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

HangarFlying's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,881 posts (2,884 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 4 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,881 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What is the point of this thread? To tell everyone that you're switching games? Ok...best of luck to you. I'm sure that game will be fun too.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...I smell the stench of (un)death.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Coridan wrote:

I don't agree with every Paizo decision (Pathfinder Online, ACG, monthly companions/quarterly modules) but at least Lisa doesn't plan on selling to some publicly traded monster

The reality of life is that everything is for sale...for the right price.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No. That doesn't mean that I don't want 5e to be successful. I just won't be spending any money on it.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sounds reasonable to me.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lifat wrote:
Just a headsup... There is nothing in the rules that prevents a spider that has been ordered to attack to find it's own target. The owner MAY direct it if he so wishes, but if there aren't any other enemies the spider would automatically attack the invisible creature (assuming the invisible creature can be percieved as a threat). Of course if the invisible creature has a type that the attack trick doesn't let it attack then this doesn't work... But if that was the case, then directing it wouldn't help either.

Well, you could direct it to attack an unnatural creature, you would just have to "push" the AC to do so.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, if I understand the OP correctly, his group doesn't want fantasy mixed in with their fantasy game?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
avr wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

]

SPOILERS!

If you like, though I included nothing that wasn't in the first post already.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't set a good example.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
avr wrote:

The nightmare touch attack only gives a -1 to fear saves; the synergy with a yeth hound's baying is minimal.

The will save and especially the reflex save of the character are not amazing - don't you think it's likely she'll be stunned or blinded or at the bottom of a pit by the end of round 1? The multiple melee options seem to be kind of a waste.

The obvious variant channeling option is
Madness: Harm—Creatures are confused until the end of your next turn.

SPOILERS!

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If I may, I'd like to work through my thought process to better explain:

Combat: Movement, Position, and Distance: Terrain and Obstacles wrote:

Difficult Terrain: Difficult terrain, such as heavy undergrowth, broken ground, or steep stairs, hampers movement. Each square of difficult terrain counts as 2 squares of movement. Each diagonal move into a difficult terrain square counts as 3 squares. You can't run or charge across difficult terrain.

If you occupy squares with different kinds of terrain, you can move only as fast as the most difficult terrain you occupy will allow.

Flying and incorporeal creatures are not hampered by difficult terrain.

Obstacles: Like difficult terrain, obstacles can hamper movement. If an obstacle hampers movement but doesn't completely block it, each obstructed square or obstacle between squares counts as 2 squares of movement. You must pay this cost to cross the obstacle, in addition to the cost to move into the square on the other side. If you don't have sufficient movement to cross the obstacle and move into the square on the other side, you can't cross it. Some obstacles may also require a skill check to cross.

On the other hand, some obstacles block movement entirely. A character can't move through a blocking obstacle.

Flying and incorporeal creatures are able to avoid most obstacles.

There is nothing to indicate that terrain that within a threatened area is considered difficult terrain or an obstacle merely because it is within a threatened area. Open terrain that is threatened is still open terrain.

To this, include:

Combat: Movement, Position, and Distance: Moving Through a Square wrote:
Opponent: You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless. You can move through a square occupied by a helpless opponent without penalty. Some creatures, particularly very large ones, may present an obstacle even when helpless. In such cases, each square you move through counts as 2 squares.

Emphasis is my own. If you move through squares occupied by an opponent, each square counts as 2 squares. While you couldn't normally move through such a square unless the opponent was helpless, the Acrobatics skill does allow you to do so, assuming that you pass the requisite check. Though, each square still counts as 2 squares—this fact isn't changed with the use of the Acrobatics skill.

Acrobatics wrote:
In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics. When moving in this way, you move at half speed. You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10.

It is apparent that the crux of the disagreement is the phrase "[w]hen moving this way...". You guys feel that this phrase means that the "movement penalty" only applies to those squares that are threatened. I completely understand why you believe that. I read it as applying to the entire movement rate. The way I see it, it doesn't say "when you use Acrobatics to avoid an AoO, you move at half speed through the threatened squares", or "when you use acrobatics to avoid an AoO, each threatened square counts as two squares". I read it as "when you use acrobatics to avoid an AoO, your movement rate is halved".

YMMV.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
anthonydido wrote:

Yeah, you only move half-speed through the squares you are tumbling, not your entire movement. So if you only have to tumble through one square you could get up to 20 movement with a base 25 speed.

Edit: Also, you can move full speed while tumbling too. It just increases the DC by 10.

Maybe it's the wargamer in me, but I read the acrobatics rule to mean that if you need to use acrobatics to avoid an AoO, your entire move is halved, not just those squares which are threatened.

