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. 10,269 posts (10,818 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,269 << 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
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thorin001 wrote:


My issue is not with the GMs who actually use judgement to decide when you can and cannot take 10. My issue is with the people who say "It is a long way down, so no take 10 for you." Or "No take 10 for sneaking past the dragon because dragons are dangerous." In other words people who use GM's discretion to effectively ban take 10 because comedy drama.

So you have an issue with the rules then, because sneaking past a dragon is as in immediate danger as it gets.

And with the design team, because thats the exact sort of thing they called out as grounds for the DM to require rolling.

And people that listen to one or the other.

I don't think arbitrary means what you think it does.

I strongly disagree with your dragon example. For me it is exactly the example of a situation where you can take 10, and, for me, the developers post I have read support my position.

You are in immediate danger? No, the dragon isn't attacking, nor searching for someone.
Failure is dangerous, so you can't take 20, but you can easily take 10.

BTW, dragons have blindsense,60'; so the whole argument is moot if you are at less than 61'.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Unless storms are dramatically different in Pathfinder, was it historically common on sailing ships that riggers fell about once every two minutes during stormy ocean travel here on earth?

Captain Bligh: "Mister Fletcher, go help with the rigging."

A few rounds pass:
SPLAT!
End of the Mutiny on the Bounty.

A fine Monty Python sketch, not a block buster with Marlon Brando.

It was something I wanted to say for at least a couple of days.

Liberty's Edge

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

Sickened if you make the save and stay withing 60' of the object.

Another one of those spells where the general idea is fun, but the implementation is horrible and can be abused badly.

Why limit yourself to making him avoid your stuff? Make it avoid his armor.
It is a "enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]" targeting the creature, you don't target the item. So RAW you can make him avoid whatever you choose.

FAQed for a errata.

BTW the author seen not to realize that a bridge or the Taj Mahal are objects, not only locations. As he hasn't spelled out any limitations to the object size it is relatively easy to bypass the location size limit.

Liberty's Edge

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

I agree with the people that say is it positive/negative damage.
While it is not in the benefit part, the ability say:

PRS wrote:


Channel Smite (Combat)

You can channel your divine energy through a melee weapon you wield.

I agree that the feat could be clearer, and see how someone can rule differently, but the RAI is very clear.

Liberty's Edge

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

Grapple: There are some contradictions between the various rules on grappling. What is correct?

To sum up the correct rules:

1) Grappling does not deny you your Dex bonus to AC, whether you are the grappler or the target.

2) A grappled creature can still make a full attack.

3) Being pinned does not make you flat-footed, but you are denied your Dex bonus.

Update: Page 195—In Table 8–6: Armor Class Modifiers, in the entry for Grappling, delete the superscript “1” after the +0 in the Melee and Ranged columns. In the third footnote, change “flat-footed and cannot add his Dexterity bonus” to “denied its Dexterity bonus”

Update: Page 201—In the If You Are Grappled section, in the fourth sentence, change “any action that requires only one hand to perform” to “any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform.” In the fourth sentence, change “make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon” to “make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon”

Update: Page 568—In the Pinned condition, in the second sentence, change “flat-footed” to “denied its Dexterity bonus.”
posted August 2011 | back to top

"Sean K Reynolds" - Oct 20, 2012, 07:04 pm (at the time he was a developer) wrote:
I pointed out to Jason that the no-somatic text only appears in the rules on concentration, not on grapple, and is a legacy of when grapple was a whole-body thing instead of a just-an-arm thing. The no-somatic rule is being errata'd out of the game, it shouldn't have been left in.

And it was corrected:

PRD wrote:


Grappling or Pinned: Casting a spell while you have the grappled or pinned condition is difficult and it requires a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting). Pinned creatures can only cast spells that do not have somatic components.

Liberty's Edge

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

I see a stormy sea as both a distraction and a danger. I would always rule the situation in the same way.

Depending on the sea force I would, in order of rising difficulty:
- apply a penalty to the skill but allow to take 10;
- not apply a modifier but require a die roll (I consider this more dangerous for the character and it should apply to a more difficult situation);
- in the most dire circumstances I would apply both a penalty and require to roll the die.

There is so much variation in that range of conditions that there can't be a general rule. The best option is to leave it to the GM decision.

The Beaufort scale has 13 values, from 0 to 12. If for stormy we mean a 10+ (the level at which we find the definition "storm"), I agree that the rigger would be unable to take 10. If we use it for the levels 6-9 probably a modifier would be more appropriate (in RL we hadn't a fall from the mast every few seconds).

The same thing applies to every other use of take 10. Sometime a penalty and allowing its use is appropriate. Sometime it is appropriate to roll the die. What is important is that the GM should made clear when one or the other option apply and to try to stay coherent. I know that sometime we feel that the guy with a +10 in a skill should have a chance to fail, but our characters are exceptional. It is a bit ridiculous to require us to roll the die when, if the character had a lower skill level, we would allow them to take 10.

Liberty's Edge

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

Thanks for the clarifications TJ.

As I see it, the basic version will do nothing as it is an effect that target only a single creature. Even if modified by a energy type talent (it still target a single creature).

If modified by an AoE effect it will do full damage +50%, as all AoE effects.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
Calth wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Natural Weapons don't occupy metaphorical hands, and they don't occupy physical hands either unless the attacking creature is using claws on their hands or something.
Not according to the Slashing Grace FAQ. They may not qualify as a second weapon for TWF, but they still count as using additional hands. Which is what grappling cares about.

Two weapons!=two hands.

Slashing Grace prevents using more than one weapon during a full attack, and it also prevents hands other than the one attacking from being occupied (even passively). Grappling just prevents using more than one hand during a full attack. These two are not logically equivalent, and the FAQ doesn't suggest otherwise.

Being grappled preclude taking an "action that requires two hands to perform". It don't preclude the use of t or more limbs. It don't preclude Two Weapon Fighting. It preclude using a two handed weapon.

Two Weapon fighting don't use two hands at the same time. A claw/claw routine don't require the use of 2 claws at the same time, etc. etc.

