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

Diego Rossi's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 6,887 posts. 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,887 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bolding it a bit differently:

Great Cleave wrote:


Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach. If you hit, you can continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the previous foe, so long as they are within your reach. You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.

All that is the benefit of Great Cleave, not of cleave finish.

You are trying to chance that to the benefit of cleave finish, while that benefit is applied against the foes targeted by cleave.

It is even reinforced by teh FAQ Gauss cited:

FAQ wrote:

Cleave: Can I take a 5-foot step in the middle of my attempt to use the Cleave feat, to bring another foe within reach?
No. Cleave is a special action and the conditions for that action are checked at the moment you begin your action. At that moment, all of the available targets are checked to make sure they adjacent to each other and within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step in the middle of the action and check conditions again. If you do not have two targets within reach, adjacent to each other at the start of the attack, you could not even attempt to make an attack using Cleave.

This answer originally appeared in the 9/25/12 Paizo blog.

"all of the available targets are checked to make sure they adjacent to each other and within reach" "at the moment you begin your action".

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
James Risner wrote:


So you are honestly saying that you don't believe Sean is lying and there really was a get together to hash out the rules of Courageous, but you won't accept it until they make a FAQ or Errata to word it differently so the hole you read (the progressive or awkward RAW way) is closed off.

Really?

There is no "hole" I'm reading. That's what you can't get through your thick skull in this whole mess.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO RAW WAY TO READ WHAT THAT EMAIL SAID IS INTENDED.

And, unless you're implying that Jason Buhlman and SRM are lying when they say "Any non-FAQ/Errata quotes are not RAW", we can drop the whole blame schtick.

You are not arguing from a position of authority here, stop acting like you are.

James Risner wrote:


Rynjin wrote:
RAW is indisputably "any from any source". As unambiguous as it gets.
Only when you ignore context, and say this ability that only relates to saves. I'm going to extend the context to everything under the Sun. Just cause I get more power if I do it that way?

The "context" is specifically saves against fear.

But you conveniently ignored that fact to try and make a point, when what you're really doing is reading it an "awkward RAW way" (by your logic) as well by expanding the context to include all saves.

Just 'cause you can get more power if you do it that way?

I can buy, in context, that another RAW reading is "It only applies to saves against Fear". Even though that's not nearly what it actually says, I can see that.

But there is precisely 0 way to read it that implies that it applies to all saves. None.

It's either "everything" or "Saves against Fear". Everything being as written, and saves against fear as possible RAW in context.

The ONLY reason you would even think to read it as it adding to all saves is because of that e-mail. It is not implied anywhere in the text either by what is written or what is implied. At all.

While I dislike that, I must agree with Rynjin that reading the ability RAW the only possible conclusion is that it applies to all morale bonus. That make it too good for the cost, but it is the only valid conclusion.

The other possible conclusion is that it applies only to saving throw morale bonuses against fear. Conservative and it require some interpretation of the text. Weak for the cost.
Sean mail give a interpretation that probably reflect the intended level of power but the ability require an errata to work that way.
I see no way to reach that conclusion reading the ability.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

If a suit of armor includes gauntlets, and you refuse to wear them, should you really be getting the full AC from the armor? You're not completely wearing it.

I think it's reasonable to say that gauntlets are armor that can be used as a weapon. Just like shields and armor spikes, really.

With the plethora of magical gloves and bracers, having pieces of armor taking up those slots would be a problem.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
And as for Shelyn... I don't have trouble believing it at all. Writing music or creating poetry or the like is something that an artist does every day anyway. Writing, for example, is an art form, and I do that daily. I'm doing it right now, in fact. It's not something that needs to be a masterpiece that is preserved for all time, after all. In fact, you can just make up a new song that you sing and then never sing it again and it should count.

Both Asimov and Heinlein called writing a dependency and that staying without writing for a few days would make them feel sick.

As you say probably Shelyn don't require a masterpiece, but is satisfied by a little piece. The obedience are thematically great, so I hope to get to use them.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

James, a question about the Inner Sea Gods (BTW, a spammer has placed a fake review in that product page to advertise some chiromancer, as there is no button to report spam in reviews, could you alert Gary or Jessica about that?).

I have skimmed my PDF of the book and it seem very good. I have some doubt about the Obediences. I have read Abadar, Cayden, Desna and Shelyn.
All very appropriate, but I fear that, if the group play them keeping the role playing aspect of the obedience in mind and not only "an hour pass, I have done my obedience" the difficulty and ddanger in eprforming them is very different.

Abadar obedience is very easy to do as long as you aren't broke. You can do it in your room behind a closed door if you want.

Cayden is slightly more difficult as you need some form of alcohol based drink and you must sing a song that can be heard by friends or foes, but you can still do that in a relatively safe location, if you are a spellcaster you can get some spell to create the drinks and the creative part of the obedience isn't particularly difficult (you can start with any drinking song and modify it almost forever without the need of a great creativity)

Desna seem more dangerous. You need to dance under the starry sky wandering randomly (I hope you have to dance only for a few minutes, not the full hour of the obedience, too) or sing the names of the stars you know while dancing if in a location where stars can't bee seen.
Dancing around by night don't seem so conductive to your health.
(to put that in a better reference frame: currently I am playing a druid of Desna in the Reign of winter AP and I would like to take that feat very much, but dancing in the snow, by night, in that AP, at least from what we have seen so far, isn't a good move)

Shelyn isn't dangerous, but I have trouble believing that someone can create a new piece of music or a new piece of poetry every day of his life.
The only way in which I see that as feasible is he was to take painting as his art form and he was making charcoal sketches of what he see as his obedience.

What do you think?

Even with the above problem, the Exalted prestige class is so close to my idea of my druid that I will take it, if the GM allow it. Give my thanks to all the people that worked on the book.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Can I add all my hate to this spammer? Spamming the forum is bad enough, but spamming the reviews (and with a 1 star review for a good product too).

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

None of you has a few magic missile?

Sleep? a bit strange, but the Demon subtype don't give immunity to sleep, AFAIK. The outsider type say "but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish)" so it don't seem that outsider are immune to sleep. You could compare that with the elemental subtype: "Elementals do not breathe, eat, or sleep."

Even with normal arrows if you have a few archers you should do enough damage to overcome his DR and his fast healing. If you are low level a strong guy with a sling do more damage than a archer with a bow with a strength rating of +0.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Buri wrote:
Clearly, my only goal was to show precedence. My post was fine for that purpose.

