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. 7,190 posts (7,198 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 518 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

karnos, this is a case of specific overriding general.

General: prepared spells must be prepared with the metamagic feat.
Specific: metamagic rods are used at the time of casting and grant you the use of the feat when you cast the spell.

Pathfinder is full of specific vs general "contradictions".

However, if you want to ignore how everyone has understood this to work for the last 5 years (pathfinder) or 10 years (3.5+PF) then that is up to you.

Of course, you can ignore the entirety of the history of Pathfinder (ie: 3.5) and if that is the case you are in trouble. There are A LOT of Pathfinder rules that are not defined or poorly defined unless you look at 3.5 rules.

Example: What is "energy"? If you look just at Pathfinder a case for Positive and Negative "energy" being "energy" (and thus subject to effects that affect energy) could be made.
However, if you look at 3.5 it is well defined that energy is the traditional 4 elements + sonic and does not include Positive and Negative energy despite the name.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since d20pfsrd is not an official rules source here you go: PRD (official rules source). You can also find this on pages 178-179 of the CRB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB p185 wrote:
Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
CRB p216 wrote:
Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Two different sections state that do not lose the held charge until you discharge it with a successful hit. Note: you can also lose the held charge if you touch something else (like a door) or by casting a new spell.

The Magus changes this in two ways: One, you can touch your weapon without discharging the spell. Two, you can channel a touch spell through your weapon in a regular attack. The Magus did not change that you keep the held charge until you successfully hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ARG Statblock (page 202) does not list them as having Darkvision.
ARG Racebuilder (page 245) does list them as having Darkvision (for free as part of paying for being a Native Outsider). It then lists them as paying for Low-light vision.
Bestiary 3 (page 258) lists Suli as only having Low-Light vision (in violation of the basic rules for Native Outsiders).

This appears to be a case where the ARG is trying to fit the Bestiary and they should have offered a points refund for the Suli or at least not charged for Low-Light Vision.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't matter how many actions the person provoking takes, moving out of more than one square counts as only one opportunity per round.

CRB p180 wrote:
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

First, not a rules question. Flagging to be moved.

Second, watching that video there are several things to note.
1) We do not see a comparison between how they do those same actions in and out of armor so we have no idea how much the armor is actually hindering them.

2) Several of those actions (such as the jumping up and kicking feet together) appear quite ungainly in armor.
Assuming that the person performing the maneuvers was proficient in the maneuver it appears to have been much more difficult in armor.

3) We have no idea how much people have practiced in that armor to do those things.
That could be akin to the fighter's class ability Armor Training, the trait Armor Expert, and/or having Masterwork armor.
Alternately, it could be akin to having many ranks in the skill.

4) We did not see them try to scale a wall without a ladder using either a rope or freeclimb (climb skill), walk a thin ledge (acrobatics skill), or swim in a lake/river (swim skill).

So, that video can neither support nor contradict a -6 penalty as it provides insufficient evidence but the person performing those maneuvers certainly did appear to be ungainly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This really falls under common sense more than strict RAW. If you cannot use a feat because you have lost the prerequisite you cannot count as an ally who possesses the feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In which Pathfinder book is the class on makeup (Rouge) published? I must've missed that one. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Get a Ring of Eloquence. It specifically works while polymorphed into forms that cannot speak (and, it is cheaper).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everything you have stated is correct.

You can also halve the crafting time by increasing the DC by 5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then it needs to be enchanted as a weapon and not as a shield. If it is enchanted as a shield they cannot then use the shield enchantment as a weapon enchantment if they are already doing that with the other shield (due to only one shield slot).

So yes, you can save half the money on one shield but not the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And here is your FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Mithral armor: What exactly does it mean when it says mithral armor is counted as one category lighter for “other limitations?”

