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

3,668 posts (3,669 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,668 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Also, to add on the whole "lacking limbs" issue, let's bring up an armless PC.

This poor guy got his arms tore off by breaking the law and was dealt the related consequences of the kingdom (probably stole something, so he lost in arms as a means to feel what it's like to be robbed of something precious, also done to make sure he can't steal again). Whatever, the point is now, this PC has zero arms, which means he cannot carry or use anything that absolutely requires hands/arms.

Would this PC be able to TWF? Maybe. But that depends on how it's executed.

If the PC is just a regular Fighter type (or a Rogue, to fit the flavor), he can't feasibly TWF. The TWF action requires you to declare which weapons you're using before you perform TWF, as per the FAQ regarding if attacking with two weapons instead of just one constitutes performing TWF, meaning he might be able to declare things like a Barbazu Beard, Armor Spikes, or Boot Blades.

As a concept, there's nothing wrong with it at first creation. But, the problem with this is the Armor Spikes FAQ. This FAQ states that you cannot use Armor Spikes with a Two-Handed Weapon, and this is enforced for two reasons:

1. When performing TWF, every weapon counts as requiring an arm/hand to use. If Armor Spikes do not normally require a hand to operate, and a FAQ disallows its use with something that requires two hands to operate, then the same can be made for trying to TWF with the likes of merely Unarmed Strikes (with your legs or head).

2. If your total statistical modifiers are greater than what you could normally accomplish (such as getting 2x Strength to damage in comparison to the standard 1.5x Strength), it becomes disqualified in the eyes of balance. This is an "unwritten" rule, one that I don't personally agree with (as well as many others), but it is a reason why this is disallowed, and was one of the reasons presented when the FAQ explanation was questioned.

Now, if this guy took levels in Monk so as to improve his Unarmed Skills, and acquired Flurry of Blows, there might be hope for him after all to effectively TWF, though that is still not the case with Manufactured Weapons, as Flurry of Blows requires Monk-specific weapons (which usually require hands to use), or can only be used with Unarmed Strikes.

Again, it's heavily enforced by FAQ that weapons require hands to use, and when subjects that don't require hands to use normally, they are still treated as requiring hands to use.


Kazaan wrote:
Number of arms doesn't affect how many off-hand attacks you have unless it explicitly says so. If it did, then losing an arm ought to reduce your number of off-hand attacks, but nothing indicates that it does. You could get your arm cut off, but still TWF with a weapon in the other hand and a non-hand weapon (ie. armor spikes, unarmed strike, etc). Even a creature without any hands at all can make viable attacks using unarmed strikes and non-hand weapons. Therefore, gaining more hands doesn't automatically grant additional off-hand attacks; you need some rules element that explicitly states you have more than the one standard off-hand attack.

Tell that to the Armor Spikes FAQ. When a FAQ says an official Paizo weapon, which doesn't normally require hands to use, requires a hand to use for TWF, both metaphorically and actually, then you know that more hands = more off-hand attacks, at least in regards to the TWF action.

That's also the entire point of MWF, and it specifically modifies TWF if you possess more than the standard amount of hands the game assumes you possess.


Calth wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Calth, you're being silly.

It's quite clear that a creature with 3 or more arms (and hands attached to those arms) is allowed to perform the TWF action, but how they run it is different in comparison to how creatures with 2 arms (and hands) operate.

Instead of having a single Main Hand and a single Off Hand, they have more than one Off Hand. They might have two, they might have three, they might have four, they might have more. So how would we determine how many Off Hands a creature has?

In the case of a humanoid, and based off of the numerous TWF FAQs (and Multiweapon Fighting functioning identical in terms of mathematical adjustments and fundamentals), it's quite clear that the following must apply:

A. You must have all of your weapons drawn and ready to attack prior to taking the TWF action.
B. You must declare which weapon is your primary and which weapon(s) is/are your off-hand(s).
C. Each weapon must occupy at least one hand. (Even weapons that don't normally occupy a hand, such as Armor Spikes, Spiked Boots, Barbazu Beards, etc. are considered as requiring a hand, both physical and otherwise, to use.)
D. Your total statistical modifier cannot equate more than how many weapon attacks you possess. For example, a Kasatha could not TWF with two Greatswords, as even if he possesses the physical hands to do so, the statistical multiplier equates to 3xMod, whereas a standard Kasatha performing TWF or MWF would have 2.5xMod (1 Primary = 1x, 1 Off-Hand = 0.5x).

If a FAQ says you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes because you invalidate C and D, then it's quite clear that having more than two arms, forcing you to replace TWF for MWF, creating a rules adjustment (meaning no ITWF, GTWF, DS, TWR, etc). and multiple Paizo-endorsed FAQs telling us how TWF/MWF operates, is more than enough proof to state that an arm, for the purposes of TWF/MWF, provides an attack you can execute with.

Citation needed. Again you are making assumptions that...

You do realize that if these assumptions aren't made, then other stuff that's not explicitly stated in the rules flies as well. Everybody knows the whole "Having the Dead condition doesn't mean you can't act or change the outcome of combat, because it doesn't say you can't." If you're going to say that these "assumptions" can't be made, then other assumptions can't be made either, and the game descends into madness.

It's quite clear what the rules are intended in regards to TWF/MWF and attacks, and I've already said there are FAQs which support my statement (which you apparently think aren't "citations"). The FAQs represent the RAI of the rule, and the RAI of the rule is just as important, if not more important, than the RAW. If anyone wants to rule otherwise, then they would be in homebrew territory.


Calth, you're being silly.

It's quite clear that a creature with 3 or more arms (and hands attached to those arms) is allowed to perform the TWF action, but how they run it is different in comparison to how creatures with 2 arms (and hands) operate.

Instead of having a single Main Hand and a single Off Hand, they have more than one Off Hand. They might have two, they might have three, they might have four, they might have more. So how would we determine how many Off Hands a creature has?

In the case of a humanoid, and based off of the numerous TWF FAQs (and Multiweapon Fighting functioning identical in terms of mathematical adjustments and fundamentals), it's quite clear that the following must apply:

A. You must have all of your weapons drawn and ready to attack prior to taking the TWF action.
B. You must declare which weapon is your primary and which weapon(s) is/are your off-hand(s).
C. Each weapon must occupy at least one hand. (Even weapons that don't normally occupy a hand, such as Armor Spikes, Spiked Boots, Barbazu Beards, etc. are considered as requiring a hand, both physical and otherwise, to use.)
D. Your total statistical modifier cannot equate more than how many weapon attacks you possess. For example, a Kasatha could not TWF with two Greatswords, as even if he possesses the physical hands to do so, the statistical multiplier equates to 3xMod, whereas a standard Kasatha performing TWF or MWF would have 2.5xMod (1 Primary = 1x, 1 Off-Hand = 0.5x).

If a FAQ says you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes because you invalidate C and D, then it's quite clear that having more than two arms, forcing you to replace TWF for MWF, creating a rules adjustment (meaning no ITWF, GTWF, DS, TWR, etc). and multiple Paizo-endorsed FAQs telling us how TWF/MWF operates, is more than enough proof to state that an arm, for the purposes of TWF/MWF, provides an attack you can execute with.


@ CBDunkerson

1. I don't think they can take feats like Improved TWF, Greater TWF, Double Slice, et. al., as Multiweapon Fighting specifically states it replaces TWF as a feat choice. This means that a GM can rule they can't take the follow-up TWF feats because they don't meet the feat pre-requisites, and it's not unreasonable, since Multiweapon Fighting doesn't say it counts as the TWF feat for meeting pre-requisites.

If you were a Kasatha Ranger with the Two-Weapon Fighting (or Weapon and Shield) style(s), then you could get away with it because you can explicitly choose those feats (without meeting the pre-requisites), or even just outright take the TWF feat, though that too can be disregarded since it can be ruled that Multiweapon Fighting replaces that (which means you already possess the feat and can't choose it again).

