Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Goblin

DarkKnight27's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 156 posts (157 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thanks all I appreciate the links!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am almost positive this has been asked and answered (by Devs?) before but I can't seem to find the thread.

If a druid or ranger increases the INT of their animal companion to 3 or more (either through stat bumps or magic like Anthropomorphic Animal that's made permanent) does the druid or ranger still need to make Handle Animal checks to command or push his animal companion and can the companion still be considered an animal companion?

If you could post links to previous thread that would be great!

Thanks!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ok, so then summoned animals are more useful, in this regards, than Animal Companions? Because with an Animal Companion you would need to "Push" the animal to attack an "unnatural" creature unless it had the "Attack Any Target" trick.

That doesn't seem right to me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have a question on summoned animals and how they interact with "unnatural" creatures.

Summon Nature's Ally:
This spell summons to your side a natural creature (typically an animal, fey, magical beast, outsider with the elemental subtype, or a giant). The summoned ally appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions as you command.

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them. Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells that have expensive material components (such as wish).

The spell conjures one of the creatures from the 1st Level list on Table: Nature's Ally. You choose which kind of creature to summon, and you can change that choice each time you cast the spell. All the creatures on the table are neutral unless otherwise noted.

When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type. All creatures summoned with this spell without alignment subtypes have an alignment that matches yours, regardless of their usual alignment. Summoning these creatures makes the summoning spell's type match your alignment.

Handle Animal: Attack Trick:
Attack The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks.

So if a druid cast's Summon Nature's Ally V and summons an Dire Lion, in my mind there's no question that this animal would attack any humanoid, monstrous humanoid, or animal (such as a Fire Giant, Human, Goblin, or even a Medusa) because the Handle Animal skill says it will but here's where my question comes into play.

What if the druid want's the Dire Lion to attack a Demon, Ooze, Dragon or Zombie? Would the druid have to "push" the animal using the Handle Animal skill's rules (a DC 25 check)? Or would the spell "just work" and override the fact that an animal won't normally attack an unnatural creature?

Again, I don't see this as a problem if the the druid summons an Elemental, Magical Beast or Fey with the Summon Nature's Ally spell but I'm asking specifically in regards to the normal animals that can can be summoned with this spell.

If this has already been covered somewhere please post a link.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

ZOMG GUYS, I JUST DISCOVERED SOMETHING!!!

Judgment wrote:
Justice: This judgment spurs the inquisitor to seek justice, granting a +1 sacred bonus on all attack rolls. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, this bonus is doubled on all attack rolls made to confirm critical hits.

The inquisitor's judgment grants a +1 sacred bonus on ALL attack rolls. There is no specified target and no range, which means that all attack rolls in the world receive this bonus for as long as the inquisitor is in combat. Isn't that amazing!?

</sarcasm>

lol, yeah that's about the sum of it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
yumad wrote:

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess."

Now I am aware that the intent of smite evil was likely only to apply to the paladin, but with the wording the way it is the RAW interpretation is that any damage roll against a smote target gets the paladin's level in damage and bypasses DR. This is outrageously strong and how we have been using it in my campaign (I am the paladin). Looking over the aura of justice class feature and also the oath of vengeance archetype feature powerful justice it is very clear the intent of smite evil isn't to give the bolded benefits to the party out of the box but require the use of the two mentioned class features to do so.

Has there been any official developer response to this silly wording

So I've emphasized the first sentence;

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

This ENTIRE sentence refers to the the Paladin (only) who has smote an evil creature. There's no wiggle room here and no need for anyone to FAQ it. It refers to "her" (a.k.a. The Paladin) four separate times in the above sentence and can only be misconstrued if you try to misrepresent what it says by separating out a single sentence into different sentences that don't exist.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Doesn't the Thassalonian school specialization stuff have opposed schools? Or are they just truly banned schools?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sure, Improved Familiar reads:

"Improved Familiar wrote:

This feat allows you to acquire a powerful familiar, but only when you could normally acquire a new familiar.

Prerequisites: Ability to acquire a new familiar, compatible alignment, sufficiently high level (see below).

Benefit: When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed here are also available to you. You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).

Improved familiars otherwise use the rules for regular familiars, with two exceptions: if the creature's type is something other than animal, its type does not change; and improved familiars do not gain the ability to speak with other creatures of their kind (although many of them already have the ability to communicate).

There's nothing that calls out what type of caster you need to be other than you need to be an arcane caster of at least "x" level to get "x" familiar. If your alternate class feature says you are treated as a wizard (or whatever arcane caster) of "x" level then you're good to go.

