogue's evasion.
I hope this was helpful.
Ice Titan wrote:
It's not clear from Arizhel's post, but he/she is referring to the spell Strong Jaw, which increases the size increment of any natural attack by two.
The damage dice of the behemoth hippo is a total anomaly. It's a stupid, stupid, animal. Personally, I think it sucks that wildshape has distinct "best" choices like this. It would be cool if there was actually a reason to assume the shape of a dire bear as opposed to a dire tiger, for instance.
Brilliant find! /thread now? Pretty please?
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.