This is not the 3rd edition where you were grappled by your arm.

@Calth
Slashing grace requirement is way more stringent than doing an action that "requires two hands to perform".

PRD wrote:


Slashing Grace (Combat)
...
You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.

Flurry of blow can be done with 1 hand (or even one leg or elbow) but still block slashing grace. You can't apply that FAQ to the grappling rules as the starting limitation is way different.

@Quandary:

FAQ wrote:

Grapple: There are some contradictions between the various rules on grappling. What is correct?

To sum up the correct rules:

1) Grappling does not deny you your Dex bonus to AC, whether you are the grappler or the target.

2) A grappled creature can still make a full attack.

3) Being pinned does not make you flat-footed, but you are denied your Dex bonus.

Update: Page 195—In Table 8–6: Armor Class Modifiers, in the entry for Grappling, delete the superscript “1” after the +0 in the Melee and Ranged columns. In the third footnote, change “flat-footed and cannot add his Dexterity bonus” to “denied its Dexterity bonus”

Update: Page 201—In the If You Are Grappled section, in the fourth sentence, change “any action that requires only one hand to perform” to “any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform.” In the fourth sentence, change “make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon” to “make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon”

Update: Page 568—In the Pinned condition, in the second sentence, change “flat-footed” to “denied its Dexterity bonus.”

PRD wrote:
If You Are Grappled: If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can). Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.

Liberty's Edge

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

It don't say anywhere that the requisite is having level 7 in armor training, it say: "Beginning at 7th level, instead of increasing the benefits provided by armor training (reducing his armor’s check penalty by 1 and increasing its maximum Dexterity bonus by 1), a fighter can choose an advanced armor training option.," and that is the fighter level, not a single feature of the class.

Advanced Armor Training wrote:

Highly skilled and tenacious fighters can gain advanced armor training, learning techniques and applications of the armor training class feature that give them special benefits in exchange for reducing their ability to mitigate their armor’s armor check penalty and improve its maximum Dexterity bonus.

Advanced armor training options function only when the fighter is wearing appropriate armor or using a shield, unless otherwise noted. A fighter with an archetype that replaces armor training cannot select advanced armor training options.

Emphasis mine.

It is part of the armor training class feature, as written.

Table variance man, it happens, just hit FAQ.

But the prerequisite is the class level, not the feature. There is nothing to FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

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

It don't say anywhere that the requisite is having level 7 in armor training, it say: "Beginning at 7th level, instead of increasing the benefits provided by armor training (reducing his armor’s check penalty by 1 and increasing its maximum Dexterity bonus by 1), a fighter can choose an advanced armor training option.," and that is the fighter level, not a single feature of the class.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Advanced Armor Training wrote:
Beginning at 7th level, instead of increasing the benefits provided by armor training (reducing his armor’s check penalty by 1 and increasing its maximum Dexterity bonus by 1), a fighter can choose an advanced armor training option.
Sash of the War Champion wrote:


...
This bright red strip of cloth, stitched with images of a cheering crowd throwing garlands toward a chariot, fits across the wearer's shoulders and then diagonally down his chest to reach his opposite hip. The wearer treats his fighter level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of the armor training and bravery class features.[/quote+

Your character is 7th level? No?
He can't use Advanced Armor Training.
The requirement isn't "having armor training as a level 7 fighter", it is being a 7th level fighter.

Being treated as a 7th level fighter means being treated as a 7th level fighter.

See: Silver Smite Bracelet and Bracers of the Avenging Knight for clarification on the difference.

You fail at reading:

Sash of the War Champion wrote:


The wearer treats his fighter level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of the armor training and bravery class feature.

You are treated as if your fighter level was 4 levels higher for 2 class features. You aren't treated as 4 level higher for you character level.

To repeat it again: the requirement is a specific character level, not having x character level for a single or multiples features.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Advanced Armor Training wrote:
Beginning at 7th level, instead of increasing the benefits provided by armor training (reducing his armor’s check penalty by 1 and increasing its maximum Dexterity bonus by 1), a fighter can choose an advanced armor training option.
Sash of the War Champion wrote:


...
This bright red strip of cloth, stitched with images of a cheering crowd throwing garlands toward a chariot, fits across the wearer's shoulders and then diagonally down his chest to reach his opposite hip. The wearer treats his fighter level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of the armor training and bravery class features.

Your character is 7th level? No?

He can't use Advanced Armor Training.
The requirement isn't "having armor training as a level 7 fighter", it is being a 7th level fighter.

This feat allow you to take Advanced Armor Training at level 3:

Armor Training Feat wrote:


The following feat helps fighters further customize their personal armor training abilities.

Advanced Armor Training (Combat)

You are specially trained to use your armor proficiencies in new ways.
Prerequisites: Armor training class feature, fighter level 3rd.

Benefit: Select one advanced armor training option.

Special: This feat can be taken more than once, but at most once per 3 fighter levels.

With all respect for that site, reading the source document and not the distilled form you find in D20PFSRD help.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:

mmmm, you can't even take 20 on a climb check I think.

besides, 1 minute feels pretty immediate.

You must fail by 5 to fall. If the DC is lower than 1+5+your clomb skill, you can.

But with that DC, taking 10 will work very fine.

Liberty's Edge

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

Given that someone occupies a 5' square, and that they should be adjacent to at least one of the walls, that seems reasonable to me.

But then, does the reflex save mean that they are now hanging by the edge, or do they get to pull themselves up and stand up all without taking an actual action?

A successful save mean that you avoided the spell, so you are standing up.

This spell has a lot of problem when you start analyzing it.

Let's say that you are in a 10'x10' room, with only one 5' wide exit and the caster is on the door. If you make the save you " jump to safety in the nearest open space". But that open space is behind the caster.
You get to pass through him without the need of a acrobatic check?
You make a 10' jump (or even 15' if you were on the other side of the room) from a standing position without problem?
The "nearest open space" is 30' up. You save. Your cleric in full plate with an acrobatic bonus of +1 jump 30' into the air and land safely?
You are in a weird room made of suspended platforms and the "nearest open space" is 30' below and 20' on the left. You "jump" and land safely and without damage?

