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. 7,948 posts (7,956 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,948 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Burn doesn't do much damage.
At level 6 2.5avg damage/round is barely worth noticing.
At level 8 3.5avg damage/round is even less noticeable.
At level 10 4.5avg damage/round is a pittance.
Finally, at level 12, 11avg damage/round is finally, maybe, noticeable but at that point being Huge is going to have a much more drastic effect on the grapple itself than the 11avg damage you do from burn.

In any case, it has no bearing on the grapple itself and that was what the OP seemed to be wondering with the question regarding turning into an elemental to escape.


Drahliana Moonrunner,

How does being a fire elemental make a difference unless it modifies CMB/CMD or Escape Artist skill?

If you mean the 'burn' ability, that won't help you avoid being grappled.

Elementals, including fire elementals, have no special immunity to being grappled.


Yes, you can activate supernatural abilities while grappled. Wildshape is a supernatural ability.

Rules: The grappled condition requires that you make a concentration check to use a spell or spell-like ability while grappled. (CRB p567)
There is no such wording for supernatural abilities.

Additionally, being smaller will make your life worse, not better, when trying to make a CMB check to escape a grapple. It may help Escape Artist checks if you gain dexterity.

As for elementals, there is nothing about being an elemental that will help you avoid or escape a grapple check unless it improves your CMB/CMD or Escape Artist skill.

Finally, Supernatural abilities (such as Wild Shape) do not provoke an Attack of Opportunity. (CRB p221)


Yes, they are in each other's space. They are effectively immune to movement base AoOs. Cheesy, but it's the rules.

P.S. I was unable to find any threads where people stated that the RAW is other than 'yes it works'. There are plenty of people who say it is probably not RAI and is probably a badly worded feat.

Could you link the dissenting threads/posts?


Here and here

In short, yes. Any creature with an intelligence score of 3+ can gain class levels. Becoming an Undead creature does not change that (unless their new intelligence is less than 3).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ravingdork, wraithstrike's quote is found on CRB p112 under Metamagic Feats.


Cory, I think you are missing the point of my comments addressed to Cavall.

I know how it works, you know how it works, most of the posters in this thread know how it works.

The point of my last post to Cavall is that I am asking Cavall to explain how he would do odd numbers of dice since he seems insistent on modifying the number of dice rather than multiplying the total.

My last post to you was me explaining what I was asking Cavall. I wasn't asking you a question, I stated what I was asking Cavall. I still want to know how Cavall plans on running an Empowered spell with an odd number dice.


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
An empowered fireball cast by a 7th level wizard is easy. You roll 7d6. Let's say you get 26. You add half of that number to the total to get the final empowered damage roll. So it would be 39. Save for half. Not that difficult. 26 x 1.5 gives you the same number. No big deal.

Yes, I, and most of the other people in this thread, know that. But Cavall is claiming he rolls half the dice in the case of 10d6 to get the empowered section of an empowered, maximized, fireball. So what does he do for half of 7d6?


Cavall wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Cavall, it is the result that is multiplied by 0.5 and added again. Not the dice rolled (which is pre-result).

The rules disagree with you flat out. For them to agree with you it would have to say 'half of the dice' or something similar.

It says 'half of the normally rolled result'.
You have to roll the dice, determine the normal result, then cut it in half.

How this works:
Empowered Fireball:
1) Roll Xd6
2) Total the dice roll
3) Multiply the total by 0.5.
4) Add the total from step 2 the number from step 3.

(Note: for expediency you can combined steps 3 and 4 by multiplying the total from step 2 by 1.5.)
This is effectively: (Xd6)*1.5

Empowered and Maximized Fireball:
1) Roll Xd6
2) Total the dice roll
3) Multiply the total by 0.5
4) Multiply the number of dice by the size of the dice to get the maximized value.
5) Add the number from step 3 to the number from step 4.

This is effectively: ((Xd6)*0.5) + (X*6)

Once again, I understand what you're all saying. We disagree, and for my games and for simplicity it would be roll 5d6 not 10 and do math.

I'm not PFS so that's me and my preference, which I still feel is correct. But I'm not going to continue a circular conversation about something that would make it more tedious for me and my players.

Thank you.

