Jiggy's page

I recently found out in a thread over in Website Feedback that if the flagged post doesn't have a single, clear question they might just mark it as answered to get it out of the queue. If you want something answered, make a new thread containing pretty much nothing but a single, concise question and then try and get people to flag it for FAQ treatment. You're likely to get better results that way.

Necromancy, sorry... but it's going to be coming up a lot in my PSOP area. Did they put "(as Protection from Evil)" to save space and not have to type/write/pring "(as Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law)" into the book? A Wayfinder and the Ioun Stone in question don't have inherent or natural alignment qualities, and the books written with PfE as the main spell referenced ("functions like Protection from Evil, except against [insert alignment]") for PfC, PfG, and PfL.

Designer Sean K Reynolds: "...the stone-wayfinder resonant power only works on said effects from an evil source, because the resonant power specifically cites protection from evil."

Same designer, two years later: "Item says "as protection from evil."

FAQ says "Protection from evil only works against evil effects."
Therefore, the item only works against evil effects.
Pretty clear, no?"

Note, however, that you could flurry with a weapon and bypass the need for the Amulet of Mighty Fists if you like.

I haven't played a monk myself, but I've encountered several locally and it seems like they don't need both amulets. I played alongside one at the 12+ tier of Race for the Runecarved key (I was sitting with a batch of 13th-level PCs fresh off of Eyes of the Ten) and the monk was beating things to a pulp while also maintaining a nigh-unhittable AC.

Fighting people who start a fight with you is neutral.

Oh, I think I misunderstood who was starting the fight.

To summarize the most common types (there are some AC bonuses so rare that you can take the time to look them up if they happen to come up:)

AC: 10 + (armor) + (shield) + (enhancement) + (deflection) + (natural armor) + (DEX bonus) + (size) + (dodge)

"Enhancement" is a bonus type, but not a bonus to AC. If it were, then a +1 shield and +1 armor would not [fully] stack. Rather, enchanted armor and shields receive an enhancement bonus to their armor or shield bonus. For instance, a +1 heavy shield grants you a +3 shield bonus to AC, not a +2 shield bonus and a +1 enhancement bonus.

Also note that a DEX penalty, not just bonus, applies to your AC.

Personally - I'd think it to be a neutral act.

Why, exactly?

So, Magi can't, and Monks can. Ooookaaay...

Flurry is a full-attack action.

Spell Combat is not.

The rest of us have been around that carousel already.

As for why Spell Combat isn't a full-attack action in the first place? Anyone's guess.

There was a recent FAQ, actually. Stacks.

I've got to disagree here. Arguably it's a chaotic choice to execute them if they are the local "law" as you say.

So if my superiors give me orders to execute someone, and I choose to trust that they have done their due diligence to make the call on whether or not that someone deserves death, and act according to the decision of my superiors rather than investigating the situation myself, thus performing the execution under delegated authority granted by a formal hierarchy; then it's a chaotic act?

That conclusion seems questionable to me... ;)

Hello again PFS,

Since everyone was so helpful with my first question today i figured why not ask another.

Once again i ask if anyone can point me in the right direction to figure out my characters touch and flat-footed. i have looked at a few things but have not found what i am looking for.

This message board is always so nice and helpful no matter how noob-ish my questions are and i thank you all for that.

Sincerely,
bwerntz

First, I'd like to point out that for general questions about the rules of the Pathfinder system, you're better off posting HERE. This forum is supposed to be for things relating specifically to Organized Play. But there are a lot of forums here, so I can certainly sympathize with not being sure where to post. :)

As for your question, the answer is in the Combat chapter, under Armor Class.

First, your general armor class uses this formula:

10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + other modifiers

Start there.

For your "touch AC" (as it's commonly called), you start with your armor class and then...

When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally.

So take your normal AC, remove your armor, shield and natural armor, and you've got the number for the "Touch" box on your character sheet.

