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

3,037 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,037 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Bryce Kineman wrote:

I Believe the Intent of Reactive Arcane Shield was to be used even if your flat-footed. As normally you could not use and Immediate action if you're flat-footed(save vs Traps, falls, avalanches, cave-ins and stuff not pertaining to combat).

Say you passed your perception check to notice the ambush. That means you know the attacks coming, but are still flat-footed because you rolled low on your initiative to act in the Surprise round. Though this is the only case I could think of that this would apply. If you fail your perception then you can't do anything until you act in regular rounds.

But even if I'm flat-footed, that doesn't mean I can't take actions, much less Immediate Actions.

Here's the Flat-Footed Condition description:

Flat-Footed wrote:

A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.

Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat.

So, there's only maybe one part that can be construed, but that is then properly explained by saying you lose your Dexterity Bonus, and can't make AoOs. No sane GM would rule Flat-Footed to mean you can't take Immediate Actions, and it's certainly not something I've seen a thread about from the result of PFS play.


Ninja'd by Gauss.

But he's right. A Free Action takes effectively no time at all, and can be used in between (or during) other actions. A Swift Action can be taken any time you can take a Free Action. An Immediate Action is much like a Swift Action, except it can be performed at any time, even outside your turn.

The last line alone will tell you that your PC is allowed to use his Immediate Action to make the Ride check before the attack result is revealed, so as to alter the results. But once the results are resolved, his Immediate Action ability will do nothing. There is also the corollary of Immediate Action -> Swift Action -> Free Action -> Taken between and/or during other Actions that is spelled out amongst the given rules, showing a double-ended precedent (that is, there are two rules-wise ways that demonstrate this fact).

In regards to Arcane Shield, my theory is the person who wrote those feats didn't have a clear understanding of how Immediate Actions worked. It makes no sense to have the base feat already do a lot of what the subsequent feat in the chain already does. The only difference between the two feats is one allows the AC bonus to apply to adjacent allies as well; stating that the subsequent feat allows you to do something that the original feat already does makes zero sense, and is a waste of space.

So, technically there are two theories as to why those feats are the way they are. The first is as I've said; the developer behind that feat chain didn't know how Immediate Actions worked. The second is that the ability is supposed to work on attacks you're unaware of, which could actually make sense. However, a lot of GMs would just handwave it as a Flat-Footed condition, and that doesn't negate the ability to use Immediate Actions.

Besides those points, the second feat has excess (and contradictory) text, which calls for errata.


Secret Wizard wrote:

h-how are they different

EDIT: Oh right, flat-footed cannot take AoO unless they have combat reflexes.

Fixed that for you.

And I will point out that Combat Reflexes will be a regular problem you'll come across when facing other martials in combat.


Malwing wrote:

I have an upcoming big bad and I wanted to make sure he was exciting to fight. Problem is that he's a fighter.

He is a called shot specialist that tries to sever limbs as much as he can by fishing for crits on called shots to a limb. He also has a template that coats him in lead due to his backstory. He's constantly with his henchment, a Witch and an alchemist with half-beast cohorts to make the combat challenging but I want the fighter to stand out and be seen as the primary threat since he's the boss.

What can I do?

The nice thing about Fighters is they get feats up the rear, so Crit-fishing is something they can effectively do. They also get access to Critical Mastery, a pseudo-capstone that allows you to apply two Critical feats each time you critical.

The best Crit-Fishing two-handed weapon is the Nodachi, but you can reflavor it to an elongated bladed polearm (because that's essentially what a Nodachi is in relation to its time period). Failing that, Falchion would be your best bet.

Called Shots are normally a Full-Round Action where you make a single attack with an added penalty, depending on what you're aiming for. If you plan to take Feats with them, you need to spend a Feat Tax (Combat Expertise) and an Intelligence Tax (13), as well as have BAB +6, in order to get the ability to use Called Shots with every attack. As much as I would love to see them put into action, the problem is that you're running into conflicting problems. On one hand, you want called shots, which allow for severing limbs and other brutal effects. But that requires an (unnecessary) investment, and is in contrast to what a Fighter is best at doing: Damage, and a lot of it, and is going to be the only way the Fighter is going to be a major threat. Another thing that can make the Fighter a threat is his ability to debilitate/lock down PCs. The Kraken Style can kill anything in 3 rounds if done successfully, and they aren't even able to fight back without help, since they must spend their standard action to hold their breath (meaning they can't break free). Dirty Tricks can effectively blind or stagger players, making them unable to contribute as well in melee, or leave them as sitting ducks at a range.

You could flavor the Critical feats as devastating blows to the characters. Because let's face it, unless they're packing Regeneration scrolls, or Rings of Regeneration, severing limbs can be an extremely debilitating effect, especially in the low-mid levels, where such counteractions aren't even plausible. However, if you are insistent on the Called Shots, it will make it more difficult to hit, and it will cost you more feats (and Crit-Fishing is an extremely feat-taxing build as it is).

In either case, the biggest weakness to the Fighter is their vulnerabilities (Will Saves, Misc. Defenses, such as DR/Resists), their lack of class features to build off of, and their lack of mobility (no, Armor Training doesn't count as mobility, I'm referring to ability to fight against creatures in all manners of movement). Shoring up those vulnerabilities will be the key to make this Fighter a truly terrifying force to be reckoned with; after all, a Fighter that cannot be stopped is the Fighter that is most likely to win.

Also, what are the benefits of the template you gave him, so we have something to work with? (One obvious one is he cannot be affected by "Detect X" spells. What else?) And what are your minions capable of? What character levels are we working with here? Some more information would help.

---

So, to sum up:

Get some Critical feats. Critical Mastery will be a requirement, as well as Power Attack, Weapon Focus/Specialization, Iron Will, etc. Use a Nodachi or similar two-handed weapon to Crit-Fish, guaranteeing the most chance of getting devastating attacks.

You can use any Fighter archetype of your choosing. (Damage-reliant would be Two-Handed Fighter. If you're extremely insistent on Called Shots, Lore Warden will help alleviate your feat tax, get rid of some of your more silly class features, help with other skills, and help in the debilitating department, while dipping a level or two for some proficiencies perhaps. You'll still need Intelligence 13 for the Called Shot feats.)

Shore up obvious weaknesses, such as Will Saves, Mobility, DR/Resists, etc. so the PCs can't easily stop his advances. Adding stuff to the Template to help this is well within the boundaries of making him a difficult foe.

Have your minions work in synergy with your Big Bad, such as using minor Crowd Control, and a lot of Buffs. A good amount of Fighter neglect comes from their lack of self-reliance; don't be like the forumites here and expect the Big Bad to be an all-in-one package.


Normally I'd recommend Mirror Images. But since you get that anyway, Heroism is your friend.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I've brought this to Jason's attention.

So I assume Jason was all, "Nah, screw that, I've gotta go write another adventure with multiple TPK-worthy encounters."

*Is running Hall of Harsh Reflections*

Quite the Strong Necromancy you have here.

In related news, this is already more covered than an Eskimo in Antartica.


noble peasant wrote:
So I'm making a Dex based character and was wondering if agile maneuvers is worth it since I'm wanting to use a number of them, but trip and disarm are already covered by weapon finesse. Grappling would be difficult as the grappled condition makes you lose dex, however I'm curious about dirty trick since I'm going for a mainly debuff guy.

As long as you incorporate your weapon in some manner with the Dirty Trick, you can use your Dexterity instead of your Strength as part of the check. You also add your weapon's Enhancement Bonus to the check as well.

Ironically enough, even if you did something like grab a handful of sand, and throw it in their eyes, you'd still be using your Unarmed Strike to perform the maneuver, and that's a Light Weapon. So Finnesse is possible there too, but unless you have an Amulet of Mighty Fists, no Enhancement Bonus will apply there.

Of course, since you are planning on Dirty Tricks, and not any other maneuver that requires a Standard Action instead of subbing out an attack, Agile Maneuvers is useless for you.


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


I know they're separate, and for good reason. But if you notice, the clause I mentioned applies to all weapons that aren't Manufactured.

I'm not sure which clause you mean. If it's the "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, I don't see the point. Those are unarmed attacks not ranged attacks. That section has NOTHING to do with them. I can't AoO with a bow (non-snap shot) so why the argument with a ranged spell?

Second, fireball once again doesn't have an attack roll and is therefor not even a weapon-like spell. I have no idea why you are fixated on it.

3rd, the WHOLE point of this thread is how much are some spells treated or counted as weapons. If they aren't true weapons then how weapon-like are they? If they count as weapon for some feats and abilities and not for other, how do we determine which are allowed. That's the crux of the thread. Just saying "they aren't weapons" is willfully ignoring the question.