You just may not be able to pick a familiar off the list that Improved Familiar has until you're 9th level or higher because of the "-x" clause.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Not all feats are necessarily meant for PC's. This feat jumped out at me as a great way to add extra damage to a sniping assassin (prestige class assassin).

Is it the be all, end all of archery feats, nope, but it's nice for flavor.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Changing Man wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:
Can you provide more info, such as the feat/ability text or at least what book it's out of.

That's referring to the Tattooed Sorcerer from Inner Sea Magic.

I'm quite glad for the clarification on this as well. On a related note, could a Tattooed Sorcerer 'call' his/her dead familiar back to tattoo form, to try and raise later (like if it was killed in the middle of a dungeon, and they needed to get someplace safe, for example)? Would being in tatt form for X amount of time count as 'time dead' for raising purposes, or would it be 'in stasis' until then?

I don't think that the caster can "call" her familiar back into tattoo form. The ability says that it's a move action on the familiars part to turn into a tattoo and back again. So if the tattoo is dead it can't take the required move action to turn into a tattoo.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Alright, so it looks like if it's in tattoo form, other than granting the caster the familiar bonuses, it's just a tattoo. It can't be targeted or take any action other than to transform itself back into an actual creature.

So I'd say that if the caster is killed while the familiar is a tattoo it doesn't matter for the familiar, it's the caster who's dead. If the familiar dies while it's in it's familiar form, then it's dead because at the time it was a creature that could be targeted and take actions so it's just like any other familiar that can die.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Can you provide more info, such as the feat/ability text or at least what book it's out of.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There's a feat from Ultimate Combat called Cleaving Finish that you would want.

It's basically the old version (D&D 3.5) of Cleave, here's the text;

Cleaving Finish:
When you strike down an opponent, you can continue your swing into another target.

Prerequisites: Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack.

Benefit: If you make a melee attack, and your target drops to 0 or fewer hit points as a result of your attack, you can make another melee attack using your highest base attack bonus against another opponent within reach. You can make only one extra attack per round with this feat.

This would allow you to use TWF on a full-round attack and still cleave if you drop the opponent to zero or less.

I think there may be a "Greater" or "Improved" version of Cleaving Finish, but I'm not 100% sure.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What about circumstance bonuses (penalties)? They stack with each other unless they come from "essentially the same source". Also, Dodge bonuses stack with each other as well.

These are two examples of the same "type" of bonus stacking with itself.

When it comes to the miss chance from Displacement and Blur stacking I would say that they stack because they come from different sources (one from not being where you seem to be and the other from concealment).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
jlighter wrote:
The thing is, the Displacement spell specifically calls out that it's functioning as Total Concealment, with only the listed exception to that condition. Entropic Shield has similar, although slightly different wording: "20 % miss chance (similar to the effects of concealment)."

I disagree. If Displacement said that if functions "as Total Concealment" there wouldn't be any disagreement about the spell. But it doesn't, it says that if provides a miss chance and unlike actual total concealment you can still target the subject of the spell. Hence it does not provide total concealment.

Anyway, I think we've driven this discussion not just into the ground but right through it and out the other side.

I do get your point on stacking miss chances, I'm not sure if I completely agree with it in the case of Displacement/Blur but I can at least understand it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

What I said was Total Concealment applies when you have line of effect, but not line of sight. In this case, Magic Missile has clear line of effect, but when you have no line of sight, Total Concealment applies, and Magic Missile states it always hits, except in cases of Total Concealment or Total Cover. Ergo, you would technically still fire the spell, but it would not hit. There's a joke in here somewhere...

The thing is, when said Wizard is Blind, the Wizard treats all other creatures as if they had Total Concealment from the Wizard, and unless the Wizard has Blindsense, he cannot target creatures with Magic Missile. I'm not sure how that's tripping you up.

Also remember that, as you gladly pointed out, Displacement treats the target as if they had Total Concealment, with the granted exception of being able to be targeted. Problem is, being able to target them doesn't mean you are able to see them, which means we're running right back into square 1 again of Blur's effects being superseded.

Of course, that's just following the RAW interpretation of the matter, in which is about as coherent as trying to understand what this clown is trying to say or do.

@ Cevah: While Blur, as you kindly pointed out in JJ's 2nd, negates Sneak Attack and Displacement does not, Blur still gives a miss chance via Concealment, and Displacement gives its own miss chance. JJ's 1st, which mentions 3 separate types of miss chances (Entropic Shield, Displacement, Blink), all only amount to the highest amount (50%), meaning that while Blur still grants Concealment miss chance of 20%, it won't increase above the 50% mark set by Displacement. I could also then throw in there that since Blur's Concealment miss chance being amplified by Displacement equates to the character receiving the Total Concealment condition, Blur's effects would cease to function. But at this point it doesn't really matter.