Flat-footed is slightly less straightforward to find. Keep your finger on the AC section I've been referencing, and then look in the glossary definition of "Flat-footed":

A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

So being flat-footed costs you your DEX bonus to AC. So for the "flat-footed" box on your character sheet, you take the AC you figured up to start with, and remove your DEX bonus. Note that you only lose a "bonus", not your DEX "modifier". If you have less than 10 DEX (giving you a penalty to your AC), you keep that penalty. Also note that some bonuses to AC (primarily "dodge" bonuses) also go away when you lose your DEX bonus. They'll usually say so in the text of the ability/item giving you the bonus in the first place, though.

Hope all that helps!

But it's easier to get people to click it, and it's neater and easier for the Paizo staff, if you put it by itself as the OP of a new thread.

Funny, when I played that scenario, the only thugs I encountered were actual thugs (not law enforcers) and none of them tried to use non-lethal damage.

Go figure.

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

Can we all agree on what question should be asked?

I'm thinking something along the lines of "Does wearing a gauntlet interfere with casting and delivering melee touch spells with that hand, or prevent holding the charge if the initial touch fails to connect with the target?"

How about:

"Does wearing a glove-like weapon (such as a gauntlet, spiked gauntlet, cestus, etc) count as 'touching' for purposes of accidentally discharging a held touch spell?"

You're more likely to get a FAQ response if there is a single, concise question in the post. A long preamble followed by five questions is probably just going to get tossed out of the FAQ queue instead of addressed. I suggest making a new thread with a carefully-worded question.

It's not like you couldn't take the gauntlets off of your armor if you like to poke people.

Ah, good find! I must be off today...

1. where do i get the items for my spells (ex. a firefly for my LIGHT spell or a tiny bag and small candle for summon monster 1)?

2.
what cost if any are associated with these items?

hope my questions are not to noobish

There's an item in the Equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook called a "Spell Component Pouch". If memory serves, it costs 5gp and weighs one or two pounds.

Most spell components are considered to be available within that pouch. If a spell specifies a cost for the component (i.e., "diamond dust worth 5,000gp" or whatever), then you have to buy that separately. But for things with no listed cost (like the firefly), it's just sort of abstractly assumed to be in the pouch. (These rules can be found both in the spell component pouch description and in the Components rules in the Magic chapter of the Core Rulebook.)

There's nothing in the Touch Spell rules (unless I missed it) stating that your status of threatening/not-threatening changes when you have a held charge. On the contrary, it even states that if you *do* use an unarmed strike to deliver a held charge, you'll still provoke (unless you normally wouldn't, such as by the Improved Unarmed Strike feat). So it looks like if you normally wouldn't threaten, having a held charge changes nothing.

I don't recall any of my PFS characters murdering anyone. They've all felled enemies in battle, and there's been the occasional execution of an exceptionally heinous evildoer, but no murders.

Ah, good catch on the locked gauntlet. That does seem to imply the ability to cast somatic spells with gauntlets on. Still, it'd be nice to have something a bit more... solid.

It's an alignment infraction no matter what if you're good-aligned.

The Guide explicitly states that an action specifically ordered by a Faction head does not count as an alignment infraction.

I'd personally be generous and say that arrows would obviously be physically capable of fitting in the bigger compartments, but the size and shape restriction still means something: you wouldn't be able to draw that ammunition as a free action from those two compartments. But I'd be fine keeping a small bundle of arrows in each of those compartments, then after depleting some arrows from the main portion, spending some actions after combat to "re-load" the main compartment with arrows from the bigger parts.

But as has been said, probably best to go with the most conservative ruling so you don't get burned.

1. Can I cast spells with a hand wearing a spiked gauntlet?

You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

The next question seems to be "Is a spiked-gauntlet-wearing hand considered 'free'?"

Near as I can tell, the answer is not (explicitly) given. On the one hand, the entry for a spiked gauntlet doesn't say anything about prohibiting spellcasting with that hand. However, neither do any other light melee weapons, yet hands wielding them are not considered "free". A spiked gauntlet is listed as a light melee weapon, so I see no basis in the rules to treat a spiked gauntlet any differently than all the other light melee weapons.