And Paul? You moved on from the conversation so the conversation is allowed to move on from you. It's not an argument and no one's bickering. It's just a natural flow.

How do you resolve an odd number of dice? Your 'simplicity' has two side effects.

1) It alters the distribution of the results.
2) It makes things more complicated any time you have an odd number of dice.


bitter lily,

It is difficult to provide an official ruling or a quote on something that does not exist.

Put another way, unless a rule states something happens, then it doesn't happen.
There is no rule stating that changing the energy type of a spell changes whether or not there is a Spell Resistance check. Your GM needs to provide such a rule if his intent is to go by the rules.


Cavall, it is the result that is multiplied by 0.5 and added again. Not the dice rolled (which is pre-result).

The rules disagree with you flat out. For them to agree with you it would have to say 'half of the dice' or something similar.

It says 'half of the normally rolled result'.
You have to roll the dice, determine the normal result, then cut it in half.

How this works:
Empowered Fireball:
1) Roll Xd6
2) Total the dice roll
3) Multiply the total by 0.5.
4) Add the total from step 2 the number from step 3.

(Note: for expediency you can combined steps 3 and 4 by multiplying the total from step 2 by 1.5.)
This is effectively: (Xd6)*1.5

Empowered and Maximized Fireball:
1) Roll Xd6
2) Total the dice roll
3) Multiply the total by 0.5
4) Multiply the number of dice by the size of the dice to get the maximized value.
5) Add the number from step 3 to the number from step 4.

This is effectively: ((Xd6)*0.5) + (X*6)


No, Acid Arrow changed to fire does not require a Spell Resistance check.

The lack of SR for Acid Arrow is because it is conjuration (creation). Changing it to fire does not change that it is conjuration (creation).

Magic Missile is force, it is not "energy" (in terms of elemental energy that the Efreeti bloodline is intending). You cannot change it to fire.


Lay on Hands is an ability that damages undead. Ergo it has been stated by the SKR post and then subsequently by this FAQ that it is positive energy.

The spell Judgment Light does not have any wording that it is positive energy nor that it damages undead so the same logic cannot be applied there. It does not state that it does not heal undead.

Finally, not all healing in Pathfinder is positive energy although it usually is.

Simply put, Judgment Light is a non-typed form of healing.


Saethori, from my understanding the reverse is true. Unless it states it does not heal undead then it is general healing and not positive energy based.

Do you have a citation that shows all healing is positive energy based unless it states it heals undead?

The recent FAQ on positive and negative energy define the the terms positive energy and negative energy but does not make the blanket statement that all healing is positive energy unless stated otherwise.

Glomgnar, I think when you said 'sacred means' you actually meant 'positive energy means' due to being an undead.

In the case of the Judgment Light spell it is not listed as a positive energy or negative energy effect and it is not stated to have different effects on living or undead. Thus, it should work just fine (unless there is a FAQ somewhere that I am missing).

One question: Is your inquisitor good, evil, or neutral (ie is your judgment profane or sacred)?


dragonhunterq is correct.


According to

CoT adventure path spoiler:
Council of Thieves part 4: The Infernal Syndrome page 12 wrote:
A DC 25 Linguistics check is enough to confirm that the contract has no hidden clauses that could be used against the PCs.

a Linguistics check is what is required to find out if there is hidden clauses in such a contract.

I suggest using the same thing although the DC would probably be lower. Reason for the DC possibly being lower for your application:

more CoT AP spoiler:
The contract was used to bind an Infernal Duke Pit Fiend


Ok, so there appears to be two issues here and one hinges on the other.

1) Does the bag appear full.
The 'empty' group says, it appears empty.
The 'not empty' group says that it weighs far more than an empty sack and thus does not appear empty.

The 'empty' group has no rules support for this other than the idea that somehow 'extradimensional space' = 'empty appearance'.
The 'not empty' group has the weight as a RAI point but not a RAW point.

2) What is the external volume of the bag.
Empty: If you take an empty sack then the 2' by 4' dimensions could be a rectangle but you are missing the third dimension and thus have to houserule that in to gain the external 'empty' volume.
Not empty: If you take a full sack then the 2' by 4' dimensions are the dimensions of a cylinder (see UE page 70 for visual example) and you can thus calculate the external volume.