But that's my point. It doesn't really show precedence because in the instance you pointed out, it's explicitly called out. Typically (but not always), when something is specifically called out like that, it's because it's different from the norm. It can be argued that since AoE spells have to be called out as attacks for the purposes of Invisibility, they are not ordinarily considered "attacks". The precedent demonstrated would be that AoE spells can be considered attacks, if specifically called out as counting as an attack for whatever relevant purpose we're discussing. Since they're not specifically called out here, it doesn't help make the case. An argument can actually be made that it hurts the case (though perhaps not a particularly convincing one).

Regardless, we're getting a bit far afield.

Touch Spells in Combat: wrote:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

By that quote, casting invisibility, blur or remove curse on a unwilling target (say a confused friend) is an attack.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Davor wrote:

Alright, I'm gonna clarify this really quickly. Sneak attack requires an attack roll to work. This has been clarified by the dev.s several times. That's why sneak attack works with something like Scorching Ray, but not Magic Missile UNLESS you have the Arcane Trickster ability.

I would like a link to the developers statements you cited. I vaguely recall something similar but I have enough experience with "vaguely recalled" rules to want the source.

For your second statement, sneak attack is appleid only once to a Scorching ray spell. There is a FAQ about that:

FAQ wrote:

Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?

No. For example, scorching ray fires simultaneous rays at one or more targets, and the extra damage is only added once to one ray, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.
Spell-based attacks which are not simultaneous, such as multiple attacks per round by a 8th-level druid using flame blade, may apply sneak attack damage to each attack so long as each attack qualifies for sneak attack (the target is denied its Dex bonus or the caster is flanking the target).

Actually there are 2 applicable FAQs.

FAQ wrote:


Arcane Trickster: How does the Surprise Spells class feature work with spells like magic missile and fireball?

The Surprise Spells class feature allows the Arcane Trickster to add his sneak attack dice to spells that deal damage that target flat-footed foes. This damage is only applied once per spell. In the case of fireball this means it affects all targets in the area, with each getting a save to halve the damage (including the sneak attack damage). In the case of magic missile, the extra damage is only added once to one missile, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.

As you see we don't always operate with rules as they are, but with rules as they are remembered. so hard proof is very useful.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:

Personally I HATE the clarification above about 'Defending'. I think it's a TERRIBLE ruling. I would have rather NO ruling for that OR crane Wing, then the ones we got.

I instead think that the rule for defending is very logic, it work thematically well (when you are using your parring dagger together with a rapier you are fighting with two weapons, not a weapon and a shield, so you suffer the 2 weapon penalties) and that people trying to get a +X bonus to AC for holding a dagger in their hand are trying to game the system.

Now both opinions are out in this thread. Happy?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Too bad the book disagrees with you. These subjects are subjects are listed in weapon tables, and not the armor tables.

Agreed. People have been treating them like weapons so long, I don't anticipate a change. However, if they want a quick and logical way to do it... That would be the better route then retconning and Errating a dozen usages of 'wield'.

It isn't the standard swords and maces that are causing all the trouble... it's all the corner cases. That's where the clarification should focus.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


(To be fair, shield and armor spikes are listed as Extras in the Armor tables, but they aren't necessarily items in their own right, since they only cite additional gold/weight increments. Sure, one could assume that the added increments and weight can be in their own little subject, but the "+" before each subject symbolizes they are assumed to be add-ons to existing items.)

I'll also point out that if they are armor, then why don't they grant an Armor Bonus to AC? Because they aren't armor. They're add-ons to armor (not the case for Spiked Gauntlets, which is an item in its own right, and not listed in the Armor table period), but they otherwise share no characteristics assumed to go with armor. Where's the Armor Check Penalty? What about a Maximum Dexterity Bonus or Arcane Spell Failure?

They do grant AC and Armor check penalty. It's in the description of the items.

Gauntlets:

This metal glove lets you deal lethal
damage rather than nonlethal damage
with unarmed strikes. A strike with
a gauntlet is otherwise considered
an unarmed attack. The cost and
weight given are for a single gauntlet.
Medium and heavy armors (except
breastplates) come with gauntlets.

Your opponent cannot use a disarm
action to disarm you of gauntlets.

Or even the separate armors themselves,

A complete suit of full plate (or platemail,
as it is often called) includes gauntlets,
heavy leather boots, a...

First the Pathfinder breastplate isn't the same thing of the torso section of a full or half plate. Historically the name was used specific armors that where used alone or of that section of a full/half plate.

The armor that sere made to stand alone generally don't have the right shape to add other section of armor and transform the breatplate into a full plate unless you do major modification to the armor.

Second: there are rules for not donning completely an armor.

PRD wrote:

Getting Into and Out of Armor

The time required to don armor depends on its type; see Table: Donning Armor.

Don: This column tells how long it takes a character to put the armor on. (One minute is 10 rounds.) Readying (strapping on) a shield is only a move action.

Don Hastily: This column tells how long it takes to put the armor on in a hurry. The armor check penalty and armor bonus for hastily donned armor are each 1 point worse than normal.

Remove: This column tells how long it takes to get the armor off. Removing a shield from the arm and dropping it is only a move action.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Then at the very least, a little bit of clarifications on the more important examples. The Called property is one that I can see as not needing explanation as it's rather intuitive to figure out that it means who "owns" the sword rather than who has it currently wielded.

Considering how many of the weapons are 'claimed' by the adventurers... I could see 'owns' being a VERY fluid concept. Why is it that when I pick it up out of a dragons pile... it's now 'mine'... but when he disarms me and picks it up... it's STILL mine ;)

You don't know how often the damned NPC drink our potions , use our scroll and waste charges from our wands.

"What is mine is mine and what is your is mine too." is the motto of most adventurers.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rub-Eta wrote:

I think the DM should do a roll as soon as you are encountered with an illusion. Just like a sense motive check should when someone is bluffing. Or at least when there is SOMETHING that could give it away.

Illusion of a guy walking down the street somewhere among other real people? Don't bother, why wouldn't the guy do what everyone else is doing? Unless that guy is usually a cripple or somehow can't be there at that time. Then they should, with some effort, get a check.

You meet naked ladies in an underground dungeon telling you to stay with them forever? That's an instant check and shouldn't even have to be asked for, or even possible to fail. Maybe the successful result shouldn't be "There are no ladies!" at first glance, but the DM need to hint to the players that everyone thinks this is VERY odd and let them investigate further.

