Perhaps this has been addressed in a FAQ and I am wrong, but I think a "weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse" means it has to be a weapon with that ability as part of the weapon, not any weapon YOU can use with weapon finesse.
No such FAQ so far. The dagger and rapier are called out in the class because they are core weapons commonly used with Weapon Finesse. Not to mention, the option of a two-handed weapon is specifically called out in the FAQ. (FAQ Link)
If you have a feat that says you can use the glaive with Weapon Finesse, or a class feature that does the same thing (Fighter's Finesse, for example), then for that character, said weapon can be used with Weapon Finesse. There's no mention of a size limit, so a spear or polearm would still be valid.
Christopk-K wrote:
My idea is to have a flexible DEX based fighting style with a glaive.
The build I plan would look like this:
1 Fighter, Weapon Focus Glaive, Bladed Brush
2 UC Rogue Weapon finesse with glaive possible due to bladed brush
3 UC Rogue TWF and Combat Trick: Spear Dancing Style
4 UC Rogue Dex to damage with Glaive
5 Fighter 6 Fighter, full movement in medium armor
Now I have dex to attack rolls and dex to damage for everything I do with the glaive and I can:
- 2H the glaive with reach and with Dex x1.5 to damage
- 2H the glaive adjacent with Dex x1.5 to damage in the bladed brush "short grip"
- TWF with the glaive adjacent with dex x1/dex x0.5 to damage
Obviously the character worships Shelyn :-)
Did I get this right?
Yep. Plus move actions to switch between normal and short grips, or a swift action to activate the Spear Dancing Style.
Also, made an extension on your 4-level plan above. Hit level 3 fighter for armor training and the ability to move normally in medium armor. Afterwards, taking more rogue levels for Sneak Attack or whatever suits your fancy.
Christopk-K wrote:
A variation would be:
1 Ranger Weapon Focus Glaive
2 UC Rogue Weapon finesse
3 UC Rogue Bladed Brush and Combat Trick: TWF
4 UC Rogue Dex to damage with Glaive
5 Ranger Spear Dancing Style and 2H Style Feat Power attack
This takes longer to come together but would give me Power attack even with STR 8 because the style feats don't need to meet prerequsites and are always usable.
Still works, right?
Yep. Almost seems a waste of the Combat Trick to spend it on TWF, but it works. Quite an intriguing way of granting Power Attack without the Strength minimum. I'll end up using this myself on a character someday, I'm sure. :)
I've been searching around trying to find a proper answer, but I haven't found one yet. For the purposes of the following examples, I am using a spear.
The description for a Shrinking weapon (from the Melee Tactics Toolbox) says that it shrinks to the size of a standard dagger and its damage is reduced to 1d4. Beyond this there is nothing to clarify, as others have brought up in previous threads. There's also no FAQ I can find regarding this book or magic weapon ability.
I take this to mean that a shrinking spear in dagger form is still otherwise considered a spear. Is this the case, such that having Weapon Training (Spears) or Weapon Focus (Spear) would still function and grant their bonuses in dagger form? (This is the primary question for this topic.)
It would also be a light weapon (as normal for a dagger-sized weapon), but would otherwise remain a spear and have a 20 ft throwing range, x3 critical multiplier, and the brace ability. I could absolutely see a case for abilities like brace and reach not applying in dagger form, since there are no other light weapons (in any proficiency category) with either.
Given the reduction in size, the weapon would no longer gain the +50% bonus damage from Strength or Power Attack, but assumedly it's still a weapon of its original size category (Small, Medium, etc), simply in a different weapon size (Light vs Two-Handed). If this is the case, and the answer to the primary question is "yes", that would mean that the warpriest damage scale should still function. (Also relevant for fighters with the Focused Weapon advanced training option.)
As far as my understanding of the Spell Perfection feat goes, it allows you to apply a single metamagic effectively for free to a specific spell, as long as you don't go above 9th level.
...
My question is, how does this change for a partial caster. For example, a 20th level Bard has Spell Perfection (Overwhelming Presence). For a wizard, this would not allow them to add any metamagic, since Overwhelming Presence is a 9th level spell. However, for a Bard, Presence is only a 6th level spell, and (even though their slots cap out at 6), Spell Perfection explicitly states that the cap is 9th level, *not* the max level you can cast. Thus can a Bard with Spell Perfection (Overwhelming Presence) cast a Persistent Overwhelming Presence even though a Wizard with the same feat and of the same level could not, since for the Bard it has a modified level of 8 and is thus within the restriction given by Spell Perfection?
Unless there's errata I'm unaware of, the bard could indeed cast such a spell. As you pointed out, the feat specifies a limit of 9th level, and also that you do not have to use an increased spell slot to cast it. So the bard would cast it using a 6th-level slot, and it would be treated as either an 8th-level spell or a 6th-level spell, as normal.
TheCR155 wrote:
Related follow-up question: If so, then what kind of metamagic rod would the Bard need to use to Quicken such a spell? Would it be a normal rod, since the spell slot used is only 6th, or would it be a greater rod, since the spell has a modified level of 8 before reduction?
Spell Perfection does not restrict you from applying further metamagic to the spell, but it does state that the fully modified level can't go above 9th level. This leads me to believe that the spell is intended to be treated as the higher level in terms of how you're casting it.
So for this use, you would need a greater rod, because the spell you're casting is effectively 8th level. For some other purposes (such as save DC) it would be treated as a 6th-level spell as per the usual metamagic rules.
It would be up to the GM to decide if the Quickened Spell from the rod would break the 9th-level cap for Spell Perfection or not. For what it's worth, I'd allow it, since the metamagic rods don't behave the same way as the metamagic feats they copy.
In case anyone wants to see what I can reasonably post of the proof (in the mathematical sense), or wants to work the math out for themselves, here is the way I reached the above solution.
The maximum height for any given jump is given, so we don't need to calculate that. This is especially good, because we don't have precise assumptions about the values for gravity or the initial velocity.
Since the maximum height at the peak of motion is a known ratio, I started with the formula under the heading: Relation between horizontal range and maximum height (Math Render). This allows one to solve for theta, giving us the initial angle of the jump. Solving for theta, this gives us the following: theta = arctan(4h / R)
Within this context, h is our maximum jumping height and R is the full long jump distance. Since h is one-quarter of R, the fraction simplifies to 1 (one), giving us an angle of pi/4 radians or 45 degrees.
This is all well and good, but we will still need a way to figure out the initial velocity, to substitute into the last equation. Thankfully, we have one. The formula for Displacement under the heading: Kinematic quantities of projectile motion (Math Render). We know the initial angle, and we have a point along the curve (the midpoint) to use as a known position. Therefore, we can solve this and figure out what the initial velocity is. In this context, g is gravity, and x and y are the coordinates for the midpoint of the jump. To allow simplification (mathematically speaking), these two coordinates need to be in a common form. Therefore, x gets substituted with R/2 and y with R/4. This gives us the following: v = sqrt(Rg)
The last task is to figure out what the R value is for any curve given these qualities. For that, a formula from the trajectory of a projectile does the trick nicely.
More specifically, the Height at x formula under this heading: Conditions at an arbitrary distance x (Math Render). We know the initial angle and the starting point (0, 0), so before doing any other substitutions, this simplifies to the following: y = x - (g/square(v))square(x)
We know the substitution value for v, which also allows us to remove g from the equation altogether. This simplifies to the following: y = x - (1/R)square(x)
Solving for R gives us the previously presented equation: R = square(x) / (x - y)
In this context, R is once again the full long jump distance, but it is no longer the actual distance jumped. Instead, it becomes the equivalent distance for a jump given the point (x, y) on the curve. For this solution, x is the actual length of the jump being attempted, and y is the height difference at the end of the jump. Be aware that this height difference can be negative if jumping to a lower elevation, and subtracting a negative is the same as adding the positive value.
And so, we are left with the version I posted previously: DC = square(length) / (length - height)
As described before, and as toastedamphibian has been pointing out repeatedly, the height value must be less than the length. When equal, this causes division by zero, and when greater, results in a negative total distance, which is impossible in this context. Either of these results means that a skill-based long jump is not appropriate for the attempt, and the high jump rules or some other solution needs to be used instead.
P.S.: In case anyone is curious, I've used GraphSketch.com to plot the arcs of long jumps from 10 to 60 feet in increments of ten. They're plotted out on an 80x80 grid so the curves don't get distorted. Hopefully this is helpful for visualization. (Graph Link)
Reaching height X at 45 degree angle should be harder than reaching X at 90 degree angle realistically.
Reaching height X at a 45 degree angle without mechanical, alchemical, or magical assistance is not possible, for reasons I've already covered. Leaving that aside, the difficulty of reaching height X with a jump that starts from a 45 degree angle versus reaching the same height from one that starts at a 90 degree angle are indeed the same, in game terms.
Again, this is both not an accident and also largely irrelevant, but is something you've been stuck on almost this entire time. The mechanics of these two jumping styles have very little to do with each other. Additionally, as I've stated before, the solution I've presented has absolutely nothing to do with high jumps.
The fact that by either coincidence or design some of my solution's DCs match some high jump DCs means as much as the fact that the Craft check DCs for making a bastard sword and a suit of half-plate are the same. It doesn't mean anything.
toastedamphibian wrote:
Again, from standing. But it is not.
