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. 6,686 posts (6,694 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 6,686 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Grimserver, you aren't "dumb". We all make errors.

RumpinRufus, I find it to be a good feat IF the following are true: You NEED skill points AND you want +2hp per level (once for Fast Learner, once for Toughness).

However, expending feats for HPs are not usually a good idea unless you have excess feats.

Hazrond, Grimserver is incorrect.

You cannot 'switch hp or skill point for an alternate class skill'. You either take the HP+Skill Point reward or you take the alternate class reward. You do not get to mix and match.


All the feat does is give you +1skill point when you select +1hp or +1hp when you select +1skill point.

If you select the class related racial bonus there is no effect.

JamesVDZ, +1 every 3 levels wouldn't cap at +6 at 20 either. It would hit +7 at 20 (2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20).

Since that would be two errors rather than just one I am guessing the cap is actually +5.

Komoda, you keep citing the trip lock as if that somehow supports your stance. It doesn't since it functions independant of either camp's logic.

Breaking it down:
1) Person states they are standing up (verbal declaration).
2) The move action to stand up is in progress (not yet resolved).
3) AoO occurs while the move action to stand up is in progress (AoO is resolved).
At this point the move action to stand up has not completed it's resolution, so the person is still prone.
4) Stand up is resolved (completed). Now they are not prone.

Thus, the trip lock FAQ does not support your stance.
Note: I am not stating it supports ours either, I am just saying you cannot keep using it as a support for your own.

Komoda, I think you meant "interpret the rules" rather than "interrupt the rules". :)

JohnF, continued discussion may or may not be pointless. If it generates additional FAQ clicks I am ok with pointless discussion that beats the dead horse (as long as it is polite).


You chose the "Move" move action, you tried to move, got tripped, went zero feet. You may now continue to use your "Move" move action..IF POSSIBLE. If not possible, sucks to be you.

Please show where in the rules it allows you to change your action from one type to another (not including Full Attack becoming a Standard attack which is a special case). Please show where it even hints at this.

The game rules do not need to prevent it, it is understood that you were performing an action and in the course of that action you were prevented from performing it further. That does not allow you to 'take the action back'.

You are trying to use 'after the fact' logic to determine what action was taken.
Where in the game is this demonstrated? It isn't.
You choose an action, you execute the action. You do not execute an action and then decide what action type it was.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thundercade wrote:
JohnF wrote:

... The way to trigger an AoO is by taking an action. Once you've taken that action, even if doing so ends up having no mechanical effect, you can't pretend you didn't take that action.

Ugh, that's exactly what I'm saying. If there is no mechanical effect, then I consider it not having ever really taken the action, even if it triggered something else. None of the definitions around actions include not doing or performing something, or just trying to do something. So if you end up not really doing or performing anything, it's not an action. Remembering that it triggered and AoO doesn't make you go back and relabel it as an action.

I don't have to go back and reconcile the triggers to the AoO. Nothing is making anyone do that.

That's what others are inventing, some overall checking system that says you have to go back and make sure it all could have played out in a step-by-step way. That's the invention.

I bolded the error you are making. There is nothing in the rules that allows you to consider an in-progress action as "not having ever really taken the action". Yes, there are ways to interrupt the in-progress action so that you effectively do nothing with it but it is still an in-progress action.

There is no basis for separating 'declaring' and 'taking an action' in the rules.
When we use it to discuss things it is being used as a language construct of breaking down how people express information.

When I say "I am moving" that is both the declaration (language construct) and taking an action (rules construct).

Then the resolution of that rules construct occurs (barring interruptions such as AoOs and Readied actions).

No (mount related) penalties for shooting unless your mount is taking a double move (-4attack) or running (-8attack). The feat Mounted Archery halves these penalties.

CRB p202 wrote:
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.

Yes, equal to or higher than the DC of that spell as set by Dispel Magic. Ie: a DC of 11+spell's caster level. It states the DC of spells earlier in Dispel Magic under "Targeted Dispel".

CRB p272 Dispel Magic wrote:

Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell’s caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.