The player shouldn't be told to do the check either: "Roll for disbelieve/sense motive. 1? You don't notice anything." is just screaming for metagaming.

As noted by Rapanuii "...we encountered an illusion spell, and it was obvious...": this should be the result of a successful check.

Note: I'd say: looking is a form of interacting!

Never heard of succubi?

(Link to the Paizo PRD as most images of them aren't safe for work/significant other/children)

I think they will give you a few free kisses to prove that they are real if you try to disbelieve them.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rapanuii wrote:

Alright, things have been enlightening and awesome due to being shown that video that I knew existed already, but is still sick as hell.

I am worried with how a gm rolls with illusions still, but I guess after the fact I get to attempt to argue things so rules get followed properly.

"Ehh, sound in the room wasn't subjected to being distorted by an echo from the large hole in the floor, which I should get a perception check for? Maybe I didn't fall to my death then?"

I generally have a gripe with perception checks not existing when they should, and how they're an exception for the enemy. No check needed, the enemy just waits to ambush you because they heard you coming, and they make no stealth check which you attempt to ever counter. It goes along with auto disbelief attempts, and it's not very fair. Just got to hope the gm is on top of things it seems.

It seem you have a gripe with your GM (justified or not, I don't know), not with illusion, or perception.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Death's Kiss (Su)

It is a supernatural ability, not a spell.

And please, don't start multiple thread about the same thing.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MattR1986 wrote:

And could defining this be beneficial to a DM? To certain DMs, maybe. But I think it's also DMs becoming spineless and afraid to rule anything that isn't explicitly stated in the rules.

Read the thread "Ways GMs can annoy their players ". It seem that a lot of PFS players will have strong objections on a GM using his interpretation of "wield" when it is not the one the player want or use.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:


Called is an error. The word "wielder" should be replaced with "owner" in the next errata. That makes much more sense.

Define "owner". :D

Generally it mean the guy with the weapon in his possession, but called can remove the weapon from someone possession.
It should use a command word.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ilja wrote:
Lastoth wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I'm not sure if that combo is RAW-legal, since Greater Magic Weapon has to be used on a weapon, which the amulet technically isn't. Plus, one could argue that the the bonus granted by Greater Magic Weapon isn't the same as the one a weapon gets for being a +X weapon.

To the contrary, that's exactly what an amulet of the mighty fists is for.

Secondly, one COULD argue that the enhancement bonus EXPLICITLEY NAMED IN THE SPELL, which it actually grants as an enhancement bonus, isn't actually the bonus they said it was. Any other man would be well within his right to laugh the person stating that out of the room.

In my world (RAW), an enhancement bonus is an enhancement bonus. So what if it doesn't stack, it's not stacking with anything here.

I agree with you on enhancement bonus being enhancement bonus, but an amulet of mighty fists is not a weapon. It can be crafted to provide magical bonuses as if it was a weapon, but it isn't a weapon. If greater magic weapon had target: object touched it would have worked and given the benefit to unarmed strikes, but it has target: weapon touched, and as such AoMF isn't a valid target (well, it could be, depending on GM interpretation of if AoMF is a valid improvised weapon and whether improvised weapons are treated as weapons for purposes like this - but it's not clear in the RAW).

While not allowing the use or magic weapon or greater magic weapon on a Amulet of Mighty Fist would be RAW compliant, it would be a way to weaken monks that I find not agreeable.

Seeing how greater magic fang work maybe it is the right interpretation, but still it is problematic.
I wish there was a difference between AoMF with an enhancement to unarmed attacks and an enhancement to natural attacks.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sarrah wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

No, it is not, in the slightest. Unless you have a different book than I do?

It gives no distinction as to whether wielding is actually using (A), merely holding ready to use (B), or whatever. At all.

Correct. Both A and B are examples of wielding a weapon.

Same book, page. 468

CRB wrote:
Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by wielding (attacking with) it.

So, following your logic, wielding is attacking with the specific weapon.

As the thread Can we get an official definition for "wielding"? show it is way more complicated than that.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
getting a +8 enhancement bonus for the price of a +7. Even still, it's only a better option when used by a Barbarian because

You can't buy a +7 enhancement bonus and items are priced based on who can use them most effectively. Not on the average user.

Really now? Interesting.

Anything you can cite me for that? Seems like the majority of things are just priced how it sounds good to Paizo as a general price, and some can make better or worse use of it than others, barring items that only one class can really make use of.

It is not the price, it is the crafting cost that is based on the optimal user:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
James Risner wrote:
So more than likely, the price will be as if the light/esplend worked for everyone despite the fact it doesn't.

Correct.

When building an item, you calculate the cost to create it as if it were in the hands of an optimal user. Otherwise it's basically cheating.

The price generally is dependant from the crafting cost but sometime there is a difference.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert A Matthews wrote:

Interesting. I guess if you had a +4 Furious Bane Courageous weapon and you were fighting the right creature then yes, you could get +4 to your morale bonuses. You are getting a +8 enhancement bonus for the price of a +7. Even still, it's only a better option when used by a Barbarian because the bump to strength combined with the bump to attack rolls, saves, and damage will stack. Even then it is only while you have rage and a spell in effect at the same time. Take either of those out and it is better to just have a flat enhancement bonus. Unless getting +1 to saves is really worth giving up the +1 to hit and damage you would be getting otherwise. It only really seems to become powerful at higher levels(when you can afford a +7 weapon).

To be honest, I'm not sure why I'm arguing this anymore, people are convinced courageous is overpowered when it does less damage with less +to hit than a flat enhancement bonus. I wouldn't buy a courageous weapon anyway even with the allegedly overpowered interpretation as it isn't as good as just getting a furious weapon and just increasing the enhancement bonus. At least then you have the bonus all the time and don't depend on a spell. Without the spell in effect you are worse off than someone who just adds an enhancement bonus to the weapon.

I still hold that what people really have a problem with is furious. Courageous isn't "overpowered" until you add furious to it.

It all depend on what you are combining it. Heroism will give you a nice set of bonuses.

You claim that you will lose against a straight +1 to the weapon enhancement. Not completely true.
You will lose 1 point of damage but gain a +1 skills and saves. with a +2 courageous weapon and the bane ability if you are an inquisitor you can get a +1 to hit, -1 damage, +2 to skill and saves while using bane, etc.