It would be more difficult from both a standing jump and from a running jump. High jumps are not exempt from needing a running start.
toastedamphibian wrote:
High and long jump DCs being different seems to be a myth.
You only reach that conclusion because you pick the handful of scenarios that the DCs either work out to be the same or show that such a jump isn't possible using the method you've chosen. You keep harping on the same "issues" that aren't really issues, and absolutely refuse to address anything that I say when I explain why it works the way it does.
At this point, based on this behavior, I can only assume that you don't understand the bulk of what I've been saying, have no interest in understanding, and so have no recourse except to behave as though it doesn't matter.
toastedamphibian wrote:
Any chance you would like to offer a critique of my solution? Ultimately much more simplistic, but gives results I feel are more in line with the realities of the game world.
me wrote:
If the distance is less than or equal to twice the height, use the vertical jump DC, if not, use longjump DC +2 per foot of height.
Excel Up. =IF(2*H>=D,4H,D+2H)
Where H is height above or below origin and D is distance from origin.
You haven't given my solution a fair assessment, so why should I? In any case, whatever you want to do as a GM at your table makes little difference.
At this point, this entire exchange is fruitless. At every turn, you seek to just dismiss what I've shown to be a working solution completely out of hand. You have nothing of value to offer in the discussion of the solution I've put forth, and I have no reason whatsoever to continue trying to reason with someone that has no argument. So, as stated before, I'm done with you.
Hmm, internet ate my post. Going to try something shorter...
I think you are realistically correct, but your results fit poorly in the existing system.
My sympathies for the consumed post. Though I still disagree in regards to the formula not cooperating with the system.
toastedamphibian wrote:
Jumping at a 90 degree angle (a High Jump) gives the same vertical distance as a long jump with the same DC.
This is on purpose. As stated in my last post, a long jump cares more about distance, while the high jump is exclusively concerned about height. The difficulty to reach the same height (albeit using different jumping methods), however, is the same. This also shows that the developers were thinking about arcing travel paths at some level. The scenario that comes to mind for me is a cavern or dungeon hallway with a ceiling, and if you attempt to jump too far, you will hit said ceiling and probably fall.
Further, as the rules reckon distance, succeeding at a 5-foot high jump does not mean that a 4-foot dwarf jumps and grabs a ledge just above his head and pulls himself up. What it does mean is that said dwarf ends up with his boots at the 5-foot mark, standing on top of the ledge. In fact, a Climb skill check would be more appropriate for the former scenario, since very little jumping was involved.
toastedamphibian wrote:
Jump skill seems to make no allowance for angle. ... They did not use parabolic equations to set their DCs, the math they used was very simplified and linear. Yours is very not linear.
Certainly it's non-linear, because jumping is non-linear by its very nature. The arcing path of a creature jumping is parabolic in shape, and while the books don't explicitly say so, they do in fact take angle into account.
I see two main reasons why the DCs for a high jump are +4/foot instead of +1/foot for a long jump. What entered the minds of the developers that came up with these numbers, I have no idea. All I know is that this is what makes logical sense to me.
Obviously, moving 10 feet vertically off of the ground is much more difficult than moving 10 feet horizontally (at the local scale) across the surface. This, of course, is mostly due to the first reason: gravity. The second reason is that our bodies are not built for jumping. Other creatures with more specialized or differently developed body structures would have a racial bonus to the Jump/Acrobatics skill.
toastedamphibian wrote:
Additionally, if you wish other people to be able to use it, you should probably repost it with explicit instructions for when to use it and when not to.
The topic at hand was about long jumps, and I feel like the posts I made directly after stated quite specifically what the limitations were and when a different calculation would be appropriate. At the end of the day, a GM can use whatever they like to set the DCs at their table.
That being said, this is a good suggestion. I would like to eventually post this formula, along with the math that led to it, where it could be referenced more easily. That's a project for another day, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
You asked me my point, so I clarified. If it looks similiar to what I said before, that should not be surprising as my point did not change.
You ask for examples of where I think the math works out poorly. All the scenarios I provided in that post and the preceding posts are those examples, that is why they are there.
As for the book:
3.5 phb wrote:
At the midpoint of the jump, you attain a vertical height equal to one-quarter of the horizontal distance.
As I noted, a DC 60 check puts you 15ft up at the midpoint of a 60ft jump. 15ft up, 30 out. Your formula makes it 33% harder to do the same while traveling 2/3rd the distance.
I do not need there to be a direct rule to COMPARE. If the DC to jump 20ft out and 19ft up is 400, I can compare that to the official jump DCs. 19ft up and 20ft over being the same level of difficulty as jumping 100ft into the air or 400ft horizontally is a valid point for comparison. And I feel that they are a poor match.
Your math seems fine. Your results seem inconsistent with what is already avaliable.
It seems to me that you either still haven't read my earlier post where I went further into the why of it, or you don't understand it. Or maybe I could've written it better. I dunno.
Bear in mind, all of this is referring specifically to a long jump style of jumping. In this form, the distance covered is more important than the height attained. As the height increases, the difficulty of such a jump goes up by quite a lot, because the effective distance needed to attain said height gets much longer.
The way the formulas filtered down, gravity became irrelevant math-wise. That does not mean it's irrelevant logically.
The initial angle for a long jump is 45 degrees. This is known because of the maximum height during the jump. This also means that the closer your target point gets to this angle, the more difficult the jump will be to pull off. If your target point is higher than this angle, it's going into the territory of physically impossible. Muscle power can only do so much.
This is why a longer jump to the same height can be easier, because it puts the target point at a lower angle instead of keeping it close to the 45 degree maximum.
Once the height approaches the jump distance (within 5 feet seems good as a Rule of Thumb), and certainly once the height exceeds it, setting the DC according to the height is more appropriate. How to figure that DC is outside the scope of the formula I have. Using the height for a high jump DC and adding half of the "out" distance would probably be a good place to start, though.
The book, eh? With a connotation like that I probably shouldn't have to ask, but that's such a vague statement that I do. Which book are you talking about?
Show me which book and page(s) list DCs that "compare poorly" to what I've put forth, and I'll revisit the formula. I've already looked in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and the Player's Handbook v3.5, the ones usually referred to as "the book" for their respective editions, and neither source mentions any DCs for attempting a jump in both directions at once.
If there is a first-party source with rules for doing precisely what this thread is about, I would be delighted to hear about it, especially for the chance to compare notes.
Your DCs compare poorly to what is in the book, and fail in a variety of situations that are poorly described ahead of time.
Interesting, because for the scenarios listed previously in the thread, the numbers work out just fine. So what precisely are you going on about? Be more specific and I can address those issues. If all you've got is "your math sucks" then you have no argument (in the sense of having a discussion), and I'm done engaging with that.
toastedamphibian wrote:
A jump check of 60 gets you 15 feet up, or 15 feet up and 30 feet out.
The DCs for those two jumps will match for the same reason why a high jump of 10 feet will match a long jump 20 feet out and 10 feet up (DC 40). This was covered in an earlier post. (Post Link)
toastedamphibian wrote:
Going less than 30 feet out should not be 33% harder. Jumping 20ft up and 20ft over should not be 5x as difficult as jumping 20ft up.
Did you even read my follow-up post? I don't care much for excessively repeating myself, especially in the same thread, let alone on the same page. (Post Link)
The armor would only meld into your animal companion if his new form was unable to wear barding. Otherwise, it would alter to fit the new shape. Dragons are capable of wearing barding, so the armor should remain visible and active.
Assuming your GM insists that it melds into the new shape, all AC bonuses, abilities, and powers (such as Celestial Armor's fly ability) are dormant and inactive.
So, would you say that your assertion that it works for "any arbitrary jump" is verifiably false?
No. I would say that I missed a word. I should have specified that it works for "any arbitrary long jump" instead. Unfortunately, it's been too long to correct my previous post to reflect this.
Bit of a problem there. Any situation where your height and length of your jump are equal, IE 10ft up and 10ft out, results in division by 0.
To be more specific about the why of it...
The midpoint height being set to one-quarter of the total length places the initial angle of the jump at 45 degrees. Regardless of your initial velocity, gravity is not going to allow your jump's height to equal your distance beyond a couple of feet. Well, unless you're being shot from a cannon, but that's a different topic.
The reason you reach the division-by-zero point is because that's the point at which it becomes physically impossible for the long-jump form. A negative DC reflects this as well, for any point after that. Reaching either result indicates that you need to instead calculate it as a high jump, allow them to grab the side of whatever they're jumping at, or inform them that it's not possible.
In short, there isn't a problem with the formula. Rather, the formula is telling you something that isn't necessarily immediately obvious.
Bit of a problem there. Any situation where your height and length of your jump are equal, IE 10ft up and 10ft out, results in division by 0.
The formula is for adjusting long jumps. More specifically, where the height is less than the length. It is not intended for what is essentially a high jump.
Further, a 20-foot gap with a 15-foot high landing would be a DC of 80, double what a 10-foot high landing works out to be. The character would have one of two options: either start the jump before the actual gap, making it a longer jump (making the above a 30-foot wide jump reduces the DC to 60), or jump onto the surface and climb from there. To long-jump it directly without magical assistance would likely be impossible.
For jumps like the 10-foot out and up, I would take the DC 40 high jump and add between +5-10 to it for the additional distance.
