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

Darksol the Painbringer's page

2,743 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,743 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If a feat or special ability or any other combat rule says that it's a free action to use it, but you may only take that free action before or after another action (but not during), then this is not trumped by the general rule that lets you use it during another action. Such a priority order is not sane, as it renders the specific limitation inoperable.

The only possible, logical interpretation of this is 'specific beats general'. You might have heard this phrase before.

In context, the general rule (that you may take free action during other actions) is trumped by the specific rule (you may only deliver the touch attack in the three ways described).

As for PF adding the free action phrase meaning that PF deliberately changed how it works, the if they deliberately wanted to allow touch attacks to be delivered during other actions, then they would have taken out the sentence which meant that you could not do that.

"Only"

Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target.

Show me where in that paragraph the word "only" is. And I'll give you the answer: You can't. Because it's not there.

If you're going to say that there are limiting factors, show language that implies such. You have no case otherwise.


Quote:
However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

So this line would actually support the RAI of Spring Attack setting the precedent of being unable to deliver touch spells to allies as a free action while moving, as it is a reasonable limit on that Free Action.

Although the ultimate choice is GM FIAT, I'm certain that in PFS gameplay, you aren't getting away with those shenanigans.


LazarX wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
So, basically, if a player spends several feats to make a stat less important, its not okay because that stat should be important? That's an interesting line of reasoning.
2 feats is not exactly several, especially given that the first feat would be one a dex fighter would take anyway.

If you're going to play Finesse + Grace shenanigans, then I'll point out that it's a class issue, not a Dexterity build issue.

1st level Swashbuckler only needs 2 feats, Weapon Focus and Slashing Grace, and he's ready to go. 1st level Human Swashbuckler = build is online at the getgo, no questions asked. The best part is, the Slashing Grace feat does nothing for you unless you're a Swashbuckler. The only other alternative is Fencing Grace, which not every character will be using Rapiers.

And if they aren't Humans and/or Swashbucklers? That takes them until 3rd or 5th level at the minimum before their build actually comes into play. Until then, that's 2-4 levels of "I can't damage worth a damn, so I'm just gonna play turtle and hope my DM is a dummy and pays attention to me more." All for hoping you get a +1 Agile weapon (which isn't even Hardcover material, by the way)?

Their damage still isn't going to compare to Strength builds (or their encumbrance, for that matter) unless they go TWF, and that's perhaps the most feat-intensive chain to be forced to take if you want to go toe to toe. Not to mention you need to either have 13 Strength for Power Attack or hope to god your GM will allow Piranha Strike. Oh, and their attacks won't be as consistent as the Strength build's, due to actually taking more penalties for their extra attacks.

So at worst, we have the Dex guy being actually workable by the mid-game, and possibly being a more defensive build by the end-game, but their early-game is at-best equivalent, if not inferior, and that's assuming they're even online by that point (which, unless you're super-niche-built like a Human Swashbuckler, probably isn't happening).

And at best, the Dex guy isn't even a workable build due to lack of materials to support their playstyle (i.e. the materials needed to make the Dex guy come online aren't available to the table), meaning the threat of Dexterity builds becomes non-existent.

I'm glad all you Strength people are getting up in arms about a different (and weaker) playstyle that may or may not ever be present at your table. GeeGee Martials, GeeGee.


The Human Diversion wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


It does in the case of a Raging Superstition Barbarian, who is also an ally to the caster. Why is an attack required for that ally and not some other party member?
That's not a "willing" ally. Rules are pretty clear that they stop being a willing ally when they rage and have the superstition rage power.

Hmmm, it seems being an unwilling ally actually means nothing in regards to actually delivering the spell.

Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Superstition wrote:
While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.

Nothing in Superstition says you are required to try and avoid the spell, but then again, the ramifications of being a willing or unwilling target isn't 100% specified, and the only intent we can draw from it is that being unwilling requires you make a saving throw to mitigate/negate the effect of the spell, as per Superstition.


The Human Diversion wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The Human Diversion wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Someone else cited fighters having to take feats to achieve similar results... why should casters be exempt?

Because fighters are making attack rolls and delivering a beneficial spell to a willing ally is not an attack roll.

The attack is what causes the character to stop, not the attack roll. Even if they are hand-in-hand, we've already demonstrated that the only difference between touching an ally and touching an enemy is that one requires an attack roll for the effect to take place, the other does not and works automatically.

Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Notice how the same language is used in regards to both entities.

Again, if it's the Attack Roll that constitutes the stop, then Fireballs don't break Invisibility (because you say since no attack roll is involved, it's not an attack).

And touching a willing ally to deliver a beneficial spell does in no way constitute an attack.

It does in the case of a Raging Superstition Barbarian, who is also an ally to the caster. Why is an attack required for that ally and not some other party member?


The Human Diversion wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Someone else cited fighters having to take feats to achieve similar results... why should casters be exempt?

Because fighters are making attack rolls and delivering a beneficial spell to a willing ally is not an attack roll.

The attack is what causes the character to stop, not the attack roll. Even if they are hand-in-hand, we've already demonstrated that the only difference between touching an ally and touching an enemy is that one requires an attack roll for the effect to take place, the other does not and works automatically.

Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Notice how the same language is used in regards to both entities.

Again, if it's the Attack Roll that constitutes the stop, then Fireballs don't break Invisibility (because you say since no attack roll is involved, it's not an attack).


Byakko wrote:

Hmmn, Darksol, I believe there are situations where you can "trick" a target into accepting a spell that they would not normally via the Bluff skill, and whatnot.

So assuming our superstitious barbarian has no knowledge of how spells and supernatural abilities work (which isn't that unreasonable of an assumption), could a character claim to be using a supernatural healing ability when they, in fact, had a healing spell "on hand"? While they might innately and instinctively resist the healing spell itself, the barbarian may willingly allow you to touch them before realizing the difference.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting gaming the system by using this as an excuse. This is purely cognitive conjecture.

This is a corner case and delves into the matter of "Can Bluff be used to do that?"

With that said, it falls into GM discretion, and a case could be made on a couple levels. The Bluff check could be used to either deceive or lie about your touch being a spell (but it's far-fetched, considering the Barbarian sees energy glowing from your hands), or you can try to feign harmlessness with your touch, but I imagine that too would be using similar modifiers. So I suppose it could be possible to negate the need for an attack roll with the associated skill check, but it is as you've said, it doesn't negate saving throws (and spell resistance) against the spell.

I suppose the opposite side could also be taken (Barbarian sees glowing hands of a Supernatural ability and thinks it's a spell), so YMMV.


Kain Darkwind wrote:

If fighters can't swing their sword at someone while moving without having a feat, spellcasters sure as hell can't touch attack someone without it either.

You must be new here.

Martials don't get nice things, Spellcasters do. Therefore, Martials must spend feats to attack while moving. Spellcasters can do it for free. #Pathfinderlogic

But in all seriousness, I agree 100% on the RAI you present.


Byakko wrote:

Human Diversion/Darsol:

I guess one question is:

Can a superstitious barbarian be the willing target of a touch, but not of the accompanying spell?

A related question:

If the barbarian doesn't know the effect you have charged is a spell, will he resist the touch or the effect(spell)?

------------------

But this is getting kinda off topic, in any case.

As long as it doesn't have a spell, you can touch the Barbarian just fine if you're an ally. So if you have a Supernatural touch ability, the Barbarian wouldn't negate that.

Superstition wrote:
While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.