2. When they declare they are using TWF (or MWF), they declare which weapon is the Primary, and then declare what other weapons are Off-Hand; or to be more precise, once they declare what's a Primary, whatever isn't declared as Primary becomes Off-Hand. This gets shaky if you try to use Unarmed Strikes in conjunction, but that's how I'd see it ran. This is mentioned in the FAQ regarding TWF in the Core.

3. If we were to follow the FAQ regarding TWF with a Two-Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes, if the damage bonus from your statistical modifier goes over the standard (that is, 4 arms = 2.5x modifier), it wouldn't be allowed. So if you were going to use 2 Nodachis to TWF, it would not work, as you would hit 3x Strength modifier, though if you were to use a Nodachi and 2 Scimitars, it would work (as the statistical modifiers still equal 2.5x modifier).


fretgod99 wrote:

Also just to clarify, the benefits of the two feats regarding penalty reductions is precisely the same. So I'm not sure what you meant at the end there, Darksol.

Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.
Multiweapon Fighting wrote:
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

My mistake, I thought it was stating that your Main-Hands are at BAB-2, and your Off-Hands are at BAB-6.

So that would put it at -4 across the board. Fair enough.

There's still nothing to denote light weapon reductions. It's not unreasonable for it to be ruled that the Light Weapon clause would still apply, but because it's not specifically mentioned, some GMs may rule you're suffering -4 regardless of weapon choice. To that end, I'll say expect table variance.


Talonhawke wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

As a break off of this thread I am making a thread for dicussion and hopefully if enough clicks are gained a definitive answer to the question, can a creature with extra arms make weapon attacks with all of them without using iterative attacks.

The dicussion stems from the fact that no rule specificlly allows more than 2 attacks a around without iterative attacks.

We see several creatures in the bestiary who use x attacks where x is the number of arms in a full attack in the way described above without a special ruling to allow it. We also see some with extra arms who only use 2 in their written attack sequences.

We also see Vestigal Arms which grants arms but gives a specific rule disallowing extra attacks lending to the position that by default extra arms means extra attacks.

Having Arms doesn't always mean you gain more attacks. It allows you to take more attacks, assuming you have an available means to attack with those arms, such as by being given an effect that provides Claws. So if I were a Kasatha with both Beast Totem Rage and Feral Mutagen, I could make 4 Claw Attacks without problem.

Note, however, that the FAQ regarding Vestigial Arms states that even if you provide an effect which grants attacks to the Vestigial Arms (such as the Feral Mutagen, which gives 2 Claws that can be put on those arms, granting them attacks), you cannot take those attacks in addition to the ones you would be able to take without those arms, as the source of the attacks is the arms, not the effect granting the Claws.

Which is why I specified Weapon attacks. Can a Kasatha pick up 4 shortswords and swing them all at their opponent at level 1.

Any subject which grants the arm the ability to attack works, assuming it's not a Vestigial Arm. Again, those get the green card.

That being said, there are multiple means to attack. If you're 1st level, you only get 1 attack, per your BAB. This means if you're armed with 4 Shortswords (let's up the ante, make it 4 Kukris), you can make a single attack with any of those, at no penalties. You can also perform the TWF action, which allows you to make a single Primary attack, and then additional Off-Hand attacks for every attack you possess.

This ruling is enforced by the Normal text of the MWF feat that you are otherwise exclusivised to take.

Multiweapon Fighting (Normal) wrote:
A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

That being said, the Feat benefits don't add up to what the TWF feat provides; that is, the TWF feat makes all penalties a -4, whereas the MWF feat makes your Primary a -2, and all your Off-Hands a -6. It also doesn't denote that you reduce the penalties further if all of your Off-Hands are Light, meaning I suppose you could upgrade the weaponry to Scimitars or Rapiers instead.

Whether those penalties are intended or not, I don't know, but them's the breaks.


Talonhawke wrote:

As a break off of this thread I am making a thread for dicussion and hopefully if enough clicks are gained a definitive answer to the question, can a creature with extra arms make weapon attacks with all of them without using iterative attacks.

The dicussion stems from the fact that no rule specificlly allows more than 2 attacks a around without iterative attacks.

We see several creatures in the bestiary who use x attacks where x is the number of arms in a full attack in the way described above without a special ruling to allow it. We also see some with extra arms who only use 2 in their written attack sequences.

We also see Vestigal Arms which grants arms but gives a specific rule disallowing extra attacks lending to the position that by default extra arms means extra attacks.

Having Arms doesn't always mean you gain more attacks. It allows you to take more attacks, assuming you have an available means to attack with those arms, such as by being given an effect that provides Claws. So if I were a Kasatha with both Beast Totem Rage and Feral Mutagen, I could make 4 Claw Attacks without problem.

Note, however, that the FAQ regarding Vestigial Arms states that even if you provide an effect which grants attacks to the Vestigial Arms (such as the Feral Mutagen, which gives 2 Claws that can be put on those arms, granting them attacks), you cannot take those attacks in addition to the ones you would be able to take without those arms, as the source of the attacks is the arms, not the effect granting the Claws.


So let me get this straight. You're playing an AP, which resulted in 4 character deaths, two of which were just poor decisions, one of which was just bad rolling, and another of which was with a player being a Neutral Evil jerk who, after one of your previous characters basically saved him from getting killed, decided to voluntarily fail a saving throw just to make you die again. (I have more colorful phrases, but it's best I don't use them, so as to keep my response "mature".)

Your GM decides that you have to create new characters for each death (because you can't raise the dead ones), and each character possesses the same experience as the previous one, without understanding the loophole that A. You're missing out on a lot of experience, and B. He's not giving you any chance to gain this experience out of combat.

Do I have that right?

If so, that means you have a jerk player whose absolutely selfish, is Chaotic Stupid and doesn't enjoy playing with others, or if he does, he does so in a toxic and rude manner (by the way, you technically saved his life by being the distraction), you have a GM who purposefully keeps you weaker than what everyone else is, even though he's observed (and caused) you to die over four times now (and everyone else is A-Okay), and you have every other player at the table who doesn't help you with build advice, tactics advice, or anything like that.

It's okay to be friends with these people and interact with them outside of the game, but it's not okay to sit there and feign interest in something, especially when the thing you're supposed to be getting out of it (fun and entertainment), you're not getting. So it becomes pointless to follow through with the activity.

If it were me, I'd tell them that I'm not having fun being constantly killed, being constantly put at a lower level (which causes me to die even more, by the way), not receiving any help whatsoever, from the GM or my fellow players, to create a more useful and/or survivable character with precise tactics, and that this game (or to be more accurate, this table) isn't suitable to my playstyle. I would then state that they enjoy the rest of their sessions, and I'd bow out to find a table that follows my interests more.


Milo v3 wrote:
Just a Mort wrote:
It's the equivalent of telling wizards they can't throw any more evocation spells, because evocation spells are evil (for god knows what moral grounds).
Whenever you cast a fireball your contributing the heat-death of the universe.

[algore]Fool! Don't you get it?

The real threat to the universe is obviously ManBearPig! I swear he's somewhere on the Material Plane! I'm super-duper serial![/algore]


born_of_fire wrote:

PETSE

You're not summoning alementals, are you? ;)

Whiskey Elementals, here I come...

On a serious note, it doesn't really matter of anyone's ethical qualms when you're in a dungeon, slaying things that are trying to kill you, because you're probably in a place that you don't belong.

So let's see here, breaking and entering, murderous intent, murder in general (assuming things are living, of course), and doing activities that are illegal in half of the universe? And the big moral hangup is condemning the essence of a creature (not the creature itself, since it merely dissipates when "killed"), created by magic, to a suicide mission?

That's like saying you can pick your friends and your nose. But your friend's nose? You're going to Hell for that! Say Hi to Asmodeus for me!


Letric wrote:

@Darksol the Painbringer

Need to speak to my DM regarding not having a weapon and being able to threaten. All I saw was that you can make an off hand attack with your shield, which means being able to TWF.

