JHFizban's page

In the example about the dwarf fighter making his own armor but being quickly shown up by the wizard, there are a couple of problems there. First, you make a point of describing how the dwarf has invested skill points and feats into his craft and practiced it regularly. But in order to make the same high quality item, doesn't the wizard also need enough in Craft: Armor to pull off the same DC on the roll? So where did his years of practice go? Or are you just hand-waving it and assuming that the wizard allocates his skill points with no roleplaying basis for it and perhaps even hides it from everyone in order to be able to one day sneakily one-up the fighter later on? Does that really happen in your games?

No, if you're going to give the dwarf a rich background and RP flavor for his Craft skill, then it's only fair to assume that the wizard has the same rich background and RP flavor for his ranks in the same Craft skill. The wizard may have the advantage of a higher INT bonus contributing to his skill, and can pull off other tricks like Crafter's Fortune. But in a world where apparently there is easy access to adamantine, why doesn't the dwarf just get himself some Amazing Tools of Manufacture then? Or do you just nix those from your games too, because they disrupt the time-honored tradition of someone pouring their blood, sweat, and tears into a months-long crafting process, too?

And if you want to look at some more RP flavor, consider that the item created by Fabricate can be detected with a sufficiently high Knowledge: Arcana check, so if you've got someone who would prefer to buy a suit of armor that was crafted painstakingly over a long time of hard work, they have a way to make sure they are buying what they prefer, too.

It seems some have discarded the idea of examining how Fabricate is supposed to actually work, and instead it has changed to how some people like to have it work (aka, house rule) because they don't like that it has the potential to be used in a way that they don't like, whether it is because of some effect it has on the game's economy, or because this one time, Bob the Crafty Dwarf had his thunder stolen from him by Dave the Jerk. And if that happens all the time, then hey man, sorry you're apparently stuck with Dave in your gaming group. ;)

I think it is incorrect to say that Fabricate only allows a single Craft check. In my opinion, that is an overly-strict house rule interpretation out of concern for game economies. It's fine if you want to run it that way as the GM of your own game. I don't think it is necessary, because the GM controls the economy anyway, and can fairly rule that there isn't infinite demand for whatever good a player wants to make and sell. Or if there is infinite demand, then the local smiths shouldn't care, because then they can sell their own wares to that infinite pool of buyers, too, and nobody loses.

And even if you choose to disallow masterwork, what stops a player from making a ridiculously valuable piece of jewelry with a single check, anyway? Masterwork only applies to specific items, right? If the perceived problem is that a caster with the 5th-level Fabricate spell can crank out huge amounts of valuable products and "get rich quick"... if that's a problem for your game and you think it is breaking the economy, talk to the player and say hey, it's fine to use Fabricate now and then to make some cool stuff, but don't abuse it. Don't let these ideas of broken economies cloud the issue of what the spell can actually do and artificially limit it, and especially don't claim that this interpretation is the way the spell must work.

Instead, let's stick to what Fabricate actually says: that you must make an appropriate Craft check for items requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

So if I want to make an elaborate and beautiful necklace, what is ”an appropriate Craft check” for that? Craft: Jewelry, we'll say DC20. Ok, great!

If I want to make a set of chain mail armor, what is ”an appropriate Craft check” for that? DC16 Craft: Armor? Sounds right.

Now, what if I want to make Masterwork Chain Mail, what is ”an appropriate Craft check” for that? The answer: TWO Craft checks are appropriate for making that specific item.

And so, I believe it is incorrect to so completely latch on to the word ”an” in the spell text and then ignore the significance of the word ”appropriate” immediately following it. ”An appropriate Craft check” for a given item is sometimes more than one Craft check, and is ultimately determined by the GM... whether a single check or multiple checks are deemed appropriate for a given task.

Aside from all that, SKR pretty clearly demonstrated in the post linked to earlier in this thread that masterwork items are possible with Fabricate, so I'm not sure why it even has to be reasoned out any further, but there you have it.

Good gaming!

Much like the claims that Fabricate specifies only one Craft check is allowed (which I don't believe is the case), I guess it could be nitpicked to say that Craft only specifies you can add +10 to the DC; not +20 or +30, etc.

