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, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 9,910 posts (10,428 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,910 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hasteroth wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
hasteroth wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Then remember to add the encumbrance of the new arrow, the damage to armor and clothing and so on.

"You must be realistic."
I see your realism and raise you generic complaints about encumbrance thresholds being unrealistic.
Sure, we must use a percentage of maximum load with incremental effects. You think that the modifier should be based on 1% increments or 0.1%?
The more decimal places the better.

Perfect, Now I need to find a map with a 1 mm grid

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Since the whole point of using spell combat is mixing melee and magic, it stands to reason that you're going to be casting in melee when using the spell combat mechanic. So unless you want the automatic AOO, it goes without saying that you WILL be casting defensively.

Against opponents with 5' of reach or less:

Cast spell while out of reach, move 5', attack
Enlarge person & reach
Use a whip
The Lunge feat
Make your attacks, move 5', cast (don't work with spellstrike)

Against enemies with longer reach:

Cast bladed dash, move and make your attacks
Cast Force Hook Charge

All remove the need for a concentration check.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hasteroth wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Then remember to add the encumbrance of the new arrow, the damage to armor and clothing and so on.

"You must be realistic."
I see your realism and raise you generic complaints about encumbrance thresholds being unrealistic.

Sure, we must use a percentage of maximum load with incremental effects. You think that the modifier should be based on 1% increments or 0.1%?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xaimum Mafire wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Xaimum Mafire wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Xaimum Mafire wrote:

It's the attacking with a limb that you've already attacked with that bothers me, not the casting through a weapon. Doing that from a full attack with +6 BAB doesn't bother me because of the huge penalties on the iterative attacks that represent how difficult it is to attack that quickly in a short period.

It just feels like you shouldn't be able to essentially two-weapon fight with a single weapon, especially when you're casting a spell AND focusing that spell though a weapon that you're in middle of swinging.

Are you also opposed to a monk using flurry of blows with a temple sword? Or an archer using rapid shot?

In both cases a single weapon with an extra attack beyond BAB.

Rapid Shot is just loading two arrows at a time and it costs a feat to do it.

Flurry of Blows doesn't involve casting a spell on top of swinging twice.

I'm not sure why my opinion is so offensive...

Well "using the same limb is offensive to me, but actually all the other example of using the same limb again don't offend me" isn't an opinion that most of us would find agreeable.

It's ham-fisted. It's not thematic, just ham-fisted. Rapid firing a bow? Logical. Punching someone, then elbowing them with the same arm? Thai boxing 101. Hitting someone with a sword, then hitting them again with the ONLY reason being that you cast a spell that you discharge through your hand and the rules say you can hit them with your sword instead? It's just weird, like the effect is there because of some odd wording, as if the Magus's signature damage mechanic was an accident instead of design.

Every other example that's been brought up is where concept was imagined and a rule was designed around. If Spellstrike was written along the lines "If you've already attacked with your weapon this round and do not have another attack (such from a high BAB), and you have hit with your weapon and cast...

So hitting someone with a temple sword and using flurry of blow to hit him again 3 times as it fighting with two weapons is "Thai boxing 101"?

Firing 2 arrows at the same time is (multishot) is "logical"?

Very selective of what you accept or don't accept.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

@OP

It appears no specific rule cover this, but it's unequivocal that if an arrow did stick into a person, the arrow would remain visible per RAW. While it's clearly open to GM adjudication, I would highly recommend GMing the game in a manner as consisted with reality as you can manage. If that means some BBEG gets taken out much easier than you thought...you can always create more.

In real life, an invisible person gets shot with arrows, you're going to be able to at least track the square based on the arrows. So as others have suggested, I'd allow pinpointing without negating the miss chance.

Arrows kill by piercing and sticking. If you're not sure about this, watch a bow hunter reality TV show.

Alternatively, let the wizard spend a round to pull out the arrows.

Then remember to add the encumbrance of the new arrow, the damage to armor and clothing and so on.

"You must be realistic."

BTW: "He has hit me with his weapon, so there is blood on it, I see where he is ..."

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Covent wrote:
...the ammunition is destroyed after a hit.

Forgot that part! Yeah, that changes the equation.

The player should have used a net instead. :D

Also, wow, it's amazing how many people missed my "ammo is destroyed" error and instead went with the (also wrong) "if it's on his person it's automatically invisible too" answer. And then there's the whole "maybe getting hit doesn't actually mean getting hit because HP might not mean what the CRB says it means" thing. I guess we could all stand to put a little more effort into actually knowing what the hell we're talking about.

So! Let's put it all together! Walking through it step by step:

We know that the damage dealt from the arrows was piercing damage. More to the point, it was not slashing damage (so we know it didn't graze him with a slice as it passed by) and it was not bludgeoning damage (so we know it didn't run into him and explode without puncturing him).

We know that the CRB defines hit point damage as actually physically getting hit (not straining to dodge at the last second or whatever), which is further backed up by the interactions (or distinct lack thereof) between the rules for cure spells, fatigue/exhaustion, injury and contact poisons, natural HP recovery, falling damage, rolling a 1 on a save against an AoE, and plenty else.