Craft Magic/Armor I'm not picking it up because I'm not really sure we have downtime. I'm assuming all the crafting will be done on adventures, and I'm picking up Rope trick and the such to craft. I also have Valet Familiar to craft 4k/day if I'm Accelerating.
I already have Scrolls/Wands/Items, another one is too much. Plus Scrolls are the worst to craft, 1 pathetic spell takes 1 day.

Regarding opposition, well Enchantment has nice buffs, but we're down to 1 melee. Yes, Heroism is great, eventually I can craft a Wand and just put it there, I can afford it. At level 11 that wand will be CL 11 and last a LOT longer. Only downside is that I can't Extend it unless I craft it that way.

Haste was a great buff until we lost our Ninja, now with only 1 melee, basically we need to either go Invisible, summon a lot of meatshields, or just kill everything on first round.

Since I'm guessing our Oracle is focusing mainly on Healing/Summon, and not buffing that much (from what I could see on these first 4 levels) I'll have to pick up those roles (which I like) and Control battlefield with fly+aoe entagled and the such.

Picked up Conjuration for the Shift ability, I like having escapes. At first I was going to summon, but then realized takes too much effort to know every monster, and I wanna play something more simple.
Once I'm level 5 I might prepare a SM just in case for something rare, like having Archon to bypass all DR for example.

Since when is a Heavy Shield not a weapon? It's listed in the Weapons section, it has damage dice, you can make normal attacks with it, the list goes on. A Heavy Shield is just as much a weapon as a Longsword. If you disagree, then re-read the rules on the PRD. Also, relevant FAQ. He isn't proficient, meaning he suffers a -4 penalty, but he can still make attacks with it. See also this relevant FAQ.

It was merely a suggestion. Stating you're a crafter means you'll want to encompass more than just Wondrous Items. But, if you are unsure about downtime, then I'd suggest retraining your crafting feats, not so much that they'll be useless, but more that you might want other feats in place, such as Spell Penetration, or Metamagic Feats, since their usage is very questionable.

If you extend it, that's a 4th level spell, which can still be used in a Wand, but that's pushing it, since that will increase the cost with not a lot of useful repercussion.

If your Oracle can learn to cast Blessing of Fervor down the road (4th level spell), it would be more suitable to your party composition.


Letric wrote:

Human Wizard Conjuration Teleport (Opposition Schools Enchantment – Divination)

STR 7 DEX 12 CON 14 INT 18 WIS 12 CHA 10

-Traits-
Campaign
Scholar of the Ancients You gain a +1 trait bonus on Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (history) checks, and begin play able to speak and read Thassilonian.
Combat
Reactionary +2 Initiative
Equipment
Extremely Fashionable Diplomacy class skill. +1 Diplo/Bluff/Intimimate with 150GP value of items.
Social
Clever Wordplay INT to Diplomacy

-Feats-
1 – Improved Initiative H-Additional Traits - Familiar Owl
3 – Craft Wondrous Items
5 – Craft Wand + BONUS FEAT

I'm having trouble deciding what to pick next honestly. Our party is

Slayer > 2WF Our tank, front liner, stealthy guy
Oracle of Life > He can't do damage (achievement feat), he usually can't flank (using a weapon prevents casting and he's using heavy shield). He sometimes summons, but rarely buffs the party, because he needs his spells to heal to get credit for his achievement feat.
Sorecerer > new comer, I'm guessing pure damage sorcerer with some self buffing capabilities.

I don't like running Blasters, and I'm not even built for that honestly. At level 4 the best I could choose is Scorching Ray, and I have barely +3 to hit.

Craft Wand is there because I'm going Staff like wand discovery. I'm the crafter and knowledge guy.

I usually enjoy buffing the melee guy, having the Resist energy/Prot from evil spell in case we need it, and using some fog to help our party.
Eventually I end up doing
- flanking, because the Slayer has no one to flank
- Save or Suck spells otherwise we die > Grease for weapons, Color Spray

I don't wanna go summon, like I'll probably won't pick up Teleport.

Should I take Research Opposition? I have SoS spell, and Enchantment is all about that.
I could take Divination, but is it really worth it a feat? Only thing I can think of is Dispel Magic.

If your Oracle is using a Heavy Shield, he still counts as Flanking. As long as he can make attacks with the Heavy Shield and is in the proper position, then he can do it.

Yeah, I'd leave the blasting to the Sorcerer. He can do it better and for longer if he's spec'd right.

If you're a crafter, I'd consider going Craft Magic Arms & Armor, being able to enhance everybody's weapons and armor essentially cuts out the middle-man of a lot of items. It also allows you to effectively "transmute" found items into different, more usable ones, or to save up to enhance your current weapon or armor at cost and not price, which is huge, as it allows you to spend your money on other equally important things. If your GM allows a fair amount of downtime, this will be nice.

Enchantment would be infinitely more useful for Opposition Research, as buffs like Heroism and Rage are pretty damn awesome, and spells like Hold Person, Suggestion, and Charm Person are pretty neat too. Divination kind of sucks as a spell school, because its effectiveness is subject to GM FIAT, which is almost never a good thing. Also, Dispel Magic is Abjuration, not Divination, so you wouldn't be charged double slots for that.

I'm surprised you wouldn't pick up summoning, as Conjuration is specifically built for summoning spells. I suppose the only reason that's the case is because you don't have any of the feats for it (such as Spell Focus, Augment, and Superior Summons), though being able to summon two Celestial creatures (which is going to be useful 90% of the time) as a Standard Action, having +4 Constitution and +4 Strength, is pretty rad. They'll also provide flanks for your Slayer buddy too, or themselves.


Cyrad wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Guard could do either an Improvised Weapon attack, or an Unarmed Strike (Punch) on the PC. And no, the PC wouldn't be flat-footed or anything because he's aware of the guard's presence.

But inflicting automatic damage, even a small amount, isn't really fair in that situation.

He'd be flatfooted because he hasn't acted in initiative.

Except the GM Ruled that combat hasn't started, meaning no Initiative is required, meaning no flat-footed condition occurs, as both parties are aware of each others' presence.

I'm not going to say that the Guard making an attack shouldn't be constituted as combat not beginning (in normal cases, it is), but the OP specifically handwaved that the Guard making the attack after the PC's snide response would not initiate combat, even though in normal circumstances, attacking anything, or even signaling an obvious proxy to attack, would trigger combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guard could do either an Improvised Weapon attack, or an Unarmed Strike (Punch) on the PC. And no, the PC wouldn't be flat-footed or anything because he's aware of the guard's presence.

But inflicting automatic damage, even a small amount, isn't really fair in that situation.


Milo v3 wrote:
Mad Maudlin wrote:
Or would it just 900 gp for a slotless level 0 item?

I'd do it as a wondrous item using the normal creation rules, it's a very reasonable effect.

Quote:
I just know it'll lead to a +5 Throwing Bane(Witches) House.
That would require the house to be a masterwork weapon... which is impossible to do in my experience.

FTFY.

Permanency can work, but it can be dispelled, meaning it can be reapplied.

900 Gold for a custom item to tidy up the place (A Broom or Duster of Cleaning?) is actually quite a bit to spend on such a menial (and otherwise not really worthwhile) item. He'd be better spent putting it elsewhere, such as to improve his character's overall effectiveness in the midst of combat. Even the Goblin Fire Drums have their use...

I'd personally allow it, if only just to teach a lesson about spending money on useless stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

How could you take a swift action, but not a free action while Staggered? Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

Doesn't exactly make much sense to be able to move 30 feet but not drop to the ground either. But there we are.
You can Crawl as a Move Action so you can still go prone.
How did you go prone in order to crawl? You can't crawl standing up.

Really, now? Do you see anywhere in the Crawl entry stating that you must possess the Prone condition in order to perform the Crawl action?

Crawling wrote:
You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.

No? It just says you're considered Prone, and you must spend a Move Action to stand up? So then why are you practically houseruling that such a condition is required to perform the action, when by the rules, it's not required?