Note that you can combine it with greater magic weapon, so you get back the +1 you call you would be losing with ease.

People fixating on the barbarian is a great way to hide what other tricks you can do with this property.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lemeres wrote:

I wonder whether the exact mechanics of how the thing caught on fire matters?

I mean, if you just applied enough heat that it caught fire on its own, then we would have an invisible torch situation (pinpoint is automatic, but you still can't actually see anything)

But if you doused it in oil and lit it on fire...well, the oil itself would not be too different from chalk powder, right? As in the burning oil itself is still visible, and outlines the target's shape enough so it loses concealment.

So, if we assume that is the case, an alchemist's fire would help for the 2 rounds it takes to burn up (and it is generally a good idea to use on invisible targets anyway).

PRD wrote:

Powder: Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.[/quote+

I don't see anything about "losing concealment" in there.
You know what is the location of the invisible creature, but concealment is a separate issue.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mojorat wrote:

I have a question, does anyone think it was ever intended for any weapons to be used as "stat sticks?"

Basically, the whole wielding thing isnt an issue in any of the following circumstances. 1) You have a normal weapon 2) You are TWF and actively trying to use both or 3) you only have 1 weapon.

I think for all of the above, the definition of wielding as "you have the weapon in hand your ready to use it and you threaten with it" works fine as a definition and does not cause any wierd game issues.

Yes

Mojorat wrote:


The problem is both the AMF and Gauntlets create the possibility of the "stat stick".

And armor spikes, blade boot and so on.

And it is not simply "stat sticks" for the courageous ability for the barbarian, it is tons of effects, a list that increase constantly.
A bard of inquisitor with the heroism spell will benefit from a courageous weapon for most of an adventuring day.
The inquisitor bane/double bane would make it a great combo.
+2 courageous weapon = +1 to attack/damage/saves/skills (plus the normal effect of heroism). Activate bane against the right target, it become +2 to attack/damage/saves/skills. Grater bane make it a +3.

Mojorat wrote:


So for my second question, a brief example. We have a PC wielding a reach weapon, and spiked gauntlets both are magical. The gauntlets have a bonus on them with a 'wielded' requirement. Does anyone actually think he qualifies for 'wielding the gauntlets' while he has both hands on his two handed weapon and is attacking it. Ie he doesnt threaten with them, cant Aoo and at this point are serving soley as gloves.

** spoiler omitted **
The above example is obviously from the other thread and i used it becase its a good example. To be honest My main issue with the more liberal reading on curagous is it contributes to the 'ill use my magic weapon as a wonderous item' issue. The problem is Wonderous items use different pricing than magic weapons. My main issue with curageous is when compared to the wonderous item rules and this "stat stick" issue you basically get a super buff for cheap on something you may never use in a single combat as a weapon.

I want to stress, this issue is actually seperate from whether curageous does what some think it does. And i'll conceed that last line was assembled poorly and it looks like the weapon deas raw what they say it does.

However, i think its alot more powerful using the 'stat stick' model than as your main and sole weapon.

Anyhow, im Actualy not super up to date on weapon enchantments to be aware of which can be used to create this problem. Most are straight forward and clearly applied on the attack or damage and the ones seen as having an issue like defender were fixed to avoid the stat stick issue.

As new weapons enchantments and new class abilities are added constantly, I think that not even the Developers know everything that can be affected by an interpretation or the other of wield without doing a check.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.
So what does common sense tell you about wearing a spiked gauntlet that is enchanted with something that matters when "wielded" and then using a two handed Greatsword to attack?
Common Sense™ tells me that when wielding another weapon in that hand, you are not able to make attacks with the gauntlet. Therefore you are not wielding it.
Beat me to it! Common sense tells me you generally cannot wield two weapons with the same hand unless it's a one-handed double weapon or it involves a very special case. The former case is unheard of in Pathfinder while the latter case is best left to GM fiat on a case by case basis.

Make it armor spikes, now you can threaten with them witout hands.

Cyrad wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.
So what does common sense tell you about wearing a spiked gauntlet that is enchanted with something that matters when "wielded" and then using a two handed Greatsword to attack?
Common Sense™ tells me that when wielding another weapon in that hand, you are not able to make attacks with the gauntlet. Therefore you are not wielding it.
Beat me to it! Common sense tells me you generally cannot wield two weapons with the same hand unless it's a one-handed double weapon or it involves a very special case. The former case is unheard of in Pathfinder while the latter case is best left to GM fiat on a case by case basis.

Make it armor spikes. Now you don't need a hand to threaten with them.

With Anzyr definition of what wield mean your bonus will be always on.

Cyrad wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.
So what does common sense tell you about wearing a spiked gauntlet that is enchanted with something that matters when "wielded" and then using a two handed Greatsword to attack?
Common Sense™ tells me that when wielding another weapon in that hand, you are not able to make attacks with the gauntlet. Therefore you are not wielding it.
Beat me to it! Common sense tells me you generally cannot wield two weapons with the same hand unless it's a one-handed double weapon or it involves a very special case. The former case is unheard of in Pathfinder while the latter case is best left to GM fiat on a case by case basis.

"Common sense" in this situation is a houserule. So it don't work well in a share environment, like PFS. Or when changing gaming groups.

My gaming group will probably read "wielding" as actively using a weapon in most cases, but some items use that in a different way. But I have seen a good number of experienced people using it as a synonymous of wearing/holding, so changing my gaming group would mean changing the rules by which we play.

Robert A Matthews wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Oddly enough I proposed that the Next printing will just have to include a dictionary of all the words used in the text of the rules. in the What does it mean to 'wield' a weapon? thread of July 2013.

That's a fine idea, but they aren't going to add anything to the CRB that breaks pagination.

Cyrad wrote:
I actually don't want them to rule on this. It's one of those common sense things that answering it may end up creating more problems than it solves, like the mounted combat FAQ. A GM can simply rule when a character is wielding a weapon as situations may vary. Common sense should tell you that you're wielding a weapon if you're capable of making attacks with it.

I'm 99% with you on this. I'm against the continued codification of minutia, believing instead that this kind of stuff should be left to the GM. The game works much better when there's wiggle room. However, there is a non-trivial segment of the population that is unable to function well unless they have a printed rule somewhere to point at. The hardline pro-RAW, anti-houserule stance of PFS fuels much of the "rules angst."

