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. 6,139 posts (6,147 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 6,139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Banded Mail is not even better than Breastplate and thus it is not a good choice. Banded Mail has a total of +8 (AC+max dex) while Breastplate is a total of +9 (AC +max dex).

You cannot talk about optimizing armor without discussing what quality you are optimizing for. Nowhere in your post or in your webpage did I see that you were optimizing for ACP rather than AC although it is possible I missed it. Now that is clear.

Frankly, people see optimizing armor and most of them will try to optimize the protection without sacrificing whatever they feel they need. For some that will be ACP and Speed.

In any case no regression is required for Armor Class Bonus and Dex bonus. It doesn't matter what your Dex bonus is since at any Dex bonus below +9 the best armor (for AC purposes) is going to be Full Plate.

You are really over-complicating what is a basic concept.

I dont know why you say Banded Mail is a good choice. It is +7 AC with a Max Dex of +1 for a total of +8.
Full Plate is clearly a better choice with a +9 AC bonus and a Max Dex of +1 for a total of +10.

As for Dex Bonuses, that is where I do not understand your position. Even if you have a +5 Dex bonus the armor that provides the best AC for you is still Full Plate.

Lets go with your Studded Leather example.
Studded Leather has +3 AC and +5 max dex for a total of +8.
Full Plate has +9 AC and +1 max dex for a total of +10.

It doesn't matter if your Dexterity is +5, the Full Plate is still a better choice for AC.
Now, if you are willing to take the -2 AC loss (in favor of speed, weight, and ACP) then go for the Studded Leather.

There are any number of ways to counter a spell without using a counterspell. Attacking the spellcaster, distracting him, silencing him (assuming you can get silence down from a full-round action), and blocking line of sight/effect.

Frankly, the moment a party sees there is a powerful enemy spellcaster there should be someone with a readied action to prevent him from getting a spell off.

I am not sure I understand your logic. If the priority is AC then the best is Heavy Armor. The way you have it set up your chart it seems like you are placing the same value on ACP that you place on AC.
Light Armor maxes out at +8 (AC+Max Dex)
Medium Armor maxes out at +9 (AC+Max Dex)
Heavy Armor maxes out at +10 (AC+Max Dex)

Now, that doesn't take into account the other effects such as weight, speed reduction, ACP, etc. but if you want the best AC you can get then you clearly want Heavy Armor.

Now, where things really become tricky is when you have to buy the armor proficiency. If you have to spend a feat to get Heavy Armor AND you can max out the Dexterity of medium armor then it is better to spend the feat on "Dodge". The same holds true for spending a feat to get Medium Armor proficiency.

Light Armor +Dodge maxes out at +9 (AC+Max Dex) which is equivalent to Medium Armor.
Medium Armor + Dodge maxes out at +10 (AC+Max Dex) which is equivalent to Heavy Armor.

Of course, none of this takes into account special abilities, magic items (such as Celestial Armor), and special materials but special materials like Mithral increases the Max Dex universally so really doesn't change which armor provides the best protection if you are willing to pay the cost and have the Dex to max it out.

Summary: If your priority is Armor Class then you should go for Full Plate as it has the highest combination of AC and max dex. If your priority is something else (such as speed or low ACP) then you are sacrificing AC for that something else.

No, you are not missing anything.

There is an odd disparity between the levels of the powers you can take and the levels which you get monk abilities you can exchange for those powers.

You get powers to exchange at 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 17, 19, and 20.
The levels of the powers you can acquire are at 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20.

Without retraining you cannot take a level 8 (or 10) power until level 11.
Except for levels 4, 12, and 20 there is no 1-1 matchup between the powers you lose and the powers you can select.

Kysune, correct. Aid Another does not require you to threaten and nothing in the Bodyguard feat changes that. All it requires of you is that you are in a position to make a melee attack and a whip qualifies.

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.

Doh, you ever read something two, three times and think you have read it correctly but it turns out you misread it each time? LOL, sorry about that Thomas.

Thomas Long 175, I agree with most of your statements earlier in the comparison of Crossbow and Bow except the one regarding 19-20/x2 vs x3 DPR.

Statistically 19-20/x2 is identical to 20/x3.

Given two weapons with identical damage (which is not the case here but that is another matter) you will do exactly the same DPR damage if one is 19-20/x2 and the other is 20/x3.

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.

