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

Gauss's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 6,163 posts (6,171 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 384 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

All of the debate regarding whether or not Mithral Celestial Plate Armor is RAW or not is flawed in that Celestial Plate Armor cannot be Pathfinder RAW to begin with.

This is because Celestial Plate Armor is from a 3.5 Paizo publication and not a Pathfinder Paizo publication. Thus, it is not part of the Pathfinder game and cannot be RAW for Pathfinder.

Of course, a GM may grant permission to use it but that would be GM fiat. At that point whether or not the GM decides you can apply Mithral to it is also GM fiat since it is a 3.5 item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lets be clear, here:

Aid Another does NOT require you to threaten the enemy. People really need to stop stating this. There is nothing in the rule that states you must threaten the enemy.
What it does state is that you need to be able to make a melee attack against the enemy. That is a very important distinction because there is a rules difference between threatening and being able to make a melee attack.

CRB p197 wrote:
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

Now, with that said there is a long debate over whether or not you must still apply the 'be able to make a melee attack against the enemy' clause of Aid Another.

The author of the feat has stated that his intent was that you do not need to be able to make a melee attack but that the RAW is that you do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ACG p153 wrote:

Pack Flanking (Teamwork)

You and your companion creature are adept at fighting together against foes.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, ability to acquire an animal companion.
Benefit: When you and your companion creature have this feat, your companion creature is adjacent to you or sharing your square, and you both threaten the same opponent, you are considered to be flanking that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.

Is it the intent that Druids and Rangers are unable to use this feat?

It appears there is no way for an Animal Companion to qualify for this feat and thus only classes that grant teamwork feats to allies (like Cavaliers) or do not need an ally to have a teamwork feat (like Inquisitors) can make use of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Under A Bleeding Sun, you may want to check again, it is a spell-like ability (sp) and thus provokes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just think of it as 1 hp per level with a minimum of 3 hps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Yes, and you add the weapon's attack modifiers (such as enhancement bonuses and feats) to the maneuver.
2) Yes, but you are not using your weapon at that point.
3) See #1
4) No, you cannot use a reach weapon against adjacent enemies (barring a special ability)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Full-Round action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To clarify, I stated negative energy "effects" which is not the same as negative energy "damage". Negative Energy Damage is only one type of negative energy effect and negative energy damage is almost universally stated to heal undead.

I cannot think of a single instance where negative energy damage does not heal undead.

On the other hand, negative energy effects (which is what the OP asked about) is a broad category that as a category does not automatically heal undead.

In short, there is no debate. Negative Energy Damage heals undead, Negative Energy Effects does not automatically do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Animated Objects are constructs and thus, are not objects. Because they are constructs they are creatures.

The quote on page 175 states that animated objects are not treated as objects (for the purposes of AC).

Note: If you are referencing the critical hits section of text where it states that Animated Objects are immune to critical hits then you are using an older version of the CRB and should consider updating your copy. It is no longer present.

In any case, no, you do not apply the 1/2 damage rule to creatures because creatures are not objects.

Here is James Jacobs on the topic


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Val'bryn2, your assumption is flawed. If the Devs had insufficient room to print (which they often do) they would cut it short at a point they consider "reasonable".

How many creatures in the Bestiary would exceed 28HD if turned into zombies?

Answer: Most Ancient and older Dragons, Tarn Linnorm, Black Scorpion, and the Tarrasque. Ie. a very short list and not reason enough for the Devs to extend the list.

Add to that that if they did want to limit what you can animate with Animate Dead all they had to do is add a phrase similar to what they used in the Skeleton.

Compare these two:

Bestiary p250 Skeleton wrote:
Hit Dice: A skeleton drops any HD gained from class levels and changes racial HD to d8s. Creatures without racial HD are treated as if they have 1 racial HD. If the creature has more than 20 Hit Dice, it can’t be made into a skeleton by the animate dead spell. A skeleton uses its Cha modifier (instead of its Con modifier) to determine bonus hit points.
Bestiary p288 Zombie wrote:
Hit Dice: Drop HD gained from class levels (minimum of 1) and change racial HD to d8s. Zombies gain a number of additional HD as noted on the following table.

No such statement is present in the zombie entry.