-Skeld

The development team agrees with you.

Rules Forum Sticky wrote:
Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters.

Keyword: unusual. There are plenty of items that use the wield term, and a lot of them seem to use that in different ways .

Ruggs wrote:

Gaming at Tabletop is a social exercise. Sometimes I cannot help but feel as though threads like this become an attempt to step outside of that exercise, to call on developers to make decisions for us to either contain or sometimes enable munchkinism when we ourselves need to be the ones stepping up to do so.

I'm not claiming this thread is, mind, it's that some of, or perhaps what appears to be an abundance of, these threads make it seem that way.

Do some rules questions need addressed? Absolutely.

That does not mean all of them do, though, and does not mean that we may be relying too much on developers when what is really needed is a good thump on the head and a "knock it off."

Shared social exercise where you meet different people and you are supposed to share a common set of rules. aegrisomnia in the post above yours has show how he has a completely different vision of the rules from mine. Gaming at the same table probably would be a very bad experience for us as we would clash on how things work.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:
"pretend there's someone next to you (or wherever you like I guess) and if you could smack that person with a weapon you count as wielding it"

I think that's a really good general criterion, actually. Based on some of my observations, I might broaden/simplify it as follows:

If you could hypothetically hit somebody with it in the near future (within one round? details TBD), you're wielding it.

I hesitate to even require it being held in the hands, since that seems to break the Called weapon ability... unless the intent there is for a specific rule to override the general one, in which case the intent could have been communicated much more clearly.

Note also: even if you require it to be held, this might allow for the sort of "shenanigans" some people might want to prevent by requiring you to attack with a weapon to get its benefit. I'm coming around to the idea that this not needing to attack is the intent and it's not particularly OP; if players are abusing it in your games, just banhammer stuff.

(Aside: I also assume/hope Rynjin doesn't see my contributions here as being confrontational - far from it, I'd love a FAQ answer for this question but am doubtful as to whether that will happen.)

shenanigans wrote:


Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?

Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.

That is an actual FAQ.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:

In my defense, I presented a workable test to determine wielding in those circumstances and never rely on personal insults regardless of what is going on. (Though I suspect I'm not included above, I still feel compelled to note this.)

I think the "pretend there's someone next to you (or wherever you like I guess) and if you could smack that person with a weapon you count as wielding it" (easier test name pending), works quite well and matches up with the intent for the most part. Since while I think yes a wrong aligned person should take a negative level penalty for being able to knife someone (which will usually be just holding under this test), a person using monkey belt to hold the weapon wouldn't, which makes sense to me and is internally consistent.

It make applying some ability to armor spikes too convenient as they will be "always on".

For some ability it is too lenient if you have just used both your hands for something different and you couldn't attack with the enchanted weapon unless someone caused an AoO.

As several posted have stated, me included, there is no consistency on how the term has been used. For some use wielder is the owner and it work even if the item is in some other guy hands (Called ability), at the other end of the spectrum there is the defending ability that require you to have attacked with you during your round to benefit from the Ac bonus.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:

As a standard action, a dancing weapon can be loosed to attack on its own. It fights for 4 rounds using the base attack bonus of the one who loosed it and then drops. While dancing, it cannot make attacks of opportunity, and the activating character it is not considered armed with the weapon. The weapon is considered wielded orttended by the activating character for all maneuvers and effects that target items.

While dancing, the weapon shares the same space as the activating character and can attack adjacent foes (weapons with reach can attack opponents up to 10 feet away). The dancing weapon accompanies the activating character everywhere, whether she moves by physical or magical means. If the activating character has an unoccupied hand, she can grasp it while it is attacking on its own as a free action; when so retrieved, the weapon can't dance (attack on its own) again for 4 rounds. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

By RAW, unless "wield" means something akin to "own", I fail to see how Dancing weapons are supposed to work. They're considered wielded for the purposes of maneuvers and effects that target items, but not explicitly for the purposes of determining whether or not the user benefits from the Dancing property itself. I concede this may be a simple oversight and not representative of any real intent

Re read your quote. Wielding a dancing weapon while it is dancing.is not a requirement.

aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:
A huntsman weapon helps its wielder locate and capture quarry. When the weapon is held in hand, the wielder gains an enhancement bonus on Survival checks made to track any creature the weapon has damaged in the past day. It also deals +1d6 points of damage to creatures the wielder has tracked with Survival in the past day.
Again, "owns" or "holds" seems appropriate here. "Own" (possibly also having proficiency in) remains the only interpretation that seems to apply universally.

Again, no "wield" requirement.

aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:


This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A melee weapon crafted with this ability gains a range increment of 10 feet and can be thrown by a wielder proficient in its normal use.
This suggest ownership, not proficiency, is sufficient to be considered a "wielder". Otherwise, the bit about proficiency would be redundant.

Even weirder interpretation. You should read what you cite. To throw a weapon you need to have it in hand and use it, so simple ownership don't matter.

Flawed starting assumptions get a flawed interpretation.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

I don't see any language in Smite or Fireball that would stop the Smiting Fireball from doing some additional damage to one person in the AoE.

Then again, I also don't see language in Sneak Attack and Magic Missile or Fireball preventing you from adding SA damage to those spells. But the premise of the Arcane Trickster PrC is that you need a special ability for that.

To deal sneak attack you nee to target someone with an attack:

PRD wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC

Fireball don't target anyone, it has an area of effect.

Smite evil require you to target someone with the smite evil ability but then the effect trigger every time you roll damage against him.

PRD wrote:


Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. 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.

So you don't need a targeted attack for smite evil, while you need a targeted attack for the sneak attack damage.

Ascalaphus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Sneak attack does not call for attack rolls either but most players know the intent was for attack rolls. The same goes for smites.
I'm fairly certain the INTENT was for SA not to work with stuff that doesn't use an attack roll. But I'm having a hard time PROVING it.

I know, this post of mine has just proved that you can't apply sneak attack damage to a fireball, but you can apply it to a magic missile.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
As to Courageous, if you could use that weapon on the nonexistent person, you are "wielding it in battle". So if you assumed that a person was next to a +4 Courageous Spiked Gauntlet wearer, if the wearer could use that spiked gauntlet to attack that person (even if they choose not to do so), the wearer of it is wielding it in battle.

Translation: it is always on.

Doubling the effect of a Flawed Pale Green Prism with a +1 corageus spiked gauntlet worth 8.000. a bargain.