I think Bbangerter's post makes sense, though I'd also be fine with calcing the distance. It's a simple Pythagorean calc that takes only a couple seconds on google. I used that to allow someone a 30ft spell when they were 15ft away and the thing was 20ft higher than them, for example.
In some sense someone arguing that he's out of range makes some game sense, but the simulation says he's in range with room to spare.
EDIT: I'll stick with Bbang's post I think. I goofed a bit. I agree that taking the higher DC for height vs. length makes sense as well. hmm..
Okay, I've been doing some trig this morning and came up with the following equation, which appears to work for any arbitrary jump.
DC = square(length) / (length - height)
Examples:
Original question, 20-foot wide gap, landing point 10 feet lower than starting position.
DC = square(20) / (20 - -10)
DC = 400 / 30
DC = 13-1/3
Reverse the height difference, making the jump 20 feet wide and 10 feet higher instead.
DC = square(20) / (20 - 10)
DC = 400 / 10
DC = 40
Make the jump longer from the last example, with a 30-foot wide gap and a landing 10 feet higher.
DC = square(30) / (30 - 10)
DC = 900 / 20
DC = 45
The jumps that were posed by toastedamphibian: 20 feet wide and 1 foot up, and 20 feet wide and 5 feet up, respectively.
DC = square(20) / (20 - 1)
DC = 400 / 19
DC = 21.0526315...
DC = square(20) / (20 - 5)
DC = 400 / 15
DC = 26-2/3
If anyone wants, I can go through the math I used to come up with this formula.
Yes it would be. Though, 10ft out and 10ft up would be a 50 by my method, and I am not sure if that is fair or not... I need to rethink this a little.
Jumping Up 10ft and out 20ft or less should be 40, but out 20ft and up 1ft should be more than out 20ft and up zero. I don't see an immediately obvious and simple rule to make this happen yet.
A jump 20 feet out and zero up would be a DC 20. Adding a single foot would not add a DC of +4, because adding 10 feet would, by that logic, add +40 for the height. Only it doesn't. Half of that, as it turns out, because the distances involved make the math easier. So adding +2 to the DC for a 1-foot height could work. I don't think that's a workable solution for the generic case, though.
Adding the 10 feet up requires you to be capable of a longer jump, which makes it the equivalent of a 40-foot long jump, thus DC 40. A jump only 10 feet out and 10 feet high would be, for the most part, just as hard as a jump merely 10 feet high, adding maybe +2-5 to the DC of 40 for the base jump.
I was working with a sine graph and a 30-foot long jump with a 10-foot height at the end would be roughly a DC 45 for the added distance. The peak of the jump would be over the main 30-foot distance, approximately 22-23 feet into the jump. The remaining distance, the jumper would be falling to reach the desired height at the end. So it looks like I was over-estimating the difference in my last post.
Isn't the DC for High Jump 4 for every foot, anyway? So, that would be a DC 40 for a 10' High Jump, same as a long jump that achieves 10' height in the middle.
Yes, but for a very different reason. If the jump was instead a 30-foot long jump with a 10-foot height difference at the end, a DC 40 wouldn't cut it. Not sure off the top of my head how the precise arc math works out, but it would probably be closer to a DC 50-55 or so for that scenario.
Yeah, the Gloves give a static benefit. If it was meant to be a "step" sort of thing, it'd have used the wording presented in the Sash of the War Champion item.
Two problems with that, the way the Sash is worded. First, it would need to have an increase of 8 levels, which I've never seen on an item like that; it's almost always between 2 and 5 levels that an item will buff an ability. Second, once you reach 9th level, the effect would cap out at a 17th-level effect, since that is the maximum listed for Spear Training. This also means that as of 17th level, the Gloves would do you no good as far as Spear Training was concerned.
If you were jumping UP 10 feet and OUT 20, I'd have you make two jump checks, one for height and one for distance. Fail either one and you've got a problem.
Yeah, I can't support this ruling either. Making a jump is a single action. The rules do not talk about how high a jump can arc, but when characters get unusually high acrobatic bonuses like +20 or +30, I think a GM needs to work with the player a bit on what cool stuff he can do.
Indeed, the Pathfinder skill description apparently doesn't say. The more specific Jump skill from 3.0/3.5 stated the following:
At the midpoint of the jump, you attain a vertical height equal to one-quarter of the horizontal distance.
So you would need to be able to jump 40 feet to reach a 10-foot high point at the middle. Since the DC is equal to the distance needed, that would mean a DC of 40, which is a bit absurd under normal circumstances, but might be manageable depending on level and magic items.
Don't forget your 10-foot pole. :)
EDIT: I pulled a dumb and worked my math with the numbers in reverse. The above blunder has been fixed.
There were a couple of threads that asked about if and how the Gloves of Dueling interacted with the Dragoon fighter archetype. The if was resolved, leading to the following FAQ.
The question I have is about the how part, and to my knowledge that has not been officially addressed. A strict reading of the effects involved would state that you simply get +2 attack and +2 damage from the Gloves. A slightly less strict reading, but no less correct logically, would state that you get two increments of the granted bonuses, which would mean +2 attack and +4 damage instead.
For a vanilla fighter, the difference is moot because they're the same values. For an archetype such as the Dragoon, they are not. For the latter interpretation, this is the key difference to explain why the Gloves were written the way they were. As a GM, I would rule in favor of the second interpretation, since that seems closer to how the Dragoon is supposed to function.
My group's table is not following PFS rules per se. For the purposes of this question, however, assume that we are, so a Society-focused answer would be most valuable.
The white haired witch's class ability ... is it the use of her (own / natural) hair, or is it the use of the hair she has on her, even if it's from a new form?
I believe it to be retained, but since this is for PFS, I want to verify beforehand.
Because the archetype provides hair if your form does not have it, as a GM, I would rule that it does not "depend on your original form" as specified by the polymorph rules. As I understand it, if you could make such attacks or use those abilities if the new form was your natural-born form, then you're good to go. Attacks using your hair should stick around, because you still have hair and could still make such attacks if being a fox was your original and only form.
Also, class features, skills, feats, etc. are typically retained between forms, so long as the alternate form is capable of making use of them. Spellcasting is one that usually is not retained, due to the lack of humanoid voice, hands, etc. This doesn't rely on any of those things, though.
The bleed spell is also a requirement for some magic items, such as weapons with the wounding quality.
As for how you could make use of it as a spell outside of item creation, and if that would not be an evil act... An officially sanctioned execution? Sacrifice of a non-intelligent creature as part of a beneficial ritual, such as for crop or livestock growth?
Nothing terribly combat-related comes to mind without it seeming like it skates the line between being an evil bastard and almost (but not quite) being an evil bastard.
Last question ... when I use fox-shape to turn into a tiny fox ... does my white haired witch hair attack still work using my fox hair, or does it disappear?
Foxes still have hair. The FAQ linked above states that even creatures without hair can take the archetype and will grow hair to support it. So it should work just fine in arctic fox form. :)
If you were jumping UP 10 feet and OUT 20, I'd have you make two jump checks, one for height and one for distance. Fail either one and you've got a problem.
I would be more inclined to have the player make one check, and since the out is larger than the up, I'd have them roll for a long jump. Since they're not trying to land at the same elevation, I would add to the DC to account for the extra 10-15 feet they would have otherwise needed to go laterally to reach that height at the 20-foot mark.
If it's something the player likes to do a lot, or the setting lends itself to doing so often (such as an urban-based adventure/campaign), I would try to figure out more precise math ahead of time to have some quick figures to reference. I'd also have a reference for the arc formula for attempts that aren't on the cheat sheet.
Goes to show once again that, depending on your GM, YMMV quite a lot. :)
I'm 9th level, with a party of 6. I cast Healing Token twice, on 6 symbols, one for each party member.
Everyone is within 30'. Someone please [sic] for healing. I channel as an immediate. Does everyone get healed? Only people with tokens from the same casting as the person pleading? If so, can a symbol be targeted twice?
Healing Token wrote:
You imbue one touched holy symbol per 3 caster levels with a connection to your own divine power, turning the touched holy symbols into tokens of healing. Each of the targeted holy symbols can represent any deity regardless of the deity’s actual alignment.
So long as the tokens are holy symbols, then at 9th level you can cast it on three at once, as you expect. The spell has no mention of the effects ending on the previous tokens if you cast it again, so the second casting simply creates more tokens.
Healing Token wrote:
As long as you wear or carry your divine focus, any creature carrying a token of healing can make a plea for healing in a language you understand as a standard action. When they do this, you are silently alerted to the plea for healing and can magically heal the target as an immediate action anytime before the end of your next turn.
The only requirement is having your divine focus. It doesn't specify, but in the case that you have more than one, I'd say you wouldn't necessarily need to use the same one on everything to get the effect desired.
Healing Token wrote:
The magical healing you use to do this can be either a supernatural ability that heals damage (if you have uses available) or a spell or spell-like ability that belongs to the healing subschool (if you can cast any). In either case, to use the ability or cast the spell through this spell, you must be able to include or target that creature, and the ability’s activation time or spell’s casting time must be no longer than one standard action.
This language is a little strange as far as targeting is concerned. I would reason that the spell or ability is used as normal, with its normal range and/or set of targets. So if you're channeling, the effect centers on you as normal, not the token.