So, using your assumption that if the Devs did not put it there then it must not exist then we can assume that since the Devs did not put a limit there but they did put one in the Skeleton entry then there is no limit for zombies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Val'bryn2, that table is for the purposes of calculating CR and XP. It has no bearing on what, if any, the maximum HD of a zombie is. All it shows is that a 29HD zombie has no known CR and XP (although as you said, it could be extrapolated).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

beej67, since the BMI is a fantasy using it in your fantasy world sounds about right. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This should fall under the Dirty Trick combat maneuver although that is usually a melee attack rather than a ranged attack.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

James, you cannot perform an AoO on any creature that has total concealment. Pinpointing an invisible creature does not negate the total concealment.

CRB p197 wrote:

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a point here, the pro-slope arguments are missing the fact that you have to be ON the slope. That is written into the rule.

The slope only exists around the 10x10 pit. The 10x10 pit is not a slope, it is a sheer wall and as such if the pit is opened up underneath a target they cannot use the climb-slope rule.

For targets adjacent to the pit then, yes, you can use the slope rule.

Summary: you have to be on the slope to use the climb skill's slope DC. Adjacent to the slope is not what the rule is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The game is not a simulation of reality. Any comparison to reality will likely fail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Latrecis, so...what about all the other creatures that wield weapons and do not have "wrists, elbows, shoulders, muscle structure, and so forth"? Are they suddenly non-proficient despite all the rules to the contrary?

This is the rules forum, not the house rules forum.

RAW: Earth Elementals are described as roughly humanoid.
RAW: Elementals that are roughly humanoid are proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in their description.

Result: Roughly humanoid elementals can use weapons, only proficiency varies.

Now, if you can find another rule somewhere else that states that you cannot use a Martial weapon even though you can use Simple weapons then please post that.

Proficiency is not relevant to whether you can use it or not and taking away someone's proficiency is inappropriate and any player should cry foul.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a funny note, I don't think "Eric the Cavalier" ever rode a single mount.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is no rule against taking 10 for an opposed check. You can take 10 anytime you are not in immediate danger (such as in combat) or rushed. Stealth vs Perception are both situations you can take 10 in.

Example:
I am cautiously stealthing through a forest so I take 10. In this case Take 10 is because I am taking care to not step on the odd twig etc. (Which would be the result of a low roll.)

The guard is an active guard and is spending a move action every round to scan his surroundings.
He is Taking 10 on his perception checks (taking care to specifically scan the surroundings without skipping over peices but not taking extra time to do so..that would be Take 20).

Both are able to take 10 and it really becomes a matter of who's skill level is greater.

Here is SKR's guidance regarding Take 10 (back when he was a Developer)

In short, he said if they are not in combat or distracted let them take 10.

As an aside, I think some GMs have a problem with take 10 because in their minds it reduces the risk of failure. Im really not sure where they get this.
Perhaps it is because Take 10 removes the element of: "you rolled badly and you are now in a situation where you could have done it carefully but you are going to be screwed, sucks to be you".
Perhaps some GMs want you to have the possibility for a "bad luck" fail while the design of the system is that if you can do something cautiously why should "bad luck" fails come into it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My understanding is that in the context of stealth observed really means "no cover or concealment". If you have 20% concealment then you are "not observed" even if they can see you.

However, like all stealth rules they are written so badly that it is anyone's guess what they really mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok:
1) As others have stated it is whatever the perception check to notice her activites +20. If she is walking that is DC 10+20. Add to that DC any situational modifiers for distance, distraction, etc.

2) Stealth check+20.
Whether she can take 10 is a GM fiat thing but I would say in that situation she can.
You can take 10 anytime you are not in "immediate danger or distracted". Immediate danger is usually considered to be a 'weapons drawn, combat is occuring' type situation. She is also not distracted.

Note: the timeframe is not relevant because Taking 10 does not increase the duration it takes to complete the task. People often confuse Take 10 with Take 20 which does increase the time required.

3) It is a DC 20 check to notice the presence of an invisible creature within 30 feet of you. This does not tell you where it is, it only tells you something is "here".

CRB p563 wrote:
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.

Now, the downside of #3 is that stealth becomes better than invisibility. With Stealth they cannot perform a DC20 perception check to have a hunch that something is around.

Personally, I houserule that if they beat the DC20 invisibility check but not your stealth check without invisibility factored in then they still don't sense your presence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:

It's worse if the Fighter has Step Up or Step Up and Strike, because then he can interrupt with an immediate action and hit the Wizard even if he does cast defensively.