Then again, so many people act like it's a given that it doesn't interfere with spellcasting that I wonder if there's evidence outside the rules that I'm missing? Maybe developer commentary or something? But if not, then it looks like spellcasting with a spiked gauntlet (or any other light weapon, such as a cestus) wielded with that hand is a no-go. Relatedly, looks like I need to reconsider some purchases on my many gish-style PFS characters...

2. Can I deliver touch attacks with a hand wearing a spiked gauntlet?

Hrm, might have to come back to this one.

3. If I've cast a spell with the gauntlet hand on my turn, do I still threaten adjacent squares with the spiked gauntlet until my next turn?

Normally, you threaten with a light weapon you're wielding. I am not aware of any rules that would cause this to change due to having just cast a spell.

4. Can I hold the charge on a touch spell that I fail to discharge with my gauntlet hand?

If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.

On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.

Seems to me that you have to be a magus with Spellstrike in order to touch a weapon with the charged hand without accidentally discharging the spell. Which I guess gives you your answer for #2 as well.

5. What happens when I make an attack of opportunity while holding the charge from a touch spell?

As has already been referenced, the rules for touch spells say that an unarmed attack or natural weapon can discharge a touch spell. Thus, by implication, other attacks do not. This also further supports my answer to #4.

Get a pathfinder pouch. It's a fist-sized extradimensional storage space that holds (if memory serves) two cubic feet and only costs 1,000gp. Fight with one hand, carry the pouch in the other with a straw in it, drinking from it juice-box style.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and regarding the "30 kids" situation:
Obviously, the correct answer is to verbally agree, act like you're going to do it, then surprise attack the sick SOB who came into your classroom, killing him in the fastest and most efficient manner possible.

;)

I still say torture is not evil in of itself.

In the context of organized play (granted you may not have known that's where you're posting), given that the Campaign Coordinator has now made the call, torture IS automatically evil.

Outside of organized play, of course, it's whatever you and your group agree that it is. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don is torture by an inquisitor of Asmodeus an evil act as it is one of asmodes's portfolios I think not for most other it would be but for a servant of zon Knthon or Asmodeus it would be one of their holy offices.

Right, performing an act that would normally be evil, but doing so in homage to an evil deity, totally makes it less evil to do.

No, the point is that sheathing or drawing a weapon takes time. It is NOT a free action, it's a move equivelant action that you can combine with a move action in certain circumstances.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move.

So far as I am aware you make a disarm maneuver check the same as any other weapon even if unarmed.

Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.

.....
If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.

Congrats!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it amusing how much people seem to correlate "optimize" with "specialize".

I thought you could only do one spell in a round even if you had quicken spell, so doing more then one swift action in a round wouldn't matter.

Casting a quickened spell is a swift action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell.

As Sean K Reynolds has said more than once, you need to be distracted by "something other than the task at hand" to prevent take 10.

James,
I have a cleric of Iomedae looking at adding one of the 1d6 energy damage enchantments to his longsword. Does Iomedae favor (or dis-favor) any particular energy type? If my cleric worshipped Sarenrae I'd obviously go with flaming on a scimitar; does Iomedae have any such energy preferences?

Thanks!

P.S. While you're at it, what about other deities? Do any of them (that aren't glaringly obvious, like Sarenrae) prefer one energy type on their weapons over another?

I'm not seeing "successfully" in the quote, just "completed".

Why did you have the [redacted] slaughter two PCs when the scenario says that if anyone enters the circle he takes them hostage to buy his freedom?

Well, I was picturing the decision being made based on past commentary from the players. Maybe *you* liked playing with Jo, but maybe some others at the table were grumbling last time.

Or perhaps you're right and it should all be player-managed, I dunno.

Jiggy wrote:

What impact might that have, and what would still need to be addressed?

(Could be a terrible idea; I'm just brainstorming here.)

Conversely, would you then also pull aside players with poorly performing PCs? Because my rogue had to be carried through The Blakros Matrimony due to poor rolls and enemies that perfectly foiled his abilities.

I suppose that would be something else to be addressed.