Healing Token wrote:
If the ability or healing spell you use through a token would affect multiple creatures, such as mass cure light wounds, the ability or spell affects the creature that pleaded for healing as well as any other creatures within the healing spell’s normal range that are also holding a holy symbol imbued with this spell.
Again, a little strange, as it doesn't address multiple castings of the same spell. Since you're using the same spell to imbue all of the tokens, and it says "this spell," not "this casting" or something similar, that it would affect all characters with tokens regardless of which casting made them.
toastedamphibian wrote:
Assuming you used the same Divine Focus on each casting, I read it as affecting all of them.
I disagree, as stated above. As long as you have a proper divine focus, that should be the only requirement.
As with everything, though, as Roonfizzle said, check with your GM to find out how they want to run it.
Am I unusual for ruling that no Specific magic item can be modified in any way? I mean, if Paizo had wanted to add a 'Celestial' armor special ability they could have done that, but they decided not to.
No, that seems to be a common opinion. I prefer letting my players upgrade otherwise specific magic items. The way I look at it is that the items on the Specific Armors/Weapons lists are the base models.
For example, if a character is still using a Buccaneer's Breastplate at 16th level, they probably would've wanted to make some improvements to it by then. After all, that piece is described as a +1 breastplate with some swimming-related enhancements. Figuring out the cost to turn that into a +3 breastplate with light fortification is relatively straight-forward, and would give an otherwise lower-level item more longevity.
Or maybe I have an existing higher-level party (previously land-based) that runs afoul of some pirates and finds themselves (after a bar brawl and a chase) fighting said pirates on the deck of their ship as they start to pull away from port. The barbarian gets a high roll on a bull rush and shoves the captain overboard, not realizing that he's wearing a non-standard version of a Buccaneer's Breastplate. Once all is said and done, the party may have the chance to acquire it for themselves.
Each approach is just as valid, it's just a question of which way a GM wants to go for their table.
As you speak of weight (in another meaning of the word), have you looked the weight of Celestial Armor? 20 lbs. Weight of a masterwork chainmail 40 lbs. So what is the origin of the reduced weight? How much mithrail we need to replace the metal used in the chain mail? We should start with a weight of 20 lbs or a weight of 40 lbs? (by rules, 40 lbs, the original weight of a chainmail)
We have covered this. More specifically, I have already spelled out the math you're asking about.
Feauce wrote:
The final stats for the armor, assuming I've done my math correctly, should be: AC +9 (+6 base, +3 enhancement), Max Dex Bonus +10 (+2 base, +6 celestial, +2 mithral), Armor Check Penalty -0 (-5 base, +1 masterwork, +2 celestial, +2 mithral; max -0), Arcane Spell Failure 5% (30% base, -15% celestial, -10% mithral), weight 13-1/3 pounds (40# base, 1/2 celestial * 1/2 mithral = 1/3 modified), Type: Light. Final market price: 26,250 GP, final crafting cost: 15,200 GP.
Feauce wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Aside- what happens to the weight of CRB/UE Celestial Armor in an antimagic field?
Two things are certain, based on James Jacobs's statement that the entirety of the armor's differences from base chainmail are magical in nature. First, that the armor would return to the 40-pound standard weight. Second, that it would no longer be light armor, and would instead be medium armor with normal stats for non-magical, nothing-special masterwork chainmail.
Read the thread before you post. Both of those quotes are from posts further up on the same page.
Diego Rossi wrote:
The rules don't even say that the Celestial Armor is made of metal, so you can use mithrail to made it?
Is this a serious question, or are you just trying to antagonize this thread further? Let's assume you're serious for a moment, which, for the record, I find hard to believe.
The CRB description describes it as being "bright silver or gold", which implies that it's made of metal no matter which way you care to read that. The UE version does not have these four words, so that's a bit more up in the air. However, both versions say quite specifically that it is chainmail, which is metal armor by default. So yes, Celestial Armor, regardless of which version of the description you want to use, is made of metal.
Re: semantics on Celestial Armor; the armor in pretty much everyone's interpretation thus far is that it's weight and stats come from it's magic. How that magic works seems to be the point of contention. In one side's interpretation, all Celestial Armor comes out the same weight, as there the material is changed. In other interpretations, it changes to be exactly half weight of the base item, (this is also present with the Celestial Shield) which infers that the weight reduction applies to whatever material. Applying it to mithral by that interpretation (the one I share) would apply the benefits for both, calculated normally.
Aside- what happens to the weight of CRB/UE Celestial Armor in an antimagic field?
Two things are certain, based on James Jacobs's statement that the entirety of the armor's differences from base chainmail are magical in nature. First, that the armor would return to the 40-pound standard weight. Second, that it would no longer be light armor, and would instead be medium armor with normal stats for non-magical, nothing-special masterwork chainmail.
The rest is not so certain, and has a couple of conclusions to be decided upon by the GM. The first option is that the "fits under clothing" part is a result of the construction methods involved in preparing the base chainmail, therefore still applies within a null-magic area. The second option is that this effect is also a result of the item's magic, and the chainmail returns to normal, likely destroying whatever outfit the character may be wearing over the armor.
I'm inclined to grant the first option, though more strictly-minded GMs might go for the second.
It should go without saying, but before I go into any of this, I would like to state the following for the record:
I have the utmost respect and admiration for Jacobs, who has spent his adult life doing what I would love to be doing also. Many hats off to him and all the work he's done over the years.
Now then, onto the topic at hand.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Mechanically, there should be no differences regardless of material, unless that material has some sort of special properties via the rules for custom magic items made from different base items as detailed in Ultimate Campaign (as cited in the linked threads). And only then (and it's important that everyone remembers me saying this) if the DM agrees with this interpretation of the rules (which I personally advocate, given the example in the book shows a clear mechanical advantage in allowing a druid to wield a wooden shield in place of a steel one).
For context:
James Jacobs wrote:
Celestial armor is not mithral—it's actually made of silver or gold (as mentioned in its description), and thus doesn't gain any of the standard modifiers for being mithral at all. It's its own thing. Its lower arcane spell failure and higher max Dex bonus are a result of its magical qualities, not what it's made out of. In addition, this magic allows folks to wear it as if it were light armor—the mithral versions don't do this because mithral isn't fundamentally magical like the enhancements on celestial armor.
Thread ressurection. And +1 to the poster above me. If "Celestial" is some type of enhancement that could theoretically be put onto other armours, as James seems to say above, what should be its pricing. A +X on the enhancement scale or a fixed price?
Without the cost of the +3 chainmail element of celestial armor, we get a price of about 13,000 gp. The simplest solution is to just say that its effects cost about 13,000 gp and be done with it... but of course, its effects are more powerful when put on heavier armor, so you'd probably want to adjust the cost significantly if, say, this ability were to go onto a suit of full plate.
All of which is why we DIDN'T present these abilities as a generic armor quality, but only as a specific type of magic armor. It's just simpler and easier.
Here it seems that James Jacobs does not dismiss outright the notion that you can modify Celestial Armor, or the option to make a custom suit with the same effects.
In fact, what Jacobs says about Celestial Armor indicates that it should be possible to modify the material of the armor. (Requoting the above, with additional emphasis, to better illustrate this point.)
James Jacobs wrote:
Celestial armor is not mithral—it's actually made of silver or gold (as mentioned in its description), and thus doesn't gain any of the standard modifiers for being mithral at all. It's its own thing. Its lower arcane spell failure and higher max Dex bonus are a result of its magical qualities, not what it's made out of. In addition, this magic allows folks to wear it as if it were light armor—the mithral versions don't do this because mithral isn't fundamentally magical like the enhancements on celestial armor.
According to Jacobs, the effects of Celestial Armor are due to the magic it has been enhanced with, which means that swapping the material out (whatever it was originally crafted from) should apply those adjustments as well. Of course, if the original material had some special properties, those would have to be removed first, in order to get the correct numbers. Further, mithral as a material is non-magical and the adjustments it grants have nothing to do with anything except its own properties. Therefore, the bonuses from the enchantment suite we call Celestial Armor and the bonuses from mithral as a non-magical material should not conflict with each other, as each set of modifications is from a different source.
While the original version in the CRB listed the appearance of "bright silver or gold," which Jacobs stated refers to the material of its construction, the newer Ultimate Equipment version (first printing dated August 2012) has no such language. Thus, the original question on this thread. Since the descriptive text changed, it would seem that Celestial Armor no longer has a specified material, that arguments about whether the "bright silver or gold" wording referred to material or appearance are now irrelevant, and Jacobs's comment about its description from March 2010 is now outdated.
As I have said before, multiple times: A GM can rule however they want to for their table. Paizo can decide whatever they want in terms of how organized Society play is to be handled. If this question were posed in the Advice subforum, this discussion would have a completely different focus, but it wasn't. This is the Rules Questions subforum, and the rules as published support doing what the OP asked about doing.
You can not make a Mithril Tower shield that isn't enhanced by magic from the effect of making it a Force Shield.
Taking this subtopic back up for a moment, since I found the reference I was looking for.
Arms & Equipment Guide (AD&D 2E), page 36 wrote:
The body shield, also known as the kite or tower shield, is a massive metal or wooden shield reaching nearly from the chin to the toe of the user. It must be firmly fastened to the forearm and the shield hand must firmly grip it at all times. Naturally, this precludes use of the shield hand for anything but holding the body shield in place.
