Cyrus Lanthier's page

Why does a 20th level fighter even bathe? I mean, a magic item to cast Prestidigitation at will would cost him basically nothing, let alone 1/day. He also doesn't sleep, given that new Stand Watch spell or whatever it's called. But, sure, let's assume he's naked and alone (two things that, by 20th level, he knows he should never be unless he's in a lead lined room in the middle of his castle). Let's further assume that he's utterly mundane.

He could, uhh... Swim for it? Don't laugh - it's one of the Fighter's skills, he could potentially be amazing at it, and in this situation it's actually potentially viable to save his life.

Anyway... You could spend your traits getting good skills like Stealth and Perception. If I recall correctly, there's even a feat to get two more traits... Fighters have a lot of traits. So... Ninja vanish into the water and murder anyone who follows you in? Then murder them one by one...

By the way, with traits, a Fighter can be totally viable at stealth even in full armor - what with Armor Training and such - so it's not even like this is a totally improbable build. Also, Improved Unarmed Strike is actually a really good feat for a fighter to take, and Stunning Fist isn't exactly a bad choice, either... Oh, and Unarmed Strike is in the close weapon group, which is a very strong group that should be picked second or third (third if you want to be "viable" at range) for weapon training, if not first (and basically always first if you are a shield guy). I'm not exactly bringing in shiny new options, either.

I don't know about resetting the dungeon, but yes, there should be consequences. As Talonhawke says, at a the remaining enemies will be ready for the PC's when they return, potentially with very nasty surprises. Even just forcing the PC's to deal with 2-3 encounters worth of foes at once (which would realistically be just one result of them being on "high alert," as there is safety in numbers) should make things significantly to incredibly more dangerous - The dungeon can go nova, too... :p

There should be a trait that allows you to use Int or Wis for Profession and Wis or Int for Craft, players choice.

That would put to rest any weird or seemingly illogical difference in a PC's profession/craft checks. If someone makes a build consisting of multiple profession/craft skills that would allow a more efficient spreading of ability score, especially when that type of build is not optimized for combat...

This. Please this. In fact, I'll just houserule this into existence, for now.

As great (amazing) as it would be for Arcanists if the favored class bonus did this, "Spells Known" =/= "Spells in Spellbook." Spells Known is already a technical term in Pathfinder, and it refers to part of how spontaneous casting works for classes like Sorcerer, Bard and Oracle.

I think that Page 9 is supposed to imply that the Arcanist, still being a sort of spontaneous caster, is able to take a feat like Extra Spells Known and in that case it adds to the number of spells he can prepare. If they wanted it to add to your prepared spells, why copy/paste the favored class bonus for Wizards instead of the one for Sorcerers/Bards, which does add to "Spells Known?"

Also... Better than anything a wizard can do at that level, you say? Because this character deals probably one or two kinds of energy damage, and on average only 19 a bomb. With bombers eye, a bit more, sure. But a simple Resist Energy cuts his damage down to basically nothing (at level 7, Resist Energy gives effectively 20 Energy Resistance). If the Wizard has a idea of who he might be fighting, he can spare a second level spell or three to be immune to everything the Alchemist is likely to do.

Also, Shatter pretty much destroys an Alchemist full stop. These are still the second level spells, people. Sure, maybe he's got a Handy Haversack that he is keeping all those bombs in... Can you use quick draw on an item stored in a handy haversack? I imagine not...

If it seems unlikely that the Wizard would know what he is up against, he does get access to divination spells, and to Scrying in at level seven... Also Greater Invisibility. Also Black Tentacles. Also Charm Monster. Also Dimension Door. Basically any of these can insure that the Wizard survives. Also, he gets Dispel Magic without spending a feat/discovery.

Also, Wizards have "disable" type spells with are essentially more powerful (especially in PvP, which why are you even looking at PvP?) than almost any amount of DPR.

So, yes - against a single target (or a very bunched together group) with no resistance against the damage type the alchemist has (just fire, unless he's spending feats/discoveries which are a big investment), he can deal massive damage. Probably more than a Wizard (there might be some optimized Evoker build, I don't know). Is that really a problem, considering that's the entire focus of this character and the Wizard can do... Well, basically anything?

Ascalaphus, you're now arguing that diseases aren't generally contagious at all in PF, it would seem - is that correct? Because a lot of flavor-text stuff seems to imply (at least to me) that contagious diseases are a thing on Golarion.