Simple thought experiment: Did the creators really intend anyone to be able to "ready a 5-foot step, if someone tries to attack me". It effectively makes a combat unable to end, if someone just keeps 5-footing away from a martial class. That's Looney Tunes physics.. and absolutely ridiculous at that.

Edit:

Upon further reading, it gets worse for the readied 5-foot action

From old d20 SRD...

"If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round."

@OP:

The player doesn't decide when a readied action goes off: The rules do. If the trigger comes up for the readied action, it goes off. If it doesn't come up, then it doesn't go off. Make the player specifically state what the trigger is. If the readied action trigger never arises, then there is no 5-foot.

Furthermore if it does go off, and if the character does 5-foot in the next round, before his initiative order comes up, then he *cannot move during his next action period*. 5-foot actions, even as a readied action, prohibit all other movement actions taken during that turn by that PC.

As a DM, you are well within your rights to restrict the believable nature of a readied action. The 9 DEX wizard wants to ready an attempt to dodge against a seasoned fighter? Make him roll Acrobatics to actually time it correctly. The barbarian wants to ready an action to end his rage at the end of combat? Roll his wisdom to see if he stops in the middle of his mad foaming rage.

Ultimately I think the rules are a set of guidelines, and as you can see above some min-maxers like to abuse RAW to pump as much as they can out of their characters. In truth you should rule what makes sense based on RAI in these situations. Just because the...

This is the rules forum, not the "physics" forum. In Physics everyone moves together simultaneously not in stop and start fashions such as in Pathfinder.

Pathfinder does not remotely obey real world physics (people can fire muzzleloaders 3 times in one round rather than the real world limit of once every 20 seconds or so, people can swim in plate mail rather than the real world limit of sinking like a stone, etc...).

Now, back to your example...
Lets assume that the Fighter does have Step Up. Sequence is as follows:
1) Wizard readies an action to cast a spell on someone who attacks him. (Nice well defined readied action).
2) Fighter moves 30 and is now adjacent to the wizard.
3) Fighter declares an attack.
4) Wizard's readied action goes off.
5) Wizard 5-foot steps back
6) As an Immediate action Fighter Steps Up
7) Wizard goes: crap! and begins casting Defensively.
8) Fighter does not get an Attack of Opportunity.
9) Wizard hits the fighter with Hold Person instead of Magic Missile (he is not required to specify the spell he is readying, if he did that would make counter-spelling even more useless than it is already).
10) Fighter fails Will save and is unable to attack.
11) Wizard's initiative is now just ahead of the Fighters, and he will act next round before the fighter does.
12) Wizard and Fighter are next to each other, and none of the Fighter's buddies threaten the wizard or did anything to dissuade him from performing coup-de-grace on the fighter with the (readied) Heavy Pick that he keeps in his hand for just such occasions. Although the Fighter survives the critical hit he fails the DC24 (average damage) fort save. Enjoy. :)

This is EXACTLY how it works in RAW. If you think otherwise please cite specific rules that states how it does not.

Also, could you cite where it states that 5-foot steps taken during Step Up or a Readied action prohibit movement in the next round?
5-foot steps taken as part of a Readied Action do not in any way affect your movement in the future.
5-foot steps taken as part of Step Up only reduce your speed next turn and prevent you from taking a 5-foot step next turn. A 5-foot step does not prevent you from moving.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Readied actions may be taken after your turn but before your next turn has begun.

So what does that mean? It means that there is a limit to how long the readied action may be taken after you ready an action.

What does it not mean? It does not mean that the Readied Action is not your turn.
When you perform a readied action your initiative count moves to when you took the readied action. In effect, it is now your turn.

As Cuttler stated, it is semantics but people should not state that Mromson is wrong when he got it right.

In this post Mromson listed off the occassions you can take a 5-foot step as a way of demonstrating his newfound understanding of the rules. One person appears to have decided that Mromson was "wrong" because of the semantic of "is a readied action on your turn or on their turn?". It doesn't matter.

Remy Balster, no, I do not agree with you beating up someone who got it right over a semantic argument of "is a readied action your turn or their turn". He had all the occasions of when you can take a 5-foot step correct and you chose to argue a point of semantics.

Yes, I posted that early in the thread because it is a simple way of saying it not because it is semantically correct or not. Readied action is your turn. Readied action is not your turn. Who cares? It was a point of semantics and yet over that point you chose to tell a guy he is wrong when he is 99% correct just to...what? Prove your intellectual superiority in arguing semantics?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taku Ooka Nin, there is already a balance for item creation. +25% WBL.