Yeah, I love Shift. It is great for delivering touch spells (cast, walk up, touch, shift away).

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.

Arturius, there are enough people debating this that clearly it is not clear cut. There have been other threads about this very topic before so it is not just this thread that is pointing out the lack of clarity here.

I like the idea that an Inflict Deadly Wounds (Breath of Unlife?) spell brings back undead that have been destroyed for up to 1 round (if it would bring the undead up to more than 0 hp).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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

CRB page145 Table 6-5 states that a Tiny version of a Medium weapon that does 1d3 does 1 point of damage.

The RAW is silent however I expect the RAI is the same as Spiritual Weapon. In that case I suggest borrowing from Spiritual Weapon the following text:

CRB p348 Spiritual Weapon wrote:
The weapon that you get is often a force replica of your deity’s own personal weapon. A cleric without a deity gets a weapon based on his alignment. A neutral cleric without a deity can create a spiritual weapon of any alignment, provided he is acting at least generally in accord with that alignment at the time. The weapons associated with each alignment are as follows: chaos (battleaxe), evil (light flail), good (warhammer), law (longsword).

master_marshmallow wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty sure this is close to legal. Let's say someone has Bracers of Armor on with some specific enchantments on it, and also is wearing a chain shirt that is +5. They get their +9 for the chain shirt, but do not gain the minimum required +1 from the bracers, but they would gain the special ability of the armor because it is equipped and is not occupying the same magic item slot.
CRB p505 Bracers of Armor wrote:
Alternatively, bracers of armor can be enchanted with armor special abilities. See Table 15–4 for a list of abilities. Special abilities usually count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of an item, but do not improve AC. Bracers of armor cannot have a modified bonus (armor bonus plus armor special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +8. Bracers of armor must have at least a +1 armor bonus to grant an armor special ability. Bracers of armor cannot have any armor special abilities that add a flat gp amount to their cost. Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.

You cannot wear a Chain Shirt and Bracers of Armor and get the special abilities from the Bracers of Armor at the same time you get the AC bonus from the Chain Shirt.

Touche' :)

You are standing at your computer? Hmmm, must have one of them fancy setups. :D

Shamans do not get wild shape until level 6 at which point it functions at level-2 except in the case of the shaman's specific animals where it functions at level+2.

Here is the FAQ

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)

Nefreet, I had context, he did not. He provided no basis nor explanation for his statement and it was not part of the discussion up until that point.

Malachi, lets look at the order of things.

1) I posted a correct statement in response to the OPs post.
2) n00bxqb responded with what can only be interpreted as a comment saying that my statement was not correct.

Now, he did not provide enough information as to why he believed my statement was not correct so I could only assume he believed that 1 round spells do not equal (and thus use) a full-round action since that is the only information he provided.

Thus, I corrected that (assumed) belief with the rules which you are overlooking again by taking out of context my statement about the rules disagreeing with him.

Perhaps I missed the thrust of his point which, according to you, is that they do use a full-round action but do not mean the same thing but he did not state that and if that is the case it means he took my post out of context to begin with.

In any case, at no point did I state they were the same thing.
In my response to n00bxqb I stated that a 1 round spell uses a full-round action which, if anything, had nothing to do with his statement if his statement was not a contradiction of mine.
If his statement IS a contradiction of mine then my response statement was correct.

So, would you like to take anything else out of context?

Are you flat-footed or are you *considered* flat-footed? There is a big difference.

If you are flat-footed due to being slow (not having yet taken an action) at the start of combat then you cannot use an immediate action.

If you are considered flat-footed against a single attacker due to a special ability (such as Surprise Attack shown below) of the attacker then you are not actually flat-footed and can perform immediate actions.

CRB p69 wrote:
Surprise Attack (Ex): During the surprise round, opponents are always considered flat-footed to a rogue with this ability, even if they have already acted.

In the case of Surprise Attack you are not actually flat-footed if you have acted already. However, the rogue is allowed to treat you as flat-footed thus enabling him to avoid taking AoO's from opponents and enabling him to sneak attack opponents even if they have already acted.

With all that said, it could be argued that you are not allowed to perform an immediate action in response to the Rogue since he is treating you as flat-footed.


Please show where I stated that a full-round action is a one round casting time? You cannot because I never stated that.
Please show where I ever used the word "equals"? You cannot because I never used that word in any of my posts in this thread.
Please do not take my posts out of context and please do not ascribe me to saying things I did not.