RAW, it doesn't matter if the Barbarian is aware of it being a spell or not. Since it includes all spells (and explicitly points out spells being cast by allies), the Barbarian has this effect whether he is aware or not.

RAI, I'm pretty sure the Barbarian can see hands glowing with warm light or crackling electricity, meaning he can see a spell (but not know what it is), and therefore be able to get all antsy about it.

It is a case (a lot more likely than you think) where an ally becomes an unwilling target and, like an enemy, you must make an attack roll to affect him with a touch spell.


The Human Diversion wrote:
You are referencing attacking. We are talking about delivering a touch spell to an ally. Touching an ally with a spell is not an attack, it is a free action. What I'm trying to find out is why you are trying to apply attack rules to a free action that is not an attack of any sort.

I'll say it again: If I'm a Barbarian with the Superstition rage power, as long as I'm not raging, I'm an ally and a willing target to any spell my party member casts on me.

But when I rage, I'm no longer a willing target. So if you're going to throw a Heal Spell on me, you have to make an attack roll against me, and I get a Saving Throw on the beneficial spell you tacked on me (assuming you hit). These same circumstances also apply to any enemy you try to affect with a touch spell.

Both scenarios include a single creature affected by a touch spell from a party member. The second scenario involves an unwilling ally (or enemy) who tries to resist the spell being thrown at him as best he can, such as trying to avoid the touch attack, making the saving throw (if it hit), etc. and this is one an enemy also provides. The first scenario involves a willing ally who chooses to let the attack automatically hit him, and accepts all of the consequences the spell provides.

Simple subtraction between the two equations tells you the only difference between touching a/n (willing) ally and an (unwilling) enemy is that one requires an attack roll [and saving throw, if the attack hits], the other does not.

If you're going to say that the lack of an attack roll is the reason why touching an ally is not considered an attack, then by that logic I can play shenanigans like "Fireballs don't break Invisibility spells" (because no attack roll is involved).


Byakko wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
By the normal rules, if I make that touch, whether it's an ally who is willing (and therefore I automatically succeed), unwilling (where an attack roll is required), whatever, I would still be unable to take my movement afterward because by rights, I would have to make a touch attack to deliver the spell to my target (as is the case for every Melee Touch spell), and it doesn't matter the means as to how the touch attack is applied (roll required or not).

That's all rather moot, as the rules for casting touch spells allow you to perform the touch as a free action on the turn it's cast (whether it's an attack touch or a friendly touch).

Coriat: The rules for touch spells give you an additional (unneeded) style of delivery. There's nothing which prevents you from using the base rule for free actions. So yeah, you can use the touch as a free action in the middle of a move. (assuming you don't otherwise limit free action, in a general way)

Note: I say all the above from a pure rules perspective. In games I run, I use my GM prerogative on free actions to restrict almost all free action usage during other actions. So no casting quickened spells in the middle of a charge, etc. :P

And those touches, regardless of requiring an attack roll or not, still count as making a touch attack (as a free action), but an attack is an attack is an attack. It doesn't matter what action it takes to make the attack, if the target is friendly (auto-hit), unfriendly (roll is required), dead, alive, etc., it still falls under the normal rule that A. it's an attack, and B. attacks can't be done during your movement.

Taking for example, your note, as a Magus, I couldn't Quicken Shocking Grasp, Charge at an enemy, and discharge the Quicken Shocking Grasp on a foe that is adjacent to a square that I am traveling through. But on the other token, I could, for example, cast the Quickened Shocking Grasp (Swift Action), Charge at the enemy (Full Round Action), and then deliver the spell via Touch Attack (Free Action).


Byakko wrote:

I've gotta agree that if you allow free actions to be taken during other actions, it follows that you can deliver the free touch in the middle of a move.

Just because the following sentence gives you an option ("You may...") which you already had, doesn't invalidate the base rule unless it specifically says so. See old Prone Shooter.

I'm still of the opinion that the ability to take free actions during -any- other action on your turn was a rules oversight, but hey, those are the rules apparently.

The precedent is already set.

Spring Attack wrote:
You cannot move before and after an attack.

Here's a prime example as to how this...'munchkinry" will not work.

So let's say I'm a Wizard and I cast Greater Heroism. I'm 15 feet away from my Raging Superstition Barbarian who is adjacent to an enemy with Reach (the enemy's AoO is exhausted). I want to benefit the Barbarian with this buff so he can kill the enemy faster without being in his reach for a full attack.

It takes a Standard Action to cast Greater Heroism. I move up 15 feet with my Move Action and I go to touch my ally for free since I cast the spell. But wait, he's not a willing target! So I have to make a touch attack to apply the spell effect. (And I have to bypass any SR he might have. And he has to fail his saving throw. Quite a few hoops to jump through, I'm not even sure why the hell I'm doing this, but I'm already through the rabbit hole.)

By the normal rules, if I make that touch, whether it's an ally who is willing (and therefore I automatically succeed), unwilling (where an attack roll is required), whatever, I would still be unable to take my movement afterward because by rights, I would have to make a touch attack to deliver the spell to my target (as is the case for every Melee Touch spell), and it doesn't matter the means as to how the touch attack is applied (roll required or not).


Zwordsman wrote:

I"m sorry this isn't helpful but I just can't help myself.

Shoot it with the Colt. That kills just about everything.
(supernatural reference)

i can't think of anything more than whats been suggested though. Other than maybe hiring helpful npcs

(Lucifer Voice) Don't feel too bad. There are 5 things in all of creation that gun can't kill, and I just happen to be one of them.

It was funny that we treated our minions like Fight Club. (It's just the first rule wasn't "Don't talk about Minions.")

Remember to use whatever minions you have, they are more useful than you think. The first rule of Minions: They are expendable.


Rub-Eta wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
The specific limitation on the delivery of the free touch attacks for spells overrides the general rules governing free actions.

Problem is that there isn't any specific limitation stated. The way it's worded, the quoted above, doesn't state a restriction, only a suggestion that you can do it in any of those combinations. It doesn't exclude any use of your move action, only that you may (not must or can only) take your move before casting, after touching or inbetween. It mentions nothing about free actions during move actions.

It should specificly state that you can't deliver the spell during a move action or that it's not a free action to use during a move action, even if it's the same round as it's cast.

The limitation is what it spells out as far as usage with the touch spells. Even if it doesn't restrict it, there are feats that set the precedent for us.

Considering it takes feats to move, attack, and then move again, I imagine you couldn't normally cast, move, deliver, and then move again.


Gauss wrote:

Darksol, that FAQ is addressing the combination of two Armor Training 1's into Armor Training 2. It does not address this particular issue.

This issue is:
If you traded out your advancement in Armor Training can you get advancement from another source?

The "no" crowd is citing that the "Class feature: Armor Training 2" has been swapped out.

The "yes" folks are stating that the "Class feature: Armor Training" has not been altered, only the advancement missed.

Admittedly, this is due in part to the fact that there is no RAW definition for "Armor Training #".
Even that FAQ is making an assumption. If "Armor Training" had been broken up into 4 parts then it would be clear, but it wasn't and it isn't.

The FAQ relates to gaining Armor Training as Ranks, whether from Fighter or Myrmidarch Magus levels, and states that Ranks from different classes stack. The point is that the FAQ gives us the RAI regarding Armor Training.

FAQ wrote:
Fighter armor training 1 (gained at 3rd level) also gives a fighter the ability to move at normal speed in medium armor. Fighter armor training 2 (gained at 7th level) also gives a fighter the ability to move at normal speed in heavy armor.

