|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well, I need to brush up on Heal Skill, so this is gonna take a while, since I'm going to end up over-analyzing this (I'm using d20pfsrd, in case there's any confusion).
By RAW, you can do the following things with the Heal Skill:
Identify Drugs/Pharmaceuticals wrote:
The Heal skill is used to identify and understand pharmaceuticals. No further information was provided in the source material.
This would target the drug/Pharmaceutical, not a character, so it's moot for this purpose.
Provide First Aid wrote:
You usually use first aid to save a dying character. If a character has negative hit points and is losing hit points (at the rate of 1 per round, 1 per hour, or 1 per day), you can make him stable. A stable character regains no hit points but stops losing them. First aid also stops a character from losing hit points due to effects that cause bleed.
You can't use the skill if you're at negative hit points (because, dying), but you could use it to stop the "Bleed" effect on yourself. (See: "Rambo, John")
Provide Long-Term Care wrote:
As OP referenced, Long-Term Care is off the table - specifically called out in the skill as being unusable on yourself.
Treat Wounds from Caltrops, Spike Growth, or Spike Stones wrote:
A character can use Heal skill to remove speed penalties from caltrops, but not Spike Growth/Spike Stones (since that specifically calls out "another character".
Treat Deadly Wounds wrote:
When treating deadly wounds, you can restore hit points to a damaged creature. Treating deadly wounds restores 1 hit point per level of the creature. If you exceed the DC by 5 or more, add your Wisdom modifier (if positive) to this amount. A creature can only benefit from its deadly wounds being treated within 24 hours of being injured and never more than once per day.
This says nothing about needing someone else to treat you. As such, it's reasonable to allow it.
Treat Poison wrote:
To treat poison means to tend to a single character who has been poisoned and who is going to take more damage from the poison (or suffer some other effect). Every time the poisoned character makes a saving throw against the poison, you make a Heal check. If your Heal check exceeds the DC of the poison, the character receives a +4 competence bonus on his saving throw against the poison.
As above, nothing in this section says you can't treat yourself.
Treat Disease wrote:
To treat a disease means to tend to a single diseased character. Every time the diseased character makes a saving throw against disease effects, you make a Heal check. If your Heal check exceeds the DC of the disease, the character receives a +4 competence bonus on his saving throw against the disease.
Again, nothing in this section says you can't treat yourself.
Now, looking at Friendless:
Friendless (Tiefling Racial Trait) wrote:
You can make Heal checks on yourself for the purposes of treating deadly wounds, diseases, and poisons.
RAW, this looks like a redundant trait.
I'm surprised no one has made a "Dune" reference, yet.
Wikipedia: Sandworm (Riding) wrote:
The Fremen have secretly mastered a way to ride sandworms across the desert. First, a worm is lured by the vibrations of a thumper device. When it surfaces, the lead worm-rider runs alongside it and snares one of its ring-segments with a special "maker hook". The hook is used to pry open the segment, exposing the soft inner tissue to the abrasive sand. To avoid irritation, the worm will rotate its body so that the exposed flesh faces upwards, carrying the rider with it. Other Fremen may then plant additional hooks for steering, or act as "beaters", hitting the worm's tail to make it increase speed. A worm can be ridden for several hundred miles and for about half of a day, at which point it will become exhausted and sit on the open desert until the hooks are released, whereupon it will burrow back down to rest.
Maybe this is why my GMs never let me near a purple worm...
If "Advice" is supposed to be identical to "Bardic Knowledge", then the rules text should be the same, excepting that all references to the original ability would be placed with the new ability name, wouldn't it?
The passage from my first post should look something like this wrote:
Starting an advice is a standard action, but it can be maintained each round as a free action. Changing an advice from one effect to another requires the sensei to stop the previous performance and start a new one as a standard action. An advice cannot be disrupted, but it ends immediately if the sensei is killed, paralyzed, stunned, knocked unconscious, or otherwise prevented from taking a free action to maintain it each round. A sensei cannot have more than one advice in effect at one time.
(The italicized items originally referenced the Bard class and ability, but were changed to the Sensei class and ability, for clarity).