If a wizard or any other caster or character that is blind is trying to cast a spell, use an ability, or whatever that has to be targeted (such as; Target: One or more creatures) they can't use that spell, power or ability at all because all targets have total concealment and cannot be targeted (without the help of some other type of magic or extraordinary senses).

You claim that targeting a creature doesn't require sight but then I'm going to need you to walk me through how you are targeting anything if you can't see it. The rules provide targeting a square that you suspect a creature is in, but that is NOT the same as targeting a creature. So please explain this to me, is your sense of smell enough to target a creature you can't see? Your sense of hearing? Your sense of taste? Please, explain this to me.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth to try and twist this into something it's not. I NEVER said that Displacement provides total concealment. Quite the opposite I've said repeatedly that it provides a miss chance but it is NOT the same as total concealment.

So, again, unless you have something new to add (that doesn't involve misrepresenting what I've previously stated) I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mojorat wrote:
You and the images are not seperate they can't be targeted seperately. If concealmdnt works there are no benefits to the hit.

Except the book calls them out as entities different from the caster, ergo they are separate from the caster himself. They have their own rules, such as they stick in your square, mimick (but not replicate) your actions, movements, etc., and calling them out as "not separate," even though yes, they occupy the same square as the caster, is horsepuckey. (Even now, we're referring to the images and the caster as two separate subjects, which is more than enough proof that they aren't one and the same.)

That bolded part is a lie also. If I miss via Concealment, effects such as Snake Style (or whatever it is Monks use these...

Mirror Image says that it creates illusory doubles that inhabit your square. These doubles are supposed to be just that, doubles. That means that if you are effected by a Blur spell of Fire Shield spell your illusory doubles look like they are as well. Otherwise you just target the one that looks different and ignore the rest because they're obviously not the right one to attack.

That being said I still say it goes in this order:
1)Roll to attack
2)Roll Miss Chance (if successful go to step 3)
3)Determine if the attack is a hit, near miss, or miss
4a)If it's a hit, roll for images and resolve normally
4b)If it's a near miss (a.k.a. by 5 or less) destroy an image
4c)If it's a miss resolve normaly

Because the images are doubles of you and look like they're under the same effects as you then if you have the benefits of concealment so do the images. Simple as that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

How about you change the spell, which Magic Missile would specifically call out in this instance as being unable to target:

Magic Missile wrote:
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment.

Since the Wizard is Blind, all enemies are treated as having Total Concealment, ergo he cannot cast Magic Missile unless he possesses Blindsense to the respective range, and even then, by RAW, Displacement would cover this base too, unless he dispels it. To be honest, this would be another great topic for discussion. Perhaps you should make a thread for it?

How about you change it to a more fitting spell, such as Scorching Ray or Acid Arrow: Even Blind Wizards can still cast these spells at enemies, targeting the squares he thinks they're in, and this enemy has Displacement cast on him. Since he gets the Total Concealment condition (regardless of how altered) from both the Wizard's Blindness, as well as Displacement, only one miss chance is rolled, because these two separate, yet equal levels of Concealment, don't stack to a 75% (or 100%) miss chance.

You'd be correct, if Displacement was not supposed to function as a(n) (slightly) altered Total Concealment. It's also important to point out that being targeted normally isn't really clearly defined, nor does it solve all of the qualms you say it does

Magic Missile is an appropriate spell for the example I'm using. You are saying that you don't need to see the creature that you're targeting. Scorching Ray and Acid Arrow are not targeted spells like Magic Missile is.

By your interpretation of the rules attacking a creature that is under the effects of a Displacement spell is the same as attacking while blinded because it provides total concealment. So that would mean any targeted spell would not work against that creature such as Magic Missile, Charm Person, Charm Monster, Dominate Person, Hold Person, Feather Fall, etc. because the subject of the Displacement spell has Total Concealment. This is not how it's supposed to work because you are specifically allowed to target the subject of Displacement normally. You can run it however you want in you're own home game but no matter what you say the Displacement spell specifically says it's not actually total concealment that you are granted.

I understand how you're interpreting the spells but I don't think you're interpreting them correctly. So unless you have a new point that you haven't brought up yet I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

How is being targeted normally equating to being seen? You can have line of effect, but not line of sight. That is the definition of having Total Concealment, and in that respect, RAW, Displacement does not change it.