That is the RAI of the Fighter Armor Training the FAQ presents us. Even if two sets of 1's upgrade to a 2, it doesn't change the factor that a straight Dragoon Fighter doesn't ever get 2, because it was changed out. By this FAQ, a Dragoon 3/Myrmidarch 8 would get Armor Training 2, but a Dragoon 7/Myrmidarch 8 would not get Armor Training 3.

The problem with the Sash not working is that it doesn't take into account archetypes that replace certain ranks of Armor Training, primarily because the item was written before Archetypes were even invented. In other words, the item wasn't written specifically to grant an extra rank of Armor Training, and therefore doesn't supersede the factor that the rank was swapped out. (I wish it were, that'd be a lot better than what it is now, and it'd work the way you say it would).


Duskbreaker wrote:
So the party consists of 6 11th lvl part members. 1 Bard, 1 Multiclassed Rogue, 1 Antipaladin, 1 Generic Summoner, 1 Fighter, and 1 Heavens Shaman(me). The problems are its 26 SR, Greater Dispel as an 18th lvl caster at will, Heal 3 times per day, and Firestorm 3 times a day.

I can tell you right off the bat your big problems: You don't have dedicated full casters. Even if the Summoner is a pseudo-full caster and the Shaman is one, their spell lists are limited, meaning they only count as such for support/buff type spells. Their CC isn't going to be strong when measured against SR, so lacking Spell Penetration feats (which you should invest in, if you're focused on your spells) results in problems actually using spells against him working at all.

Improving your defenses, such as resistances and the like, will keep you alive from its extremely powerful SLAs and defensive abilities. It also has crazy strong reach, so finding a way to exhaust its AoO will allow your melee to get in range and slaughter it.

You better have the ability to Fly, through items or spells, going on your martials, because the Phoenix isn't stupid enough to sit there and let the melee guys kill him on the ground. Also consider methods of debuffing the enemy that don't require spells or saving throws, because the creature's SR and Saves are through the roof.

Even with you guys being 11th level and having more resources and action economy than the Phoenix, it has a lot of survivability itself (with 3 Heal spells and Greater Dispel at-will, which can shut down your Martial Attack plan with just a single cast). Not to mention the probability that it has a sort of self-reviving ability, meaning it's not over until it's over, and unless you can prepare yourselves for that (I doubt it), you're not going to get that far.

I will say this though: Remember your mission is to put out the fire, not kill the Phoenix. Take that into consideration when dealing with him.


Hark wrote:

I feel like Heavy Chariot is just a typo. It does seem that Touch AC and Flatfooted AC maybe backward. A moving Vehicle should be harder to touch, not easier, so Driver skill modifiers should apply. While a Driver caught unaware, flat-footed, should not apply their skill modifier.

Materials that a vehicle is made of affect its HP and Hardness. I actually see no reason that you couldn't actually add armor to a vehicle to improve its AC, though that is obviously not the chosen method for the game.

There aren't rules for it, but I don't see why there aren't, considering there are such things as Barding, why not Fortification subjects for vehicles?


Barachiel Shina wrote:

I need a good list of things that grant fear immunity. From feats, to magic items, to spells. I can't seem to find any save from class abilities dealing with Paladins.

In other words, I want to find a way to have the bad guys be immune to fear without having to rely on a cleric in their party with Remove Fear. I know the heroes always have fear immunity abilities and spells (paladin of course comes to mind such as the Fearless Aura feat).

But what about the bad guys ways?

Protection from Good functions the same as Protection from Evil, just only affects Good-aligned creatures.

Anti-Paladins don't get fear immunity, they actually get an aura that removes fear immunities for those within the area. There are feats that can extend the range of them (the same feats that a Paladin can get for their Fear Immunity auras), and I imagine there are some demons who would have Anti-Paladin levels.

A lot of benefits that Good guys can use for fear immunity, Bad guys can too. Greater Heroism, Fearless Rage (for Barbarians) are just a couple things off the top of my head that grant them. There are others, as well as benefits that grant immunity to Mind-Affecting effects also grant immunity to Fear.


ZanThrax wrote:

Is it possible to take a free action *during* a move action?

Specifically, can I cast a touch spell (cure X wounds, or some buff or another) as a standard action and then move, touching an ally as I pass within 5' of them as a free action?

To break it down:

ZanThrax wrote:
can I cast a touch spell (cure X wounds, or some buff or another) as a standard action

Yes.

ZanThrax wrote:
and then move,

As a Move Action, yes.

ZanThrax wrote:
touching an ally as I pass within 5' of them as a free action?

This is where it gets sketchy. As Gauss highlighted, the choice stems from being able to move before the spell is cast (the first part), after you touch a creature (the last part), or between the two options presented (the second part).

While normal rules would allow you to do that (for example, drawing weapons while you move), Touch Spells provide a specific rule regarding those subjects that supersede the normal rule. Unfortunately, this means you can't move after you touch the creature.


From the PRD:

Attacks against Vehicles wrote:
To calculate the vehicle's actual AC, add the current driver's driving skill modifier (or Wisdom modifier, if it is using that ability to drive the vehicle) to the vehicle's base AC. Touch attacks against a vehicle ignore its driver's driving skill or ability modifier; thus a vehicle's base AC is its touch AC. A vehicle is never considered flat-footed.
AC wrote:
The AC assumes the vehicle is in motion and the driver has not modified the AC with his driving skill. If the vehicle is not in motion, it has an effective Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), and an additional –2 penalty to its AC.

As far as the standard AC, look to the table it lists on here and correlate the size of the vehicle you're using, as well as its relative CMB bonuses in regards to its size.

So to sum up, you take the vehicle's base AC (shown in the table) plus the Driver's Driving skill or Wisdom modifier. If you're taking in Touch Attacks, only include the base AC. (Clerics are the best drivers in the game, who knew?) So if I'm a Cleric with a 4 Wisdom modifier, using a Large vehicle puts me at 13 AC (or 9 Touch). Since vehicles are essentially Construct creatures, they cannot be caught Flat-footed. Obviously, somebody who is a trained driver will have a significantly higher AC than somebody who isn't, but against touch attacks, you're just simply screwed.

**EDIT**

As Chemlak specified and after I crunched the resulting numbers, his formula matches the numbers listed in the table. So the total calculation is 10 + size + Wisdom/Skill modifier.


I hate to say it Gauss, but they're right on this one. The FAQ that Gisher originally found proves it:

FAQ wrote:
A multiclassed character with armor training 1 from fighter (3rd level) and armor training 1 from myrmidarch (8th level) gains the ability to overcome the speed reduction of heavy armor (as it is the equivalent of armor training 2, which grants that ability).

The bolded part is concise proof of RAI regarding the Heavy Armor mobility benefit, it is the second rank that grants the subject, not the Fighter levels themselves as the RAW states. Even if you increase your Fighter Levels, you're increasing it for a feature that you cannot make any better, given your archetype choice. (Of course, this doesn't mean Myrmidarchs can use the Sash to cheat their way of getting Armor Training sooner, since it only enhances Fighter levels, not Magus levels.)

Remember the golden rule of Paizo: Martials can't have nice things. Being able to use the Sash to cheat your benefits is a nice thing to have. Therefore, it must be a lie, and should be allowed anyway, because Fighters need help. eliminated.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So you feel that Armour Training 2, 3, & 4 do literally nothing?

