|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
You are correct that you will get the AC bonus once the readied attack goes off, but your AC will not go up until then, so in a strict sense readying an attack in and of itself will not raise your AC. If your readied attack never goes off, you will not get the bonus AC and any attack made against you before the readied attack goes off, like ranged attacks against a melee character, will not get the benefit of the increased AC.
It's not meta gaming, it's not seriously attacking'invisible' opponents, it's defensive fighting using a kata like you see at every martial arts tournament or exhibition.
When talking about metagaming, remember that your mileage may vary. I don't have issues with it(my gripe is that Total Defense should be better), but I have played at tables where this tactic would be banned because it is considered metagaming.
You are entirely correct that it doesn't really make sense, hence my earlier comment about it being metagamey. The problem is that if you are looking at RAW, it is simply the best way to temporarily boost your AC.
As an example, lets look at a level 20 warrior type(20 BAB + 3 ranks in acrobatics).
One great example of when you might want to do this. I want to move past an enemy in a 10 foot wide hallway so I can be flanking him and prevent his retreat. I already have mobility. If I "attack the air", I can claim CE and FD bonuses to AC until my next turn, so when I take my move action to move past him I have a +13 AC against his AoOs, and because I can still make AoOs, I begin giving my allies flanking bonuses immediately.
As illogical as giving up all your attacks and movement to gain less AC?
It would seem that per RAW you could attack object and receive benefits of it. Personally, I think it's dumb. That's what total defense is for, but the RAW seems clear at the moment. Invisible opponents will however ignore the dodge bonuses against you, unless you have some special class feature or spell currently active.
The problem is this...Total Defense - +4 AC(+6 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) and you cannot take AoOs
Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise - +3 AC(+4 with 3 ranks of acrobatics) +1 per 4 BAB and you still get AoOs.
At 8 BAB, the bonuses from Fighting Defensively + Combat Expertise >= Total Defense, and you can still make AoOs.
At that point, why would anyone use Total Defense?
You've been down this path before, almost exactly 5 years ago.
Well given that,by RAW, you can attack a square where you think an invisible opponent is, what is to stop someone from attacking imaginary invisible opponents to gain the benefits of Combat Expertise/Fighting Defensively? By RAW, it seems legit, but it does feel very meta-gamey.
Edit: Of course, this is really all a side effect of fighting defensively + combat Expertise bonuses outpacing full defense bonuses. If fighting defensively and all-out defense were made to actually scale with level, then there would be no real reason to try these gimmicks.
Not to mention if you really want more damage, empower and maximize will work.
Gwen Smith wrote:
Good point, there are several spells that specifically free you from a grapple as part of their effects. That said, Force Punch is not one of those spells.
This is close to the route I went down. I got rid of traits in their current form, and made them more generic.1. Make any non-class skill a class skill
2. Add a +1 to any class skill
3. Gain proficiency in any simple or martial weapon.
4. +1 caster level(caster level cannot exceed hit dice)
5. Gain the ability to cast any 1st level spell 1/day.
By RAW, the only ways to remove the grappled condition areA. If the creature who initiated the grapple releases it as a free action.
B. If the creature being grapples breaks it using a standard action
No where in the RAW does it say that being moved away from the creature you are grappling breaks the grapple. So saying that the grapple simple ends is also not strictly by the rules.
The only thing in grapple that covers movement at all is the Grapple check to move as a standard action, so it isn't a stretch to use that as a base for handling this situation.
Game Master wrote:
Which leaves us with two options.A. The grapple ends.
B. The grappler needs to make a grapple check to hang on to the caster and drag them with him. Personally, I would add a circumstance penalty based on damage taken or distance moved.
The real meat of the question is: Can I make a grapple check to force someone else to move with me when I am moved involuntarily?
That being said, those are greats ways to boost caster level for the actual spell being made permanent. Higher caster level == harder to dispel.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn (see FAQ below for more information.)
The RAW clearly states that the ranged attack is part of the spellcasting. Unless you have some other RAW that clearly says that the ranged attack happens after the spell is cast, and that taking damage from the ranged attack provoking does not disrupt the spell, then...1. The ranged attack is part of the spellcasting.