This means that mithral armor allows its wearer to use it when her own class features or special abilities demand her to wear lighter armor; in other words, the character wearing the armor is less limited. For example, a bard can cast spells in mithral breastplate without arcane spell failure, a barbarian can use her fast movement in mithral fullplate, a ranger can use his combat style in mithral fullplate, brawlers, swashbucklers, and gunslingers can keep their nimble bonus in mithral breastplate, rogues keep evasion in mithral breastplate, a brawler can flurry in mithral breastplate, characters without Endurance can sleep in mithral breastplate without becoming fatigued, and so on. It does not change the armor’s actual category, which means that you can still store a creature one size category larger in a hosteling mithral fullplate, and you can’t enhance a mithral breastplate with special abilities that require it to be light armor, like brawling (though you could enhance it with special abilities that require it to be medium armor), and so on.

Short answer, yes. Mithral Breastplate is Light Armor for the purpose of Nimble.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. No, because you do not have a clear straight line path.

CRB p198 wrote:
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge.

2. Yes, you can charge while you are flying.

3. If you are on a mount you occupy the entire mount's space. You are not above the mount.

CRB p202 wrote:
For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat.

So, since you occupy the entire space you can be struck from below if they can strike your mount. The Ranger can attack the rider of the Roc provided he can attack the Roc.

4. No, pinpointing only tells you where a creature is, it does not allow you to ignore miss chance.

Bestiary p305 wrote:

Tremorsense (Ex) A creature with tremorsense is

sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability’s range is specified in the creature’s descriptive text.

5. I think you have Throw Rider backwards. A snake would be a mount, it is not a rider. The mount (the snake) throws the rider (presumably a humanoid). The humanoid is not immune to trip.

6. Yes, it is an attack roll.

7. Charge/Run: Only if you do not reduce your speed. If your movement is hampered you cannot charge or Run.
Withdraw does not have a restriction against hampered movement.
Note: I assume you are referencing Acrobatics to prevent an AoO as there is no 'tumble' skill in Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

deadboy,

Did you read the entire FAQ? The entire question it is asking is who is charging. It states that both are charging.

This was to shut down the very loophole that you are still trying to claim.
People were claiming that the mount can charge while the rider does not and thus the rider can still perform other actions while benefiting from the charge.
The above posted FAQ shut this down.

Really, you are quite late to this one, as it was already asked, answered, and the dead horse beaten to death again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This comes up quite a bit on the boards. As written, the mounted combat rules do not work as intended. That has been clear for quite a long time.

Even the phrases: "You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent." and "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." (CRB p198 Charge rules) cause problems with Mounted Combat (specifically Ride-By Attack).

Many people read those phrases (separately or combined) to be that you draw a line from your square to the opponents square and move along that line. The problem is, that prevents ride by attack as you cannot move through your opponent afterwards.

Then there is the issue stemming from the rules not taking into account a rider and mount with different reach.
As written, if the mount and the rider have attacks with different reach then only one of them can make an attack when charging.

A Blog or FAQ on all of the mounted combat issues has been needed for quite some time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question for those who believe that the multiplier applies to all cost, do you also believe it applies to the Masterwork cost?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every time someone brings up economics in relation to Pathfinder it makes me laugh.

What should happen when adventurers dump thousands of "lost gold" into a region?
The regions economy should tank as rampant inflation happens (this actually happened in history when spaniards brought back gold ships from the new world).

Is rampant inflation represented? Nope, equipment does not suddenly cost more coin because adventurers keep dumping gold into a region that didn't have it previously.

Is the buying and selling of magic items even remotely accurate according to economics? Nope, prices are static and do not fluctuate. While some GMs may vary this depending on diplomacy the starting point is always the same.

Is half a dozen other elements of economics represented? Nope

Gold is a metric of the game, nothing more, nothing less. We dress it up when roleplaying but that is a thin veneer. If you look too hard at it the veneer becomes see through.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Orfamay Quest, I was not wrong to inform someone of the rules. The guidelines are still rules. Again, the Devs have stated this.

