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

Gauss's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 7,939 posts (7,947 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,939 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Not out of context at all, using an insulting term, no matter how mild, is still an insult.

But I am also not cutting out an entire sentence of his quote to prove a point here, he is.


Rysky,

Please stop misrepresenting his post. This entire thread you have continually misrepresented his post and have been using that as your reason for insulting him.

Frankly, it is baffling why you have so vehemently defended your need to insult someone over a statement that they didn't make and on a position that they didn't even have.

Heck, I wonder if you are a politician with the way you are taking a statement out of context and using that to support your point of view.

The houserule is only relevant in the context of the FAQ's suggestion but it is not relevant as a solution to a rules question. This is the rules forum and it does not qualify as a solution to a rules question in this forum. That is what the houserule forum is for.


Simple, don't. If you have to resort to calling someone something then you are probably not actually discussing the topic. Instead, discuss the topic and address what you feel is pedantic without resorting to the insults.

Alternately, there are synonyms of pedant that come without the insulting qualities. Perfectionist for example. Although resorting to calling someone anything is still a failure to discuss the topic.

You actually did address the topic in the line after the insult, so it isn't like you needed to throw in the insult.


Rysky wrote:

By claiming that the spell doesn't function if you're not a wizard or sorcerer he was being pedantic. He was, in fact, being pedantic. To the detriment of the point he was trying to make.

The FaQ is not in conflict with the common sense approach, since it flat out calls it "perfectly reasonable".

Saying that someone who is being pedantic is being pedantic is not insulting, it's making an obverstion.

I'm called a pedant a pedant, while the rest of you have called me a jerk, a troll, and flat out told to stop posting.

The only thing I've done is criticized someone for drawing attention to an overinflated problem of their own making by overly misinterpreting it. Case in point, I quoted a post by Gauss where they wrote up the situation without being pedantic and I was perfectly fine with it.

Again, you are mis-representing his position and taking him out of context. You refuse to see or accept this, whatever.

But whatever your lack of understanding the context, you were absolutely being insulting.
As a comparison, making an observation that someone is the rear end of a donkey if they are acting like the rear end of a donkey doesn't change the fact that it is an insult. There are other ways to state your opinion without using an insult.

As for common sense approach, that does not resolve the rules issue. There are a lot of rules that fail the 'common sense' test and a lot of rules which are unclear and different people have different ideas of what common sense is.

Again, that does not require you to be insulting. As for people calling you a jerk or troll, you are right, they shouldn't do that, but in all fairness, you threw the first stone.


KingOfAnything, nobody is pretending that.

As for applying the reasoning, yes, you can do that to generate house rules, but you cannot do that and call it RAW or by FAQ.

BTW, if you are going to substitute words in the FAQ like that you should state that you are doing so.


Rysky wrote:

*scratches head*

How is telling someone to stop being a pedant when they're being pedantic insulting or trolling?

You really don't understand how that is an insult? Wow.

I suggest googling the phrase "is calling someone pedantic an insult" and reading the results.


KingOfAnything wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

Well, the issue here, is that per RAW, it can't function without being a wizard or sorcerer, because it's not an issue like in the APG FAQ where it always calls out using Wisdom for a given cleric spell. This spell states:

Mage's Sword wrote:
Its attack bonus is equal to your caster level + your Intelligence bonus or your Charisma bonus (for wizards or sorcerers, respectively)
So in the case of neither being a wizard or sorcerer, there's no stat defined for the spell.

It can function. You can choose to use your Charisma or your Intelligence modifier. If your GM follows the FAQ, you can use your Wisdom modifier.

+1 against pedantry.

Except that is not what the FAQ says.

FAQ wrote:

Oracle: Can I use my Charisma modifier for cleric spells and effects that use Wisdom, such as spiritual weapon?

As written, those effects say "Wisdom" (because they were written before the idea of the oracle class as a Charisma-based caster), so an oracle has to use her Wisdom modifier.
However, it is a perfectly reasonable house rule to allow an oracle to use her Charisma modifier (or bonus) for cleric spells that refer to the caster's Wisdom modifier (or bonus).