That exception only allows enemies to target the character specifically, and not have to target the square in which he may or may not reside. He otherwise still isn't visible to the enemies, ergo Blur wouldn't function.

What? Wait, so according to you, you don't need to see something to target it? That's ridiculous.

Please explain to me how a blind human wizard with no other magical aid can target a creature with Magic Missile without seeing it?

If this is how you run the game and your players are OK with it, that's fine, this game is meant to be adjusted to the play style of those who play it (with the exception of PFS which tries to bring everything under one big umbrella) but that's not what the rules say.

Displacement Does not block line of sight or line of effect to the subject of the spell. It's not actually total concealment. You can clearly see the target of Displacement it's just about 2 feet away from where you think it is, hence the miss chance, but if you cast a Magic Missile at it you would hit it fine because you have both line of sight and line of effect to the target.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ DarkKnight27: I already linked both of the spell descriptions. Displacement says "as if the target had Total Concealment," and then says "Unlike Total Concealment, blah blah blah."

Except for the "Unlike Total Concealment" clause, the creature is, for all intents and purposes, treated to have Total Concealment, including being affected by the condition itself, as well as not able to be seen, except for creatures affected by True Seeing.

Blur says if you aren't seen by the target, its concealment doesn't apply. Since Total Concealment says you have line of effect, but not line of sight, you aren't seen, and when you aren't seen, Blur doesn't work.

In addition, other than the listed "can be targeted normally" clause, both effects grant a Concealment effect (Blur grants Concealment, Displacement affects creature as if it had Total Concealment, etc.), and Concealment effects don't stack.

@ Mojorat: Ignoring the whole "Miss by -X" argument, it doesn't change the factor that the miss chance only affects me, myself, and I. The images don't get that benefit, ergo they are still affected by the hit. My point still stands, whether I extrapolate it one way or the other.

So in order to make your side of this discussion work we have to ignore part of the description of the spell? That doesn't sound right to me.

You have to take the whole description of the spell, power, ability, ect, into account for determining how the thing works. There are plenty of powers and spell out there that if you ignore part of the description or drop off the last sentence or two work entirely differently than RAW.

So lets look at this again using your above argument; The subject of a Displacement spell cannot be affected by a Blur spell because the subject already has Total Concealment and cannot be seen. Well then how is the subject of Displacement able to be targeted normally? It's because Unlike ACTUAL total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. This is the full quote from the spell which to me implies that the subject of Displacement doesn't actually have Total Concealment because if they did then they could NOT be targeted.

The spell Indivisibly provides Total Concealment. So if you had Invisibility and Blur cast at the same time you would NOT get the benefit of both. You would get which ever was more beneficial to you (or neither if the thing attacking you had True Seeing or some other way to ignore the miss chance).

Also, what if a caster had both Entropic Shield and Blur cast on them and an archer with Tree Seeing shot at the caster? Would that archer have a 20% miss chance?

Yes, because like I said, while all concealment provides a miss chance, not all miss chances are from concealment. That's the case with Displacement, it provides a miss chance but not from concealment.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mydrrin wrote:

@DarkKnight27

I would rule no you can't get them to stack. RAW obviously points this being the case.

Please explain because I don't see it that way and the way I'm reading it would imply that the RAW obviously point toward it being allowed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
jlighter wrote:
I believe his argument is that Blur and Displacement would stack, since Displacement gives a 50% miss chance that is functionally total concealment except that the creature can be targeted normally, thus negating that clause.

I could then argue that even if you can attack him normally, you still technically do not have line of sight to him, the parameters for which the Blur clause specifies, and since that aspect of Total Concealment has not changed via its description, the clause of Blur would still take effect, i.e. it would cease to function. But I know better than to go into his silly semantics.

Here's what Displacement says:

Displacement wrote:
The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.

Here's what Blur says:

Blur wrote:
The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).

Notice the bolded parts single out the relevant information we need to intake in terms of effects regarding Concealment.

In both cases, the creature is treated to have (total) concealment. Although Displacement has the "can be targeted normally" clause, nothing else about what it grants changes. Concealment is still Concealment. And Concealment does not stack. It even says so right here:

Concealment Miss Chance wrote:
Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.
Both effects grant the target a separate type of Concealment condition, meaning only the highest applies at a given time.

There is a subtle difference though that I pointed out in one of my earlier post though;

Blur specifically calls out that it provides concealment (as the condition), But read the description of Displacement again, it says that that it provides a 50% miss chance but it's not actually Total Concealment (a.k.a. it does not grant the total concealment condition).