2. Damage taken during spellcasting can disrupt the spell.
3. Ergo, the AoO from the ranged attack can disrupt the spell.
PS: Normal touch attack don't have this problem as the RAW clearly states that the attack is a separate free action AFTER the spellcasting.
That is actually the way I have always played it, but looking at the RAW, it is pretty clear that the ranged attack is part of the spellcasting action. That combined with the concentration check rules on "Damage taken while casting the spell" lead me to conclude that getting hit during the ranged attack can disrupt the spell. That may not be RAI, but it certainly is RAW.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
The RAW on ranged touch spells makes it very clear that the ranged attack is part of the spellcasting action.
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity wrote:
FAQ text wrote:
The key word for AoOs is opportunity or event. The RAW and FAQ use the language of "events that provoke" as opposed to your language of "actions that provoke". You have 2 different opportunities or events that provoke in the same spellcasting action.
Eh, the main emphasis is the adventuring day, not the monster. I'm assuming that teammates are there helping with each encounter. So taking out a monster isn't the emphasis, but rather your contribution to taking out said monster.
Yes and no.
I am looking out how long it takes to take out a single CR 10 monster at level 10. A CR 10 monster is not a significant challenge for a level 10 party. 3-4 CR 10 monsters are. So the idea is "How fast can my level 10 character take out 1/4 of a CR14 encounter(4 CR 10 monsters)?"
No, it isn't the end all be all of performance, but it does give a little more information than a straight DPR crunch.
I was playing around with this a while back after the DPR olympics, and I used an arbitrary scenario, and calculated the number of rounds to kill the target.
Basically, you start 30 feet away from a generic monster. The monster: 10 HD, 140HP, 24AC, +12 on all saves. After the players first normal round, the monster will move into melee. This is basically a composite of the worst case scenarios for various classes.
For damage effects use the normal DPR calculations. For binary effects like save or die, use a 90% confidence interval(IE if the monster has a 70% chance to fail their save against a spell, then I assume it needs to be case twice to give a 91% chance to be effected).
So the basic test is how many round does it take a given character build to incapacitate the monster.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Read the linked FAQ. It disagrees with your interpretation.
By RAW, the ranged attack is part of the casting of the spell. Basically, you are aiming the spell while you are casting it, and it is the distraction causes by aiming the spell that provokes, thus the damage from making a ranged attack can disrupt the spell. The only way this doesn't happen is if the ranged attack is a separate free action that happens after the spell is cast.
The RAW uses the word opportunity. For a while, there was an interpretation that one action == one opportunity to provoke. According to the FAQ, this is wrong, but this isn't the first time I have seen this interpretation. I suspect that the 3.0/3.5 interpretation of this rule may have been different from the Pathfinder one or that the vagueness of the word opportunity is enough to cause a lot of table variance.
And that one AoO(for a fireball or magic missle) can be avoided by casting defensively.
Abraham spalding wrote:
If the ranged attack is part of the spellcasting, then getting hit by an AoO from the ranged attack means you took damage while casting a spell. You have to make a concentration check, and if you fail, it ruins the spell.
The real question is if the second AoO(from the ranged attack) allows you to disrupt the spell casting. Is the text of of the ranged touch attack overriding the normal touch attack rules(ranged attack is part of the spellcasting) or is it clarifying that the range attack does not require a separate action to shoot it(the range touch attack is a free action separate from the spellcasting)?
It depends on interpretation.
Casting a spell provokes, unless I cast defensively.Making a ranged attack provokes.
1. One interpretation of the bolded section is that one action == one opportunity, so since the casting and the attack are part of the same action, then you would only provoke one attack. Under this interpretation, if I charge someone with a reach weapon and make a trip attempt without improved trip, I would only provoke one AoO because both of those actions are part of the same charge action.
1a. Even if you use the interpretation in a, if you interpret the ranged touch attack rules as giving a separate free action to make the attack with, then the ranged touch attack is actually a separate action from the casting, and thus would provoke separately. If I use a move action to get adjacent to someone with a reach weapon and make a trip attempt without improved trip, I would provoke two AoO because I did 2 separate things in 2 separate actions that provoke.