In the PHB, there is no mention of construction material. A body shield is listed as costing 10 GP and weighing 15 pounds, but many of these prices and weights changed from 2E to 3E, so that part should be taken with a grain of salt.
These descriptions show that the change from TSR to WotC altered not only the cost and weight, but also the text regarding these shields. This altered text was carried forward for 3.5E and Pathfinder, most likely because there were more important tasks than to look over every last scrap of flavor text for every item in the book.
I haven't had time to research the historical uses of body/tower shields sufficiently, but that's hardly a reason to ignore the game's long tradition. Traditionally, a tower shield could be made of basically anything. I'm sure there are some dwarves somewhere in a setting or other source book that made large shields and tower shields out of stone. If it makes the game more interesting or not, then that's up to the GM to decide.
As far as the rules are concerned, however, the specified special materials have methods to calculate how much they cost and mechanical adjustments for the items they modify. This is the part that should concern us here, not whether a two- or three-word change in descriptive text should decide what is possible.
The tower shield used to specify that it was made of metal or wood. Now it claims to only be made of wood. Celestial armor used to specify that it was bright silver or gold, and now it doesn't. These things are irrelevant.
If I wanted a character to craft a suit of celestial armor out of Elysian bronze, there are rules to figure out how much that would cost, how much time it would take, and how that would alter the item. (No, I'm not going into the math this time. ;) ) This is absolutely allowed by the rules as printed, and that's what this subforum should be concerned with.
I agree that they're both standard actions. The magus specifies that their weapon-enhancing ability is a swift action, but mixing weapons and magic is basically their specialty. I wouldn't expect a pure fighter to have it that good. By the way, a paladin's ability to use a bonded spirit to enhance their weapon is also a standard action, and is much more limited, but it also lasts longer (a minute per level). /shrug
The enhancement bonus allows you to add one ability, and your total bonus can be up to your training bonus, so that's definitely not bad. The bonus lasts for a full minute, after all, so that's likely to last through most (if not all) of the combat.
It should be sufficient to state a default of "Unless I say otherwise, assume the weapon type chosen each day is [whatever]."
Overall, I think Warrior Spirit is a fantastic ability, particularly in combination with the Gloves. Since both the total enhancement and your uses per day are based off of your training bonus, that synergizes very well.
...I'm amused to see how much variance in answers there is. I had honestly assumed there was a standard rule for this.
Insofar as PFS is concerned, it sounds like "adamantine slashing" might be the 'answer!'
Thank you for your thoughts, everyone!
Glad to be of at least some help, even though I wasn't able to find any book source with rules for that precise scenario. A lot of the vehicle rules are in Ultimate Combat, and as SlimGauge suggested there's rules for how long armor takes to don and remove. Light barding would be the next best thing to a vehicle harness. That's as close to an official answer as is likely to exist on the topic.
Your fun math assumes that celestial is a material. You can’t apply two materials just like you can’t have an adamantine cold iron weapon.
No, my math does not assume that. You're assuming that, without even the courtesy of asking if that's what I was assuming, because it helps your case if you've got a simple "you can't do that" counter-argument to claim.
"Celestial" as noted in my last post refers to the effects of it being celestial armor, which according to the math appears to be a miscellaneous enchantment.
James Risner wrote:
Either way, the only person who is correct (between you and I) is the GM of the game. They get to pick between your version and my version of the rules for their game.
In the context of the game at the OP's table, that's correct. We actually agree on that point. That being said...
James Risner wrote:
Since the rules don’t cover which version is right.
For clarity: There is a distinct difference between PFS rules and the game in general. This topic is not in the context of the Society, and so defaults to the general rules as printed.
Those rules actually do cover which one of us is right, but you don't like the answer. That doesn't change how the rules are written.
It's astounding how often people fail to read before they post. That being said, to get us back on-topic...
Blackstorm wrote:
Yeah, but that rised up a question on the italian fb group: setting aside the fact that technically a specific armor is just as is, no modification (Jacobs said that about them), if a gm want to allow modifications, well what about the mithral? I know the question was highly discussed here, but if I allow the mithral, what modifications should one made? Someone says it just alter the stats like normal mithral, someone says that the mithral totally substitutes the original material so you need to apply the mithral modifications to the base chainmail.
The standard modifications for mithral armors. The price modification would be the difference between masterwork armor (150 GP), since it's included in the mithral price, and the price for mithral chainmail (4,000 GP), since that is the base physical item. So the final price adjustment would be: 4,000 GP - 150 GP = 3,850 GP
The other abilities involved are irrelevant. The important piece of information is how much the physical item costs, and how that differs from the same thing made of mithral.
The final stats for the armor, assuming I've done my math correctly, should be: AC +9 (+6 base, +3 enhancement), Max Dex Bonus +10 (+2 base, +6 celestial, +2 mithral), Armor Check Penalty -0 (-5 base, +1 masterwork, +2 celestial, +2 mithral; max -0), Arcane Spell Failure 5% (30% base, -15% celestial, -10% mithral), weight 13-1/3 pounds (40# base, 1/2 celestial * 1/2 mithral = 1/3 modified), Type: Light. Final market price: 26,250 GP, final crafting cost: 15,200 GP.
P.S.
I was thinking, since I'm doing all this math anyway, I might as well include the cost of increasing the +3 enhancement bonus to +5. It's quite straight-forward also. The 1/day fly effect is irrelevant, since it would not be an enhancement-bonus type of enchantment.
The difference between a +3 armor (9,000 GP) and a +5 armor (25,000 GP) is 16,000 GP. So the crafting cost would be 8,000 GP to improve celestial armor from a +3 to a +5 enhancement bonus. This would increase the AC bonus to a total of +11 (+6 base, +5 enhancement).
P.P.S.
In case anyone is curious, as it turns out, the fly effect is rather cheap.
Fly 1/day: 3rd-level spell * 5th-level caster * 1,800 on command * 1/5 one use per day. This gives us a final market value of 5,400 GP and a crafting cost of 2,700 GP.
By process of elimination, we can discover the combined cost of the remaining effects. Namely, the weight, type, and other improvements.
22,400 GP full market value - 300 GP base item - 9,000 GP enhancement bonus - 5,400 GP fly effect, leaving us with 7,700 GP market value remaining to cover the rest. This equates to 3,850 crafting cost for this part of the armor.
Murdock. For my tiny character. I don't have the option of using str for grapple. Forget about weapon finesse. It's due to my size and the cmb rules.
When the white witch archetype attempts to swap str for int. I think it fails as there is no str in the equation.
The better wording for whw would have been "you may use int instead of the governing attribute"
FTFY
That's essentially what the conclusion has been, so far as I'm seeing. The archetypes, feats, spells, and other content pieces are written with the assumption that the PCs are either Small- or Medium-sized, because most of the time* they are. Wording like "Use [stat] instead of Strength for [purpose]" is also operating under that assumption.
There are cases where the literal word-for-word reading of the rule, ability, etc is not the way it should work all of the time. This is one of those.
* Assuming PFS games, modules, and some arbitrary percentage of homebrew games. As with most things, YMMV.
How is any this different from a character removing one hand from a 2 handed weapon to cast, then putting that hand back on the weapon to threaten AoOs?
Feauce wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
Let's say I have Slashing Grace and Quick Draw, and I'm using a quickdraw shield. Could I take a free action to put away the shield, make my attacks with Slashing Grace active (because my hand is now free), and then free action don the shield again? Perhaps less drastically, without the Quick Draw feat could I make my attacks then don my shield as a swift, then put it away at the start of next round before making my attacks again?
With both a Quickdraw Shield and the Quick Draw feat, I would say you'd be able to do both as a free action, not as a swift. The Quickdraw Shield description is quite clear on that point. I think this is the correct mechanical effect, for the same reason that you can be wielding a two-handed weapon, cast a spell, then make an attack of opportunity with your weapon.
Where I would have issues is if you tried to claim that you could pull your shield back out and stow it again during your attacks. For instance, if someone readied an action to shoot an arrow at you when you attacked their ally, you wouldn't get the shield's AC bonus.
It isn't. That's been covered, as well as the "I'm going to don and stow my shield between every action because it's a free action, and the rules say I can" ridiculousness.
Not specifically calling you out, Java, but people in general seem intent on not reading the thread before they post.
I'd call this an exploit of the turn system, like closing your eyes during your turn to avoid mirror image but then opening them again so you're not flatfooted during enemy turns.
This is effectively blinding yourself temporarily, making all of your attacks as if your opponent is invisible. Thus, you would have a 50% miss chance on every swing. Yes, you would avoid the mirror image effect, but that's not exactly an improvement.
ryric wrote:
Everything is actually happening at once, and we have to use turns to make any sense of it, but it isn't like your character is making his attacks and then sitting around doing nothing while the enemies go. If you're not using your shield during your attacks, you don't have it during your opponent's attacks either.
Mechanically, your turn's actions are self-contained. Yes, they're all happening in relatively quick sequence in the same span of 6-ish seconds, but you don't miss your attacks on your action just because your opponent is going to be moving 15 feet on their turn.
There's logic that helps the game make sense, and there's logic that serves to undermine the mechanics. It's not hard to tell which one this is. According to the rules (this is the Rules Questions subforum, after all), this isn't an exploit, it's the stated purpose for taking such a combination of shield and feat.
