|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I use this.
If you are using animal companions or familiars from another source, you can use the information in this table as a guideline for those creatures. Additionally, GMs may use this table as a guide to determine what kinds of magical gear non-humanoid monsters can wear and use. Note that the rules in this section are merely suggestions, and ultimately it is up to the GM to decide what kinds of animals can use particular types of magic items.
I am saying no to the elemental for my player.But that is me.
Activate the Spell: Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll. Activating a scroll spell requires no material components or focus. (The creator of the scroll provided these when scribing the scroll.) Note that some spells are effective only when cast on an item or items. In such a case, the scroll user must provide the item when activating the spell. Activating a scroll spell is subject to disruption just as casting a normally prepared spell would be. Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance.
There is rules support.
Use Magic device wrote:
UMD doesn't provoke.
There you go.
The scribe of the scroll's caster level is irrelevant. Only the the spell on the scroll. 1st -9th.
The AoO is resolved first, then if the caster makes the check from the damage the spell still goes off.
I think your group tried to resolve this situation out of order which is where the confusion started.
Animate Dead wrote:
I would agree with Claxon assuming destroyed = NOT mostly intact.
Where would I look to find examples of odd structures broken down in construction cost using UC rules? I need to familiarize myself with these rules better and would like a "tough" example to go by.
Not even remotely, I am giving a strictly RAW interpretation. Not in the FAQ, not in the feats, not in the fluff, nowhere in this situation do you find anything that says anything about growing new limbs, you won't find it because it isn't there. I know you think it is implied but implication does not equal RAW. I'm not asking for or arguing for any separation, because there is none needed, the feats and faq agree, you qualify to take the feat, but taking a feat that enhances a limb you do not have does nothing, case closed.
We can argue "RAW interpretations" till Armageddon. I have no interest in debating with you how RAW is applied. The community at large can't even agree on that topic. We apparently lack a common frame of reference to continue productive discussion.
I stand by my explanations.
The character has a d4 secondary Tail Slap.
This short, reptilian humanoid has scaled skin, a snout filled with tiny teeth, and a long tail.
The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.
So those arguing against want the descriptive text held separate from the mechanical benefits. Also, the FAQ has to be ignored since it qualifies a character for said benefits.Additionally, those arguing against want the descriptive text of the Kobold Bestiary entry to disqualify a character from having a tail because they are not a Kobold.
Then- Those arguing against want the descriptive text from the feat to be ignored that states that the blood of a Kobold flows in the characters veins.
Am I interpreting the oppositions position correctly?
A Pickled Punk. Didn't even know that thing existed until this thread. There is generally a benefit as Nefreet stated.
This is the wording from the Dragon entry:
"A dragon can use its breath weapon when it is grappling or being grappled."
This is very consistent with the wording under the Combat rules for Grapple. In fact, it isn't all that vague IMO. This is why I am pressing hard for "one is correct and one is not". Initially I was somewhat dismissive of this and in favor of comparison #1. I want to be clear with regard to rules compliance in organized play or home games.
As far as the non-lethal weapons go I misunderstood what the OP was saying in a previous post. I think Bane Of Humanity and I cleared that up as a non-factor for this particular rules discussion.
Out of curiosity what weapons do you mean? I am guessing that they still fall under what the CRB wrote: "unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon".
I understand exceptions. I understand the GM's right to referee. I understand that you post a bunch about RAI vs RAW.
So coming back around...
Torbyne and Suthainn,
I am unclear what you are talking about.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
If we are dealing with just RAW and the FAQ, then that's that. No GM discretion about a tail growing or fluff text required. The character has a d4 Tail Slap.
gain an oddly worded secondary bite attack?
I don't understand what this is.
Sowde Da'aro wrote:
i was in a group that had a LN dwarf that constantly played LE intil the dm changed his alignment for him. the player went along with it. then a couple of sessons later, the mod we were playing had us encounter a large group of CG outsiders who took one look at said dwarf and said he had one chance. dwarf rolled a 1 on his bluff that he would be "good" and they (the outsiders) splatered him all over the caveren...
That's so Metal....
The OP stated it is a homebrew game and was just curious of the actual ruling. The actual ruling has been provided.
So unless we want to have this moved to the Homebrew/Houserule thread or something it's a dead point to argue creativity>rules compliance or balance>creativity.
There are more appropriate threads for those arguments. I understand RPG enthusiasts tend to take things personal, lets just not do it here. The OP's question was answered.
Looking at this thread here is what I see. Bold is mine.
1) You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This statement excludes all other attack forms.
2) You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This statement does not exclude other attack forms specified in other material. The bestiary wording (A dragon can use its breath weapon when it is grappling or being grappled)should be added here.
So for organized play and home games either BOTH rulings are rules compliant or one is correct, one is not correct.
I feel one is correct one is not correct, it cannot be both.
A problem with that scenario would be that the spell effect doesn't state that it can block vision in a given square or even target a creature.
Well what I am getting at is, this is the Rules Questions forum. Things get very specific here.
I am trying to pin your POV down specifically(no pun intended- heh) in the context of making rulings across the board with regard to the Rules As Written.
You are saying it is rules compliant in PFS Organized Play or a home game for a individual GM to decide if a dragon can or cannot use a breath weapon as part of the damage option under maintaining a grapple. Is this correct?
You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon (A dragon can use its breath weapon when it is grappling or being grappled). This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
The bold part I inserted it is not present in the entry itself.
Is that what you are saying?
The bestiary entry is not giving the dragon extra actions. I feel the Bestiary clarified that because the Grappled/Pinned conditions don't always specify what actions are limited in all cases.
Combat rules must be satisfied first in this case. Any character normally only gets one Standard and one Move action in a combat round. Both maintaining a Pin and using a Breath Weapon are Standard Actions. The dragon must choose- as I and williamoak stated. All characters need special feats/abilities to maintain grapples as Move Actions.