2. Another interpretation of the bolded section is that each thing you do that provokes grants an AoO, so both the casting and the ranged attack can provoke an AoO. Under this interpretation, if I charge someone with a reach weapon and make a trip attempt without improved trip, I would provoke two AoO because I did 2 separate things that provoke.
Edit: apparent by the FAQ, #2 is the correct interpretation.
If you do not cast defensively, then you provoke when casting the spell. If you fail the concentration, you will lose the spell. This is because there are specific rules that state if you take damage while casting, you have to make a concentration check or the casting fails.
If you make a ranged attack, then you provoke as well. There is nothing in the rules that states you lose the ranged attack. So, if I shoot you with a bow in melee, you get to swing at me, but no matter what happens my bow shot still goes off.
If I cast defensively, you do not get an attack of opportunity for me casting a spell. Then, when I make the ranged attack that is part of the spell, then you get the AoO. Now if the attack were a free action that is actually separate from the spellcasting(like touch spells), then you AoO could not disrupt my spellcasting.
You could make an argument that the aiming is a separate thing that happens at the end of the spellcasting and use touch spell resolution as a precedent, because Ranged Touch Spells are a subcategory of Touch Spells. In fact, Ranged Touch Spells in Combat, are a sub category of the larger rule on Touch Spells in Combat.
I am inclined the think the specifics of Ranged Touch spells are meant to override the general touch spell rules, but I can also read it as enhancing and clarifying them.
This is the joy that is the confusion between the attack action as a standard action, and the attack action. Both are often called "attacks" or "attacking" in the rules. Attack action as a standard action is when I specifically choose to attack as my standard action. Attack action happens every time I make an attack. A full-round attack gives me multiple attack actions.
When read in context, the above rules strongly imply that fighting defensively must be done as part of a standard attack action(or full-round action if you read further down in that section), and not just action containing an attack qualifies.
Yeah, I use greater magic weapon/magic vestment as a replacement for enchanting my weapons and armor all the time on my clerics. Once you hit level 9, you are looking at extended versions of these spells lasting 18 hours. At that point, they might as well be considered permanent buffs. Hence, the need to modify some of these spells.
In the interest of keeping things civil. Yes, I did read the whole thread and no, the link you posted does not back up your claim that different number of charges == different magic item for the purpose of the 75% roll. It only shows that different number of charges == different price. There is still quite a logical hurdle to jump over to get to different price == different item for the 75% roll. Further, it has been pointed out in this thread why the "different price == different item" does not automatically follow as you seem to think it does.
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. I have yet to see any RAW to back up the idea that different number of changes == different item == another 75% chance for the item to be there. In the absence of any RAW on this point, I don't see how anyone can claim that the RAW is firmly their side. If I choose to only let a player roll once for a wand of X and you choose to let them have one roll for each charge, there is nothing that says either of us is doing it wrong. Beyond that, several people have pointed out how from a RAI perspective your interpretation trivializes the 75% roll to the point of "why even bother?".
That said, I see several people who are jumping on a single poster, and pulling their comments WAY out of context. They were responding specifically to my comment(you know the one right above theirs), which was in the context of whether there is any RAW to support the different number of charges == different item == new chance to roll 75%, and the RAI implications of the different interpretations. Their unforgivable sin was apparently forgetting to quote me.
I like the wealth by level is X levels lower idea. It is a lot easier to eyeball then 2/5.
The other idea I get from MEL comments is that rather than making the increases static(you gain X at level Y). Make it so the player can pick and choose which bonus they get when. For example, every level choose +1 to enhancement AC, natural armor, deflection, or all saves(max +1 pr 3 levels with a +5 max total). Then, the player can decide at any given level if they need AC or saves more.
Finally, one idea I have seen on stat increases is to use stat points(from the point buy table) instead of actual increases to stats. If you extend the stat buy table beyond 18(the price per point goes up by one at every even stat value), it looks like this.