Reading it like that makes two separate effects for the character: Advice, and Bardic Performance. They give separate effects, pools of rounds to track, and so on. Obviously, you wouldn't want to pick effects that wouldn't stack with each other (no "Inspiring Courage" twice), but couldn't the character use "Advice: Inspire Courage" on his allies and "Bardic Performance: Fascinate" on his enemies at the same time?
Okay, so a character can only have one Bardic Performance happening at once…
… and a Sensei’s Advice ability is identical to Bardic Performance…
My question is this: Can the same character have Advice and Bardic Performance active at the same time? They’re said to be identical, but are they the same thing? My thought is that “Advice” and “Bardic Knowledge”, while identical, could both be active at the same time, because they Sensei doesn’t gain “Bardic Knowledge”. They could only have a single Bardic Performance, and a single Advice active at the same time.
That having been said, I'm also the one wanting it, so I could be trying to convince myself, here.
There's a Crusader archetype for the Cleric, that details a more martial-oriented priest.
You might also want to consider a dip of Dawnflower Dervish instead of a Fighter dip - it gives you Dervish Dance without needing Weapon Finesse.
Another possibility is to aim for the Guided Hand feat, and cut down on some of the MAD. It doesn't help with weapon damage, just to-hit rolls, but it might be of some help.
Osric Stonebrook wrote:
Assuming a 6th level fighter (+6 BAB) with both Two Weapon Fighting and Improved Two Weapon Fighting, but no other attack bonuses (10 STR, no Weapon Focus, etc), the following would be acceptable attack options:
One attack at +6. Does not require a full-round action (can still take a move action)
Single Weapon, Full Round:
One attack at +6, one attack at +1. Requires a full-round action (cannot take a move action, but can 5' step)
Light Secondary Weapon, Full Round:
Main hand takes one attack at +4, one attack at -1. Secondary weapon takes one attack at +4, one attack at -1. Requires a full-round action (cannot take a move action, but can 5' step)
Two One-Handed Weapons, Full Round:
Main hand takes one attack at +2, one attack at -3. Secondary weapon takes one attack at +2, one attack at -3. Requires a full-round action (cannot take a move action, but can 5' step)
For anything beyond a single attack, with a single weapon, the Full Attack action is required. It ooesn't matter what order you take the attacks in, so long as you're declaring the attack before the roll (no "That's a 20! That's my off-hand second attack!"). Most groups that I've seen roll attacks from Highest to Lowest, Primary hand before Secondary.
Huh. Well, if that definition no longer exists in Pathfinder, then this should totally work.
But that section included all kinds of bonuses, including racial, circumstance, and insight. A quick search of Paizo's PRD didn't show any definitions for these bonuses, either. I'd be much more inclined to believe that Paizo dropped a portion of the glossary for space (because other bonuses, like enhancement, dodge, and Armor, appear elsewhere), than that they intended to wipe the definitions of these different bonuses.
That section is just plain missing from Paizo's PRD, and the blank was apparently filled in by d20pfsrd.
There are other arguments for why this might not work - I just didn't want to open a can of worms, and led with what I thought was the strongest argument.
In all fairness, my quote was from d20pfsrd.com, who was quoting the 3.5 rules on bonuses, which are much more in depth than anything that Paizo has put out. I didn't realize that at the time of my initial posting.http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Bonus-Competence -
If it's no longer valid for Pathfinder, for some reason, than someone needs to let d20pfsrd know, so they can take it down. This appears to be part of the rules that didn't get copy/pasted over, for some reason.
As far as the two specific instances you mentioned (Inspire Confidence and Pale Green Ioun Stone), I'd go with the "Specific Overrides General" rule... Those two cases specifically allow an exception to the rule. It's also worth noting that this ability and item both did the same thing in 3.5, where this rule is specifically called out.
Would a Circlet of Persuasion apply its bonus on Initiative, too?
It would not work, and here's why:
Circlet of Persuasion wrote:
This delicately engraved silver headband grants its wearer a +3 competence bonus on Charisma-based checks.
Competence Bonus wrote:
A competence bonus (or penalty) affects a character's performance of a particular task, as in the case of the bardic ability to inspire competence. Such a bonus may apply on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, caster level checks, or any other checks to which a bonus relating to level or skill ranks would normally apply. It does not apply on ability checks, damage rolls, initiative checks, or other rolls that aren't related to a character's level or skill ranks. Multiple competence bonuses don't stack; only the highest bonus applies.