JakeCWolf wrote:

So while outlining my WIP female Aasimar Paladin, I came across an odd conflict I'd like to get a second opinion on, though the title itself may clue in on what I'm asking about;

Simply put I want my Aasimar be of angelic descent, and according to the wiki I can choose for her to be of angelic blood via "Variant Aasimar Heritages".

"Angel-Blooded" replaces her Daylight Sp with an Alter Self Sp, but I also want her to have the "Heavenly Radiance" racial feat as well, this is where the conflict arises.

"Heavenly Radiance" requires she retains her Daylight Sp, yet "Angel-Blooded" changes it to Alter Self Sp. So... She can either have the blood of Angels or be radiant like a heavenly being, yet not both at the same time? That seems extremely silly to me.

I'm just curious if anyone's run into this before and how they choose to deal with it. I'm thinking if I choose to have both that expending charges of Alter Self to fuel the added Sp of "Heavenly Radiance" would be perfectly acceptable lore and game play wise.

Feedback as always greatly appreciated.

You don't qualify for the feat because you need access to a Daylight Spell-like Ability. If you get it from another source, then by all means you can take the feat, but until that pre-requisite is fulfilled, then you cannot take that feat. End of discussion.

Also note that simply having the Blood of Angels doesn't make you divinity incarnate. Another example of this would be Aasimars taking the Scion of Humanity trait, which makes them count as both Native Outsiders and Humanoids (Human), and lose the ability to speak Celestial.

Conversely, having the Blood of Demons doesn't make you a hellspawn, your heritage is simply tainted. See also Sorcerer Bloodlines, which outline that your appearance and such changes, but that you aren't actually the subject of your bloodline.


The Sword wrote:

To be clear, I am not disputing anyone's right to play how they like. I'm merely responding to people who repeatedly tell me I'm cramping my players style or breaking the game. I'm not arguing for a rule change - just stating that that the lack of nuance isn't satisfactory for me. I was happy with the thread 24 posts ago, but people keep posting how I'm having badwrongfun.

I have requested a move to either the Discussion forum or homebrew as this is now a question of whether edged weapons should get to use their crit ranges and because i dont want to be responsible for starting an Internationsal Thread Meltdown.

My definition of Imagination still has to make sense. Sense, otherwise known as logic, is about maintaining consistency and allowing a temporary suspension of disbelief. I don't require medical evidence to support an idea/rule but I do require it to be believable within the terms set by the game.

On the other and making someone unconscious with a multiple cuts is non-sense.

The green destiny in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is a good example of a blade being used to deliver non-lethal damage. Slapping and buffeting them with the flat.

The merciful magic ability as far as I'm concerned allows a person to wield their weapon in this way particularly effectively. It doesn't need to cause the victims wounds not to bleed. The simplest explanation for an ability is the best. How does your blade of honour deal its subdual damage Darksol, or is it not necessary to consider that?

Crushing weapons like morning stars and maces etc still have to roll a -4 to hit. You are pulling the blow or using the haft.

It doesn't really matter what subforum the follow-up discussion takes place. The original rules answer was provided and acknowledged, and that's the end of the original discussion. The follow-up doesn't really share the rules of being in the wrong forum, because the follow-up is certainly relevant to the original topic (i.e. why the original rule is being handwaved for a different one).

That falls into GM FIAT, and what the Sword believes in (and knows). As I've said, the Sword is generally used as a means to train Samurai to follow the edicts of their Orders, as well as being an honorable and disciplined combatant (hence the name). The Sword can certainly still be used to kill, but the Sword gets a say as to whether the "victim," so to speak, should die (a worthy death, anyway), or be saved as they are either innocent, or have crimes that they must answer for first before judgement should be passed onto that. Also note that 95% of the time, if the wielder makes a mistake, the Sword will say something like this.

I actually made the sword up as a bit of a joke, but the fact that I can logically defend it using the rules and concepts of the game world (and other subject matter, if only for a laugh), should be more than grounds enough to not disallow it because it "doesn't make sense."

Being serious for a moment, the point of that exercise was to show that things can certainly make sense, especially if you take the time and energy to map it out into something logical. I'm not saying you can't disallow it. If you don't want it to happen, then it doesn't happen. That's the GM's power. But saying it's not allowed "because it doesn't make sense" is like saying I won't accept Katanas as true weapons because it "doesn't make sense" to make a sword that is as thin as a small stack of papers, and still be able to cut through things as if they were the air itself. Another "joke," but you understand the concept I'm portraying.

As an aside, note that last sentence you just mentioned. You brought up "pulling the blow". The same can also be done with a sword or an axe or other "I'm really deadly" weaponry, when you're either making a shallow strike or your attack merely grazes the vitals. A lot of reasons a morningstar or mace can be nonlethaled can just as easily apply to the other weapons as well.


The Sword wrote:

I would keep merciful weapon ability for weapons upon which it makes sense, not katanas. The DM decides party treasure...

Metamagic spells come at a substantial cost. Also it wouldnt have an interaction with enforcer.

Just because these abilities exist it doesnt mean they have to be available in every combination with every other item/trait/feat etc.

I don't have a problem with enforcer, just when used in combination with the maximum crit range.

Personally I don't think it is coincidence that the attack suffers a -4 to hit, just like an improvised weapon - because in reality that is what you are doing. It is a very small step to reduce the crit range to that to an improvised weapon as well.

What...? There'd be no such property on ANY item that isn't already Non-Lethal anyway, so saying that it "has to make sense" doesn't leave much room to the imagination, when you think of weapons like Swords and Axes, whose sole purpose is to kill. (And not simply injure or knock unconscious.) Even weapons like Morningstars or even simple Light Maces would make no sense, because these weapons were specifically designed to kill.

Quite frankly, not leaving barely any meat on the bone that is titled Imagination makes just as much nonsense as not allowing the Merciful property on any weapon (that it normally allows), especially when it's a game whose limits are both the rules (which you've already acknowledged what they are,) and the imagination. I mean, it not applying in the real world because physics and extreme amount of skill required to do so? Sure. But in a fantasy world with magic and rules and all other things that defy the laws of the real world? I'm sure a Merciful Katana would fit in just fine.

If anything, you just helped me come up with an intriguing and cool Katana magic item that makes sense: Discipline. An Intelligent Katana who constantly reminds the bearer of choices that lack in the weapon's name. Originally created as a means to train Samurai in their Order, it teaches the wielder both resolve, not straying on the beaten path, and restraint, only exercising execution when absolutely necessary. A blade of true honor, upheld by the highest of Samurai Orders, able to detect all Samurai, and determine if they lack discipline or not.


It's actually a fairly simple question to answer.

Buckler wrote:
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn.

The first three words are key: This means regardless of the situation, such as if using a bow is a penalty or not, if you utilize a weapon in the hand containing your buckler, you lose its AC bonus.

Better put, there's two questions you need to ask that would fit the criteria for the Shield Bonus to apply: Are you using a Bow? Yes. Are you using your Buckler hand to use the Bow? If so, then no AC Bonus from the Buckler.


Where's that dead and beaten horse at when you need him...


Matthew Downie wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I mean, people are bringing up all of these super-niche-extreme cases of characters doing stuff that is obviously more harmful/detrimental to them and their party than not taking those actions, and use it as justification for this FAQ being "poorly written and enforced," and it makes me scratch my head.

Going prone protects you from missile fire. Dropping a weapon allows you to draw another item.

There was an earlier example:

Ascalaphus wrote:

My answer to stinking cloud used to be:

Free: remove one hand from my 2H weapon
Move: draw Vapors of Easy Breath
Free: drop the glass jar, shattering it. I and other nearby people get a new saving throw against the cloud.

Moving behind cover protects you from missile fire, probably even better than going prone if it's hard cover, since that forces them to either go melee, or adjust their position to get a clear line of fire.