Furthermore, we know that "ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless". This clearly includes the possibility of breaking into pieces, but also clearly includes the possibility of simply being bent/cracked/split to the point of uselessness while still being all one piece. As the rules go no deeper on this topic, it's left to the GM to make a ruling. Given that the OP's goal is to find a way to enforce how he wants things to go, I'll go out on a limb and say we're going with "broken into pieces".

When you put the above three paragraphs together, we have the following firmly established: The arrows physically struck the target, they punctured the...

There is a BIG difference between being hit and having arrow stick in you in Pathfinder.

You are trying to apply RL logic to an abstract system, but the you stop halfway because applying it in full will break the system.

RL: you get hit by a solid hit by an arrow, it penetrate a few centimeters and stick in your body, true.
But then you have a piece and metal and wood struck into your body. Moving increase the damage, probably you are bleeding, there are very good chances that you are dead or incapacitated.

Pathfinder: you get hit by a arrow, you lose X hit points. End of the effect.

If you want to add effects because it is "more realistic" you should redo the whole system as you are breaking piece of it to follow your tastes and you shouldn't do it in the rule forum.

PRD wrote:
Hit Points (hp): Hit points are an abstraction signifying how robust and healthy a creature is at the current moment. To determine a creature's hit points, roll the dice indicated by its Hit Dice. A creature gains maximum hit points if its first Hit Die roll is for a character class level. Creatures whose first Hit Die comes from an NPC class or from his race roll their first Hit Die normally. Wounds subtract hit points, while healing (both natural and magical) restores hit points. Some abilities and spells grant temporary hit points that disappear after a specific duration. When a creature's hit points drop below 0, it becomes unconscious. When a creature's hit points reach a negative total equal to its Constitution score, it dies.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
DM Jelani wrote:

I have a player who successfully pinpointed a creature under greater invisibilty during one round (due to the invisible creature casting a spell with a point of origin), and shot it twice with his longbow, successfully overcoming the miss chance. Now the player is insisting that his arrows should be visible, and that he should be able to visually track them in order to automatically pinpoint which square the invisible creature is in. Furthermore, he is asking that it negate/mitigate the miss chance from total concealment. I know that this is wrong, but I don't know how to articulate the reason it's wrong using the rules. Can anyone spell out exactly why, per RAW, the arrows shouldn't be visible?

I know I can just say, "I'm the DM, too bad bub." But I don't like doing that unless I have to. Thanks in advance for any advice.

The invisibility spell description wrote:
...items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.

Those arrows are visible until the creature spends the actions to hide them behind his invisible clothes. (Perhaps this is why wizards wear those flowing robes? In fact, I think I'm adopting that as headcanon now. But anyway, moving on...)

Strictly speaking, the rules are silent on what effects result from having visible arrows sticking out of an invisible target, so that's a GM call. However, any sense of internal consistency for your game world is shattered if the visible, seemingly-floating arrows don't tell you anything (and you'll probably lose any sort of trust from your players and be branded an adversarial GM who just wants to "win", deserved or not). Personally, I'd let it reveal the caster's position, but not mitigate the miss chance.

Hope that helps!

Please, show me the rule that explain what result you need to do to have the arrows stick in your target instead of grazing him.

Doing 1 hit point of damage is enough or you need more?
Barely rolling enough to hit is enough or we need more?
If we hit touch AC it stick in the armor even if we miss the enemy actual AC?

There is no rule about arrow sticking in a target, adding it change the game.

if we follow this kind of logic: I have wounded you with my sword, your blood a has been spilled, now it is outside of you and visible. You need to tuck it away to make it invisible again .

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Jelani wrote:

I have a player who successfully pinpointed a creature under greater invisibilty during one round (due to the invisible creature casting a spell with a point of origin), and shot it twice with his longbow, successfully overcoming the miss chance. Now the player is insisting that his arrows should be visible, and that he should be able to visually track them in order to automatically pinpoint which square the invisible creature is in. Furthermore, he is asking that it negate/mitigate the miss chance from total concealment. I know that this is wrong, but I don't know how to articulate the reason it's wrong using the rules. Can anyone spell out exactly why, per RAW, the arrows shouldn't be visible?

I know I can just say, "I'm the DM, too bad bub." But I don't like doing that unless I have to. Thanks in advance for any advice.

The arrows don't stick in the target. Most of the hit points damage are grazes, cuts and bruises, not an arrow piercing your lung and sticking out.

Hit points are a abstract representation of our ability to dodge, get minor wounds and still be able to fight and so on.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Risner wrote:

I'd vote for "it doesn't provoke", but if someone sunders it they needed AC, Hardness and HP.

It is an object that flies from here to there and back. Maybe it don't need to enter the target square but surely it provoke while it move.