It would not work because the Circlet gives a competence bonus, and competence bonuses cannot be applied to Initiative. That is the specific purview of the Headband of Alluring Charisma.
Can I get an opinion on Iridescent Spindle Ioun Stone which says "Sustains creature without air" and what happens if someone casts Suffocation on that person? I feel like the "Sustains creature without air" part implies that at worst the person may be staggered as the air is forced out of their lungs, but would otherwise be fine since they do not need air anymore.
Suffocation Spell wrote:
This spell only affects living creatures that must breathe.
Someone using that ioun stone no longer qualifies as a creature that "must breathe".
If they haven't taken it yet, give someone an opportunity to "pre-buy" their next feat, so long as it's Leadership, for a diplomacy-monkey.
I threw in a few diplomacy encounters earlier in the campaign, to point out how useful the skill was going to end up being. This convinced one of the players to make their henchman a bard, with crazy diplomacy/bluff scores. That character ended up becoming the mouthpiece for the party, which made for some really fun times during Champion's Belt... where the party ended up styling themselves after a professional-wrestling faction.
My gut response would be to say that a single attack, by definition is not a "flurry", and therefore would use the monk's normal BAB. Even taking the -2 into account, FoB breaks even with a monk's normal attack at 5th level... anything beyond that, and they're better off doing a FoB whenever possible.
From a strict rules standpoint, I'd say that you're getting a little greedy, looking for both the full BAB AND the lack of -2 penalty. The Monk chart clearly lays out what the FoB bonus is supposed to be, for a character of a given level (obviously, adjusted by magical bonuses, STR bonues, etc). Also consider that, unless that -2 is going to mean the difference between hitting on a natural 20, and hitting on an 18-20, you're likely better off throwing the extra dice, and hoping one of them hits.
That having been said, were this posted in the Houserules, as opposed to the Rules Forum, I'd probably opine that, if ANY character wanted to take a Full-Round action to make a single attack, I'd probably allow a house-rule of an "aiming" bonus - offering full BAB to any character who wanted to stand their ground aiming seems like some good flavor.
Monk lovers are bent out of shape because of SKR's comments, where it was ruled that Brass Knuckles are a weapon, and as such only do 1d3.
See here for details.
It's already a +1 weapon, so the extra cost for enhancement due to being cold iron has already been paid.
Cold Iron Costs wrote:
From a value standpoint, a +1 Cold Iron Greatsword is 4,400 GP (50 base cost +50 for being special material: Cold Iron, +300 Masterwork, +2,000 for the +1 enhancement, another +2,000 for adding that +1 enhancement to Cold Iron). Using the same calculation,s a +1 Cold Iron Bardiche would be 4,326 GP. Trade would probably be your best bet, although if your GM is a RAW stickler, you might run into trouble with selling the Greatsword for more than 1/2 the value (2,200 GP).
Well, maybe someone in the aforementioned large Dwarven community would be willing to add Transformative at-cost? That's only 5,000 GP. It would be a way to remain within RAW while getting what you're looking for.
Gruingar de'Morcaine wrote:
The problem with the wizard and buff spells is that he is extrememly likely to fail a save. With the party he is opposing (see the root thread above) he is likely to have upto 4 SoS spells incoming every round. At least by the 2nd or 3rd time they encounter him.
How many rounds do you plan on him hanging around for? Get in, cause some chaos, get out. Especially if they start to show that they're going to have stuff that can get through his lesser globe, then he needs to be that much smarter about how and when he hits... wait until they're in combat with something else, where they can't all turn on him at once.
Additionally, 7th level characters are only going to have one or two spells that won't be negated by the lesser globe. Depending on what they tend to memorize, that might not even be an issue.
A cloak of resistance +5 is 12,500gp. That would give this guy a FORT/REF of +7, and a Will of +11, before attribute bonuses. Given that the DCs on the spells are going to be 15-18 or so, that would give you weak saves at about 8-11. Other feats/traits can further shore up these defenses, if you're still worried about it, not to mention Cat's Grace and Bear's Endurance. Ablative sphere grants improved cover, which will boost the REF saves by another +4.