The ranks are shown as representation to determine how much ACP is reduced/MDB is gained. You're not following my argument, so let's try this in another manner:

Let's say I'm a Wizard who takes a Fighter level dip for the Eldritch Knight prestige class. Now, since I'm a 1st level Wizard, I possess the Spells class feature (and with the dip, the Martial Weapon Proficiency) needed to qualify for the Prestige Class. But that doesn't mean I can automatically cast level 9 spells, I need to be a 17th level Wizard to do that (or count as a 17th level Wizard through other features, like the Eldritch Knight's spellcasting feature).

The same issue is posed here. I'm a 3rd level Fighter, I possess the Armor Training class feature. But that doesn't mean I can automatically move normally in Heavy Armor, I need to be a 7th level Fighter to do that (or count as a 7th level Fighter through other means, like the Sash of the War Champion).

**EDIT** Gisher's citation tells us that either condition can be met in order to qualify for moving normally in Heavy Armor: The FAQ says that getting Armor Training 2 from two single-ranked Armor Training features count as such for those purposes, and in this case, need to be met, especially if we don't increase either class levels further than their 1st rank.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
James Risner wrote:

If one is Insight and one is untyped they would stack.

If both are untyped they would not stack.

The first is correct; since they are separate types, they stack.

As for the second, it's debatable, if not outright shaky. It all boils down to what constitutes a source, and whether different feats constitute as different sources. (To me, they do, since each feat does something different from each other.)

Of course, if you're a Charisma-heavy character, like a Paladin, Bard, or Oracle, both feats are really powerful. But good luck finding a table that's willing to deal with the hax that ensues when a character has both.

It's actually not up for debate anymore. They released a FAQ a few months ago that says that if it's untyped source then the source basically changes to be the stat.

I presume you mean this. It doesn't really specify the sources, more that untyped bonuses scaling from an attribute count as an attribute bonus (Strength, Charisma, Intelligence, etc).

But I suppose it answers the question I posed, although not in the manner that I asked, since it appears the FAQ makes the source (as far as attributes are concerned) irrelevant.


And I thought the guy in the OP's question was splitting hairs...this right here is splitting atoms. It doesn't matter if you have Armor Training 1 or 3 or whatever, if you have any rank of Armor Training, then you have the class feature, and you are treated as having that class feature for all intents and purposes. It is spelled out in the description what that feature entails. And since the description does not make any specifications as to requiring the 2nd rank of armor training for the additional features to function, I can be a 3rd level Fighter, have Armor Training I, and wear this item, and count as being able to move normally in Heavy Armor.

But since we're playing a quid-pro-quo of "You need to have the ranks in order to get the listed benefits," then the Sash of the War Champion does nothing for Armor Training, even though the item was designed specifically to alter Armor Training to treat the wearer as a higher level Fighter.

I mean, that's hardly the intent of that item, given that the Devs already stated what constitutes possessing class features, as well as subjects that alter them in any manner.


James Risner wrote:

If one is Insight and one is untyped they would stack.

If both are untyped they would not stack.

The first is correct; since they are separate types, they stack.

As for the second, it's debatable, if not outright shaky. It all boils down to what constitutes a source, and whether different feats constitute as different sources. (To me, they do, since each feat does something different from each other.)

Of course, if you're a Charisma-heavy character, like a Paladin, Bard, or Oracle, both feats are really powerful. But good luck finding a table that's willing to deal with the hax that ensues when a character has both.


Dietrich von Sachsen wrote:

One of my players is playing a Fighter with the Dragoon archetype. Dragoons get Armour Training 1 at Third Level, but do not get Armour Training 2, 3 or 4.

The wording of Armour Training says:

Starting at 3rd level, a fighter learns to be more maneuverable while wearing armor. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1. Every four levels thereafter (7th, 11th, and 15th), these bonuses increase by +1 each time, to a maximum –4 reduction of the armor check penalty and a +4 increase of the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed.

In addition, a fighter can also move at his normal speed while wearing medium armor. At 7th level, a fighter can move at his normal speed while wearing heavy armor. (Emphasis mine).

7th level is when a Fighter gains Armour Training 2.

My question is this: Is this 7th level ability tied to having Armour Training 2, or is it just cogent on having Armour Training and being 7th level? Can a 7th Level Dragoon move at full speed in Heavy Armour?

RAW, it is not. Since this function unlocks by being a 7th level fighter, and not by acquiring Armor Training 2, a 7th level Fighter with even Armor Training 1 gets the ability to move in Heavy Armor unlocked. If unlocking it was based upon getting the 2nd armor training rank, it should specify the ranks.

But that's only RAW. The RAI is that the first two acquisitions of Armor Training also allow regular movement in medium and heavy armor, respectively, and is evidenced by the factor that this scales at the same levels that one acquires ranks in Armor Training.

With that being said, it's not broken or technically wrong to allow it to function as the RAW interpretation. After all, he's still going to be crippled in the levels that he doesn't have it, and in those cases he has to use either medium armor (and therefore reduce his defensive effectiveness), or be stuck at moving 20 feet (and reduce his mobility).


I'm bumping this so as to not flood the advice section with threads for every little bit that I need to confer regarding my Druid.

I'm on the fence as to whether I should get an Animal Companion or just pick a Domain. The problem I have is that all of the Domains that the Druids get just suck. But the Animal Companion doesn't seem to be much better, since it doesn't really scale to a full-BAB martial type like I need it to do.

Since I plan to be more of a support/summon/crowd control character (and not a blaster), would the Domain spells and abilities be worth more than an extra (weaker-than-normal-but-permanent) body on the battlefield? If so, which Domain would best accomplish the ability to be a support type crowd control caster that can summon powerful creatures?


The issue with trying to be good at two things is that when you're faced with an enemy that has 100% invested in one thing, you won't match up to it.

On top of that, trying to fill multiple roles, even as a Spellcaster (who is the easiest to do this with), essentially makes the group turn to you, and it becomes problematic because when both roles come into play, the action economy works against you. For example, if you're faced with two options, of only which one you can take, something bad will happen throughout the round that you couldn't prevent, primarily because the group is throwing too much expectation into one party member. This is the same flaw as to why single-creature boss fights are flawed.

That being said, if you aren't opposed to a "Jack of All Trades" playstyle, take a look at the classic Bard as an example of playstyle to follow: He provides buffs, excels at practically every skill in the game, and can throw some damage out if needed, but outside of those 3 things that he can do, he can only do one of those better than any other class, and that's Skills. (Bardic Performances count too, but that encompasses other things beside skills.)

A spellcaster is a lot more of a blank slate, the Sorcerer even moreso, because the features don't define the class, or the player in this case; the player defines the features (and therefore, the class and niche they want to fill).

With that being said, you declared what you wanted to be able to do, which is Illusions + Fire Blast spells. Depending on what you want to specialize will determine what choices I can present.

For example, the Orc bloodline, at its base, will provide a better benefit for blasting, as it deals increased damage based upon the number of dice you roll for your blast spells, something which outweighs the minor utility and defensive components that the Elemental Bloodline grants.

For Illusions, the Undead bloodline is one of the better choices, as its base benefit allows you to affect Undead (if they were once humanoids, which as far as the all-powerful Liches are concerned, they meet this qualification) as Humanoids for your illusion spells, an effect that not many things can accomplish. Additionally, the later levels provide forms of CC that aren't pure illusions, and this is important to consider as an Illusionist when you're faced with the biggest counter to your school, the True Seeing spell.