So, I've been contemplating a character who enters Devoted Muse through Rostland Bravo, due to the latter's access to swift action feints.
This, of course, requires you to delay entry until 7th level Bravo, making 8th your first level of Muse. Unless, of course, I've completely misread something. That's possible.
Sayt wrote:
I've also been giving some strong consideration to taking Sirian's Masterstroke on Rostland Bravo because, well, it synergises well with Rostland bravo.
It's only once per round, and you have to successfully feint against the opponent in the same round, but otherwise, I agree. It's quite a nice setup you've got going.
Sayt wrote:
However I'm not sure whether Sirian's Masterstroke plays well with the Devoted Muse's Harmonius Strike-Deadly Strike. Is it insufficiently different to not work, or does the die-size scaling, panache spending requirement, and activation requirement make it a thing of it's own kind?
I'm honestly not sure off the top of my head, because I don't play swashbucklers. But let's find out!
Sweeping Wind Feint (Ex) wrote:
At 7th level, the Rostland bravo masters an exotic feinting style, tossing her blade to the other hand and performing a sweeping attack or upward slash before the opponent reacts. Once per round, she can spend 1 point of panache to attempt a feint as a swift action.
You need a panache point to start the whole thing off. This ability apparently uses your dueling sword to perform the feint, which is important for the Masterstroke feat.
Artistic Flourish (Su) wrote:
At 2nd level, when a devoted muse has at least 1 panache point and successfully feints against an opponent in combat, instead of denying the opponent its Dexterity bonus, she can instead create one of the following effects (all of which are mind-affecting effects). A creature can be affected by only one such effect at a time, and imposing a second effect immediately ends the first. The DC of any saving throws to resist these effects is equal to 10 + the devoted muse’s class level + her Charisma modifier.
The Artistic Flourish must be active to trigger Harmonious Strike. Thankfully, the Flourish doesn't care how you feinted, just as long as you're successful. If they resist the effects, however, then you're out of luck.
You need to spend a point to trigger the swift Bravo feint, but all the Flourish needs is a point of panache in reserve before it goes off, not to remain in effect. If you spend your last one on Deadly Strike during the attack, you'll still be fine.
Harmonious Strike (Su) wrote:
At 2nd level, when a devoted muse hits a creature affected by her artistic flourish ability, she can spend 1 panache point to perform an especially elegant attack. She selects one of the effects below to modify this harmonious strike.
Deadly Strike wrote:
The attack deals an additional 1d4 points of damage. This extra damage increases by 1d4 every 2 devoted muse levels after 2nd level (maximum 5d4). This is precision damage and isn’t multiplied on a critical hit. If her weapon’s critical multiplier is ×3, the size of these bonus damage dice increases by one step to 1d6. If her weapon’s critical hit multiplier is ×4, the die size increases to 1d8.
Once they're affected by your Flourish, you can spend a panache to deal bonus damage. Deadly Strike doesn't say that it's precision damage, so it will stack with the Masterstroke.
Serren's Masterstroke (Combat) wrote:
Once per round when you hit a foe you have successfully feinted against via a melee attack using an Aldori dueling sword, you deal an extra 2d6 points of precision damage. When your base attack bonus reaches +11, this damage bonus increases to +3d6, and at base attack bonus +16, it increases to +4d6. This precision damage does not stack with damage from sneak attack, a vigilante’s sudden strike, or similar effects. Any effect which protects against sneak attack damage also protects against this additional damage.
Errata wrote:
Serren's Masterstroke functions against opponents that you have successfully feinted against via a melee attack on the same round.
Once you have feinted, on your next attack that round, you can trigger the Masterstroke for bonus damage. If you have panache left, you can also trigger Deadly Strike for more.
So yes, it looks like everything works the way you thought it would. Going through this stuff has gotten me wanting to play a swashbuckler, to boot. :)
I'm building an encounter for my PCs, and I found this feat I want to use: Eclipse Strike (Inner Sea Races).
The only problem is that it doesn't tell me what kind of attack roll it uses (touch, with weapon, etc.). It also brings up that it requires a remaining use of the Tiefling Darkness SLA (without spending it), so now I'm also wondering if the ability granted by the feat should be magical in nature (maybe Supernatural so it doesn't provoke?).
Edit: feat text here:
** spoiler omitted **
Thoughts and input appreciated, thanks.
Let me start off by saying that I think that's a really cool idea.
Eclipse Strike wrote:
You can attack with an eclipse strike as a standard action if you and an ally who also has this feat are both flanking the target. You and your ally must both have at least one use of your darkness racial spell-like ability available to make this attack. If your eclipse strike hits, your target is blinded for 1 round. Creatures that have the see in darkness ability are immune to the blindness that is caused by an eclipse strike.
Going through the highlights in order.
The attack would be with whatever weapon the characters are using to make the attack, but it requires flanking, so they would have to be using a weapon they can flank with.
Both characters need to both have the feat and also have flanking against the target. This is quite restrictive, so granting an opportunity attack against it is way too much. This is, of course, assuming the attack being used (such as unarmed without Improved Unarmed Strike) doesn't grant one, in which case... tough luck?
The feat specifically calls out the darkness spell-like ability, so if the tiefling in question has an alternate bloodline or ability that replaces it, they can't even take the feat in the first place.
The blindness only lasts for one round, and doesn't say that it stacks with itself, so having the second tiefling use the feat once the target is blinded would be a waste. Also, anyone with Darkvision is not automatically immune unless they also have See In Darkness. A character or creature with Blindsense, Tremorsense, or something similar would still be blinded, but that would be largely irrelevant.
Not sure what level the encounter is supposed to be, but both tieflings should have at least one die of Sneak Attack to make the most of the flanking requirement and the feat's blindness.
I'm interested to hear how the encounter plays out. :)
Let's say I have Slashing Grace and Quick Draw, and I'm using a quickdraw shield. Could I take a free action to put away the shield, make my attacks with Slashing Grace active (because my hand is now free), and then free action don the shield again? Perhaps less drastically, without the Quick Draw feat could I make my attacks then don my shield as a swift, then put it away at the start of next round before making my attacks again?
With both a Quickdraw Shield and the Quick Draw feat, I would say you'd be able to do both as a free action, not as a swift. The Quickdraw Shield description is quite clear on that point. I think this is the correct mechanical effect, for the same reason that you can be wielding a two-handed weapon, cast a spell, then make an attack of opportunity with your weapon.
Where I would have issues is if you tried to claim that you could pull your shield back out and stow it again during your attacks. For instance, if someone readied an action to shoot an arrow at you when you attacked their ally, you wouldn't get the shield's AC bonus.
Alternatively, if you wished to, I would call for a Dexterity check to draw your shield (DC 12 to 15), but you wouldn't be able to stow it again before finishing your attacks for the round. In effect, you would have to choose between the AC bonus and your remaining Slashing Grace. If the Dexterity check fails, it means you dropped your shield in your square and would need to pick it up before you could use it again.
FedoraFerret wrote:
Similarly, it's very clear from the FAQ ruling that Slashing Grace and Spell Combat are incompatible... but what about Slashing Grace and Spellstrike? To cast a spell with somatic components, you must be using your off hand. But the attack you make from casting that spell is a different action, a free action you can take at any other point in the turn.
Spell Combat explicitly states that it behaves like Two-Weapon Fighting, which means your off-hand is occupied. Slashing Grace requires your off-hand to not be occupied. This part is pretty straight-forward.
Spellstrike is something else entirely. Casting the spell requires a free hand, as does Slashing Grace, so you should be okay there. The fact that you're getting a melee attack as part of the spell is irrelevant; the ability does not treat your casting hand as being occupied, so you still would get the benefits of Slashing Grace.
FedoraFerret wrote:
Or, for the simplest and yet most obvious of questions, what if I slide down a rope with my off hand, land on the ground, release the rope, and then Slashing Grace attack?
A classic stunt, and releasing the rope is easily part of landing on the ground if that's how you want to land. I see no problems here.
FedoraFerret wrote:
The crux of my question is, at what point does your other hand have to be "free and unoccupied:" for the entire round, or just when taking the actual actions involved in attacking?
It must be free while you're attacking. This includes attacks of opportunity, by the way. If you're planning on having your shield equipped while you're not actively attacking, you don't get Slashing Grace on opportunity attacks.
A Ring of Force Shield, since you can change its state at will as a free action, should allow you to have that hand "free and unoccupied" whenever you wish, multiple times per round. It's described as having no weight or encumbrance, so your GM might decide to just give it to you. The way the activation is described, you can swap it on and off at the speed of thought, so that would seem to be the best option for having a constant shield bonus and still getting the free hand you need for Slashing Grace.
at level 4 (not usefull here) and level 8 you can replace a bonus feat by another one that you now fulfill the requirements.
so you could replace bonus feat of fighter 1, 2 or 4 by an other AWT
if you take a dip in a class that counts as fighter for prerequisites, you could use the retrain from fighter level 4
Why do you think you need a dip into another class? That's completely unnecessary.
At 4th level, the Weapon Master qualifies for the Advanced Weapon Training feat, so you could swap the 2nd-level bonus feat for that as of 4th level, as long as the 2nd-level feat wasn't a prerequisite for something. At 8th level, you could do the same with the 1st-level feat if you wanted to. Neither of these retraining options would cost anything, because they're built into the class.