Ultimate Campaign p173 wrote:

You can take advantage of the item creation rules to handcraft most or all of your magic items. Because you’ve spent gp equal to only half the price of these items, you could end up with more gear than what the Character Wealth by Level table (Core Rulebook 399) suggests for you. This is especially the case if you’re a new character starting above 1st level or one with the versatile Craft Wondrous Item feat. With these advantages, you can carefully craft optimized gear rather than acquiring GM-selected gear over the course of a campaign. For example, a newly created 4th-level character should have about 6,000 gp worth of gear, but you can craft up to 12,000 gp worth of gear with that much gold, all of it taking place before the character enters the campaign, making the time-cost of crafting irrelevant.

Some GMs might be tempted to reduce the amount or value of the treasure you acquire to offset this and keep your overall wealth in line with the Character Wealth by Level table. Unfortunately, that has the net result of negating the main benefit of crafting magic items— in effect negating your choice of a feat. However, game balance for the default campaign experience expects you and all other PCs to be close to the listed wealth values, so the GM shouldn’t just let you craft double the normal amount of gear. As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair, or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats.

If you are creating items for other characters in the party, the increased wealth for the other characters should come out of your increased allotment. Not only does this prevent you from skewing the wealth by level for everyone in the party, but it encourages other characters to learn item creation feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Golembane Scarab only works with Golems, sorry.

However, it should be relatively easy to use the Golembane Scarab as precedent for a Clockwork Scarab, so long as the type of construct is restricted to a group and not the entire class of constructs. However, it would have to be approved by your GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Peet, I was addressing the limited uses per day issue. Yes, it has an attack roll and that includes all of the other penalties involved but at least it is unlimited use per day. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To my knowledge there has been no ruling, could you cite the ruling?

Either
A) you do need to threaten as per the normal Aid Another rules at which point a ranged weapon does not help.

B) you do not need the threaten as per the normal Aid Another rules at which point it doesn't matter what, if any, weapon is in your hands. All you need to do is be adjacent to your buddy and have an attack of opportunity available.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. The number of natural attacks you have is not based on the number of limbs you have. The person who told you this may have been giving you a simplistic answer.
You normally have as many natural attacks per round as you have natural attacks. While this may seem like circular reasoning it is not. For example, if you have a bite and 2 claws then you have three natural attacks.

Special things like haste can increase the number of attacks you have.
In the above example if you had haste you would have a bite and 2 claws plus your choice of another bite or another claw attack.

What you do not get is extra attacks due to a higher Base Attack Bonus. For example, if you have a Base Attack bonus of 16 (16/11/6/1) and you have a bite and 2 claw attacks you do not have four attacks. You still have only three attacks.

2. Claw blades turn your natural weapons into manufactured weapons. This benefits from things like Two-Weapon Fighting and a higher Base Attack Bonus.
However, you can no longer make 2 claw attacks at your full base attack bonus since they are not natural weapons anymore.

3. Your clawblade is a manufactured weapon and uses iterative attacks. Your natural weapons become secondary natural weapons and take a -5 attack penalty (-2 if you have multiattack).

CRB quote:
CRB p182 wrote:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary) can reduce these penalties.

So in the above example of a bite and 2 claw attacks if you decided to carry a longsword (one handed weapon) and you have a BAB of 16 then the attack sequence would be:
Longsword +16/+11/+6/+1 AND Bite +11 AND (1) Claw +11.

4. No, they are no longer natural weapon <claws>. They are now light weapon <claw blades>. Feats that apply to <claws> do not apply to <claw blades>. However, it might be reasonable to house rule this so you should check with your GM.

5. Magic Fang does not apply to manufactured weapons. You lose the benefit when you put on claw blades.

6. Yes, they are weapons.

In short, the moment you put on claw blades you are using weapons. Treat them as entirely different weapons unless your GM chooses to house-rule it otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There has been a debate regarding this for a long time. There are two possible interpretations.

A) A legal charge is where you draw a line from your square to the target creature's square and must proceed along that line.

B) A legal charge is where you draw a line from your square to any square from which you can attack the target.

"A" makes it so that Ride-by Attack is impossible because you cannot change direction in a charge and you cannot move through the target's square.

SKR has previously stated (when he was a Developer) that B is the correct answer but that is not part of a FAQ or Errata.

