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. 6,455 posts (6,463 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 429 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

It's back!!! The 3.5 reach weapon exception has been officially re-introduced into Pathfinder!

While one cannot be sure that this poll had any bearing on this decision I still want to thank everyone that voted.

New FAQ/Errata!!

FAQ/Errata wrote:

10-Foot Reach and Diagonals: I’m confused about reach and diagonals. I heard somewhere online that you don’t threaten the second diagonal with a 10-foot reach but that you somehow get an attack of opportunity when opponents move out of that square, but the Rules Reference Cards show that you do threaten the second diagonal. Which one is correct?

The cards are correct. As an exception to the way that diagonals normally work, a creature with 10 feet of reach threatens the second diagonal. These changes will be reflected in the next errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

YAY! 3.5 exception is back in the rules!!! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Enlarge Person + Lead Blades works because Enlarge actually changes your size while Lead Blades changes the base damage (and not size).

Bashing + Lead Blades does not stack because both use the same language (as if X size categories larger).

So, Enlarge Person + Lead Blades + Bashing = Enlarge Person + Bashing


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, the pathfinder rules specifically allow this.

CRB p459 wrote:
A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of the following groups, keyed to which slot on the body the item is worn.

You can find the listing of slots on CRB p459 or here.

Headband and Head slot are two different slots with different items that go into each slot. As per the rule quoted above both can be filled.

I am curious why you think it is overpowered. They are two very different slots with different types of items going into each slot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Situation A is not a readied action, it is two AoOs.
1) Wizard moves 30' provoking an AoO. He doesn't get past the threat range of your weapon.
2) He casts while on the ground and you AoO. Don't forget that interrupting his spell is then dependent upon the his concentration check.

Situation B1: The Wizard 5' stepping does not provoke even if you do move to put him in your threat range. There is no AoO for his movement although there may be if he is in your threat range when he casts.

Situation C1: Since you have already moved on your turn you cannot take a 5' step as part of a readied action.

Additionally, even if you had not moved on your turn, you must make your "Move" move action. The 5' step can be PART of a readied action but since your readied action was "Move" it cannot be part of a "Move" move action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are not asking him to slaughter a village. You are asking him to fail the Planar Binding charisma check (surrender to the Binding spell). That is, at the very least, contrary to what any creature summoned by Planar Binding would do.

So lets see what you have done:
Cast Planar Binding.
Cast Charm Monster.
Told it to kill things (Charm Monster)
Watch it become uncontrolled as the Charm Monster fails because you never rolled that opposed Charisma Check for Planar Binding.

Lets see what you would have done otherwise:
Cast Planar Binding.
Made an opposed Charisma Check to get it to do what you wanted with a bonus based on the nature of the service and the reward.

Looks like you have actually made your check HARDER by using Charm Monster and never bound it properly. Of course, the GM could ad hoc a bonus to the Planar Binding check based on the Charm Monster but I fail to see how it would be much more than asking it to do what it wants to do anyhow.

Summary:
The problem here is that your premise is faulty in what you think you are asking it to do with Charm Monster.
You are not asking it to 'slaughter a village'. You are asking it to surrender to the Planar Binding. THEN you are asking it to 'slaughter a village' as part of the Planar Binding spell.

So to answer your original question, you violated the Planar Binding spell when you used Charm Monster and failed to get it to agree as per Planar Binding. The moment Charm Monster fails you are in a battle with an uncontrolled creature.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a Mort,

No, by RAW once the combat has started and they have acted they are no longer flat-footed unless a creature has some ability to create the flat-footed condition (shadows do not have that ability).

With that said, what I think you are really meaning is does the creature count as invisible or hidden and thus deny dexterity on a subsequent attack.

Unfortunately, the current rules regarding stealth are pretty vague. The Stealth playtest attempted to address this but it never became RAW. If you are playing in a home (rather than a PFS game) game I suggest that you explore the stealth playtest. It makes sense out of a lot of the stealth rules.

Regarding readied actions: As a readied action you can 5' step. Depending on the situation that could give a whole bunch of people an attack before it pops back in.

Lets start by saying everyone has a readied action and on the last turn nobody moved.
1 (Fighter): Attack Shadow (with melee weapon) when Shadow appears (attacks anyone).
2 (Cleric): Channel Energy to harm Shadow when Shadow appears (attacks anyone).
3 (Ranger): Attack Shadow (with ranged weapon) when Shadow appears (attacks anyone).
4 (Wizard): Magic Missile Shadow when Shadow appears.