Ghoul Fever's type is Injury, so you wouldn't normally get infected by punching them. Similarly, you wouldn't get poisoned sundering a poisoned weapon with your fists (unless it was contact poison, I guess). I assume since the disease is specially linked to the Bite attack, that it's about exchange of bodily fluids (saliva), which seems perfectly reasonable given how diseases work in the real world.

But wait, let's break this into two smaller questions, which might make things easier...

1) Is there any reason to assume that a disease caused by Contagion is any less contagious than one caused in any other way?

and

2) Is the victim of a disease (such as, say, Cackle Fever, which is Disease, Inhaled) normally contagious in Pathfinder?

Since the justification for not being able to make the full attack is that you have to reach your opponent... Can you take a full attack against an opponent who is moving with you on the carpet, the two of you locked in mortal combat as the magic carpet races along at top speed away from, say, an angry dragon? Also, similar question, but you're on the back of some sort of actual mount - maybe an elephant.

It definitely spreads. Mythic Contagion makes it transmittable by skin to skin contact, which is crazy. Look at Blinding Sickness, a Contagion (that is, a transmittable disease) that you can inflict with the spell...

Type disease, ingested; Save Fortitude DC 16

Onset 1d3 days; Frequency 1/day

Effect 1d4 Str damage, if more than 2 Str damage, target must make an additional Fort save or be permanently blinded; Cure 2 consecutive saves

Blinding Sickness normally requires that you ingest some sort of tainted material (thus Type: Disease, ingested). Mythic Contagion would effectively change it's type to Distease, Contact (making it significantly more dangerous as a biological weapon). Epidemic could make Blinding Sickness have Type: Disease, Contact, Ingested or Inhaled (Bubonic Plague is already Injury or Inhaled, meaning that you need to either exchange bodily fluids or spend time (presumably about an hour?) very close to a victim). Nothing about these other spells implies that Contagion isn't contagious by the normal means.

The spell is instantaneous, so there is no lingering magical effect afterward. It inflicts the target with the disease as though they caught it (sans incubation time). The diseases in question are contagious, and the victim now has the disease in question. Contagion is Contagious. It's called Contagion, for crying out loud!

Sure, you could use Contagion to speed up a siege. In reality, plague-ridden corpses were flung by catapult into fortified areas to do exactly this. Why shouldn't a fourth (sometimes third) level spell be able to infect a fort with a disease when something like Filth Fever is probably easy enough to obtain and just fling in there? You could already just use Fly and pour tainted chunks of flesh all over the place. If your PC's want to use an Evil spell to covertly infect their enemies with a slow, painful death, I say let them. The sort of fame that this kind of victory would earn them might be of dubious value...

Edit: Yes, Ascalaphus, there are rules for catching diseases (though they are a little vague in places). You can find them here . Note how under Onset it says that "Creatures that come in contact with an affliction with an onset time must make a saving throw immediately..."

The problem is that Amazing Inspiration says "At 20th level" not "If you also have True Inspiration." It doesn't ask for a particular class feature apart from the talent itself, it asks for 20th level (presumably 20th level in Investigator. I was sort of joking around about character level).

So... At 20th level Investigator, with the Empiricist Archetype (or any other Archetype that doesn't receive True Inspiration) and the Amazing Inspiration talent (quoted above), what die or dice do you roll when using Inspiration and why?

I guess those were perceived to be too "special?" They can't have the whole list of Alchemist discoveries *and* their own, after all.

All that being said, if you're playing in a home game, go ahead and allow them (especially on a spiritualist?), but them into plot hooks. To learn about mummification you've got to go somewhere where they know about mummies, presumably raiding tombs or the like (which is what the investigator ought to be doing, anyway) - I wonder what hazards you might encounter in such a tomb... :p

When using inspiration, the investigator rolls a d8 instead of a d6. At 20th level, the investigator rolls 2d8 and adds both dice to the result. An investigator must be at least 7th level to select this talent.

So... 20th level. 20th character level?

20th level Investigator seems to be the intent - okay, cool. But, what if you don't get True Inspiration, because you're an Empiricist? The unwritten assumption seems to be that you get 2d8 instead of the 2d6 that an Investigator would normally roll due to having True Inspiration, but RAW it does not say that, only that you roll 2d8 "at 20th level." Does a 20th level Empiricist with this talent roll 1d8 or 2d8 when using inspiration?

Personally, I think it's probably intended not to work for the Empiricist in this way, but I also think that nerfing a capstone ability is a confusing (and bad) way to balance an archetype, so maybe the workaround is there on purpose? Or, maybe it's a happy accident that they will never get around to FAQing, I don't know.