EDIT: And as I pointed out, Magus has a requirement on weapons used past JUST being a weapon. Spells aren't "wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon". It also ignore the 'holding a charge' proviso "If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates." SO casting a second spell weapon would dissipate the first. Multiple shocking grasps no work.

I'm fixated on Fireball because it helps develop the crux of the issue better, for starters. Secondly, I could use any other spell to demonstrate the same point. I guess I'll use Lightning Bolt this time.

Thirdly, and most important, a spell is only as weapon-like as it says it is, or leads on to be. We already have definitions for Rays and similar stuff be defined as having certain weapon-like qualities and only those weapon-like qualities. So it should already be apparent as to whether or not the spell would be plausible with Feat Y or Ability X based on the effect of the spell.

For example, it's safe to assume that Acid Arrow isn't much different from a Ray effect, so the same rules that apply to Rays also applies to Acid Arrow, because it produces a weapon-like effect. Lightning Bolt, on the other hand, doesn't count, since the effect it produces isn't weapon-like at all, such as not requiring an attack roll for the spell to work.


Secret Wizard wrote:

What?

1. The build is perfectly good while it levels.

2. You go fully online at level 8.

Now now, hear him out. He has a point.

Without Power Attack, he's going to be falling behind in damage until he becomes fully online, and even still falling behind because of BAB disparities. With TWF, the effectiveness of your attacks will be severely diminished on top of it. (I'm not saying grab a Shield, Elven Curved Blade/Spiked Chain is where it's at.)

You have nothing that can really enhance your ability to hit outside of flat-footed/flanking bonuses, which applies for everyone, so your chances of hitting when it gets to the higher levels are fairly low, and if you miss with this feat chain, every attack after your miss goes splat, hard.

They can fight better than Bard archetypes now, but that's as far as it goes. They're still going to cry when it comes to Cleric/Druid melee combatants, and even moreso with the other Martials.


Helcack wrote:
It works on every single one, as you are moving 5 feet in between each attack. Rogue's get nice things(even if it takes way too many feats to get), but they do get nice things which makes me happy.

Remember that provocations occur based upon actions. One Move Action to move from a square means only One Attack of Opportunity.

That being said, the pattern here is that you move at half speed, make an Acrobatics check, and if you succeed (very hard against Large or larger foes, practically impossible if Huge or larger), your next attack denies the enemy's Dexterity (plus you get an extra +2 to hit), granting Sneak Attack.

If that attack hits (it's at highest BAB, so it should), then your subsequent attacks consider you Flanking, meaning you get Sneak Attacks (and +2 to hit) on each of your attacks until you miss (so if you have 3 iteratives and miss your second attack, this benefit would not apply to the third attack).

This is a relatively nice strategy, and one that can actually make Rogues deal solid damage. Unfortunately, the fact that it takes 8 levels before it can be done really reduces the impact it has in a game, since it will very rarely be seen. Additionally, if you have a crappy roll for your attacks or Acrobatics (you know it's gonna happen every now and then), this strategy falls apart, and the sooner it falls apart, the worse off the strategy is. Failed Acrobatics (the most likely cause, by the way)? All of your attacks are back to garbage normal. Failed your first attack? Same effect. Failed your second attack? Doh, this will happen a lot. I highly doubt you'll get your third attack.

And remember, with TWF, if you fail even one, every attack you make after that miss becomes normal. So you're only really making use out of one set of iteratives at a time. It's also an unnecessary set of feat taxing; you'd be better off using an Elven Curved Blade (it'll be worth spending the Exotic Proficiency feat for), or a Spiked Chain, or something that can be Finnessed Two-handed for 1.5x Dexterity.

I do applaud the effort though Secret Wizard. Anything that can make a Rogue a better class is welcome around these parts. (And no, I don't mean Casting Class Party Members.)


claudekennilol wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
@ claudekennilol: Let's agree to disagree about it then. PFS GMs are forced to abide by the RAW most of the time when there is no RAI (via FAQ or otherwise), and RAW, the PC would be forced to spend the Standard Action to Overrun his own square, especially when he declared his action, didn't know the consequences fully, and Overrun still remains working as it's currently intended to work. But yes, Overrun rules are about as dumb and wonky as Mounted Combat rules.
No, I'm not agreeing to disagree. I'm just going to straight up disagree. I don't know what kind of weird GMs you play with, but where I am, they don't force you into committing to a wasted turn just because you both have a mutual misunderstanding of something.

The GM doesn't have a misunderstanding of how the Overrun ability works, especially when there is no RAI to draw upon. The RAW tells it how it is, and that's that. The PC, does have a misunderstanding of how the Overrun ability works, and when he finds out what that is, he can't just renege his actions like that.

It's no different than a PC using an Acid spell on a creature that is Acid Immune (and the player doesn't know that). I'm pretty certain PFS GMs wouldn't give PCs a mulligan for that sort of thing (especially if they failed the Knowledge check), so I don't see why they would give a mulligan here.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No, Overrun, as is, is a Standard Action to perform, and is completely separate from any movement. So you can perform an Overrun without moving.

"As a standard action, taken during your move"

That doesn't sound separate from movement.

Yes it is. If they weren't separate, I could spend that single Standard Action that would allow me to both move through enemy squares and make the CMB check. Or I could just spend a Move Action, do my move, make my check, and not be forced to spend the Standard Action to do that. If you spend one, and not the other, the entire thing falls apart, because you either can't move through his square (and therefore stop before your movement), or you don't move at all and use the Overrun Maneuver on your own square.

As written, the Standard Action itself allows you to perform the Overrun Maneuver. The Overrun Maneuver says "you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square." You're suggesting that you combine both Standard and Move into a Full-Round Action to perform this maneuver, but it doesn't work that way currently. You spend two separate actions, one for movement, one for the check. They are separate actions to begin with, but you must use both of them together in order to properly do the maneuver.

And that's stupid.

@ claudekennilol: Let's agree to disagree about it then. PFS GMs are forced to abide by the RAW most of the time when there is no RAI (via FAQ or otherwise), and RAW, the PC would be forced to spend the Standard Action to Overrun his own square, especially when he declared his action, didn't know the consequences fully, and Overrun still remains working as it's currently intended to work. But yes, Overrun rules are about as dumb and wonky as Mounted Combat rules.


graystone wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer: In pathfinder Weapon isn't the same thing as Manufactured Weapon. Very few things actually call out as needing a Manufactured Weapon but a LOT of things call out a need for a weapon.

As to spells, both rays and touch attacks are called out as being like weapons. The real question are the non-ray spells that work in all ways like a ray spell. For instance, what is the functional difference between a ray of frost and a jolt cantrip? The deal different elemental damage and one is listed as a ray. Why is one weapon like and the other not?

As to the Magus, they have to "wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon" and a spell isn't that so I don't see an "indefinitely stack Shocking Grasps" as an issue. A spell counting as a weapon in no way allows it to count as one of the classifications of manufactured weapons (light, 1 handed, two handed).

I know they're separate, and for good reason. But if you notice, the clause I mentioned applies to all weapons that aren't Manufactured.

So, if a spell (and I mean any spell) is a weapon, then I can threaten and make Attacks of Opportunity with them unless it specifically says I can't (as with Unarmed Strikes). Claiming that I can't use Fireballs for my Attacks of Opportunity (would certainly make for an awesome class feature) means that Spells aren't actually weapons, and therefore should not be treated as such unless they're called out to function as them, whether in a general sense, or for specific exceptions.

The point is that it either is, or is not a weapon. Can they have features similar to weapons? Sure. Look at Flame Blade, Mage Blade, Spiritual Weapon, etc. Those are weapon-like spells. But that doesn't make them weapons (as far as game terms are concerned). Look at Scorching Ray and Acid Arrow. Those are spells that count as weapons for specific purposes. But that doesn't make them weapons. And if they aren't weapons, or don't count as weapons for the requisite purposes of effects dependant upon them, then the rules for weapons shouldn't apply to them.

Also, if we went with my argument of Spells = Weapons, then the Magus is not casting a Spell, he's casting a Weapon, so he can definitely stack them as much as he wants, since he's not technically breaking that rule.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


GM: Alright, Galdr, 1st level Warpriest, it's your turn, what do you want to do?
Player: I'm going to draw my Longsword and Overrun Creature Y.

GM: You can't - drawing a sword is a move action for you, and overrun also requires you to spend both a move action and a standard action.

Player: OK, I'll do it without drawing my sword.

It's not the most elegantly stated rule, but (charges aside) I don't think it's much of a problem to play with.