For example, a 7th-level caster casts dispel magic, targeting a creature affected by stoneskin (caster level 12th) and fly (caster level 6th). The caster level check results in a 19. This check is not high enough to end the stoneskin (which would have required a 23 or higher), but it is high enough to end the fly (which only required a 17). Had the dispel check resulted in a 23 or higher, the stoneskin would have been dispelled, leaving the fly intact. Had the dispel check been a 16 or less, no spells would have been affected.
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.

As you can see, the section you quoted references Targeted Dispel and thus the spell's dispel DC provided in Targeted Dispel. Not the save DC.

As for your comment regarding "toxic sparring match", I am sorry you feel that way. I am generally polite on these boards and I cannot remember any discussion with you that I would characterize as "toxic". Perhaps you have taken things out of context or read more into my posts than was actually present?
As for "rules lawyery" this is the Rules Forum, by it's very nature it is where "rules lawyery" discussions take place. Outside of this forum other discussions take place.

Purple Dragon Knight, please quote the rule that states the "much lower DC to dispel" that you provided.

Purple Dragon Knight, your dispel check is incorrect. It is 1d20+caster level vs a DC of 11+spell's caster level.

CRB p272 Dispel Magic wrote:
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell’s caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.

numero42, you need to target the object.

Yes, which is why I was specific in stating "60' Darkvision".

There are also light sources that trump 120' Darkvision. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another side note: this is not 4th edition, it is a 5 foot step, not a 5 foot shift. :)

They are saying that the Dodge bonus from Offensive Defensive does not stack with itself. Not that it does not stack with other dodge bonuses.

Yeah, it was a FAQ that wasn't really a FAQ. They really need to revisit this. But, in my home games I use this FAQ since it is a good idea and seems appropriately balanced.

Generally, bonuses from the same source do not stack with themselves.

Additionally, we have this FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Rogue: Does the dodge bonus from the “offensive defensive” rogue talent (page 131) stack with itself? Does it apply to everyone, or just to the target I’m attacking?

There are two issues relating to this rogue talent.

One, in the first printing it provided a +1 circumstance bonus against the attacked target, which was a very weak ability. The second printing update changed it from a circumstance bonus to a dodge bonus, but accidentally omitted the “against that creature” text, which made it a very strong ability.

Two, it doesn’t specify whether the dodge bonus stacks with itself, and because this creates a strange place in the rules where bonuses don’t stack from the same source but dodge bonuses always stack. While we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent, we are leaning toward this solution: the dodge bonus only applies against the creature you sneak attacked, and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself. This prevents you from getting a dodge bonus to AC against a strong creature by sneak attacking a weak creature, and prevents you from reaching an absurdly high AC by sneak attacking multiple times in the same round.

While it is not a hard limit (because of the 'leaning toward' statement) it clearly provides some intent on limiting it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A 2cubic foot backpack can hold:
2,413.66 pounds of gold
or 1,309.82 pounds of silver
or 1,119.74 pounds of copper
or 982.18 pounds of iron


I would go with something along the lines of 80-100lbs. 2 cubic feet of meat is between 70-80 pounds and that seems like something a backpack should be able to hold.

Starbuck, do you have a source that states how much space gold (not gold coins which are different) takes up in D&D/Pathfinder?

zanbato13 wrote:
Gauss wrote:


Darkvision: 60' (usually)
Low-light vision: depending on light source, much much farther.

Moonlight: Low-light vision > Darkvision
30' light source: Low-light vision > 60' Darkvision

Ah, I see what you mean. Though, low-light is still affected by dim light concealment.

In Moonlight a creature with low-light vision sees as well as in the daylight (ie: no dim light concealment).

CRB p564 Low-Light Vision wrote:
Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.

The 30' light source combined with Low-light vision means 60' normal (the same as Darkvision) and up to 120' dim light. Thus, it is the same up to 60' and superior up to 120'.

Kobold Cleave,

LOL, nice necro.


Darkvision: 60' (usually)
Low-light vision: depending on light source, much much farther.