It all hinges on whether you think it is empty or not.

My take is that clearly, as a magic item with a significant weight beyond what an empty non-magical sack weighs, it does not appear empty.

In fact, I bet if you poll people independent of this issue most people would have a vision of this as a not empty bag.

It is really when you want to stuff it into another bag that this becomes an issue.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
I absolutely don't picture a sewn cloth bag as a cylinder. It's a rectangle, 2x4' when laid flat. Imagine a pillow case made of tougher fabric and with with a draw string to close the open end.

Ultimate Equipment page 70, "Sack". It is clearly a cylinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aranna, there is no missing dimension. We have both dimensions for a cylinder.

Yes, you are in house rule territory because you are adding rules here.

Adjudication is about determining what rule is correct, house rules are about filling in missing pieces. In this case you are using both, not just adjudication.

You are adjudicating adding a house rule to fill in the missing pieces.

The problem is we do not know it is an empty bag. In fact, it very much behaves as if it were not an empty bag because it is quite heavy for an 'empty bag'.

My adjudication avoids adding house rules.
My adjudication is that the bag is presented as having the dimensions of a cylinder and thus I do not have to add a dimension to the bag. I can look at a non-magical example in Ultimate Equipment if I want to see the size and shape of a sack in Pathfinder, it is a cylinder. Thus I do not have to houserule a third dimension in.
My adjudication is that the bag is heavier by an order of magnitude than a nonmagical empty cloth sack and thus does not behave like an empty sack thus avoiding the houserule of compressing a magic item into a smaller space.


Aranna,

You are absolutely correct, house rules do not apply here. Please show the rule that states you may compress an object into a smaller space.

As for Airgiodach's math, it is wrong. He is making assumptions not presented in the game.

All we are presented with is two dimensions.
We then have a choice, either we
1) assume that those two dimensions are incomplete and missing the third dimension, in which case you are in house rule territory since you have to house rule a third dimension as he did
OR
2) you assume that those two dimensions are spelling out the dimensions of a cylinder in which case you know the volume without using any houserules (you only need two dimensions for a cylinder).

As for scrunching up a cloth bag...how well do you scrunch up a full bag? Is it a full bag? Do you even know?

Again, you are in houserule territory by trying to do something that is not spelled out in the rules.

We are given two dimensions which probably spell out the dimensions of a cylinder and the weight. We are not told if it is compressible, you are making assumptions based on a non-magical, empty, cloth bag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pope_Lunchbox, excellent necro of an already necro'd thread. :)


Airgiodach,

First, nice necro.

Second, you are forgetting that bags are generally cylindrical in shape. You do not need a 'third dimension'. You only need the diameter and the height which are provided.

Third, rules in Pathfinder are generally permissive, not restrictive. If something is not enabled, then you cannot do it without GM fiat (houserule).

Please show the rule that allows you to fold up a bag of holding from it's 2' by 4' dimensions into a smaller area. (Hint: there isn't one.)

This is the rules forum, there is a separate forum for houserules.


The RAI here is pretty clear folks, this is the same energy as the Channel Energy.

No, it is not spelled out, but it is pretty clear that it is still channel energy being pushed through your weapon.

Otherwise, what is the save DC? The reference to 'as normal' doesn't state the normal unless you read between the lines and realize that it is still a Channel Energy effect.

It is not subject to DR.


Debilitating Injury: penalties, even penalties to the same statistic stack unless the rule says otherwise (CRB p13)

Befuddling Strike, Slow Reactions, Crippling Strike, and Entanglement of Blades are all Rogue Talents that modify sneak attacks.
You can only use one of them on each sneak attack (though if you have multiple sneak attacks in a round you can use a different one for each).

However, if you do use one of them at a time on multiple attacks then yes, the penalties all stack. Ability score damage is not a penalty but it is additive. The inability of the target to take a 5 foot step from Entanglement of Blades wouldn't stack with Debilitating Injury's Hampered since they are basically the same effect.

Additionally, Befuddling Strike and Entanglement of Blades are not Unchained Rogue Talents, you will need GM permission to select them.


Agreed, thank you Chris for cleaning this up. :)


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.


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 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.

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.


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

1 to 50 of 7,948 << 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.