In the diagram below "W" is "Wall" while "X" is empty". 1, 2, 3, and 4 are PCs. "S" is Shadow in a Wall.
WXXW
W12W
W34W
WXXS

Now, the rules are silent on who goes first if multiple readied actions occur on the same trigger. I suggest that people allow the basic initiative rules to prevail to prevent chaos (including the ability to wait until other readied actions have resolved). However, that is a house rule I use to resolve these sorts of situations.

S: moves along the inside of the wall and then attacks 4.
4: 5' steps to just below 3 and hits the Shadow with Magic Missiles. 3: Shoots S (with Cover).
2: Channels Energy to harm S.
1: 5' steps to 4's former location to attack S (with S having cover).
S: fails to attack anyone since it's movement is done and it began it's attack sequence. (note: some people argue that if it has movement remaining it can use it and then attack. Others state that it can choose to attack someone else. That is another debate.)

Ending positions:
WXXW
WX2W
W31W
W4XS

Frankly, Shadows are a PITA but not a huge problem for a group that is ready to deal with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, they wanted Dev input and while James Jacobs is not "the rules guy" he has posted the same thing people are saying in this thread:

Post1

Post2

Additionally, here is a 2008 post from Jason Bulmahn (who is THE rules guy) specifically addressing Detect Magic's ability to detect Invisible creatures with a possible increase in the detection time to 1 minute.

That increase never occurred but it is clear from his post that Detect Magic was being used to detect the presence of invisible creatures back in 3.5 and that the Devs were considering ways to address that in Pathfinder. It looks like they did not change anything (probably figuring that 3 rounds to pinpoint an invisible creature is pretty significant as it is).

In short, yes, the magic aura from Invisibility is detectable just like any other magic aura.

This meshes with the rules since there is nothing in the rules saying anything to the contrary.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Since nobody has quoted it yet:

CRB p551 Creating Potions wrote:
The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are two ways to deal with limited slots.
1) CRB p553, Adding New Abilities allows you to combine items. The second item's price is multiplied by 1.5.

2) Pay double to make an item slotless.

However, Endless Bandolier (Chest) and Beneficial Bandolier (Belt) are different magic slots. There is not a conflict in this case.

Of course, the Beneficial Bandolier will conflict with a Belt of Incredible Dexterity and that is a bigger concern.

Just use the Adding New Abilities rule to add the Beneficial Bandolier to the Belt of Incredible Dexterity.

Note: You cannot use either the Adding New Abilities rule or the 2x price slotless rule if you are playing in PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trogdar, I think the fear was that at level 18 there would be no attack penalty for using a Gargantuan Greatsword. Then stack on Enlarge Person and Lead Blades.

Example:
Gargantuan Greatsword : 2d6(medium)-> 3d6(large)-> 4d6(huge)-> 6d6(gargantuan)-> 8d6(enlarge)-> 12d6(lead blades). Average = 42damage

Compared to Medium Greatsword: 2d6(medium)-> 3d6(enlarge)-> 4d6(lead blades). Average = 14damage

An increase of 28 damage for replacing a crap ability (Trap Sense).
Note: Without Enlarge Person and Lead Blades the difference is 14damage.

Also, this doesn't include what happens when you stack the Vital Strike tree onto this. 48d6 = 168avg damage (without bonus damage) in a single attack.

While this is similar to your Huge Hippo build the Huge Hippo is limited to 4d8 (pre-Vital Strike) while the Gargantuan Greatsword can get up to the afforementioned 12d6 (pre-Vital Strike). Also, since this is a Large Humanoid rather than a Huge Hippo the Greatsword option has better tactical value.

In short, there is a clear mechanical reason to disallow this. The Titan Fighter's Giant Weapon Wielder is a much better approach.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

_Ozy_ is correct.

Example, if you create a Scroll of a level 3 spell and apply a +1 Metamagic feat to the spell then you are paying the costs of a level 4 spell with a minimum caster level of 7 (up to whatever you wish to set it at). However, any save DC is still that of a level 3 spell scroll as per the normal metamagic rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ElementalXX, I was not the first person to state that it doesn't work for the exact reasons I provided.

Giant Weapon Wielder makes perfect sense. For a Medium creature, it takes an inappropriately sized weapon that cannot be used (Large 2-handed weapon) and makes it an inappropriately sized weapon that CAN be used (Large 2-handed weapon that counts as Medium 2-handed weapon due to the "effort" section of the rules.)

