|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Except the monk list doesn't include head butts. So... two partially overlapping sets.
Or they're not sets at all. they're descriptions. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender" does not mean "Oops, they hit the forest. Everyone put your guns down!"
Well the protagonist is of course the most beautiful person of all no matter WHERE they go. Just ask Captain Kirk....
Presumably the women look beautiful to humans, but since the purpose of beauty is to say "Look at the DNA i'm packing over here!" the men probably look handsome to the women of their species.
No, it defines punches kicks and headbutts as unarmed strikes. They're examples, not a limit.
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
The monk is not an addition to this, look
"A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet",
Those overlap. A punch is a fist. A kick is a foot. They're just saying the same thing two different ways.
They are not, and you did not. A-->B does not mean that not A--->Not B
It's also stated in at least 2 places that "actions" provoke, including one that specifically states that an enemy must take an action in order to provoke an attack of opportunity.
It does not say that. It says that actions provoke. That does not mean that only actions provoke.
Thats IF you ignore movement being defined as an action. There are non move action movements *(charge), and there are move action non movements (sheathing a weapon).
It honestly takes a very loose reading, and a bit of convoluted logic, to force the rules to say otherwise.
You are leaving a square. You are not taking preventative measures to keep your guard up. You get whacked. Reading the rules tea leaves deeper than that gets some weird results, depending on how you look at things which leads to...
It's so bad that you've ever assigning some of your weird logic to me (such as falling being a non-action, non-actions being actions, etc).
You cannot say that falling at the ground is not distracting and then tell someone else they have weird logic.
But I can see you're quite entrenched at this point.
I am not entrenched on the conclusion. I am entrenched on the position that your argument is bad because of the above. You cannot just look at the rules minutia one way, reach a conclussion, and then not afford other rules minutia the same courtesy.
Non voluntary movement TENDS not to provoke. Falling is non voluntary movement so it probably doesn't provoke. " is a reasonable rules interpretation drawing from available evidence.
While I grant that the posed questions are leading, it's with good intentions.
Its not. Its with the intention of tricking someone into accepting your premise, which is questionable.
It's stated in multiple places that actions can provoke attacks of opportunities. Things that are not actions simply don't provoke, unless there's some special rules involved.
To start with there are many unfounded assumptions there. That falling is a non action, that non actions aren't actions, and that non actions don't provoke. You don't have rules for any of that. That the three not an actions we know of don't provoke does not set a rule for all of them.
There's nothing rules lawyery about it. AoOs are generated by creatures performing activities that distract them from defending themselves. If you're not performing an activity, your defenses are not distracted.
You just said that hurtling through the air towards the ground is not distracting and thats not a rules lawyering statement.
While I grant that being moved by an external force may be distracting in real life, the rules don't consider this to be a situation where you're lowering your guard.
Entirely circular. The rules don't consider it a situation where you're distracted because the rules don't consider this a situation where you're distracted
Only actions you perform do.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
You could easily say that moving out of a threatened square is thus defined as an action, an action that falling can make you take.
You moved out of a square. Did you 5 foot step? No. Did you withdraw? No. Does any rule say that your movement does not provoke? If not you get whacked.
Which of these action types are you claiming falling is?
I'm not claiming its one of your action types. This action or non action thing is rules lawyering nonsense, and asking a leading question to place my answer in a framework that I'm questioning in the firstplace is nonsensical.
There is a good case to be made that there's a trend that involuntary movement tend not to provoke, so falling doesn't provoke, but its far from concrete. The action/non action thing smacks of rules lawyering chicanery.
attack come defe...this is what i get for counting on paws.
You would want to do purpose training if
-one of the tricks is a higher dc than the training (i dont know if thats the case with anything)
Its a pretty limited circumstance. The purpose training makese sense in a time campaign, but not the at the speed of plot downtime between pfs scenarios.
Can you give me any rules that the action type or non type matters at all?
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Notice here that moving is entirely separate from any sort of action being performed.
Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
This is moving, as in a physical body going from one place to another. It doesn't specify that it has to be a move action a standard action or any kind of action at all. Movement is movement.
its not a matter of what catagory its in. The fact is that he is moving out of a threatened square. That will provoke. The idea that its not an action to move out of a threatened square so it won't provoke is... pretty tenuous to start with as an argument. Why does it matter why he's moving out of the square?
That is far from simple.
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
So even non actions are a type of action.
Thanks flutter for that write up. Of course now I have another dilemma, I never bothered with handle animal (gms never mentioned it.) So now I need to somehow get it trained. I already used my 2 traits and unable to swap out and freeways are tight. Only option would be to train out boon companion for extra traits
Just get max ranks in it as soon as possible : you don't need the traned skill bonus but it really helps. One of the posts is how to handle animal if you're a charisma 5 dwarf , which would apply if you're missing the 3 from it being a trained skill as well.
Mindless. Thus immune :)
I know not to growl at the pups....
You are correct, but they didn't like how that worked out last time. This time though none of the races are quite as crunchy and wouldn't lead to nearly the same gold rush to get more of them locked in.
I just need to get my Protegee locked in, and maybe a warlock.
Just as I've been saying. You are relying on DM's call, not raw. Dn's call happens to BE raw on a lot of cases, but you're still relying on it.
Then you have decided that snakes cannot unarmed strike. THAT is the ultimate basis for your argument, NOT the polymorph rules. That decision fully stands or falls on its own, you don't have to pretend you're running it through the polymorph rules because you're not.