It hasn't been used every time I play, but I seem to recall that those that did use it, played it in this way.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'd give the GM a pass on the XP track thing. If you skip the intro stuff, it's easy to overlook. Especially if you're of the "everything Pathfinder is medium track" mindset.

Just look at it this way: you're doing it on hard mode. ;-)

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If, and I mean this is a big if—and by that I mean, no it doesn't actually work this way, but I'm using it to help make a point even though it doesn't actually work this way—UAS qualified for Multiattack, it would only be one of the three required attacks.

But UAS (monk or otherwise) doesn't qualify for Multiattack because UAS is considered a manufactured weapon. The Monk is unique because the Monks's UAS is able to be modified by spells and equipment that also affect natural weapons.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Win...ish?

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Darned kids and their "real world" examples in my "don't mix fantasy with fantasy" thread. Stay off my lawn!

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Majuba wrote:
Bacondale is correct with his examples of benefits not gained.
So when the FAQ says temp bonuses apply to "anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses", what does it mean?

Because boni (hehe) don't grant additional spells per day, regardless if they are temporary or not. Nor do temp bonuses grant additional rages rounds per day, bard performances, etc. The temp bonuses do get applied to each and every die roll that the normal bonuses would be applied to—which is what prompted the FAQ in the first place: people were arguing that the examples given in the glossary were literally the only rolls that temp bonuses were applied to, and excluding ability checks just because they weren't listed, etc. Meh, in the grand scheme of life, it's no big deal.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

On one hand, it seems extreme that one could die from a CDG having been dealt 1 pt of nonlethal damage. On the other hand, there are real life stories in which people have died from what would otherwise seem an innocuous injury. Failing such a Fort save might be reflective of such a fluke injury.

Personally, immediate death from a CDG from nonlethal damage defies my internal sense of consistency and logic. I would probably rule that at most, it would immediately drop the target's hp to -1 and it gets the "dying" condition.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dojen wrote:

Trying to find some tables/good explanation around ability score increases. Thus far I have ignored increases, but my barbarian brought a table to detail the bonus confered by a strength increase, and this proved extremely helpful in the last session. We have a druid that can do some ability score increases with spells and I wonder what bonuses are confered with the rest of the abilities besides strength.

Is there a reference out there that outlines how increases in stats affect your character?

Generally speaking, subtract 10 from the ability score, then divide by 2, and round down.

For those scores that are increased by a spell (usually considered a "temporary" increase or decrease), for every 2 points the ability increases (decreases), the bonus changes by +1 (-1). So a potion of bull's strength temporarily increases the STR by 4, thus every die roll that uses STR to modify it gets a +2 modifier. Additionally, that character is able to carry weight as if his STR were 4 higher for the duration of the spell.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The flying rules are an abstraction, so the double movement cost is not due to difficult terrain, per se. This is definitely within the realm of GM adjudication, though I'm not familiar enough with the various aspects of the flying rules to confidently provide possible ramifications if a GM were to allow such a thing.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

TOZ because he made me look up 'vociferous'.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Multiattack has no effect on nonsecondary natural attacks.
I'm not sure what argument this evidence is intended to support. Could you please clarify what you are getting at, here? I might agree with you.

I believe what is being said is that if all you have are primary attacks, the multiattack feat won't do anything for you because there are no penalties to reduce.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Whether character creation is done by dice rolls or point buy, the reality of life is that abilities that are important to a particular class are going to have "high" stats while those abilities that aren't important are going to get the low stats. The fighter who makes the lowest stat in CHA is using CHA as a dump stat, regardless if that stat was created via a roll or point buy.

The reality of character design, especially if you're using a point buy method, is that something has to give: the more stats that are made higher, the lower other stats have to be made to accomplish that. Why is the GM punishing a player even further, when that player has already punished himself by applying low stats?

The game has ways to punish players for their design choices already built in to it. The GM doesn't need to single them out just because he doesn't like the way a character was built—especially if said character was designed within the guidelines prescribed by the GM.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nosdarb wrote:

We haven't made enough money to be able to rely on a wand for healing. The lack of loot, and the penalty to sale prices, has been one of my major complaints. My summoner who just joined the game brought a wand with him, which has helped. Additionally, we have a gunslinging paladin. If he makes his own bullets it costs him 6 GP per shot. What little money we have come across has largely been spent to keep him in ammunition. Guns, it seems, are a liability. My opinions on them are probably best kept for another thread.