PSRD20 wrote:


Flawed Pale Green Prism: This stone grants a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, skill checks, and ability checks. Price: 28,000 gp.

Yes, I know, there are effects that give an even better return, but the existence of a "too good to be true effect" don't justify the existence of another.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
SKR's definition is good enough for me.

Same.

This thread secretly has nothing to do with wielding.

It is a shadow argument against a weapon property, that some don't like.

There is a thread on that property already.

You really shouldn't make assumptions, it kinda makes you look like an ass sometimes.

You asked for an example.

I gave you one.

Don't ask me for something if you don't want it, especially if you are then going to use said example in an attempt to imply some ulterior motive, especially when I'm one of the people who has no problem with said weapon property.

Almost every weapon property in the books has some kind of "wielded" wording in it, from Courageous on down to Unholy (do you gain a Negative level just by having it in hand if you're Good, or do you have to actively try and use the weapon in battle?), and some Feats (like Orc Weapon Expertise, which can grant a shield bonus for "wielding" a weapon, or a +3 to Concentration checks to cast, can you hold an Orc weapon in one hand and gain that benefit while only using another weapon?) do as well.

Going from memory, I think there was some problem with some magus ability, some amulet of mighty fist (with the "fun" posts about having to wield your foot in your hand to use the ability), the defending ability (that require you to wield the weapon and has been FAQed as that meaning "actively use to attack"). And those are only a few examples.

another few examples:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'll also point out that there is more than the single weapon property discussed in the other thread that this question pertains to. Defending was one property, its cousin the Guardian property is another. The Called property calls out for a wielder, even though there is language that dissuades the definition we all assume the term "wielder" to mean in the game.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

See SKR opinion here.

For those unable to follow the link:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.

A different take by SKR:

"Sean K Reynolds" Nov 4, 2011, 10:08 PM wrote:

Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.

Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.

Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.

And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.

And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.

[b]If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.

If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.

You probably can't wear a sword.

If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.

And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.

And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.

If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.

If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.

You probably can't wear a sword.

If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.

"Actively trying to use" is different from "Holding it in your hand, ready to use". As SKR put it a few row below the first phrase: "If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it."

Just for the record, your post is dated "Jul 25, 2013, 10:18 PM", so SKR can have changed his opinion in the meantime, or the developers had a meeting and decided for some specific meaning of the term.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

As-is there are quite a large number of abilities that require the user to be wielding the item (usually a weapon) in question.

Problem: Wielding is not defined in the rules.

Therefore, there are several interpretations, and they're all technically correct.

One group of people says "a weapon must be currently in use (have attacked recently, for example)" to be wielded.

A different group says "a weapon must simply be held in a position that it CAN be used" to be wielded.

A third acknowledges that the definition is nebulous, but has a general definition of "held with INTENT to use".

The dictionary definition of wield (which I will spoiler below) supports all 3 of these definitions.

** spoiler omitted **

As this has a not insignificant impact on the rules, and there have been various queries on a few different matters that converge on this one issue, I'd say it counts as a "Frequently Asked Question", even though technically they were all tangential to the main question asked.

So, to put it clearly and succinctly for the PDT: What constitutes "wielding" in the Pathfinder ruleset?

FAQed, but I think there is a major problem here: the term hasn't been used in a constant way throughout the rules, so it sometimes mean a thing, sometime something different.

So giving out a FAQ isn't simple at all unless Paizo, at the same time, check every product they made and correct the term use to what is appropriate.

SKR in this post speak of a different word, but the problem is the same, I think:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It says "bonus," not "modifier," so it never drops below +0.

(I've done my best to hammer the writers into saying "bonus" when they mean "it's always going to be +0 or better," or when using "modifier" has the possibility of making no sense, such as "you can use this a number of times per day equal to your Charisma modifier," which would mean you could have negative uses per day. So trust whether it says "bonus" or "modifier" to mean exactly that. :))

writers using wield as a synonymous of wear, hold in hand or other uses of the term.

As you well know that is a problem with the courages ability.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

RAW there is no need to make an attack roll to use the paladin smite ability.
it gives a bonus to an attack roll, but the attack roll isn't a requirement.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

First:

PRD wrote:
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.

That rule is meant only for small and medium creatures with small or medium weapons.

Unless there is a FAQ somewhere a medium creature with a small reach weapon has reach and can't attack adjacent foes with that weapon.

Here are the stumbling blocks of the OP idea:

PRD wrote:


Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Block 1:

Changing the weapon size don't change the weapon designation, only the effort required to wield the weapon.

PRD wrote:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

Block 2:

The magus ability require a weapon designated as a "light or one-handed melee weapon", not one that require X effort to wield.

The small reach weapon maintain his original designation, so if it is not a valid weapon for a magus of the correct size, it is not a valid weapon for the magus of the wrong size.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree that at most it should add once for each attacks against a single target of smite evil, but what happen if you have multiple smite evil in effect and you target multiple targets with a magic missile spell?

If smite evil applies to spell, you have 3 of them active and you fire a level 5 magic missile, splitting the MM between the 3 targets of smite evil, I think that each of them would get the extra damage, as each smite evil is adding its damage only once.

I must admit that for me the idea of smite evil adding to spell or special abilities damage is decidedly new. I have always limited it to physical attacks damage.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nosig wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
nosig wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
nosig wrote:

[Takeing your examples I have a couple questions....

In a combat situation:
Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
GM: Who did you Attack?
Player A: The zombie.
GM: With what weapon?
Player A: My great axe.
GM: Yes, you hit. Roll your damage.

purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon?

Zombies have DR 5/Slashing, so using a mace would get a different result, even if you rolled the same to hit and the same damage.

but it would not adjust the To Hit roll - the roll to be matched against the DC (in this case the AC).

Adjusting the skill check depending on what the Player says is like adjusting the attack roll depending on how the player discribed his attack. "I used an overhand chop! Vigorusly striking the animated creature a mighty blow! does that give me a +2 or a -2 to hit?"

I am not arguing anything about adjusting the diplomacy check, but what you say can give modifiers depending on the NPC write up (see the examples you made).

Successfully improving the NPC attitude before asking him stuff, as by the diplomacy rules, should decrease the check DC or give an equivalent bonus to the skill roll.
Sorry Mr. Rossi, you have lost me completely. I do not even know how to respond....