As for feats, Point Blank Shot is really only important if you plan on specializing in close-range combat with spells that rely on attack rolls to work, which is a single target Blaster-type feat. Unfortunately, if you really want to make this work with your half-level BAB, you're going to need Precise Shot as well, otherwise you're going to end up missing a lot more, as well as accidentally hitting your friends with your damage spells.

The elemental focus also only matters for spells that have the listed feat in their descriptors (in other words, unless a spell is a [Fire] spell, the feat won't apply). I would actually suggest Spell Focus (Illusion), as several of your Illusion spells that are extremely powerful, such as your Color Spray (and later on, the Prismatic spells), are usually going to be Save or Suck/Die. Making those work more often will be more important as far as consecutively doing something worthwhile each round is concerned.

But again, this all boils down to if you want to specialize in one thing, or be a Jack of All Trades.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Sure, in some contexts and languages. To most people they mean addition and multiplication, which is how Darksol was actually using them in his post.

So, to preserve notation clarity, why not use OR to mean OR, especially since 'or' is what is used in the rules text?

Why doesn't "or" have just one single definition, or implication? Because the english language invented extra levels of complexity to help convey what something actually is. I mean, if there was only one meaning or one conclusion one could draw from the use of the word "or," this topic wouldn't have even happened.

But on to what your question is getting at: The reason why it's clunky with my example is primarily because "or" doesn't really have mathematical implications, except to determine if the result is X, Y, or an amalgamation of them. (Additionally, I don't recall initially bringing math into this, merely expanding upon someone who tried to.) Outside that, it's not directly present in equations.

At any rate, Game Master summed it all up. The Restricted Activity entry is unclear as to its actual meaning, and therefore we will never know until the Devs clarify what that meaning is. Now I'll take a bow on this topic, only watching to see if the Devs decide to answer it, and this will be my last post.

For real this time.

Seriously, I mean it.


bbangerter wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You're altering the meaning of the sentence by changing it like that. The thing is, if you parse it as (X + Y), as far as order of operations is concerned, you're left with an answer that requires the result being equal to X + Y, versus an equation that just has X or Y at any point in the equation. If it's the latter, then Nauseated can never fulfill it, because Nauseated can't ever have X. If it's the former, then that's still impossible because Nauseated doesn't match that equation, primarily because again, there is no X, only Y.

Reading this again, I'm not sure if you were addressing this to my juice example, or something else, but I wanted to address this part specifically to the best of my understanding of what you are saying.

We are agreed that nauseated cannot fulfill the condition of X + Y.

e.g, if a rule stated that a player that had a standard action and move action available to them (X + Y) could do Z, then with nauseated that option is not available, because they do not have a standard (X).

It does however satisfy the X or Y condition.

e.g, if I have a standard action (X) or a move action (Y) available to me I can move my movement speed, or draw a weapon, etc. This is all restricted activity is defining - that the player must have either a standard action available (X) (which while nauseated they don't) or a move action available (Y) (which while nauseated they do) to get the benefits of free actions (Z).

It all boils down to what the base equation actually is, and whether the results must equal X, or Y, or if they must equal X (plus, minus, mutiplied by, divided by) Y. In that factor, it becomes a completely different number; AKA, the choice of being able to take one or the other, which Nauseated does not grant.

If we are to assume that X and Y are separate values (which they have to be, since they are treated as such both in the game and in the entry), the book doesn't parse whether the result of the equation, or even the contents of the equation for Restricted Activity must be Y, X, or a combination of X and Y using one of the operations above, and obviously, it can't be both, because then it leads to paradoxical results (such as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). If the result only has to be one of the two variables, then your assumption would be correct. But when the wording is phrased in a manner that it is also a combination, then the actual answer is neither of the two variables, rather a result of taking the two variables in question and parsing them through an equation generated by the sentence structure.

To example this, let's take X = 7, and Y = 5. So if we parse that the answer for the equation in question is one of the two variables, like you claim, then the result from the conditions, or even the equation of the conditions must have either X (7) or Y (5), or have the result be X (7) or Y (5). But if the answer is a combination of the two variables, in any manner (such as X + Y, X - Y, X times Y, or X / Y), the result would then become 12, 2, 35, or 1.4 (depending on which operation you want to use), of which either variable, X, or Y, does not equal.

Now, the Nauseated condition equals Y, and only Y, whereas the Staggered condition equals a result of X and Y (that is, the result is equal to the operation given to X and Y as an equation). The rules then essentially state that if you have X (?) Y, the result then provides you with the number needed to solve for Z (AKA the misc. actions).

So if it is the former argument (result or equation must contain X or Y), then you have a case. If it's not, then the other side is true, because if the equation only results in X (?) Y, then you're only left with Y = Y, meaning you never get the result needed to solve for Z.

When did Pathfinder rules require algebra to explain them, anyway?


Context is definitely important, because that's probably the sole reason why this sort of thing is still being argued. The problem is that there are two types of context that can be shown (though only one can be correct).

You're altering the meaning of the sentence by changing it like that. The thing is, if you parse it as (X + Y), as far as order of operations is concerned, you're left with an answer that requires the result being equal to X + Y, versus an equation that just has X or Y at any point in the equation. If it's the latter, then Nauseated can never fulfill it, because Nauseated can't ever have X. If it's the former, then that's still impossible because Nauseated doesn't match that equation, primarily because again, there is no X, only Y.

Because they aren't the same equation, you won't get the same answer. (Not unless X = 0, but unless the Devs throw us a "X + Y = Y" equation in regards to this, you couldn't possibly know what X equals unless there is another equation that is used to solve for X's value).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

Fair enough. And yes, I'm quite well aware of the ridiculousness of my assertion. It relies on wilfully ignoring (or outright making up) features of the rules.

I consider it equally ridiculous to say that "X or Y" may only ever be read as (X or Y) and never as (X) or (Y). It just seems odd to me that being restricted to a move action is not somehow meeting the criteria for being restricted to a standard action or a move action.

I think I'll bow out as gracefully as I can before I start getting defensive (needlessly) or offensive (even more needlessly). I've FAQd the OP, and hopefully we'll get a response (whichever way it goes).

It's a catch-22. If we treat it as (X or Y), which is how it is worded, it's not treated as separate points, and the rule then essentially becomes "If you get a choice between X or Y," which Nauseated doesn't allow you to have, meaning Nauseated has its own restrictions. If we treat it as (X) or (Y), it might fall under the Restricted Activities list, but you're still left with Specifics trump General, of which Nauseated is a more specific type of restriction.

In either of those cases, the Nauseated condition, since it has limiting language similar to that of Restricted Activity, creates the precedent of "If it doesn't say X, you can't do X" that is established in other rules of the game. (After all, if the Restricted Activity section didn't include the Swift, Immediate, or Free Action clause, it'd cause essentially the same "problems" here.)

Staggered, on the other hand, doesn't have that sort of limiting language, and actually elaborates the ability to take Swift, Immediate, and Free Actions as normal, something which Nauseated lacks. Excluding that clause, Staggered still allows you to take Swift, Immediate, and Free Actions normally because the original language present doesn't set up the precedent that Nauseated and the Restricted Activity sections create.

It ultimately stems from the factor that the Restricted Activity (or even the Nauseated condition) is not clear enough as to what exactly constitutes Restricted Activity (due to the difference of language being used), and as to whether it means (X or Y), or (X) or (Y), or gives any other special exceptions (that many people on here believe need to be stated).

And to that, I agree that the OP should be FAQ'd, because we've argued this down to bare bones, and the only thing left is to wait for Paizo to decide to actually do something about it.


