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. 6,837 posts (6,845 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,837 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Charender,

The "Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity" section is basically unchanged from 3.5.
If one action = one opportunity then in 3.5 a person could full attack with a bow and only provoke once. That isn't the way I have seen it played. You provoked for each ranged attack back in 3.5 and you still provoke for each ranged attack in PF.

The "Ranged Touch Spells in Combat" section on page 186 did not exist in it's current format in 3.5.
Back in 3.5 it was not explicitly spelled out that Ranged Touch attacks provoke or do not provoke. However, ranged attacks did provoke and so I am *guessing* that there was a question as to whether ranged touch attacks provoked or not. The new section in Pathfinder answers the question.

My guess here is that people conflate the restriction on multiple opportunities during movement with the rest of the rule. Ie: the rule against multiple AoOs during movement gets boiled down to 'you only provoke once (per creature) when moving' which then gets conflated to 'you only provoke once (pre creature) per action'. Not an unreasonable chain of thought, but not one supported by the rules.


Abraham Spalding, there is no rule that states a single action can only provoke once. What there is a rule against multiple AoOs per opportunity. This is different than action.

Casting a spell with a ranged touch attack is two opportunities even though it is only one action.

CRB p180 wrote:

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity:

If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity bonus to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity. 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.

Next, the section on Rays specifically states it provokes separate from the casting.

CRB p186 wrote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.

The FAQ confirms that casting a spell with a ranged touch attack provokes twice.


A spell with a ranged attack (such as a ray) provokes twice. Once for casting and again for the ranged attack.

FAQ


7 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.


claudekennilol wrote:
Gauss wrote:

CountofUndolpho, yes, you can occupy a space with someone else until you are done moving. So the idea that you can get off the horse, stay in the horses square, and the horse keep moving is completely legal.

CRB p194 wrote:

Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space:

Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it’s not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there’s a legal position that’s closer.

Except that dismounting is its own action, whether it's a free action or a move action. It's not part of a move. So if your stance is that you always dismount into your mount's square, then you're always "ending in an illegal space".

Which I don't believe is the case, otherwise you would also be mounting from your mount's square as it's the same action in reverse. Which can't be done because Mounting is its own action--not part of an action--so you would never be able to mount your horse as you can't be in its square. You have to be adjacent to your horse to mount, thus you also dismount into an adjacent square.

I bolded the part of your statement which has no rules support.

CRB p187 wrote:

Mount/Dismount a Steed

Mounting or dismounting a steed requires a move action. Fast Mount or Dismount: You can mount or dismount as a free action with a DC 20 Ride check. If you fail the check, mounting or dismounting is a move action instead. You can’t attempt a fast mount or fast dismount unless you can perform the mount or dismount as a move action in the current round.

Nowhere in the rules does it state you have to be adjacent to mount your mount.

Of course, common sense states that you must be close to your mount (at least adjacent) and not 50 feet away but nothing in the rules states this.

So, assuming that you must be at least adjacent is there anything preventing you from occupying the space and THEN mounting? Only the 'order' of the move actions.

So lets look at that:
Can you perform a free action during a move action? Yes. Because of that you can mount/dismount while still moving and before the rule that states you cannot occupy someone else's space kicks in.

CRB p181 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.

So, yes, you could dismount into the mount's space and then have the mount continue moving so that you are legally occupying that space.

You could also move to within your mount's space and then, as a free action attempt to mount your mount.


CountofUndolpho, yes, you can occupy a space with someone else until you are done moving. So the idea that you can get off the horse, stay in the horses square, and the horse keep moving is completely legal.

CRB p194 wrote:

Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space:

Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it’s not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there’s a legal position that’s closer.


LazarX wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
LazarX wrote:

If you undertake a move action that puts you in a different square than what you started it in, than that's a move.

So if I cast dimension door as a standard action and end up in a different square I have moved and therefore and cannot 5' step? This is exactly why DD is relevant to this discussion.

(Don't try to argue that a standard action works different, because I can use a standard action to move my speed as well).

Like I've said before, if you're not going to stick to the subject at hand, we are done. Your attempts at redirection from the central issue at hand indicate you're not willing to either stick to the topic at hand, nor argue it from it's own merits.