That example would also require 3 rounds to work. 1 Move Action would allow you to manipulate the Two-Handed Weapon to only occupy one hand, and not two (since Free Actions are prohibited). The next would allow you to draw the Vapors of Easy Breath. The following one would allow you to open the Vapors of Easy Breath, providing the saving throw.

It still works. But it's not as elegant or as fast as he originally planned it. He'd probably die trying to get that accomplished, truth be told, but it's still certainly doable.

Welcome to the Nauseated condition: How it was meant to be.


If nobody is wanting to drop their weapon, or is wanting to go prone, then why even bring it up as an argument for the FAQ being bad or poorly written? Creating an argument just for the sake of having an argument is silly here on these forums, unless that is the direct intent of the thread. I can assure you, that isn't the intent here.

If there were relevant rules implications for these subjects, which I debunked by the way, then you would have a point, and it would probably be a sentiment that I share. But I don't, because those rules implications are irrelevant to the FAQ's reassurance.

Unless you're hit with an Insanity spell, you're not going to try to go prone, or drop your weapon in the middle of combat, when you're Nauseated and can't otherwise meaningfully contribute. Neither of those actions, unless you don't have anything better to do, serve the purpose of helping the character survive. That's probably why Paizo gave the go-ahead to just blanket-statement all Free Actions: Because they believed people wouldn't be stupid enough to take an action that's obviously detrimental.


The OP has "No response required." This is primarily because of the last section's language, referring to the chain performing the subjects.

Chain of Perdition wrote:
If a creature that the chain attacks has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the chain performs a successful maneuver against that creature. If the chain is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell.

In multiple instances, it cites the Chain being able to make these combat maneuvers, and requires no further action from the Caster to function. I believe this is what constitutes "No response required," since it's fairly clear from this interpretation that the Chain performs one of those maneuvers it can make per round.

This also means that if you were going to cheese things with Improved/Greater Maneuver feats, they would not apply as the character with the feats is not performing the action, but the Chain itself is.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna pop in here real fast because the irony behind all of these statements of characters taking these actions that the naysayers bring up is actually detrimental 99% of the time.

If you're going Prone on an enemy that Nauseated you, that enemy will receive a +4 to hit you in melee. So why the hell would you do that?

If you're going to drop your weapon with an enemy that Nauseated you, he could just as easily pick up that weapon and walk away, leaving you with a back-up weapon that probably sucks and either using it for himself, or selling it for a lot of cash. He could pick it up and beat you in the face with it (because it's better than his weapon). Or you would end up being weaponless when an ally clears the condition from you, meaning you just became worthless through the rest of the encounter, whereas if you just held on to it, you could get back in there and smash faces.

I mean, people are bringing up all of these super-niche-extreme cases of characters doing stuff that is obviously more harmful/detrimental to them and their party than not taking those actions, and use it as justification for this FAQ being "poorly written and enforced," and it makes me scratch my head.

It's like going out of your way to not optimize a character, and then complaining about how weak and poorly created he is. It makes zero sense, and using it as justification for something to be altered or changed is just ridiculous.

Could there be opportunities where these actions may be relevant? Perhaps. If a Ranged Weapon manages to Nauseate you because of laced poison, or you're holding 2 Weapons and need to pick up a McGuffin, then just maybe these actions would be relevant, though to be fair, there are equally-relevant actions to be taken (such as moving behind hard cover, stashing one of your held weapons, or letting a non-Nauseated party-member pick up the McGuffin), and you would just be silly complaining about this anyway.

I prefer to think that Paizo has thought this sort of thing through and decided it would be a non-issue to just rehash the statement, since these super-extreme-niche cases will probably never come up in any sane game. Because let's face it, with the above consequences, no sane player would follow through with those actions unless it really is the best action they can take. But as I've said before, 99% of the time, it isn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My explanation for such is the paragraph below that. I'll go ahead and rehash the important bit.

Quote:
...An Unarmed Strike is, for all intents and purposes, considered a Light Weapon. A Light Weapon is still a Weapon, so per RAW, even if you used an Unarmed Strike to execute the Disarm Maneuver, you wouldn't be able to pick up the weapon that you disarmed, because the Unarmed Strike is, for all intents and purposes, still a Weapon, which means you used a Weapon (the Unarmed Strike) to Disarm your opponent, which means no free weapon to pick up.

It's not so much that you can't disarm while unarmed. It's that even if you disarm unarmed, by the written text of the rules, you couldn't pick up the item that was disarmed (and you still incur the -4 penalty), because an Unarmed Strike is still, by the written text of the rules, a weapon, and the text states if the disarm is made without the use of a weapon (such as a spell or similar ability which makes a Disarm maneuver for you), then you can pick it up. Which, ironically enough, makes little to no sense, but such is the case with RAW.

This means that regardless of what build you make for being unarmed, it's considered a weapon, and you suffer a -4 penalty because it's unarmed (even if you count as being armed).

This also means that the GM who handwaved the -4 penalty was technically houseruling. It wasn't unreasonable or overpowered to do so (if anything, I personally feel that would be the intent behind the -4), but by the written text of the rules, he would still be required to enforce the -4 penalty. (Thankfully, there's no non-proficiency penalty to stack on top of that.)


claudekennilol wrote:
You've been given some misinformation here.
PRD, Core, Combat, Disarm wrote:

You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.

If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm. If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.

So to answer your question, no, you're reading it wrong. It doesn't say "if you have a free hand you may pick up the weapon." It says "if you disarm your opponent without using a weapon". So if you use your weapon in one hand to disarm your opponent you may not use your free other hand to freely pick it up because of the maneuver. To freely pick it up you'd have to use an unarmed strike (or some kind of natural attack) when you disarm.

That line, per RAW, makes no sense, since the only way you can perform a Disarm maneuver without a weapon is with a spell.

If you try to bring up the whole "Unarmed Strike isn't a weapon" argument, then you're obviously ignoring the factor that an Unarmed Strike is, for all intents and purposes, considered a Light Weapon. A Light Weapon is still a Weapon, so per RAW, even if you used an Unarmed Strike to execute the Disarm Maneuver, you wouldn't be able to pick up the weapon that you disarmed, because the Unarmed Strike is, for all intents and purposes, still a Weapon, which means you used a Weapon (the Unarmed Strike) to Disarm your opponent, which means no free weapon to pick up.

It needs errata if you want it to work with Unarmed Strikes, and it's quite clear that's what the intent is supposed to be. The sentence would need to be read as follows:

Quote:
If you successfully disarm your opponent with your unarmed strike or without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item that was disarmed.


Armor Spikes are treated as an entity separate from the Armor itself, and is especially true when enhancing them as a weapon. So yes, they can be replaced, and they can be detached/reattached.

Being replaced would mean they have to be repaired or rebought, both of which cost money. How much that costs can range from a fraction of their total price, to simply purchasing it brand spanking new. As to how they can be detached/reattached, that's up to the GM, and is something that you need to ask and get clarified before going through with it.

How I would personally do that would be to require hiring a blacksmith or similar outfitter (or if you have the proper profession and/or craft) to do a skill check and maybe an hour or so of work to remove or apply the spikes, since they are typically melded onto the shield's fabric through a forge. This allows such skills to be more relevant to the adventurer, and also reduces the availability of shenanigans, like removing spikes on a shield in the middle of combat to deal Bludgeoning damage against a Skeleton, as an example.


Magus works the best. And it makes sense, considering the smartest people are spellcasters, and spellcasters rule the world of Pathfinder.

Kensai archetype fits quite well, since you'll have free proficiency with a single weapon of your choice (Exotic Weapons are pretty sweet), be able to add Intelligence to your Initiative checks, as well as make use of spells like Bladed Dash (and its Greater counterpart) for extremely powerful engages on your enemies.


I don't understand your issue (though that can be because I haven't played 5th Edition yet).

Are you complaining that PCs are using Diplomacy as a means to trivialize encounters? If you don't want creatures to not be trivialized, then you can, as a GM, say that their Diplomacy would be a waste of time.

Here's an important Pathfinder entry for Diplomacy:

Diplomacy wrote:
You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future. Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).