A possible precedent:

PRD wrote:


Spectral Hand
...
A ghostly hand shaped from your life force materializes and moves as you desire, allowing you to deliver low-level, touch range spells at a distance. On casting the spell, you lose 1d4 hit points that return when the spell ends (even if it is dispelled), but not if the hand is destroyed. (The hit points can be healed as normal.) For as long as the spell lasts, any touch range spell of 4th level or lower that you cast can be delivered by the spectral hand. The spell gives you a +2 bonus on your melee touch attack roll, and attacking with the hand counts normally as an attack. The hand always strikes from your direction. The hand cannot flank targets like a creature can. After it delivers a spell, or if it goes beyond the spell range or goes out of your sight, the hand returns to you and hovers.

The hand is incorporeal and thus cannot be harmed by normal weapons. It has improved evasion (half damage on a failed Reflex save and no damage on a successful save), your save bonuses, and an AC of 22 (+8 size, +4 natural armor). Your Intelligence modifier applies to the hand's AC as if it were the hand's Dexterity modifier. The hand has 1 to 4 hit points, the same number that you lost in creating it.

It do something very similar to what the mask do and it provoke while moving.

Liberty's Edge

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

I think that some information is missing from the description, but we can infer them.

1) The mask seem to be a tiny or diminutive sized item. So it has no reach and must enter the target square, provoking an AoO.

2) For sure it provoke while it fly to its target and return.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yogmoth wrote:
Yogmoth wrote:

1) You shouldn't make a staff with only 1 spell in it. It is against the idea of the item.

PRD wrote:

A staff is a long shaft that stores several spells.

I have been thinking about what you said, and come back with another question:

Let's had to our desecrate staff (10 charges, 3 for a desecrate), a lvl 2 spell using 2 charges and a level 1 spell using 1.

If i understand you correctly the market buying price (not crafting price) would be

((400 x 2 x 8 ) + (50 x 50)) /3 + (300 x 2 x 8) /2 + (200 x 1 x 8) = 6966 gp ??

Yes.

Liberty's Edge

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

1) You shouldn't make a staff with only 1 spell in it. It is against the idea of the item.

PRD wrote:
A staff is a long shaft that stores several spells.

2)

"For what i understand crafting cost would be (400 x 2 x 8 + 50 x 50)/2 = 2450

I wonder what it market price would be. 2 x 4450 = 8900 or less if the material cost of the desecrate spell is not counted twice so 7650 gp."

Crafting cost is (400 x 2 x 8)/2 cost of the staff + (50 x 50) cost of the components. So 3.200+2500= 5.700

Sell price (400 x 2 x 8)+(50 x 50) = 8.900

If the staff use 3 charges: [(400 x 2 x 8)/2 + (50 x 50)]/3 = 1.900
Sell price [(400 x 2 x 8) + (50 x 50)]/3 = 2.966,67

You always pay the full cost of the components when crafting but you don't multiply it when selling.
The best example are the tomed, example tome of clear thoughts, Price 27,500 gp (+1), Cost 26,250 gp (+1). The 25.000 gp for the diamond are a part of the crating cost and final price that don't change.

There is a important point about that: the material component cost has no influence on the crafting time. I.e. the time to craft something is based on the sell price without the cost of the material components. The tome above require 3 days, not 28.

PRD wrote:
In addition, some items cast or replicate spells with costly material components. For these items, the market price equals the base price plus an extra price for the spell component costs. The cost to create these items is the magic supplies cost plus the costs for the components. Descriptions of these items include an entry that gives the total cost of creating the item.

The cost of the components is always the same, what you did pay to get them.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xaimum Mafire wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Xaimum Mafire wrote:

It's the attacking with a limb that you've already attacked with that bothers me, not the casting through a weapon. Doing that from a full attack with +6 BAB doesn't bother me because of the huge penalties on the iterative attacks that represent how difficult it is to attack that quickly in a short period.

It just feels like you shouldn't be able to essentially two-weapon fight with a single weapon, especially when you're casting a spell AND focusing that spell though a weapon that you're in middle of swinging.

Are you also opposed to a monk using flurry of blows with a temple sword? Or an archer using rapid shot?

In both cases a single weapon with an extra attack beyond BAB.

Rapid Shot is just loading two arrows at a time and it costs a feat to do it.

Flurry of Blows doesn't involve casting a spell on top of swinging twice.

I'm not sure why my opinion is so offensive...

Well "using the same limb is offensive to me, but actually all the other example of using the same limb again don't offend me" isn't an opinion that most of us would find agreeable.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Mad Alchemist wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Xaimum Mafire wrote:

So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?

Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.
Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)
Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.
Why?
The mechanics of spell combat state that a concentration roll is part of the process. Aside from the Level 20 capstone power, no exception is given for this.
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. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

If

PRD wrote:
True Magus (Su): At 20th level, the magus becomes a master of spells and combat. Whenever he uses his spell combat ability, he does not need to make a concentration check to cast the spell defensively. Whenever the magus uses spell combat and his spell targets the same creature as his melee attacks, he can choose to either increase the DC to resist the spell by +2, grant himself a +2 circumstance bonus on any checks made to overcome spell resistance, or grant himself a +2 circumstance bonus on all attack rolls made against the target during his turn.

to cast the spell defensively

At this point I should agree with BNW. Reading the rules is difficult.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mad Alchemist wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Xaimum Mafire wrote:

So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?