If you choose to think of guidelines as 'not rules' that is up to you. However, they are clearly laid out as rules in rules books. Do they have the same force as other rules? Not necessarily. But they do not have to be to still be rules.

Heck, even the definition of "guideline" is "a rule that tells you how something should be done".

So, I am not wrong in any way shape or form. Guidelines are indeed rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RedDogMT, your own quote states otherwise, "or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point."

You can either specify a number or just wait. So yes, you can just end the delay as a response to something, although you will go after that something (rather than before as in the case of a readied action).

Byakko is absolutely correct. The concept that you lose your turn is an outdated concept, you are delaying it, even if you delay it until your next action would have come up.

The problem with the concept of losing it is some GMs will say 'well, round 1 is done, you have lost your turn' when that is not how delay works.

Example:
starting initiative order:
"Start of round"
Player 1
Player 2
Enemy 2
Enemy 3
Player 3
Enemy 1
"End of round"

Player 3 decides to delay.
The "lose your turn" GM will state that if he does not act before the "end of the round" then he loses his action. This is absolutely, utterly, wrong.

The correct procedure is that Player 3 is delaying until he chooses to act or his normal initiative comes up. He can choose to act after Enemy 1, after Player 1, after Player 2, etc.

CRB p203 wrote:

Initiative Consequences of Delaying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again).

If you take a delayed 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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No erasing required, use a magnet board.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Avatar-1,

The Sash of the War Champion "doesn't work" folks state that because you traded out Armor Training 2 it is lost and any increase in the level of Armor Training is meaningless (ie: you cannot ever advance Armor Training). The higher effects effectively never exist for you.

The Sash of the War Champion "does work" folks (I am one) state that the loss of Armor Training 2 is a loss of advancement of Armor Training and not a change of the class ability Armor Training.
Because Armor Training is never altered (only advancement lost) then if you can get that advancement from elsewhere (such as the Sash of the War Champion) then it works.

Taken from one perspective, Armor Training 2 could be interpreted as a class feature, but the problem with that perspective is that it is not written up as a class feature. It has no text under "Class Features".

As strict RAW (which nobody uses) Armor Training 2 doesn't even exist because it is only on a table with no corresponding text under "Class Features". Note: I am saying that nobody uses this interpretation because it is nonsensical even if it is RAW (people keep missing this point, I am emphasizing it).

Armor Training 2 clearly does mean *something* and we all assume that Armor Training 2 means the level 7 increase of Armor Training. But that is where our understanding diverges.

Either it is a class feature (which it isn't written up as) or it is an advancement of a class feature like every other class feature that advances (such as Sneak Attack and Channel Energy).
Other class features that advance can be artificially advanced regardless of whether you trade out specific increases or not unless there is specific text to the contrary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rub-Eta, what wording, to you, would mean it is a restriction?
It is not a suggestion, it is a clear 'this is how you may use this' rule.

It is unfortunate, it would be nice if you could use the touch during a move but, that is not how it is worded. They probably worded it this way specifically to avoid 'touch and run' tactics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First question, yes, usually. Example provided..no.

Normally this rule applies (allowing you to take a free action during another action):

CRB p182 wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

However, there is a specific rule regarding touch spells that overrides the free action rule:

CRB p185 wrote:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Because of the bolded line you cannot touch a target while moving.

Your options are:
Move, Cast, Touch
Cast, Move, Touch
Cast, Touch, Move

You cannot cast, move, touch, continue moving.

Of course, there are ways around this (Quick Runner's Shirt for example).


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

There seems to be some confusion as to what the Armor Training ability states:

CRB p55 wrote:

Armor Training (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a fighter

learns to be more maneuverable while wearing armor. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1. Every four levels thereafter (7th, 11th, and 15th), these bonuses increase by +1 each time, to a maximum –4 reduction of the armor check penalty and a +4 increase of the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed.

In addition, a fighter can also move at his normal speed while wearing medium armor. At 7th level, a fighter can move at his normal speed while wearing heavy armor.