Our Oracle is generally tapped out after a single fight. Our Paladin has Lay On Hands now, but the amount of healing we need far outstrips the amount of healing built into our party. Sinspawn were an early leader for worst thing ever. Their SR rendered my sorcerer useless (It's like... 12 or 13, I know. Couldn't land a spell.), and their ambush sent us back to town after two rooms. Goblins have been less prone to flanking us into pieces, but we're generally picking up at least one unconscious body and curing everyone out of single digit hit points after every fight. Pretty much every inch of dungeon has been hard won for us.

To be fair, we spent a fair amount of time Role Playing. We built characters based on concepts, and played them in ways that made sense. If we had instead built a moderately optimized party of murder hobos we would probably be doing a little better. I'm a little upset that my RPG insists on Roll Playing just to get through it. In my opinion, this is not the highly excellent deserver of praise everyone seems to think it is. It's a fine, but somewhat broken product. As noted before, if your GM is willing to rebuild the world a little it could be fun for your party. Run straight? Well, I doubt we'll get through it.

Well, first of all, why is the rest of the group spending all of their money on the Paladin? Let alone the fact that, as previously noted, the paladin doesn't have to be spending all of that money. Apparently the Paladin is going to have to learn to cope with not-so-awesome ammunition. Don't sacrifice your share of the loot, you have your own equipment to purchase, too.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

They give cover, but don't block LoS.

So you take a -4 penalty to-hit, that's all (until you get Improved Precise Shot).

Technically, the target gets a +4 to AC. I suppose it could make a difference in some situations.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Whatever the movie is, just make sure you don't tell the whole movie in the trailer.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1e-style already converted to Pathfinder.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My f2f group killed her, though any sympathy they might have had was tempered by the fact that she was on the verge of getting a TPK. So the group was more relieved that they were still alive, and any potential redeemable value was overshadowed by the fact that she was very lethal.

I'm running another group via Fantasy Grounds. Though they haven't progressed that far, one player is the "shoot first, ask later" types, so I don't suspect there will be much attempt to bring her back. We'll see.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Caidence277 wrote:

Perhaps, since this is a much later and smaller book it was just sloppy writing, but...

Quote:

An earth breaker is normally a two-handed weapon,

preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing
penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed.

Even for RAW fans, this seems to imply that, without this feat, the earth breaker's a two-handed weapon but you can use it, in combat, one-handed, by taking penalties.

Interesting find. It is certainly worth starting its own FAQ thread for that. My guess is that it's probably an error.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Though, as a GM, it is certainly within your purview to rule that the CL requirement must be met. Or a compromise could be made in which it is a +10 to DC instead of +5.

Personally, I am of the mindset that the CL should be a requirement, and would house rule it as such.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fromper wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Fromper wrote:
The Hagfish. Really, it's all about the Hagfish.
Garunteed to catch a sucker every time.
Our group has a ranger who has tried it over 20 times so far. I'm sure he'll actually succeed eventually.

My problem is that I keep forgetting where the darned save DC is listed.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Erylium forgot that she had enough HD to only be stunned for 1 round, instead of falling unconscious from color spray and allowing herself to be CDG'd.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fromper wrote:
The Hagfish. Really, it's all about the Hagfish.

Garunteed to catch a sucker every time.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A party that works as a team, regardless of individual classes, is a balanced party. At the end of the discussion, this is the core concept.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rushley son of Halum wrote:

Actually Gauss, no I don't. Because PFS in Australia doesn't twist the rules to such absurdities so I can in fact threaten diagonally with a reach weapon.

The only time i've ever even see this raised in on the forum by a few people who for some reason want to ruin the game.

You could possibly be 100% correct, but that doesn't excuse your tone and attitude.

For the record, you're not correct.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:
EDIT: And I also need to actually get some work done. Occasionally my boss wants me to turn stuff in. Slave driver!

Fight the good fight!

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

In the first case, since Daylight and Deeper Darkness are negating each other, you're in "prevalent lighting conditions"; i.e. darkness. I don't see the argument as to why darkvision doesn't work. It's not raising the light level; it's seeing in the dark.

In the second case, that's the core of the debate, and we can either adjudicate a whole bunch of Venn diagrams and seeing which lights and darknesses are stacking or not stacking, or we can say, "It's ambient light. Done."

Call me lazy, but I prefer the latter...

I don't disagree, but the presence of ambient light doesn't mean that the torch still doesn't have an effect.

The bigger question is: if there were no magic spells mucking things up, would the torch increase the light level of the ambient light? If the answer is yes, then it should still be yes even if the ambient light is due to two spells negating each other.

EDIT: or as Jiggy said.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

EDIT: In case you care, here's what I sent to my fellow GMs:


My proposal: The strongest spell on each side is the only one that matters.