Yes, save that you forgot step 2.... concentration roll to cast your spell.
Step 2 is get a level in swashbuckler so they WILL take an AOO at you... :)
Just to be clear, Spell Combat requires a concentration roll regardless of whether you are threatened or not.
Why?

It don't say that anywhere. It work as casting a spell: you can make a concentration check to cast defensively or you can make a concentration check to successfully cast the spell if damaged. I either fail you lose the spell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hasteroth wrote:
As one who started unfamiliar with it, and did rule the wrong way at first... While I still agree its not that difficult to misinterpret I wouldn't say its unreasonable. Magus isn't full BAB so they get iterative attacks later, plus they are forbidden from wielding a weapon in their offhand. I mean look at it this way, as a level 1 melee focused Druid I could get off FOUR attacks in a single round including my lion, and the lion had ZERO penalties because its claws and bite are all Primary Natural Attacks. And there was no limit on how often I could do that. A Magus however is still limited to this trick when he has spells available to him, unless he figured out that Arcane Mark has a range of touch. In a home game I wouldn't allow Arcane Mark to pull that as it's cheesy as a damned Infernal Contract. But even so the damage output is limited to 2 weapon strikes each with a -2 penalty (and probably having to make a concentration check). Especially if the Magus favors dex over strength (as most do), it is paltry compared to my Druid and Lion's 4 attacks with no penalties (which were at a +4 to hit at level 1 for the Druid, and +1 for the Lion... Without flanking. For a damage output of 2d6+5+2d4+2). There isn't even a feat tax to make that happen, just the base class.

Getting the extra attack with Arcane mark:

1) require him to successfully cast a spell
2) give him a -2 penalty.
3) never give him more iterative attacks.

compare it with TWF and you will se that it isn't particularly cheesy.

hasteroth wrote:


My point is, there are a lot of far far far more effective ways to cheese up your damage output at low levels than the Magus. The advantage the Magus has is a limited number of times per day they can jack up their damage by augmenting it with a spell. Plus this particularly ability becomes far less useful at higher levels compared to other classes that can TWF effectively (such as a TWF Fighter, Ranget or Rogue).

So you have decided to nerf a major ability of a class because you don't like the esthetic.

You suffer from the same problem I had and overcome thank to this forum: you feel that there is a difference between touch attack spells and touch spells. But it don't exist. If you want you can cast invisibility and use it to get a extra attack with spell combat.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xaimum Mafire wrote:

So, as Magus, I can declare Spell Combat, swing with my sword at -2, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing with my sword again at -2?

Or is it I declare Spell Combat, cast Corrosive Touch, declare Spellstrike, then swing my sword at -2 to deliver the spell?

You can cast the spell at the start of spell combat or at the end, not in the middle of it if you have multiple attacks.

AFAIK if it is a touch spell you make the free touch attack as your first attack after casting, so it should be:

start spell combat
cast corrosive touch
make your spellstrike (at -2)
make your full attack (at -2)

or, in alternative

start spell combat
make your full attack (at -2)
cast corrosive touch
make your spellstrike (at -2)

Note that you need to successfully cast your spell to get the free attack.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hasteroth wrote:
Our 4 star VO whom I spoke to online later said he's not really familiar with the Magus either as the only archetype he wanted to play isn't legal, and just as surprising... Magi really aren't popular in this particular pool of players for some reason.

It seem to be a circular thing. People (GMs and players) in your area don't know how a magus work so they don't use them, and as no one use them no one learn hot they work.

What trouble me a bit is that you don't seem to realize that, while you later corrected it, you did a serious error. Missing how a core mechanic of a class work is pushing a player into rerolling. It is the equivalent of glancing a druid description and saying "Your animal companion is a wolf, it use the stats of the wolf in the Bestiary."
If you don't know how a class work it is better to spend 10 minutes before the start of the game to read it carefully. You will still miss some nuance but you need a good grasp of the base abilities.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PRD wrote:
Burning Magic (Su): Whenever a creature fails a saving throw and takes fire damage from one of your spells, it catches on fire. This fire deals 1 point of fire damage per spell level at the beginning of the burning creature's turn. The fire lasts for 1d4 rounds, but it can be extinguished as a move action if the creature succeeds at a Reflex save (using the spell's DC). Dousing the creature with water as a standard action grants a +2 bonus on this save, while immersing the creature in water automatically extinguishes the fire. Spells that do not grant a save do not cause a creature to catch on fire.

No, it is its source of damage, not dependent from the spell once it has been cast.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hasteroth wrote:
Rylden wrote:

From quivers I've seen many have the end of an arrow sticking out the top, while I'll concede the "no sunders at range" if we assume its possible given a trait, feat kr what have you, I still dont see a reason you can't slice the tail end of an arrow off while it rests in a quiver making the arrow unable to be fired. I don't know many quivers that are 100% wrapped around an arrow while in the middle of combat. If the arrow is u able to be targeted due to being in a quiver how does an archer draw one? If the archer can find one without looking surely someone aiming for them can hit them.

Seeing we keep repeating the no sunders at range, lets move archer beside an opponent with sword. How many arrows can the opponent shear in a swing that rest in a quiver, given that his swing is across the top of the quiver where the ends are poking out.