No, Overrun, as is, is a Standard Action to perform, and is completely separate from any movement. So you can perform an Overrun without moving. But it just only applies to the square your in, because you didn't move any distance. So it effectively does nothing, and that's obviously not intended from having to just spend the Standard Action. The GM forcing the player to follow his dictated action technically isn't his fault. It's no different than a PC saying he's going to attack, missed/did no damage, and then no longer says he was going to attack.

I mean, you could try to 5-foot into the enemy's square to do an Overrun, but the intent of Overrun is that you run through the enemy's square, not just into it. It's also not a legal move, because you cannot end your movement in a creature's square without some special ability, like Monkey Shine or whatever.

@ claudekennilol: And that's precisely the sort of rules crap I want to address with the current Overrun rules. Many GMs would be forced to rule that way because of how the rules currently operate (especially in PFS), and it's just stupid and obviously not intended. Corner-case? I suppose, since that particular issue is trumped by having +1 BAB, but if it was some other relevant Move Action (besides actually moving), it'd still produce the same effect, and that would apply for any level.

---

If anything, I'd be perfectly fine with them stating that it's a Standard Action to perform the Overrun, which allows them to move up to their speed and be able to move through enemy squares with that movement, and that it can be done as a Free Action with a Charge, as that's more in-line with the power level of the other Standard Action maneuvers.


DrDeth wrote:

ElyasRavenwood's interesting thread go me thinking. Many people here talk about the Martial/Caster disparity as if it is a obvious thing, and ask 'why can't martial have nice things?"

But I have played in three PF campaigns now, going to 7th, 11th and 15th level. No sign of the Martial/Caster disparity- except at the very lowest levels where martials win out. Hmm. Also playing in a number of PFS games. Not there either (but all rather low level, 7th is highest).

True, I did play in a 3.5 campaign where once we hit the point where the two casters could toss around 9th level spells (Shapechange!) my martial did feel rather useless. So, I saw it myself, but at a very high level.

Reading what the devs say, they also say that in their games there is little or no Martial/Caster disparity.

Hmm.

But clearly some others have experienced it, commonly.

So, I'd like to know that at your actual IRL gaming table, in a real Pathfinder campaign- did you actually experience Martial/Caster disparity, and if so (or if NOT) why? Not theorycrafting, please. Nothing wrong with theorycrafting but let us stick to actual played games for this, please.

Now, we didn't experience it, and once reason might be is that we always had at least one PC that was a Buffer. At a certain level, Bardsong and/or Haste was a given. Both boost martials more. Could that be the reason? Teamwork?

We did have two dedicated optimizers, but one ALWAYS played spellcasters, the other ALWAYS martials (for this I am counting a Magus as a martial, but yes, they can cast spells, but other big killer PC was a straight fighter).

So, if you have or have not experienced Martial/Caster disparity at your table, let us hear why (or why not).

Real Life. Not Theory. Please.

You should've experienced it in the 15th level PF campaigns, if only for a short while. If you didn't, then the Wizards aren't optimized, so you're not going to see the disparity if you're not playing an optimized game.

Our group played up to 12th level, and I have to say, the only reason my non-optimized Fighter actually did anything worth a damn, especially in comparison to our non-optimized Barbarian, wasn't because of his own class features. It was because I was able to utilize magic items better. Getting magic items that allow me to cast spells like Divine Favor 3/day, Boots of Speed, all of that allowed me to be on par with the other top-tier Martial (who was about as optimized as I was).

That being said, regardless of the optimization, you could've subbed my Fighter out for any Full BAB creature (probably summoned from a spellcaster PC), and the end results would've been exactly the !*@&ing same. Just a body running around like a decapitated chicken, hitting things to turn them into decapitated chickens as well.

Don't get me wrong, it's an amusing little ability for a PC to have, but the narrative power behind it is about as paltry (or is it poultry?) as using a sewing needle against a knife in a fight, or the latter to a gun, which is a staple for improper fight comparisons.

As a side tangent, you see movies all the time where some martial character is able to deflect or avoid the bullets in some manner with their martial skills. Too bad such abilities turn those martials into 1 trick ponies that can't really succeed at anything else in Pathfinder.

Even if there was some sort of benefit the Martials got that the Casters didn't, look at the track record for some of those things. Crane Wing is now a shadow of its former self because of idiotic inflexible PFS gameplay. Vital Strike sucks unless you use Mythic rules, despite the big man Jason Bulmahn wanting Vital Strike to be usable with any single attack activities (such as Charging) in its initial release. Courageous, one of the few enchants that were really good and allowed certain Martials to get a nice little perk during combat, is now effectively gone, because apparently a +1 property applying to certain bonuses is not okay, but a Character Trait that treats Luck Bonuses as being +1 higher (*cough*Divine Favor*cough*) is. There's a lot more that can go on, but if you notice, a lot of Martial options that were once good at release are junk, and very few Martial options that were bad at release started to pick up slightly.

Now look at the Caster track record. By RAW, the cheese of the Wish Snocone Machine is still legit (and is only disallowed because only insane/inexperienced GMs let it happen in their games, they otherwise still run rampant in those games). Gate allows you to summon Martials who have immunities and other powers much better than most any Martial PC could hope to rise up to. Teleport, Scrying, and other such abilities invalidate so many plot points in PF scenarios. Martials also can't bring back the Dead (well, Paladins can, but that's very niche, and nowhere near as effective or plausible). Summons invalidate the purpose of having a Martial 100% of the time; why bother being forced to split the loot when you can just use them as you need them, and not give up a copper of your earnings?

Every single option for casters allows them the same freedoms (and literally zero reservations) of Martials while also getting a freedom that a Martial could only dream of accomplishing in their adventuring lifetime, or by acquiring certain items that they themselves, without serious investing, cannot make.

So, the disparity is certainly there, and the numbers will obviously show. But it all depends on A. if the GM is going to disallow the cheese that is usually involved in the disparity (WISH SNOCONE MACHINES GAIS), B. if the GM is giving Martials the same sort of benefits of Casters to the Martials, or C. if the Casters are not actually bothering to give it their all.

If A occurs, the disparity will never happen. If B occurs, the disparity will never happen. If C occurs, the disparity will never happen. Judging by your viewpoints, A and C were implemented in all manners of play, and B was implemented in your Pathfinder Campaign gameplay. PFS does not show the disparity, and implemented several houserules to cut out the disparity (Divine Protection hax lololololol).

So I suppose I gave a little bit of theory instead of pure actual gameplay, and for that I apologize, though the bit of theory does demonstrate the point I make, and I'm more than easily capable of extrapolating that to non-optimized gameplay.


Winterfox707 wrote:

Quick question about combat.

We did our first battle the other day and my turn went as following.

My character had a shield,rapier,armor. I could not reach the enemy wolf but I was told that, in order to revive my AC of 17 I would have to ready my shield. So I got it ready and drew my blade.

My question is do I get a natural 17 to AC. Or do I have to ready my shield? "It's a buckler"

Also if I do, would I need to ready it every round?

Keep in mind that the GM might have actually meant that you need to strap the shield to your arm (or the book terminology uses "don") in order to gain its AC benefits, and he's correct in saying that.

A lot of times GMs would rule that carrying your weaponry around in your hands at all times can be physically taxing, requiring you to make Fortitude Saves or you suffer Fatigue penalties (or just imposing them automatically). It's also not exactly appropriate for character/NPC interactions to have your weaponry out during the conversation(s).

They might just give you the penalties outright, so they handwave it and say you carry your weapons, but don't have them equipped.

That being said, the GM should've been able to tell you that once you have your shield readied ("donned"), you shouldn't have to don it a second time unless you remove it. Once the shield is donned, all of its benefits and rules apply to you. If it's not donned, then it's just like any other object in the game.


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


I mean come on, I can totally make Attacks of Opportunity with my Fireball spell, right?
Well that's a spell without an attack roll. A better spell to ponder is chill touch a weapon, as I think you "can totally make Attacks of Opportunity with" it.

Requiring an attack roll doesn't mean anything. If it says it's a weapon, then it's a weapon. This is like Coup de Grace, where it's functionally no different from a Death Effect, but it's not a Death Effect, because it doesn't say it's a Death Effect.

If it doesn't say it's a weapon, or it counts as a weapon only for certain circumstances, and not all circumstances like it's supposed to, then it's not a weapon. This is like a Spell-Like Ability being similar to a Spell, but it's not actually a Spell. i.e. Weapon-Like Spells function nearly identical to weapons, but they aren't actually weapons.

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks wrote:

Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

The spell does allow them to threaten squares, but only because of this clause. It certainly isn't because Chill Touch is a Manufactured Weapon.