Chemlak wrote:

So you agree that the staggered condition allows you to take a full round action (by using the start/complete full round action) despite explicitly denying you the ability to take full-round actions because of rules not covered by the staggered condition?

Thanks.

I'm saying that the nauseated condition allows you to take free (and possibly some swift actions) because of rules not covered in the nauseated condition.

There are rules in the book that specifically call out starting/completing a full round action taking a standard action to do. You're not taking a full round action, i.e. using a full attack, metamagic/summon spells, and those (bar Summon spells and the likes of Enlarge Person) complete in the same round you take them; you're starting/completing one of those activities, and you're spending standard actions to do so. A bigger question would be if spells like Enlarge Person, if cast in that manner, would go off in the time you spend the second standard action, or the round afterward, since that sort of thing is ambiguous.

It even cites it as being a type of standard action, the same way Attack is a specific type of standard action (and calls it the "start full round action" standard action). Hell, by ignoring that, the rules should allow us to Vital Strike as part of a Charge or Cleave. But they don't. I'm sure you know why that is, and that same argument can be easily extrapolated to this same predicament.


Chemlak wrote:

So, the current argument is that since nauseated say "move action" rather than "standard action or move action", nauseated does not qualify as restricted activity, and because it doesn't explicitly allow free or swift actions you can't make them.

Thus returning us to the fascinating "a staggered character cannot use the standard action Start/Complete Full-Round Action". Because while restricted actions allows it, the staggered condition does not. And since conditions are, well, conditional, and only apply under specific conditions, specific trumps general.

Anyone care to try to argue that away with "just because the words aren't there"?

You're not quoting RAW text. Here's the RAW text:

Staggered wrote:
A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.

So there's nothing that specifically says they cannot use a specific standard action. He's not taking a move action on top of the standard action, and he's not taking a full-round action. Here's another couple important point:

Full-Round Actions wrote:
Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.
Start/Complete Full-Round Action wrote:
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.

So in situations that allow you to take a full round action as a standard action, such as Charging while Staggered, it's not considered a full round action. Additionally, the part that you're highlighting specifically denotes it as being a standard action, and is costed as such over the course of 2 rounds. So no, there aren't any rules being broken there from the Staggered condition.


I'll also call the bluff the people who say that making Nauseated not allow Swift/Free/Immediate are making "silly situations": What unusual subjects?

Let's review the restrictions again: "Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention."

So let's review the basic Free Actions, shall we?

-Cease Concentration on a Spell: Well, I can potentially see the case being made here, but I prefer to think of it falling under the realm of Grapple Rules, in that if you want to maintain the grapple, you must make grapple checks each round (which are standard actions). If you don't, then there's no longer a grapple. Simple as that. The same can (and should be) extrapolated for concentrating on spells. The problem here stems from the ideology that casters must spend an action to cease concentration, a major misnomer that isn't the fault of the Nauseated condition, but more the fault of Paizo not maintaining uniformity between similar rules sets. That being said, this should be a non-action instead of a Free Action.

-Dropping an Item: Seems plausible for this to not have an out, but I'm certain that when you compare dropping a shield to dropping an item, a shield itself is an item, and is a move action to drop, that the closest thing to an item is a shield, therefore, it takes a move action to drop an item. I'm glad that was so difficult.

-Quick-drawing a Weapon: This one is quite obvious. You can't use Quick Draw, and I'd say the flavor reasons behind this is because you can't really maintain both your fighting ability and your health at the same time. Hell, even trying to draw a weapon as a free action as part of a move is out of the question.

-Prepare Spell Components: Quite frankly, I'm sure that this would fall under the concept of casting spells, but let's assume that you're going to ready a spell to cast as soon as you're cured of the Nauseated condition. For starters, you can't take the Ready Action, because that's a Standard Action to do, so that's gone right out of the gate. Drawing Spell Components from your pouch would best fall under the Retrieve a Stored Item (which I know is reserved for expensive components), or Manipulating an Object (of which a Spell Component Pouch is, and you have to in order to get the components out to use the spell).

-Speak: BLAAAARRGHGHHH!!!......That is all.

If we got any other Free, Swift, or Immediate Actions to list that cause unusual situations, then go ahead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even if the phrasing themselves are identical, you're trying to omit the different statements and trying to use that omission to treat them as synonymous terms.

Restricted Activity wrote:
In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal).
Nauseated wrote:
The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.

They aren't. I will point out that you can swap the two subjects the Restricted Activity is listing and you still get the same effect, but it does perfectly line up the corrolary:

Restricted Activity wrote:
In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single move action or a single standard action (plus free and swift actions as normal).
Nauseated wrote:
The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.

Notice that when you line them up 100%, both do cover move actions. But only Restricted Activity covers Standard Actions as well, something which Nauseated cannot. Also notice that Restricted Activity allows for Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions. Nauseated doesn't say anything about being able to use them, so you don't get them.

And again, if you are going to say that Restricted Activity and Nauseated are even similar (which they aren't), you're trying to say that a specific condition, like Nauseated, doesn't supersede the general rules for Restricted Activity with its exclusivism. Last I checked, the rule is Specific Trumps General; that is, Nauseated restrictions supersede whatever Restricted Activity does.

This is a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. If you don't call them the same, then they're separate and both subjects are mutually exclusive from each other. If you do call them the same, then one takes precedence, and by the STG rules, Restricted Activity has no jurisdiction over Nauseated.


_Ozy_ wrote:
shroudb wrote:

This whole debate is based on two readings of a single sentence:

Restricted ability is when you can do a move action or a standard action.

One reading of the sentence is that:
Restricted means you get a choice between either move or standard
Other reading is:
Restricted means you can either do a move, or do a standard.

Both readings are equally correct albeit leading to different interpretations.

So there really isn't a debate, because both slides use a valid raw reading of a sentance, both are correct, and neither side seems willing to budge.

So just FAQ and move on ^°

Here's the text once again:

Quote:
Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below).

1) In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions.

Does nauseated satisfy this statement? Yes, you are unable to take a full round's worth of actions.

2) In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action.

Does nauseated satisfy this statement? Yes, you can only take a single move action.

Injecting choice into statement 2 is completely unjustifiable. It is not a 'correct' reading just because someone improperly interprets it that way. Nauseated literally, grammatically, and logically satisfies both 1) and 2).

How is it unjustifiable? Such a choice is injected when a character becomes Staggered (or Slowed), whereas one is not injected when it comes to the Nauseated condition. If you're going to say that the choice is not a part of the Nauseated condition, then you're going to have to say it's not a part of the Staggered condition either, which I can 100% tell you, it's bull$#!^.

Staggered wrote:
A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.

Staggered gives you a choice of being able to take one or the other. It also further explains that you can still take free, swift, and immediate actions as normal, which, by rights is actually unneeded verbiage, since the as-is text doesn't omit those possibilities in the first place, and serves as evidence for that being carry-over text from the Restricted Activity section.

Nauseated wrote:
Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.

Now compare the two entries together: All of that kind of language is missing in the Nauseated condition. It doesn't say "can take a move action, but not standard or full round actions," something that would result in the omission of the other action restrictions, it cites the same limitation as in the Restricted Activity, the word 'only'; something which, while it could be a similarity, doesn't adjust the factor that it's an exclusivistic word, and the exclusivism shown in Restricted Activity does not share the same meaning when that same word is applied in the Nauseated condition.