Also, from what you're arguing it would sound like ALL miss chances are concealment but what about Entropic Shield? The description says;

Quote:
A magical field appears around you, glowing with a chaotic blast of multicolored hues. This field deflects incoming arrows, rays, and other ranged attacks. Each ranged attack directed at you for which the attacker must make an attack roll has a 20% miss chance (similar to the effects of concealment). Other attacks that simply work at a distance are not affected.

To me this would mean that while all concealment provides a miss chance not all miss chances are from concealment.

So back to my original point Displacement provides a miss chance but not concealment so it stacks with Blur that provides a miss chance because of concealment.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
jlighter wrote:
Except based on precedent within the book, anytime it says "A functions as if B," it means treat A as if it were B with only the exception that follows listed differently. In this case, the exception is that the creature can still be targeted normally. That's the only difference from normal Total Concealment. Blur wouldn't stack because Blur offers a lesser miss chance.

Can you please list these "precedents" that you're referring to so we can make sure we're not comparing apples to oranges.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Paulicus wrote:
I usually roll miss chances before AC for simplicity. It also saves time at the table, as if I fail I don't have to bother adding up my attack roll and asking the GM if it hits.

Depending on the situation I will ask a player to roll the attack before the miss chance, it doesn't usually matter but it does one in a while.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Cool, that's how I thought it should work but I wanted to make sure I wasn't completely out in left field.

Thanks!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
jlighter wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:
Quote:
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.
You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target...
Incorrect. It says you get a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Meaning it functions as total concealment with the exception that it does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. If actual total concealment were in effect as well, that would override the displacement effect because it's the more advantageous effect.

That's right, it's not actually Total Concealment because you can still target subject of Displacement. Total Concealment is a specific condition, Displacement is similar but different so it stacks with Blur which actually provides Concealment.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ok, so say that I have a Ranger who comes across a Staff of Healing. The Staff has the spells Cure Serious Wounds, Lesser Restoration, Remove Blindness/Deafness, and Remove Disease.

Staves are Spell Trigger items so you need the spell on your spell list to use the item so does that mean that a Range can ONLY use Cure Serious Wounds and Remove Disease or can he use ALL of the spells on this staff (even the ones NOT on his list) because the staff contains a few spells that are on his list?

Thanks for the insight!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:

This is the order I would use to resolve the attack after the attack roll is made and there's a chance of a hit being made against you;

1)Attacker rolls against Displacement (you may not be where he thinks you are)

2)Attacker rolls against Blur (both you and your images are all blurry and hard to make out the edges of your person)

3)Attacker rolls against Mirror Image (even after bypassing 1 and 2 there's still a chance the attacker hits an image instead of you).

Of course that being said, if I were the GM I'd probably just have the attacker close it's eyes while it swings on you so it only has to make one miss roll of 50/50.

Concealment doesn't stack; only the highest amount applies.

The description of Total Concealment is this:

Quote:

If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

Displacement is not concealment. The spell reads:

Quote:
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.

You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target concealment. So as far as I can see Displacement, Blur and Mirror Image all stack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is the order I would use to resolve the attack after the attack roll is made and there's a chance of a hit being made against you;

1)Attacker rolls against Displacement (you may not be where he thinks you are)

2)Attacker rolls against Blur (both you and your images are all blurry and hard to make out the edges of your person)

3)Attacker rolls against Mirror Image (even after bypassing 1 and 2 there's still a chance the attacker hits an image instead of you).

Of course that being said, if I were the GM I'd probably just have the attacker close it's eyes while it swings on you so it only has to make one miss roll of 50/50.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Alright, so accepting the fact that certain creatures (like Dragons or a Nalfeshnee) must have a little bit of something assisting their flight a good rule of thumb would be if the creature can fly in an area of Anti-magic/Dead Magic and it has wings then it's using "natural" flight so if it get's held or paralyzed in some way (assuming it can be held or paralyzed) it would drop like a stone to the ground.

This makes sense to me.

Thanks!

Grand Lodge *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shådid Evånjölyn wrote:

I've posted this question before without getting an answer. So I'll repost/rephrase it here:

Now that Animal Archives lists a bunch of possible equipment slots for companions, I'm curious as to what my companion can wear. What body types and which slots exist for the four companions (three plants and a fungus) that the Treesinger (Druid) can take:

(1) Carnivorous Flower
(2) Creeping Vine
(3) Puffball
(4) Sapling Treant

I would guess the creeping vine is treated like a snake, but what body type is a fungus? (I have trouble seeing a Puffball wearing a neck-slotted item.) I think I read somewhere too that a treant never wears armor.