We are done sir. Have a good day.

The central issue at hand is your adherence to a single sentence rather than the context of the rule as a whole. As a result we are simply applying your 'single sentence' interpretation to its logical conclusion. It is completely on topic.

Either
A) The rule prevents a 5' step when you travel any distance for any reason
OR
B) The rule prevents a 5' step when you use any form of movement speed.

If "A" then you cannot use a variety of spells, abilities, etc that involve movement without using a movement mode (walk, fly, swim, climb, etc.).


LazarX wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Dude, that is on topic. Clearly dimension door is 'moving' in the exact same way that mounting is.

You said you would not allow a 5' step and a mount action.

It seems that you would allow a 5' step and casting dimension door (since you want to avoid discussing this conflict).

'moving a distance' is contextually defined in pathfinder as using your speed to move. It's not falling, it's not being bull-rushed, it's not teleporting, it's not dimension dooring, it's not mounting, it's not dismounting, it's not standing up from prone.

It's using your speed to move.

The rules don't allow a 5 foot step and a move action (that involves personal movement)... that's quite clear. I'm not going to go into spell discussion since one, I'd have to think that over, and as far as I'm concerned that's a completely different situation than the one on topic. which involves two actions regarding the volountary physical movement of a body.

If you dismount off your horse, and decide to claim that you are sharing the same square then you are squeezing with your horse.... no 5 foot adjustment is possible and other issues rise up.

If you dismount and land on a square adjacent to your horse, then you have moved one square, and again, no 5 foot adjustment is possible. You can MOVE, as little as 5 feet, but it won't be a 5 foot adjustment.

Your ability, or lack of to dimension door is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Correction: the rules don't allow a 5 foot step and a "Move" move action.

You, and others, have continually stated that it doesn't matter what the action is, only the fact that you traveled any distance. Thus, teleportation is a legitimate question and completely on topic.

How about this, cleric with the travel domain uses Dimensional Hop (a move action). Can he 5' step beforehand? Can he 5' step afterwards?

According to you, he has used a move action and traveled distance and thus cannot take a 5' step.

The problem with that is that this is a teleportation effect, not a any kind of action involving movement speed.


LazarX wrote:
Gauss wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Gauss wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Gauss wrote:


It makes even less sense that you would restrict a person who teleports from taking a 5' step. When you take that rule out of context you wind up with such inconsistencies.
You keep saying that as an a priori statement without saying why such a ruling would be inconsistent, where it would actually be VERY consistent with the general rule that movement rules out making 5 foot adjustments (the proper name we should be using) in the same turn.

Except that the rule doesn't unless you read it out of context.

In the 15 or so years of 3.X/PF I have never seen someone say that you cannot 5' step before/after casting a teleportation spell.

In that same period, I've yet to see anyone try to do so.
Wow, so you have never seen a Wizard 5'step away from an enemy before casting Dimension Door? That is...difficult to believe.
Given that unless you have the particular feat, dimension door ends your turn, it shouldn't be t hat difficult. Most wizards I GM don't dimension door themselves into adjacent a threatened space, at least not on purpose.

Please re-read my example. The 5' step occurred BEFORE the Dimension Door. But, according to your interpretation, you cannot 5' step and cast dimension door in any order.


LazarX wrote:
Gauss wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Gauss wrote:


It makes even less sense that you would restrict a person who teleports from taking a 5' step. When you take that rule out of context you wind up with such inconsistencies.
You keep saying that as an a priori statement without saying why such a ruling would be inconsistent, where it would actually be VERY consistent with the general rule that movement rules out making 5 foot adjustments (the proper name we should be using) in the same turn.

Except that the rule doesn't unless you read it out of context.

In the 15 or so years of 3.X/PF I have never seen someone say that you cannot 5' step before/after casting a teleportation spell.

In that same period, I've yet to see anyone try to do so.

Wow, so you have never seen a Wizard 5'step away from an enemy before casting Dimension Door? That is...difficult to believe.