Leading the attack with Distracting Cacophony can make the spellcasters use concentration checks to be able to cast spells,
Emergency Force Sphere is an Immediate action, which can block line of effect for the SOD/SOS spells.
Play this NPC smart - have him figure out what spells the casters normally use, and prepare his defenses against those eventualities. Have him scry on days that he's not attacking, keeping up on what kinds of tactics and spells they use... and adjust accordingly.
The problem seems to be getting out without getting caught/captured/killed. That being the case, I'd suggest using a wizard for this - consider some of the following school abilities:
With access to 4th level spells, I'd rock the following buffs:
Combined with the Invisibility to get your villain there to begin with, that's 3 1st level and 3 2nd level spells. That leaves 1 1st level, 3 3rd level, and 2 4th level spells to select from, when planning contingencies and how you want to mess with the party. If you're only planning on throwing out one or two effects, then escaping, then add in "Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser".
Use the terrain and situations to the villain's advantage - put him in a place where melee types can't get to, during a fight where hordes of goblins have flooded the casters, etc.
Now it's a matter of deciding just HOW you want to mess with the party. Lots of spells = lots of versatility. I also didn't include any magical items... WBL says an 8th level PC character should have 33k of equipment, whereas an 8th level NPC should have 7,800 GP. 50k is a LOT of money to throw at a single 8th level character... but with the right gear, this guy could be pretty indestructible for quite a while.
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that choice of favored enemy for all purposes."
as opposed to:
Instant Enemy wrote:
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes. "
"Ranger: Favored Enemy wrote:
Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, a ranger selects a creature type from the ranger favored enemies table.
The only difference between the two wordings is replacing the word "type" with "choice". I don't see a difference there, other than that your wording is more ambiguous.
The spell, as written, references "Favored Enemy Type", just as the Favored Enemy ability tells you to select a "creature type" from the table.
It is pretty certain that's what the intended purpose of the spell is. You know that Paizo doesn't always write these things clearly.
With all due respect, it's anything but pretty certain... since that's not at all what the spell says. The spell, as written, says that the Ranger gets to treat a target enemy as if it were one of the creature types that the ranger has as a Favored Enemy.
It lists no restrictions on how the Ranger can treat it as a Favored Enemy... quite the opposite, in that it specifically says it is treated as the Favored Enemy Type "in all ways."
"In All Ways" =/= "In All Ways... Except This."
That would be just fine, except that "in respect to a ranger's special abilities" is not "for all purposes". I'm reading the spell as to allow more options to what the character can do than just that - like the Ranger being able to use a cure spell to damage something he considers "Undead" as a result of the spell.
Based on RAW, that's what it says. Based on RAI, where's the harm in giving the player more options?
I still believe his undead bane weapon is still ineffective.
I still don't understand how, if the ranger is attacking an Undead creature (which he's doing, courtesy of the spell), the Undead Bane weapon he's wielding wouldn't trigger. Either the Ranger is treating the creature as Undead, or he's not.
Short of an errata to clarify "for all purposes", we shall just have to agree to disagree.
I concur about agreeing to disagree, although I don't see where "for all purposes" should require any clarification.
I definitely wouldn't leave a table or group over this, although I would (post-game) definitely make my case to the GM about it. If this were part of my character concept, I would ask permission to re-tool the character. That would be more due to lack of communication between GM and Player, though.
Regardless, it has been a good discussion!
A ranger is fighting a fire-elemental. He casts Instant Enemy and changes the subtype to Undead, all of a sudden, the Fire elemental is taking damage from the ranger's flaming burst longsword?
Nothing about the spell says that the creature loses it's other types - the "Undead" Fire Elemental would still have all of it's Elemental resistances.
If the ranger has bane (dragon) arrows and decides to fail his knowledge check to figure out what that displacer beast is and assumes it's a dragon, bane wouldn't work.
Is this a serious argument? Voluntarily failing a knowledge check is a far cry from having a spell, which you have to be 10th level to cast, alter reality.