1) The FAQ applies to Oracles. The Devs have repeatedly stated we are not to apply FAQs to topics, even related topics, that are not covered in the FAQ.

What that means is that the GM cannot 'follow the FAQ' in the case of Warpriests since it only applies to Oracles.

2) The FAQ covers normal ability score modifier statements:

FAQ wrote:
As written, those effects say "Wisdom" (because they were written before the idea of the oracle class as a Charisma-based caster), so an oracle has to use her Wisdom modifier.
Spiritual Weapon wrote:
It uses your base attack bonus (possibly allowing it multiple attacks per round in subsequent rounds) plus your Wisdom modifier as its attack bonus.

So even if we ignore #1 and extend it to "whatever the ability score says in the spell" (which the Devs tell us not to take a limited FAQ and apply it like that) then that still does not help in this situation because the spell lists TWO ability scores dependent upon different classes neither of which is applicable.

Yes, a reasonable house-rule would be to choose the ability score but again, we are in house-rule territory rather than rules territory and this forum is not for house-rules, there is another forum for that.

Summary: CraziFuzzy's statements were accurate and he brought up valid points even if those valid points have readily usable house-rule solutions. This is not the house-rule forum, it is the rules forum.


Actually Rysky, you INSULTED him then told him to use common sense.

Rysky wrote:
ORRRRRRRR you could stop being a pedant and use common sense.

Lets keep your own comments in context eh? You were trolling him.

In fact, I am beginning to think you are trolling me. LOL


Actually, he wasn't. You were (and are) taking him out of context. The problem is yours, not his.

What is worse, rather than discussing it with him, you instead choose to insult him (repeatedly).


At least now we have ascertained the malfunction here. You do not understand the post's context.

In either case, you should not insult people. There is no reason to do that.


Rysky, 'can't function without being a wizard or sorcerer' is being taken out of context. It is absolutely, 100% clear that he means 'correctly' or 'as intended'. How do I know this? Because of the other sentence in the SAME POST.

CraziFuzzy wrote:

Well, the issue here, is that per RAW, it can't function without being a wizard or sorcerer, because it's not an issue like in the APG FAQ where it always calls out using Wisdom for a given cleric spell. This spell states:

Mage's Sword wrote:
Its attack bonus is equal to your caster level + your Intelligence bonus or your Charisma bonus (for wizards or sorcerers, respectively)
So in the case of neither being a wizard or sorcerer, there's no stat defined for the spell.

And that does not mean only a wizard or sorcerer can use it. Again, using his context, Warpriests can use it but they gain no ability score bonus to attack.

In order for his post to mean what you say it means you have to disregard the ending sentence in his post. You are absolutely taking his post out of context.


Rysky, again, how he presented it was a statement that one element of the spell did not work. He never made the assertion that only Wizards and Sorcerers can use it. Those are two VERY different statements.

As written:
Wizards and Sorcerers gain an ability score bonus to attack.
Warpriests do not gain an ability score bonus to attack, although that does not stop them from using the spell.

Clearly, the spell is usable by Warpriests but, as written, lacks a bonus to attack.

Since we all know that is not the intent this spell seems a clear candidate for a FAQ since the existing FAQ does not adequately cover this contingency without using a house rule.


Rysky wrote:

Gauss

CraziFuzzy wrote:
Well, the issue here, is that per RAW, it can't function without being a wizard or sorcerer,

"it can't function without being a wizard or sorcerer"

He said it right there.

Once again, you are misreading it and taking it out of context.

Stating it cannot function (in context he seems to indicate it cannot function correctly) is not the same as a statement that only Wizards and Sorcerers can use the spell.

Do you have a statement where he states that only Wizards and Sorcerers can use the spell?

You keep quoting statements which do not state that. You keep taking his statements out of context.

Again, this is the rules forum, showing that the text has a flaw is one of the main purposes of this forum. Why are you attacking that?

In any case, this has long since moved out of the realm of a rules discussion, there is really no point continuing this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The domain power is already clearly defined. Some other domains have powers that are written in basically the same format. You just have to break it down a bit to understand the parts.