1) Does the Dragoon have Armor Training? Yes

2) Does the Dragoon advance his Armor Training ability at level 7? No, his Armor Training (by level) is arrested at level 3.
3) Does the magic item Sash of the War Champion advance the Armor Training ability 4 levels? Yes

Result: A (minimum 3) Dragoon with Sash of the War Champion, by the Armor Training ability, counts as having level 7 Armor Training with a 2 pt reduction in ACP, +2 Max Dex, and can move full speed in Heavy Armor. This is what the magic item does.

This is really not difficult, yes he traded out ADVANCEMENT in the ability, he has not lost it. Since he has not lost it if he found alternate means to advance then he can do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, once again (because this keeps coming up), the rules for load does not have ANYTHING to do with the rules for what kind of barding fliers can wear.

People keep assuming that the rules for Barding (a subset of Armor) apply to Armor and thus to light loads. They dont because they are a subset of the Armor rules.

If Barding the barding rules regarding flight applied to Armor then a Solar would not be able to fly (which a Solar is clearly doing in it's statblock).

Thus, Barding is a subset of the Armor rules.

In short, you can be medium or heavy loaded and wear Medium or Heavy Armor and still fly. You cannot wear Medium or Heavy barding (a subset of armor) and still fly.

Bonus history comparison:
3.5 stated that anything over a light load prevented a flying mount from flying (DMG p204-205). This statement was removed from Pathfinder.
3.5 also stated that while fliers are limited to light loads medium armor does not in itself constitute a medium load (Monster Manual 1 p312). No such statement exists in Pathfinder because the light load rule was removed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes).
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
If you fail to learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll, you must wait at least 1 week before you can try again.
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll 15 + spell level
CRB p219 Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook wrote:

No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.

If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until one week has passed. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish.
CRB p219 Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook wrote:
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.

So, where does that leave us? The only general rules for learning a spell are from a spell that is written.

There are no general rules for learning a spell that is not from a written source.

Then we have that the Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section directly references that you use the procedure for learning a spell.

Do you have anything in the Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section that provides an exception? Anything at all?

The rules are clear, you cannot write a spell down until you learn it.
Without a stated exception to the contrary, you cannot learn it unless you have a written source to study.

This really seems like a case of 'starting with and ending in mind and trying to make the rules fit'. This is appears to be an attempt to sidestep the normal process of learning a spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems pretty clear to me, Breath of Life was intended to bring you back to life if you died from hit point damage.

It is not intended to bring you back from everything else. Is a FAQ even necessary?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Human Fighter, I don't see how the RAI of an over glorified cure spell is EVER intended to bring someone back from what amounts to a death effect (without the moniker "death effect").

Breath of Life is clearly intended to bring you back from hp damage and hp damage alone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Human Fighter wrote:
I haven't read this all, but got called out on my thread accusing me of making two threads and that it wouldn't change the rules. I was at the table, and the paladin 2/ sorcerer 8 with 15 or 12 str (I forget) str fully min/maxed Jasper Williams who is obviously totally op as hell detected evil, then detected magic in this scenario mentioned above on some brass stone door stuff, and detected nothing causing his curiosity to open the door. Somehow this sprung a surprise round after the door had opened, which I would think he'd see the thing(s), but surprise round. Either both shadows where in this 5ft square, or the one inside surprised, and the other decided to 5ft out and surprise. Greater shadows, and an 8 then 7 were rolled, and we have a collapsed Jasper. From that point it was like, "what is the answer to no save awful" because flat footed touch double suppose shadow bros. isn't something we've experienced.

Ok, having a hard time separating everything in this wall of text. Please use bullet point style writing. :)

First, Paladin2/Sorcerer8...check
Second, Strength 12 or 15...check
Third, Detect Evil...this should have revealed evil on the other side of the door. Shadows are absolutely evil.
Did the GM state there was evil?
Fourth, Detect Magic, this would come up with nothing, Greater Shadows do not (normally) radiate magic.
Fifth, were the shadows within the wall?
Unless the shadows were inside the walls (or adjacent to the door), there should have been no surprise round (surprise only happens if some are aware but others are not).
Sixth, (extra question) did the shadows attack from INSIDE the wall?
If that is the case they should have had a 50% miss chance.