If it did modify your initiative, it would be the most exploitable thing ever. Beyond the "accidental" problems that Rufus points out, you could do exploity things like get your Cat's Grace dispelled (or get fatigued!) and get another turn right after the current one by reducing your dex ("Oh, my initiative dropped from 13 to 12 because I stopped raging, so it's my turn, right?" :/). Clearly, this way madness lies.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot delaying until just before the boss and trying to buff his Dex so he misses his turn. As hilarious as this would be no, just no.

Except that we have to think of RAW aw being written in a language. That is the established language of Pathfinder rules. The lance, I'm fairly sure, is meant to double all damage, as you say. The Sun Blade uses identical language ("deal double damage"). It even changes the critical multiplier like charging with a lance (which goes to x4 rather than x3, because it's normally x3, but the logic is the same).

You're right that they could word it better, but I think it's clear, given what we know.

It seems pretty clear, I think, that doubling includes all bonuses, unless otherwise specified.

Darksol, what do you think happens when you charge with a lance? What gets doubled? Only the dice? Because...

Benefit: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount.

So, yea... A weapon dealing double damage seems to mean attacks with that weapon do double damage - at least that's always how I've seen it played. That's why things like vital strike call out doing twice as many dice, as opposed to "double damage."

I see no reason to think that the smite damage wouldn't be doubled by the sword doing double damage to undead... So...

1d10+10 is your "normal" damage (I think is what you're getting at, yes?)

1d10+30 is your normal smite (+20 for your 20 levels against random evil... giants, I guess?)

1d10+50 would be your damage on the first hit against an evil dragon or (non-negative energy powered) demon.

So, I think we're looking at 2d10+100 on the first hit against an undead. Also ignoring damage reduction, because smite. So, yea, it's pretty obscene.

Smite damage can crit, as far as I know, so I don't see why it couldn't be doubled...

Ghost Touch Plate Mail that you lock shut, somehow? It seems like an Iron Flask would work, but arguably ghosts aren't from another plane. Also, Iron Flasks are ungody expensive.

Does it have to be a ghost, or are you good capturing just wraiths and shadows?

What Gauss said. All multipliers essentially are just adding X damage, where X is your base attack damage. So a crit with a lance is X+2X(crit)+1X(charge). Of course, abilities like Flaming or Holy (or Sneak Attack, but that seems unlikely on a charging lance) add after you get however many X's worth of damage.

Lazar - why?

Can those spells be cast on incorporeal creatures? If yes, they don't require a body, and thus shouldn't be "tied" to your body in any meaningful way, unless you have something to cite that says that they are tied to your body. Also, what happens to a cursed character who is resurrected or reincarnated?

To solve (or at least mitigate) demiplane abuse; even if the spell is on your body in your demiplane, the copy of the spell that left the demiplane is (presumably) no longer in a plane with the "timeless" quality. Also, since things like hunger and thirst happen retroactively after leaving the plane, I assume that the spell durations would be clocked as well, and could retroactively expire.

So, when is the Save DC for an extract set; when it is used, or when it is made?

To illustrate, say we have Allie, an alchemist capable of creating three second level extracts. Allie prepares one as Fox's Cunning, then drinks it and prepares the other two as, say, Fire Sneeze. Normally, Allie's INT is 18, but with Fox's Cunning it's 22. Is the DC for the Fire Sneeze extract (used, say, two hours later) 16 or 18?

Do you mean that the halfling is slinging a bullet while also flying through the air with the momentum of the giant's slinging him like a bullet? Rule of cool says that this deals essentially infinite damage. :p

*stares at the fact that you can rapid reload an AtlAtl but not a sling*

What? And also the ammunition is effectively javelins? So... Do you also need quick draw to get the "darts" out, or can you pull them out instantly "because they are ammunition?" Also, are they destroyed when fired?

Also, an Atlatl is martial, if that's an issue.

Anyway, back on topic...

If you aren't already proficient in bows, then two feats will let you use the sling in one hand, still fully able to equip a shield, one feat will allow you to use a bow (and no shield), and both can full attack. You also probably don't need the second feat until at least eighth level (if you aren't already bow-proficient, you probably don't have full BAB) anyway, so up until then (or until you are regularly being hasted) the Sling does pretty well for some characters.