I have a lot of respect for the opinions you carry on this board, Cheapy, so I'm going to assume that you weren't intentionally reducing to absurdity.
The bane enhancement only cares about what the target is. The effects of the spells don't transfer to the bane enhancement.
The Bane enhancement doesn't care about anything, since it's simply a magical enhancement to a weapon. Who DOES care about it is the Ranger, who has been magically ensorceled to treat the target of the spell as if it were another creature type.
My stance is that the spell does exactly what it says, and overrides the normal rules - the Ranger treats the target of the spell as if it were a different creature type, in all ways. The Ranger attacks as if he's attacking one of his favored enemies, and as such gets the favored enemy bonus. For the same reasons, the Ranger's Bane ability triggers, because the Ranger is effectively attacking a creature of that creature type, with a weapon that is Bane against that creature type.
It seems to me that a bane weapon when created, is attuned to a particular creature type to inflict damage against that specific type. Whether the ranger is pretending that the subtype is a different type, has no bearing.
See, I was looking at it in the following way:1. Ranger has an Evil Outsider Bane Dagger and Favored Enemy: Evil Outsider
2. Ranger casts Instant Enemy on a critter.
3. Ranger attacks Critter
4. Ranger checks type: "Is this an Evil Outsider"?
4.1 Yes: Ranger treats critter as an Evil Outsider in all ways.
4.1.1 Ranger gets Favored Enemy Bonus
4.1.2 Ranger gets Bane attack, because the Ranger is the one doing the attacking, not the weapon.
The only way it might make a difference is if the weapon was intelligent, and actually "knew" that the critter wasn't an Evil Outsider. The attack is coming from the Ranger, therefore the attack gets Bane.
I would agree, if not for the "for all purposes" part of the spell. The ranger is treating the creature "for all purposes" as if it were another creature type - one that the ranger has as a favored enemy.
Considering that Bane is only a +1 enchantment on a weapon, I don't see why, from a balance standpoint, the 10th level Ranger's use of a Bane enhancement shouldn't qualify as "for all purposes." (10th level being the earliest a ranger can cast 3rd level spells).
Hmmm...so if I had the feat Craft Construct and enough scrolls of Instant Enemy (construct), I could modify one of my friends into a suit of Construct Armor and wear him around like a battlesuit. Sweet!
First.. OUCH! If this is how a Ranger treats friends, how do they treat enemies?
Secondly... Ranger would treat the friend as a Construct, not Construct Building Materials.
Thirdly... Duration is 1 minute/level. Even assuming a way around my second point, you wouldn't be able to complete crafting in that amount of time. You couldn't recast because your friend, who is in the middle of being crafted into a suit of armor, would still be considered a construct until after the spell expires - even as a swift action, recasting it before the poor friend dies would be dicey at best.
Fourthly... Under the "Rule of Cool", this might be a really cool back story for an intelligent weapon.
My comments were actually in reference to hogarth's plan to treat their character as a construct, to prevent others from doing nasty things to them. That would fail, because the spell only affects what the Ranger does, not anyone else.
That having been said, the spell does say that the Ranger treats the person as their favored enemy in "all ways". Being as the Ranger has to be 10th level to be able to cast the spell, I don't see how it's a problem to let a Bane effect work. A Ranger with Favored Enemy: Undead isn't going to use bleed, death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, or stunning in their attacks, especially if they've CHOSEN to treat the enemy as having those features.
You would be immune to a sleep spell that you cast on yourself... but that doesn't mean that you'd be immune to sleep cast on you by someone else.
From the wording of the spell, I don't see why a Ranger couldn't cast Cure Light on a Dragon, who is being treated as Undead by the Ranger.
It looks like it doesn't change the actual creature type of the target, just how the Ranger interacts with it. If the Ranger is considering a creature to be "Undead" as a result of this spell, then positive energy spells cast by the Ranger should inflict damage.
So can I cast Instant Enemy (construct) on myself and make myself immune to ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, energy drain, nonlethal damage, mind-affecting effects, bleed, disease, death effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning?
Instant Enemy wrote:
Assuming that you're not of a race that you have as favored enemy (i.e. "Human" with "Favored Enemy: Human"), then you could cast it on yourself, and treat yourself as a construct... doesn't mean anyone else needs to... Why would you try to do any of those things to yourself?
