|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Rules citation for one DR getting rid of the other?
There isn't one. You still have multiple types of damage reduction, but only the highest one applies on any given attack.
If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.
No, it isn't written like that at all. The -2 to hit the tower shield gives applies to both proficient and non-proficient users. Non-proficient users have an additional penalty from the armor check penalty.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield's encumbrance.
You get a -2 penalty from the encumbrance of the shield, not the proficiency. The phalanx soldier fighter archtype has an ability that reduces both if you need more evidence. Also the tower shield specialist fighter archtype.
Deft Shield (Ex): At 7th level, the armor check penalty from a shield and the attack roll penalty are reduced by –1 for a phalanx soldier using a tower shield. At 11th level, these penalties are reduced by –2. This ability replaces armor training 2 and 3.
Or didn't choose to include them (page count even) and left it as is due to backwards compatiblility as the rules are freely available. Omissions aren't always deliberate as has been brought to light numerous times since PFRPG. So unless you are telling us you know for a fact they were intentionally removed and have the quotes to back it up, I'm just going to go with that being your opinion.
Body slots were mentioned in 3 places in 3.5. The section I linked to previously, and the pricing chart (twice on the chart - once for the cost increase and again as a note at the bottom telling you to see the text). Seeing as how all of those locations are missing in Pathfinder, that means it was either a deliberate omission, or that by coincidence the only 3 locations talking about body slot affinities just happened to be left out. And seeing as how there is no FAQ or errata that adds them back in, the only logical choice seems to be that they were deliberately removed.
Nope. Body slot affinities are in the SRD. Paizo made a deliberate decision to remove them, but just didn't take the time to go through and correct the item prices that were affected.
But IMO the chance to make cursed items when you're pushing your limits is a balancing factor. One which the "take 10" and "take 20" mechanics completely destroy. And without it you get ridiculousness things like someone making caster level 18 items at level 3 with zero chance to fail.
Since there is a penalty for failure (making a cursed item or wasted materials), you can't Take 20 when making a magic item (or mundane crafting) anyway.
Skilled: Humans gain an additional skill rank at first level and one additional rank whenever they gain a level.
Classes grant a certain number of skill ranks per level. Wizards, for example, receive 2 + Intelligence modifier ranks per wizard level. A human would add +1 to that because of Skilled.
Considering he said that over a year ago, I don't think it really matters to him anymore. He has probably decided something by now.
Size has no effect on range.
You are complaining about carrying capacity (which does somewhat work as has been shown)? Your real problem should be with reach - a 3 foot halfling and a 6 foot human both have the exact same reach (5 feet). A human with a human-sized longspear and a halfling with a halfling sized longspear have the exact same reach (10 feet).
For that matter, a 2' tall creature (the bottom end of small) and an 8' tall creature (upper end of medium) have the same reach. They also take up the exact same amount of space on the battle grid (1 square).
Ah, so native outsiders are raise-able now. Good to know. Thanks for the quick response.
Native outsiders could be resurrected in 3.5 D&D as well. Pathfinder didn't change that. The Pathfinder description of native outsiders (and the relevant section of the outsider type description) was copied exactly from the 3.5 SRD.
Native Subtype: This subtype is applied only to outsiders. These creatures have mortal ancestors or a strong connection to the Material Plane and can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be. Creatures with this subtype are native to the Material Plane. Unlike true outsiders, native outsiders need to eat and sleep.
It is also mentioned in the description of the outsider type.
Unlike most living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don't work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.
Nope, Ra has leadership as a subdomain, but Iomedae doesnt list anything close to rulership.
Are you looking at their portfolio/area of concern, or their domains? Because those aren't the same thing.
The variant channeling list doesn't care about domains. It is based on the deities area of concern/portfolio.
Pathfinder ghosts seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the ethereal plane. The ethereal plane is never mentioned at all in the ghost's entry, and they have had the Manifestation ability from 3.5 D&D removed in Pathfinder. Pathfinder ghosts exist 100% on the material plane.
Is there any bodiless undead which isn't at least partially in the ethereal plane?
Most if not all of them. Shadows, spectres, wraiths, and ghosts (all Bestiary 1) are bodiless and have no connection to the ethereal plane.
Small earth elemental is correct at +6. +2 from base attack bonus, +3 from strength, +1 size modifier from being small.