But, if you're a seriously martial character, the only good answer I can think of to "why a sling over a bow" is "you can use a shield." I guess blunt damage could be a thing but as has been pointed out there are already blunt arrows.

All that being said, a shield can give huge amounts of AC; for a mid-level character, a plus one or two shield isn't all that pricy, and gives between plus two and six AC (but you probably won't use a tower shield), assuming that you aren't considering Shield Focus. Would you consider spending two feats to use a shield with your bow? I would certainly consider spending one feat to get the benefit of a buckler (and no penalty) while using a longbow.

If you don't start with Longbow proficiency, and you care about your AC (and your game doesn't typically involve extended battles taking place at very long range), then I would think that the sling would be a pretty good option; you're spending one more feat to get the ability to use your shield at range (though your ranged weapon is admittedly slightly crummier than a bow in terms of damage and range). Slings aren't amazing but they are okay with a little investment, or at low level, for the right character.

Also, can you Ammo Drop and/or Juggle Load a Halfling Sling Staff? Because that thing is one handed, deals Longbow damage (and critical multiplier), and, if these feats are compatible with it, it can be used to full effect with a shield... I know that the Halfling trait doesn't work with the Sling Staff, but do these feats?

I wasn't suggesting looking at a situation with no magic involved, just that we shouldn't be comparing the sling directly to a wizard/primary caster, because the warrior (almost) always will lose that fight regardless. It's about sling vs other weapons, and no weapon saves you from wizards, really (unless maybe it's by having a prepared action to hit them and try to disrupt their spell, which Ammo Drop puts you in a great position to do, actually).

My point about the Paladin is that he doesn't have to take off the shield to use the sling. He definitively isn't better off with the bow at lower levels, when he can't afford a composite bow appropriate to his strength even if he wanted to spend the action to take the thing off. Zero feat investment, he can just nail something with a sling (Only once per round, of course. Still, Smite Evil hurts).

Ammo Drop says you can load a sling with one hand... So, if your GM allows Ammo Drop, you can use your heavy shield (or even tower shield, I guess) constantly along with your sling. Pretty spiffy. It's like you took quick draw to throw stuff, but you have vastly superior range, slightly lower damage, and a nominally lower rate of fire (unless you take the second feat to reload as a free action). You also only have to enchant the one sling... Guess you can spend that extra gold enchanting your shield, eh?

Bucklers can't (by RAW, for some reason) be used with a bow (you can wear it, but it'll just net you -1 to hit), though I guess Crossbows could, if you don't mind firing one handed at huge penalties (unless I guess you have a hand crossbow, but why? They are even worse than slings...).

If your GM allows Drop Load, you can take that and the Warslinger trait, and then go to town, full attacking while wearing a heavy shield. If you want to get really silly, take Missile Shield and/or Spell Shield - now you're the ultimate mid-range skirmisher (until you get hit with a will save, but now we are talking magic/martial disparity, which is a whole different can of worms).

Even if you're not a Halfling, if you do spend the two feats, you can wear any shield and full attack with a sling. If you don't want to invest anything, you can still use a light shield or buckler with your sling - not bad for, say, a Paladin, who might already be wearing a light shield. Did you realize Smite Evil doesn't say "melee attacks?" Ouch...

It's niche and works much better if you're a halfling, but it's something.

I assume that, since Geas functions "functions similarly to lesser Geas" and does not provide a new duration, it has the same duration as Geas, which means that if you give them a task that would last forever, it lasts a day per level.

I guess you could order them to like... If you wanted them to never drink orange juice, say (or never "do the thing," whatever that is), you could order them to "Defeat Asmodeous in single combat without consuming any orange juice" (or without doing the thing, whatever thing it is you want them to not do)... But it seems pretty contrived to allow something like "Slay Asmodeous while personally guarding my villa against any intruders around the clock and also being my slave here on the Prime." You have to let them do the thing that is the Geas, otherwise I would say that the spell fails - after all, the spell compels them to do slay Asmodeous (or whatever), making that impossible should violate the terms of use.

Hmm... Maybe I ought to post the spell description...

Stinking cloud creates a bank of fog like that created by fog cloud, except that the vapors are nauseating. Living creatures in the cloud become nauseated. This condition lasts as long as the creature is in the cloud and for 1d4+1 rounds after it leaves. (Roll separately for each nauseated character.) Any creature that succeeds on its save but remains in the cloud must continue to save each round on your turn. This is a poison effect.

Stinking cloud can be made permanent with a permanency spell. A permanent stinking cloud dispersed by wind reforms in 10 minutes.