On one hand when you make a save you make it, on the other the result can be weird.

I would amend the spell to something like:"Any creature standing in the area where you first conjured the pit must make a Reflex saving throw to be shifted to safety in the nearest open space adjacent to the pit. A space with an allied creature count as open if no other space is available, but both creatures suffer the squeezing penalties until one move.
If there aren't open spaces adjacent to the pit with a successful reflex save you end at the bottom of the pit, unharmed."

A lot of text, but it would resolve the majority of the problems.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Calth wrote:
By the Slashing Grace FAQ, the bit "grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform" can easily be interpreted to preclude multi-natural weapon attacks. The FAQ includes attacking with multiple natural weapons as an action that "occupies multiple hands." I have always interpreted it that way, but its nice to have a FAQ that actually backs that interpretation up.

?

Grappling/being grappled don't preclude the use of multiple hand, it preclude the use of:
- the limb that is grappling for something that is different from grappling (and constricting) if you are the grappler;
- the use of "action that requires two hands to perform". That don't mean "the use of 2 (or more) limbs" but the use of two handed weapons and actions that require to use 2 limbs at the same time.

FAQ wrote:

Grapple: There are some contradictions between the various rules on grappling. What is correct?

To sum up the correct rules:

1) Grappling does not deny you your Dex bonus to AC, whether you are the grappler or the target.

2) A grappled creature can still make a full attack.

3) Being pinned does not make you flat-footed, but you are denied your Dex bonus.

Update: Page 195—In Table 8–6: Armor Class Modifiers, in the entry for Grappling, delete the superscript “1” after the +0 in the Melee and Ranged columns. In the third footnote, change “flat-footed and cannot add his Dexterity bonus” to “denied its Dexterity bonus”

Update: Page 201—In the If You Are Grappled section, in the fourth sentence, change “any action that requires only one hand to perform” to “any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform.” In the fourth sentence, change “make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon” to “make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon”

Update: Page 568—In the Pinned condition, in the second sentence, change “flat-footed” to “denied its Dexterity bonus.”

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Quote:
If you go with (1), then can a creature that's detached leap to safety before gravity drags it down? Eh, why not. Parachute jumpers manage to alter their course without anything to hold on to as well.
They use the lift granted by falling at terminal velocity to alter their course. Not at all the case when the floor disappears out from under you. You fall straight down.

Or maybe the save represent grappling the border of the pit and dragging yourself to safety instead of using your legs to jump?

It has already been asked several times:
What happen to a creature that can't jump but is free to move?

Liberty's Edge

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

The problem is how rapidly the floor disappear.

If the disappearance is instantaneous I will question how you make a reflex save even if you aren't glued.
If it take some fraction of second, during which the floor is changing into the pit floor or disappearing there is a time when you are partially glued and get a chance to jump away, even if a noticeable penalty (0 dexterity isn't a joke).
If the spell is meant to negate a reflex save if you can't move, it should say so, as the characters are always entitled to a save against effects that allow it.

Agreed. I wish it was more specific, but this spell does already take away a save that is normally allowed, specifically for Bull Rush maneuvers into the pit. Normally, forced movement into a hazard will always allow a save to avoid it, but this spell specifically disallows such a save so apparently, you aren't always entitled to a save against effects that allow it when it comes to this spell. Hence the continuing confusion.

As Ascalaphus said it isn't even an exception, only something the spell writer felt was a good idea to make explicit.

If something change the rules it should do it in a explicit way, especially when it remove the chance of a save.
A row of text that seem more fluff than rule "jump to safety" isn't enough for that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

You've described my "Lion pounce scenario 2" yes. I'm not disagreeing that you can do the bite attack last. However, even if the bite attack is last, the lion can still elect to take the -20 and not gain the grappled condition.

This way he can on the next round run off with the gazelle in its mouth. Or rake her to bits next round without any attack penalty.

The attack penalty is balanced by de dexterity penalty for the grapple, unless you are using dexterity as you attack stat.

Where you get the impression that grappling someone stop a full attack?
Or that pounce don't override completely the limitation of rake?

The relevant text from grab:

PRD wrote:


The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.

The only difference between a normal attack and taking the -20 is that you don't get the grappled condition.

What do the grappled condition?

PRD wrote:

Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

Do you see something that say "it stop a full attack"?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

So you would apply a -20 to a tiger or lion using pounce and their grab ability?

Or to the same lion or tiger maintaining a grapple and raking?

this question has a lot of moving parts, but here it goes:

PRD: "a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe"
and
"A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn."
and
"When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)."
and
"Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)."

1. Lion pounce scenario 1: if the lion pounces and makes a grab attack on its first attack, he takes -20 to establish the grapple while avoiding the grappled condition. If successful, he does not gain the grappled condition and he can complete his full attack routine at no penalty. However he cannot use rake attacks since he has initiated grapple in the same round (see above).

2. Lion pounce scenario 2: if the lion pounces and makes a grab attack on his last attack, he may or may not take -20 to establish the grapple. If he does take -20 and he's successful, he starts his next round without the grappled condition, and he'll take -20 to maintain that grapple as well....

1) Pounce override the rake limitation;

2) Lion attack sequence: rake, rake, claw, claw, then bite and grab.
No -20 to the grapple check, full attack.

Essentially: you are applying the -20 the wrong way and your idea on how it work can be easily circumvented.

A grapple don't stop your full attack or your other actions.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
jimibones83 wrote:
@BigNorseWolf You can take 10 while walking a tightrope over lava. The lava is also there now. Now doesn't matter at all.

If the lava is burning the rope you can't, if it is 500' under you you can, for a normal person adding lava under a 500' fall don't increase the risk.

Ninjaed by Bill :)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RJGrady wrote:
I always interpreted constrict as a rider that could occur on essentially any attack, and it never occurred to me to think otherwise. I'm not even sure where the "and release" comes in, the grab quality makes it legal to make the grapple check on each hit, even if further success is meaningless. Natural attacks with grab don't have any "hands" limitation, only a per-limb limitation.