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
If I have all that straight, a Weapon Master build can run like this:
...taking AWT in every bonus feat slot as well one general slot at 5th (with the next general slot kosher for AWT at 11th), correct?
Followed by 15th, because you have three sets of 5 fighter levels. Your level 19 feat you could retrain once you hit 20th. This retraining would cost 1,000 GP (10 * Lv 20 * 5 days for a feat).
I agree with the minute per animal, but for some action drama, I would treat it as a sunder attempt on the attached harness. So like just cut the rope (and don't roll a 1 or you hit the horse hehe)
The estimate of a minute was based on trying to undo the animals from the vehicle in a quick, but non-destructive way, not just cutting the straps. That method would simply take however many sunder actions it would take to cut the restraints (two per animal). That would be a good time to have an adamantine dagger or handaxe.
I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but there is an example of an NPC from Rise of the Runelords who is specifically mentioned as using lesser restoration to avoid the consequences of sleeping.
** spoiler omitted **
This seems to imply that in Pathfinder you can greatly reduce or eliminate the need to sleep.
True, but this doesn't imply that it's healthy to do so. In fact, given the statement that it's a recent development, that seems to imply that it absolutely isn't. Otherwise, such a character could have been doing so for a long time if there were no negative side effects. That, of course, is up to the GM, but even non-spellcasters shouldn't be able to ignore sleep for no reason.
Komoda wrote:
If you can ignore breathing and eating with special skills/abilities, why couldn't you ignore sleeping with special skills/abilities?
You can. Most abilities, like the Restoration spells, don't care about that and simply remove the fatigued condition. Other abilities, like Keep Watch, allow you to get the benefits of sleep without having to be unconscious. A paladin's fatigued mercy only fixes the condition for an hour if it was caused by something that's still affecting you, so that specific ability is not going to cut it.
A question regarding the AWT option Weapon Specialist (ex): The fighter selects a number of combat feats that he knows equal to his weapon training bonus with the associated weapon group. The selected feats must be ones that require the fighter to choose a type of weapon (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization), and the fighter must have chosen weapons that belong to the associated fighter weapon group. The fighter is treated as having the selected feats for all the weapons in the associated weapon group that are legal choices for those feats. The fighter is also considered to have those feats with these weapons for the purpose of meeting prerequisites.
Assuming that your natural weapon training bonus is +2 for being a 9th-level fighter, having picked the Thrown group. The increase to previous groups is not dependent upon taking a new group; that is a separate sentence, and a separate effect. With the Gloves of Dueling, your Thrown bonus is considered to be +4.
Weapon Training wrote:
Every four levels thereafter (9th*, 13th, and 17th), a fighter becomes further trained in another group of weapons. He gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when using a weapon from this group. In addition, the bonuses granted by previous weapon groups increase by +1 each.
...
Beginning at 9th level, instead of selecting an additional fighter weapon group, a fighter can choose an advanced weapon training option for one fighter weapon group that he previously selected with the weapon training class feature.
Gloves of Dueling wrote:
If the wearer has the weapon training class feature and is using an appropriate weapon, her weapon training bonus increases by +2.
So, for using Thrown weapons, while using the Gloves, you would have four feats that you can pick. If you take the Gloves off, or they are broken or taken, you're back to your base of two feats. In fact, you would only be considered to have those bonus feats while wielding a Thrown weapon, because of how the Gloves are worded. Having one on your person would not be enough, it would need to be in-hand for the additional bonus and feats to count.
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
1) I note that the text here does not contain wording to the effect that the desired feats, once chosen, cannot be changed. -- Was it your intention with Weapon Specialist that the fighter be able to freely choose at any time which of his feats were applicable?
The feats selected you would need to specify, in order, and once you've picked them, they don't change. So taking the Gloves off and putting them back on doesn't let you pick different feats for the additional +2 they offer. It isn't specifically stated with advanced weapon training, but abilities that grant feats where that list may grow or shrink (such as based on an ability score bonus) have always worked this way.
If you pay to retrain the Weapon Specialist choice, then you could choose new feats.
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
2) Is the fighter required to maintain prerequisites with the chosen feats when selecting one to apply via Weapon Specialist to another weapon in the WT group?
You are always required to maintain prerequisites, unless the specific ability says you're allowed to ignore them. The wording is a tad strange, but Weapon Specialist is saying that you still need the prerequisites for every feat you pick.
The feats apply to all weapons in the group that are "legal choices for those feats." Thus, to apply Weapon Focus to an entire group, you must be proficient with every weapon in that group; any weapon you aren't proficient with does not get the benefit, though the rest of the weapon group does.
Furthermore, these feats must be feats you already have. If you retrain them away, you lose the benefit, because you no longer have the feat to apply to the weapon group.
For example, if you have Exotic Proficiency (Shuriken), and pick that as a feat to apply to the entire Thrown group, that gets you proficiency with the Aklys, Bolas, Boomerang, Halfling Sling Staff (assuming you aren't a halfling), Harpoon, Lasso, Kestros, Net, etc, etc, etc. This would allow you to then take Weapon Focus and apply it to every weapon in the group, because you would be proficient with them all.
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
For example, our stalwart hero Shuriken-chuckin' Sam is placed under arrest and his favorite weapons and Gloves of Dueling are confiscated. With a now-reduced and meager WT+2 bonus to his "Thrown" group, Sam wants to select his feat Close-Quarters Thrower (sans its Weapon Focus prerequisite, currently tied to shurikens) to apply to whatever he finds in the prison commissary.
FTFY
You could pick Close-Quarters Thrower as one of your feats to apply to the whole group, but it would only apply to those you have Weapon Focus with, and by extension, are proficient with. You would also need to have chosen that feat ahead of time; you wouldn't be able to change it just because your modifier went down. Thus, Weapon Focus would need to be your pick for +1, then Close-Quarters Thrower at +2, followed by whatever you like for +3 and +4 (personally speaking, I would go for Weapon Specialization at +3 and Greater Weapon Focus at +4).
You also haven't address that this isn't a +1 full plate. It is a custom item in the named item section and a number of sources say you can't enhance those to be magical. For example to make +1 elven chain in herolab you need the community package because back channel Paizo tells them you can't have a +1 elven chain item, so you can't in Herolab.
A number of unofficial sources. The official PF account is where official stuff comes from, and they have been mum.
As to Herolab, they are known to be conservative. They are also not an official source. Citing them proves nothing.
Not to mention, magical elven chain is a classic item from the TSR days. Based on the posts thus far, it looks like J.R. is firmly in the "the book doesn't specifically say you can, so you can't, period" crowd, except that the books do tell you that you can enhance existing items (SRD Link: See the Upgrading Items section). Obviously elven chain is able to be enhanced, and since the topic is brought up, here's the math for elven chain (so far as I can figure).
Normal mithral chainmail: 150 GP base armor + 4,000 GP for mithral medium armor, making the total market price 4,150 GP. This item is treated as medium armor for proficiency, but light armor in all other ways.
Elven Chain: 5,150 GP market price, but is treated in all ways (including proficiency) as light armor. Obviously it's better than mere mithral chainmail, but where does the difference of 1,000 GP come from? In my estimation, it comes from the fact that light mithral armor costs 1,000 GP, so adding that to standard mithral chainmail makes it truly light armor.
The heavy equivalent (elven plate), using this logic, would cost thus: 1,500 GP for base armor + 9,000 GP for mithral heavy armor + 4,000 GP for mithral medium armor, making the total market price 14,500 GP. Almost on par price-wise with adamantine full-plate, but it gets treated in all ways as medium armor instead of heavy. That seems fair to me.
I would love to hear a designer's feedback on the above pricing, just to satisfy my own curiosity if that was truly their thought process, as well as if the plate example would be considered balanced by the devs.
Cevah wrote:
The Darkwood Buckler is not a buckler shield. If it were, it would cost 2 gp more.
/cevah
Nobody except the item itself was calling it a buckler. It's nothing more than a light wooden shield made of darkwood, albeit with an odd name.
I think it comes down to a difference of expectations. The "need sleep" crowd sees sleep as a part of the human condition, so of course nothing you do can dodge it.
The "no sleep" crowd says that at some level you transcend mere human limitations. Hercules could probably fight for 100 nights straight.
Hercules wasn't purely human, but a half-celestial. So he doesn't count. ;)
A mercy can remove a condition caused by a curse, disease, or poison without curing the affliction. Such conditions return after 1 hour unless the mercy actually removes the affliction that causes the condition.
I don't think not sleeping is a curse poison, or disease.
FTFY
I don't think those are the only items on the strict list of things that return if the underlying condition isn't taken care of, either. The part you quoted (strategically leaving out the important bit) is descriptive text. The mechanical effect (which you omitted) is the important part.
The actual cause (being sleep-deprived) is not addressed by a paladin's mercy, only the fatigued condition it causes. You haven't fixed being sleep-deprived, so after an hour, you would be fatigued again.
Again, other ways of removing fatigue (such as the previously mentioned Restoration spells) would be a more lasting remedy. A paladin's mercy would not be, because you're doing nothing about what's causing you to be fatigued in the first place.
Obviously at your table you're free to play it however you want. The way the rules for that specific ability are written, however, this is how it would work.