Of course, that brings up the definition of "closest space" and, for those that advocate "B", that means that you cannot charge past a creature and attack them from behind. You must attack them from the closest space along the path.

In short, yes, it is legal but I suggest checking with your GM and if he goes with "A" ask how Ride-by Attack works. That usually illustrates the flaw in "A".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was looking around for a feat similar to Planar Wild Shape but for undead. Not finding any I decided to create the following. Please let me know what you think.

Undead Wild Shape (custom feat):
Prerequisite: Wild shape class feature, Evil alignment, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks.

Benefit: When you use Wild Shape to take the form of an animal, you can expend an additional daily use of your wild shape class feature to become a skeleton or zombie animal. Add the following bonuses and penalties to those already gained from Wild Shape:

As with the spell Undead Anatomy, you are treated as undead for the purposes of effects such as detect undead, channeled energy, cure spells, and inflict spells. See the spell Undead Anatomy for details.

Skeleton: +2 Dexterity, Darkvision, DR 5/Bludgeoning, and Cold Resistance 20. Unlike true skeletons you have thin membranes for wings and thus retain an animal's fly speed and maneuverability.

Zombie: +2 Strength, -2 Dexterity, Darkvision, DR 5/Slashing, and the zombie's slam attack. Unlike true zombies you are not staggered and your flying maneuverability is not reduced to clumsy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Detect Magic works against invisibility AFTER 3 rounds of concentration.
Example: you are focusing on a specific area and there is a creature with invisibility cast upon it in that area.
In the first round of concentration you detect that there is magic in the area.
In the second you detect that the number of auras (including the illusion aura from the invisibility spell).
In the third round you locate the aura and determine the type of aura.
Note: The invisible creature can just move out of the area being detected.
Note2: Just because you located the aura does not mean there is an invisible creature. See Player-GM interaction below.

Player: I cast detect magic and focus it straight ahead of me.
GM: You detect something magical in the area.
Player: On my second round I get the number of auras.
GM: There is one aura.
Player: On my third round I know the location of the aura.
GM: There is an aura that is 30' away.
Player: I roll my Knowledge Arcana to determine the aura type. (Success)
GM: The type is illusion.
Player: Huh, do I see what the illusion is on?
GM: Nope
Player: Hrm, could be an invisible creature or it could be an illusion of some sort.
GM: Could be, (rolls perception in secret, players fail). The aura is moving, what is your Flat-footed AC? Oh, he hits. Please make a Fortitude Save.
Player: I roll a 15.
GM: Sorry, you are dead. (The assassin was studying him for the last three rounds.) Everyone else, roll initiative.

A DC20 perception check (within 30 feet) or the special ability scent (easily available to many spellcasters) would have told the player just about the same thing and used a lot less time.

Regarding Constant Detect Magic, there is no text in the constant spell-like ability sections that negates the concentration requirement. Even if you ruled that the concentration requirement is not applicable that does not change that it takes 3 rounds to locate magic auras in a cone. So from the moment you designate the area it still takes 3 rounds.

Bestiary p6 wrote:
Spell-Like Abilities: After listing the caster level of the creature’s spell-like abilities, this section lists all of the creature’s spell-like abilities, organized by how many times per day it can use the abilities. Constant spell-like abilities function at all times but can be dispelled. A creature can reactivate a constant spell-like ability as a swift action.
Bestiary p304 wrote:
A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A constant spell-like ability or one that can be used at will has no use limit; unless otherwise stated, a creature can only use a constant spell-like ability on itself. Reactivating a constant spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.

Summary: While Detect Magic can detect the location of an invisibility spell's illusion aura it takes 3 rounds to do so and that still does not indicate "invisible creature be here". It only indicates "illusion aura be here".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fun part? If you are already under a polymorph effect you are immune to Reduce Person and Baleful Polymorph. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Note: Rope Trick is no longer the safe haven it used to be (you cannot pull the rope up anymore or conceal it via magic). Better find a safe spot to cast Rope Trick in. :)

Regarding verisimilitude, any time you come to the rules forum expect answers that are rules based (RAW or at least RAI). Verisimilitude doesn't really have a place in the RAW/RAI discussion in the Rules forum.

For discussions regarding verisimilitude vs RAW I suggest a different forum (such as the Advice, Pathfinder RPG General Discussion, or the House Rules forums).