Here's my take on it: The reason they said it works like AC is to make it clear that it does NOT work like Damage Resistance, despite them both having "Resistance" in the name.

The CON check to stabilize is specifically noted as being an automatic success on a roll of 20. I don't have a page number handy, but it's under "Stable Characters and Recovery" in the Combat section of the PRD.

The attack has to "successfully hit" before you can intercept it. So the guy with Cleave can indeed damage you twice, once if he hits you first, and again if you step in the way as he hits your friend.

And if he has Great Cleave, he can keep going, because technically his attack roll against your friend hit, too. It's not his fault if you wanted the damage instead. :)

It's metagaming because you are saying that your character doesn't try to knock him back down if he tries to get up; rather, you are saying that your character waits until he is standing up and then, if he does anything else at all - even breathing, you will then attempt to knock him down.

To me, that's metagaming, because your character doesn't know that there is a goofy quirk to the rules that your action would interrupt him before he stands up and thus he could just stand up again afterwards.

Also, the breathing or blinking part is just ridiculous.

Now, on to another little tidbit: If you used your Standard Action last round to knock the guy down, then it's his turn... when exactly did you have another Standard Action to set up the Ready condition in the first place? In short, acting by yourself, there is no way to keep someone constantly tripped like that, because you can't trip him and then Ready to trip him again before he acts.

The only option is the Attack of Opportunity for him standing up, which we already know won't let you successfully re-trip him during the process of him standing up.

"Candygram for Mongo." **hand enemy a wrapped package with Explosive Runes note inside and scurry away**

Anyway, since the spell is Abjuration school, I think the intent is for it to be a defensive out-of-combat spell rather than something to be used directly as an attack in combat - otherwise I speculate it would be Evocation.

That is, set it up as a trap somewhere and trick and enemy into intentionally reading the document, instead of trying to fling things at enemies in combat.

If someone were to ready an action to hit me "after I finished standing up" then I would consider that enough metagaming to counter with some of my own: I'd just attack them from the ground, completely wasting their action. :)

Since the spell doesn't outline damaged caused by worn items being shrunk, there clearly is no intent for this to be able to cause damage. So for example, shrinking someone's necklace with just make it fit uncomfortable tight, but it would not cause strangulation or decapitation or anything silly like that. And a successful save means the spell fails entirely.

My question about Shrink Item is whether it is intended to allow multiple items in a container to be easily shrunk. I would say probably yes, since the example of a campfire is actually a small pile of interacting items. So for example, filling a chest full of books, closing and locking it, and then casting Shrink Item on the chest should cause it to shrink along with all of its contents. (Exception being if a living creature or other ineligible target were put into the chest.)

Does that seem about right?

Hmm, what are the pros and cons of this? I guess having one scroll with multiple spells on it means if an enemy can hit it, they can destroy a bunch of spells at once.

On the other hand, you would only have to draw/equip one scroll and then continue casting multiple times without having to dig around for the next scroll you wanted.

Good tradeoff, I guess.

Consider this: If you expect to be able to throw it at someone and all it takes is a glance for them to read it - what's to prevent the GM from deciding that an enemy glances at it and reads it as you're pulling it out - so it explodes in your hands?

Or I could set up a defense mechanism for myself against Explosives Runes used in this way by simply informing the GM that my character will never read anything without using Linguistics to try to determine if it is a forgery. ;) This way, it always takes at least a round, so I'm not going to bother reading anything in combat.

KBrewer is making a lot of sense there. I had noted the "allowed" wording previously but hadn't pushed it fully to its conclusion.

So at this point, it appears that the correct way of adjudicating this is that both special abilities can be put on a weapon, with the following restrictions and results:

* Restriction: The weapon chosen must normally do nonlethal damage; that is, its mundane form must do nonlethal damage (i.e, whip, sap; NOT longsword)
* Result with both Merciful and Deadly active: The weapon does nonlethal damage, as Merciful does not allow the weapon to deal lethal damage; also, the weapon bypasses limits on armored or naturally armored targets.
* Result with Merciful suppressed: You lose the 1d6 extra damage but the weapon can now do lethal damage.