A creature awake but in "restful calm" could still keep watch, much better than a sleeping character could.
The term "restful calm" makes me think of one being in a relaxed state, not moving much, and not doing much of anything either. Not even being so active as reading a book.
A character keeping watch would have to be moving around, looking for hostile creatures and other dangers, and otherwise not being "restful". If that were an option, then the aptly named Keep Watch spell would have absolutely no use.
From a POV of "this just happened, I need to rule at the table", I'd say a minute per animal, or maybe per pair, depending on how they're hitched.
If they want to do it faster, a Handle Animal or appropriate Profession check, or maybe Sleight of Hands. For every 5 they beat a reasonable DC, it speeds them up by a round. Maximum benefit of cutting the overall time in half.
Read CMB in the combat section of the CRB (or on PRD). Tiny or smaller creatures use Dex, which is the basis of the OP's question.
Thank you. I stand corrected.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Weapon Finesse, as aside, has no effect on CMB, as far as I know (it might apply to maneuvers made with weapons subject to weapon finesse). Agile Maneuvers is the equivelent feat for CMB.
Weapon Finesse does indeed apply to maneuvers made using appropriate weapons. You would, of course, need Agile Maneuvers for the rest.
Ferious Thune wrote:
Hmm... looking at it again, I'm not sure. You may be correct. The part about using Dexterity modifier in place of Strength is actually in the section for determining CMB. So a PC might actually get that when they become tiny.
The part that's unclear to me is if you'd get the Dexterity replacement if you simply become Tiny or smaller, or if you would need to naturally be Tiny or smaller.
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks. These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses.
The wording isn't really clear if that means as appropriate to their type (melee vs ranged), appropriate to your new size, or both.
I've thought of this idea for an alchemist archetype. I haven't flushed it out completely yet, but he is what I have so far. It is a healing bomb alchemist.
Basically the alchemist bombs instead of doing damage they heal. So a direct hit at first level is 1D6 plus the alchemist intelligence modifier healing, and the splash healing is 1 + int mod. Every other level a D6 is added to the healing. There's no way for the bombs cause damage, they can only heal. The second thing I replace is poison use, and in exchange for that it gives the infusion discovery for free.
What do others think this idea, and maybe to help flesh out more of the archetype.
Earlier this week I was reading on the forms in a general discussion thread, about a player who proposed a fighter who acted like a paladin but was not technically a paladin. But did obey the paladin code, and one posters mentioned how they were not satisfied with characters walking around literally stating their class in the case of divine casters, like clerics, inquisitors, paladins, oracles, warpriests. And they posted a couple of name suggestions that a character would actually identify themselves in game world as. And that got me thinking, in "Inner sea Gods" it is mentioned that inquisitors of Abadar are are given the name "Taxmasters" why is only his inquisitors given a special name. Maybe we could come up with names for the paladins of the different gods the clerics of the different gods and so on through the divine spell casters. Anyone have suggestions?
Last week I was at my FLG for a society game and one of the players mentioned in conversation that according to him, gunslingers could craft firearms. I'm pretty sure he's wrong on that and I couldn't find anything on any form that supported his claim, I know gunslingers can purchase ammunition at the same price as though they had crafted it. But they still have to pay full price for guns. Could anyone tell me if I just missed something obscure that he caught, because I do play a gunslinger myself and finding a way of getting guns cheaper would be a great help.
I am playing a Chelaxian Beast Rider Cavalier, and I'm at the point that I get a Dinosaur. I picked a Triceratops, I'm looking for a good Chelaxian name for her, any suggestions?
I have just finished Drew Hayes novel NPC's and I liked it and I am inspired to create characters based on the book. the general story is that of a group of NPC's in a tabletop game are forced to take on the personas of a group of particularly stupid and violent PC's in order to save their town from the king's wrath.
characters:
most of them are no problem.
Eric the human guard turned rogue, Gabrielle the human mayor's daughter who is also a barbarian, and Grumph the half-orc bartender who takes up wizarding as it is easier to remember spells than his cocktail recipes.
The one problem is Thistle the gnome Paladin of Grumble the god of minions. the he needs are he is a worshiper of a lawful neutral god, so a paladin code for minions would help, but mainly it is his build. just using paizo material and he needs to be a gnome, and needs to use throwing daggers as his primary weapons, and needs to be a paladin.
if any has idea's for this It would be appreciated.
I was having a discussion with another player and ability score changes affection spells came up. here is the sanario. a Alchemist with a intelligence score of say 14 makes a extract of cure light wounds. later that day due to a curse the alchemist now has a intelligence score of say 9, is the extract of cure light wounds still usable or is it inert? I say it is still useable because the extract is based on the Alchemist's score and level at the time of its creation, the other player stance is that it is unuseable. who is right?
Due to the closing of the regular store and players moving, out the Lowell Massachusetts players of Pathfinder Society are low. We have enough regular players and GM's for most nights, but if for some reason a player needs to drop out we can't play. So we need more players. We play every Monday night at Electronic Horizon, if you are interested in playing sign in at warhorn.net
https://warhorn.net/events/boston-pfs.
Electronic Horizon is located at 850 Lawrence St. Lowell, MA.
I've had this idea of additional rules regarding natural 1 rolls with weapons.
for melee weapons it would be that the character or monster had swung or trusted their weapon badly and they've thrown themselves out of position opening them up for a attack of opportunity. I've actually used this rule in a game and it worked out pretty well and enjoyed by the players as I applied it on them and on opponents, one of them successfully getting a kill this way.
range weapons would be more complicated as the results would have to change based on the weapon. Here are some ideas
for bows and crossbows the string broke and it will take a move action to retie it.
for a blowgun or the poison sand tube the character accidentally inhaled instead of exhaled and they have to use a move action to pull the dart out.
for throwing weapon such as daggers javelins shuriken's and thrown weapons that use a sling such as the amentum the character dropped the item and it landed on there foot doing a 1d2 to 1d4 of damage.
for entangling thrown weapons such as the bolas, lasso, or a net the weapon wrapped around the characters arm and they'll have to spend a move action to get it off or take a penalty on attack rolls.
and for the tube arrow shooter it would mean the spring fell out of place and I'll take a move action to realign.
thrown splash weapons and firearms already have rules for a 1 so there's no need to add to them.
I have not tried anything for ranged weapons and I'd like to hear what the rest of you think of these ideas, come up with your own, or if you think any changes to them should be needed.
I am a new player running a Reanimator Alchemist I am nearing 7th level an want clarification on some of the points of lesser animate dead.
first I am already am aware that I can have only 1 zombie or skeleton, and that it goes away at the end of the game.
The first question is in regard to the onix gem. do I need to buy different value gems for different hit dice such as a 25 gp gem for a 1 hit dice creature and a 50 gp gem for a 2 hit dice creature or that I can instead combine 2 25 gp gem's for 2 hit dice? I ask this because of the way the alchemist spell system works is in creating extract's.
The second is in regards to using this on other players, the first part is I know I need to make sure they're okay with me doing this, but the idea I had was that if a player's character would die during a game I could use animate dead to create a creature that I could then give to the player to control so they could keep playing till the end of the game, at which point if they have enough money or prestige they could get raise dead applied to that character.
The third and final is a possible walk-through on how to create already completed templates so that I don't bog the game down during the creation of the creature.
I am new to Pathfinder, I have been playing for about six months now and have enjoyed it. I wish to try being a GM. I have an idea for a long campaign that I have already asked for advice here http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvfo?New-GM-looking-for-advice-on-a-Pathfinder .
I realize that before I try a long campaign I should try some shorter stuff just to learn how to be a good GM. Any good recommendations for shorter level 1 adventures or modules.
I am new to tabletop RPG's. I have been playing some Pathfinder recently on roll20 and I have enjoyed it quite a lot. But I'd also like to try being a GM. I don't want to run a standard cookie-cutter hero save the kingdom story. I came up with this idea for a campaign to run either on roll20 or IRL. It's an evil PC only campaign, the players would start off as a dirt poor street gang in a medieval high fantasy version of the fictional city of Roanapur from Black Lagoon. the players goal would be to build up a criminal syndicate and drive out all of their rivals for control of the city. as the players become more more successful they'd be able to create NPC lieutenants that would serve to run aspects of the organization such as drug manufacturing and distribution or prostitution. these divisions would also allow players to have a new character already if the character their playing is killed. I would also have them have a illegal weapons running which is how they would get most of their more powerful items and magic weapons. With the advantage of this being that the players would eventually have large amounts of gold to be able to just buy out right magical items. as the players become more more successful they would be attacked by other mobs and because the city is carefully balanced by the four pre-existing organized crime groups the city would plunge more and more into chaos, until eventually the players drive out or kill all the competition.
I'm looking for general advice on all facets general GM advice, story and campaign creation advice, and is running an evil campaign is even a good idea.
I've attempted this in the past, but with summer here I figured I'd give it another try I'm looking for either a group to join or create to play tabletop RPG's in the Middlesex County Massachusetts area, I myself currently have all the supplies needed to run D&D 4e, D&D Next, Pathfinder, Shdowrun 4e, and a Call of Cthulhu variant called The Laundry. Post on this form or send me a private message if you wish to join and I will look for a place for us to play and I will be posting updates on this form.