So in your first example, you were already in combat, and it was quite obvious that the boss planned to harm them in the near future (since they're in its lair and stuff), meaning as a GM, you can rule that the Diplomacy check would have no meaningful impact on the creature's behavior towards them.

In your second example, that's not an unreasonable usage of Diplomacy, since the creatures in question were really only interested in the Luckmonger for a given reason, and Diplomacy effectively nullified that reason. Combat didn't start, and outside of that reason, the creatures involved would have no reason to further harm the Luckmonger, so I don't see how Diplomacy was really wrong.

I'm going to go ahead and say that this probably isn't the right forum for this (but only primarily because this can very well be a 5th Ed. concern, and not a Pathfinder concern), though if you wanted a Pathfinder answer, I've provided one.


Correct, you can only be a different size through GM FIAT. It's not wrong to rule that an adolescent creature is going to be one size smaller than it's adult size. For example, the Young Template here would give you want you want. Ask the GM if you could get that added to your character.


Pyro_Clasm wrote:

Is it possible to combine the two items "Amulet of Mighty Fists" and "Amulet of Nayural Armor" so that you can get both the bonus of both items but in a single item? And if that is possible is it possible to remove either the natural weapon or unarmed attack bonus from the AoMF and still get the AoNA bonus?

And my second question: is it possible to be a small creature when that creature is normally limited to medium only?

Read this section first.

Here's the key component for your question:

Adding New Abilities wrote:
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

So per RAW, you take the cost of one item, and add 50% of the cost of the second (or more) items you want to add as effects. So if you want an Amulet of Natural Armor +2, and an Amulet of Mighty Fists +2, you take the cost of one, and add 50% of the other (usually the cheaper one should be increased by 50%).

Some GMs either will not allow it, or will run this differently. Some GMs may allow you to 50% up the cheaper of the two, others require that you pick one of the two costs, usually the one that is being added to the existing item. It's important you confer with the GM as to how he runs it, so you know what you're getting into.

I don't understand your second question.


There's a couple sections here to answer your question on a rules-based standpoint.

Simply put, a GM determines what sort of area you're in, compares what sort of items may or may not be available based on price in that area, and can run it to where an area may have merchants who sell a certain amount of items, and the merchant may or may not have those items.

A GM could also instead run it to where, if you're looking to get an item specifically crafted, that you are in search of a spellcrafter who can imbue items with magical powers, and you commission said person to do the job for you.

But it ultimately depends on A. if you have the money, B. if you have the time (making increasingly powerful magic items takes a lot of time to do), C. if you (or the spellcrafter) have the knowledge and skill capabilities to both understand and identify the item, and D. GM FIAT (or in other words, the GM's rulings).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bhai wrote:

I wanted to pick Ranger with the Divine Marksman archetype, but everyone tells me that it is way more efficient to just pick a Fighter with a bow and then get the feats i want...

1) I just wanted to find out if that's true.
2) I would love to hear some tips on playing a ranged character (any tips you have, don't be shy, they might be found useful by me or others reading this thread).

Quantity is Nothing. Quality is Everything.

The Fighter Bonus Feats don't bypass feat pre-requisites. The Ranger Bonus Feats do. There is also Favored Enemy, Terrain, Skill Points, Spells, the list just goes on and expands.

If you have people telling you to pick a Fighter, then all they want you for is a Beatstick. And quite frankly, a Ranger is just as good a Beatstick as a Fighter, and a Barbarian would be even better than a Fighter if they want a Beatstick.


Invulnerable Rager Barbarian is always a great idea. Full BAB, D12 Hit Dice, Rage, Rage Powers (Beast Totem, Superstition, etc)., it just screams melee.

However, if you are planning to become Trip-focused, I'd work on getting abilities and such that increase your size. The biggest problem with Trip builds is never being effective due to size differences. Being Gargantuan size or larger would allow you to affect all creatures with Tripping.


Chess Pwn wrote:

So if you haven't started your action of attacking the kobold why did his readied action trigger for when you attack him?

Because if you haven't actually started your attack, then you should be fine to change your action. There's no take backs because you never actually started something.
So if the kobold readied for when you started your standard action then I feel you're saying the correct thing. If the Kobold is waiting for you to attack it, you'd need to have started attacking it to trigger the action. And since you've already started is why it locks you into doing that action.

Per RAW, the Readied Action occurs before the action which triggers it. So it technically doesn't matter if you started it or not, because the Readied Action results would apply prior to the action it was readied against. This means that if you ready against a spell being cast, the effects of the Readied Action occur prior to the action itself (and this means that you can't properly disrupt the spell, because its damage occurs before the spell is being cast, not during).

Keep in mind that doesn't mean the proxy-action doesn't occur, because if it doesn't occur after the Readied Action, then the Readied Action wouldn't have taken place, which means the proxy-action would've went as normal. It just means that the effects of the Readied Action would apply before the normal action is taken, but if the Readied Action occurs on a specific proxy (such as being attacked), then that specific proxy must still be taken, otherwise the Readied Action wouldn't have occurred. If you compare, disrupting a spell (which the results must occur during the casting, otherwise it does nothing) versus attacking an enemy assaulting you (which the result defaults to occurring before the attack in question, based on general RAW) both have different tenses in which the Readied Action should occur. So this is precedent that it is on a case-by-case basis.

Regardless, I feel that the Readied Action RAW is just a mess for people to comprehensively understand, and really boils into GM FIAT territory at this point, since there really isn't much of a RAW way to explain how a Readied Action is supposed to work, as it's just an amalgamation of a bunch of corner-cases. So, I suppose maybe that does conclude a FAQ is needed, but it would honestly only be summarized in a Dev Blog Post, as a FAQ would be too short to properly answer how Readied Actions function in relation to their proxy.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Darksol, that interpretation is where BigNorseWolf getting is argument.

I believe we're saying that since fighter is attacking kobold he can't change his action and must attack.
Since Kobold waited till we were attacking it we've started our attack, but haven't rolled anything.
If 5ft step has to happen before or after an attack then as BigNorseWolf says, if we allowed the fighter to 5ft step to keep attacking the kobold we're allowing take backs because the fighter has to have already started his swing to trigger the readied action.

So if the fighter needed to do the 5ft step before his swing then he hasn't started his swing and the kobold is still next to him, and now the fighter doesn't need to 5ft to swing, which he'll do to triggered the kobold's readied action. Which is if we allow the 5ft before the swing is as bad as allowing the fighter do any other action, as it's letting the fighter do something that wasn't the trigger before or instead of doing the trigger.

Thus the view of no take backs would require the 5ft step to be during the actual attack, during the swing, to stay true of no take backs. Fighter starts his swing triggering Kobolds readied action, now fighter, while swinging, 5fts up to the kobold letting him finish the swing onto the kobold.

This interpretation has the fighter being able to start an attack, and then move into something and finish the attack on that thing.

So one needs to either, Not allow someone with 1 swing to hit the kobold as the kobold is always out of reach. Allow take backs. Reconcile how the rules work with starting your attack and 5ft stepping and finishing that attack against something in reach after the move but out of reach at some point of the attack.

I still don't see the problem.

Just because you declare you're about to take an action doesn't mean that you must be in the act of doing it for the Readied Action to trigger, especially when Readied Actions explicitly state that they occur prior to the action taking place, meaning you can't have already rolled for an attack, and then you take your Readied Action, because it makes no sense. Ironically enough, this means subjects like readying to disrupt a spell would fail upon itself, since you only have to make a concentration check during the action in which you're spending to cast the spell (and not prior), and a Readied Action occurs prior to the action in question (which means you never have to make a concentration check).

If there is going to be a problem, it's with the Readied Actions' RAW because it doesn't properly express itself in the manner that RAI is intended, and it varies from case to case. I don't read into the RAW too much, because that's where the headaches begin, but it does set a basic foundation: The Readied Action, as seen by a couple written in-game options, is designed to be able to alter the results of a given action which it was readied against. The problem stems from both the Readied Actions only working at one point in time, as well as the intent behind those Readied Actions being required to be executed at different points in time, and without a complete re-write, this is about as ruined as the normal Fighter and Rogue classes.