The summoned eagle also has the correct stats. It isn't receiving a bonus on attack rolls from augment summoning (As it uses Dex and not Str), only on damage rolls (which would increase). IT has a +3 listed for both the normal attack roll and the augmented summon attack roll.
Yes, you can apply it to the same spell like ability each time you take it.
Compare with Weapon Focus, which must be applied to different weapons each time:
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Spell resistance is the extraordinary ability to avoid being affected by spells.
Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities (including enhancement bonuses on magic weapons) are not.
It is called spell resistance, not magic resistance. It only applies to spells and those things that act like spells (spell-like abilities). Cockatrice grit is neither.
The spells used as a prerequisite have absolutely no bearing on an items effects (unless the item actually duplicates the spell).
As cockatrice grit does not duplicate a spell, spell resistance does not apply.
Spells that require you to concentrate to maintain them have a duration of Concentration. The summon monster spells have a duration of 1 round/level, not concentration.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
A strict reading of the spell indicates that both the base spell and the permanency must be cast by the same person.
This spell makes the duration of certain other spells permanent. You first cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell.
Dispel Magic makes magic items temporarily nonmagical for the duration. Then you cast Polymorph any Object.
There is at least one instance of a strength check to lift an object - lifting a portcullis.
Portcullises: These special doors consist of iron or thick, ironbound wooden shafts that descend from recesses in the ceilings above archways. Sometimes a portcullis has crossbars that create a grid, sometimes not. Typically raised by means of a winch or a capstan, a portcullis can be dropped quickly, and the shafts end in spikes to discourage anyone from standing underneath (or from attempting to dive under it as it drops). Once it is dropped, a portcullis locks, unless it is so large that no normal person could lift it anyway. In any event, lifting a typical portcullis requires a DC 25 Strength check.
Using an inappropriately sized weapon gives a -2 penalty on attack rolls for each size different. A medium-sized wielder using a weapon meant for a small-sized creature would take a -2 penalty on attack rolls.
Mage Evolving wrote:
You must maintain concentration. Casting any spell while concentrating on another spell will end the spell you are concentration on.
Enlarge Person cares about humanoid type, not humanoid form. When a spell (or any other effect) says it targets humanoids, it always means humanoid type.
Not all humanoid type creatures have a humanoid form, and not all humanoid form creatures have the humanoid creature type.
Merfolk have the humanoid type despite not having a humanoid body (they do have 2 arms and a head, but have no legs). Ifrits have a humanoid body form, but not the humanoid creature type. They have to have a special exception in their Efreeti Magic alternate racial ability to allow them to be affected by Enlarge Person.
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
I have found that keeping with a natural 1 results in failure continues to keep the aspect of rolling a die, even at high levels of game play, a necessary and risky venture. Granted the rogue with a stratospheric dexterity, maxed out ranks in stealth, and 4 different stacking stealth-enhancing magical items and spell effects should be able to sneak past everyone. However, that 5% chance of failure promotes good roleplay and hones quick decision making. I am very happy with most of Pathfinder's rulings, but I prefer nat 1's as failures. Sometimes, despite excellent character builds, great gear, and the best strategy, the dice decide to tell a tale all their own. I don't ever want to see that change.
Nice and all, but no reason to resurrect a thread from 6 years ago.
Naud M. Portant wrote:
Ok, for a 5 foot square space on a your usual grid the area contained in each is 5 square feet. That means that the length of the sides of this square have to be √5 feet long (2.2360679775... feet).
Edges are 5 feet long. A single square contains 25 square feet. Each diagonal is approximately 7.07 feet. With every other square counting as 2 for the purposes of movement, you actually travel slower moving diagonally than you do moving in a straight line.
4 squares of diagonal movement therefor counts as 6 squares of movement. Diagonals are 7.07 feet, and you traveled 4 of them = 28.28 feet. Traveling the same 6 squares of movement in a straight line would be 30 feet in the same span of time.
Running, a human gets 24 squares of movement in a straight line, which is 16 squares diagonally. There, you cover 113.12 feet compared to the 120 feet you would of covered had you run straight instead of diagonally.
Skylancer4, why would crafting while adventuring risk failure if it requires multiple days?
You make less progress than normal if you craft while adventuring. That means more checks are required to finish the item. Failing any check by 4 or less ruins the item and the time and money spent are wasted. Failing any check by 5 or more results in a cursed item.
So the more checks there are, the more likely you fail to make the item. Unless your modifier is high enough you can't possibly fail.