If 3 is no then there might be an appeal to be had. Detect Evil will reveal the number, strength, and direction of auras even through a 1 inch thick metal door. Unless specified otherwise doors should not be greater than this normally.

If 5 is no then a surprise round might not have been the correct GM call.
In order for there to have been a surprise round the Shadows must have been aware of the PCs while some (or all) of the PCs were not aware of the Shadows.

If 6 is a yes and the GM did not roll miss chance then there may be an appeal to be had.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a classic example of reading a FAQ out of context. The context of this FAQ was to indicate that you can use two weapons for regular iteratives without going the TWF route. Ie, you can +6 with one weapon and +1 with the second weapon.

It then went on to clarify that you could not go +6/+6 with one weapon and +1/+1 with the second weapon when using TWF.

FAQs only answer the question being asked. The question is:

FAQ wrote:
Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?

The question the OP is asking is (summarized):

What order do I have to make my TWF attacks in? Do I have to go +6/+6/+1/+1 (ie: Primary +6, Secondary +6, Primary +1, Secondary +1) or can I use a different order?

This is an entirely different question and one that the Devs DID NOT ANSWER in the FAQ.
Their post did not reflect an answer on this, they were not checking for accuracy against this concept and they have stated that a FAQ only answers the question asked.

In short, all those using the FAQ as evidence cannot do so. It in no way answers the OP's question and is not evidence that secondary attacks can be taken after the primary attacks because the Devs were not answering that question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So rather than debating this topic...AGAIN, how about FAQing the thread here: FAQ request regarding interrupted actions, AoOs, and readied actions


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you can charge, the mount is not entangled.

Any argument to the contrary is ignoring the fact that the rules cannot cover every conceivable permutation and that common sense (rules common sense, not real world common sense) must prevail.

Entangle prevents the creature entangled from moving normally. In the case of the fly spell or a mounted on a creature not entangled the movement should not be impacted. This is because the rule regarding entangled assumes you are providing your own motive power.
It is not written to cover cases where you are mounted.

Put another way: Mount charges and you are along for the ride. Since the rules state that both the mount and the rider are charging when the mount charges then you must also be charging.
Note: if you are entangled AND anchored your mount will charge, you will fall off and land on your rump.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The feat you want is Stage Combatant.

Ultimate Combat p120 wrote:

Stage Combatant (Combat)

You are a master of stage and nonlethal combats.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +5
Benefit: When you make an attack with a weapon that you have Weapon Focus in, you take no penalty on the attack roll when you are attempting to make an attack that deals no damage or nonlethal damage.
Normal: When making attacks that deal no damage or nonlethal damage, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lord Vukodlak, 3.5 is the source for PF yes, but there have been multiple departures from 3.5.

With that said, here is the reference you failed to provide:

DMG II p275 wrote:
The feycraft template can be added only to light or medium armor, or to wooden shields. Even fey that are martially minded enough to construct objects of war favor tactics involving stealth and guerilla warfare. Heavier armor or shields only slow the wearer down in most natural settings, so the fey do not specialize in their manufacture. The only exception is the rare suit of mithral heavy armor, which actually counts as a medium armor because of its construction (see page 284 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide).

So yes, according to the DMG II mithral heavy armor "counts" as medium armor because of it's construction (implied: for the purposes of Feycraft armor).

This is fully compatible with the 'limitation' clause in the mithral description and in no way states that mithral counts as one step lighter for all purposes.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

The way I read it is that the limitations clause applies to limitations, not bonuses.

As a result, you get the best of both worlds. Yes, mithral medium armor is medium armor for those things that benefit from medium armor. Yes, mithral medium armor is light armor for those things that benefit from light armor.