The rule cited above essentially say that you can't have multiple grapples on the same opponent. Every further attempt to grapple become an "aid another" action, so it don't activate constrict.

Sure, it is implied, not explicit, so you can see differently and your interpretation would be perfectly valid. YMMV

Liberty's Edge

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

Alright, so link to the Destruction Sphere and relevant text in the spoiler:

** spoiler omitted **

So, I feel as GM you could rule it either way. It's a sphere ability, so it's functional to a spell. But the basic destructive blast does bludgeoning damage and "does not automatically bypass other forms of damage resistance" which could mean DR or just any effect that would protect it from weapons.

As a fine swarm, it has immunity to weapon damage.

At my table, I would rule that it was immune to the single target Destructive Blast. If they are using an AoE or an energy type talent on there, they would deal damage.

It is a non-Paizo product, so not exactly right for the rule forum.

Beside that, from the description you spoilered, I am unsure if the blast target a single creature on an area.
I get the impression it target a single creature, so it won't do anything to a swarm.

PRD wrote:
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures ...

Liberty's Edge

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


So, then does a single creature with multiple limbs only get to apply constriction damage on the first, since by the "multiple persons assisting in grappling rule" all the additional limbs should do is apply a +2 modifier for the escape check for each additional limb?

I suggested that as an houserule a few post ago, but currently a creature with multiple limbs with the gab ability can attack with limb 1, try to grab, if successful apply constrict damage and then use a free action to release the target, then repeat with the others limbs.

The only limit is a GM saying "too many free actions".

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
skizzerz wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Nothing about tanglefoot bags removes the ability to make a reflex save. From a strictly RAW viewpoint, they get a save.

I would also argue they still get their safe from a RAI standpoint, and I think the dexterity penalty from being entangles applying to their save already makes them more likely to fall into the pit so it's fair.

Just to be clear, are you stating this from the perspective of getting a save while glued to the floor (from a failed save against tanglefoot bag)?

I'm having trouble seeing things from that standpoint, given the save represents moving out of the way -- how would you envision that working? Genuinely curious here, as it's entirely possible there is some way for someone to move out of the way from a pit when they're unable to move, but I can't think of how such a scenario would come to pass. Ascalaphus stated my argument more eloquently than I did -- you actually move on a successful save and the spell description states that the save lets you jump to a safe square. While you could handwave that away as fluff/flavor -- indeed I would disregard that text when it makes sense, such as if a player wants to run away instead, possibly due to a low ceiling or other obstruction that prevents one from jumping -- the fact remains (to me) that it is a form of movement since you are actually changing what square you're in, and you are explicitly not allowed to move because you failed the save against the tanglefoot bag.

If you weren't glued down by the bag (aka you succeeded the save against it), then there is no question that you get a reflex save against the pit, at the appropriate penalty for being entangled.

The problem is how rapidly the floor disappear.

If the disappearance is instantaneous I will question how you make a reflex save even if you aren't glued.
If it take some fraction of second, during which the floor is changing into the pit floor or disappearing there is a time when you are partially glued and get a chance to jump away, even if a noticeable penalty (0 dexterity isn't a joke).

If the spell is meant to negate a reflex save if you can't move, it should say so, as the characters are always entitled to a save against effects that allow it.

skizzerz wrote:


@Diego: arbitrary sounds about right for this. I can't think of a simple rule for what counts as a large enough horizontal surface and what does not, and instead leave it up to GM fiat. If I'm the GM, I'd give the players the benefit of the doubt and try to figure out a way to let it happen without the effect being too powerful for its...

As long as we all recognize that this can lead to table variations, I agree.

For me a surface with enough stuff that isn't easily movable isn't suitable for for the spell, while small items that will not slow down movement or are easily movable don't stop it.

Liberty's Edge

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

Frosthammer seems to be written very much to not be Cleric only, being that the introductory fluff text (not even included in the spell entry itself) says Priest of Kostchtchie, and then the spell goes on Ranger and Antipaladin lists as well. If Rangers can count as Priests of Kostchtchie then I have no idea how Oracles wouldn't. I think that list may be wrong about this spell. Frosthammer even has text to let Oracles base it off CHA.

The other spells that are Oracle only or Wizard only have effects that only work for those classes. A spell that interacts with the casters Oracle curse is no use for a Cleric, and spells that affect preparation of spells or copying in to spellbooks are no use to a Sorcerer.

In Golarion divine spellcasters must choose a deity that they follow, with 1 exception, the oracle (and the druid that can follow the Green faith).

So yes, a ranger can be a priest fo Kostchtchie, while an oracle isn't a priest of anyone.

xevious573 wrote:
Mighty Squash wrote:

Frosthammer seems to be written very much to not be Cleric only, being that the introductory fluff text (not even included in the spell entry itself) says Priest of Kostchtchie, and then the spell goes on Ranger and Antipaladin lists as well. If Rangers can count as Priests of Kostchtchie then I have no idea how Oracles wouldn't. I think that list may be wrong about this spell. Frosthammer even has text to let Oracles base it off CHA.

The other spells that are Oracle only or Wizard only have effects that only work for those classes. A spell that interacts with the casters Oracle curse is no use for a Cleric, and spells that affect preparation of spells or copying in to spellbooks are no use to a Sorcerer.

A real quick tangent. In Golarion, "Priests of [Insert Deity here]" can be of any classes the deity decides s/he/it will accept as priests.

So I think the logic best follows as:

It can be assumed that ALL Clerics in Good Standing with Their God are Priests.

But it can't be assumed that ALL Priests of a god are Clerics.

Many gods have Bards(Shelyn, Desna, Cayden Cailean, Calistria), Rangers (Kostchtchie, Erastil, Cernunnos), Antipaladins(So many evil gods probably), and Paladins(Iomedae, Ragathiel, Vildeis) as "priests". Some likely even have some none-spellcasting classes or very different spell casting classes since Irori has clergy that are monks (and while Psychic wasn't out when Inner Sea Gods came out, I think it can fit the bill of a priest with the Lore or Self-Perfection discipline).