Here is the breakdown:

CRB p48 wrote:
Weapon Master (Su): At 8th level, as a swift action, you gain the use of one combat feat for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive and you can change the feat chosen each time you use this ability. You must meet the prerequisites to use this feat.

"At 8th level, as a swift action, you gain the use of one combat feat for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level."

This sentence has four statements:
1) You get the ability at level 8
2) It is a swift action to activate the ability
3) You gain the use of one combat feat
4) You can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level.

"These rounds do not need to be consecutive and you can change the feat chosen each time you use this ability."
This sentence does two things to modify the first sentence:
1) You do not have to use the rounds per day consecutively.
This means you can use some rounds, stop the ability, then later on start it up again and you can do that until you run out of rounds per day.
2) You can use a different feat each time you activate the ability.

"You must meet the prerequisites to use this feat."
This sentence adds a requirement to which feat you can select.

Here is an example of how this all works:

I have a level 10 cleric with the war domain. This gives me 10 rounds per day of Weapon Master.
Battle 1:
Round 1 I activate Weapon Master using a swift action to give myself Lunge.
Rounds 2 and 3 I continue using it, I do not spend a swift action again because the ability is already activated and continues to operate.
Start of round 4 I shut it down.
I now have 7 rounds remaining.

Battle 2:
Round 1 I activate Weapon Master using a swift action to give myself Cleave (I have Power Attack as a normal feat).
Start of Round 2 I shut it down and then I spend a swift action to activate it again. This time I select Defensive Weapon Training.
Start of round 5 I shut it down.
I now have 3 rounds remaining.

Summary: A normal timed ability would be started and then would run until it is gone without further actions by the user.
By adding the non-consecutive statement it allows someone to start it, use some of the time (without further actions by the user), then stop it and thus save the remaining time for later.

Later it would require you to activate it again since it is no longer in use.


Rysky,

Again, he never stated Wizards and Sorcerers are the only ones that can use the spell. You are the one making the statement that he stated it and he has not.

Within the rules as written, you can be a Warpriest and use the spell, but you will not have an ability score bonus to the attack roll. That does not translate to "only Wizards and Sorcerers can use the spell".

Ergo, you are wrong.

You are the one being insulting and annoying. He brought up a legitimate issue, one that is not handled by the FAQ people keep referencing (unless you can make a house rule that is).


Rysky wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

Well, the issue here, is that per RAW, it can't function without being a wizard or sorcerer, because it's not an issue like in the APG FAQ where it always calls out using Wisdom for a given cleric spell. This spell states:

Mage's Sword wrote:
Its attack bonus is equal to your caster level + your Intelligence bonus or your Charisma bonus (for wizards or sorcerers, respectively)
So in the case of neither being a wizard or sorcerer, there's no stat defined for the spell.

He made it right here.

I'm not against a FaQ being issued regarding what stat should be used for what was originally class unique spells but trying to get your point across by being pedantic is just annoying, there's better ways to go about it.

Nowhere in this quote does he state that only Wizards and Sorcerers can use the spell. He states it cannot function (correctly) without being a wizard or sorcerer. That is an entirely different statement and a correct one. Unless you are a Wizard or Sorcerer, as written, you have no ability score bonus to the attack roll.

Try reading things in context.

@James Risner, I see that, and so did CraziFuzzy, but even then the FAQ's RAW statement is not applicable (because a Warpriest is neither a Wizard nor a Sorcerer) thus forcing you to either have no ability score or to use the houserule option. Where does that leave PFS where houseruling it is not an option?

There is a legitimate question that CraziFuzzy brought up and being insulted is not a good response to that question. Frankly, it should be FAQ'd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, he never once made that assertion. Try reading his posts.

What he has stated (and I am paraphrasing here, not quoting) is that there is no ability score modifier when a Warpriest uses it, as written, because there is none written into the spell and that the FAQ didn't cover this contingency because it the spell specifically links certain ability scores to certain classes.