I see nothing wrong with this interpretation and have been running it that way since 3.X. Paying for a benefit to count something lighter when beneficial should not create a situation where your otherwise heavy armor cannot be used as heavy armor.

This wouldn't be the first time where you get the best of both worlds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lets take a closer look at what limits you from taking a 5' step:

CRB p181 wrote:

Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table 8–2 for other move actions.

You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.

Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table 8–2 for a list of full-round actions.
Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.
Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.

CRB p186 wrote:

Move

The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you can’t also take a 5-foot step.
Many nonstandard modes of movement are covered under this category, including climbing (up to onequarter of your speed) and swimming (up to one-quarter of your speed).
CRB p186 wrote:

Full-Round Actions

A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.
CRB p186 wrote:
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks
CRB p189 wrote:

Take 5-Foot Step

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance. You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn’t hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can’t take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.
You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.

So what do we have? We have context.

Despite the final bolded quote the context throughout is that you must be expending movement related action such as a "Move" move action or a Full-round action that moves you some distance (such as a Charge action).

Lets take another tack: If some ability moves you any distance are you able to take a 5' step? (example: Conjuration-Teleportation subschool ability "Shift")
Why or why not?

Now, the obvious answer is that teleportation is not moving even if you travel some distance. Most people wouldn't hesitate to state that, of course you can take a 5' step.

But, according the argument that only distance traveled counts you would not be able to take a 5' step.

Dismount places you on the ground. Due to the rules the only legal place you can occupy is outside of your mount's space. It is not intended as a form of movement and it shouldn't count as such.

It is not what the rules against taking 5' steps was intended for (see context quoting above).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kazaan, I don't think Mark (or anyone else for that matter) is saying that an archer with Snap Shot cannot provide a flank. What people are saying is that they cannot benefit from a flank.

Edit: Ninja'd by the man himself. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Koshimo, I don't think it is "no because we said so" so much as "no, the rules say 'melee' and ranged is not 'melee'".

Yes, it allows you to threaten but threatening is not what allows you to benefit from flanking. Even if you do not threaten with your melee weapon (unarmed strikes for example) you still benefit from flanking because an unarmed strike is melee even though it does not threaten.

Put another way:
Threatening is what gives people the ability to provide a flanking bonus.
Melee (threatening is not required) is what is required to benefit from a threatening flanker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also cannot find a "Spider Harness" anywhere in any Paizo publication. Could we get a source?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

LazarX,

The prerequisite cannot be bypassed by adding +5. Using another source of the spell is not bypassing the prerequisite. It is supplying the prerequisite.

From the quote I quoted earlier:

CRB p549 wrote:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created.

States that the prerequisites must be met.

CRB p549 wrote:
Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).

States that the creator must know the spells and then provides an exception where a magic item or other spellcaster can provide it.

CRB p549 wrote:
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

States that you can bypass prerequisites by adding +5 to the DC except in the case of the item creation feat and spells in the case of potions, spell-trigger, and spell-completion items.

Since the cleric is supplying the spell as per the rule in quote #2 then quote #3 is not even an issue. Quote #2 allows the cleric to supply the spell to the wizard for a scroll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, the Wizard can provide the feat (Scribe Scroll) and the Cleric provide the spell. The feat Cooperative Crafting is not required.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Yes, they can make AoOs against you but they have a 20% miss chance.
Total Concealment is required for you to avoid an AoO.

2) For the first 5 feet of movement you are not blurred.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

Average Joe, a human with ST 10 and no training, has a +0 to Climb:

Climb wrote:

DC 10 "A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship's rigging"

DC 15 "Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands"

Using this model, Joe, taking 10, could climb an obstacle of the first kind (a typical fence) without risk of hurting himself in about a minute or so. But, unless he got some good training and equipment, couldn't climb an obstacle of the second kind (think a climbing gym) without risking a fall.