With less than half the arrow sticking out the top you wouldn't have enough leverage to snap them all in twain (let alone factoring in how a bundle prevents the parts of the bundle from snapping) it'd take tremendous force to cleave through all the arrows. Keep in mind that physically speaking each arrow in the bundle provides shielding for those behind it and reinforcement for those in front. Even with say a single very precise axe swing you might break 2 or 3 arrows at best.

Like Gwen mentioned, its probably better to sunder the bow, or houserule the sundering of the quiver.

Add that you need to overcome each arrow hardness with an non-appropriate weapon. P weapons don't damage wood very well.

Let's say he is not using the Sunder maneuver but simply attacking an object with ranged weapons.

PRD wrote:

Ranged Weapon Damage: Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a siege engine or something similar). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the object's hardness.

Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.

P weapon against wood (like a Shuriken - no damage)

S weapon against wood (like a Chakram) - hardness x2, wood is hardness 5, so hardness 10.

So destroying 1 arrow require 11 hp of damage, destroying the next one require another 11 hp of damage, for a total of 22, and so on.

If you can do so this kind of damage with a single ranged attack, attacking the enemy is way more efficient.

It is one of those ideas that seem cool but are mechanically useless.

Edit:
Sundering with a sword, assuming you can target the arrows and not the quiver:
S melee weapon against wood - full damage, you "only" need 6 hp of damage for each arrow, that is if the GM allow something like "bundle of arrows" as a valid target.
Then the archer start using the arrows in his second quiver (as soon as archers get to a decent level they start wearing 2 ready quiver or an efficient quiver that totally protects its content.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

I think it either untyped or you're just making it up as you go along. So we agreed that because it's an arcane cannon and a seventh level spell that it also pierces DR/magic because we're not likely to get any further clarification and it seemed like a reasonable compromise.

I don't think there's any real argument basis for anything but untyped damage because the spell is just written badly.

Quote:
Effect one magically animated cannon

What kind of damage you think a magically animated cannon would do? That of a cannon or untyped?

For me the reply is clear: that of the cannon. And it don't include magic, only piercing and bludgeoning.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Not an issue for a wizard, who does not get to cast and attack in the same round. The arcane bond only requires that the staff be HELD, not wielded.

It is an issue for a wizard, under the idea that your entire body is the delivery system. (which i don't agree with)

You cast the spell with your right hand, your left hand is holding the staff

You are touching something. She spell goes off and fries your own staff.

Obviously thats NOT how its supposed to work, so the raw probably forgot to spell out a bit of common sense somewhere, either the spell is in your empty hand, or it doesn't work on things you're already touching when you cast the spell. (or both)

If you want to rule that way, your hand is touching the air around you (unless you play in a vacuum), so the spell is discharged as soon as it is cast.

As I already said, if you want to use the strictest reading of the rules touching the ground or your clothes will discharge the spell, but most GM require you to touch something that you weren't touching before, or change the way in which you touch something.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
First it would mean that a wizard with a staff as a bonded object couldn't cast anything, because you'd sett off the spell on the staff in your left hand with the spell cast in the right
Not an issue for a wizard, who does not get to cast and attack in the same round. The arcane bond only requires that the staff be HELD, not wielded.

While I very much disagree with BNW on the rules of spells here, worn on your back is not held. Being held very much implies your hand, or whatever passes most closely for a hand for your given creature type.

Boots on my feet are not 'held'. Clothes worn are not 'held'.

You held a staff with one hand, you wield it with two.

Arcane bond say: " while staves, wands, and weapons must be held in one hand." The text was changed during a update as before ti was wielded, making spells with somatic components impossible to cast.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hasteroth wrote:
Also there's a FAQ answer HERE that directly contradicts part of the rules there for Magus "Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell." And Magus Spellstrike itself (and Spell Combat) doesn't say anything about it.

You are missing a key part: "Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell." is different from " You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level."

The former allow you to touch up to 6 friends in the round in which you cast the spell, the latter allow you to to get multiple touches in one or more rounds.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


It normally wouldn't matter, but it might allow some weirdness of a tengu setting off a chill touch with their claw claw beak or someone trying to two weapon fight with a spell to get it to go off twice. Its a bit of a gray area in the rules but I think that when you cast a touch spell it exists in a spot on your body. If you want to be cool and shocking kick someone in the head as a flavor element, sure. Trying to two weapon fight with chill touches? not so much.

Two weapon fighting and held charges don't interact (normally) as only a magus with spellstrike can deliver a held charge trough a weapon.

A touch spell with multiple charges that hasn't a written limitation of only a single discharge/round (there are a few with that limitation) can be discharged several times in a round. If you are a druid wildshaped in a form with pounce and you have a held spell with multiple charges you can it to all your attacks during the pounce, bite, claws and rakes.
Same thing for a monk with flurry of blow and a held charge.
Each successful attack consume a charge, but you can make them as long as you have attacks and charges.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


First it would mean that a wizard with a staff as a bonded object couldn't cast anything, because you'd sett off the spell on the staff in your left hand with the spell cast in the right.