So, keeping in mind the idea of the Oracle of Athens/Athena and Oracle of Apollo, I suspect that if an Oracle decides to dedicate herself to a god, they too can be priests of a god. And since Frosthammer is on the cleric spell list and the Oracle uses the cleric spell list, I suspect a Winter Oracle of Kostchtchie can use Frosthamer.

/tangent /rant

True, a member of any class can be a lay priest of any deity.

It is questionable if that will interact on how the class work.

Liberty's Edge

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

I would expect that a mast goes through the deck as part of attaching it to the rest of the ship, so I'd rule that as not a truly horizontal surface. Likewise, a tree rooted in the ground would block the spell.

A wall with foundations extending through the floor might also block the spell. But a wall that was just blocks piled on the floor would probably not block the spell (and collapse into the pit).

So a pile of rocks is a horizontal surface while a meadow with a single shrub isn't?

Sorry, but it seem horribly arbitrary.

And still don't resolve the problem of a trapdoor. While it is closed it is a horizontal surface, so a valid area for the spell, but it still exist for the people coming from downstairs while for those outside it has disappeared.

PRD wrote:
Since it extends into another dimension, the pit has no weight and does not otherwise displace the original underlying material.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Quintain wrote:

This sequence can only be used by something attacking with iterative attacks, not natural attacks -- because natural attacks that can grapple can only be used once per round anyway.

Creatures with multiple natural attacks w/ grab can already use constrict multiple times a round without having to release their prey.

Not seeing the issue here.

Not true. Once something is grappled it cannot gain the grappled condition again until that condition is removed. Thus once you have grabbed something you cannot grab it again so long as you have it grappled.

You can be grappled by multiple creatures, and if one grapples you, you get the grappled condition, and you get the grappled condition again if another grapples you while you are already being grappled.

The conditions don't stack, but you'll still need to escape both grapples before you are free.

So, you can get the grappled condition from multiple sources.

You can even grapple someone else while being grappled, which would give you the grappled condition twice.

No.

ORD[ wrote:
Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check.

You are grappled once. The other guys grappling give a bonus to the grappling check, but nothing more.

Liberty's Edge

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

Good, I missed that limit.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Inner Sea Intrigue wrote:

TRAINING

PRICE +1 bonus CL 3rd
AURA faint transmutation
Popular among those who seek to impersonate skilled warriors, a training weapon grants one combat feat to the wielder as long as the weapon is drawn and in hand. The feat is chosen when this special ability is placed on the weapon. That feat cannot be used as a prerequisite for any other feats and functions for the wielder only if she meets its prerequisites. Once chosen, the feat stored in the weapon cannot be changed.

CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS COST +1 bonus
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, magic weapon, creator must have the chosen combat feat and its prerequisites

As written you can place a feat with a lot of prerequisites.

I see tons of spellcasters with a weapon with little encumbrance and fly by attack in the future. We can call them gauntlets of fly by. :(
Casting a spell mid move is the dream of a lot of spellcasters.

Liberty's Edge

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

You tell me. Does a wall block the spell, or can you use create pit to automatically undermine a wall? What about the side of a mountain?

What does it mean to have a 'horizontal surface of sufficient size'? If obstructions don't block surfaces, then when wouldn't you have a horizontal surface?

A mast is a constructed part of the ship's deck. A glued person is not.

How would you run it if a person tried to create a pit with a mast in the middle?

My point is that the spell don't say that the horizontal surface should be "free of obstacles". It must be "of sufficient size", so it is not possible to create the pit if the horizontal area is less than 10'x10', so walls or mountain sides will block it, but, at least in my native language, a horizontal area isn't the same of a flat area.

The spell speak of a ship deck, but it would be practically impossible to find a medieval/renaissance ship with a 10'x10' piece of a deck without some part of the ship going under or above the deck.
Even your opinion that something glued to the floor don't count as part of the structure is questionable. You say that glue is off. What is enough? Nails? Screws? Joints?

Personally, while non RAW, I like the idea of the floor being twisted through a fourth dimension when the spell is cast and it becoming the rim of the pit.
That resolve a lot of problems:
- unconscious persons that make the save are moved with the floor while the pit open, while those that fail slide in the pit;
- what happens to stuff that is connected with the floor but isn't so large that it block the spell;
- what happen if you cast the spell if the area include a man hole or trapdoor, and so on.

With the current rules, what happen if we came from downstairs and open a trap door that is in the area of the pit? Currently the trapdoor exist from below, when you open it the are isn't a horizontal surface of 10'x10' anymore, but that is not checked after the spell is cast, so what happen?
You risk falling into the pit as soon as you body is all above the horizontal surface?
The pit has a trapdoor in the middle of it and anyone can use it?
It is some kind of opening working in only one direction?

Extra dimensional spaces need a lot more explanations if used routinely.

Liberty's Edge

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

The spell allow you to hold your breath, and if your constitution check succeed it will wake you up. If you fail you fall unconscious and will die.

Honestly it is a very bad spell. Potentially deadly at first level, with no HD/level limit, a long duration and extremely difficult to adjudicate.

What is the effect of being forced to think about breathing?
You consume actions? You are distracted? You can speak or cast spells? You should make concentration checks to use SLA or cast spells?

Liberty's Edge

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

A curios question is what will happen if you cast this spell on the deck of a ship, puttying the main mast in the area of the spell. The reply can be related to what happen to a person glued to the floor.

A) The mast isn't supported by anything anymore and collapse (and a 2nd level spell would do a lot of damage to a ship).
B) When the spell distort space the floor in the area of effect is distorted and become the sloped area round the pit, so the mast still stay, but when seen by 2 dimensional creatures it appear bent.
c) the floor area is moved to another dimension for the spell duration, and the same happens to stuff anchored to it.

If the mast is physically connected to the deck, then the deck is no longer is a 'horizontal surface of sufficient size', anymore than you could cast create pit underneath a wall.

So if a creature is physically connected (glued) to a floor it is no longer a 'horizontal surface of sufficient size'?