The rationale behind my suggestion is that if you know the rule and want to discuss the verisimilitude regarding that rule this is not the forum for that. It seems that after your first post you got your answer and then you chose to continue to debate how the rule *should* work rather than how it actually works.

Of course, some of us entertained that discussion but it may explain why others had a less than positive response. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lets be polite about it Heliodorus04.

I had the same problem as Krinn when I migrated from 3.X to Pathfinder. It took me awhile to learn it was simply easier to handwave an element which most people did not enjoy and that was really geared towards making one ability from one class feel useful. It just wasn't worth it.

If I had a group that wanted to play old style traps I would adjust my style to that one and kill them repeatedly with traps until they remembered why nobody runs old style trap dungeons anymore. (I jest, mostly.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding Plate Mail swimming, there has been a migration away from penalizing it in even 3.X. Back in 3.0 you were penalized for every 5lbs of weight. Then in 3.5 they reduced that to double ACP. Finally in Pathfinder they just said to heck with it and made it straight ACP. It is clearly a case of simplicity over verisimilitude.

Regarding costing minutes/hours, IC times do change OOC times. If you are burning extra resources (spell durations) because of trapfinding then you wind up resting more often to regain those resources. That takes OOC time, often considerable time as people debate how to set up camp.

You say "yay rogues are useful again!" while everyone else says "ugh, who is going to be forced to be a Rogue again?"

Yes, it detracts from Rogues but that is a flaw in Pathfinder's design of Rogues not catching up to the philosophy that no man (class) should be irreplaceable. Rogues should not need traps to become useful.

If traps are just to make Rogues useful then what if there is not a Rogue? Oh, no Rogue? I'm sorry, you can kiss any of your buffs goodbye as you crawl around looking for traps.

Seriously, for a long time the game has been progressing away from the idea that you *must* have a Rogue and that Rogue *must* be able to deal with traps. It is an outdated concept that forces people into a role and that is not really good roleplaying is it? :)

Reminds me of the "you didn't roll high enough strength so you cannot be a fighter" days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Declare Great Cleave (a standard action).
2) Targets must be within reach (not necessarily adjacent) and adjacent to the previous target.
3) Make an attack against each target until you miss (end of attacks) or drop a target (see step 4).
4) If you drop a target you can make an extra attack against any opponent within reach. Make this attack and then resume your Great Cleave sequence (return to step 3). Note: if you have Improved Cleaving Finish and drop another target with this bonus attack repeat step 4.

Quintain, Targets are not required to be adjacent to you to use Cleave/Great Cleave. Cleaving Finish does not allow you to transfer the cleave to a creature that is not adjacent to the previous target. What it does is grants you an extra attack against any creature you can attack.

So that people do not need to look up the feats here they are:

CRB p124 Great Cleave wrote:
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach. If you hit, you can continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the previous foe, so long as they are within your reach. You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
UCombat p92 Cleaving Finish wrote:
Benefit: If you make a melee attack, and your target drops to 0 or fewer hit points as a result of your attack, you can make another melee attack using your highest base attack bonus against another opponent within reach. You can make only one extra attack per round with this feat.
UCombat p105 Improved Cleaving Finish wrote:
Benefit: You can use Cleaving Finish any number of times per round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

SlimGauge, the lance is just an example in the first FAQ ("such as"). The first FAQ also applies to any other two-handed weapon being used in one hand.

I pointed out the apparent contradiction when the second FAQ came out and was told by a number of posters that the difference is "using" vs "treated as" or vs "wielding".

I still don't really see a need to split hairs in the language to that extent. Either your weapon is or is not in one hand and based on that there is an apparent contradiction here.

SKR had even stated that it would need to be examined but there was no (posted) followup to that. SKR's post

For reading here is the discussion regarding the contradiction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The obvious answer to that tactic is that if the (single) opponent has not attacked the monk then the monk also readies an action to attack when attacked.

It becomes a standoff of "you first".

Also, your "take any action" is a bit broad. Are we talking "if the monk attacks" or are we stating any action from the CRB? As a GM would you allow a player to state such a broad readied action? How does the NPC/PC *know* it is an action? Are you counting a 5' step as an action? (It is listed as a non-action.)

While your readied action solution is a good one it brings up a number of questions and there is a counter (to ready an action).