Now throw in something where the players gain stat points like this(basically every level you gain 2 stat points + 1 per 4 levels)
If you start with an 18, you could raise it all the way to a 29, but you would only have 19 points left to spend on other stats. Throw on a +2 racial bonus, and you cap out at 31 on a single stat. Compare this to the current system where you can out at 18(base) +2(racial) +5(levels) +6 enhancement) +5 inherent = 36. BUT if you had a 10 on every stat, you would be able to raise them all to 18 over 20 levels. In other words, this system greatly benefits MAD classes over SAD ones, and encourages players to be more rounded. Also, remember that the short duration enhancement buffs are still available, and useful.
Overall, I think I like this a bit better because...
The only con seems like the extra bookkeeping for the stat increases, so it really comes down to the question is if the MAD/SAD balance is worth the extra bookkeeping.
You may also think about dropping the duration of greater magic weapon to 10 min/level.
I really like the idea of this system because it brings back a reason to use the short duration buffs like magic weapon, bull's strength, etc.
DM_Kumo Gekkou wrote:
The rules as a whole also free up the monk to focus on investment in monk specific items(monk's belt instead of a belt of strength for example).
Rogues are almost always pushed into going down the dual wield path, which means that they have to buy two magic weapons, and thus are about a +1 behind a fighter on their weapons anyways. This system as a whole is a huge boon to dual wield.
Worst case scenario, if I really feel that a specific class is struggling, I can make a class only magic item for them(Like some gloves that boost sneak attack)
DM_Kumo Gekkou wrote:
I don't really have any play test data, but I have crunched some of the numbers. For the full BAB classes, it puts them firmly on top, and it adds another trade off for casters, which lessens the caster/martial disparity. For the 3/4 BAB classes, almost all of them have spells that they can use to give themselves bonuses. Clerics have divine power/greater magic weapon. Druids have magic fang, and so forth. If anything, this change would let you see more spells like Shillelagh, because now having a +1 enhancement bonus on your weapon is a good thing.
Also, I don't consider these things to be a PC only thing. I would apply these bonuses to any NPC that has PC wealth level(+1 CR).
No, if I have a character that has 3 limbs, a weapon in each hand, I get 3 attacks. If all weapons are light, then I make my attacks at -4/-8/-8, that is RAW. If I have 2 weapon fighting(I am currently sidestepping the whole multi-weapon fighting is a monster feat issue ATM), then my attacks would be at -2/-2/-8. The verbage in extra limb and the FAQ say I cannot get an extra attack from the limb, but I can substitute that attack for any other attack I would normally be able to make. So if I have 5 attacks from TWF at -2/-2/-7/-7/-12 and I also have access to another weapon attack on a third limb that is at -8, then according to the FAQ, I can substitute the attack at -8 for the one at -12.
TLDR: I still make my attack as per the core rule from high to low, but I can choose to make an attack with the kukri in my third hand at -8 instead of taking my last iterative at -12.
I am going to have to actually side with Stabbity here. Even when you remove the whole multiattack issue, he has a valid point.
I have a level 10 fighter/2 Alchmist with a tentacle wielding 2 Kukris with the TWF and iTWF feats.
I get 3 attacks at +9/+9/+4/+4/-1. My tentacle attack is at -5 for being a secondary attack which puts it at +4, and according to the FAQ, I can explicity substitute it for the kukri attack that is at -1. Thus my attack routine is now +9/+9/+4/+4/+4 with the last attack being a tentacle.
If it works for the tentacle(which has the exact same extra attack verbage as the extra limb), then there is no reason that you could not take an extra limb with a Kukri in it, and thus you would get the same option to substitute the attack from that limb for any other attack in your routine. Even without the multiattack feat, I could still attack with a -8(using a light weapon) with the second off hand making my attack sequence a +9/+9/+4/+4/+1 instead of a +9/+9/+4/+4/-1.
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Maybe not a fin nudge, but what about a tail slap.A great white shark with improved unarmed could in theory tail slap(unarmed strike) at a +10 to hit for 1d6(huge unarmed) + 7 damage. That seems about right for a huge muscular shark slapping you with its tail. Oddly enough there seems to be an error in the GWS stat block, it seems like their normal to hit would be +3(BAB) +7(strength) +1(focus) = +11, not +9. That said, the bite would then be at a +6 for 2d10 + 3, so the damage gain from the tail slap is more that made up for by the loss of damage on the bite attack which goes from a strength and a half to damage primary attack to a half strength to damage secondary.