An answer from someone with PFS clout would be greatly appreciated.

Or maybe I'm going about his all wrong and I should just by my treant a cloak, some bracers and a couple of rings and refer to the animal archive as not showing that I can't do this.

I would think that #1-3 don't have any item slots. The Treant is a little trickier. It's more or less a tree with arms. I unless there's a "Plant Archive" put out at some point I'd say that it's a GM call that will vary from table to table.

Grand Lodge *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
It's a pretty pickle, but it's not fair to the players who own the AA and can't put barding on certain animal companion types. I really wish that PFS hadn't done this with animal companions and just made it uniform.

They did make it uniform.

It works the way it works. But just like every other option in the game, if you own a splat book, you get a more refined set of options.

The Pathfinder Society FAQ link that DesolateHarmony posted in the first response covered this. It says that some animal companions can't wear armor because of their body and leaves it up to the GM at the table to determine which animals can and can't wear armor (barding) or neck slot items. It specifically calls out a snake but if the GM at the table has the AA and says, "no your (insert creature) can't wear that item because it doesn't have the anatomy for it" and then falls back to his copy of the AA as proof or even just looks up the Pathfinder Society FAQ the player is kind of stuck since it's a GM call.

Personally I think that the AA should be made a core assumption if you're playing any class that has an Animal Companion or Familiar as a class feature since it clears up a lot of problems with those particular class features and have the list in the front cover should be made core for PFS, maybe even have that chart reprinted in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Bump.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

...if a creature that has flight is using magical/supernatural flight or has natural flight?

Both an eagle and a dragon (and many other creatures) have wings and can fly but I've heard it argued that a dragon's flight (for instance) is supernatural not natural.

Is there an entry somewhere that says what creatures have supernatural flight and which don't? Does "supernatural" flight only refer to flight caused directly by magic such as the Fly spell?

I ask because I was reading up on spells like Hold Person and Hold Monster and there's a reference that if a creature doesn't have "supernatural" flight and is held it will fall.

Thanks for the help!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In the case of applying a template, if the template increases the HD of the creature then any Spell-Like Abilities that either don't list a caster level of say that the caster level is equal to HD would increase but the specifically stated caster level (in this case 'Commune') would stay at CL12.

If the creature became a familiar it's actual HD don't really increase. It's considered to either have it's normal HD or HD = to it's master, whichever is higher, but it's actual real HD never increase so none of it's Spell-Like Abilities would increase in CL.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Does this mean that a giant octopus (or a more intelligent creature polymorphed into a giant octopus), could attack, grab, and constrict a victim as many as eight times in a single round???

I would say "yes" but I think that the octopus would take a -20 penalty to it's CMB so that it can make all of it's attacks.

Grand Lodge *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shifty wrote:
Which is why they need to open out the content from the AA and add it elsewhere so its a core rule - otherwise "If you do not own a copy of the Animal Archive, your animal companion may only use barding and neck-slot items" is the relevant RAW, which is odd.

Could you please list a source to where that rule is written? As far as I know that's only a "suggestion" from somewhere in these message boards which is about as useful as it being written on these same message boards that I don't have to role dice for anything I can just pick the number I rolled.

Grand Lodge *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Cool, thanks DesolateHarmony!

Grand Lodge *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So I was reading through the Additional Resources and I noticed this:

Quote:
Equipment: all equipment on pages 12-13 are legal except barding stitches, fury drops, and poison caps

Does that mean that since Barding Stitches are not allowed that animals companions like snakes, spiders, sharks, etc cannot wear barding at all?

Also, does this rule...

Quote:
The Animal Magic Item Slots table found on the inside front cover of the book is not legal except under the following conditions. First, an animal companion, familiar, or bonded mount, may choose one slot listed under its body type when taking the Extra Item Slot feat (this feat may be taken multiple times, each time selecting a different available magic item slot based on the creature's anatomy). Second, access to specific magic item slots may be granted at a later date by another legal source.

...replace any previous "suggestions" made on the message boards about what item slots are available to animal companions and familiars? Would that mean that the animal has to have the armor slot listed on the table and then take the feat Extra Slot in order to activate that slot and be able to where barding?

Thanks for helping clear this up for me!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just to play devil's advocate:

I would agree if the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus was a (SU) or (SP) ability, but it's not, it's (EX). What if we throw the ranger's ability Quarry (EX) into the mix, it says:

"A ranger can have no more than one quarry at a time and the creature’s type must correspond to one of his favored enemy types."