Also, if Spells are Weapons, then I can be a Magus that can indefinitely stack Shocking Grasps with themselves (or even other touch spells), and 1-shot basically anything that I so solemnly choose, which is obviously not intended.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Additionally, a Move Action (or movement of some sort) must be done with Overrun in order for it to work

I don't see this as being a problem - it clearly states you take the Standard Action 'during your move'. So I can understand how it works if you make a regular move action and take the overrun action as a standard during the move. (A fairly clearly implied exception to the normal 'you can't take a standard action part way through your move' rule.)

So the only confusing bit is how it works in the context of a Charge, which has some strictly defined rules, such as stopping in the nearest square to the target creature.

Charge Through (Combat)
You can overrun enemies when charging.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Improved Overrun, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: When making a charge, you can attempt to overrun one creature in the path of the charge as a free action. If you successfully overrun that creature, you can complete the charge. If the overrun is unsuccessful, the charge ends in the space directly in front of that creature.
Normal: You must have a clear path toward the target
of your charge.

I think I just found the Fencing Grace of the Overrun feat chain (or is it Prone Shooter?). I also think I found what Jason Buhlman's "fix" for this glaring issue was. Thanks!

/sarcasm

All "joking" aside, I don't think that's the only issue. If the intent is that Overrun is always to be a Full-Round Action (i.e. you must spend a Move and a Standard to perform the Overrun maneuver), then why even state it's a Standard Action as part of Movement? For rules elements (i.e. Quick Runner's Shirt, which is banned in PFS) that weren't even printed yet?

The point here is that the maneuver requires movement for it to even work, but the movement itself should be a part of the maneuver, and not something separate that you have to spend actions to add on to it. Does it give it more, power? Sure, but the relative power increase, in my honest opinion, would actually give it a lot more (needed) usage in games, and not even be overpowered in comparison to what it actually does.

There was already a thread where I had to point out that even Mounted Chararacters, the de facto users of Overrun, could not feasibly use the Overrun maneuver, because the rules for this (as well as the rules for Mounted characters) are super stupid and wonky and can't ever be properly accepted across tables.

@ Flame Effigy: That isn't really enough context to convey the intent that they're supposed to combine as a single action. Even with the commas, which I understand is used to separate points, can still lead to the interpretation that Charge still requires its own actions to perform on top of the Standard Action to perform the maneuver. I mean, as written, not only would I get an Attack as part of the Charge, but I'd also get the Overrun Maneuver check because I'm spending the proper actions to perform each activity separately from each other.

---

In my opinion, it's easier to state that Overrun is a Full-Round Action that allows the bearer to apply Charge Rules as a Free Action as part of the maneuver, because this leads to zero action economy snafus, allows Charge and Overrun to properly sync, and you don't get into awkward "I used the Overrun maneuver, but not really" situations, like below:

GM: Alright, Galdr, 1st level Warpriest, it's your turn, what do you want to do?
Player: I'm going to draw my Longsword and Overrun Creature Y.
GM: Okay, so you spend a Move Action to draw your weapon, and it takes a Standard Action to perform, allowing you to move through it's square.
Player: Okay, so I can make my CMB check, right?
GM: You could try, but you automatically fail.
Player: What? Is he immune to overruns?
GM: No, but you didn't move at all. You don't pass through his square, so no CMB check occurs, so you don't actually Overrun.
Player: Can't I move as part of drawing my weapon?
GM: No, you don't have enough BAB to do that. You wasted your Standard Action performing a maneuver you couldn't actually do.
Player: But it says I can use Overrun as a Standard Action.
GM: Yes, it sure does. Too bad it's stupid and doesn't actually work that way. Your turn is done.


8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

As the title says.

Here's the entry for Overrun:

Overrun wrote:

As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square. You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Overrun feat, or a similar ability, initiating an overrun provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent, or the nearest open space in front of the creature if there are other creatures occupying that space.

When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. If your maneuver is successful, you move through the target's space. If your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, you move through the target's space and the target is knocked prone. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has.

Bolded part is important. Last I checked, you cannot take a Standard Action on top of a Full-Round Action. In other words, you cannot Overrun on top of a Charge, because whoever wrote the Overrun entry doesn't know how the game's Action Economy works. And since there is no written exception listed...

Additionally, a Move Action (or movement of some sort) must be done with Overrun in order for it to work, because the Overrun maneuver itself does not allow you to move as part of the Standard Action you spend to perform the maneuver, because you can't just sit in a square, spend a Standard Action to Overrun, and just Overrun the same square you occupy; that's just stupid, and only works on Tiny or smaller creatures inside your space. (Or Swarms.)

I believe a FAQ is necessary here. Please FAQ if you want to see this glaring issue fixed.


SlimGauge wrote:
The argument goes something like this: Arcane Strike imbues something with a portion of your arcane power as a swift action. The thing to be imbued must exist at the time the swift action is spent. Rays/orbs/what have you do not exist yet to be imbued, as they exist only during the casting of the spell.

I guess by your logic, then Spellstrike only applies with the weapon you imbue the spell with, and once that weapon is gone, then the spell is gone too.

Of course, this FAQ betrays that argument, since the Magus can pick up any weapon and deliver the spell that way, and only discharges if they pick up anything other than a weapon.

Arcane Strike wrote:
As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

There is no limit as to how many weapons that is. You could have 20 different weapons on your person, and they would all receive this benefit.

That being said, I highly doubt it's intended for Arcane Strike to work with spells, because spells aren't weapons.

I mean come on, I can totally make Attacks of Opportunity with my Fireball spell, right?


Dysfunction wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I just noticed that Overrun, per RAW, doesn't work with a Charge, since it takes a Standard Action to perform an Overrun, which cannot be done with a Full-Round Action like Charge in the same turn.

Except, the first line of Overrun talks about how you use it in a charge...

Core Book, pg 201 wrote:


Overrun
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of
a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving
through its square

Using it as part of a charge doesn't mean you can use it in a charge, nor does it discount you needing to spend a Standard Action on top of the Full-Round Action needed to perform the charge in the first place. Additionally, the rules of Charge wouldn't permit you to move into a square the Enemy already occupies, because you must move to the closest space you can hit the enemy, so even if you claimed it to be stackable, the rules of Charge and the rules of Overrun would contradict each other, because one allows you to move through an enemy, and the other requires you move to the closest adjacent space apparent from your starting position.

Additionally, the rules of Mounted Combat would also not permit you to let your Mount use Overrun, because you are both considered Charging if even one of you takes the Charge Action.

Let me tell you how it would go down in a PFS scenario:

Quote:

GM: It's your turn, what do you want to do?

Player: I'm charging Creature Y.
GM: Okay, that takes a Full-Round Action. Movement seems legit, go ahead and put your piece at the closest adjacent space and roll your attack.
Player: I'm actually using the Overrun maneuver.
GM: You declared to charge Creature Y, that's a Full-Round Action to do. The Overrun maneuver requires a Standard Action to Perform.
Player: But it says I can do it as part of a Charge.
GM: Yes, as a Standard Action. And you already used a Full-Round Action to Charge. You don't have a Standard Action left to perform the Overrun. Now roll your attack.
Player: If it says I can do it as part of a Charge, why am I not allowed to do it as part of a Charge?
GM: Because them's the breaks. You can't spend a Standard Action and a Full-Round Action in the same round unless you have some special ability allowing you to do that. Now quit holding up the game and roll your attack.

This is like the situation with Grab and Attacks of Opportunity, and it took a FAQ to reverse the otherwise obvious RAW, where it takes a Free Action to perform a Grab, and you cannot take Actions outside your turn unless they are Immediate Actions, or specify otherwise, just like there is no language permitting you to circumvent the other rules problems allowing you to both Charge and Overrun at the same time.

If anything, it's a misnomer for Overrun to be considered a Standard Action, because performing an Overrun without actually moving first doesn't even work right. It should be a Full-Round Action, allowing you to move up to your speed and making a check against all of those in your path.


I just noticed that Overrun, per RAW, doesn't work with a Charge, since it takes a Standard Action to perform an Overrun, which cannot be done with a Full-Round Action like Charge in the same turn.

If the Player had Pounce, and the Mount had overrun, then the Mount could Overrun the creature, and the Player could Pounce the prone character.

Of course, that's per RAW. Mounted Combat rules are all over the damn place, you don't know what way is up.


Remember that if you tried to TWF with a Bow and one end of a Double Weapon, you either wouldn't be able to do it at all (because you're breaking the unwritten rule and getting 2.x multiplier to Strength, or because Double Weapons can't work that way), or either your Bow or the one end of your Double Weapon will count as an Off-Hand Weapon.