Barring any further persuasive arguments, that is the conclusion that I find to match the RAW (goofy, muddled, and messy as the RAW may be on this) as closely as possible, so I'll just go with that.

From a purely conceptual angle, I like and am amused by the thought that the Merciful special ability is a pacifist: "What? You want to do lethal damage? I'll just shut off then, let me know if you want to work with me again sometime, but I refuse to work with that Deadly fellow over there." Heh heh.

My point with the vorpal sword stuff is, the whole thing is a bit ridiculous, and you can find goofy stuff with the RAW just about anywhere, it just seems really easy to find with the Merciful ability in particular. I was exercising ridiculousness myself to show the ridiculousness of this whole discussion.

My bottom line, though, has softened a bit: It isn't overpowered, it's just a little conceptually messy. At a +3 effective enhancement bonus, having a +1 Merciful Deadly Whip add +1dd6 damage actually seems less effective to me than simply having a +1 Flaming Frost Whip which adds +2d6 typed energy damage instead.

And I specifically mentioned Flaming + Frost because I have no problem with that conceptually. Call it a "Weapon of Steam" and call it a day. ;)

I still hold to two things: Merciful on a lethal weapon doesn't qualify that weapon for Deadly; and that the real RAW conclusion is that it boils down to GM's judgment on what the effect of the Merciful+Deadly combination should be.

And at this point... FAQ, though I don't really see this as a question that would, by any stretch of the imagination, come up "frequently" in games. ;D

That's right:

"If a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage."

Now show me where in RAW it tells me exactly how much nonlethal damage a severing strike from a Merciful Vorpal Longsword will do, so I can determine whether the creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points, or more. It doesn't say how much HP damage a normal Vorpal Longsword does on a critical hit, it doesn't even say "all of it" - but what I do know is that the Merciful version must not be able to kill a target because it only does nonlethal damage, and nonlethal damage specifically says it is not life-threatening.

I think it's time to be done with this particular little RAW game, don't you? I think it is past time to write this issue off as DM's call and stop trying to pretend it all makes perfect sense.

Let's kick it up a notch, Emeril! I want a Merciful Vorpal Longsword. The RAW doesn't say I can't, so obviously that's a sensible combination, right?

From Merciful: "...all damage it deals is nonlethal damage."

From the combat chapter: "Nonlethal damage represents harm to a character that is not life-threatening. Unlike normal damage, nonlethal damage is healed quickly with rest."

So clearly, a Merciful Vorpal Longsword can only deal nonlethal damage, and so such a weapon isn't life-threatening. I guess if I roll a crit and sever someone's head, it will just be "healed quickly with rest" - strictly by RAW.

"Walk it off, Bob!" Heh, RAW is cool sometimes. (See the problem?)

As was discussed in the other place, if your GM disallows you having a 250gp gem as a spell component... that isn't a rules problem, it's a social problem, and no amount of rules will prevent him from thwarting you.

Another way of looking at it is this: If the GM doesn't want you to be able to make a 10HD undead in his game, look on the bright side, at least he is just denying you access to the gems, instead of letting you have them so you can create the undead, only to drop a meteor on the thing, instantly destroying it. ;) (Though if he did that, he might get extra XP toward his next level of Jerk GM PrC.)

After further consideration, I suppose if a player really, really wanted to put both of these special abilities on a whip in a game I was GMing, then it could be acceptable if they had a good character concept-based reason for it. Such as if they wanted to use it primarily for non-lethal means but would like the option to deal lethal damage in emergency situations without changing weapons.

But if the idea was to simply have a whip that does lethal damage against armored foes and get an extra +1d6 lethal damage on top of it, I would suggest to that player that they just get a Deadly Shocking Whip instead, or some other elemental damage type, rather than trying to stack Merciful with Deadly, which I have conceptual problems with.

Also, I strongly disagree with any attempt to interpret the use of a lethal weapon with a Merciful ability as one that "normally" deals non-lethal damage to qualify for Deadly. I would disallow the creation of a Merciful Deadly Longbow, for example. (This would qualify as an example of "cheese" to me, since others mentioned it and a definition was desired.)