So, if Ray the Rogue is in stinking cloud on round 1, then he moves out on round 2, he rolls 1d4+1 for how long he will be nauseated. Can Willy the Wizard use Dispel Magic to end Ray's nauseated condition (and, is the cloud is also in the area, I guess he would also end the cloud)?

If Carl the Cleric is using Detect Magic for some reason (It was a Stinking Cloud Trap!), is there a magical aura on Ray while he is nauseated outside the cloud? What if Ray stumbles out of the cloud and into an Antimagic Field? Is he nauseated while within the field?

blackbloodtroll, it says that a strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack, not that the gauntlet is your fist. You can't sunder an unarmed strike (I assume) because it's not an object.

1)Does a Monk's increased unarmed damage, or other abilities, apply to Gauntlet attacks?

2)Can a Monk Flurry with a Gauntlet?

3)Do feats that effect unarmed strikes, such as Weapon Focus, apply to attacks with Gauntlets?

4)Do Gauntlets threaten without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?

5)Would feats and abilities that apply to both Gauntlet attacks, and Unarmed Strikes, such as Weapon Focus, stack?

Why would the answer to any of these questions be different?

Bold mine, for my own convenience.

1) It's treated as an unarmed strike, so yes. It gives redundant abilities (dealing lethal damage) for a monk, though. Can you enchant it as a weapon? I would think so.

2) I assume yes. They work like unarmed strikes.

3) I assume not. Like an unarmed strike.

4) They can't stack, but this is pretty weird. I wonder if you can take weapon focus: gauntlet at all... And I wonder what happens if a Wizard attacks with a gauntlet; do they take a -4 non-proficiency penalty?

5) The answers to these questions aren't different. The answer is always "just like an unarmed strike" (for the first 3 at least. 4 is weird for other reasons). So the answer to 3 is no for a gauntlet because it's no for an unarmed strike. Maybe I missed something?

I haven't read every post in this thread, so sorry if this is partially redundant.

So, stinking cloud continues to affect you for 1d4+1 rounds after you leave the cloud. Is this part of the spells effect?

To ask more simply, can you dispel the aftereffect of being nauseated, or is it a nonmagical, residual effect (you're just puking)?

I could see Wish doing it... Very slowly. Like, you have to do a giant ritual culminating with the wish and hordes of Fiends are spewing out trying to eat your face and you have to hold the point while the acolytes do the ritual, then get over there and cast the Wish. You know, Level 20 stuff; campaign is basically over at that point and you're big damn heroes, so why not? But I think that's beyond the scope of the question... No, not with Mending.

The rules question could be:

"Is it PFS legal to roll this way?"

Well, a Large creature should be bobbing up and down 5' off the ground, and should probably be capable of "crawling" across the ground by pushing similar to a levitated creature in touch with a ceiling (reach and intelligence permitting).

You cannot move the recipient horizontally, but the recipient could clamber along the face of a cliff, for example, or push against a ceiling to move laterally (generally at half its base land speed).

For larger creatures... Well, reach wouldn't be an issue at Gargantuan, you would just be weightless. At Colossal, more of you is in regular gravity than reversed gravity. I might give a balance check against the save DC to avoid moving at half rate - after all, your weight (and thus friction) is much less than usual.

But, at minimum, if they can reach the floor they should be allowed to move like a levitating creature, I would think.

Edit: This is basically a no save disable for pretty much all Oozes (and other mindless stuff), as I doubt that they would think to "crawl" with pseudopods (or whatever they have)... Cool!

Does Magic Circle against (Alignment) give protection from (Alignment)? Because I think yes. So... That might protect against Charm Monster, but it might not, the language is odd. In 3.5, it definitely would work, but in Pathfinder, it might be Alignment dependent.

Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target. This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.

Bold mine, etc.

If you can make an orc kill stuff and till fields for free, then you can make a demon kill stuff and till fields for free, or an angel, or a devil, or any creature who is susceptible to mind-affecting spells, including the tarrasque.

...Immune ability damage, acid, bleed, disease, energy drain, fire, mind-affecting effects, paralysis, permanent wounds, petrification, poison, polymorph...

Emphasis Mine

Just sayin'.

Assuming chaotic evil creatures will keep their word is... well, close to the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Definitely worse than assuming lawful evil creatures won't find a loophole in the language and betray you when it's most opportune. I'm pretty sure backstabbing is every devil's hobby.