Rysky, he has a valid point and instead of following the purpose of the forum, discussing that the spell needs to be corrected or a FAQ issued, you choose to insult him.

Either this forum is for resolving and correcting these RAW errors or we should never ask for Paizo to make another clarification because someone, somewhere (probably you), will think it is pedantic.

Try to not be insulting, eh?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically, you start it up (swift), select a feat, and then use that feat until you shut the ability down or you run out of rounds per day.

If you shut it down you can then start it up again with the same or different feat (up to the rounds per day limit).

The point is, you can use it for 1 round, or multiple rounds with one swift action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Or you could use common sense.

Yes, you should absolutely use common sense to understand the point he is making.

Is he saying 'I cannot use this and I cannot houserule it.'? No.

Is he saying 'As written the spell doesn't work and thus requires houseruling and should be FAQ'd/Errata'd.'? Yes.

You are being insulting by calling him pedantic when he is bringing up a valid error in the rules. Bringing up such errors is how errata happens. You should not demean it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
ORRRRRRRR you could stop being a pedant and use common sense.

This is the rules forum, by the RAW he is absolutely correct. By RAW and by FAQ, the spell Mage's Sword is effectively unusable in it's current form for Warpriests.

You can call it pedantic all you want but this is the rules forum and this is the forum where such things are dealt with.

This clearly needs a FAQ/errata.


Ridiculon, Earth Glide is burrow++.

The problem I think Wraithstrike is having is that he is thinking that there is solid earth in the way when there isn't.

For regular burrow, the RAI should be that no part of the burrowers square (cube) is earth so long as that creature occupies it, otherwise it could not maneuver inside it's own square (cube) and would be considered squeezing. But like all things regarding burrow, there is no rules support telling us how burrow even works.

Thus, if you have a burrower next to another burrower there is nothing between them because they both occupy a 'hole' in the earth and the 'holes' are adjacent to each other.

Earth Glide sidesteps all of this by treating earth as water. In that wraithstrike is applying that only to movement while it is our contention that it applies to all aspects of being under the ground.
There will be no resolution in this thread regarding that point since the rules are so sparse.

Simply put, there is no RAW debate here, there cannot be. The burrow rules are non-existent beyond 'you have a burrow speed'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You shortened my statement. I said 'taken his word as meaning something'. I did not flat out state 'taken his word'. Please, keep my statements in context. :)

Simple, use the water rules because that is what Earth Glide says. The Earth Elemental gets Improved Cover.

As an alternate, house rule, you could use the incorporeal rules which would prevent full attacks (readied actions only) but reduce the cover bonus from +8 to +4.

Personally, I would use the incorporeal rules as they fit more closely.

But in either case, JJ also stated in another post that burrowing rules are really undersupported in Pathfinder. Because of this you really need to look at the RAI rather than the RAW.

Expect massive table variance.


While we know James Jacobs is not official in any way you and I have at least taken his word as meaning something if there is no other Dev comments to the contrary.

James Jacobs saying yes, you can attack creatures via the water rules (improved cover) while using earth glide.


Again, you are ignore the lack of rules here. You are failing to look at the RAI, which is rather surprising since once you did.

2. moves through does not necessarily mean movement mode ONLY.

3. you are not extending the logic of how do two burrowing creatures meet under earth and attack each other. Please resolve that because if the answer is "they can't" then you have reached a ridiculous conclusion.

You mention an 'empty pocket'. Please show that in the rules. Please show how a burrower can or cannot create one.

You are applying the general rules without looking at how might burrowing be made to work. At WORST your answer should be 'as written burrowing does not work correctly since it has no rules'.

4. Please show that in the rules. Please show how a creature that has reached the surface has to get ON the surface to interact with it.

I am not stating the attack is creating holes. I am stating that there is no ground-surface barrier to a burrowing creature because he has burrowed to the surface and now resides in a 5' deep hole.

However, Earth Glide does not need to create such a hole, so the 5' deep hole exists only for the elemental while it does not exist for creatures attacking it (though it should still has to expose itself to attack similar to an incorporeal creature).

Ultimately, you are arguing a lack of rules as if there were rules present. There are not.