In other words, just because you're considering a Dragon to be "Undead", that doesn't mean your cleric buddy can damage him with a Cure spell.
Edited for grammar
I would posit that if he's relying on the charm spells as a stand-alone, as opposed to using it in tandem with Diplomacy, then it's not going to work as well.
How to Kill a King with Diplomacy:
That character, with 8 ranks in diplomacy, could:
- Kill the king
- Charm the Queen (making her "friendly")
- Make a DC 10+*Queen's CHA mod* to make her "Helpful". With a +15 modifier to the Diplomacy check (had he made the investment into the skill, Queen would have to have a 22 CHA in order to NOT be helpful (be able to fail on a roll of 1).
- Use Diplomacy to ask Queen to hide him. DC of this would be, worst case, 15+*Queen's CHA mod*, IF the Queen knew that she could be "punished" for helping him (which would be the equivalent of D20 vs. Queen's CHA modifer).
If it's just some servant passing by, and not someone who witnessed the assassination, then it would just be "complicated aid" which is only DC 5+*CHA MOD*, which would end up being a d20 roll vs. their CHA mod - 10.
This also assumes that the caster isn't:
- A bard, who would have Diplomacy as a class skill
- Someone who has a trait boosting Diplomacy (and making it a class skill)
- Someone with a Masterwork Diplomacy Item (nice suit?)
I guess what I'm saying is that the Sorcerer in question is doing things sub-optimally.
It gives the caster an option. If they have a ridiculously high Diplomacy, they're better off using the skill. But if their Charisma is high, but have no ranks in Diplomacy, they're better off using the opposed Charisma Check.
Diplomacy is a CHA based skill, so anything that could be convinced via Diplomacy would be a better option - even if you don't have any ranks in the skill, it can be used untrained, and the charmed person would be "friendly".
Ordering someone does sound like an option, which would require focusing a person's persuasive ability/charisma to override common sense (as opposed to fast-talking, which would be bluff or diplomacy), and would therefore be the more difficult check to make.
Orc Boyz wrote:
So how much does it cost for a Sensei to let someone else use their "Inspire" ability, or "Insightful Strike"? Those are both class abilities.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Tem has the right of it -- the abilities that BigJohn42 lists are abilities that generally don't require a ki point to use to begin with and therefore had to be added on separately otherwise would have been impossible to use with this ability.
As I was reading it, Tem wanted to use Mystic Wisdom to "share" the Qinggong's special ki abilities with the rest of the party. Unfortunately, the Sensei's ability doesn't say that it shares ki powers, but instead specifies what powers can be shared. I don't see any special synergy between these two classes at all.
Sensei cannot be used to give all allies True Strike, because what the Sensei can share is specified, and True Strike isn't on that list.
I would say that the two abilities don't interact at all, since the Sensei's ability specifies what powers can be shared
Mystic Wisdom (Su):
At 12th level, a sensei may instead spend 1 point from his ki pool (as a swift action) while using advice to provide a single ally within 30 feet with evasion, fast movement, high jump, purity of body, or slow fall. At 18th level, a sensei may spend 2 points to grant one of the abilities listed above to all allies within 30 feet, or diamond body, diamond soul, or improved evasion to a single ally within 30 feet. These abilities function at the sensei’s level and last 1 round.
This ability replaces the bonus feats at 6th, 12th, and 18th level.
They also need an ability to allow them to conceal a sword on their person.
Nah, they've got hundreds of years to practice their Sleight of Hand skills. Between that and a trenchcoat, they're all set.
EDIT: How awesome would it be for an immortal to have Gloves of Storing?
Well, that's the way the paragraph reads. The first sentence specifically mentions THF, and the second sentence specifically mentions One-Handed. If that's not what was intended, they need to edit the PRD. I prefer to think of this paragraph as "Non-Traditional Ways to use a Double-Weapon."
The debate about using a normal double-weapon in one hand has been resolved at this point, based on Leo's comment (needing to use a small double-weapon, or Quarterstaff Master, for that sentence to be invoked), but the part about needing to pick an end is specifically part of that sentence, and does nothing to modify the THF sentence.