Moonlight: Low-light vision > Darkvision
30' light source: Low-light vision > 60' Darkvision

I cannot think of any monster with variable modifiers automatically included. Perhaps some adventures do it but that would be a special case.

If in doubt, run the numbers.

NikolaiJuno, no I cannot, once an hour has passed there are no further edits.

TheGuyOverThere9888, this was debated ad nauseam before the FAQ. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that prevents the "Caster Level must be X" requirements from being bypassed by adding +5.

People used to argue the word "must" means you cannot bypass the requirements.
The problem with that? The requirements paragraph also uses the word "must" and then says that you can bypass those "must have" requirements by adding +5 to the DC.

Magic Item creation was intended to be easy in Pathfinder. This was a design choice the Devs made at the outset. There were (probable) unintended consequences that required the Devs to reign it in a bit via the rules (guidelines) in Ultimate Campaign but that did not change the fact that the crafting DCs are supposed to be easy.


So that we can try to get a FAQ on this perhaps we should move this to the FAQ thread.

You did not leave your square, you were leaving your square. Clearly 'something' was happening since you were leaving it. How far you got is just a measurement, the action you were taking is clear, a "Move" move action.

I have created a FAQ thread on this.

39 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ question: If an AoO (or Readied Action) prevents you from completing an action can you change your action or change the order of your actions?

Example: I declare I am using a "Move" move action to move out of a threatened square. I move zero distance when the Attack of Opportunity (or Readied Action) results in my being tripped.

Change action: Did I actually use my "Move" move action even though I didn't travel any distance before I was tripped? Ie. Can I replace the "Move" move action with another action?

Change Order of actions Can I use the Stand Up action and then use the "Move" move action I had already declared?

This has come up in multiple threads (this is the latest).

You say "before you actually did any of the move", but the trigger for the AoO is "leaving the square". Thus, you were actually moving as you were leaving and not stationary. Clearly an action occurred. What action was it if not the Move action that was in the process of being executed?

CRB p160 Alchemist's Fire wrote:
A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage. If desired, the target can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking this additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a DC 15 Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target a +2 bonus on the save. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire.

Ok, so the oil uses Alchemist's fire rules so I am quoting those.

1) Regardless if you are on fire or not already a direct hit does 1d6 points of damage.

2) The next round you take 1d6 points of damage. This is because you are on fire. While the Alchemist's fire rules are similar to the "Catching on Fire" rules (spoilered below) they are not identical. If this was straight 'catching on fire' I would say that you could not be caught on fire twice.

Since it is not you technically default to the Alchemist's Fire rules which state that you take 1d6 on the next round unless you put it out. This would even apply to multiple instances of Alchemist's Fire.

However, it would not be unreasonable for a GM to say that multiple instances of Alchemist's Fire are close enough to the Catching on Fire rules and thus you can only catch on fire once.

Catching on Fire:
CRB p444 Catching on Fire wrote:

Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous
magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out—that is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he’s no longer on fire.
A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.
Those whose clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.

Summary: 1d6 per Alchemist's Fire on being hit. 1d6 per Alchemist's Fire on the subsequent round but GM fiat may limit that.

Not extend, just hit it with the effects of a flask of oil. It hits and lights up.

Yes, you resolve it in order, resolution does not mean 'you did not use your action'. The 3.5 Rules of the Game that you quoted even state that you have to resolve the action that provoked it after the AoO is completed.

I declare action, I begin action, I resolve action
I declare action, I begin action, I provoke, Opponent declares AoO, Opponent resolves AoO, I resolve action (if possible).

The action has begun, you cannot take it back. Resolving is not an excuse to allow you to take your action back.

First level: always bring torches, tindertwigs, and flasks of lamp oil. With an entire group using this tactic it generally solves the early level swarm problems and at a relatively low price tag.

Komoda, the problem with that concept is that if you never used the move action to move then you never provoked then the universe explodes in a temporal causality loop. (that was humor btw :) )

If you are moving and provoke you have used your move action even if the distance traveled is a whopping 0 feet due to someone stopping you from going anywhere.