This is all covered in the inappropriately sized rules section in the paragraph on the "effort" required. I have quoted the relevant paragraph above.

You will note that changing the "effort" required has no bearing on whether or not the weapon is an inappropriately sized weapon.


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

ElementalXX, not according to the rules section covering appropriately sized weapons.

If you are Medium size and use a Large 1-handed weapon it is counted as a 2-handed weapon for you. It is not appropriately sized for you because it is Large and you are Medium.

Titan Fighter's Giant Weapon Wielder ability allows a Medium creature to use a Large 2-handed weapon (at a -2 attack penalty) and still count it as a 2-handed weapon for you. That does not change the fact that it is not appropriately sized for you. Nowhere in the ability does it state that it changes it's effective size for you.

Jotungrip states that you can only use appropriately sized 2-handed weapons (ie: Medium 2-handed weapons).

If, Titan Fighter's Giant Weapon Wielder ability stated something like: "This allows you to count a Large 2-handed weapon as a Medium 2-handed weapon but with a -2 attack penalty." then, you could use it with Jotungrip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Titan Fighter does not state that Large weapons are considered appropriately sized for you, thus the restriction in Jotungrip still holds.

You cannot combine Titan Fighter and Jotungrip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

_Ozy_, you are the one being "deliberately obtuse" because it is you who keeps citing 'literary' or 'legendary' items. The rules have absolutely NOTHING to do with what literature or legends did.

This is the Rules Forum. The Rules work a certain way. If you want them to work a different way take it to the appropriate forum such as the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion (which is not the Rules Forum) or houserule it. These are your options.

Rules Forum writes wrote:
This forum is for questions and answers about the rules of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. House rules, variants and conversions should be posted in the appropriate Community Content forum.

What we ask for is not the moon, we ask for you to discuss RULES in the RULES FORUM. Any reference to literary or legends is not rules and not part of a Rules Forum discussion.

So, since your posts are inappropriate to the forum you are discussing them in perhaps we should flag the posts?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

_Ozy_, perhaps you should re-read the quote of what I said. I did not state anything regarding my estimation of the power of a ring of invisibility.

I stated why they increased it's cost. They even said this in the GMG!!

Please try to not take my quotes out of context.

As for how many times? Actually, just about any game that hits level 13+ I have seen have a Ring of Invisibility. I am currently GMing for one that has a Ring of Invisibility. He uses the Ring all the time.

And, I have been using and running it correctly (ie: the same as the FAQ) for years. I have also been enforcing WBL levels of wealth (adjusting for consumables as per table 12-5) for years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Gauss wrote:
People are still arguing that this is Use Activated?

You must have missed some posts. The rules at the beginning of the magic item chapter in the CRB were copy/paste from the 3.5 DMG. The only difference is that PF were not allowed to use the examples that the DMG used.

The ring of invisibility is actually one of those examples, but not an example of a command word item but of a use activated item.

Specifically, in the section of use activated items, it says that some items just need to be worn (it gives the Headband of Intellect as an example of one of those), some just need to be on your person (Pearl of Power is the example), and some need to be worn and then activated (and the example given is the Ring of Invisibility!).

So yes, we are continuing to say that it's use activated, just like explicitly written in the 3.5 DMG. There is no difference at all in these rules between 3.5 and PF; they were copy/paste. They only left out the examples.

I'm sorry I can't link to my post where I quoted it, but you can find it easily enough, or even check out a physical copy of the 3.5 DMG (page 213, under 'Use Activated') to see for yourself.

So A) the Devs in 3.5 priced it as Command Word and not Use Activated and B) This is not 3.5, it is Pathfinder and the Devs have also priced it in Pathfinder as Command Word.

It is Command Word in Pathfinder. If this were 3.5 you might have an argument as there were two conflicting statements.

Do you disagree that both in 3.5 and PF the Devs have priced it as Command Word? If so please provide proof. We have provided proof that they have priced it as Command Word. For you to continue to claim it falls under Use Activated it must be priced as Use Activated.

Until you can prove that there is really no argument you can present that will have any merit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

graystone, providing examples of others incorrectly using is not really a good defense. The Devs in 3.5 stated how it worked. The Paizo Devs just basically stated the same thing.

Do you go into a court of law and claim you were doing something illegal for years because everyone else did it that way too?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

graystone,

So, instead of providing an in-game discussion and rationale you once again provide a fiction or mythological reason? Fiction and mythology have absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics of this game. Would you like to bring the discussion back into some semblance of relevancy by providing in-game logic?