Yes, that is the strictest reading of the rules.

All GM that I know partially handwave that away, considering that all the item you where actually touching when the spell was cast don't cause it to discharge, as long as you don't touch them with a different part of the body. So you can walk and run withotu discharging a spell through your feet and you can keep your staff in the same hand as before. On the other hand if you grip your staff to use it as a two handed weapon or you take a potion from your belt you discharge the spell in the item you touched. Same thing if you opened a door, regardless of what part of the body you use to do that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snorter wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
2) If you are holding a charge for a touch attack, you may deliver the charge as either a melee touch attempt, or by an unarmed strike or natural attack. The charge isn't "attached" to any body part, so, whether you kick or tap with your foot, punch of grasp with your hand, headbutt or kiss, the charge will deliver all the same.

Do you have a page reference for that?

Because this would appear to be a large part of the confusion for many.
That second part is not part of the PRD, or at least, not part of the PRD 'Magic' chapter, as it pertains to touch spells.
It's not fair to criticise GMs for not taking into account text that doesn't exist.
If it exists elsewhere in the PRD, that's poor editing, not to restate the relevant text, or provide a page reference.
No-one needs a 1000-page CRB, it would have taken a sentence to direct the reader to the other paragraph, or better still, don't break up the rules across separate sections (see also 'damaging objects' which requires at least three chapterflips). And that's the disorganisation and lack of planning that hasteroth is justified in being frustrated by.

PRD wrote:

Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

The Magic rules

Remember, at the time this was being playtested and released, monks were being accused of breaking the rules, by using the same weapon/limb repeatedly in a flurry of blows.
Even though monks had an ability that explicitly said they...

Snorter, your problem is that you are inventing rules about delivering touch spells.

PRD wrote:
Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.

You see any indication that you must use a specific limb or any limb at all in that piece of text?

Then in th Combat capter we have a section called:

Touch Spells in Combat: wrote:

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

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.

Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

Again, no specific limb dedicated to delivering the touch, even more interesting we have this: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." hat seem to imply that touching something or someone in any way will discharge the charge (that include switching your weapon between your hands, or picking a potion, BTW). If the the charge was "stored" in a specific limb it would have to be specified and would affect that rule.

Actually, on the basis of that, you can argue the opposite, that brushing against a tee limb or touching the ground will discharge the spell, but most GM hand wave that away for sanity sake.
But any activity more complex that, like opening a door or drawing a weapon, that will discharge your stored spell, even if you open the door with a kick.
The magus, thanks to a FAQ, has a special exemption, but that FAQ is a actual rule change.

FAQ wrote:
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.

This FAQ is as far as Paizo as gone to say that a charge is stored in a specific limb, but it is a change of the actual rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
I'd accept overpowered to be that it causes the magus' melee abilities to go beyond most Full-bab classes melee abilities. So using arcane mark as the spell since that's what's allowing you to TWF.

Where?

Power attack? Lower BAB so lower bonus and only one handed weapons, so a lower bonus
The extra attack require a concentration check and suffer the same penalty of two weapon fighting
With that trick you get a weak version of Two weapon fighting at the expense of a class feature instead of a feat (weak because you can't get further iterative attacks spending more feats).

The very good thing is spell combat, but that is not a melee ability, it is a spellcaster ability and has most of the limitations of spellcasting.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dave Justus wrote:
As to why the developers choose that particular school though, it is anyone's guess. The lines between the schools often blur quite a bit.

Probably because they didn't wanted to give another damage dealing spell without SR and ST to the conjuration school.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Veilgn wrote:

wait what? something changed?

is there a link for updates ?

Earlier editions of D&D (3 and 3.5) hadn't an official rule about spell storing items, so my group assumption was that you were able to cast the stored spell at the caster level of the person that did put it in, i.e. a level 9 wizard put that shield spell in the spell storing ring? When cast it worked as a spell cast by a level 9 wizard. Now it work as cast by a level 1 wizard.

This way it require less bookkeeping but is noticeably weaker.

I have read of other groups that read it (again for 3 and 3.5) a "the spell storing item has a CL of X, so all spell you store are cast at a CL of X when cast". As that was a way to put in a spell as a 1st level caster and get it out as a higher level caster probably it was the reason of the specification about minimum caster level.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Veilgn wrote:

so I am a wizard sage, the archetype that grant bonus +4 caster level a day (cool. but replace my familiar).then I buy a ioun stone for spell storing. the spell storing states that I must use minimum caster level.

is that mean, I cant store spell with sage modifier ?

or other modifier that grant caster level bonus ?

That is one of the big changes in Pathfinder, now all spell storing devices (not scrolls, those are spell completion) store them at the minimum level needed to cast them, not at the caster actual CL.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Soul Devourer wrote:
WombattheDaniel wrote:
If this was the case, then there would be no reason for this spell to exist.
When the spell was published (2011), temporary HP did stack, that was before the September 2013 FAQ http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9r43

Temporary hit point from the same source never stacked.

FAQ wrote:


Temporary Hit Points: Do temporary hit point from the same source stack?