In fact, it lists other restrictions that Staggered doesn't provide. So now you need to ask yourself: If the Nauseated condition was, in fact, intended to allow Free, Swift, and Immediate Actions, like you say, why would they spend the time and writing space to needlessly explain that enablement in the Staggered condition, but omit it in the Nauseated condition?


Daneel wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I mean, if Nauseated and Staggered were to function as ultimately the same thing,

They are not the same. Staggered allows Standard Actions, Nauseated does not. Staggered allows spellcasting and concentration, Nauseated does not.

And some argue that Staggered allows you to fall down, while Nauseated does not.

However, both allow you to stand up.

Thank you for proving my point. If Staggered follows the same rules for Restricted Activity, and your original claim is that Nauseated follows under the same circumstances, then it's impossible when you compare them, and your stance is "They don't operate the same."

So if they operate on separate frequencies, and those frequencies are spelled out, then trying to cite them as the same (when, in this very post, you say they are not) falls under mutual exclusivism. That is, it cannot be one and the other at the same time. But of course, even if they were both simultaneously, you still can't explain the purposeful difference in wording without Dev/FAQ input, though this also means you can't discount it as being RAW.

I'm telling you, the best "Anti-Paladin" is one that can Nauseate a Paladin 24/7. Because they couldn't Lay on Hands for Mercies, they couldn't cast spells, they are practically helpless at the "Anti-Paladin"'s mercy (or to be more precise, cruelty).

@ Coriat: How about you quote the entire rules before you make that assumption about my case. From the PRD:

Restricted Activity wrote:
In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below).
Nauseated wrote:
Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn.

Highlighting the Bolded parts, Restricted Activity specifies that you can take only 1 standard or 1 move action (as well as any Swift/Immediate and Free Actions as normal). Nauseated specifies that a Nauseated character can only take a single move action per turn. That means no Standard Action, no Swift Action, no Immediate Action, no Free Action, no Full-Round (or attempts to complete one), none of whatever else is listed in the former section. That's 4 (and a half) different action types that the former allows me to complete that the latter doesn't. That's a fairly substantial difference.

And you're going to say they're the same exact things that fall under the same exact paradigms? Sure! While we're at it, let's call Magic Missile and Fireball the same spell, because they're both from the Evocation school, right?

Being immune to Restricted Activity in general is not a thing that I've seen in any statblock, but I'm sure there are creatures immune to being Staggered, Stunned, etc. And my supposition is that being immune to XYZ, even if they are similar to Nauseated, does not give you immunity to Nauseated. Only Apples to Apples here. If you're immune to Sickened, it does not make you immune to Nauseated, the same way a Barbarian's Tireless Rage does not make him immune to Fatigue or Exhaustion, or an immunity to Fear Effects does not make somebody immune to Mind-affecting Effects.

@littlehewy: You're forgetting that Rule 2 permits either W or X (W being 'standard action'), something that distincts itself from Rule 1's restrictions. It also specifies being able to take Y and Z actions, whereas Rule 1 does not.


If you know who is doing it and how far they've ran it, you change it up. It's that simple. If they know everything about the module, you throw things in that aren't in the book, and you mix up your own stuff.

Sure, it's more work, but you're comparing the lesser of two evils here. (Well, technically three.) You have to either tell the player to not spoil anything for anyone (and they have to behave like their character would, AKA no meta-gaming), which may or may not work, or you can tweak or, if it's proving to be more problematic, completely revise encounters. What's that, they're facing a Fire Dragon in the module? Not anymore, it's an Acid Dragon. Oh wait, they took Anti-Dragon items with them because they knew they were gonna fight this dragon before they were given proper warning? Time to make it an Outsider.

The final option (which is a last resort) is to simply kick the player out of the table for 'cheating,' or throw out a Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies and start a new module that nobody has played before. But surely you won't have to pull those shenanigans...right?


Starbuck_II wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

and losing HP at negative HP. Technically, you go right to 0 and then you're up the next round from a negative total.

==Aelryinth

Actually, fast healing stops helping much when you dying if you read the rules: After all Fast Heal is natural healing.

Huh, they changed the fast heal rules to work while dying in PF. It didn't in 3.5.

I don't see why it would cease functioning. It's not like Regeneration, where it ceases function if you're hit with a certain type of damage in a given round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It's not modeling the same thing as Restricted Activity, and there is no game mechanic that suggests that Nausea is a sub-set of Restricted Activity, just because both conditions affect the actions you can take.

I'm going to take this selection as a fine point of why Nauseated is its own specific level of restricted activity. Even if you take them to be similar subjects, Nauseated has its own, specific levels of restriction, which supersede the general terminology given for any Restricted Activity.

I mean, if Nauseated and Staggered were to function as ultimately the same thing, why make the distinction of two separate conditions, or leave certain things out of one, but not the other? Because one is a subset of the Sickened condition and if one is immune to the Sickened condition, they're immune to the Nauseated condition too? That's a stretch to say the least, it's like saying if I'm immune to being Staggered, I'm immune to Paralysis too.


As the title poses.


NyctophobicNinja wrote:
I have found it to be very weak, thoughts?

Wait, so Oracles are weak because they are the most SAD class in the game? AND they get ~full spell progression, which trumps basically every damn thing you can think of?

Not sure if unknowledgable of potential or purposeful bait thread.


Weirdo wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I would normally agree with this, but RAW has the con here. The issue is that Aid Another specifies that it occurs before the action in question.

No, it says it applies on your ally's next attack. That's slightly different.

Aid Another wrote:
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
If we accept that readied actions can interrupt an action that is in progress (and if we don't accept that premise, we can't brace against a charge) we can ready an action to interrupt a full attack. The aid another bonus then applies to the next attack - one of the iteratives.

And RAI, that's how it should be (and I hope that is the case). I'm simply pointing out the RAW, and when we take that text and apply it, we get results XYZ.

RAW also gives Charging/Bracing and Counterspelling/Interrupting a Spell Cast special credence, as each have their own section (and specifics) in relation to the Ready an Action entry:

Distracting Spellcasters - Readying to Counterspell wrote:

Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).

Readying to Counterspell: You may ready a counterspell against a spellcaster (often with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell”). In this case, when the spellcaster starts a spell, you get a chance to identify it with a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). If you do, and if you can cast that same spell (and are able to cast it and have it prepared, if you prepare spells), you can cast the spell as a counterspell and automatically ruin the other spellcaster's spell. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.

A spellcaster can use dispel magic to counterspell another spellcaster, but it doesn't always work.

Readying a Weapon against a Charge wrote:
Readying a Weapon against a Charge: You can ready weapons with the brace feature, setting them to receive charges. A readied weapon of this type deals double damage if you score a hit with it against a charging character.

Of course, I will point out that Brace weapons only double the damage dealt on readying an attack against a charge (one of the smart things you could do with your standard action if you go first), it doesn't give anything special, so I will forfeit this one, though it makes no sense to make it its own section as far as Readied Actions are concerned.


bbangerter wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

I don't think it's cheese, but I also don't think it works:

Pathfinder SRD, Combat, Ready wrote:
The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.

And you said aid another affects one attack roll, but it's not any one attack roll you want; it's more specific than that:

Pathfinder SRD, Combat, Aid Another wrote:
If you succeed, your friend gains ... a +2 bonus on his next attack roll

If you ready an action to aid your ally, your readied action occurs just before the full round action he will use to make his full attack. If you succeed, his next attack gets the +2 bonus.

Sorry, it seemed like a good idea.

Why do people on both sides of this frequent discussion insist on not adjudicating readied actions correctly?