You remember these examples you made?

nosig wrote:


Kind of like when the scenario says: "If the PC speaks Halit, he gains a +5 on all CHA checks when interacting with the natives."

"XXXXX is also cautious about her espionage services and is affronted by any mention of her network; a PC who tries to broach the subject takes a –4 penalty on checks ..."

If the player say "I roll diplomacy" I have no basis to apply those modifiers. If he say something there is a basis to apply them.

- * -

If the players first use diplomacy to change a character attitude and succeed, but the scenario writer gave a straight table of successful results, without taking in account a change of the NPC reaction, I would apply a modifier. Generally a NPC attitude, barring a different script for the character, is indifferent. If the PC has changed that attitude to friendly that would normally change the DC of the following checks made against that NPC. If the table witht eh effects of teh successful diplomacy rolls don't take that in effect I would give him a +5 bonus to the roll for each step of improvement in the NPC attitude.

PRD wrote:
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature's current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers.

And your examples about "it don't matter what weapon it use" are questionable.

nosig wrote:


Sometimes yes (for DR or such) - but not for the attack roll and in fact, I could easily say in most cases no. Did the PC hit? Yes? what damage (amount and type) did he do... Many games I can easily say I have run without knowing what weapon the PCs are using... "You hit AC 12? Damage? 8? next!"

Really? So I can use a club and do 1d10 piercing damage because what weapon I use don't matter?

nosig wrote:
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


The intent, (lethal or non-lethal damage) yes or no?
Normally only if it attack results in success... a hit.

Again, Really?

You are aware that using a lethal weapon to do non lethal damage give you a -4 to hit?
It don't seem so from your post.

You allow someone to decide after he has it if he was attacking to dela lethal or non lethal damage? It seem so.

nosig wrote:
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:


With picking a lock, the information is usually understood by both the GM and player but it is still understood (the lock on the chest, MW, normal or improvised tools, opening the lock being the obvious goal).

well... not always. Does the Judge need to know that the PC is using Master Work tools? I have never had one ask me. It is normally just factored in. Do we need to know if the attack roll was made with a masterwork weapon?

You don't care to know, you assume it is already factored. Mmmh. Never played with a novice? never played with someone that forget to factor a bonus or a malus?

At least until you are confident that the player know what he is doing and that he is factoring his modifiers the right way you should check.

nosig wrote:


The only time I can think of when I (as a judge) would need to know what weapon someone is using in an attack is when that weapon effects the chance to hit. For example, if the target is Incorporial, or if my NPC has a +1 to AC vs. light blades or something like that. Why would it matter "always" that the PC is using a Masterwork Rapier or a simple club? How would this effect his "to hit"? His ability to make the DC? Did the player get a "to hit" number high enough to hit the monster? How is this effected more that a fraction of the time by what weapon he is using?

You are aware that a masterwork weapon give a +1 to hit?

nosig wrote:


and in relating this to the Diplomacy skill - we are still getting hung up on what the Player says - how he discribes the actions of his PC. This would be like adjusting his skill check because of "what the Player says - how he discribes the actions of his PC" during his attack. Does he swing low or high? does he thrust with the weapon or what? After all, a dagger is both piercing and slashing, so if he uses it to thrust then it only does piercing damage... wait, that still doesn't effect his chance to hit.

I find fun that you have brought up specific examples of modifiers written right into an adventure and then you say that the player shouldn't have to give any indication if he doing something that can trigger those modifiers.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shimesen wrote:
Yes Diego, that's what we said. At third level, you already have an arcane pool. Now you are changing that, and also replacing the 3rd level arcana. His question was weather the magus would get an arcane pool at level 1. Yes, it just doesn't get modified until level 3.

Wrong.

Arcane pool feature is modified when you get it, at level 1, not at level 3.

When an archetype change a class feature it change it from the moment in which that feature is acquired, barring specific text that this ability hasn't.

It don't matter that you get the black blade at level 3, the arcane pool feature is changed from level 1.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
walter mcwilliams wrote:
He receives normal arcane pool (number of points equal to 1/2 his magus level (minimum 1) + his Intelligence modifier) until 3rd level at which point his pool becomes and remains 1/3 his level (minimum 1)plus his Intelligence bonus.
Shimesen wrote:
It doesn't modify the class feature until level 3, but it doesn't matter. At level 1-2 your arcane points are the same. At level 3 it would normally go up by 1. If you take the archetype at level 3, then that is when it would change by NOT going up.

Re read how it work:

PRD - Black Blade ability wrote:


Instead of the normal arcane pool amount, the bladebound magus's arcane pool has a number of points equal to 1/3 his level (minimum 1) plus his Intelligence bonus. This ability changes the Arcane Pool class feature and replaces the magus arcana gained at 3rd level.

"This ability changes the Arcane Pool class feature" and "replaces the magus arcana gained at 3rd level" are two different effects.

This ability changes the Arcane Pool class feature
The arcane pool ability is acquired at first level and this ability change it. Immediately when the ability is acquired, so from level 1.
The character will get a number of arcane pool point equal to 1/3 of his level, with a minimum of one, plus his intelligence bonus, from first level onward.

replaces the magus arcana gained at 3rd level
The arcana gained at 3rd level is forfeit completely. A level 3 bladebound magus hasn't the magus arcana ability at all.

Andoran

24 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Until today I hadn't even dreamed it was possible, but in another thread it was propose and the text of the ability seem to allow it.

PRD wrote:
Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. 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. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.

Reading the ability text, if you roll damage you get to add your smite evil damage to it.

Corollary questions:

- if applied to a magic missile damage it is applied once or once for each missile hitting the target of smite evil?

- what happen when it is applied to a spell/power that don't do hit point of damage but deal other forms of damage?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Ughbash wrote:
thebigragu wrote:
So, with three Smites up, using MM against multiple targets, only one of those MMs deals Smite damage?
Point 1 changing the goal posts since the orignal perosn saying smite and MM was good for one shotting an evil outsider cause each MM did smite damage to the outsider.

It isn't moving goal posts, it is challenging an assumption of smite damage is "once per spell" instead of "once per damage roll." Generally, abilities that work only once per spell say exactly that. This is definitely a corner case because it is doubtful the smite ability was written with spells in mind.

For what it's worth, I agree that it probably only works once per spell (even with multiple smites up and firing at multiple targets,) but it is ambiguous enough to warrant further discussion. The line of questioning though is completely apropos and doesn't move the goal post at all.