Well, nothing in the spell compels them to actually do as they promise... So either Planar Binding a Demon and getting it to serve you by sacrificing virgins or whatever (something very in-genre) is just pointless (and there's lots of suggested gifts for demons to give bonuses on the charisma check) or there's something about Planar Binding and similar magical contracts that means an outsider simply cannot break the contract under normal circumstances.

Edit: Yes, of course a Devil would try to find a way around a badly written contract, if it were to said Devil's advantage. And I imagine that a Demon would try to find a way to anull it (jumping in front of a spell you cast at a foe, so that you technically dealt the Demon damage might just void your contract...). That or the Demon would simply complete the service, then kill you - planar binding does nothing to prevent that.

That's accurate, apart from the whole "special materials" thing. So, trade the ability to do nonleathal damage for the ability to (spend some extra money to) bypass some sort of DR.

On that note, is an adamantine scorpion whip adamantine for the purposes of being sundered, or, since presumably only the blades on the tip are adamantine, can you sunder it as easily as a normal whip? I guess you could ask the same about scorpion whips in general - metal or leather for the purposes of sundering? I think the answer is probably leather, but I'm curious...

Planar Binding is Duration: Instantaneous.

When it agrees to the service, there is no effect in the rules that says what happens if it violates the terms of your deal, or prevents it doing so... Something in the nature of outsiders presumably keeps them from violating the Planar Binding agreement - under normal circumstances.

Now, basically no GM would make every summoned demon just up and turn on you. In fact, it seems highly implied that outsiders have to keep their end of a bargain that they promise to uphold (at least, the letter of the bargain. Also, be sure to get them to promise it aloud or in writing or something. I assume knowing Planar Binding means your character knows how this sort of thing works.). At least, when one party is a mortal. Demons betray each other all the time, I assume.

BUT, a bargain made under the effects of a Charm spell? I would say, it's not enforceable in court; you never had a valid contract. I think most any GM would rule that it goes uncontrolled when Charm ends if you "forced" it to agree to the binding with an opposed Charisma check via Charm.

All that being said, even if it did work, such creatures would certainly seek revenge after completing their service. Technically the spell doesn't say that you can't kill the creature before it's service is up... But I assume that would also violate the terms of the contract.

Basically, assume that magically compelling the outsider to accept the contract voids said contract. Assume, for the sake of argument, that all planar binding bargains and similar magical contracts have this sort of thing "built in."

Not clear enough that nobody argued against it...

It's silly that you can't quick draw these items, but it is right there in the feat. I guess you've got to start carrying around a lot of oils. Also, attach your wands to daggers. tiny daggers if encumbrance is a problem. And your scrolls to tiny shields... Wait, that's really dumb.

I don't know why that's the rule, but you're certainly right that it is explicitly in there, meaning...

-I can quick draw a stein to smash someone's head in, but if it's got a potion in it... I can't, I guess. Also, I can quick draw on oil.

-I can quick draw a nice, heavy book, but not a scroll. A book, some of the pages of which are in fact scrolls? I... I don't know.

-I can quick draw a keg of oil, but not a flask of alchemist's fire. I can quick draw a foot long stick, but not a wand... What?

Are all of these examples correct? On the one hand, I think it's silly if they are, but on the other, one has to know these things...

Edit: I am happy to be able to quick draw a frying pan, though.

Well, the cleric in question is probably going to be terrible at Stealth anyway, and also have an armor check penalty, but I do see your point.

In the material you quoted, I may have misworded something very slightly...

"If you're a human (without something else modifying your movement rate) your "normal" speed 30 feet, right?"

If we're going to talk about what makes sense, you're moving only up to half speed when using Stealth represents having to move carefully and cautiously to avoid hazards that might give away your position, stay out of obvious sight, etc. Well, crawling would help keep you out of obvious sight, as well as make you much quieter (with a little practice).

Even moving through rough terrain makes "sense" as doubling with stealth, depending on the terrain - picture sneaking through a dense forest with plenty of roots; finding a place to put your foot that won't trip you up should use the same units of effort/time weather you care about not tripping up because you don't want to fall on your face or you are actually trying to be stealthy/quiet. There is at least some overlap in both cases. Also, rough terrain generally obscures vision at least partly (as in the forest), so it would make moving about unseen less burdensome (you're *in* the bush - so long as you don't go crashing through it, you're halfway Stealthed already).