I'd also say a lot of people would argue that you need to be able to access all of your weapons simultaneously. (I'm not saying you need a hand for each thrown weapon, they get the green card, but you do need at least one hand to hold on to a Bow, and another open one to Fire with, and a Double Weapon is considered a Two-Handed Weapon, even if you're attacking with only one end of it.)


Serum wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
This PC is 12th level, making him CR 11.

/pedantic

Technically CR 12, NPC wealth is CR-1.

Isn't a PC's CR equal to their character level - 1?


Kazaan wrote:

If you had a Double Weapon, were using TWF rules to get an off-hand attack, and also wanted to drop the axe in order to use your Bow with Rapid Shot, you'd do the following:

Axe(main-hand) +6(-4)/Axe(off-hand) +6(-4)/[drop axe, quickdraw Bow] Bow +1(-4)/Bow(Rapid Shot) +6(-4)

Or, you could start with the Bow and switch to the Axe. You only need to order iteratives from high BAB so the remaining attacks can be shuffled where you please.

TWF isn't meant to work like that.

You get two iteratives, one for your Main-hand (which scales as your BAB), and one for your Off-hand (which has its own scale via the TWF feat chain). You must designate ahead of time which weapon (or quiver/container of weapons in terms of thrown ammunition, like daggers or shuriken) you are using for each iterative set, and that you must have them out and ready to use for the entire action (so you can't draw weapons in the middle of your TWF action).

This means you can't use a Bow (which requires two hands) and another weapon that requires a physical hand to use (such as a sword or axe, or even Armor Spikes).

FAQ here has all the details.

**EDIT**

In the interest of covering all of the bases, here's this rule regarding an archetype and it mentions Rapid Shot:

Bow Nomad - Twin Bows wrote:
Extra attacks from other sources, such as those granted by Manyshot or Rapid Shot, can be applied to only one of the wielded bows per round.

Extrapolating that, if you did find a way to wield both a double weapon and a Bow, only the Bow iterative would get the Rapid Shot attack. It would also lead to Multi-Weapon Fighting, and not Two-Weapon Fighting.

So, let's say Orc Double Axe, Unarmed Strike, and Composite Long Bow with Rapid Shot and MWF, would go as follows:

Orc Double Axe +4/-1, +4
Unarmed Strike +4
Composite Long Bow +2/+2


BigDTBone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

52-102 damage? In a single full attack!?!

Sure, these are impressive numbers you're throwing around but can a 15th level fighter really put out this much damage every round? I think you need to show your math here.

Easily. I'm not even trying that hard to get that.

Okay so:

15th level Fighter gets 3 attacks:

15/10/5

Double Shot feat adds one extra attack, at full bonus, but all attacks take a -2.

So 13/13/8/3

A compound bow gives a strength bonus to damage, in this case we went with +2, at 5th, 9th, and 13th they get an additional +1 cumulative bonus to a weapon. In this case the bow. Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization add more.

Many Shot makes the first shot double damage as well.

Gravity Bow gives the bow's 1d8 an upgrade to 2d6.

So 4 shots:
4d6+18
2d6+9
2d6+9
2d6+9

10d6+45 damage

So a 15th level Fighter with a bow enchanted with a level 1 spell permanently (Very within the realm of possibility) can get between 55-105 damage every single turn.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

That was the sound of the point flying straight over your head with a pinch of ridicule from Kudaku. 100 DPR is absurdly low for a 15th level fighter. Average DPR for a 15th level fighter is closer to 250.

But this illustrates the point beautifully! Your complete and total lack of system mastery is on full display. You have no idea what you are yapping your flapping gums about. You are in fact SO OVLIVIOUS to the pathfinder system that you didn't instantly recognize absurdly wrong numbers for your 15th level fighter (neither when you said them nor when they were tossed back at you.) You have no idea about what makes a good caster in pathfinder. You have no concept of what is actually allowed by the rules when players actually read the full spell descriptions.

You have a point. But that's no reason to be a dick about it.

There are better ways to demonstrate his lack of system mastery without saying things like "YOU SUCK, YOU HAVE NO F*@&ING CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU STUPID (*&@y^#*)(&#^(&@#$."

I prefer this approach, as it doesn't make you come across as petty:

Quote:

Let's take a mostly-optimized end-game PFS Fighter character (12th level) that has WBL (108,000 gold, say 100,000 after consumables and other miscellaneous costs). He starts with 20 Strength from point buy, gets a +6 Strength belt (16,000 gold), +3 from levels, sitting at 29 Strength (which is ~+9 modifier). He specializes in two-handed weapons like every fighter basically should (so Two-handed Fighter archetype), and has Winged Boots [15,000] (most every caster in a PFS scenario will have a Haste spell memorized). He has a +5 Nodachi [50,000] (Crit-Fishing is more valuable than damage dice), standard Full Plate [1,500] (because let's face it, you don't need AC as a Two-hander Martial in terms of optimization), Gloves of Dueling [15,000] (to amp up the Weapon Training bonuses) and a +3 Cloak of Resistance [9,000] (because charm/compulsions against you suck).

For Feats, he has the de-facto Power Attack, combined with Improved Critical, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization, all with the Nodachi. Iron Will and Improved Iron Will are always nice, and maybe Toughness since you're more reliant on your life force than your actual defenses. Maybe Hammer the Gap for even more damage with our iteratives.

Now for attack rolls. Assuming Haste is rolling (as it should, since the casters may want to spend a round before combat starts to apply it), we have 4 attacks, two at highest BAB. So, we take our BAB (12), plus our Strength (9), plus our Weapon Training/Focus bonuses (6), and our Weapon Enhancement/Haste bonuses (6), leaving us with a grand total of +33/+33/+28/+23. With Power Attack, we're sitting at +29/+29/+24/+19.

For our damage, we have a +9 Strength modifier that's 1.5x for Two-handed attacks (+13) that doubles on your iterative attacks (+18), taken with Power Attack (+12), Weapon Training and Weapon Specializations (+8), Weapon Enhancement (+5 which makes these attacks bypass all Damage Reduction exception for weapon-based and DR/-), leaves us with +38/+43 on each attack. If we don't want to Power Attack because of an extremely high AC monster, then we're still doing +24/+29 per hit. With a 15-20 two-handed weapon, on average, one of those attacks will critical, doubling the pluses and damage dice.

This PC is 12th level, making him CR 11. Against a CR 14 creature (say, this creature), using Power Attack and average rolls (i.e. 'take 10'), he is hitting this creature with every attack, bypassing any sort of DR he has, and is dealing an average total of 189 damage from a single full attack action. The creature's average hit points are 203. With higher damage dice rolls, I would 1-round this creature that is 3 CR higher than me.


Bump.

I'm sure there's something that I could fix here.


Godunderscor wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The spell itself doesn't allow the character to make the attack like you say he does. He has to spend an action separate from casting the spell to do so (a Free Action).

I was referring to ranged Touch Spells like Scorching Ray and Acid Arrow. Link and Relevant Text:

Pathfinder Reference Document wrote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If we want to homogenize these subjects, then we either do it fully or not at all, this pseudo-crap doesn't fly. I mean, why bother making the distinctions between a Full Attack and a Full Attack Action, or an Attack versus an Attack of Opportunity, if they are, according to you, fundamentally the same damn thing?
I don't want to homogenize anything. Far from it. I want - and I have said this before - I want the Attack Action to be renamed the Standard Attack to avoid exactly the conflation you're suggesting. If we did that, then making an attack and making a Standard Attack would be rightfully different. There could be no room for confusion as one(myself included, obviously given this thread) is wont to run into when reading too deeply into the rules.

Fair enough, that solution only applies to ranged touch spells. Spells like Shocking Grasp, would not receive such treatment, though.

Personally, renaming it doesn't need to be done, as there are discrepancies already made (which Johnny_Devo previously stated). The problem is determining whether the discrepancies are enough to show that they are fundamentally the same thing, but not actually the same thing, when it comes to determining options available for the PC.

Because I highly doubt it's intended for a PC with a Pounce ability to be able to cheese a single attack plus a Move Action the way that DM_Blake says they can. (And I'm not accusing DM_Blake of endorsing such cheese, though he did point it out.)


Got bored and decided to whip up an unorthodox Firearm-based build. Tell me what you guys think and what I can improve to make it better:

Muse-Touched Scion of Humanity Aasimar Holy Gun 2/Mysterious Stranger 1/Trench Fighter 17 (in that order)

Note that I will not sub out the Amateur Gunslinger feat, as the Quick Clear deed will be valuable with the Mysterious Stranger dip ending up replacing my ability to choose it for 3rd level.