The main reason I think this is a no-man's-land of a question is because the enchantments are exactly opposed. One makes all of the weapon's damage non-lethal, while the other makes all of the weapon's damage lethal, and to me, those just cancel out. (This goes back to my earlier objection of how Cure Light Wounds and Inflict Light Wounds as spell requirements seem to be an obvious contradiction.)

A few things to consider on this one: First off, as a GM, I would simply rule that they cancel out, since one uses Inflict Light Wounds as a requirement and the other uses Cure Light Wounds.

But following up on my gut reaction to the issue, I took a closer look at the description of each, and I believe the following line from the Merciful description backs up what my ruling would be:

"On command, the weapon suppresses this ability until told to resume (allowing it to deal lethal damage, but without any bonus damage from this ability.)"

So that would lead me to conclude that the only way such a weapon could deal lethal damage is when the Merciful enchantment is intentionally suppressed.

We used to meet on a weekly basis with a gaming group at Fantasy Flight for several months, so we've been there 20 times or so. That would be just fine. My wife and I both work 4x10 shifts and so we usually have Friday-Sunday off every week, so we can easily manage that. Maybe even a Saturday during the day, if that would be convenient for you? I'm not sure how busy Fantasy Flight is at what times, but I do know they sometimes got pretty busy (and thus, loud) on Friday evenings, so if we could catch it at one of the quieter times, that would be nice.

Pathfinder is our preferred game system these days, and we lean more toward just sticking with the core rulebook because we've found that even some of the APG stuff feels out of place, and we never picked up the Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Magic books because they seemed a bit overpowered/cheesy to our gaming tastes.

As for game style, we prefer the Forgotten Realms setting back before the 4th Edition changes came along, but homebrew is fine too. We like it when our characters can establish a connection with our surroundings, and when we can grow attached to people and places. As an example, in the most recent game I GMed, the characters established themselves as the local heroes of a poor neighborhood in the huge city of Waterdeep; they liked having local personalities in the neighborhood to talk to, drawing up their own homes on the map, and even putting in their own hooks via character background. They made the place their own, and that was a good feeling.

In short, we don't need to have constant, deep, epic adventures. Just having a place where our characters belong and can gain a sense of ownership, and where we can roleplay our interactions with the locals, that can be fun on its own.

Good vs. Evil: I think we'll get along just fine. I really dislike having characters in a group who will cause rifts and conflict among the other characters, and I especially don't like PvP in games like this. I prefer a cooperative experience, and good-aligned characters make it much easier to get along and have goals that will line up to have a fun time.

Anyway, I tend to ramble, so I'll cut this short. From what you've said so far, we're definitely interested to meet up and see if we can get some good games going, whether it's a separate game from what you have now, or even joining up into a large group if that's what you folks want. Let's keep in touch and plan something out for sometime this month, I'll get back to you more after we get back from our trip this weekend.

If you'd like to fire off an email to my Gmail address (jhfizban@gmail.com) then we can correspond that way if you don't mind. I can go into more detail about our likes and dislikes, scheduling, etc. without having to burden the folks on this forum with my extensive rambling. ;) Also, I could give you my cell number via email but I'm definitely not posting that on a public forum like this. :)

Since I wasn't even sure if adding a couple more players was a possibility, I didn't mention availability in my initial post, but now I should note that my wife and I will be going out of town from Wednesday-Saturday this week. So even if a large group is not a problem, you'd have to count us out for this weekend unless you meant Sunday.

If that gives you more time to assess the group size, just let me know what you all think after this weekend and we can take it from there!

Hey there, I'm not sure how big of a group you're willing to expand to, but my wife and I live in Maplewood and have played Pathfinder on and off for the past few years, we have a lot of prior D&D experience along with other systems (Star Wars Saga Edition, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, Vampire/Werewolf, etc.), and while some combat/action is welcome, we do like the roleplaying aspect of games as well.

I see that someone else posted to express interest as well, so if adding two more people beyond that would make the group too large, I certainly understand. Otherwise, feel free to drop me an email at jhfizban@gmail.com and we can talk some more about possibilities!