Edit: Dang it, I gotta stop posting in this thread. I said I would stop and yet I keep getting drawn back into it. Don't you hate it when that happens? :)


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I recently had a frustrating experience with a friend of mine where she played a druid and she had a hard time leveling her character due to needing to update all of her wild shape forms. I decided there had to be a better way to level up a character with a significant number of alternate forms. Not finding any I liked I decided to create my own.

Thus, I present: the Polymorph Sheets excel file

What it is: It is a way to quickly level your Polymorph (wild shape) forms via significant automation.

What it is not: It is not a database of creatures, you still have to know the rules. It is not a full character sheet but will handle just about anything polymorph can throw at it.

How is it used? Fill out the base creature information (Ability Scores, Armor Class, some Skills, etc.). This information will be plugged into all of the Polymorphed forms you create and then modified by the size and type of Polymorph effect you use. Then fill out the Polymorph form's attack data (a bit more complex but still automated once you fill it out the first time.)

Extra information: There are four Polymorph sheets per printed page. This allows you to have only a few sheets for all of your polymorph forms.

I am looking for feedback. Anything I missed, anything that is broken, opinions on color scheme, layout, and the clarity of the instructions.

In general, have at it and let me know what I can improve.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blackstorm, you do not need to threaten, you need to be able to make an attack. They are not the same thing. :)

CRB p197 Aid Another wrote:
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

The reason why "make a melee attack" does not equal "threaten" is because "make a melee attack" is a subset of "threaten".

I can make a melee attack with an unarmed strike. But because I do not have Improved Unarmed Strike I do not threaten with my unarmed strike. Because Aid Another only requires that I be able to make a melee attack against the attacker and not threaten I can use Aid Another with an unarmed strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is the author's post.

This has been debated quite a number of times over the years and from the author's post and various threads the general consensus appears to be that:
A) The intent is to push the recipient out of the way of an incoming strike, even a ranged attack, without having to threaten the target.
and
B) The RAW disallows A.

With the advent of ways (such as Benevolent armor property and the Halfling-Helpful trait) to ramp up the bonus from Aid Another I doubt they will ever errata it to bring it into line with the Author's intent because then it becomes greatly imbalanced.

In my own games I house rule it to the Authors intent but state that you cannot combine it with abilities that increase Aid Another bonuses.

The feat is still useful if you have a reach weapon and/or Enlarge Person. Since the AoO is not against the enemy cover is not a factor and so you can set up behind your ally.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, the RAI (as posted by the author) is that you do not need to meet the requirements of the aid another action, ie: do not have to be in a position to attack the attacker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The mount using it's action to move does not mean you are not using a charge action. What you posted does not tell me in any way that you are not using a charge action. That is the debate that has raged for years. The same debate that was clarified back in 3.X.

Posting an opinion to clarify understanding does not mean the rules themselves are clarified. They are two separate things. The rules are still grey and unclear and if they require explanation to clarify them that does not mean they (as an object) have been clarified (changed).

Perhaps this will explain the difference:
"I am explaining the rules to you in order to clarify them."
"I am re-writing the rules in order to clarify them."
These are very different statements.

No, I made no such argument. My argument stems around the fact that SKR's clarification is not in the rules or even a FAQ. It is a post which (as Stephen pointed out) does nothing to clarify the understanding of the rules for a majority of people (the majority probably do not visit the boards let alone know of that one single post tucked away somewhere). So the statement that the new rules re-write is reversing a previous rules clarification is only correct in that it is reversing some people's understanding of the rules (via SKR's post). It is not actually reversing the rules since the rules themselves were grey even after SKR's post.

P.S. It does not state that if you take an attack action at the end of the charge you get the bonus. It states that if you make an attack at the end of the charge you get the bonus. They are different statements and do not mean the same thing. If it said attack action I would be agreeing with you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Show me in the CRB (not SKR's post) where it states that the Rider is or is not charging when his mount charges. You cannot. At best it was unclear.

I am not saying nothing changed. I am saying that it was unclear before and SKR's post did not clarify the rules. It may have clarified some people's understanding but the RULES were not clarified.

Now they (the rules) are finally being clarified. YAY! Unfortunately for some people they are being clarified in the opposite of the desired direction. Fortunately for some people they are being clarified in the desired direction.

Personally? It doesn't matter to me which direction they get clarified in so long as they are clarified. Justifications for either direction can be made.

My problem is that you keep presenting your case as if this is some major change to a clear rule. It isn't. The rule was never clear.