Except even if we take your position on this wraithstrike there is still no cover. You determine cover by what is interposed between the corners of your square (or cube) and the corners of the opponent's square (or cube). If you are just below the surface then there is no such cover.

Example: (H = human on surface, B = Burrower just underneath the human)
H
B

No cover.

Now, if the burrower was 10' away then there would be cover.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, lets look at the various elements here:

1) Is Burrow clearly defined? No
In 3.5 burrow was barely defined, in PF it is even less defined. The major change appears to be the removal of the 'cant charge or run' statement that 3.5 had.

2) Is Earth Glide clearly defined? Also no, but it clearly does indicate that, for at least some purposes it functions as water. Which purposes is the disagreement.

3) Can a creature with burrow attack another creature underground?
If the answer is no then we have a potentially ridiculous situation.
Situation: there is nothing in the rules that states a burrowing creature can create a tunnel thereby opening up space. Yet we know that burrowing creatures create tunnels through many many references in the various adventures etc.
So, if the answer is no then it directly contradicts the logic that burrowing creatures create tunnels thereby allowing themselves to meet other burrowing creatures that create tunnels.

Earth Glide is an extension of burrow but leaves behind no tunnel, so #3 clearly solves both.

4) Can a creature with burrow attack a creature on the surface? If the answer is no then how does the burrowing creature REACH the surface? You have Schrodinger's burrower.

Clearly, burrowing creatures can reach the surface, clearly they create holes to attack from.

Earth glide is, against, an extension of this but they ignore the lack of a hole.

Now, how that gets resolved is not in the rules, but you can look to the incorporeal rules to address it (which btw, wraithstrike suggested a couple years ago in another post on this topic).

In short, there is no RAW on this, you have to look at the RAI.

P.S. Cover is only cover if it is solid to the attack. If you are using something that passes through the material then there is no cover, but it is probably concealment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Locating the incorporeal creature is going to be the problem. Tremorsense and Blindsense/Blindsight (usually) won't work here.

Tremorsense: The incorporeal creature does not make contact with the ground it occupies so tremorsense will not work.

Blindsense/Blindsight usually rely upon senses such as hearing, which also won't work since incorporeal creatures are silent. Visual based Blindsense/Blindsight will not work either because it is underground.
Only if the Blindsense/Blindsight was based on a non-visual, non-auditory sense would it work (perhaps something similar to lifesense but applicable to undead).

wraithstrike, I don't believe you are correct here.

CRB p122 Earth Glide wrote:
Earth Glide (Ex) A burrowing earth elemental can pass through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth except metal as easily as a fish swims through water.

To the user of Earth Glide the earth is the same as water is to a fish. Fish can attack other fish in water, so the user of Earth Glide can do so as well.

Sissyl, incorporeal creatures are no longer ethereal, that was one of the changes Pathfinder made from D&D3.5.


Cloak of Displacement helps just fine, Combat Maneuvers are attack rolls. Attack rolls are subject to miss chance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RevusHarkings, you are misreading Inspire Courage.

It states: "attack and weapon damage rolls". To mean what you are saying it would have to say something like: 'weapon attack and damage rolls' or 'attack and damage rolls with weapons'. 'Weapon' is with damage, it is not with attack.

Summary: Inspire Courage applies to all attack rolls, including Combat Maneuvers.


Regarding 1-handed lance use there is this FAQ that covers Power Attacks. (Summary: Lances in 1 hand get the 1.5x power attack damage.)

Note: there is also this FAQ that some people (including myself) believe contradicts the lance FAQ. (Summary: 2-handed weapons in 1-hand get 1-handed damage for the purposes of strength, power attack, etc.)

They have yet to resolve this apparent contradiction so at the moment when you use a lance 1-handed you get normal 1x (not 1.5x) strength but you also get 1.5x power attack because specific trumps general (the lance FAQ is more specific than the 2-handed in 1-hand weapon FAQ).


The Diplomat,

Technically yes, but it falls under the rule that GMs are may limit free actions per round. You may expect table variance as a GM may decide that dismounting and mounting in the same round is too much.