Snakes cannot unarmed strike------> The polymorph rules-------> dwarf Shapshifted into a snake cannot unarmed strike
Elves can unarmed strike----> the polymorph rules---> Dwarf shapeshifted into an elf can unarmed strike.
snakes can unarmed stirke----> The polymorph rules----? dwarf turned into a snake can unarmed strike.
The polymorph rules are completely superfluous to your argument.
Otherwise, a half-orc that polymorphed in to a different half-orc would lose dark vision.
Its entirely possible for something weird like that to happen. A dragon using form of the dragon for example
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision),
Dwarves are not born being able to to flurry of blows. Neither are elves or anything else really. Class abilities are learned, NOT rooted in biology, thats WHY they're class features. You need to learn it, and not every member of your species learns it. If elves raise a baby dwarf he still sees in the dark. He probably doesn't learn grandpas penchant for stonework.
The alternative is that form dependant means anything you do with your body, which is silly, or you wouldn't be able to turn into an elf and still cast spells. You loose all abilities that depend on form and get back only what the spell gives you. Alter self for examplel gives you darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, scent, and swim 30 feet....not the ability to cast spells even though it involves wriggling your newly acquired fingers. Obviously you can still cast spells because the polymorph section lists calls out that ability as being retained even if you're a dragon.
That you can't flurry of blows because a snake can't flurry of blows is both a subjective call and a completely different argument. That train may get to the station but it definitely doesn't pass through here.
You can certainly make good arguments against animals using unarmed strikes but that line does not remotely imply what you think it does.It does if interpreted the way I am doing. Which has the advantage that it doesn't lead to 'earthworms can make fists' and other clearly false results.
Just because it gets the result you want does not mean that the argument is good. This is absolutely horrible.
You are making the sub subjective call that creatures without fists can't use unarmed strikes. If you're doing that, own up to it and do it, don't pretend its dropping out of a polymorph rules reading. Because you're chucking the baby out with the bathwater here. Since polymorph specifically loses form dependent abilities and does not grant them back unless explicitly called out if punching is a form dependent ability a dwarf monk polymorphed into an elf loses it just like he loses his dark vision.
Jean-Marc Comeau wrote:
I am not seeing that from the bolded part of the entry.
its there black and white, clear as crystal. this is not a matter of table variation or interpretation. The ability to make a fist is not form dependant. It is not a claw, a bite, a tentacle, a wing, or any other gross feature of anatomy relying on your physical structure. There are dwarf monks. There are elf monks. If the ability was form dependent this would not be possible.
You can certainly make good arguments against animals using unarmed strikes but that line does not remotely imply what you think it does.
Even if I take your statement at face value, isn't the practice of unarmed combat all done in your normal form, not the 70 minutes a day in another form?
The rules really don't cover the sort of penalties you'd reasonably expect from the body dysphoria you'd have from shifting forms like that. An hour a day isn't an unreasonable amount of time to learn something though.
A human shadow dander gets dark vision.A dwarf shadow dancer gets dark vision
A halfling shadow dancer gets darkvision.
How on earth is that form dependent when the form doesn't matter at all?
Stephen Ross wrote:
Baleful polymorph clears all polymorph effects on you once you miss the save and stops new ones, which is why it works on druids in this edition.
Right, the difference is VERY important. Otherwise The saurian shaman can't punch, and neither can amonk turned in to steve which having been hit in the head by a swan i find far sillier than a bird punching.
Nope. Not lost because of that clause is not the same as retained no matter what.
A snake monk HAS flurry of blows as a class feature: polymorph effects don't take it away. Whether a snake monk can USE flurry of blows is a different question.
Your argument is too far from anything i said to be in the same discussion. You will have to try again.
Class abilities are not lost due to that line in the polymorph rules" is completely different from "All class abilities can be used in whatever polymorph form you take" Obviously the latter is false, as they call out the problems with spellcasting.
Sure, these are learned abilities and the polymorphed person still knows how to do them... but if the current form is physically incapable of doing so, how exactly are they able to act on that knowledge/training?
That is an entirely separate and far more subjective point than the polymorph rules.
Jean-Marc Comeau wrote:
No. A class ability by definition does not depend on your original form. If it did, it would be a species ability. Class skills are a restult or practice and training, not your shape.
"I'd like to be as good at my job as other people's class features are". It seems hypocritical to me to set out to do lots of damage in tiny form, regardless of flavour, and then complain when you succeed.
But you're not.
the traditionally scouty classes don't have a whole lot of class features that actually let them scout. What they have is a relatively small bonus to stealth from a class skill (+3) that is also attainable through a trait (+4), a cheap magic item (+5), skill focus (+3 or +6) etc.
The best class feature for stealth is wildshape, and the ring doesn't even come close to that. The ring lets you pick one rather conspicuous form rather than blending in, doesn't let you earth glide for guaranteed cover and escape, doesn't let you keep opposable thumbs to open doors.
This is better than the class features of a rogue for scouting- is an incredibly low bar to cross because the rogue doesn't have a whole lot of class features for scouting.
M Tall dwarf Level 3 druid
Oskar Dragenaev wrote:
BNW, for what it's worth, yes, Rod is a legit target for Enlarge person.
hehe. I know. Ratfolk and dwarves don't get along apparently. And justin... isn't the best at being polite.
Taj and Snowflake don't, unless they take whatever racial feaure lets you count as human (there is some such trait, yes?).
Scion of humanity. I was in pfs for the aasimar bumper crop :)
As to the goblins on the other side i fail to see the problem, there are plenty of humans between us and them..
I love how brutal they make the fights. Its not hong kong wirework its 300 pounds of steel plated muscle crashing into each other with all the finesse of a trainwreck.