Once again, here is some in-game logic for you: If you want an item that does what your favorite bit of fiction or mythology does then I suggest you get with your GM and create it. I have already priced it out for you in an earlier post.

Regarding the pricing, it was designed not to follow the normal book pricing. This has been explained several times. Both WotC and Paizo have published statements as to how they arrived at the cost of the Ring of Invisibility.


_Ozy_, and that I think is part of the problem. People want this ring to work like the ring in The Hobbit. That is an artifact, this is a (relatively) low cost magic item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good FAQ, matches the rules quite clearly even if it doesn't match some people's ideals.

Nefreet, I've never seen a problem with using the Hat of Disguise. It is a cheap way to get a +10 bonus to your disguise check. (Normally +10 would cost 10,000gp.)

Do your mundane disguise, then use a hat of disguise to add a +10 bonus on top of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I used to run a gridless 3.X/PF game. While I thought it would work well (and it did, mechanically) I had failed to take into account the ability of my players.

They could not easily see distances without the grid. They had a hard time figuring out the tactics of who is threatening who etc. We played like that for 6 months before I gave it up.

I come from a gridless wargaming background (Warhammer Fantasy Battles) and I was used to eyeballing it. They were not used to it and this presented an additional hurdle to playing the game that was just not worth it.

So, there are a number of solutions:
1) Go gridless (if you have players able to make that adjustment).
2) Use a Hex map (requires adjusting the maps).
3) Re-orient any map or grid where a diagonal situation is likely to occur (requires adjusting the maps and cannot be done in PFS).
4) Use SKR's houserule (does not handle attacking, only handles AoOs).
5) Use the 3.5 exception (rubs certain people wrong but resolves all of the mechanical issues in a square grid situation).
6) Accept that there are magical directions where AoOs and attacks are impossible with reach weapons.

Of all these solutions only #5 handles all of the mechanical problems of attacks and AoOs along the diagonal when using a grid. However, unless the card becomes RAW it is a houserule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Except that is not in the rules in any way. The AoO rules cover leaving squares, not crossing a line.

It makes just as much sense to houserule that in as it does to use the 3.5 exception only in the case of the 3.5 exception you remove another problem, diagonal corridors.

Put a creature in a 5' wide diagonal corridor and give him a longspear. He cannot attack. And, before someone says this doesn't happen, it can and does. Of course, some people will state that you should rotate the grid but that can cause issues too.

The 3.5 exception was a simple solution to all of this even if it rubbed certain people wrong with the "squircle".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While Create Pit is a nice speedbump for a golem it is not a serious long term solution.

Factoring in the -15 DC modifier the DC is not a serious problem for most golems.

A speed 20 Golem can climb the 30feet in 3 rounds while a speed 30 golem can do it in 2 rounds.

Assuming 1 round of actual attacks while the golem is still hanging at the top of the climb that means you only have 1-2 rounds of alchemist fire splash damage. Not really a lot.

Bob Bob Bob,

A GM would have to houserule that the -10 for opposite sides does not stack with the -5 for corners. The rulebook specifically states that the modifiers are cumulative and to apply all that apply.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is a link to my 3.5 exception poll, in the first post is a link to the SKR ruling.

Approximately 89% of pollsters report that they continue to houserule the 3.5 exception back into the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Cyrus, you keep associating grapple with flying.

Once again:
You are on the ground and have two legs. You are grappled. You cannot move. Are your legs grappled to prevent your movement? No.
You are in the earth and can burrow via your claws. You are grappled. Are your claws grappled to prevent your movement? No.
You cannot move. You are in the water and have fins. You are grappled. You cannot move. Are your fins grappled to prevent your movement? No.
You are in the air and have wings. You are grappled. You cannot move. Are your wings grappled to prevent your movement? No.

What do all of these have in common? They are all situations where you are restrained from leaving your square. They have absolutely nothing to do with the locomotive method.

Grapple does not foul legs, claws, fins, or wings. There is nothing in the rules to state that it does.

What grapple is is me grabbing your shirt or armor. This has nothing to do with how you move around in your environment. It is me grabbing you and holding you in place.

Regarding the hummingbird they are both situations where the creature cannot move out of it's square. The inability to change locations is something you have claimed prevents the creature from flying and hovering. Are you ignoring your own statements now?