Note: I am not placing judgement on whether or not it is too much or not.


@The Diplomat,
You have not dismounted, you must dismount before you can mount.

@dragonhunterq,
Nothing about the ride skill's cover ability indicates that the rider has dismounted.

CRB p104 wrote:
Cover: You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can’t attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don’t get the cover benefit. Using this option is an immediate action, but recovering from this position is a move action (no check required).

You are hanging from your mount, you have not dismounted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

markofbane, as wraithstrike and Squiggit said, that rule is not applicable to learning a new language due to an intelligence or skill point increase and if that is what Tyrant Lizard King is basing it on then he is using a house rule.

In fact, if have zero ranks in Linguistics, put 4 ranks in, you immediately learn 4 languages...as per the rules. Does it make roleplay sense? No, but this is the rules forum, not the what makes sense for roleplay forum.


Tyrant Lizard King, can you please cite your source that it takes a month of study etc? That is not in the Linguistics skill.


This FAQ is relevant.

Basically, if you are selecting a creature which both classes can select, then it stacks. If you are selecting a creature that both classes cannot select, then it does not stack and they count as separate abilities.


Doh, I thought I deleted the above message. It was posted in the wrong thread (thats what I get for having multiple threads open at once).


There was a FAQ on this, the answer is yes, you gain a bonus language when your intelligence modifier increases.

FAQ wrote:

Intelligence: If my Intelligence modifier increases, can I select another bonus language?

Yes. For example, if your Int is 13 and you reach level 4 and apply your ability score increase to Int, this increases your Int bonus from +1 to +2, which grants you another bonus language.
Technically, Int-enhancing items such as a headband of vast intelligence should grant a specific language (in the same way they do for skill ranks).


There was a FAQ on this, the answer is yes, you gain a bonus language when your intelligence modifier increases.

FAQ wrote:

Intelligence: If my Intelligence modifier increases, can I select another bonus language?

Yes. For example, if your Int is 13 and you reach level 4 and apply your ability score increase to Int, this increases your Int bonus from +1 to +2, which grants you another bonus language.
Technically, Int-enhancing items such as a headband of vast intelligence should grant a specific language (in the same way they do for skill ranks).


The FAQ would disagree with your VC's statement that "elf blood" only applies to spells.

The rules are pretty clear, If you are a Half-Elf you are Human and Elf for any and all rules that call out humans or elves as a requirement.

The same goes for Half-Orc. (Humans or Orcs.)

The reason for the favored enemy clause is because some creatures have multiple subtypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mythic Perfect Strike is worse than Mythic Gr. Vital Strike.

normal: 1d6+29 (extra +21 on critical hit due to Mythic Power Attack)
with Perfect Strike: 2d6+58
with Perfect Strike and x5 critical hit (ie: x6 critical): 6d6+174+126 = 6d6+300

On a critical, 6d6+300 is significantly less than Mythic Gr. Vital Strike's 8d6+367.

As for Mythic Power Attack's damage being doubled, I did that when I wrote "+21 more to BASE damage on a critical due to Mythic Power Attack".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, if your normal damage is 1d6+29 (including Mythic Power Attack's +21) then we have the following:

Normal attack w/Power Attack: 1d6+29 (+21 more to BASE damage on a critical due to Mythic Power Attack for a total of 1d6+29+21 BEFORE calculating the x5 from the critical)
Mythic Greater Vital Strike w/ Devastating Strike: an extra 3d6+87+6
Critical Hit w/ Devastating Strike: an extra 4d6+116+105+24

Total: 8d6+367

Put another way: you are at x4 (Vital Strike) and x5 (Critical) for a total of x8 +5*Devastating Strike
Totaling that this way: (1d6+29)*8 +(21+6)*5 = 8d6+232+105+30 = 8d6+367

The reason for it being x8 and not x9 is this: Both the x4 and the x5 share the original 'base damage'. Base+3 + Base+4 = Base+7 = Base*8


You did not specify Mythic Perfect Strike, yes, that is incompatible with Vital Strike for the reasons that DoubleBubble stated.