Thanks,
Jason

Loathsome Veil is a concentration spell that also clearly notes itself as dismissable:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/loathsomeVeil.html

OK, I was one who was offering ways to imagine why it was sensible to still be able to make three AoOs against someone casting Scorching Ray. A chunk of people hold the view that, even though it isn't explicitly stated to be a limiting factor, that only ONE AoO should be provoked because the rays all fire simultaneously.

So my explanation of a possible way to picture the situation was that perhaps the caster leaves himself open for attack when he is designating targets. Rather than treating it as a fluff explanation for making game events match rules, it was instead picked apart with a fine-tooth comb by those who cling to their house rule.

Now, I will offer an alternative explanation, in the hopes that we can finally end the silliness and see that it does make sense for three AoOs to be possible in the time of the simultaneous firing of Scorching Ray.

Caster uses defensive casting to avoid AoO from the actual spellcasting of Scorching Ray. Caster designates three targets for the Scorching Ray to attack. Now, all three rays of magical fire strike out at the targets, burning them for a second or two while the caster concentrates on directing the powerful magical energies. Meanwhile, the enemy warrior takes advantage of this opening by hacking at him a few times while the caster stands exposed, directing his magic.

Problem solved. A second or two is all the experienced warrior needs to slash his blade against the caster's ribs a few times. ;)

My prediction is that someone will say, "Nuh-uh, no fair, it says it's Instantaneous!" And the lack of imagination will continue.

As a DM, I find the logic here lacking. An attack of opportunity is allowed when an enemy is exposing himself to danger. Just like any other ranged attack, the caster of Scorching Ray does that once. The majority of ranged attack spells provoke an AoO (singular) before the attack is made. It isn't unbalanced for this spell to provoke singularly, either.

My argument is that the general rule in use here (ranged attacks provoke each time) is flawed in this instance.

No, even if casting defensively, the caster of a high-level Scorching Ray exposes himself to danger 3 times. One for each ranged attack. Whether it makes sense to you or not, I can easily imagine the targeting of those rays to require enough concentration that it leaves all three openings that an experienced and talented warrior could take advantage of.

All I need is for someone to show me an explicit exception given to Scorching Ray, or any reference to limits put on AoOs due to anything being simultaneous.

If no such info can be provided, then limiting AoOs for Scorching Ray to just one is quite simply a house rule.

It seems a significant chunk of the discussion about Scorching Ray hinges on whether or not it is possible to make simultaneous attacks of opportunity. Some like the idea of limiting Scorching Ray's ranged touch attack portion to only provoking one AoO even if 2 or 3 rays are fired.

I feel that multiple ranged attacks can and should provoke multiple AoO, even if they are simultaneous. To me, it comes down to this: while it is true that only one attack can be made per opportunity, each ranged touch attack in Scorching Ray triggers an opportunity. It doesn't matter that they are simultaneous, each is a separate ranged touch attack.

Now, if Scorching Ray can circumvent the AoO rules by attacking simultaneously, why stop there? For those hung up on the simultaneous part, take this separate example: Suppose we have eight archers who decide to gang up on Bob the fighter. They don't want him to be able to run away, and they figure it will be harder for him to get away if he has to somehow move through their occupied squares, so on their turn they each use a Move action to move adjacent to him and then use a Ready action: "I will shoot Bob with an arrow when my leader yells 'Fire'..."

Once they're all in position, filling the 8 squares around Bob, their leader (who is watching from a safe distance) yells "Fire" and all eight archers attack simultaneously.

So now, what if Bob has Combat Reflexes and extremely high Dexterity sufficient to make 8 AoO per round? Can he only attack ONE of the archers, since they're firing simultaneously? Can his ONE sword possibly move that fast to hit them all?

I say... yes, he can definitely take an attack on each of the archers. It doesn't matter that they're all firing simultaneously, each one is provoking an attack of opportunity from Bob, and so he gets to make those attacks. It doesn't matter how I imagine it or visualize it, he qualifies for the attacks and so he gets them. I don't care if his sword is moving faster than physics should allow, I don't play the game to analyze physics.