My reasoning: Otherwise, things get silly fast, as you'll see in the thread I linked.


Why is it so hard? Because "Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."


- BUT -


"Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of Darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than Darkness."


So the whole argument boils down to, "If Daylight is 'negating' the magical darkness, do Darkness' other effects (nonmagical and low-level magical light sources cannot increase the light level) apply?

My general rebuttal would be something to the effect of: if nonmagical light sources still don't work because they are "within the 60' radius" of deeper darkness, then darkvision probably shouldn't work for the same reason.

Generally speaking, my personal opinion is that deeper darkness' radius doesn't exist in an area that overlaps with daylight.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KuntaSS wrote:
Can you take multiple free actions during an AOO, I.E. threaten an adjacent square with gauntlets, drop a reach weapon, quick draw a mace and smack em with it?

GM discretion, though my unscientific guess is that most GMs will say no.

EDIT: ...barring some feat or special ability that would require you to need multiple free actions for AoOs (Combat Reflexes with Snap Shot, as previously mentioned, for example).

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
Wow, that is a brutally expensive feat for that ability.

The feat tax, itself, is no big deal because you would need those feats anyways.

What would give me pause, and I imagine what you're referring to, is the damage one would take to use the feat. I guess we can't get everything for free? o.O

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

I don't follow the logic. Normally the ambient light conditions are what the light would be without people bringing in light sources. Mostly ambient light will be sun/moon/starlight, not torches. Torches don't change the ambient light conditions.

So what do you mean when you say that non magical light sources do not raise the light level in the area of Darkness, but the ambient light level is affected as per the specific nonmagical light source?

Example: In an area of ambient dim light (outside under the stars) someone brings a torch into the area of a Darkness Spell. What is the resulting light level?
I would say "Dark". The ambient Dim reduced by one level. The torch, being non-magical does not raise that light level.


  • The ambient light level of a cave is 'darkness'.
  • A torch increases the light level to 'normal' out to 20' and 'dim' out to 40'.
  • Deeper darkness is in effect within the cave.
  • Because the torch may not increase the light level, the light level in the cave becomes 'supernatural darkness' ('darkness' to 'supernatural darkness').
  • The torch doesn't cease to function. It is still emanating light out to it's respective radii, but because it is within the confines of deeper darkness, it is not allowed to raise the light level.
  • Daylight is brought into the cave.
  • In those areas in which the radius of deeper darkness overlaps with daylight, the effects of those spells are negated.
  • Within the negated area, the light level returns to the ambient light level, which is 'darkness'.
  • If the negated area falls within the radii of the torch, the light level is raised to either 'normal' or 'dim', as specified by the limits of the applicable radii.

EDIT

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've pretty much just skimmed the discussion so I imagine there might be some finer points that someone has mentioned that I've overlooked. That being said, I haven't seen anyone actually quote the entirety of the spells in question:

Darkness wrote:

This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. This darkness causes the illumination level in the area to drop one step, from bright light to normal light, from normal light to dim light, or from dim light to darkness. This spell has no effect in an area that is already dark. Creatures with light vulnerability or sensitivity take no penalties in normal light. All creatures gain concealment (20% miss chance) in dim light. All creatures gain total concealment (50% miss chance) in darkness. Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty. Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.

If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell's effect is blocked until the covering is removed.

This spell does not stack with itself. Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.

Deeper Darkness wrote:

This spell functions as darkness, except that objects radiate darkness in a 60-foot radius and the light level is lowered by two steps. Bright light becomes dim light and normal light becomes darkness. Areas of dim light and darkness become supernaturally dark. This functions like darkness, but even creatures with darkvision cannot see within the spell's confines.

This spell does not stack with itself. Deeper darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.

Daylight wrote:

You touch an object when you cast this spell, causing the object to shed bright light in a 60-foot radius. This illumination increases the light level for an additional 60 feet by one step (darkness becomes dim light, dim light becomes normal light, and normal light becomes bright light). Creatures that take penalties in bright light take them while within the 60-foot radius of this magical light. Despite its name, this spell is not the equivalent of daylight for the purposes of creatures that are damaged or destroyed by such light.

If daylight is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a light-proof covering, the spell's effects are blocked until the covering is removed.

Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.

Daylight counters or dispels any darkness spell of equal or lower level, such as darkness.

Since the OP asked for our opinions, I shall give mine:

1) Deeper Darkness specifically states that it doesn't stack with itself. So with that in mind, the number of Deeper Darkness spells is irrelevant.

2) Daylight specifically states that Daylight brought into any magical darkness, or any magical darkness brought into Daylight, is negated.