LazarX wrote:
Gauss wrote:


It makes even less sense that you would restrict a person who teleports from taking a 5' step. When you take that rule out of context you wind up with such inconsistencies.
You keep saying that as an a priori statement without saying why such a ruling would be inconsistent, where it would actually be VERY consistent with the general rule that movement rules out making 5 foot adjustments (the proper name we should be using) in the same turn.

Except that the rule doesn't unless you read it out of context.

In the 15 or so years of 3.X/PF I have never seen someone say that you cannot 5' step before/after casting a teleportation spell.

5' step is designed to enable you to move 5' when you take no other movement related action (such as a "Move" move action or a Full-round action that involves movement). Those actions that allow you to move are specifically stated as such.

Short of a FAQ I don't think people will reach a consensus.
The questions here are:
Is dismounting a form of movement and thus prevent a 5' step?
Does teleporting or some other spell that changes your location prevent a 5' step?


MeanMutton wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Except LazarX, as I have already shown, the 5'step restriction is clearly intended to be applied to "Move" move actions and to Full actions that involve moving. Not to something like teleporting or dismounting. The line you and a couple others keep quoting is being taken out of context.

No - the five foot move rules are clearly designed so that you can move exactly five feet on your turn regardless of what else you're doing. They're also very clear in that they never, ever want that five foot step to result in more than five feet of movement to avoid cheese like dismount+five foot move = your horse is a flanking buddy and dismount + five foot move = scout gets full attack with sneak attack.

It's weird to me that you look at a rule in the book, see other rules in the book that do something similar but different and then assume that because the other rules exist that the explicit, clear rule in the book somehow doesn't count since it's not what the authors "clearly intended".

Pathfinder is not written in a clear, concise manner. There are rules spread out all over the place. This is one of them. Thus, by looking at the context we can better understand the rule. The context is in reference to actions such as the "Move" move action and Full-round actions that move you a distance (such as Charge).

You defining it as 'cheese' is just your opinion. To me it is not cheese and people I have played with do not consider dismounting as a form of movement.

It makes even less sense that you would restrict a person who teleports from taking a 5' step. When you take that rule out of context you wind up with such inconsistencies.


Except LazarX, as I have already shown, the 5'step restriction is clearly intended to be applied to "Move" move actions and to Full actions that involve moving. Not to something like teleporting or dismounting. The line you and a couple others keep quoting is being taken out of context.


MeanMutton wrote:
Gauss wrote:
LazarX, going by your logic ("moving vertically off the mount and horizontally to the nearest square adjacent to the mount") teleportation counts as movement and thus would prevent 5' steps.

That's completely correct. If you teleport then you do not get a 5' move. You point this out as if it's a "gotcha" but it's clearly evident from the rules and something that I would think isn't controversial.

Gauss wrote:


People are ignoring the other qualifiers in the 5' step rules which indicate that the movement that prevents a 5' step is part of a "move" move action or a full-round action that involves moving.

The rule against a 5' step is not 'if you travel any distance via any means'.

The rule we're talking about is this: "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."

So it is almost explicitly what you said it is not.

And you are ignoring the rest of the rules (that I quoted) which all put that single line into context. You are taking that one line out of context and that is the problem.

The context is: if you use a "Move" move action or a Full-round action that includes movement then you cannot also take a 5' step.


LazarX, going by your logic ("moving vertically off the mount and horizontally to the nearest square adjacent to the mount") teleportation counts as movement and thus would prevent 5' steps.

People are ignoring the other qualifiers in the 5' step rules which indicate that the movement that prevents a 5' step is part of a "move" move action or a full-round action that involves moving.

The rule against a 5' step is not 'if you travel any distance via any means'.


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).


To use a ray when you don't know where the target is you select a square and then roll 50% miss chance and the attack roll.
If the target is in that square AND the 50% miss chance is good AND you hit the touch AC then your attack hits. Note: many GMs will roll the 50% miss chance for you so that you don't know if the creature was in that square or not.

If it misses it does nothing and does not have a chance of hitting other creatures.

chbgraphicarts, please cite the rule that states that rays (ranged touch attacks) do not suffer the shooting into melee penalty.
Rays are still ranged attacks and follow all rules for ranged attacks regarding targeting, miss chances, cover, and shooting into melee.