In much the same way that 8 archers attacking simultaneously don't have an exception in the rules for limiting the number of AoO provoked, Scorching Ray has nothing explicit that limits the number of AoO provoked for its ranged attacks, either.

At this point, unless it can be explicitly shown that there is some exception for simultaneous attacks, I think I'm settled on how I'd handle Scorching Ray.

My take on several of these:

Touch spell on friends:
1 friend = not terribly distracting, so doesn't provoke
2-6 friends = a distracting act, so it provokes

Ranged attacks:
Each attack provokes, so if you full attack with a bow and have three attacks, you provoke with each shot.

Consider an example: Bob has Dex 10, but he took Combat Reflexes so he could take the Stand Still feat. He moves up and attacks Dave the archer. On his turn, Dave begins by firing an arrow, provoking an AoO, but Bob decides to wait because he only has 1 AoO per round and wants to see if Dave tries to move away from him. Dave takes a second shot, and now that Bob knows that Dave won't be provoking due to movement, he decides to take his one AoO on the second shot.

If each shot didn't provoke, Bob would have to decide immediately upon the first shot whether he wanted to use an AoO for any of the attacks; if he passed on the opportunity, it doesn't make sense that he would forfeit any further strikes at Dave if he continues shooting. Therefore, I can only conclude that the most sensible case is that each individual ranged attack in a full attack provokes.

Scorching Ray:
My interpretation of the mention of "simultaneously" at the end of Scorching Ray is not to limit the number of AoO provokes, otherwise I believe it would specify that. Rather, it is there to indicate that you can't fire one ray and wait to see whether it kills the target before deciding where the next one goes. Rather, you have to decide where each ray is being targeted before rolling to attack and applying damage.

However, it clearly states that each ray requires a ranged touch attack. It is the act of making each separate ranged touch attack that provokes. So firing three rays provokes three times. My conclusion: don't cast Scorching Ray when you're threatened by an opponent, especially one that may have Combat Reflexes. ;)

If you need an explanation of why this happens, just imagine it this way: the caster has to designate each ray's target individually, which is a distracting act and provokes; then, once all three targets have been designated, they all fire simultaneously. Easy to visualize, and consistent with how the rules work.

Good gaming!

Wait, wait... why is the tree making a Balance check in the first place?

How about Weapon Focus: Grapple? Any character with +1 BAB can take that.

And then you could go with Greater Weapon Focus, though that requires certain levels of Fighter.

In my weekly game, we haven't run into the issue of scrolls just yet, but when we do, I intend to handle it as follows:

Scroll of Mage Armor (Wiz 3, Int)

Listing the spell, the caster type, the caster level, and the attribute. The last bit might seem redundant, but I'm just thinking of possible weirdness, such as a scroll created by one of those sorcerer types that can use Wisdom as their primary attribute, or whatever.

Same would go for wands. Just a minor add-on at the end there. To anyone who would argue that you can't possibly know who created some random scroll found in a forgotten library, my response would be: of course I know, I'm the GM. ;)

Good gaming!

Thread resurrection here, but fortunately it's not TOO old. Just from January. This issue regarding the pinned condition is exactly what I'm trying to resolve at this point, and it looks like no solid conclusion was reached yet.

It seems there are two competing interpretations:

Method A: grapple --> pin --> damage --> damage --> damage...
Once you have an enemy pinned, he stays that way until he breaks out, and you no longer have to choose Pin each round. The reasoning seems to be that since the Pinned condition is a more severe version of the Grappled condition, a successful grapple check to "maintain the hold" actually serves to maintain the pin itself, so you don't need to choose Pin each round, and instead you can choose another option (Damage, Move, etc.).

Method B: grapple --> pin --> pin --> pin --> pin...
If you want to keep an enemy pinned, you need to re-pin him each round. A successful grapple check to "maintain the hold" only applies to the Grappled condition, and you need to choose the Pin option each round if you want to keep your opponent pinned.

Which one is correct?

Looks right. Also remember, in Round Two, Person B's grapple check gets a +5 circumstance bonus because Person A didn't break the grapple (you get the bonus whether A tries to break or not).