You seem hellbent on ignoring the facts that half a dozen people provided. Since this is really not going anywhere I think this will be my last post on the topic unless something comes up. My point is made, other people's point is made. You are clearly operating against the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cyrus, you keep trying to assign the requirement of being able to move 5 feet (or more) to the definition of being in flight. Where are you getting this? The two have nothing to do with each other as wraithstrike has shown on several occassions.

A thought exercise for you:
Chain a hummingbird to a perch at the ankle. Make the chain 12inches long.
Can the hummingbird fly? Yes, assuming the chain is light enough (we will assume it is).
Can it fly more than 12inches? No, it is chained.
Can it hover? Yes.

Is it flying? YES.

The hummingbird never leaves it's 5x5 foot square and yet it is very obviously flying. This is NO different than being grappled.

Why is this such a difficult concept for you?

Edit: This is what I get for not reading to the end of the thread before posting. wraithstrike posted almost the same thing. LOL


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cyrus, again, your problem is conceptual rather than with the rules. You seem to have started with a concept (grappled creatures cannot fly because X) and then looked for rules support.

1) There is nothing in the rules that states that a grappled creature cannot fly or hover. However, lets move to the other points first.

2) Hover is clearly in the rules a non-action. All fly skill checks are non-actions as stated in the fly skill.

3) The fly skill has also clearly stated that fly skill actions are part of other actions or reactions to situations.
You have chosen to designate the inability to travel any distance 'not a situation'.
You are flat out wrong in making this designation.

Websters defines situation as wrote:

a : relative position or combination of circumstances at a certain moment

b : a critical, trying, or unusual state of affairs :

Is the inability to travel any distance a situation? Yes. It is a combination of circumstances at a certain moment that results in your inability to travel any distance.

The reaction to that situation is to attempt a Hover check.
Fly skill wrote:
Action: None. A Fly check doesn’t require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.

4) Your definition of flying as being 'in motion' is selective.

Here is another definition:
Websters definition of flying wrote:
1 a : moving or capable of moving in the air

(bold mine)

Here is yet another definition:

Websters definition of fly wrote:
1 a : to cause to fly, float, or hang in the air <flying a kite>

Hovering seems to qualify under either definition. Are you saying a kite is not flying if it is not moving from it's position? Are you saying a hummingbird is not flying if it is hovering?

Back to point 1) Grapple is not a full body hug. It does not interfere with any body part EXCEPT for using two hands together. Earlier editions of D&D were different in this respect and grapple was more of a full body hug.

Summary:
Grapple does not limit you from flying. It limits you from traveling any distance.
Hover does not take an action (if it did then creatures built to full attack while on the wing would not be able to and that is clearly not how things are ran).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrus Lanthier wrote:
Right- one must be able to move about, or one would be helpless. But one assumes (I think) that you must be able to fly in order to hover, and flight implies movement. So, if you can't move, you can't fly, can't hover, right?

This is the heart of your problem. You are assuming that you have to move to fly. The game does not assume that. You can hover which is NOT moving. You do not move and then hover. You are either moving, or you are hovering.

If you fly at 1/2 (or over) your fly speed you have no difficulty doing so. This is a move action.
If you fly at less than 1/2 your speed you have to make an (DC10) fly check. A 5' step is all that is required here to do so as it is less than 1/2 your speed and you moved.
If you have not moved at all then you are hovering and you need to make a DC15 fly check.

There is no action involved for a 5'step or not moving. The fly check is a reaction to the situation that you are not moving at 1/2 fly speed.

CRB p96 wrote:
Action: None. A Fly check doesn’t require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.

A situation does not have to be externally derived. You can generate a situation where a check is required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are able to move limbs then you should be able to hover even if you cannot make a move action. Failure to succeed in the hover check would probably result in falling (it is not defined).

Here is my take: if you are unable to move limbs then you would fall. Note: paralyzed is the only one that prevents limb movement as if you have a dexterity score above 1 you are assumed to be taking some level of defensive action. This is based on the idea that a helpless creature is immobile while a non-helpless creature is not immobile.
There have been plenty of debates to establish mobility within a square even if you do not move.

Dazed: Not helpless and thus you do not have an effective 'zero' dexterity. Thus you are still able to move enough for defenses so you should be able to remain standing or hover (if you make a fly check).
Stunned: same as Dazed although you lose some dexterity (not zero, just bonuses).
Cowering: same as Stunned.
Paralyzed: Helpless. If you need to move limbs to fly you fall.
Grappled: loss of some dexterity but you are not restricted in limb movement.
Fascinated: same as Dazed.
Confused: same as Dazed.