It don't say "a horizontal surface of without any obstruction". What is enough to make an area invalid?
A meadow is an horizontal surface or the grass change that?
A tree change that? How high it should be?
A flat piece of terrain with some stone protruding?

Finding a really flat piece of terrain in a natural ambient will be really hard, the spell would work only on artificial floors clear of any obstruction.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
I suppose it's a workaround for various barbarian PCs too. 99.99% of all nice character art features barbarians in minimalist armor. The majority of barbarian PCs still try using real armor.

Fortunately I was wearing my armor

:-)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I still think the -20 to grapple clause is there to prevent or heavily penalize multiple grabs per round. As McBitey already quoted upthread:

"The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself."

That's pretty clear there: a creature with grab gets to make a free grapple check yes, but it's at -20 to the check if it intends to do anything else than use its whole body to perform the grapple (i.e. -20 if it does anything else than making and maintaining a grapple; i.e. -20 if it plans to keep using other limbs on other creatures, be it for regular attacks or to grapple multiple creatures with multiple limbs...)

The only time the -20 does NOT apply in my game is when the creature attacks, grabs successfully, and stop the full attack routine to fully sit on its new, single prey. On its next round, all it does is maintain the grapple and apply damage once (plus constrict, if applicable).

So you would apply a -20 to a tiger or lion using pounce and their grab ability?

Or to the same lion or tiger maintaining a grapple and raking?

Liberty's Edge

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


I can't really follow your math, but It does not look like you took CMB or attack bonus into account. That is not how you do simulations.

It isn't a simulation, it is a comparison to the stats of a typical CR 8 monster presented in the Monster Creation section of the rules.

here is the part about calculating damage:

PRD wrote:

Average Damage: This is the average amount of damage dealt by a creature of this CR if all of its attacks are successful. To determine a creature's average damage, add the average value for all of the damage dice rolled (as determined by Table: Average Die Results) to the damage modifier for each attack.

A creature that relies on melee or ranged weapons in combat should have average damage within the range of high and low damage.

A creature with higher than normal attack bonuses will often deal lower damage, while a creature with lower than normal attack bonuses will often deal higher damage.

I see... The Octopus is balanced by its low to-hit modifier though. You've ignored the bolded section where the octopus has only a CR 5 worth of to hit. To determine the value of these CRs is what DPR calculations are for. Espcially since to get the constrict, the octopus needs to hit twice; (once with the tentacle and once with CMB).

And before you say "well CR 17 is far too high, no matter your to hit values." Consider that CR 8 is when the Medusa shows up. That's a creature that instantly kills creatures with a gaze attack. So at CR 8 being instantly killed if a particular defense is not up to snuff is expected.

MeanMutton wrote:

Diego wasn't doing simulations. Diego was comparing the stats of a giant octopus to what the stats of a CR 8 creature should be based on the baselines provided by Paizo.

Also, I would strongly caution your last line of criticism when you lead off with a statement that you don't understand what he's doing. Diego's analysis was much more useful and

...

No, you don't see. You failed again at reading the stats.

The Giant Octopus has the to hit of a CR 8 creature. It has the Ac of a CR 5 creature.

The part you bolded say exactly the opposite of what you are trying have it say.
Normally a creature with a high damage has a to hit that is lower than its CR. The octopus bite has a to hit of +13 and the primary to hit of a CR 8 creature is +15, the secondary to hit of a CR 8 creature is +11 and the 8 tentacles of the octopus have a to hit of +11.
That is well within the parameters of a CR 8 creature with a high damage for CR 8. A giant octopus limited to a single constrict each round has the damage output of a CR 11 creature, and that seem the appropriate damage output for a creature with the secondary to hit of a CR 8 creature.
If we give it the damage output of a CR 17 creature, the to hit should be way lower to compensate.

About my comparison (not a calculation), it is unclear to you because you have skimmed it, as is clearly demonstrated by you reading the wrong to hit comparison.

Knight Magenta wrote:


My challenge to Diego was to find even a single non-trivial example of constrict on grapple being broken. Then we could try to figure out if it was the specific monster or the grapple rules that needed fixing.

Not true.

Knight Magenta wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

...

Current RAW say "Yes". Game balance suggest "No". If we keep the RAW answer the CR of a few creatures should be bumped by 1-2 point as potential damage increase greatly.
Is it actually unbalancing though, or does it just seem "obviously wrong"? Do you have any numbers to back up your game balance claim?

You "challenge" wasn't "about constrict on grapple being broken", it was about the CR of creatures if they can constrict several times in a round.

You where replying to "If we keep the RAW answer the CR of a few creatures should be bumped by 1-2 point as potential damage increase greatly." I showed very clearly that some CR is too low if we the monsters can apply constrict several times in a round.

Liberty's Edge

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

A curios question is what will happen if you cast this spell on the deck of a ship, puttying the main mast in the area of the spell. The reply can be related to what happen to a person glued to the floor.

A) The mast isn't supported by anything anymore and collapse (and a 2nd level spell would do a lot of damage to a ship).
B) When the spell distort space the floor in the area of effect is distorted and become the sloped area round the pit, so the mast still stay, but when seen by 2 dimensional creatures it appear bent.
c) the floor area is moved to another dimension for the spell duration, and the same happens to stuff anchored to it.

Liberty's Edge

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

I want to point out a different part of the FAQ Nefreet cited:

FAQ wrote:

Sleeves of Many Garments: Are the effects of sleeves of many garments illusion or transmutation?

The effects are illusion (glamer) like the glamered weapon and armor properties. This means they can’t be disbelieved like a figment could, but they do not actually physically change the clothes. The transformation changes only the appearance, including the feel, smell, and other sensory aspects.

The FAQ explicitly say that they can't be disbelieved, so the OP question is resolved. There is risk of having the glamour discovered when a guard grab someone wearing a glamored armor as there is no way to disbelieve the effect.

With an appropriate perception check against the bluff of the person wearing the armor (or some other appropriate skill use) the guard can notice that there is something strange, like the person weighting too much, but that will not allow him to pierce the illusion, it will only make him suspicious.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
Likewise, you can't enchant a longsword with agile, even if you can use a longsword with finesse.
I think this is wrong. A longsword wrapped in effortless lace is a melee weapon that can be used with weapon finesse, so it's a valid target for Agile, even if longswords as a weapon type can't be finessed and aren't a valid target for Finesse Training.