If I were feeling nasty, I might give the stirges the +4 cover bonus and assume that they were flitting about and keeping their victim between themselves and its ally most of the time.

But under normal circumstances, I'd probably halve that to just +2. And if I were in a really good mood, no penalty, whack-a-mole!

To me, there are two key parts of the wording to this:

1) "This bonus to damage is increased..."

2) "...the penalty increases by -1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2."

So by my interpretation, Power Attack incurs ONE penalty ("the" penalty) and provides ONE bonus ("the" bonus). So reference to "this bonus" isn't separating them, it's just being overly specific. There is only one bonus to increase by 50%, so increase it by 50%.

As backup, I'd point to intent: the rules are generally meant to be simple rather than complex. Having 2-->3, 4-->6, 6-->9 is much simpler than the adjusted alternative.

Or if they're really insistent on having the ultimate standoff, the book *does* provide rules for starvation, doesn't it?

EDIT: Oops, looks like the odds are they'd die of thirst before starving.

In the real world, you cannot ready an action to do something based on the condition that your opponent starts doing the same thing, and then somehow imagine that you're going to finish first.

"Readying" has got to somehow or another involve shortening the length of time that an action takes by, well, getting it ready, like drawing back a bow or, presumably, swinging back a weapon.

The effect of readying has got to be that the length of time for completing the action is now less than the length of time of the action you are triggering on.

I would point out that an attack roll doesn't necessarily represent one swing of a sword. Even a low-level character with one attack per round may be waving his sword this way and that, and the attack roll only represents his "best opportunity" to strike for damage in that round.

Thinking of it that way resolves the timing issue, because if one of them does decide to go on the offensive, it isn't a case of one sword swing being faster than the other, but rather the readied action being more prepared to strike at an opening than the action that triggers it. For example, if Bill gets tired of waiting and chooses to attack, it isn't a race between their swords connecting - instead, Ben is watching for an opening, while Bill is now trying to force an opening; and in this case, the act of forcing that opening actual creates one for Ben to strike at, moments before Bill can attempt to strike.

Now, I'm not digging through the book to look for fluff text that backs this up, but I have never equated one attack roll to one swing, as that would mean that low-level characters are swinging their weapon once every six seconds during combat. Rather, to an untrained eye, a low-level combat might appear similar to a high-level combat, they just can't see that the high-level characters are making the most of each opening and so they get more attack rolls that have the potential to connect, even if they're all swinging their swords around 4-5 times every six seconds.

As the stated desire among the arguments is that the Fly spell should allow you to save yourself from falling to death, then there is no reason why you [u]must[/u] hover to do that. You don't even need to make any checks, just fly straight down at half speed if you'd like.

Is a BEARD an object? Because it sure is amusing when dwarves get involved. ;)

The Sleep spell specifically indicates methods for awakening creatures affected by it. Color Spray doesn't, so I would interpret that to mean that no amount of slapping, attacking, etc. can remove the "unconscious" condition from the creature until the specified duration expires.

It seems that in general, spells and effects that cause someone to fall unconscious have info about how to wake them. The Sleep spell and the Slumber hex in particular both tell you specifically how it can happen. The Symbol of Sleep spell indicates that victims can't be awakened in any nonmagical way for the duration, etc.

Back to the spell at hand, Color Spray, I have two further notes:

* I wouldn't treat it as "sleep" but rather as being "struck unconscious" - the reason you can't be awakened is because your brain is shut off and resetting, so to speak; nothing to do but wait for it to be ready to turn back on. ;)

* Since the "unconscious" condition only applies to 2HD or less when hit by Color Spray, I would like to slightly rephrase what someone else said:
"If you have to attack an unconscious victim with 2HD more than once, you're doing it wrong."

There's an alchemist spell/formula (Crafter's Fortune) that will give you a boost to a Craft check, and the higher the better, as if you double the needed DC it cuts the time in half (triple = one-third, and so on).

There's the Master Alchemist feat that changes the "sp value" needed to complete the item. (10x faster, depending)

Under the Craft skill description, the note at the end, "Special" indicates the above noted +10 to the DC to speed up the process.