If my readied action is to aid another on his second attack, my aid another triggers just prior to his second attack. (Not prior to his full attack action).

This is exactly the same as readying an action to shoot the first enemy that comes around a corner. Obviously I can't shoot him BEFORE his action, because he is still hidden around a corner. It is also exactly the same as a readied action to attack an enemy who moves next to me. It clearly goes off when he is actually next to me, and not 15' away from me when he started his move action since 'by RAW it goes off before his action, so he is still 15' away'.

DM_Blake, its not my intent to insult you, or pick you out specifically, I just want to illustrate that going by a flat quotation of RAW on readied actions, without considering the RAI, doesn't actually work in quite a few scenarios.

A readied action really triggers based off a condition, which may or may not coincide with a specific action in the game.

I would normally agree with this, but RAW has the con here. The issue is that Aid Another specifies that it occurs before the action in question. It certainly has debate because of the whole "choose to not take a full attack" clause, and it becomes a catch-22.

The problem then stems: When does it become a Full Attack Action (and therefore, a Full Round Action)? Does it become it when I take more than 1 attack, does it become that when I declare I'm making a Full Attack Option and then the readied action occurs? It's not 100% clear, and with regards to readying an Aid Another, it has consequences depending on how it's ran. If it's when you declare you're making the Full Attack Option, then it automatically applies to the first attack, because the Aid Another occurs right before the action (Full Attack) takes place, and you can't shimmy your bonus to another iterative. If it's when you make more than 1 attack, then you could potentially apply Aid Another to the second attack (you wouldn't be able to apply it to a 3rd, 4th, or 5th attack, as that's not when the proxy applies), since the parameters you set (I ready an Aid Another to the second Attack Roll when X makes a Full Attack Action) still fall under the factor that it occurs before the action triggers.

As to which one is correct, it seems to be the second one, since the "choose to not take a full attack" clause provides more support to the second interpretation than the first, but both sides would have a case, and it all depends on how it's done (if it's declared outright, or if it's on a go-with-the-flow basis).


Zwordsman wrote:
None of those feats can apply to this no?

Let's check the feat wording to confirm this:

Greater Bull Rush wrote:
You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Bull Rush. Whenever you bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you).

The feat specifically calls out the Bull Rush maneuver, which Force Punch does not say you do. There are spells that allow you to perform a Bull Rush maneuver, and those spells would be affected by Greater Bull Rush. (It would make for an interesting caster character build, that's for sure.)

As for what happens, who knows, the spell is ambiguous on these matters. We could treat it as if they were falling (which means 0 damage), or we can find another ability which accomplishes a similar effect and see if it applies. For example, Telekinesis:

Telekinesis wrote:

Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus; note that arrows or bolts deal damage as daggers of their size when used in this manner). Other objects cause damage ranging from 1 point per 25 pounds (for less dangerous objects) to 1d6 points of damage per 25 pounds (for hard, dense objects). Objects and creatures that miss their target land in a square adjacent to the target.

Creatures who fall within the weight capacity of the spell can be hurled, but they are allowed Will saves (and spell resistance) to negate the effect, as are those whose held possessions are targeted by the spell.

If a telekinesed creature is hurled against a solid surface, it takes damage as if it had fallen 10 feet (1d6 points).

So we have a way that can be plausibly ran. The affected creature (or to be more accurate, a dead body, for the most relevant example) is treated as a hard, dense object, and deals 1D6 points of damage per 25 pounds it weighs to the friendly flanker. I'd also rule that the affected creature would also be taking an extra 1D6 damage, since he's being thrown at a creature (which is technically speaking a solid object).

I don't personally think the first part would make sense, and would give the Force Punch ability a level of power that it shouldn't possess as a 3rd level spell, but I think having the second part apply to both creatures would be the most rules-sensible as far as RAI is concerned.


Diego Rossi wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Strength damage is not strength drain, but strength damage just like hit point damage does accumulate.

So if you take 8 points in the first hit, and 8 points in the second hit you have taken 16 strength damage.

If you score is only 14 then you die(if a shadow is involved) because 14 is less than 16.

"This" strength damage is referring to the strength damage from a shadow, not any one hit.

edit: You can try to make this argument in PFS or at a GM's table, but shadows have worked this way for a long time, and they won't really care so trying to push this argument really won't matter. At best someone will start and FAQ and the devs will say the damage accumlates, which means people will run it the way they always have.

It can be reasonably argued that only the damage from shadows attacks is relevant for the shadows ability, so if the character had some form of strength damage from other sources it don't matter and the strength damage done by shadows alone should be equal of superior than his strength score.

It can be, but it's not RAI. The intent behind the rule regarding the Shadow's attack, is that it affects your Strength score, and it's checked off of the previously damaged, drained, lost, whatever ability score it effectively is.

So if I have an 18 Strength, and say I got poisoned with 2 Strength Damage, all the Shadow has to do is affect me with 16 Strength damage, and I become one of the fold.


Matthew Downie wrote:
They're not different things. Nauseated is a type of Restricted Activity. (Probably.)

And when that type of Restricted Activity adds clauses that are different from the otherwise stated subject matter, it becomes its own specific level of restriction, and then, as I stated previously, supersedes the language present in the Restricted Activity paragraph.

After all, if Restricted Activity is the general term, and Nauseated is a specific condition that would fall under the general term, the wording of the specific condition trumps the general term. Or to further simplify the rule: Specific Trumps General.

I would like to point out that The Staggered condition has the same repercussions as the Restricted Activity entry, and also falls under the general term.

Now I'm off to create a character that makes Paladins useless by causing the Nauseated condition 24/7.


SirGauntlet wrote:

OP did not die, rather is unconscious.

Ability Score Damage wrote:
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability...If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score.
Greater Shadow's Strength Damage Ability wrote:
A greater shadow's touch deals 1d8 points of Strength damage to a living creature. This is a negative energy effect. A creature dies if this Strength damage equals or exceeds its actual Strength score.

Therefore, the only way you can die from a shadow's attack is if your ability score is 8 (if the shadow rolls max damage) or lower. Even if you are hit multiple times each attack checks against the actual strength score separately. So unless he had 8 or less strength either naturally, or through ability drain (not damage) from some other source he is merely unconscious.

Cast Lesser Restoration a few times and he's good as new.

Although that's RAW, and I understand the case being made (and there could be one), it's certainly not RAI. The intent behind that rule is, if the Strength damage being dealt, regardless of it being checked with a temporary loss via damage, permanent via drain, whatever, it causes the creature to die (and then it becomes a Shadow shortly after). I mean, PFS GMs may be wonky when it comes to certain rulings, but this isn't something PFS GMs are known to mess up on. (Or cheese.)


BaconBastard wrote:
Fergie wrote:
BaconBastard wrote:
Fergie wrote:

OK, BaconBastard, I'll try one last shot at this, since I really like your name.

What is the wisdom score of a piece of bacon? Cooked or uncooked, it doesn't matter.

Let's just say it was made from a boar.

Fergie, I'm glad that your last shot also does not cite any rules, and that a dead creature is a creature that has the "dead" condition, and that condition doesn't say it effects any of your ability scores in anyway.

You have been bestowed the wisdom of bacon from the sacred text of the CRB.

So... 13 is your answer then?
RAW says sure. Find me a thing in the rules that says that you become an object and then we can stop having intelligent/sentient bacon.

Rule 0, AKA GM's RAI. That is all.

1 to 50 of 2,743 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.