20 Point Buy:

Strength 8 (+2)
Dexterity 18 + 2 = 20 (17)
Constitution 11 (1)
Intelligence 8 (+2)
Wisdom 7 (+4)
Charisma 16 + 2 = 18 (10)

Feats

* = Bonus Feat

1. Amateur Gunslinger* (Quick Clear Deed), Gunsmithing*, Rapid Reload
3. Point-Blank Shot
4. Precise Shot*
5. Deadly Aim*, Rapid Shot
7. Manyshot*, Weapon Focus
9. Weapon Specialization*, Clustered Shots
11. Snap Shot*, Improved Snap Shot
13. Hammer the Gap*, Combat Reflexes
15-19. Improved Initiative, ???

Skills - Craft (Alchemy) 1, Perception MAX.

Pros

-Remains a Full BAB Ranged Attacker.
-Attacks Target Touch AC.
-Gets great Saves by 2nd level and picks up extra proficiencies by 4th level. Base Saves are fairly strong by that point too.
-Gets the ability to become a Melee Threat by 11th level, threatening 15 feet.
-Can add both Dexterity and Charisma to damage rolls with a Grit point by 6th level, or can specialize with a Smiting Shot against Big Bads.

Cons

-Extremely feat intensive. Having to delay abilities due to dip benefits, and Fighter Bonus Feats allow for double feats at the standard levels, providing further delays.
-Unable to combine a certain Paladin archetype (Divine Hunter) because Divine Bond contradicts. Also, unable to combine Trench Fighter with another acceptable archetype.
-The Misfire is real. (Last Gunslinger our group played with, he ended up Misfiring basically every encounter.)

I have no clue what weapon(s) and other skills this character would use. I'm inclined to go with One-handed Firearms, as the reload time for Two-handed Firearms are way too long. I'd have to spend an enormous amount of Grit points just to full-attack for one round.

Any other critique and suggestions are appreciated.


Godunderscor wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The spell equivalency is a misnomer. There is a specific clause that allows characters to make the touch attack as a free action, when it would otherwise take its own standard action to make the attack. The casting of the spell creates an effect, and the player may make a ranged touch attack with that effect as its own action.

Right. Even though he isn't specifically making a ranged attack, he's making one as part of the spell. The attack is its own event despite the wizard having performed the Cast a Spell action. Relevant FAQ.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
My point is that Pounce triggers on the Charge Action, which is a special full-round action separate from the Full Attack Action. The Charge Action does not allow for an expos-facto option change on attacks, and the Pounce feature makes no extra exception to this note other than stating that they can make all of their attacks.

In point of fact, Pounce dictates "When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack." It doesn't matter if you are receiving it from a Charge, you are given a Full Attack from Pounce. That's the event you're now in, that's the action you're taking. Pounce makes no extra exception to say it's a special, limited version of a full attack, so there's no reason to treat it as anything other than a full attack.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

There was a FAQ that had to state Pounce counts as a Full Attack for Haste, and was originally voted to not count. (It did get reversed.)

The funny thing about this FAQ is that, right now, despite Haste saying quite clearly "When making a full attack action", it works with Pounce. Pounce says it gives a full attack, it works with Haste which requires players to be making a full attack action. As the adage goes, "If it looks...

The spell itself doesn't allow the character to make the attack like you say he does. He has to spend an action separate from casting the spell to do so (a Free Action).

If we have a character with Dazing Assault able to make attacks of opportunities on casters who successfully cast a spell defensively, and successfully hits, that spellcaster could not take the Free Action to make the attack with the spell (as the Dazed condition prevents you from taking any actions), meaning no attack takes place.

If things work the way you say they do, (which they don't,) then Dazing Assault would not affect the touch attack taking place. Except it does, because you must spend a Free Action to make the attack with the spell, and when you cannot do that, then no attack takes place. This is no different than you saying a Bard automatically maintains his Performance. That's wrong too, because they too must spend a Free Action to maintain it, and when they are unable to, the Performance automatically ends.

Yes, it does matter. The Charge Action is the proxy for Pounce to trigger. If Charge isn't the proxy, then the proxy is either undefined and Pounce doesn't work at all, or works with any action (so whenever I take a Free Action, I could Pounce), and that's obviously not intended. The Pounce attacks also take the bonuses and penalties associated with Charge, something which a generic Full Attack doesn't do.

If you want to play that a Full Attack and a Full Attack Action are the same, then every Attack of Opportunity requires a Standard Action to perform, and Pounce would actually require 2 Full Round Actions to do, as you're doing both a Charge and Full Attack. If we want to homogenize these subjects, then we either do it fully or not at all, this pseudo-crap doesn't fly. I mean, why bother making the distinctions between a Full Attack and a Full Attack Action, or an Attack versus an Attack of Opportunity, if they are, according to you, fundamentally the same damn thing?

That FAQ had to be written because there was a lot of table variance (as well as the RAW disagreeing) in regards to how Haste affected things that behaved like Full Attacks, but didn't use the Full Attack Action to do so (which is what Haste required). When you put Probability and Table Variance together, it becomes one of the ugliest things you could ever hope to deal with. (I'm not talking about dice rolls, either.)

And when it comes to rules adjustments, the most conservative option is generally the choice that Devs make in their rulings; so it's much safer to say that Haste works with Full Attacks that aren't Full Attack Actions, than it is to say that Pounce and similar abilities that aren't Full Attack Actions are, in fact, Full Attack Actions.


NobodysHome wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That being said, your other example doesn't mean that Bull's Strength doesn't have any undetectable effects, that's not what the Silent metamagic does. It allows you to cast without needing Verbal Components to fulfill the spell being cast.

Nah; the only reason I mentioned it being Silent was to avoid the inevitable, "I make my Perception check! Problem solved!" that some reprobate like Captain Yesterday would post...

Perception could work if they saw him before and then after the spell is cast. (And no, I'm not talking about them hearing the spell being cast and all that.) But it's tricky, because you'd only know there's a spell enhancing them, tops.


NobodysHome wrote:

That's the crux of Gauss' argument (and hopefully he'll step in to defend himself at some point): Polymorph has no visible "effects"; the creature has simply transformed into a different creature.

If you say that's an "effect", you win!

Since the polymorph may confuse the issue, let's look for something that's truly "invisible" like Bull's Strength.

You leave the room, your paranoid cleric casts a metamagicked Silent Bull's Strength on Lazy Joe, who does nothing but sit in his armchair.

Can you determine that Bull's Strength has been cast on Lazy Joe?

The crux of the argument is:

What does it mean to "detect the effects of a spell"? Is Detect Magic enough?

I'm not trying to be ornery -- I'm enjoying the debates, especially since you and Gauss are at opposing sides, and both of you make excellent arguments.

Now, time to kick Lazy Joe out of that armchair and get myself a seat!

To detect the effects of the spell would be to identify what the spell did as a result of casting it.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Knowledge check will tell you exactly what spell it is that does that. (That's what Spellcraft is for, which is its own check.)

The Knowledge check should tell you that she's under some sort of magic that has changed her physical form and the statistical ramifications regarding such a change, but you aren't sure if it's a Disguise spell, an Alter Self spell, Beast Shape I-IV, etc. unless your PC makes a Spellcraft check to determine what spell would correspond with the effects you detected with the Knowledge check. Ironically enough, a Spellcraft check would only tell you what the spell is, and not what it does.

That being said, your other example doesn't mean that Bull's Strength doesn't have any undetectable effects, that's not what the Silent metamagic does. It allows you to cast without needing Verbal Components to fulfill the spell being cast.


The spell equivalency is a misnomer. There is a specific clause that allows characters to make the touch attack as a free action, when it would otherwise take its own standard action to make the attack. The casting of the spell creates an effect, and the player may make a ranged touch attack with that effect as its own action.

My point is that Pounce triggers on the Charge Action, which is a special full-round action separate from the Full Attack Action. The Charge Action does not allow for an expos-facto option change on attacks, and the Pounce feature makes no extra exception to this note other than stating that they can make all of their attacks.

There was a FAQ that had to state Pounce counts as a Full Attack for Haste, and was originally voted to not count. (It did get reversed.)

Suggesting that it counts as a Full Attack for all purposes is a stretch that I assure you many players and GMs would not want to cross.

@ Kazaan: Except that's the sort of cheese that Malachi is arguing about. People can forgo their remaining attacks just to confirm the first if they know they missed because of the likes of TWF. Bonuses and Penalties that occur on Full Attacks, such as TWF, are dependant upon you following through with the Full Attack Action, and when you don't, you're not actually TWFing, meaning the penalty can't apply, and therefore the attack hits anyway.