DoubleBubble, Perfect Strike does not require an attack action (standard action), it requires an attack and that attack can be any attack.

APG p166 Perfect Strike wrote:
Benefit: You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). You must use one of the following weapons to make the attack: kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, and siangham. You can roll your attack roll twice and take the higher result. If one of these rolls is a critical threat, the other roll is used as your confirmation roll (your choice if they are both critical threats). You may attempt a perfect attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round.

You can use Perfect Strike anytime you are making an attack roll. This includes Standard action attacks or full-attacks, and special action attacks like Vital Strike.

Summary: Perfect Strike is compatible with Vital Strike.

Edit: For contrast notice the difference in language between Vital Strike's "attack action" and Perfect Strike's "attack roll". An attack roll is not an action, it is a component of an action (typically either standard or full-round).


Saethori, this was all hammered out years ago.

This FAQ closed the very loophole you are arguing is still open (the "my mount is charging but I am not charging loophole).

There was never an issue with the rider charging but the mount not charging. That was never a thing. It was always the mount charging and the player trying to claim that the rider was not charging that caused problems and necessitated the FAQ.


Saethori, the entire purpose of the FAQ was to put an end to the 'my mount charges but I am not charging' problem. You have to read it in that context.

If your mount charges you are charging.


Abraham Z. wrote:

CRB p. 202: "You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally."

While this isn't specifically about charging, as a GM this is what I would rule for the situation you describe, including that your shot(s) would be executed at the halfway point of the move, with all that might imply about cover.

Note that the Mounted Charge FAQ implicitly introduced a distinction between a "mounted charge" and being mounted on something that is charging. In the former case, both rider and mount are charging together, with all that implies. In the latter case, the mount is charging while the rider does something else (such as shoot a bow).

Actually, the FAQ stated that they are synonymous (the same thing).

FAQ wrote:

Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?

Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge. The mounted combat rules are a little unclear on this. Replace the third paragraph under the "Combat while Mounted" section on page 202 with the following text. Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.

A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount. During a mounted charge, you deal double damage with your first melee attack made with a lance or with any weapon if you have Spirited Charge (or a similar effect), or you deal triple damage with a lance and Spirited Charge.

This change will be reflected in future printings of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook

If your mount is charging then you are charging (and using a charge action). This is clearly indicated in the FAQ by the question (who charges, the rider or the mount) and then the answer (both charge in unison).

Prior to this FAQ there were a number of threads arguing this topic and people were trying to come up with all sorts of 'my mount is the one charging, not me so I can do X' options.


My take is that you can only do what you could do normally, but at a 30' range.

Ie: your keyhole example is fine, while 'around the corner' (I assume not near the corner) is not.

Ultimately, it would also seem to fall under the targeting rules. You must be able to target it in some fashion. A lock is a visible, targetable object while a lock around a corner that you cannot see is not.


Yup. :)


Saethori, if being petrified means you are an object then stone to flesh would not work.

CRB p350 Stone to Flesh wrote:
Target one petrified creature or a cylinder of stone from 1 ft. to 3 ft. in diameter and up to 10 ft. long

There is nothing in the rules that states a creature, having been turned to stone, is now an object.

Further evidence that petrified creatures are not objects:

CRB p284 Flesh to Stone wrote:
The creature is not dead, but it does not seem to be alive either when viewed with spells such as deathwatch.
CRB p265 Deathwatch wrote:
Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell’s range.

It is clear that the petrified creature is still a creature, albeit with the status condition petrified.


The term is not 'stoned' it is 'petrified'.

CRB p568 wrote:
Petrified: A petrified character has been turned to stone and is considered unconscious. If a petrified character cracks or breaks, but the broken pieces are joined with the body as he returns to flesh, he is unharmed. If the character’s petrified body is incomplete when it returns to flesh, the body is likewise incomplete and there is some amount of permanent hit point loss and/or debilitation.

So, if the petrified creature has had significant defacing (body parts removed etc) that will probably kill or disfigure the creature when it is returned to flesh.

1 to 50 of 7,939 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.