Tumbling while using stealth is a bit sillier, I must admit; I basically think it should be impossible, or at least carry heavy penalties, if we are using real world logic. Luckily, it's also incredibly unlikely to come up, as you probably aren't trying to stealth the same round you tumble out of combat... The only situation that would normally be possible in would be one where you dive out of combat and around a corner and then "ninja vanish" like Batman or something. And, to be fair, that sort of thing is kinda in-genre.

Anyway, on to rules...

The Stealth skill description refers to "normal speed," which is an undefined term as far as I know. I assume that normal speed is the speed you are capable of moving, assuming that you aren't slowed down by tumbling, moving through rough terrain, etc (nothing "abnormal" is happening). Whether or not your armored speed is your "normal" speed while you wear the armor is debatable, I suppose. I would assume yes, but I'm not really sure, nor do I really have a problem with it either way, as armor already gives Armor Check penalties.

The movement limitations on Stealth uses very different language from Rogue Crawl and Acrobatics, all of which are from the same book - why is that?

Why not say "Normally, you move at half speed while using Stealth..." since that is more clear ([i]if[/] that is the intent) and is in fact in line with what Acrobatics and similar abilities already say?

(it's six less words, too, and the next sentence in the description of Stealth doesn't have to be changed to describe the repercussions of moving faster)

The relevant part of the Stealth skill description, just for the sake of having it in the thread...

Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

How do you determine the spread from "the initial target" instead of a grid intersection? The rules for spread AoE's are made to be measured from a grid intersection and measured out along lines (rather than squares) to determine what squares are affected, so a 5' radius spread is in game terms may as well be a 10' by 10' "cube." If you allow measuring from a creature, what does a 5' radius spread look like?

All that said, if you (somehow) successfully paralyzed a colossal creature with ghoul touch, one would think that it's whole body would emanate the stench, not just the center of it (in which case other creatures couldn't be in the stench radius without also being in the colossal creature's square(s))... So really, it probably shouldn't be a spread at all but rather affect all creatures "within 10' of the target," which would solve some issues with this spell.

The verdict is still out on weather Dinosaurs were cold blooded, warm blooded, or something else entirely (warm and cold blooded are not exactly the preferred terminology at the moment). Birds (the closest things we have to dinosaurs, evolutionarily speaking) are what one would call warm-blooded in that they can regulate their body temperature much like a mammal can. Of course, if your GM says that dinosaurs are cold-blooded, I guess they are.

I would probably just give a penalty on saves against exposure to cold environments. -4 is quite significant but seems appropriate. It would be an ideal way to model what's happening, really, as taking any nonlethal damage from cold means that you're fatigued (no running/charging, which is pretty much a death sentence in the wild, over time). Maybe also call for a non-penalized cold-weather exposure save at a higher temprature than the normal rules call for (normally, you start making saves at 40 degrees or colder, maybe a crocodile has to start making saves at 55 degrees). All of this, of course, is house rules, but I don't think it's terrible house rules.

For more on environmental hazards (including the cold) try http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/environmental-rules. It's in the core rulebook as well, but then you would have to dig for it.

Edit: Also, ninja'd. It's correct that there aren't any official rules on the subject at the moment, but I think that you both realized that.

Many constructs lack any sort of "free will" as they are mindless, so you don't need them to be "loyal," which is what Leadership does. If you pay to build/buy a construct, it generally obeys you without the need for Leadership. If you encountered a sentient construct NPC (a warforged? I don't know...) and wanted to get it to be your loyal companion and friend, Leadership would be appropriate.

Similarly, if you want to pay for some hirelings/men at arms, that just costs gold, generally - no leadership required. They probably aren't very loyal, though, and an intelligent, well-connected foe could probably buy them out from under you... Which is why constructs are great servants, guards, and men-at-arms if you can afford them and make sure they don't die/break.

Cyrus Lanthier wrote:

Because adding to attack damage is on par with adding to Initiative, AC, actually useful Skills and Reflex Saves?

Also, do you think you should be able to get Strength to hit with ranged weaponry? Let's say, crossbows.

It's easy to get STR to hit with ranged weapons if you are wearing the right belt.

In the second bit there, I was just wondering if that's something That Crazy Alchemist thinks you should just be able to do by default.

That's a pretty great savings! Lots of GMs might argue that most of the cost for Mithral or Adamantine is from the metal itself, but RAW I think you're on to something pretty amazing there.

Someone has to actually invest in the Craft skill, I suppose. That or there has to be some master smith in town who you can work out an arrangement with.

Because adding to attack damage is on par with adding to Initiative, AC, actually useful Skills and Reflex Saves?