In short, the concept that you are constantly moving in your square (unless you are helpless) has been well established in previous threads. There is only one condition presented here that results in your being helpless. As a result you can still flap your wings to hover IF you make the skill check.

Note: there is a debate on whether Hovering is an action or not. Cyrus believes it is a "Move" move action while I do not.

Note2: There is no listed penalty for failure to make the skill check for Hover. I would probably rule that if you have no actions available you fall if you fail while if you have actions available you can move to avoid falling.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course, because of this ruling people will once again try to use a single reach weapon to do a whirlwind attack at both reach and non-reach by switching threat ranges in the middle of the whirlwind attack (despite the fact that you check who you are threatening at the start of the whirlwind attack).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, and my players have complained that most campaigns are too easy. We switched to playing Rappan Athuk and they are loving the fact that there have been PC fatalities in Rappan Athuk (before they hit level 2!).

Beating a CR7 encounter at level 1 by the skin of your teeth and the loss of only one party member is epic. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In order: Yes, No


3 people marked this as a favorite.

CWheezy, depends on if it is PFS or not. If not then just stick it on an existing headband for +50% cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, he normalizes to Small because he is Tiny. That is what the rule I quoted (and the chart) states. You can find the chart under the polymorph section here.

Since his form most closely approximates a bird (2 legs and 2 wings) the slots he can wear should be taken from the Avian listing in Animal Archive. Armor, Belt, Chest, Eyes, Headband, Neck, Ring, and Wrist are all available slots for an Avian.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It becomes a Huge Dragon. You first normalize his stats by changing his size to small then you apply the Form of the Dragon III spell modifiers.

CRB p212 Polymorph rules wrote:
If a polymorph spell is cast on a creature that is smaller than Small or larger than Medium, first adjust its ability scores to one of these two sizes using the following table before applying the bonuses granted by the polymorph spell.

So before the polymorph spell is applied he becomes small and gets a +4 strength increase and -2 Dex decrease. Then he gets the +10strength, +8 constitution, and +8 natural armor from Form of the Dragon III.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Large Air Elemental Skills:
Skills Acrobatics +15, Escape Artist +15, Fly +21, Knowledge
(planes) +5, Perception +11, Stealth +11
Ability Scores: Str 18 (+4), Dex 25 (+7), Con 16 (+3), Int 6 (-2), Wis 11 (+0), Cha 11 (+0)

Now, we know that Air Elementals have Perfect fly skill and this one is large. That is +8 and -2 respectively.

We also know that Large creatures have a -4 penalty to stealth.

It has no racial skills or skill improving feats.

Air Elementals have Fly as a class skill.

Outsiders have a number of class skills and those are: Bluff, Craft, Kn. Planes, Perception, Sense Motive, and Stealth. They also have 4 additional unspecified class skills depending on theme.

Of the 6 Air Elemental's skills only 2 are not automatically class skills so we can assume those two are theme related as per Outsiders.

So, now we know all the modifiers lets subtract all of them from the skills:
Acrobatics: 15-7-3 = 5
Escape Artist: 15-7-3 = 5
Fly: 21-7-8-(-2)-3 = 5
Kn. Planes: 5-(-2)-3 = 4
Perception: 11-0-3 = 8
Stealth: 11-7-(-4)-3 = 5

Total ranks required: 32

An Outsider gets 6+int in skill ranks per HD. In this case that is 4*8 = 32.

Looks like the Air Elemental did indeed purchase ranks in Escape Artist. They are not some flat bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

LessusFreak, you cannot use Create Pit that way.

1) line of effect is being blocked by the door.

CRB p215 wrote:
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

You do not have line of effect past the door so you cannot create the pit straddling the door.

2) The pit must be created in an area of sufficient size.

APG p213 wrote:
You create a 10-foot-by-10-foot extradimensional hole with a depth of 10 feet per two caster levels (maximum 30 feet). You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size.

It is not of sufficient size since the door blocks the way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You take the better of the two in any situation which effectively means he has DR 5/silver and cold iron.

A more odd setup is DR 10/adamantine and DR 3/- (a barbarian with stoneskin could have this).

In that case you check the higher of the two first (DR 10/adamantine) and if it bypasses that (such as an Adamantine weapon) then you check the DR 3/-.

This is overlapping but not stacking.


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.

No, negative energy can heal undead but it does not automatically do so.

In fact, a number of negative energy effects grant temporary hitpoints rather than healing.

If a negative energy effect does not state it heals undead then it does not.


2 people 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 to 50 of 429 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 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.