Ah, there it is, that's what I was looking for, thanks Grick! So the automatic touch to an ally removes any need for a melee touch roll and so ignores the images.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense conceptually, but it doesn't have to.

Suppose a caster has Mirror Image active with a handful of images for both of the following hypothetical situations.

First, presumably if the caster is rendered unconscious, the images continue for their normal duration - if that's not the case, please point that out.

1) The caster is put to sleep by an area spell such as Deep Slumber. What exactly does it take for an ally to wake them? Would it be considered a melee touch attack to shake them awake? If so, would the ally have to contend with the images just as an enemy would, possibly even destroying images in the process of trying to wake him?

Alternatively, I suppose the ally could close their eyes and fumble around the caster's square until they find him and shake him awake that way, but there is a potential for vulnerability while doing this.

2) The caster is hit by an area spell and drops to -10 hp. An ally wants to come over and cast Cure Light Wounds to heal and stabilize them. As CLW is a touch spell, do they have to contend with the images to succeed at this? How does this change if they want to use a Heal check to stabilize instead?

Good gaming!

arioreo wrote:

You are allowed a reactive cmb/cmd attack to resist being place on a undesirable stop such as trap or over a clip.

Can you tell me where to find this rule?

To me, it looks like it depends on what "effect" is pushing them over the edge.

If the victim is in an established grapple and the aggressor succeeds at a combat maneuver check and chooses to use the "Move" option, the victim would get a free attempt to break free, as noted on p.200 of the PF Core Rulebook:

If the victim is being Bull Rushed (p.199) over the edge, then I see no such restriction listed.

If the victim is being Repositioned (p.322 of the Advanced Players Guide) then it specifically disallows this from happening:

So based on that info, if I were a bad guy and wanted to push someone off a cliff, I'd Bull Rush them. Don't get confused and Overrun, that would be bad. ;)

Good gaming!

Hi folks, the following situation came up in my campaign recently:

The Witch took Craft Wondrous Item to begin making some magic items. Working on an item that takes 5 days to complete, the player asked if he can use Fortune on himself to make two rolls on the Spellcraft check at the end of the creation process.

The simple and straightforward answer is probably YES. It's a dice roll, and he can use Fortune on himself.

But conceptually, does it make sense for the good luck to only come into play at the very moment of the item's completion? Or for concept reasons, does it make more sense that he'd be using Fortune+Cackle on himself for long periods of time during the process in order to infuse the luck into the whole duration of the process?

Any thoughts on this? I think I'm running into a rules vs. concept situation here, and I'd like some advice before making a final call on it. :) Maybe the ultimate concept to think of would be simply that certain witches make better item creators?

I considered that, but the note about "your appearance" seemed like it may just be fluff text or flavor description of the skill, similar to how Acrobatics has flavor text about "confusing your opponents" but the skill doesn't appear to have any Confusion component to it.

I agree with the idea that it is more than just makeup; that's why I feel the check should be made by the person who is wearing the disguise, and even having the help of an expert doesn't suddenly give you an expert-level disguise.

So, supposing I stick with it being Aid Another: How many characters can reasonably Aid Another to stack up a good bonus? Say maybe three? Hair, makeup, costume design? ;) Totaling a +6 bonus is pretty good, I would think, but I can't see going as high as +10 for having a gang help you out with your disguise.

Good gaming!

Perhaps this has been covered before, but I made my best effort at searching for the info and still wasn't satisfied that I know how it works. I haven't run into a lot of Disguise situations in my games before, but it looks like some of my players intend to start using Disguise pretty heavily, so I want to make sure I understand it.

The situation: A rogue has a high Disguise check, and he spends the normal time (1d3x10 minutes) to dress up the cleric in a well-thought-out disguise. What happens? Does the rogue roll a Disguise check and it applies to the cleric? Or does the cleric roll his own Disguise check and just gets a +2 Aid Another bonus from the rogue's help? (Ignore for the moment that the Disguise check may be a hidden roll made by the GM, that's not important to me.)

My gut tells me just to use Aid Another, since the skill is Charisma-based, so perhaps it assumes that the person who is in disguise has to do a decent job of acting the part if they draw attention.

Good gaming!