In both cases, if Joe was being hunted by a Tiger, he might stumble and fall in his scrambling.

(I bolded the part where you stated it would take a minute.)

Just a note: Take 10 does not increase the time it takes to do a task, Take 20 does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no current skill for this. Perhaps a Profession skill such as "Profession CSI" might work. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

conan_the_barbarian,

1d8 doubled and tripled in 3.X/PF is: 1d8(base) + 1d8(double) + 2d8(triple) = 4d8

His interpretation is correct.

A better way to think about it is 'double = roll again' and triple = 'roll again twice'.
So what we do is we add up the "roll" and the "roll again" so that what is being rolled is "Roll, and roll again three times".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Simple answer: Yes, they can.
Complicated answer: in the specific situation you presented it depends on whether or not the immediate action occurred at the start of the spell or at the end.

All spell variables (including targeting) are not decided until the spell is completed. Because of that the Glabrezu can redirect.

However, if the wizard waits until the Glabrezu completes the spell and targets the wizard then the wizard is still going to suffer being stunned but can dimension door beforehand.

Note: Immediate actions are very much left to interpretation. Expect table variance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:

Disrupting a spell has been shown to be an exception to the rules, by Jason Bulmhan himself.

Jason Bulmhan wrote:

It keeps going and going and going....

Anywho,

As it concerns consistency and casting spells and AoOs: The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events. So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed (and technically before the action), the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed. No such exception exists for tripping, disarming, or moving, unless other game rules would dictate a interruption (such as going unconscious).

Moving along...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

If it were the norm, then what is the exception he is discussing?

I already explained what that was.

The disruption to spellcasting is a specific rule that causes you to lose that action.
There is no rule for tripping, disarming, etc. that states you will lose the action. However, he does state that other game rules can dicate an interruption (ie. prevent you from completing an action).

How does this work?
1) I move and am tripped.
2) Is there a specific rule to prevent me from moving because I have been tripped? No. (This is where he says no such exception exists.)
3) Is there a specific rule to prevent me from moving (using normal speed) because I am prone? Yes (This is where he says "unless other game rules would dictate".)

What he is saying is that there is no specific 'if you are tripped you lose your action regardless of what you can do' rule like there is for spellcasting.
That does not mean there is not an effect that may screw you unless you can deal with it somehow (such as standing up as a swift action).

Summary: there is a colossal difference between losing your action (such as the spellcasting rule) and being situationally unable to complete your action (such as being prone while moving).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thundercade wrote:
JohnF wrote:


... The way to trigger an AoO is by taking an action. Once you've taken that action, even if doing so ends up having no mechanical effect, you can't pretend you didn't take that action.

Ugh, that's exactly what I'm saying. If there is no mechanical effect, then I consider it not having ever really taken the action, even if it triggered something else. None of the definitions around actions include not doing or performing something, or just trying to do something. So if you end up not really doing or performing anything, it's not an action. Remembering that it triggered and AoO doesn't make you go back and relabel it as an action.

I don't have to go back and reconcile the triggers to the AoO. Nothing is making anyone do that.

That's what others are inventing, some overall checking system that says you have to go back and make sure it all could have played out in a step-by-step way. That's the invention.

I bolded the error you are making. There is nothing in the rules that allows you to consider an in-progress action as "not having ever really taken the action". Yes, there are ways to interrupt the in-progress action so that you effectively do nothing with it but it is still an in-progress action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another side note: this is not 4th edition, it is a 5 foot step, not a 5 foot shift. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A 2cubic foot backpack can hold:
2,413.66 pounds of gold
or 1,309.82 pounds of silver
or 1,119.74 pounds of copper
or 982.18 pounds of iron

/humor

I would go with something along the lines of 80-100lbs. 2 cubic feet of meat is between 70-80 pounds and that seems like something a backpack should be able to hold.

Starbuck, do you have a source that states how much space gold (not gold coins which are different) takes up in D&D/Pathfinder?

1 to 50 of 518 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.