It is moving the goal as it require 3 different smites against 3 different targets. Each smite is applied once, to the attacks against the appropriate target.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Avh wrote:
Snorri Nosebiter wrote:
if your wild animals aren't threathened or frightened by being hit with a high level magic missile, there's something seriously wrong with the way your DM plays them.

It just tickles a bit. If you were a wolf, would you fear a rat that bites you ? No, you would just devour it.

Magic missile is the same : a rat bite when you're fighting wolves.

Check the rat bite damage and a single magic missile damage. They are a bit different.

And normal predators don't want to be wounded at all. Getting damaged every time you try to take down a prey is a great way to be a dead predator.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gauss wrote:
The combats I run usually last a minimum of 5+ rounds but I also try to play intelligent creatures...intelligently. Soften up the PCs first before getting into it with them. Once the PCs actually start to land a few blows it is often over from that point in a couple rounds.

I suspect that at least some of the people saying "combat last at most 2 rounds" aren't considering buffing time or the rounds in which the character are closing in.

Yes, after the big hitters have entered melee range or the archer can fire at the main enemy without problems or the defensive spell or effects on the BEEG have been cancelled the fight will end with a couple of hits. But getting at that point take time.
And the BEEGs I run or encounter generally have several ways to retreat once or twice to save their skin, rebuff and return in a few rounds. For me that often is a single combat. The characters are still running it in rounds and following initiative.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes, but the damage is applied separately, so 2 10d6 intensified shocking grasp, not 1 doing 20d6.
It can make a difference if the target has some form of energy resistance.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cevah wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Cevah wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Cevah wrote:
LazarX wrote:
A wizard who makes the minimum 1 pt investment in that skill at 5th level when he gets the Fly spell, as an effective bonus of 4 + dex modifier, which immediately gets bumped up by a further two points when he actually casts the Fly spell. so if the Wizard in question has say, a 14 dex, he's already got a +8 with one measly point. If he puts in no further effort at training, the skill will automatically go up by 1 per 2 caster levels.

Actually, it would be:

1 (rank) + 3 (class skill) + 4 (good maneuverability) + 2 (half level bonus) + Dex Mod = 10 + Dex Mod.
The wizard don't get the bonus for the maneuverability. He doesn't have a natural fly speed.

Fly spell:

"...and its maneuverability is good."

/cevah

Yes, "its maneuverability is good", but he don't apply any modifier to the fly skill for that.

"its maneuverability is good" is simply a leftover from the 3.X version of the rules, without any effect now that we use the fly skill with its specific rules.

Why not? The spell gives a un-natural fly speed. The fly skill specifies good maneuverability gets +4.

Some examples of un-natural flight in the Bestiary:
Creature maneuverability; skill+, components to skill, hit die
Azata, Ghaele Fly [perfect]; fly +25, perfect 8 dex 1 class 3 rank 13, hd 13
Elemental, Air, Elder Fly [perfect]; fly +34, huge -4 perfect 8 dex 11 class 3 rank 16, hd 16
Genie, Djinni Fly [perfect]; fly +20, large -2 perfect 8 dex 4 class 3 rank 7, hd 7...

Natural because I get from my nature, not a tackled on spell.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
The bomb ability use one action, like casting and firing the scorching ray. The spell give you a free attack. But you provoke 2 times as mixing the bomb and throwing it are separate events.
Not according to the Rules, As Written in the Advanced Player's Guide.

You are using the same argument of the people that was saying that scorching ray would provoke only once and failing for the same reasons.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nosig wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
nosig wrote:

[Takeing your examples I have a couple questions....

In a combat situation:
Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
GM: Who did you Attack?
Player A: The zombie.
GM: With what weapon?
Player A: My great axe.
GM: Yes, you hit. Roll your damage.

purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon?

Zombies have DR 5/Slashing, so using a mace would get a different result, even if you rolled the same to hit and the same damage.

but it would not adjust the To Hit roll - the roll to be matched against the DC (in this case the AC).

Adjusting the skill check depending on what the Player says is like adjusting the attack roll depending on how the player discribed his attack. "I used an overhand chop! Vigorusly striking the animated creature a mighty blow! does that give me a +2 or a -2 to hit?"

I am not arguing anything about adjusting the diplomacy check, but what you say can give modifiers depending on the NPC write up (see the examples you made).

Successfully improving the NPC attitude before asking him stuff, as by the diplomacy rules, should decrease the check DC or give an equivalent bonus to the skill roll.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Getting the benefit of the ability at the minimum cost is the goal of at least some of the people arguing in favour of "it applies to all morale bonuses".
Isn't it normally a little hard to know exactly why people are arguing for and against a particular issue? Making assumptions = bad, and sometimes even rude.

Some of the people I cited stated that their goal was to get the courageous special ability benefit while using another weapon to attack the enemies (the starting example was a glaive while wearing courages spiked gauntlets). I think that people speaking their mind give a clear idea of their goal. You disagree?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nosig wrote:

[Takeing your examples I have a couple questions....

In a combat situation:
Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
GM: Who did you Attack?
Player A: The zombie.
GM: With what weapon?
Player A: My great axe.
GM: Yes, you hit. Roll your damage.

purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon?

Zombies have DR 5/Slashing, so using a mace would get a different result, even if you rolled the same to hit and the same damage.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:


Player: I use diplomacy
DM: Ok, what do you want to achieve?

What is the problem with this?

The problem, again, is that the three different mechanics are so close together and so interchangeably used that if you're asking which version of the mechanics they're trying to use it's an arbitrary guessing game with the player.

You are saying that for you "improve attitude" and "ask a favour " are similar and interchangeable. And that both those are interchangeable with Gather informations?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
My character approach the barkeeper and I say "I use diplomacy on him." The GM as no idea of what I am asking to the barkeeper.

Step 1) Try to coax some Role playing out of the player. I have never had this be a problem to get some at least.

Step 2) This is a pretty standard gather info check. I give him the information his diplomacy check deserves. If I think the letter is a separate issue I'll have him make a second roll for it.

To me, how you handle step 1 is infinitely more important than part 2.

So you assume that he is asking about the letter in front of the other member of the party and that he is not trying to increase the barkeeper attitude first?

And step 1) seem exactly the same thing we are trying to accomplish and that you seem adamantly against.

Strange.

1 to 50 of 6,887 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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