3) Darkness does not say that nonmagical light sources do not function, Darkness says that nonmagical light sources do not raise the light level in the area of Darkness.

All that having been established, I would rule that while within the overlap area of the Daylight/Deeper Darkness spells, ambient light conditions exist. If the radius of a nonmagical light source exists within that overlap area, the ambient light level is affected as per the specific nonmagical light source.

Of course, this opinion is made while sitting in front of my computer with time to think about it. I reserve the right to have a different ruling when made in the 'heat of the moment' because I completely forgot about what I wrote here.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
ohako wrote:

Vital Strike works with Cleave...badly...

check out the feat All-Consuming Swing.

Except it doesn't, because Cleave is called out in the feat as its own standard action, not an attack action.

**EDIT** Also, that feat doesn't appear to exist anywhere. Just checked the Paizo PRD and the d20pfsrd sites, no hits on either.

Here it is: The Harrow Handbook.

In this case, yes Vital Strike can be used with Cleave because there is a feat that specifically states that it can be done.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
...Or we could just teach people what the words in Vital Strike mean, and he'll never have to ask again, and also won't have to memorize a list.

I approve this message. Education is good.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
AlphaSteve wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
AlphaSteve wrote:
heliodorus04 wrote:
No where in the CRB does it say that characters get the armor proficiency feats. It merely says that they start with a proficiency, which is not the same thing as a feat.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/armor-proficiency-light

Quote:
Special: All characters except monks, sorcerers, and wizards automatically have Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
The same text (Modified for appropriate classes) is present for the Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency feats as well. Page 118 of the CRB (5th printing, if that matters).
Yes, and? As has been noted, the FAQ states that this is no longer true, and no one has those feats.

And that's fine. Nothing in this FAQ is to be construed to mean that fighters are no longer able to qualify for other things that require such feats.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DanceSC wrote:

Please cite where the rules state that "AoO chains are possible"

Perhaps tomorrow when I can get onto my computer, instead of poking on my iPad (if someone else hasn't already answered).

Suffice it to say, there is nothing about provoking an AoO that would prevent you from making an AoO against an AoO made against you that, itself, provokes an AoO.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Look, I understand what you're trying to say, but that doesn't change the fact that AoO chains are a reality of the rules.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DanceSC wrote:

According to the rules though, Attacks of Opportunity are when "a combatant in melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action". It also states that taking an Attack of Opportunity counts as a free action, and free actions do not provoke because they consume a very small amount of time and effort.

The way I see this, the person that runs past everyone is being reckless and letting their guard down. Thus it makes sense that one could easily stick their leg out and attempt to trip them because that person has opened up a window that is not otherwise available. In combat it is assumed that characters are constantly fighting and constantly aware of each other. The whole reason why tripping provokes without improved is because your opponent is actively aware of the movements you make, and can see it coming.

If both players had trip without improved, does it make sense that they could go back and forth several times until one is tripped? (Provided both have enough AoO through combat reflexes), and then of course continue his charge towards the healer in the back?

1) AoO are not free actions. The word "free" is not in reference to the free action, but instead in reference to the fact that it doesn't cost you anything (such as a loss of attack in your next turn, etc) to make that AoO.

2) Whether or not it makes sense in reality, AoO chains are possible, and the results of such a chain may or may not affect the outcome of the original event that started it.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gwiber wrote:

There are cases, I am sad to say, where you cannot use a Trip as an AoO; just as an aside.

Like trip locking. Tripping a guy as they try to stand up is a no no.

Well, to clarify what you're saying: since the AoO occurs prior to the character standing up, using the AoO to trip won't do anything, since they're already prone, and the prone character will still stand up.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

Finlanderboy,

Pathfinder measures diagonals using the 5-10-5 rule. That is, the first diagonal is 5feet but the second counts as 10 feet. Thus, 5+10 = 15 and since the second diagonal is 15 feet away you do not threaten it.

This rule also existed in 3.5 but back in 3.5 there was a specific exception that allowed you to threaten the second diagonal. That exception is not present in the Pathfinder rules and as a result you do not threaten the second diagonal.

Of course, ~90% of people polled then use the 3.5 exception anyhow (some without realizing that it is not part of the Pathfinder rules).

Regarding Nefreet's statement that they are crossing from 15 to 5 feet and therefore they provoke, SKR had made a post awhile back stating that this is the case. Unfortunately, there is no rules support for this so it could be considered RAI but not RAW.

And anyone thinking they can move in on the diagonal for free will be in for a rude surprise when they suck that AoO they weren't expecting.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are there any examples of monsters that have both claw and slam attacks?

1 to 50 of 2,881 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.