Also, do you think you should be able to get Strength to hit with ranged weaponry? Let's say, crossbows.

The problem is that Stealth does not say "your speed is halved and..." or even "you move at half speed" (Acrobatics says "while moving in this way, you move at half speed") but rather refer to moving up to half your "normal" speed, which seems like it ought to be a set value. If you're a human (without something else adding to your movement rate) your "normal" speed 30 feet, right?

The language in the Stealth skill never actually assigns a speed penalty, only an upper limit to how fast you can move and maintain Stealth (without penalties). The language in both Tumble and Rogue Crawl state that you actually move at half speed, which is a speed penalty, of course, so those would stack. Speed penalties stack, but I don't see one in the skill description for Stealth.

X/2 ≤ X/2

Caliban, I feel that maybe the quoted material was misunderstood. I was stating that any "pro" argument about this from the Slashing Grace side of things would be a RAI argument, as in, you're "intended" to be able to use it as a piercing weapon for all purposes apart from actually dealing piercing damage. It's a little strange that you can't simply count it as a piercing weapon, as the fluff for the feat says "You can stab your enemies with your sword or another slashing weapon..." but whatever - I guess that would have been overpowered, somehow.

"Unless they have another way of gaining panache" is a silly way to say "unless they have panache," which is shorter and clearer, but I guess that's a valid interpretation. You're still spending your panache, which is definitely a class feature (or a feat).

I guess you could argue that, even if you could use it with panache, you couldn't with the 1/day use, but "can spend 1 panache point as a swift action to increase her melee reach..." seems at least a bit like a new use for a class feature to me, and it seems I'm not the only one.

The thing that's "new" isn't 1/day items, obviously, but this interaction (or lack thereof). It's never mattered (that I know of) before weather or not some (mostly) class-specefic use of a magical item counts as a class feature.

(In this case it's probably unimportant that there are feats to get Panache, because if it's a "feat feature" then it still would work with Slashing Grace, presumably)

My answer as a GM would be, "It varies", followed by "What are you trying to draw?"

The chair or barstool you are sitting on is already 'drawn'.

The butter knife you palmed and slipped up your sleeve earlier I'd probably let you.

The shovel stuck in your backpack with the end of the handle sticking out (and on your back) probably not.

Well, I don't think you can quick draw a sword that's stowed (mostly) in your backpack, either.

The butter knife scenario seems to imply that your answer is "Improvised Weapons are Weapons." Though drawing a hidden weapon is in fact slower (still a move action with quick draw) I assume that what you mean is that you would draw it as a move as opposed to a standard, meaning that quick draw would be "working."

Well, the "RAI" thing is more about the language in Slashing Grace not doing something that it may have been "intended" to do, I believe, as opposed to the language of the scarf.

RAW wise, the description of the item really leaves a lot to be interpreted about what is going on when you use it...

The sentence "Non-swashbucklers can use the tokens, but unless they have another way of gaining panache, they can use the ability only once per day." Seems to imply that the flairs grant a point of quasi-panache only usable for this one purpose ("unless they have another way of gaining panache...), but that's never outright stated and might just be an odd choice of words.

The second line of the item's description (the first line that isn't pure fluff) says that "...she can spend 1 panache point to gain the use of a specific ability associated with the token." This seems to imply that it's primary function is to grant a new use for panache, which is of course a class feature (or a feat).

Strict RAW... I'm still not sure. I see arguments both ways. :/

Well, can you quick draw a sword that's on the ground? Or, are you implying that you have a chair holster? If it's readily available on your person, doesn't seem any sillier than quick-drawing a maul (okay, it's a little sillier, because it's a chair). As for quick-drawing from the ground, RAW I don't know about it (I don't think it's actually allowed, normally), but with something like a chair (that is, something you could realistically ready without having to stoop down to pick it up), I would probably allow it.

A sledgehammer is almost certainly an improvised maul if used in combat. You could attach it to the same frog/sheathe/holster/whatever. Their gross physical properties are rather similar. You can quick draw one and not the other? Similarly, you can quick draw a weapon meant for a large creature (assuming you can wield it) even though it wasn't made to be used that way (by something your size)...

Yes, RumpinRufus, that's my issue. You're right that it almost certianly is RAI.

Sorry if I wasn't clear at first, Faelyn.

Fealyn, assuming that you understood the problem (my fault if not), is the implication that you can because it's using panache (a class feature), or for some other reason?