What I did state is that a one round casting time is a full-round action. This is stated right in the rules. Are you saying the rules are incorrect?
Are you stating that a one round casting time is not a full-round action?

Now, when I made my first post stating "full-round action" that was a specific response to a specific question of "Standard or full round action" where the post had already indicated the spell was a 1 round spell and thus the assumption was that a full-round action was the action required for a 1 round spell.

Again, any understanding you may have to the contrary is because you are either misunderstanding the OPs original post or you are taking my first post out of context.

Nefreet, if the majority of posters do not understand how to read context then it is likely the fault is still theirs.

They read my post out of context as a statement all by itself when it was an answer in response to a question that was part of a post that supplied all of the particulars including that this was a 1 round spell.

Lets put it another way: what is the action to cast a 1 round spell? Full-round action.

Is that an incorrect answer? No, it is the correct answer to the question of what is the action required to cast a 1 round spell.

My post was answering the question of what is the action required which is what the OP asked. Failure to understand so basic a question seems to be what you and others are having a problem with.

Instead you jump on what you feel is an 'incomplete answer' when in fact it is complete since it was already stated this was a 1 round spell.

At level 1 you get Perfect Strike instead of Stunning Fist.

At level 2 you get Weapon Focus and at level 6 you get Weapon Specialization instead of Evasion.

You do not need to spend a monk's bonus feats to get these abilities, you are giving up things already.

1st Level:
1) Correct replacement (but this is not a feat).
2) Correct
3) Correct
4) Correct
Do not forget your normal first level feat and racial bonus feat (if any).

2nd Level:
5) (you called it 4) Correct
6) (you called it 5) Correct, this feat may also be any Improved [Combat Maneuver] feat as per your expanded bonus monk feat list.

Archetypes are not separate classes, you are still just one class, monk.

You replace your abilities that the archetype(s) specify with the abilities in that archetype. Example: Maneuver Master replaces the monk ability "Still Mind" with "Maneuver Defense".

You cannot have two archetypes that modify or replace the same ability. Maneuver Master and Weapon Adept are compatible since they do not modify or replace the same abilities.

My statement needed no further distinction since it was a direct answer to an existing question and dialog which had already stated that it was a 1 round casting time and the question had phrased the answer as "standard action or a full round action" (which assumed 1 round casting time by the earlier portions of the post).

Way to take my post out of context. :)

As an aside, I find it funny that people are stating that a 1 round casting time is not a full-round action when the rules clearly state that it is (I have quoted it and even Malachi quoted it when he said it wasn't). It is a full-round action that does not go off until just before your next turn.

In fact, there is no action type of "1 round". Any spell that has a casting time of "1 round" or more uses an action type of "full-round action" so how can I be wrong by stating the action type used?

The OP is asking about what action type an SLA uses and not the difference between full-round action spells and full-round action spells that take 1 round to cast.

Yes, a 1 round casting time spell uses a full round action, I quoted this. That does not mean we assume a full round action uses a 1 round casting time.

There is no misconception except that by those people who think there is. The rules clearly state that a spell that takes 1 round to cast is using a full-round action (as I quoted earlier). That does not mean I or anyone else involved in this thread thinks that the spell goes off immediately.
Nobody here has stated that when you are using a full-round action to cast a 1 round spell that the spell does not take 1 round to cast and yet several of you are assuming we have stated that.

original question wrote:
Does it take a standard action or a full round action to cast "Bigger"?

Based on the OP's original question (quote above) we can ask the expanded question so that the discussion can stop being derailed.

Question: When a spell has a casting time of 1 round (ie: a full-round action and takes a round to cast) does the SLA equivalent of the spell take 1 round (ie: a full-round action and takes a round to cast) or does it take a standard action (as per SLAs that are not specified otherwise)?

Answer: If an SLA is replicating a spell then you follow the spell's casting time. If the casting time is 1 round then you are using a full-round action and it takes a round to cast (goes off right before the start of your next turn).

Now, can we stop debating something which is not in question?

n00bxqb, the rules would appear to disagree with you:

CRB p187 wrote:
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action.

A spell with a casting time of 1 round is a full-round action.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Full-Round action.

Is your GM GMing PFS officially or is he just using PFS guidelines and then restricting them further?