No. Generally, effects do not stack if they are from the same source (Core Rulebook page 208, Combining Magical Effects). Although temporary hit points are not a "bonus," the principle still applies.

This prevents a creature with energy drain (which grants the creature 5 temporary hit points when used) from draining an entire village of 100 people in order to gain 500 temporary hit points before the PCs arrive to fight it.

Temporary hit points from different sources (such as an aid spell, a use of energy drain, and a vampiric touch spell) still stack with each other.

WombattheDaniel, as you can see stacking is treated in a very restrictive way. In the example situation the undead would be using different attacks actions against different creatures and the effect still don't stack.

With Death Knell Aura you are using the same spell against different creatures, so the same principle applies.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
WombattheDaniel wrote:
But they can get pretty much all of that from Vanilla DK. If the spell functioned the way you think it does, then they're wasting a fourth-level slot on a second-level spell all for a little more range and a few more targets (that provide no bonuses). If this was the case, then there would be no reason for this spell to exist.

And several round duration instead of a single touch attack where a successful save mean you do nothing.

There is a big difference in casting a spell during the preparation for a battle and having it last several rounds, where every round require a save if the conditions are meet, against casting it as a standard action during the battle.

20' radius against touch too.

If you don't see how all that is worth a 2 level difference I don't know what to say.

Liberty's Edge

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

1: I would say that it can't be used as a bow

2: I would apply the bonus to both ends of the weapon

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Harleequin wrote:

I would agree the effects stack. The only one that wouldnt is the strength bonus as it specifically states that its an ENHANCEMENT BONUS.

The others are effectively untyped bonuses and so would stack.

Otherwise I cant really see the point of the spell

Enemies at -1 or less hp within the aura save not to die every round.

It is a death effect so Breath of Life or Raise dead don't work.
It require a will save, a save that is low for a good percentage of the meele characters.
+1 caster level is a great buff for a caster.

Liberty's Edge

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

You can visualize it as trying to maneuver your grappled foe between you and your attackers.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fentomy wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
WombattheDaniel wrote:
Fair enough, but just to be absolutely clear: Does this mean that you get an untyped +1 to CL that stacks for every creature that dies within the radius and duration of the spell?
The source is always the same spell. Same source never stack, so no.

Nope. OP's right. The "source" isn't the spell, but the creatures that die within its area of effect, which would be different sources.

By your logic, casting magic vestment shouldn't give you any bonus bigger than +1, since it's the "same" spell. Plus, I find it really hard to believe that for a 2-level bump in cost, the only upgrade would be a POSSIBLE 1d8 temporary hp that DON'T STACK.

This is one spell, not multiple castings of the same spell. Every effect that comes from the "benefits of death knell" is not the casting of death knell itself, and is not subject to the stacking rules, with the exception of the enhancement bonus to str.

The source is the spell. It trigger every time someone dies, but what give you the bonus is the spell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
WombattheDaniel wrote:
Fair enough, but just to be absolutely clear: Does this mean that you get an untyped +1 to CL that stacks for every creature that dies within the radius and duration of the spell?

The source is always the same spell. Same source never stack, so no.

Liberty's Edge

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

The bonuses you get from death knell overlap, but 1d8 hp don't last long in a fight, so, approximately, you get the equivalent of a weak cure spell every time someone dies. And you ensure that enemies die.

It is way more useful for BEEGs than PCs.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charlie Bell wrote:
It isn't changing the rules to say that detect magic counts as interaction, because the rules for illusions don't define interaction.

I think wraithstrike meant the opposite, i.e. that people saying that using detect magic on a illusion isn't interacting are changing the rules of the game.

On the other hand it isn't an automatic successful disbelieve attempt as it can be plenty of other illusions.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:

Cloak of Dreams

School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 5, shaman 7, sorcerer/wizard 6, witch 6; Subdomain nightmare 6, whimsy 6

It is a spell that you cast and require a save to avoid a negative effect that is a direct effect of the spell.

It break invisibility.

Liberty's Edge

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

Even if you rule that glitterdust become invisible it still glitter, i.e. it reflect ambient light and disperse it. That will give avay the position fo the invisible person.

Liberty's Edge

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

Mind blank protect you and your equipment against divination. All protective spells extend to your equipment or they would be almost useless.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cavall wrote:


A lot of arguing over nothing and some pretty intentionally wrong things being stated.

But this sentence likely takes the cake for most egregious.

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
No one has ever played a bard in my games since we started playing Pathfinder.
MOST EGREGIOUS.

Bards aren't immediate damage dealers and generally the spells they have aren't direct solutions for problems, so some people overlook them and their great capacity for support.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
Letric wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

to essentially accuse the developers of being morons as they add text that has no meaning whatsoever just to confuse things.

Please read Trumple (Ex), then come back.
Trumple?
I believe he meant the infamous Trample.

and what is your problem with trample?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Blindmage wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Blindmage wrote:
I've always read the all as simply meaning, that you don't have to pick a specific knowledge, like arcana, or religion, etc, but that the dc10 cap is still there.
You do realise that that means that bardic knowledge does nothing then? Anyone can already try a DC10 knowledge(anything) check.
But you get your bonus on all untrained skills, so your trained and untrained knowledges are still fairly close. Even skills you have no training in are half as good as those you do, bards always get the bonuses, making the dc10 automatic at lvl20, you know all the common knowledge without a single roll.