So, does that mean that a ranger (without making a check) automatically knows what type of creature he's fighting? No other character can do that. Now some creatures are easy (Oh look, it's Zombie Bob again) but if it's a unique or even a rare creature, how does the ranger know? Does he just try it and hope for the best?

If a ranger has Favored Enemy Outsider (Eeevil) but he can't identify and evil outsider to save his life, why would he know to shoot or stab slightly to the left to maximize his damage potential?

Again, just curious.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I just noticed this today and I'm curious;

Under the ranger's Favored Enemy ability it says:

"A ranger may make Knowledge skill checks untrained when attempting to identify these creatures."

Does this mean that a ranger "should" be making knowledge checks against creatures in order to get his favored enemy bonus against them?

I've never run it that way or even had it run that way for me but like I said I'm curious.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Here are my thoughts on the Slayer after playing one at 7th and 15th;

While this class seems pretty good there are some tweaks that would make it as good as a base class;
1) The skill points should be increased to 6/level.
2) There should be more talents to help melee versions of this class so that it's not so ranged/archery focused.
3) While there are talents to pick up more feats there should be bonus feats at at least level 5, 10, and 15 to help round out the class, maybe even limit them to combat feats or something similar to the Ranger's Fighting Style ability.
4) A Slayer should be able to designate all of it's Favorite Target's all at once, instead of the one target per move or swift action that it currently is.
5) Slayer's should get the ability of Slayer's Advance sooner and more often than it currently does. Maybe put off the ability to use Stealth as part of that until later but this should be available sooner and more often I think.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Playtest Part2: Tomb of the Iron Medusa

So for this part we were level 15 and playing though this event.

I was still trying to keep the character more or less balanced between melee and ranged attacks so that he could cover most situations that came up and I am really happy that I had a ranged weapon for this module (but I'll get to that latter).

One of the first major fights in this module was against 3 huge Fire Elementals and an Effreet. The fire elements were tough because they were immune to ctits, sneak attacks, and other precision based damage and have DR so my Slayer was denied 5d6 points of damage per swing. Thankfully I still had Power Attack to fall back on and I had picked up a few of the Vital Strike Feats so that I could bypass the DR and still do damage.

Later in the dungeon we encountered creatures that blinded 3 of the 5 of our party. My Slayer wasn't blinded and used a Ring of Invisibility to start targeting the creatures with Favored Target and one with a Quarry while putting the sword away and pulling out a bow (these things were flying and out of everyone's melee reach). While I didn't have all the archery feats I did have Deadly Aim and was able to put it to good use in this fight and being able to get even the first shot off with Sneak Attack helped a lot. Compared to the elemental fight it felt like I was doing more damage with a bow even though I was slightly better with a sword.

Finally, one of the last fights we played through was a fight with flying/invisible creatures that stayed out of melee reach. It this fight, it took me 3 or 4 rounds to not only recover from the initial attack and get out of the way of some big ally spells but also to set up the Favored Targets and Quarry before running back in (though a Blade Barrier) and getting a lucky crit at just the right time (with a bow) to drop the BBEG.

Final thoughts on the Slayer class:
While this class seems pretty good there are some tweaks that would make it as good as a base class;
1) The skill points should be increased to 6/level.
2) There should be more talents to help melee versions of this class so that it's not so ranged/archery focused.
3) While there are talents to pick up more feats there should be bonus feats at at least level 5, 10, and 15 to help round out the class, maybe even limit them to combat feats or something similar to the Ranger's Fighting Style ability.
4) A Slayer should be able to designate all of it's Favorite Target's all at once, instead of the one target per move or swift action that it currently is.
5) Slayer's should get the ability of Slayer's Advance sooner and more often than it currently does. Maybe put off the ability to use Stealth as part of that until later but this should be available sooner and more often I think.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Playtest Part 1: Sanctum of a Lost Age

This was a fun dungeon crawl and played the Slayer for this playtest.

Golo, did a good job of explaining the classes in general so I'm going to focus more on the Slayer and how he compared to the others (specifically the Swashbuckler).

First, while the list of skills is actually pretty well rounded the lack of skill points makes it hard to do too much with them. At 7th level I only had a three skills maxed out and that's with a 12 Int (which took ability points away from other things). If the skill points/level were 6/level instead of 4/level that would have helped other things.