Any sane GM won't let that fly.


Charge wrote:
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

If you're Pouncing, you're not Full-Attacking, you're Charging. Charging does not allow an expos-facto option change. Full Attack Action does.


DM_Blake wrote:
James Risner wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

What about if I Pounce and then Full-Attack?

If we remove the not-quite-superfluous wording as the OP wants, then would I now be able to Pounce, single-attack, then move again?

Probably, yes you would.
Wouldn't that, then, mean the original wording that precluded me from doing this when I've already moved be NOT superfluous after all?

Well, it looks like we've found cheese. Time to exterminate it immediately before it festers into something truly nasty like Wizards or Oracles.

---

Back on topic, I highly doubt it's intended to let Pounce function as a pseudo-Spring Attack, being able to charge (get +2 to hit, -2 to AC), get a single attack, and then take a move action (which probably provokes if you plan to move away from your enemy).

Reviewing Pounce text:

Pounce wrote:
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)

So, outside of the Charge Attack becoming a Full Attack, it must still follow rules of Charging (otherwise it's not a Charge, is it?).

Reviewing the Charge text:

Movement During a Charge wrote:

You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.

If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.

You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.

So, if a Pounce is a Charge that allows players to make a Full Attack, they wouldn't be able to make any movement after their single attack. They could sheathe their sword or reach into their Handy Haversack for an item, but even if they did have a move action available to move after their attack(s), they would be forced to move to the closest space where they can attack their opponent, and when they're already on top of them, well...

It's also key to suggest that just because the Pounce allows you to make a Full Attack on a Charge, doesn't mean you're making a Full Attack Action, which is what allows you to stop after your first attack and allows for a move action. You're not taking the Full Attack Action with Pounce, you're taking the Charge Action, and the Charge Action doesn't allow the expos-facto option change that the Full Attack Action allows.


The wording says the proxy is when an enemy makes a melee attack against you.

Attacks come from taking actions, special abilities, and attacks of opportunity. Additionally, it's called an attack of opportunity. Just because it's an attack (made) of (an) opportunity, doesn't mean it's no longer an attack.

So it's valid for use with Attacks of Opportunity, regardless of what the Attack of Opportunity comes from (in terms of proxy). I will say that you couldn't use this if a creature is threatening with a Ranged Weapon via Snap Shot feat chain, since it's a Ranged Attack.

@ TheTheos: I disagree. The Parry and Riposte options do not make any specifications of weapon choice, it makes no sense . I could be an unarmed Swashbuckler and Parry/Riposte with my Unarmed Strikes if I really wanted to. After all, it's the world of fantasy. I could use my hands to stop a sword coming down at me, and then follow up with a kick to their calves to knock them on their feet. Giving Swashbucklers some interesting hand-to-hand combat options like the above isn't a bad idea. Of course, if they can't properly wield their weapon, say, a Two-Handed Sword, because one hand is holding a potion, then they can't make the Riposte with that weapon, but not because they're already using it, because they can't use it properly.

I do agree, however, that the resolution is Drink Potion -> AoO -> Parry -> Riposte, and that the Potion would not take effect until you finish resolving the Riposte.


Melkiador wrote:
PFS DMs aren't supposed to be robots.

PFS GM: Level 3 character became Eldritch Knight. Does not compute beep-boop.

Honestly, having PFS GMs be robots isn't necessarily a bad idea; it certainly allows for 100% compatibility among GMs.


graystone wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer: I'll just say I'll have to disagree that what book/supplement an item comes out in has a bearing on how valid it is in a rule.

As to "There are also no FAQ or Errata that state Rays are weapons.": Well there IS this FAQ - "Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons? Yes." If we treat effect the same way as "Elf Blood: Half-elves count as both elves and humans for any effect related to race." then the result of the 1/2 elf/orc FAQ should carry over. "half-elf rays can select elf and human weapon rules elements"

That's how I see it at least. I'd rather have a direct answer on how rays count as weapons from the dev's but until that happens, I see rays as weapons for most things.

Agree to disagree, but then I should be able to bring any 3rd party product to your table, and not have any quarrels with your approval of it being an authentic subject. Even some weird random crap that I just made up to ruin the gaming table. (Which I'm not saying I would, but it is merely an example, after all...)

I can ignore specific rules text to get my point across too. Look:

Lore Keeper wrote:
Lore Keeper (Ex): Instead of encyclopedic knowledge, you learn most of your information through tales, songs, and poems. You may use your Charisma modifier instead of your Intelligence modifier on all Knowledge checks.

Now I can use both Intelligence and Charisma on Knowledge checks. Look ma, no hands! Isn't that great?

That's exactly what you did:

graystone wrote:
Well there IS this FAQ - "Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons? Yes."

Ignoring or changing words alters the meaning of the FAQ, just like how ignoring some text of the ability above changes it entirely.

Since, by your interpretation, a Ray is now a weapon, I'm sure it has Hardness, Hit Points, can be enhanced up to +10 with specific modifiers, can be crafted for constant use, it's subject to rust and similar effects, and I can ready actions to Sunder it when it's fired at me, destroying it, and the effect no longer taking place. There's a bunch of other crap I could throw at too, but that's just off the top of my head.

All of that's obviously not intended when it comes to Rays. So it's much easier to assume they only function as weapons for certain subjects (i.e. weapon attack and damage roll bonuses), and not all subjects.

Additionally, there had to be a FAQ released for players to be able to take archetypes and such if they counted as multiple (sub)types, because it was unclear if, outside of their listed examples, those counted as such. Kind of exactly what's going on now, isn't it?


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If I can select Rays for my Fighter Weapon Training (i.e., Rays are defined in a Weapon Group), then I'll concede the argument that a ray is, in fact a weapon. Sadly, that can't ever happen, and until that happens, Rays aren't defined as weapons, both in a table, or in the Fighter Weapon Groups, meaning they aren't actually weapons.
Not all weapons are in weapon groups. Barbazu Beard and sea knives don't appear in any group but are clearly weapons. So I don't see groups having anything to do with something being a weapon.

Sea Knives and Barbazu Beards aren't Core items; as such, they won't be properly listed in a weapon group, because when it comes to Core materials (i.e. hardcover publications), only Core weapons are listed.

Rays are a subject from the Core, as is the Fighter Weapon Groups, which are updated whenever new hardcovers containing weapons are released; see Ultimate Combat, APG, and Ultimate Equipment. There are multiple publications that never cite Rays as being a part of a weapon group, and Rays have been around since the CRB was released. There are also no FAQ or Errata that state Rays are weapons. In fact, there is at least one FAQ that suggests quite the contrary, as well as current book content that hasn't been Errata'd yet.

@ Nefreet: The ramifications are that I could use Deadly Aim/Bullseye Shot on spells like Acid Arrow, Scorching Ray, etc. And that's not even making any adjustments.

Quite frankly, I highly doubt it's intended for Scorching Ray to get +6 static damage (+2 from each ray) at the level you can cast it, and that only goes up as you level.

Hell, I could do the same thing with a spell like Enervation, and I'd get bonuses on the level drain ability as well. And that's obviously not intended either.


James Risner wrote:

Hmm, that brings up another point I'm sure you will see table variance.

When cast via Spellstrike, is it a a single target spell still?

I think it still qualifies, but others may not.

Spellstrike wrote:
Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell.

The only change between Spellstrike delivery and standard delivery is that Spellstrike can be delivered through any weapon the Magus wields. Also, This FAQ supports that statement.


claudekennilol wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That being said, the answer is cut and dry; if the effect is treated as a weapon for certain purposes (such as rays or weapon-like spells), and it has a range increment listed, then I'm sure it counts.

That's only for rays. What about other ranged spells that are rays? The question isn't specifically rays, but for everything (including those that aren't rays).

Also, this exact thing came up at a table I was playing at this weekend and I wasn't even the one that initiated the conversation.

Read the entire FAQ. It doesn't matter if the ray is a spell or not. It counts as a weapon for the purposes of effects that enhance weapons.
I'm not sure what you're reading in that FAQ that says what you're saying it says. Specifically, which part of that FAQ applies to a spell like Acid Splash?

My mistake, I think I misread your statement. Feel free to disregard it, as I thought you said "What about rays that aren't from spells" or something.

At any rate, it's still cut and dry. If you can prove that the effect generated either is a weapon (via weapon-like spell), or counts or is treated as a weapon for the specific purposes needed (via rays), then the cited FAQ applies. If not, then I don't see why it should apply.