Coriat wrote:

I guess my difficulty is "why would I want to read the rules to create this weird Schrodinger situation when I have a nice straightforward reading available in which I just take a 5' step during my attack and carry on. Oh, and bonus, I get to kill kobolds to my heart's content."

I get how you could arrive at a reading in which 5' steps during an attack are nominally rules legal but really explode spacetime, or whatever, but it hardly seems necessary.

My guess is he's trying to argue that you can't take a 5-foot step while you're mid-swing, and he thinks that's what we're trying to do: Taking a 5-foot step during a swing. To a point, I understand the paradox, and why he's against it.

What I don't understand is how he's reaching that paradox (or thinking that's what we're implying should happen). It ultimately depends on what the grounds of Before, During, and After for an action constitute (which varies between action type, of course). But here's my official stance of those matters:

Before: If you make a 5-foot step prior to you roll to attack, this means the attack roll (and therefore the beginning of the attack) doesn't take place until you're in your new position, meaning you didn't attack from your previous position, and is doubly true if executing the Readied Action with a Reach weapon, since you couldn't feasibly attack with the Reach weapon in your starting position.

During: If you're making a full attack action and execute a 5-foot step, this must be executed both After an attack has been resolved, and Before a new attack begins. If you have already rolled to attack, or are going to roll for damage, it is too late to call for a 5-foot step, and you must wait between separate attacks to declare a 5-foot step. Attempting to do this with Cleave will not work, as it has its own special FAQ stating you cannot do so, because Cleave is its own special action (which has its own special limitations).

After: If you make a 5-foot step after you roll to attack, this means the attack roll (and therefore the attack) has already occurred and been resolved, meaning any positional implications you planned to take are irrelevant to the action being taken, because the action is already completed (meaning your original tactical position is the place where your attack was executed).

I'm sure many others can agree with how "Before, During, or After" relates with my assumption of how they work above. If they don't, then I wonder what kind of game they're playing...


Per RAW, yes. From the PRD:

Smite Evil wrote:
If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses.

Since Channel Positive Energy and Lay On Hands deals damage to Undead, and requires a roll, it constitutes a Damage Roll, and Smite applies to Damage Rolls of all kinds.

Per RAI, I feel that this should be something that applies to something that requires an attack roll to function, but it's not really overpowered to rule against it, since Paladins rarely use Channel Energy or Lay On Hands to damage Undead; their Smite damage for their melee attacks is usually more than strong enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phoenix M wrote:
Slap the GM. He has issues.

More like he's trying to put a damper on the Caster/Martial disparity. Which isn't unfounded, there are many subjects that coattail the Casters down to a more managable level for Martials to be competent with, my personal favorite being the "Remove 7-9 Spells, but keep the slots for Metamagic" option.

But back to this, it's being executed poorly.

A "three strikes and your out system" doesn't really solve the problem for spellcasters, whose vast ability does has a spelled limit. If he was going to propose this system, then he might as well eliminate spells per day being a mechanic too. It otherwise requires that you become a Con-based spellcaster. Pre-errata Scarred Witch Doctor would laugh at this, and the Kineticist (I believe they're Con-based casters) laughs at this too, especially since their magic is technically Psionic, not Arcane.

Another decent means to reduce Caster power is to not allow them to chain-cast spells or SLAs, implementing an internal cooldown system, so to speak. This is a big hit for Blasters (who are already encroaching on Martial territory as it is), and is quite a hit for those who need to cast a certain spell over and over again (i.e. it cuts down on players using healbots, and more being preventers of damage, as well as cutting back Summon-based casters as well).


Letric wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
I would go for Flaming Sphere, then.
Ok, we're still on a Save or Suck spell, but at least I've got 1 try per level!

You don't seem to understand the actual grasp of Save or Suck spells.

Save or Suck means you either take enemies out of the fight by making them useless (Blindness/Deafness is an example), or you end up wasting your turn because they made the save. By your interpretation of a Save or Suck spell, spells like Fireball, Ice Storm, Lightning Bolt, et. al. are Save or Suck spells.

This is more of a fire and forget spell that deals damage per round.

If you don't want anything with a saving throw, spells like Snowball would be up your alley.


tchrman35 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
tchrman35 wrote:


Turn 1 PC/Standard: Ready to 5ft/attack any enemy that stops in an adjacent square
If the proxy was "If the enemy is adjacent to me,"

Well, first, you changed my trigger from "stops" to "arrives". But I'm thinking stopping might be a bit too meta anyway.

Second - you're saying that a character can take two 5-ft steps between its turns if the round-counter has moved? That seems a little off.

The creature still has movement when it's adjacent to you, and it could simply take another Move Action, meaning its movement is still not ended, meaning it's not technically a valid proxy. Its movement ends when A. It takes two Move Actions, or B. takes another action besides a Move Action (which automatically ends your movement, leaving you with no other actions to Move with).

And between what turns?

Ready wrote:

...The action occurs just before the action that triggers it....

...For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.

So let's say the PC had a 15 Initiative, and the creature had a 10 Initiative. The PC's Readied Action would occur (and resolve) on the Creature's Initiative 10. This means the 5-foot step occurs at the start of Initiative 10 of Round 1. The PC wouldn't be able to act again until Initiative 10 of Round 2. That is one entire round that has elapsed between the PC's first 5-foot step, which means he is able to take another 5-foot step on the following round.


@ Hugo Rune: Right, and all I said was that his argument had zero evidence and there was anti-precedence. If he does manage to pull one out of his arse, I can assure you that it's probably not intended to function that way.

People not liking an official ruling is one thing, and that's fine. People not liking an official ruling and then using it as a reason to not treat it as an official rule is another, and it's not acceptable on the Rules Question forums to do that. It's stupid, petty, misleads others, and quite frankly undermines the value of the PDT proposing FAQs here on the forums.

When this thread started, people formed sides, and would not be content with accepting the opposite argument until official clarification was given.

It's now been given.

And look what's happening. People not accepting the opposite argument being the official rule because it wasn't their argument or design philosphy. Why did we even ask for a FAQ, when people who wanted a FAQ, didn't actually want a FAQ? And instead wanted their interpretation to be THE interpretation, and every other interpretation to be wrong? What solace is there in this so-called "justice" that these complacent humans seek? None, I tell you. None.

They won't ever be happy or accepting of anything unless it is their own interpretation, and that's not a healthy attitude that should be brought into the Rules Question forums, especially in regards to obviously unclear subject matter.

At this point, I can almost understand why SKR decided to leave the PDT, and it's probably because of silly and absolutely ridiculous moments like these, where people demand answers, get them, and effectively defeat the entire purpose of the PDT providing answers to the forumites (and other players) by revealing they didn't want an answer, they just only wanted to listen what they wanted to hear, their own interpretation. That's just outright toxic behavior.

I don't even really care what the hell the answer was to this question. I don't even really care if I was right or wrong on this. All I cared about was that there is an official ruling, an actual answer to the question, and I know what that answer is now, and its implications to the current rules. That's all that matters; the thread is complete. And with the thread being complete, my presence (and for that matter, everyone else's presence) is no longer required. Time to bow out on this one and wait for the next big FAQ. (Because it's certainly not this.)

**EDIT** Typo fixes.


N N 959 wrote:
What you're really saying is that the reason the PDT decided you can't take a free action because they don't want you to do these other things.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Because that's exactly what they ruled, and that's exactly why they ruled it that way. Because they didn't want you to take Free and Swift and Immediate Actions, and any other actions that weren't Move Actions while Nauseated. That's the rationale we're given to understand, and you even said it yourself, that you can understand that rationale.