Frankly, I have a house rule that you can use Vital Strike anytime you make a single attack regardless of action economy so I really have no personal stake in which direction the Rider charging/not charging rules get clarified. It really just doesn't matter for my own games.

My posts in the Rules forum assume no house rules. I only state my own house rule in this case to indicate my lack of a personal stake in the direction this comes down on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does it make sense that guys in plate mail can swim? Does it makes sense that....well frankly, so many things in the game fail to make sense in the context of reality that debating what makes sense is pointless. It is a set of rules, it is not reality.

In this set of rules Vital Strike cannot be combined with a charge. Thus, within the context of the rules it makes sense that it cannot be combined with a mounted charge. Any context outside of the rules is not really relevant.

Oh, and just for a bit of reality...it is not *just* the weight and momentum of the animal beneath you. If you are not properly set you cannot properly use that weight and momentum. That requires specific actions on the part of the rider to get set.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ssalarn, you often state it was always possible. Do you have a citation to back that up?

I am not aware of SKR stating that it was always possible. To my knowledge he neither stated that it was always possible nor did he state it was not always possible. He made a statement that the rider is not charging his mount is charging without providing any historical background.

In fact, if you check the historical background (3.X) it was unclear until it was clarified in "Rules of the Game: All About Mounts" where it was placed in the Full-Round Action category for rider's actions when riding a moving mount. I am not aware of anything Paizo/Pathfinder did to change that understanding (pro or con) until SKR's post.

You repeatedly make statements that this has always been possible but the fact is, until SKR made his statement it was not well explained and many people were forced to rule one way or the other.

Additionally, you and several others keep stating that this was covered in the RAGELANCEPOUNCE FAQ and that is also not true. There was no statement in the FAQ that a rider was not charging. It required SKR providing further explanation in a post (not FAQ) to arrive at that conclusion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

James Risner, if you have ever seen me post a quote it is always from a PDF rather than an online source. I use online sources as a quick lookup but for the real thing I go to the latest book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ssalarn, all but one of my questions were issues before the current FAQ and they were issues before the SKR post. Except for one (which I stated was related), they exist without the "you are charging/you are not charging" issue. You are being disingenuous by using my post as an example for your case.

Your statement specifically said that "there is a greater number of questions and discrepancies" and linked my post. That is either an incorrect statement or a lie. My post had exactly ONE issue brought about by the current discussion. One issue is not a "greater number". It is in fact an "equal number". As stated earlier, all of the other issues in my post exist separately from the "am I charging when my mount charges" issue.

Even if the FAQ backed up SKR's statement my post (save the one issue directly stemming from the current FAQ) would remain. In fact, I would have several more FAQ questions relating to specific feats which do not work as written when using SKR's statement.

You and I have argued over this issue before, it is not worth it. All I ask is that you do not use misrepresent my posts as backing up your own.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

The stated goal of the FAQ was to prevent a character from being able to do something like combining Vital Strike with the bonus damage from a Lance and Spirited Charge (despite the fact that there was no evidence presented that this was actually causing issues).

The effect of the FAQ was to create 5 times as many issues as it fixed, and give rise to an even greater number of questions and discrepancies.

Instead of a single clarification conforming to the existing FAQs and developer commentary stating that entries referring to a mounted charge are triggered by the mount using the charge action, we've gotten an unnecessary FAQ that doesn't actually say what they said it was going to say or solve any of the issues it was supposed to solve, but does create a whole swath of new issues that will need to be addressed individually. None of this additional work was necessary either, because there's no evidence that mounted chargers getting to have the same action economy as every other character with a companion was actually causing any issues.

One of my biggest issues is this- instead of a simple answer that would have had no negative impact on either interpretation of the rules prior, we've got a ruling that negates options people on the development staff had previously supported which requires even more FAQs and rewrites to actually be functional.

Please do not use my post as fodder for your argument. All but one of my questions have existed long before this current FAQ issue so you providing my post as an example of "greater number of questions and discrepancies" is incorrect and misleading.

Frankly, SKR's statement that the Rider did not charge when the mount charged created just as many problems. A number of mounted combat feats broke as a result of that but people chose to gloss over that or claim that no problem existed because you had to use common sense.

In short, the Mounted Combat rules have never been clear. Not in 3.X, not in Pathfinder. They did not become more clear with the "old" ruling and they did not become less clear with the "new" ruling. There is still much work to be done.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How is this a mathematical flaw? The extra die may be superfluous but it is not a flaw.

1 to 50 of 384 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

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