It is a single item, not a type. Rogue's Finesse Training require you to target a type.

Liberty's Edge

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

I "love" these posts where people try to say that some condition remove the reflex save to use them with the pit spells.
Unless something say it explicitly, nothing remove a reflex save.
Avoiding the pit spells require a reflex save, not a jump or move action.

Just to put out the opposite argument: the pit spells create a extra dimensional space. It don't lower the existing floor. The person hi by the tanglefoot bag is glued to the original floor.
So when the pit is created, what happen to the original floor?
a) it disappear, so the person is no more glued to it;
b) it is somewhat deformed in a forth dimensional space and go to form the border of the pit, so the glued person is glued outside the pit.
c) it go to form the floor of the pit and all stuff that is part of the floor go with it, so the glued creature don't take falling damage as he is moved together with the floor.

All the interpretation above are as credible as the interpretation "you are glued to the floor, so you can't get a reflex save, but when it is the time to fall being glued has no effect".

Saying "you get the normal save" is way simpler and less confusing.

Liberty's Edge

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

Is it intended for monsters to grab -> constrict -> release -> grab -> constrict in one attack sequence?

I know this is a legal tactic. And perhaps this doesn't belong in the rules forum, but I can't help but wondering if it's intended for gms to have monsters use this tactic? Any thoughts on this?

Natural attacks are not iterative. Once the limb has been used once, it's done for the turn, so you can get a constrict and grab and at thee end of that it's either hold on for next turn or use a free action tor release, but after that, it's done.
But a lot of monster have more than one limb. This tactic isn't a problem if used by a monster with one or even two grabbing limbs, but it start to be a problem with creatures with a lot of limbs and constrict.
IF a monster is going to pull that trick, I believe that it suffers a -20 penalty to it's CMB because it's not going all out on the grapple.

That applies only if the monster want to have its target grappled while not counting as grappled. If it grab and release it count as grappled as long as it maintain its grapple.

As I see it, the best option with multi limbed creatures it to consider each attack as coming from a different creature and to use this rule:

PRD wrote:
Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check.

so that each successful attack, after the first, with a limb with the grab ability against the same target give a +2 to the CMB of the grabbing creature, instead of another grappling check, but that isn't RAW.

Liberty's Edge

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

Is it intended for monsters to grab -> constrict -> release -> grab -> constrict in one attack sequence?

I know this is a legal tactic. And perhaps this doesn't belong in the rules forum, but I can't help but wondering if it's intended for gms to have monsters use this tactic? Any thoughts on this?

Natural attacks are not iterative. Once the limb has been used once, it's done for the turn, so you can get a constrict and grab and at thee end of that it's either hold on for next turn or use a free action tor release, but after that, it's done.
But a lot of monster have more than one limb. This tactic isn't a problem if used by a monster with one or even two grabbing limbs, but it start to be a problem with creatures with a lot of limbs and constrict.
IF a monster is going to pull that trick, I believe that it suffers a -20 penalty to it's CMB because it's not going all out on the grapple.

That applies only if the monster want to have its target grappled while not counting as grappled. If it grab and release it count as grappled as long as it maintain its grapple.

Liberty's Edge

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

Yes, but if we should assume that the Primalist archetype retains phrases from the original class feature it alters, should we do the same for the Unsworn Shaman's Minor Spirit?

I did flip through my APG and I was surprised that it didn't mention anything specific about "replace" and "alters". I guess it's assumed that the archetypes themselves should be detailed enough to not leave this ambiguity.

I assume it will not retain anything that isn't explicitly stated it retain, unless its absence broke the ability.

In the post above, the phrase "Actually it say: "This ability alters the bloodline class feature.", so you maintain the bloodline class feature." mean that the Primalist Bloodrager maintain a class feature called Bloodline, so if he has other abilities depending on having that class feature he has it. Not that he maintain the ability to choose a bloodline at level 1.

As not having a bloodline (not the Bloodrager class feature Bloodline, but a bloodline like Abyssal, Draconic, etc. [aargh, again the same word meaning different things]) will break the ability, we should assume that he still have to choose a bloodline, but the altered version of the class feature don't say that.

Sadly the contributors to Paizo products aren't always consistent on how they write.

Liberty's Edge

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


I can't really follow your math, but It does not look like you took CMB or attack bonus into account. That is not how you do simulations.

It isn't a simulation, it is a comparison to the stats of a typical CR 8 monster presented in the Monster Creation section of the rules.

here is the part about calculating damage:

PRD wrote:

Average Damage: This is the average amount of damage dealt by a creature of this CR if all of its attacks are successful. To determine a creature's average damage, add the average value for all of the damage dice rolled (as determined by Table: Average Die Results) to the damage modifier for each attack.

A creature that relies on melee or ranged weapons in combat should have average damage within the range of high and low damage.

A creature with higher than normal attack bonuses will often deal lower damage, while a creature with lower than normal attack bonuses will often deal higher damage.

Liberty's Edge

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

Is it intended for monsters to grab -> constrict -> release -> grab -> constrict in one attack sequence?

I know this is a legal tactic. And perhaps this doesn't belong in the rules forum, but I can't help but wondering if it's intended for gms to have monsters use this tactic? Any thoughts on this?

Natural attacks are not iterative. Once the limb has been used once, it's done for the turn, so you can get a constrict and grab and at thee end of that it's either hold on for next turn or use a free action tor release, but after that, it's done.

But a lot of monster have more than one limb. This tactic isn't a problem if used by a monster with one or even two grabbing limbs, but it start to be a problem with creatures with a lot of limbs and constrict.

Liberty's Edge

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

It does make sense what you say, Diego. But that also creates some confusion around other archetypes.