Something that's arbitrary means it's done randomly and without reason, and here you are, saying you understand something that's synonymous with reason itself. It's either rational and makes sense, or arbitrary and insane, it can't be both. Pick one and stick with it.


tchrman35 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Also, Sissyl, that declaration would consist of a Move Action to get into position, and then a Standard Action to ready an attack based on the condition "If this creature attacks me." The creature could just as easily either attack someone else, or do some other sort of action besides the attack you, and your Readied Action would not trigger (resulting in you essentially wasting your action to ready against something that may or may not happen).

Note that the same is also true in regards to a Kobold with a Reach Weapon readying for when a creature attempts to attack him in melee range.

So the reach fighter's first readied action economy should look like:

Turn 1 PC/Move: Draw weapon
Turn 1 PC/Standard: Ready to 5ft/attack any enemy that stops movement in an adjacent square
Turn 1 BG1: Moves in to attack (PC Op attack)
-- Readied action triggers --
PC 5ft steps and attacks enemy
-- Resume Turn --
Turn 1 BG1: Cannot attack, so closes distance. (Op attack for separate movement action?)

Then resume normal move(provoke or acrobatics), Ready, Op attack economy? You just got two or three (not sure about the second op attack) unanswered attacks. That's not nothing.

It would be super if you could do this over and over, but you can't 5ft in the same round that you also moved (even with a readied action), so it breaks down.

If the proxy was "If the enemy is adjacent to me," and the creature is 10-25 feet away, then you would be correct with this argument. But there's one minor detail you forgot, and that's the resetting of capabilities.

If the PC won Initiative and Readied, he would go first again the following round, and 1 full round would have elapsed since his Readied Action went off, meaning he would be able to 5-foot again that round. Remember that it's limited to a per-round basis, and although Attacks of Opportunity are generally refreshed when it becomes the PCs turn again, and not at the start of a round, that rule of thumb isn't broken with the above statements.

So let's try this again: A PC with a Reach Weapon and a Creature with normal 5-foot reach begin ~50 feet apart, with no terrain interfering, and both having 30 feet of movement.

Turn 1: PC wins Initiative. He moves 30 feet as a Move Action, and readies an Attack for when the creature moves adjacent to him as a Standard Action. Creature's turn, he proceeds to move 15 feet, triggering an Attack of Opportunity that misses. He continues moving, putting him adjacent to the PC. The PC's Readied Action triggers, moving 5 feet away and making an attack. This puts the PC above the creature's Initiative (which is technically unchanged, as it's still ahead of the creature anyway), and places him 5 feet away from the creature. Since the creature's movement still isn't done, and wasn't hindered in any means, he can continue his Move Action, moving another 5 feet (he doesn't provoke again as you only provoke once per Move Action for Movement), and can actually make an attack as a Standard Action against the PC.

Turn 2-X: Both sides proceed to Full Attack until one or both parties die.

In this case, the ready would work great if you were adjacent to an ally that the creature was trying to attack, used a Trip Attempt, and forced him to waste his entire round being set up for a Full Attack by both yourself and your other party members. But when they're going adjacent to you for the sole purpose of attacking you (or doing some other proxy that you're prepared for), it's better to ready against that action, as they wouldn't be able to feasibly close the gap afterward, which is where you could do the Readied Actions over and over again until the creature is dead.


DM_Blake wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
It would be helpful if the PDT could explain how one can be limited to a move action but not, instead, perform any action that takes less time/effort than a move action in lieu of an actual move action.

They can't.

They decided they didn't want people casting quickened fireballs while nauseated so they took away swift actions. Not sure about free actions; I guess they just took them all away to "err on the side of caution".

That's not it. They couldn't have cast Quickened spells before, because you can't cast spells when Nauseated. It's specifically listed as being impossible to do in the condition entry. That was never debated.

What was debated, was if you could take other valid Swift Actions (such as Lay On Hands), or other Free Actions (such as Raging). And the FAQ says no, you can't.

I seriously don't know how it's that difficult to understand.

@ Hugo Rune: Here's what he said:

JDPhipps wrote:
the rules state you can take a swift/free action any time you can take a move action.

That is not the same thing as substituting or using a Move Action to cause a Swift/Free Action, or vice-versa. Even if you could, you wouldn't be able to, because you can't take Free or Swift Actions when Nauseated.

Even so, here's what the relevant rules say:

Free Actions wrote:
You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.

Keep in mind that it is under normal circumstances, you can. Being Nauseated is certainly not normal circumstances, as there is both text and a FAQ altering your ability to do so normally. There is otherwise no text referring to being able to take a Free Action as a Move Action, so right off the gate, that's debunked for Free Actions.

Swift Action wrote:

You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action...

...You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.

This set of text refers to being able to take a Swift Action without affecting your ability to perform other actions. Seems like a one-way ticket for this to work with the Nauseated condition pre-FAQ, no?

But it then says that it behaves like a Free Action in that regard, in multiple instances I might add, meaning that if a Free Action says you can only do so normally, then that same restriction applies to Swift Actions (and by the Transitive Property of Congruence, Immediate Actions) as well. Lacking any explicit text here as with the Free Action entries, this argument becomes debunked as well.

Needless to say, not only can you not take Move Actions to perform Swift Actions, but that is a common Houserule you'll see on the forums, and isn't a supported precedent, as Paizo designed a Magic Item like this one which does precisely what he's referencing can be done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't matter if the rules state you can take them when you can take a Move Action, as that's not relevant to the specific rules that override those general rules.

Per FAQ and RAW, if you're Nauseated, you can't take any sort of action outside of a single Move Action, period. End of discussion. This means you can't talk (but you can breathe, as that doesn't take an action), you can't use Lay On Hands, you can't initiate a Bardic Performance (unless you can do so as a Move Action), you can't maintain one either, nor can you Rage or Smite Evil: Unless you can do it as a Move Action, then you can't do it.

If you don't like it, that's fine, rule it differently in your home games, but that is how Nauseated officially functions now.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
Can you talk while nauseated?
More experimental evidence than I would like to have points to "kind of"

Pre-FAQ, it had table variance, some people said yes, some people said no, and the answer was unclear.

Post-FAQ, it's quite clear the answer is "No," as you can't take the Free Action outside your turn to speak, as the FAQ reiterates that you cannot take any other actions besides a Move Action.

@ Hugo Rune: The Grapple entry from the PRD has this to say on the matter:

Grapple wrote:

If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold...

...Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).

Now, I will go ahead and say that it's not explicitly spelled out, but there are inverse consequences that are quite obvious here, and they give us one of them: Standard Action + Successful Check = Maintained Grab. These must both be met in order to maintain the grab. This means that if either of these subjects in the equation vary, such as not using an appropriate action to maintain the grab, or by failing the check, this results in the opposite answer, which is No Maintained Grab, and if the Grab is not maintained, then the grapple is released (because the check to maintain the grapple each round is absolutely, 100% required).

Also note that maintaining a Grapple is not much different than doing the same thing for Concentration on a spell, or continuing a Bardic Performance: Both of these require actions each round to spend, and if they are not spent, then these effects end (or follow their usual duration). I see no reason to treat Grappling any different other than by giving it a different name and statistical implications.


Cavall wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

You have to try to maintain it in order to fail to maintain it. Trying is a standard action. Letting go on purpose is a free action.

Of course, if you have Greater Grapple, there's no problem; you can maintain the grapple as a move action (but you can't stop grappling).

Is this where we are at now? A grapple must be maintained. If you can take no other action than a move action you can't take the action to maintain. So it fails. Are you suggesting that anything that stops someone from rolling to maintain a grapple means it goes on forever?

That's actually a gray area, and one that the FAQ doesn't necessarily cover.

Nauseated wrote:
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.

Some might construe maintaining a Grapple as Attacking. Similarly, it could be argued as requiring attention, since it is something that you have to roll for and make a check each round, similar to spending a Free Action each round to maintain Bardic Performances. My personal opinion would be that you couldn't maintain a grapple, even with Greater Grapple, for the above reasons. Other GMs could rule differently. YMMV.

1 to 50 of 3,668 << 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.