I was under the assumption that spells with expensive components could not be cast because the summoned creature didn't have the needed component. If the player supplied the component, it off their own resources, the spell could be cast.
Nope. The spell says summoned creatures simply can not use those abilities. It has nothing to do with components. Notice that it also applies to spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components. Spell-like abilities don't use material components to begin with, and the summoned monster still can't use them.
A kineticist gains a simple blast from her primary element at 1st level—some elements offer more than one option. When a kineticist gains a new element via the expanded element class feature, she gains a simple blast from that element as well. Each simple blast is either a physical blast or an energy blast. Physical blasts are ranged attacks that deal an amount of damage equal to 1d6+1 + the kineticist's Constitution modifier, increasing by 1d6+1 for every 2 kineticist levels beyond 1st. Spell resistance doesn't apply against physical blasts. Energy blasts are ranged touch attacks that deal an amount of damage equal to 1d6 + 1/2 the kineticist's Constitution modifier, increasing by 1d6 for every 2 kineticist levels beyond 1st.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Healing isn't damage. It isn't affected by vulnerability.
Vulnerabilties (Ex or Su) A creature with vulnerabilities takes half again as much damage (+50%) from a specific energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure. Creatures with a vulnerability that is not an energy type instead take a –4 penalty on saves against spells and effects that cause or use the listed vulnerability (such as spells with the light descriptor). Some creatures might suffer additional effects, as noted in their descriptions.
And unless he is undead, the cure spells won't deal damage, so the vulnerability won't kick in. There aren't many abilities that deal positive energy damage to living creatures.
You don't figure and apply damage in steps - it happens all at once. An 18 strength character wielding a longsword doesn't deal 1d8 damage, then +4 damage (From strength). He deals 1d8+4 damage.
Likewise, when wielding a silver longsword, he doesn't do 1d8 damage, then +4 damage (Strength), then -1 damage (silver). Nor does he do 1d8-1 damage, then +4 (from strength). He does 1d8+4-1, or 1d8+3.
All of the static modifiers combine into a single formula. Then you solve the formula.
The first one is wrong as you are applying the minimum twice, both to the amount rolled and to the final result. The actual answer would be 1 (-1, min 1) -2 = -1 damage. Which isn't possible, as by the rules damage reduces your hit points, not improves them.
The second one is wrong because it would be nonlethal damage. 1-1-2 = -2, which become a minimum 1 nonlethal damage.
Applying the minimum damage rule at any point other than at the very end results in times where you would end up doing negative damage, which just isn't possible. Applying the minimum rule at the very end means you will always do some amount of positive damage (even if it is just 1 point of nonlethal damage).
The relevant rule:
Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.
It just says "penalties". It doesn't matter what kind of penalties - if any penalty at all reduces the damage below 1, the attack still deals 1 nonlethal damage.
Also note the bolded word - result. Not roll. It applies to the entire amount of damage you do, not just the dice rolled.
By that defination, everything would be an ability check. Attacking with a melee weapon is strength-based, using the Stalth skill is Dexterity-based, and so on.
A "charisma-based check" is not always an ability check.
I see the phrases "<stat>-based" and "ability" as being interchangeable.
They aren't. As Cevah posted, the section on ability scores says ability checks just add the ability modifier. The take 10/20 rules call out ability checks as being different from concentration checks and caster level checks (both of which have an ability score added).
And from the Strength domain:
Might of the Gods (Su): At 8th level, you can add your cleric level as an enhancement bonus to your Strength score for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. This bonus only applies on Strength checks and Strength-based skill checks. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.
If "Strength-based" and "Strength check" meant the same thing, there would be no reason to specifically call out both.
Everything in the rules shows that an ability check is a check where you only add the relevant ability modifier and nothing else (with the exception of anything modifier that specifically says it applies to ability checks).
If you shield bash with a heavy shield do you use two weapon fighting rules?
If you also attack with a weapon, yes. Assuming you are actually using two-weapon fighting. If you don't use the extra attack, it doesn't count as two-weapon fighting. As long as you don't make more attacks than your base attack bonus allows, it isn't two-weapon fighting.
For example, what I'm going for is having both shield focus, which adds +1 to shield AC, and two weapon defense, which would add yet another +1 shield bonus.
Two Weapon Defense grants a shield bonus, which wouldn't stack with the shield bonus from a shield.