There are multiple sources that state and show that an Unarmed Strike is, in fact, a weapon. The weapon table lists an Unarmed Strike as a weapon, and there is rules text, stating that Unarmed Strikes are always considered Light Weapons. It's also listed under multiple weapon categories for Fighter Weapon Groups.

There are ZERO sources that state or show that a Ray is an actual weapon, and a few sources merely state that it counts or is treated as a weapon in regards to certain things (Bardic Performance, Weapon Focus/Specialization/Improved Critical, etc).

If I can select Rays for my Fighter Weapon Training (i.e., Rays are defined in a Weapon Group), then I'll concede the argument that a ray is, in fact a weapon. Sadly, that can't ever happen, and until that happens, Rays aren't defined as weapons, both in a table, or in the Fighter Weapon Groups, meaning they aren't actually weapons.

If you want other examples, we can look at the Bastard Sword, Spells V.S. Spell-Like Abilities, or my currently unsolved favorite, Hands V.S. "Hands".


Quandary wrote:

I don't think Bouncing works with touch spells. The language:

a bouncing spell targeting a single creature...
you may ... redirect it to target another eligible creature within range

Matches "targeted" spells, not touch spells.

Except Shocking Grasp description calls out for a single creature (or object) as its target. Therefore, it is a spell that targets a single creature (or an object, at the player's choice).

Noting your bolded part, Shocking Grasp, in this example, is "targeting a single creature," as the language says, so it's eligible with the Bouncing metamagic.


claudekennilol wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That being said, the answer is cut and dry; if the effect is treated as a weapon for certain purposes (such as rays or weapon-like spells), and it has a range increment listed, then I'm sure it counts.

That's only for rays. What about other ranged spells that are rays? The question isn't specifically rays, but for everything (including those that aren't rays).

Also, this exact thing came up at a table I was playing at this weekend and I wasn't even the one that initiated the conversation.

Read the entire FAQ. It doesn't matter if the ray is a spell or not. It counts as a weapon for the purposes of effects that enhance weapons.

@ BigNorseWolf: Then by your logic, I can Vital Strike a Shocking Grasp for 10D6 damage, since you think anything that uses an attack roll is a weapon. So I suppose Grapple, Bull Rush, Overrun, etc. are all weapons too?


It makes no sense to have to spend a feat because you're not proficient from a certain way. The feat is designed as a pre-requisite because you need to have full proficiency with the weapon. That's the entire purpose of that feat. The intent is obvious.

I'll FAQ it as well, just so we don't get stupid Rules Lawyers ruining the fun of players.


Kthulhu wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
or they decided to cut their losses and realize it takes an entire system makeover to fix the real problems of the disparity.
I remain doubtful that they'll put that as a higher priority than backwards compatibility when Pathfinder v2 rolls around.

IF Pathfinder 2nd edition rolls around. Which is doubtful, and I don't think backwards compatibility will be their big focus with that. Adventure Paths and Companion Books are still being published, and is probably their stable source of income, because these are being published constantly. If they want an influx, then they can expand on the Unchained line some more, making Unchained 2 to help rebalance other classes that certainly need it, implement other optional rules, etc. Mythic Adventures 2 is also a possibility.

They're still trying to expand more options with books like Ultimate Intrigue, and I imagine they still have a few more products like that in mind (Beastiary 5).

The only time they'll work on a Second Edition Pathfinder is when they run out of all other options for content publication for their first edition.


LazarX wrote:
Is there disparity? Yes, not even Paizo has promised that all classes would be equal. What I have yet to see that it is a problem on the level that some of habeen claiming. The only real classes that needed fixing were the ons served in Unchained! three that had problems, and one that was clearly out of balance.

If you're playing PFS, then you're not going to see the problem. Because Paizo knows the problems, and fixed the problems in PFS.

Unfortunately, they basically made the game E12, because they realized the disparity becomes extremely powerful from 13th level onward. Access to 7th level spell isn't a joke.

There are a lot more problems they could've addressed with Unchained that they needed to address. They barely touched the disparity via the Summoner, the Barbarian (essentially nerfed, but still better than the others), Monk (re-worked, not sure if better or worse yet, though archetyped Monks probably still better), and Rogue (workable, but still garbage compared to a real martial). They are either going to split other changes into an Unchained 2, or they decided to cut their losses and realize it takes an entire system makeover to fix the real problems of the disparity.


Silent Image wrote:
This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect.

So this allows you to make one visual figment, so you could fake one card, or a whole hand, and win all the time. Remember this only applies to vision, and not anything else. However, you would have to recast the spell every time, since this only affects up to one or two cards (in your hand), or a card on the table, which is tricky, since you would have to be able to time it just right.

As Brew Bird said though, they do get Perception and Sense Motive checks if you are caught winning too much, and could suspect your foul play in a bad way.

You might be able to get away with using Prestidigitation for cheating as well, but you will run into the same problems as Silent Image.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

So a semi-relevant discussion about how Bouncing Spell works got me to thinking about how it interacts with spells that require attack rolls. Now, the question isn't what you all probably think it is, but I'll go ahead and break it down with this basic scenario:

We have a Magus with a Scimitar that has the Bouncing Metamagic feat. He prepares a Bouncing Shocking Grasp.

Combat begins with 2 creatures adjacent to each other; they do not have any form of Electricity immunity or resists, but they have Spell Resistance. The Magus is 5 feet away from being adjacent to both creatures. He casts the Metamagic Shocking Grasp, takes a 5-foot step, and attempts to deliver the spell via Spellstrike against one of the creatures. He hits the creature, dealing Scimitar damage, but does not bypass the Spell Resistance.

The Metamagic has this to say:

Bouncing Spell wrote:
Whenever a bouncing spell targeting a single creature has no effect on its intended target (whether due to spell resistance or a successful saving throw) you may, as a swift action, redirect it to target another eligible creature within range. The redirected spell behaves in all ways as if its new target were the original target for the spell. Spells that affect a target in any way (including a lesser effect from a successful saving throw) may not be redirected in this manner.

No effect because of spell resistance? Check. Able to take a Swift Action? Check. Have another eligible target in range? Check. So far, everything appears to be in order.

However, there are still a couple glaring concerns.

For starters, does the Magus need to make a second attack roll with the Shocking Grasp in addition to the Spell Resistance check? And if he does (as a bonus question), would it be as a Spellstrike (meaning he affects normal AC and deals Scimitar damage), or as a basic Touch Attack (affecting Touch AC)?


Kthulhu wrote:
There isn't going to be a solution to the martial-caster disparity. Not only does Paizo categorically deny that it exists, they also seem intent on exacerbating it.

I wouldn't even go so far as to say they've denied it. They've acted on it many times before. Look at Crane Wing. Look at Divine Protection. Look at Charmed Life. Look at Fighters, Rogues, non-archetype Monks, compared to Paladins, Barbarians, Magi, Inquisitors, Summoners, and every single full-progression caster, look at the f!&*ing Oracles (yes, I'm double-pegging them. You know why), and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

They've released so much content, and a lot of it caters to certain classes that have certain features, and a majority of that content always involve the same classes with the same features, book after book.

Don't get me wrong, I understand Paizo has to keep pumping product to keep their business blossoming, and that's natural for a company to do, because to do otherwise is self-destructive. But a thing that can be worse than product bloat, is product bloat that's selective in what it's bloating. With them doing what I said above, adding more and more content to the same select few all the time just adds to this disparity we argue about (that, with a certain product publication they've endorsed themselves, is conclusive proof they understand there is a disparity).

The only thing they did right to try and curve some of those disparity problems was with that publication, and that's the Unchained book, and it's a shame they only did a select few classes, as well as a few (yet very intriguing) rules. Maybe if they release an Unchained 2, it would be an even bigger step in the right direction, altering more classes that need it, providing equal options to every class, not just the one or two they like so much in the standard publications, and a lot more that my "puny brain" can't come up with.

With all that being said, it's quite clear that Paizo, regarding their stand-alone Pathfinder game, doesn't give two damns about balance any more than the thoughts they give for PFS. Hint; they don't go past the levels where Martials get trivialized on a roundly basis. The same exact reasons why PFS plays the way it plays, is the same reasons we're complaining about: The disparity becomes more and more prevalent if PFS deviated from what the Book RAW/RAI does and doesn't allow.

It's also quite clear that Paizo trusts the players themselves to come up with fair rules for their own tables (as they have with PFS), which is precisely what Rule 0 is, and why such a thing was put in the book.

I would like to make one correction, though: There can be a solution to the martial-caster disparity. But that won't come without tearing down the brick house and redoing it all over again from scratch.

1 to 50 of 3,037 << 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.