I also noticed that this class seems to lend itself heavily toward ranged combat (especially looking at the talents that can be chosen). I had made the character with a 16 STR and 15 DEX though to try out the melee side of things, but to also be able to pull out a bow and be effective with that as well. When I was able to get in sneak attacks I was easily on par with the Swashbuckler for damage. But it should be noted that even at this level the Swashbuckler had 2 or 3 points more AC than I did and an attack bonus that was 3 or 4 points higher because he could focus all of his abilities points on a single ability while mine were spread out a little.

But even so, the Slayer managed to hold it's own. Being able to designate a "Favored Target" as a move action helped keep the damage up, but I think there should be a way (through talents maybe) of increasing the bonus that "Favorite Target" grants.

Overall, compared to the two Shamans, and Investigator and even the Swashbuckler, at this level the Slayer can really hold it's own and be an effective member of a party.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

DarkKnight27, it was a question where enough people asked, the Devs answered with the answer being that for the purposes of certain Combat Maneuvers it does, indeed, apply. So, it must not be all that cut and dry.

- Gauss

Exactly, enough people badgered the developers about this that the developers folded and made something up that goes against the RAW just so they wouldn't be bothered any more. It's not that it's unclear, it's that these people didn't like having to take two feats to do what they wanted to do. So badger badger badger, ask the question this way and that way, twist the logic, use fallacious arguments and catch a developer who's not looking close enough and you get any rule you want turned into an FAQ.

I saw it happen with 3.0, I saw it happen with 3.5 and I'm seeing it happen with Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

DakrKnight27, you see that Weapon Finesse does not apply based on what you quoted. However, others see that it does apply since it calls out that if your weapon applies to the Combat Maneuver any modifiers which apply to your weapon applies.

Thus, it is perfect for a FAQ. Yes, they intended Weapon Finesse to apply. It changes the modifier you are using for the weapon and thus a weapon-related Combat Maneuver. So, by the rules you quoted, it applies.

- Gauss

So then Weapon Finesse is a bonus to your attack roll like Weapon Focus and Bless and Haste are bonuses to your attack roll and your CMB should be calculated as BAB + STR + DEX + Size Modifier? The RAW say that your CMB is = to BAB + STR + Size Modifier. It doesn't make any mention of letting your DEX be used in place of your STR for any reason. Weapon Finesse doesn't say that you can use your DEX in place of STR for your CMB. The ONLY feat/rule in the game that says you CAN substitute your DEX for your STR when calculating your CMB is Agile Maneuvers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thank you Captain Yesterday and Inkwell.

I appreciate the answers and link.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

DarkKnight27, have you read the FAQ I posted in this thread? You can clearly use Weapon Finesse for *some* combat Maneuvers. Namely: Disarm, Trip, and Sunder.

- Gauss

No, I didn't. This is one of the reason's why I dislike FAQ's. If people badger the right people enough or ask their question in just the right way to the right person they can have the rules bent anyway they want. As quoted above the entry for CMB, it clearly says that:

"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

So you roll your CMB in place of your normal attack role when performing a combat maneuver. Your CMB is = to your BAB + STR + Size Modifier. You then add any BONUSES you are getting on attack rolls from spells, feats, etc. I don't believe that Weapon Finesse is a BONUS to your attack roll. If it is then you should be adding your BAB + STR + DEX to get your CMB when using Weapon Finesse, which is obviously NOT the intent.

Now if the intent was that Weapon Finesse not only allows you to use your DEX in place of your STR for normal attack rolls but also allows it on CMB rolls then it should have said that and then there would be no need for the Agile Maneuver feat.

But Weapon Finesse doesn't say that and there is a feat called Agile Maneuvers that specifically says you add your DEX to CMB in place of your STR.

The rules are clear enough as written and if they wanted to remove Agile Maneuvers from the Core Book and combine it with Weapon Finesse then they should have done that instead of trying to make Agile Maneuvers useless because of a poor FAQ ruling.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So does anyone want to actually answer the question?

If you don't know, like Morgan and jahvul, then please don't answer.

For instance I know from running one of the other adventure paths that there are at least two books in that series that don't allow for any time to do item creation.

So let's try this again. If there is someone out there who's actually RUN Carrion Crown. Is there time built into the adventure path that allows for things like item creation?

Again, if you haven't run Carrion Crown, don't know of don't remember then don't answer.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You cannot use Weapon Finesse for Combat Maneuvers. There is a Feat in the Core Book called Agile Maneuvers that allows you to use your DEX in place of your STR when rolling to preform Combat Maneuvers.

Weapon Finesse only allows you to use your DEX in place of your STR when making Weapon Attack rolls.

1 to 50 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.