However, this keeps coming up over and over and there are clearly two sides to this. Perhaps a FAQ thread is in order.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bestiary p162 Iron Golem wrote:
Immunity to Magic (Ex) An iron golem is immune to spells or spell-like abilities that allow spell resistance. Certain spells and effects function differently against it, as noted below.

Not immunity to magic, only immunity to spells and spell-like abilities that allow spell resistance.

So, anything besides those things work fine.
Even a Witchwyrd's "Force Bolt" works because it is a supernatural "Magic Missile" rather than a spell "Magic Missile".

Bestiary 2 p285 Witchwyrd wrote:
Force Bolt (Su) A witchwyrd can “throw” a magic missile (1d4+1 damage) from each free hand as a free action (maximum of two per round). If it has absorbed a magic missile, it can throw an additional force bolt that round, expending the absorbed energy (maximum of two additional bolts per round).

dragonhunterq, Im not seeing how you can perform an action, have it interrupted, and still figure you have the action that can no longer be performed.

Lets try this:
You perform a "Move" move action an travel 10 feet when you are tripped.
Did you perform the "Move" move action?

The same logic is at play here, you performed a "Move" move action but traveled 0 feet before you were tripped. That did not negate that you performed the action.
In fact, if you can stand up as an swift (or immediate) action you can continue moving.

Note: Swift actions can be performed in the middle of another action via these two rules:

CRB p188 Swift Actions wrote:
You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
CRB p181 Free Actions wrote:
You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.

That Crazy Alchemist, actually no. Provoking based on movement is not based on "Move" move actions. It is based on "leaving the threatened square". You can only provoke ONCE per opponent for leaving a threatened square regardless of the number of move actions you take in a round.

This is what the rule I quoted says. It is quite specific that it counts for the entire round.

Here is the quote again:

CRB p180 wrote:
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.

Where you fall:

CRB p180 wrote:
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

Summary: the provocation is leaving the square.

CRB p180 wrote:
An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).

Summary: right before you perform the action that provokes, in this case leaving the square, you suffer the AoO.

If the AoO is trip then you are tripped when you try to leave the square (you haven't actually left yet) and you fall in the square you were trying to leave.

Regarding the expenditure of the action: The person declared the action, they tried to perform the action, the action was prevented via the AoO. This is more common sense than RAW because there is nothing in the RAW that really comes out and spells this out.

Putting this another way, if you allow the person to 'undo' their declared action due to the AoO then what provoked the AoO?

1) B is in the square where the AoO was provoked (first square in your example).

2) Yes, he spent a move action but did not get anywhere.
Note: opinions on this vary, there is a counter opinion that states that since he has not traveled any distance he has not expended his move action.

3) If B stands up and moves again the movement does not provoke (there are ways to accomplish this via 3 move actions or standing up as a non-move action such as a swift).

You can only provoke for moving once per round per creature threatening you.

CRB p180 wrote:
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.

4) Yes Edit: Maybe based on the quote below.

CRB p186 wrote:
The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you can’t also take a 5-foot step.

Normally it is 'have you traveled any distance' but that usually predicates you are going to travel some distance using the "Move" move action.

However, as a GM I would allow it since the actual basis of the quoted rule is 'traveling any distance'.
CRB p189 wrote:

Take 5-Foot Step

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.

This is a case where the two rules slightly collide.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because the rules are written from the perspective of PCs which do not (normally) have a natural armor bonus. Thus, it is a 'bonus to your natural armor' since you have no natural armor.

The Devs have stated repeatedly that the rules are written from this (PC rather than monster) perspective.

However, there have been many threads on the topic of 'is a natural armor score an ex/su ability and/or due to form and thus lost when you polymorph?'. The consensus seems to be 'yes'.

Additionally, James Jacobs has weighed in on this topic here and here.

(Edit: remembered a Dev response so changed my post.)

Generally, you lose any natural armor bonuses that are due to form and then gain the spell's natural armor bonus.

CRB p212 Polymorph rules wrote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.

Byakko wrote:
Gauss: The rules allowing you to pinpoint an invisible creature by beating the perception DC by 20 has been posted at least 5 times now, yet you continue to ignore it.