No:

CRB p212 Polymorph wrote:
When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function). Items that require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form.

Note: There is a magic armor/shield property called "Wild" that will allow you to keep the armor and shield bonuses.


1. There is no handedness in the game. There was in previous editions but it was dropped.

2. There is no rule that covers how many hands are required for disable device, assume 1 is minimum but after that it is probably GM fiat.

I suggest getting someone to cast regenerate on the poor sod. 910gp to pay someone to cast it and there is no more problem. :)


Lune, you have repeatedly tried to draw a line from specific items/effects such as the Dan Bong and the Dueling property to infer a more general statement. That is what I was responding to.

You asked questions, got answers, and then argued with the answer even though they were based on Dev statements and a FAQ. You appeared to be looking for a specific answer to enable you to do something and argued with anything that did not match that answer.

Of course, I could be wrong as to your intent and if so I apologize.


Just about any martial class can pump out 100DPR by level 12. My halfling Cavalier will do that in a single hit by level 9.


Lune, I don't care if Dueling allows you to use a weapon for Dirty Trick or not. A magic item is NOT a general rule. You can argue it defines a general rule all you want but it doesn't.

Heck, feats, magic items, etc regularly break the main rules or 'indicate' that the main rule does something that it doesn't.
Example: Pre-errata Prone Shooter did this, it removed a -4 penalty to shooting a crossbow while prone. A penalty that DIDN'T EXIST.

Taking a magic item effect out of a splatbook and saying that the main rule works a given way because of the magic item rule is not conducive to a rules discussion.

Splat rules can provide exceptions, agree with, raise questions, and prove a rule, but they cannot disprove a rule. Especially not one that the Paizo Devs have specifically stated works a certain way.

Until you understand that there is really no point in continuing this discussion with you.


Lune, you are confusing exceptions with the general rules.

Once again, you cannot use weapons, AS A GENERAL RULE, with Dirty Tricks unless the GM states you can in a specific situation. If you can find a GENERAL RULE that states otherwise, please show it.
Dueling is not a general rule, it is a specific rule for a specific enhancement. Ie. an exception.

Pathfinder is built upon exceptions. Dueling allows you to use a weapon for dirty tricks. Without it, you cannot use the weapon for dirty tricks (without the GM specifically allowing you to).


Aydin D'Ampfer, how is there even a debate on whether Unarmed Strike is a weapon? It is a weapon. It is in the weapons list.

People do debate on what kind of weapon it is, but that does not ever stop it from being a weapon.


Lune, you have some inaccuracies in your last post.

1) Any weapon can be used to trip, not just unarmed strikes or weapons with the trip ability.
There is ZERO difference between tripping with an Unarmed Strike and a Longsword. Both gain any weapon related bonuses to the trip attempt.

2) You cannot use weapon bonuses, including Unarmed Strike bonuses, in a Dirty Trick unless you have an exception stating that you can or your GM rules that you can in a specific situation (such as the Sap example that SKR stated).

This is simple.
1) The only Combat Maneuvers that generally benefit from weapon bonuses are Disarm, Sunder and Trip.
2) Drag and Reposition gain weapon bonuses if the weapon has the Trip special ability.
3) For all else, it is GM fiat or specific equipment/ability exceptions as to whether it applies or not.


Lune, yes, they count as a Manufactured Weapon.

What I was trying to say is that whether they count as a manufactured weapon or not does not matter to Combat Maneuvers. (I was tired when I said it and didnt say it right.)

Now, it may matter to specific effects that affect Combat Maneuvers but that is entirely different.

It seems that once you understand how Combat Maneuvers work the problem you have is how does certain items and weapon properties work (rather than how do Combat Maneuvers work).
"Dueling" is a specific magic weapon property with specific rules.
"Dan Bong" is a specific weapon with specific (and poorly written) rules.

I suggest searching for threads that are specific to those items.


Unarmed Strike is a weapon, it doesn't ever stop being a weapon. It is just not a manufactured weapon (which is not relevant to whether or not you can use a weapon for various combat maneuvers).