Take 10. Intelligence 10. No skill. Any class.

"all the common knowledge without a single roll."

There is no need of a class ability for that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dave Justus wrote:
One simple way to check, if increasing the caster level doesn't change the cost (like with boots of speed) then it also doesn't change the powers. If it does change the cost (like with a wand or a scroll) then it does change the 'power' of the item.

Where you get: "increasing the caster level doesn't change the cost" for boots of speed?

The rules and FAQs say the opposite: if increasing the CL increase the effect the cost and price increase.

Boots of speed, with a CL of 10, a Spell Level of 3 and 1 single daily use (splittable in 1 round increments) follow perfectly this formula

Use-activated or continuous Spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp2

3 * 10 * 2000 /5 8single use) = 12.000

Official price of the boots: 12.000

Liberty's Edge

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

SillyString, you are treating two different things like they were the same.

PRD wrote:


Precise Strike (Ex): At 3rd level, while she has at least 1 panache point, a swashbuckler gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon (though not a natural weapon), adding her swashbuckler level to the damage dealt. To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her off hand or use a shield other than a buckler. She can use this ability even with thrown light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, so long as the target is within 30 feet of her. Any creature that is immune to sneak attacks is immune to the additional damage granted by precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from the additional damage of a precise strike. This additional damage is precision damage, and isn't multiplied on a critical hit.

That check what weapon are you using, so your feat apply.

PRD wrote:


Slashing Grace (Combat)

You can stab your enemies with slashing weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.

Benefit: When you take this feat, choose one kind of light or one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike), and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size. You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.

That feat target a specific category of weapons, not something that you are using at that time.

It is like saying "I take weapon versatility and can use slashing grace with any kind of weapon".

Liberty's Edge

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

I think that you need the kit but not the charges. If you lack the kit you use the "improvised tools" rule.
So if you are bandaging wounds with strips of your robe and sticking them with a sewing needle and fishing line you get a -2 modifier over and above the modifier for lacking the kit charges.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SillyString wrote:


I guess it depends on whether the "You gain a +2 bonus on Sense Motive checks, and you can deal piercing damage with your unarmed strikes." part of snake style effect (and thereby boar's too) is always active AND whether or not being capable dealing slashing damage with a weapon makes it a slashing weapon.

"You can deal slashing damage with it" don't make something a slashing weapon. To be a slashing weapon it should that in the hands of everyone.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Avoron wrote:
Slashing Grace doesn't work like that, it requires you to choose a weapon when you take the feat, and the weapon has to qualify for the feat on its own merits.

Sure. Unarmed strikes are a weapon. If those strikes do slashing damage then they qualify for Slashing Grace.

Quote:
At the time you're taking Slashing Grace, Boar Style is not active

Why not?

Boar Style can be activated at any time. Someone with the feat could use it to deal slashing damage in every actual combat and every 'off screen practice session'. If all the training and experience someone undertook to learn the Slashing Grace feat came from using Boar Style to do slashing damage then how would it have not been active when they learned the feat?

Quote:
But they cannot pick Slashing Grace with a greatsword, because it is not considered a one-handed weapon for the purpose of feat selection during character creation or leveling up.
A greatsword cannot be used with slashing grace because it is a two-handed weapon. Even if someone has an ability allowing them to use it one-handed (or just using a small greatsword) that doesn't stop it BEING a two-handed weapon.

Slashing grace requirement point to the weapon, not your other abilities. The weapon is a slashing weapon? No. Test failed, don't work.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:
"I identified the spell he was casting as one creating an illusion, and I saw that illusion spring into place right when he was done..."
That would be a reasonable call, yes.

I disagree. I would call it unreasonable.

To the best of your knowledge you believe that is an illusion spell. Now a certain bloodline can make you believe one spell is another if you fail the check enough. So I cast wall of stone, you fail and think it is minor image. What happens?

The fact is you can be wrong with knowledge checks and getting a enough to identify it means you think it is a an illusion to the best of your knowledge. But you could be wrong.

IF a DM made this call I would say it is very wrong, but their call to make.

Can you link this ability? I doubt it will make your wall of stone appear as a mirror image.

rakshasa bloodline

Bloodline Arcana: Add half your sorcerer level to the Spellcraft DC for others to identify spells you cast. If their checks fail by 5 or more, they mistakenly believe you are casting an entirely different spell (selected by you when you begin casting).

If They got my spellcasting wrong and I said I am not casting wall of stone, it is silent image.

Now keep in mind this is very easy to achieve per the spellcraft section:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

It is easy to get perception penalties.

Ah, ok, it foil the spellcraft check. Yes, if you cast silent image and they fail the spellcraft check they will think you have cast wall of stone.

I thought, wrongly, that you were saying that it would foil you into believing and perceiving a different spell effect.

1 to 50 of 9,910 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.