Byakko, apparently, you are not reading the thread. I know exactly what the rules on pinpointing are. So does everyone else. However, it is Krith's position that you do not need them to "know the location". I want him to show where the line in Perception enables someone to do that. His position is that you can use the DC25 "hear a bow being drawn" to know exactly where the bow is.

It was Krith's example in this post that my question was based off of. The question that Krith still has not answered.

You can also use lamp Oil against swarms (either as a 50/50 shot alchemist fire or light them up with a torch).

As a first level character I pack significant amounts of lamp oil.

Krith, At no place in your post (that I quoted) was there a quote of the line that enables you to know exactly where something is. If I have missed the rules quote, please highlight it so that we may all see it (use the [ quote ] formatting to highlight it).

Explanations are not rules quotes. You are the one that is claiming RAW here, so please quote it. Please do not create long explanations on some 'phantom' RAW which you refuse to quote.

Note, here is the rule you DID quote:

CRB p102 Perception wrote:
Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.

Do you see a line that enables you to know exactly where something is? No? Neither did I.

So, if that is the basis of your explanation for knowing exactly where something is then you missed the mark. Please post the quote.

Krith wrote:

Okay to all those wondering why Hearing is covered just like Sight, Taste and Touch under Perception, and not some other rule...

Perception from the PRD:

"Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.

Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.

Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines."

First off, the argument that Perception doesn't say "Hearing lets you know exactly where something is" is ridiculous. As you'll notice in the above, it doesn't say you can exactly notice where something is with Sight, Touch or Taste either. All it says is that this skill incorporates all five senses.

The rules for Scent gives us a supplemental to how Scent specifically is used. If you want to transfer the rules of Scent to Hearing, that would take a house rule.

Otherwise, Sight, Hearing, Touch and Taste all work the same, under the rules of Perception. If a PC touches a football with his hand, you would know where that object is based on Touch; you wouldn't say, you know there's a football somewhere in your 5' square. Likewise, if a PC bites an apple, the DM wouldn't describe the situation as "You know there's a taste of apple somewhere in your 5' square."

Again, Perception incorporates Touch, Taste, Smell, Sight and Hearing. Smell has other rules provided under Scent, so it functions differently. The other four senses do not, so they function the same.

Therefore, if you play that Sight, Touch and...

I am still waiting for you to tell us where the line in Perception states you know where something exactly is. You are the one saying this is RAW. Please show that.

Lets put this another way: Perception allows you to hear something on the other side of a wall. Do you expect to know exactly where that something is? If so, please show where in the rules it states this.

Please stop dodging this question. I have asked it three times and you have yet to provide the quote.

Thanks RumpinRufus, that explains where they get the -2 penalties on CRB p567. Again, a case of different sections of the book saying different things. (YAY lack of simplicity!)

However, regarding Joshua J. Frost's comment, the comment that comment was in response to is over 5 years old. He indicated that there would be an upcoming errata but there have been multiple CRB erratas without a 'cannot stack with any other fear effect' sentence.
My guess is that the errata added the line that stated that Demoralize cannot stack with itself. If there was going to be a more general 'cannot stack with any other fear effect' errata it should have happened by now.

So, at this time yes, the Shaken effect from Demoralize can stack with other fear effects but not with itself.

The Thug's Frightening ability and the Enforcer feat are both functions of Demoralize, thus they do not stack with themselves or other functions of Demoralize but they do stack with any other non-Demoralize fear effect.

In a case where the Thugs Frightening Ability and the Enforcer feat are both active this is overlapping, not stacking. Take the best.

Yes, the rules state that you replace the lower condition by using the word "instead".

CRB p563 wrote:
Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead.

It would probably help if you thought of the fear conditions as one condition with 3 grades.

However, comparing it to Nauseated and Sickened is not relevant as that is not an escalating condition. While many people associate the two they are not related in the rules.

Regarding a non-escalating fear condition, do you have an example of one? (Demoralize doesn't count, it escalates..just not with itself.)

1 to 50 of 6,686 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.