Aydin D'Ampfer, in the Blog you linked.

Lune, yes. The monk can use any Unarmed Strike bonuses, including the enhancement bonus, for Disarm, Sunder, and Trip combat maneuvers.

BTW, it is your starting assumption that is the problem.
Start with the assumption that the only combat maneuvers that can have ANY weapon applied to them are Disarm, Sunder, and Trip. Then all else will fall into place.


Lune, you may use any weapon for Disarm, Sunder, or Trip combat maneuvers. The qualities of the weapon are not relevant. The Blog and FAQ states this.

Dan Bong is an exception, it specifically states you get a bonus to grapple checks when using it to grapple with.

I am not looking past what you wrote, you are missing the point. The point is that Dan Bong is an exception and you are trying to make connections where none exist. There is no exception for Unarmed Strikes.

1) ANY weapon can be used (and the weapon bonuses used) for Disarm, Sunder, or Trip combat maneuvers. The weapon does not need to have a special property.
2) Trip weapons (and only Trip weapons) can also be used (and the weapon bonuses used) for Drag and Reposition combat maneuvers.
3) Some weapons (such as the Dan Bong) may be an exception to the above statements.
4) Unarmed Strikes do not have an exception.
5) Your GM can rule any way he wants, talk to your GM.

It really cannot get any clearer.


Here is the FAQ that states "Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses apply to the roll."


Pilfering Hand

Telekinesis

Comparing the two spells, Telekinesis is missing the line in Pilfering Hand that brings the object to you. However, being a 5th level spell (as opposed to a 2nd level spell) you might be able to talk your GM into allowing it.


Lune, Magic 8ball says: ask your GM. The rules do not cover this.

As for "normally", the FAQ says this and the FAQ is a clarification of this particular rule. Whether the clarification itself needs clarification....LOL


Lune, Im really not sure what you are looking for here. You will not find any universal enabling text that allows you to use Unarmed Strike bonuses in a grapple.

You will find that the Blog and the FAQ both state that the only combat maneuvers that normally benefit are Disarm, Sunder, and Trip.

Based on that, the Dan Bong is an exception to the 'normally' part.

From there, it is GM fiat...talk to your GM.


Aydin D'Ampfer, as a general rule the only Combat Maneuvers that are eligible for weapon bonuses are Trip, Disarm, and Sunder. You are the one that linked the blog on it so why are you telling me that I am wrong?

Saying that specific weapons have a grapple bonus and thus I am wrong is like saying that I am wrong if I say that Ranged weapons do not threaten because there is a feat that allows them to threaten. Yes, there may be exceptions, see the exception.

Lune, the Dan Bong does not set a precedent, it provides an exception. There is a difference. In any case, read the blog (and it's related thread) that Aydin provided. It should answer all your questions.


The Grapple combat maneuver is not eligible for weapon bonuses (that includes unarmed strikes). So, no, any bonuses that apply to Unarmed Strikes do not apply to a grapple unless the ability states it does.


1, 5, 6, and 7) Yes, these give you general attack bonuses and a Combat Maneuver is an attack.
2-4) Only for weapon usable combat maneuvers (ie: Trip, Sunder, or Disarm).


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. :)


Claxon, interesting point of view. One does not usually associate "reserved" with "in acceptance".


Thanks for the link.

I don't see where he states that he (or any Dev) does not want ranged flanking, only a confirmation of how the rules work as currently written.


My reticence? LOL, perhaps you can explain how you figure I an reticent. I am simply asking a question. Not being silent, uncommunicative, or restrained.


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.


Claxon, I don't remember seeing Dev response on this. Could you post the links? (Not disagreeing, just don't remember.)


therealthom, here you go:

CRB p144 wrote:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.


BigP4nda, when a magic item has equal to or less than the abilities of the named item then you just upgrade it and calculate the difference in price.

A Hunter's Starknife is a +2 Wounding Starknife with some extra powers. So, you can upgrade a +1 Starknife, +1 Wounding Starknife, or a +2 Wounding Starknife into a Hunter's Starknife without any problem.
Of course, this all assumes you have access to a crafter willing to do the work and the time to do it.