Primalist Bloodrager wrote:

At 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter, a primalist can choose to take either his bloodline power or two barbarian rage powers. If the primalist chooses rage powers, those rage powers can be used in conjunction with his bloodrage, and his bloodrager level acts as his barbarian level when determining the effect of those bloodrage powers and any prerequisites. Any other prerequisites for a rage power must be met before a primalist can choose it. This ability does not count as the rage power class feature for determining feat prerequisites and other requirements.

This ability alters the bloodline class feature.

This would mean that a Primalist can not pick a bloodline (which includes bloodline powers and feats), while it also seems to insinuate that you can pick bloodline powers from your bloodline (and not just any bloodline).

Actually it say: "This ability alters the bloodline class feature.", so you maintain the bloodline class feature.

The problem is that the altered version don't maintain the phrase: "A bloodrager must pick one bloodline upon taking his first level of bloodrager. Once made, this choice cannot be changed."

AFAIK the only point where in the rules where it is explained how substitutions and alterations to the abilities work is in the APG, under Alternate class Feature and that section of the rules say that the new ability replace completely the original ability, not only selected parts.

Blake's Tiger wrote:


I don't agree with Diego that "alter" as a general rule means "replace entirely." However, I do agree that in this instance the hex feature is significantly rewritten by the alteration. I just haven't figured out exactly how that alteration works in play.

Can you find a piece of the rules that say something different?

If alter modify only some part of a ability it must explain exactly what it retain. Or, in alternative, what it modify, with a explicit mention saying that no other part of the ability is changed. If it don't say either thing, we should assume the parts not cited are removed.

Liberty's Edge

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


Pre-errata, Minor Spirit replaced hex, meaning that Minor Spirit dictated the number of hexes an Unsworn Shaman could gain. However, as it is now, it only "alters hex".
Minor Spirit wrote:

At 1st level, the unsworn shaman also forms a temporary bond with a minor spirit each day, granting her access to a shaman or witch hex of her choosing, but not a major hex or a grand hex. She must make this selection each day when she prepares her spells for the day. Until she changes the minor spirit, she continues to have access to the shaman or witch hex. At 2nd level, she can instead select a hex from one of her wandering spirits selected for that day. If she selects a shaman or witch hex, she treats her shaman level as her witch level, and uses her Wisdom in place of her Intelligence for the purpose of that hex.

She can make temporary bonds with two minor spirits (thus gaining two hexes) at 4th level, and with one additional minor spirit (and hex) every 4 levels thereafter.

This ability replaces spirit and alters hex.

"Alter hex". You take hex and replace everything with what is in the new ability Minor Spirit unless the ability say otherwise.

The only difference between "replace" and "alter" is that with alter you still retain a feature called Hex if you need it for other abilities.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Remember that Magic Missile has to power through SR, and a wand of it only gets whatever caster level it was made with to boost the check, so at later levels it's not so relyable.
I agree that this tactic would fall off in higher-level play, without a doubt. Partly because of SR becoming more common, and also because magic missile caps out.

If we speak of high level play a wand of intensified magic missile is still relatively cheap (22.500 gp), cap out at level 15 with 8 missiles and, with a CL of 15, can beat the SR of a lot of common creatures.

As you speak of a antipaladin, Holy aura give a SR of 25, so the wand can beat it 55% of the time, a planetar or a CR 16 dragon has a SR of 27 (45% chance of penetrating it). Not ideal, but decent.

If have a level 15 antipaladin and apply the smite damage to every missile, it will do 147 hp of damage every time it beat the SR, at a range of 250'. Not bad for a secondary weapon.

It would be more efficient against enemies without a SR, but it is a useful back up.

Personally I think that a casting of magic missiles is a single attack, so the smite applies only once, but that is a choice of the GM, as the rules can be easily interpreted both ways.

Davor wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Really, your bard does that much damage while not rolling any d20s and using no resources except one charge from a wand? And his damage is 100% reliable regardless of the enemies AC? Impressive.
You may think I'm exaggerating, but yeah, I actually do. I usually only miss on 1's, and I don't consume ammo with my bow. I do a little bit less on average against enemies with higher ACs, but only marginally so.

This is not specifically directed at you, Davor, but seeing how people comment how easy is to disrupt the wand antipaladi, let me comment this: wind wall, flickering winds.

The wand antpaladin hit regardless of blur, copycat, displacement, mirror image and so on. Every tactic has a counter, how good it is depend on your target.

Liberty's Edge

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

Depends on your reading then. Shocking grasp is certainly on the sorcerer spell list, and spell focus isn't a terrible choice.

It don't depend on my reading. Read the FAQs about the magus, and the other FAQs about spells from a class spell list.

When a ability say that "whenever a XX casts a spell ... from the XX spell list", the ability work only with spells cast by the caster using spell slots from the appropriate class.
No magic items or slots from other classes.
Some ability can change that, but those are specific abilities.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
It can be dispelled or suppressed by several spells of level 2+ with the darkness description too. A good move for the ioun torch owner is to pay for a custom version, getting a heightened version of continual flame with a spell level of 4 and a caster level of 7+, that would proof it against most spells with the darkness descriptor and be relatively inexpensive.

Nice game info and IMHO a sort of cool upgrade for a magic item that is in no way game breaking.

MDC

After a few encounters with enemies using darkness and deeper darkness I had that made for my human magus. It lasted abut 2 levels, then our dark tapestry oracle dispelled it :(

Liberty's Edge

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

Comparing a magus going nova with precast spells while already in melee to a paladin using a wand of magic missiles as a backup ranged weapon isn't particularly useful.

For your little trick you have used 1 point of your weapon enhancement, 1 level for the sorcerer dip, 1 arcana for accurate strike, 2 feat, 1 trait.

The paladin has brought a wand.

BTW, the magus should be 9th level, so a 10th level character thanks to the sorcerer dip.
And the spell storing hit don't benefit from the critical multiplier. No to hit to deliver that attach, no critical.

The ability to use the weapon critical range is part of spellstrike:

PRD wrote:


Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
....
This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

As it has been explained several times, "a spell from the magus spell list" must be a spell the magus has memorized and cast from one of his slots, not from a item.

1 to 50 of 10,269 << 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.