So, if I want to spite the rest of the player at the table, I walk in, and ask the DM do you have a wand of X with 1 charge, 2 charges, etc. until I have exhausted the magic item supply of the town in question?
DM: Oh, yesterday, a ranger came in looking for a bunch of wands, so I don't have any +1 swords, but hey I have 3 wands of Charm Animal...
And still not a single rule that is even close to saying that different price == different item. You have rules that acknowledge that magic items can have varying prices, but it doesn't logically follow that different prices means it is a different item.
Full quote for context
That quote is specifically referring to the value listed in the table, and in no way, form or fashion implies that different value == different item.
A wand of Fireball is a single item with a value proportional to the number of charges remaining. There is nothing in your quotes that even remotely states that I should treat a Wand of Fireballs at 50 separate items.
No, the point you are missing is that charged items basically circumvent the availability rules.
At 75% chance of having a given item and you treat each charge level as a separate item, then you will have 37+ wands of every spell in every town(up to the wealth limit of the town). Every town that is large enough will have 3 luck blades for every frostbrand, and so on. I really do not think that is the RAI here.
I would like to see some more RAW support for the bolded section.
It used to work against all compulsions and charms...
The other thing that limits its power is the 1 minute/level. Charms and compulsions tend to be an out of combat thing, and it is impossible to keep this spell up 24/7.
No, that text only refers to charms and compulsions already in place, but if you look a little further on you will see that:
If the character has Protection from Evil cast beforehand, they are flat out immune to charm and compulsion effects.
Looks like it. Still, Even at a CR7, this creature is either a complete joke(heavy ranged party), or rocket tag(melee heavy party)
Having played games with simultaneous combat, I fully understand why turns are used as an abstraction, but I also understand that they are an abstraction that you do not want interpret too rigidly. Maybe just maybe a "Full round action" takes a full round to accomplish.
Here is a little though experiment.
Lets say you have a pit fight with 20 combatants. Each combatant is a separate "side" and rolls initiative separately. Each combatant is a maxed out level 20 archer who gets 4 attacks from BAB + rapid shot. Each combatant rolls a different number for their initiative, so no turns are taken simutaneously.
Since by strict RAW each archer attacks in sequence, they are each only using 6/20 = .3 seconds to fire 5 shots, leaving their hand free for the remaining 5.7 seconds of the turn.
Now after 18 of the archers end up dead, there are only 2 of them, and sudden by RAW each one makes 5 attacks in 3 seconds.
Does anyone find it absurd that an archer can fire 5 arrows in 0.3 seconds? Does anyone find it absurd that an archers rate of fire is affected by the number of other people in the combat?
Maybe it is just me, but when an interpretation of RAW leads to absurd results, I have to ask if I am interpreting it right.
Add to that any of the one hit wonder monsters like the Ankylosaurus with a the Giant creature template(+0 CR) and good feat selection(namely improved natural attack + vital strike). +15 to hit for 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 4d6 -> 8d8 + 15 = 51 damage on average at CR6 when vital striking, and can move and attack without really losing any punch. The save or stun is just icing on the cake. A level 5 fighter with a 14 con is only going to have around 50 HP with a > 75% chance to fail the fortitude save and get stunned. His attack will basically one shot anyone who isn't a frontline fighter, and has a good chance to drop even a raging barbarian. Oh, yeah, don't forget the 20 foot reach...
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Step 6 is unneeded because you make yourself one of the featherfall targets, and you become immune to the damage.
RAW clearly states they can be upgraded. The point of contention is exactly how much should it cost to upgrade them.
The sunblade is the counter example to the celestial armor. The pricing on the sunblade is identical to a +5 bastard sword. Overall, the sunblade is similar in power level to a +2 holy, undead bane bastard sword. All in all you have a very strong argument that the sun blade is actually a +5 weapon, and thus adding a +1 to a sunblade should cost 22,000 instead of 10,000.
Because you made up a rule to fill in the gap...