CRB p553 wrote:

Adding New Abilities

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.


Yes, you can upgrade items. Calculate the difference in price between the current item and the upgraded item.

+1 MWK Starknife (2,324gp) to Hunter's Starknife (18,324gp) is 16,000gp.


graystone, that was part of the answer I posted after asking the question (it wasn't a question I had, it was one of those rhetorical type questions).

Paizo could have come up with it's own example, so it wasn't just the lack of example in the SRD/legal issues. It was probably also that they needed to save space and probably figured that since people were coming from 3.5 with an adequate knowledge base they could get away with fewer examples. It is one of the flaws of Pathfinder (lack of adequate explanation/examples that 3.5 had).


BretI, for about 3 generations of this game (3.0/3.5/PF) Mithral armor has reduced the armor type to 1 step lower. While PF did change one element (the level of training required) they added that specific exception to the rules rather than removing all of the rest.

Here is a quote from 3.5:

3.5DMG p284 Mithral wrote:
Mithral: Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than iron but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations (for example, whether a barbarian can use her fast movement ability while wearing the armor or not). Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2, and armor check penalties are lessened by 3 (to a minimum of 0).

Contrast it with the PF version:

CRB p154 Mithral wrote:
Mithral: Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than steel but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor, and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. This decrease does not apply to proficiency in wearing the armor. A character wearing mithral full plate must be proficient in wearing heavy armor to avoid adding the armor’s check penalty to all his attack rolls and skill checks that involve moving. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonuses are increased by 2, and armor check penalties are decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0).

As you can see, they removed the example and added the bit about proficiency but kept everything else basically the same.

The example shows that yes, it does apply to class based abilities that are limited by armor type.

Why did they remove the example? Well, they removed most examples in the conversion. Probably because they were trying to condense two books into one and they were working from the SRD.

Point being, yes, you treat medium mithral armor as light armor for anything that is limiting (except proficiency). This means you treat it as light armor for class abilities that limit you to light armor. You treat it as medium armor for class abilities that are not limiting (such as the Armor Master archetype abilities that benefit you for wearing medium armor ).


1) DR/Magic being related to age has nothing to do with it being EX or SU. After all, a Dragon has other age related abilities which are clearly SU (such as a Breath Weapon).

As to whether it is EX or SU. Back in 3.5 they had that clearly defined but it was another thing that Pathfinder doesn't clearly define. 3.5 Rules Compendium p41 had it defined as:
Supernatural: Aligned (Good etc), Magic, Cold Iron, Silver, and Epic
Extraordinary: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing, and DR/-

While Pathfinder is not 3.5 there is nothing in PF to contradict this information and with no other information being provided it is the only guideline we have.

4) I would say Spell Sunder does not work, for a couple reasons.
One, in order to sunder the creature's spell effect you have to be able to attack the creature and this means attacking into the AMF. The SU ability wont work inside the AMF.
Two, Spell Sunder uses the word "dispelled" and AMF cannot be dispelled.


1) Normally DR/magic would be bypassed by Arcane Strike but DR 20/Magic is SU so is gone in an AMF.
With that said, while not explicitly stated I would also rule Arcane Strike to be magic so wouldn't work in an AMF.

2) The AMF shuts off DR/Magic

3) Aroden's Spellbane is a 9th level spell that provides immunity to AMF. (Inner Sea Magic p52)

4) Spell Sunder is (su) so will not work.

5) Not that I am aware of.

6) No, there are no rules in the game to model your 'bodypart' being X distance from your area. The GM shouldn't house rule something like this either since it is an attempt to bypass the intent of the AMF.
7-8) No, it is SU. See 6.
9) No, it is SU.

In short, the dragon has no special abilities and is reduced to being a very heavily armored flying death machine.

The biggest problem for PCs is going to be overcoming it's very high AC (natural armor is still a thing) and doing damage to it without the use of weapon enhancement bonuses, buffs, or spells.

If the player has a reach of 15' or greater then they should be able to retain most of their bonuses (weapon bonuses could be argued either way).

1 to 50 of 6,837 << 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.