Riuken, your statement was "by the time you can afford a mithral shield" and not, "by the time you can afford a mithral shield after you have made better purchases". I was responding to your statement as you wrote it.

To clarify, I stated a wizard can purchase a shield and it has helped me. You stated it wouldn't help by the time you can afford it. To which I responded that you can afford it at level 3 (and at that point it would help).

At no point in that exchange was there a discussion on whether or not it is wise to purchase one at level 3 in favor of other items.

Nefreet, "Shield" is most certainly an item slot. It is listed as such on CRB p459.

Riuken, I find that it helps against secondary enemies when your front line is fighting the BBEG. As for when you can afford it, you mean level 3?

Anyone non-proficient with a shield can use a mithral or darkwood shield and they will not suffer the attack penalties.

Wizards and Sorcerers can use mithral bucklers without the spell failure penalty. My wizards regularly use mithral bucklers.

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.

Calth wrote:
An item either has to be slotless, or occupying one of your magic item slots to be active, the shield in this case is neither.

Shields do occupy a slot called "Shield" (source: CRB p459).

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.

No, you cannot cast a spell that requires somatic or material components unless you have a free hand.

However, as you stated many GMs hand-wave this (perhaps due to legacy from early editions of D&D).

DEXRAY, it is RAW.

Back in 3.5 there was 'equivalent' weapons but that involved GM fiat for those weapons that were not otherwise listed. In that system a Huge Shortspear would probably count as a Medium Longspear.

Pathfinder did away with that for simplicity sake so yes, it is RAI.

CRB p562 Negative Levels wrote:
For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature’s negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies.

Do you lose caster levels? No.

Do you count as one lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables such as caster levels? Yes.
That is an important distinction. It means your caster level has not changed any more than a strength damage changes your strength score.
It will mean that the calculations are changed but that doesn't change the original stat (in this case Caster Level).

Still, does your caster level determine your spell level? No.
While they may be related in the underlying mechanics of the game they are not actually spelled out as one being dependent upon the other.

Melkiador, there is no rule against wielding a weapon two-handed while mounted. You can wield a lance two handed while mounted.

Person 1.

Trekkie90909, I think you may be right. Class features are listed after class skills and thus the strict RAW does not cover that.

However, many GMs may see it the other way so I would expect table variation.

APG p72 wrote:
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature.

Strict RAW: no, you cannot combine Trapper and Urban Ranger. So for PFS purposes no you cannot combine the two.

No, you cannot elect to not have Wholeness of Body at 7 in order to swap it for level 8 ability.

The list of abilities is what you can take, not what you give up.

You can take Wholeness of Body at level 8 if you do not have it.
Example: At level 7 instead of taking Wholeness of Body you took Gaseous Form. At level 11 you decide (for whatever reason) you really would rather have Wholeness of Body instead of Diamond Body so you get Wholeness of Body instead of Diamond Body.

Now, with that said, why they set up the levels as they did I have no idea. It doesn't mesh well with the list of powers you can give up.
Give up: 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 17, 19, 20
List of powers: 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20.
Which means that level 8 and level 10 powers are really level 11 powers since you cannot take them until then.

Karui Kage,

Summons may be able to charge in and fight effectively but they have no way of knowing to attack enemy "B" instead of enemy "A".
Unless you have a means of communicating with them you cannot direct them to attack a specific target. You cannot tell them to switch enemies. You cannot tell them to cease attacking.
They basically go for the closest enemy and attack that creature until dead and then move to the next closest enemy.

When contrasting Handle Animal with how Summons are ran it is pretty clear that the wording is enabling you to tell the animal to do more than just 'attack my enemies'. It is enabling you to tell the summoned creature to 'attack this specific enemy'.

BTW, Handle Animal is a means to control summoned animals to attack specific targets, something you cannot normally have them do.

Karui Kage,

You could look at it from the point of summon monster. With summon monster you cannot direct the creature to attack specific creatures unless you can communicate with it.

So while summoned creatures attack any enemy (unless you can direct them otherwise) Handle Animal allows you to direct an animal to attack a specific creature if you can point it out.

In other words, the "may" is giving you permission to attack a specific creature, not limiting how you can direct it to attack enemies.


Blink only has a single 50% miss chance, not two 50% miss chances that add up to 75%.

1 to 50 of 6,139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.