On the other hand, is that even an issue? Granted I've only GM'd ~25 games, but I've had people make the comments I talked about more than once, but never the opposite (i.e. "Man, that really shouldn't have been that hard; why is that guy's character so bad?"). I never seem to hear about other people's issues with underpowered tablemates, either (except once, and even then the situation eventually started to seem like it might have had more to do with GM error).

My group not only had enough rope for getting up and down the cliffs, but even had a separate rope to use as a leash on Kalkamedes. Whenever they spotted a hazard, they just held him back until they figured out what they wanted to do. (I called for opposed STR checks each round of trying to hold him back, probably several dozen over the course of the scenario, and only rolled double-digits like three times. That certainly made things easier for the group...)

Now if only we knew for sure whether a bonded-item user in PFS was actually crafting or was getting a discount in exchange for meeting all the prereqs. Can't say I feel too motivated to work out all the details of a set of rules that I don't even know if they're applicable or not. :/

Invisibility says nothing about concealing its own aura (or any other deviation from normal magic rules), so it functions according to normal aura rules.

Come to think of it, I almost wonder whether it would solve the stated problem (or a good-sized chunk of it) to simply empower GMs to take a player aside before a scenario and say "Hey, I've had multiple local players comment that your tendency to solo entire scenarios makes them feel like they shouldn't have bothered to show up. I'll give you a chance to be a team player, but if I get the impression that other players are starting to feel sidelined again, we'll be finishing the scenario without you."

What impact might that have, and what would still need to be addressed?

(Could be a terrible idea; I'm just brainstorming here.)

Jiggy wrote:

Well, I'm not seeing much gish in there, so you might go with a melee cleric or a magus or eldritch knight or something.

You have an addiction. Seek help.

I'm trying! I'm planning to make a straight-up caster, just as soon as the slot is no longer competing with my and my wife's twin PCs for my limited supply of playable 1-5s. I'll get better, I swear!

Well, I'm not seeing much gish in there, so you might go with a melee cleric or a magus or eldritch knight or something.

You also don't seem to have much in the way of support or skill-focused PCs, so you might go with a bard or a support wizard.

Or do both, with an arcane duelist bard or a buff-focused eldritch knight (transmuter, perhaps).

The crevice in particular is very difficult for a party of unprepared PCs.

With respect, isn't that how it should be? Difficult for the unprepared? I mean it's not like "bring rope" is some obscure tactic/ability that no one could reasonably expect to need, like having to have Favored Enemy (plants) or something in order to progress.

The height of the drop ought to scale with tier.

If memory serves, it does. I believe subtier 4-5 has a 100ft drop and a climb DC of 22 instead of 18.

Didn't beat the BBEG.

Party couldn't handle the last encounter and ended up running out of the dungeon.

GM crossed out the boon on the chronicle sheet adjusted the gold and reported as no XP no PP. My PC in particular died and was resurected mid scenario as per the GM, history on paizo shows "Character died." even though I finished the scenario by running out of the dungeon. I received no PP and no XP. I did finish the faction mission but not the scenario mission. I'm so confused right now and trying very hard not to get too upset about it.

Hm, a few things:

1) Receiving XP is not contingent upon finishing the last encounter. If you participated in at least 3 encounters, you get 1 XP, even if the third one was a TPK.

2) Although misleadingly-labeled, the "Character Died" checkbox in reporting is meant for PCs that stayed dead and are no longer legal to play in the campaign.

3) Running from the last fight might or might not cost you PP. If you completed your faction mission, you get that 1 PP regardless. If the scenario was from a season where there was only 1 faction mission, then the second PP will have explicit success conditions in the scenario which may or may not include defeating the BBEG.

You should probably read (or re-read) relevant sections of the Guide to Organized Play, compare them to your own experiences (after all, I wasn't there), and if something seems amiss, politely bring it to your GM's attention (directly, not here on the messageboards) in case corrections need to be made.

...Could you define "failed"?

No, as the Ring requires the spell to target you.

As has already been pointed out, the Ring says absolutely nothing about targets at all.

...ask the GM is this a group that should play at level or up

Just a note, there is never a choice between playing at-level or playing up. The only time you can choose to play up is if you're between subtiers, which by definition means there's no option to play at-level.

Does Paizo triple its output so that each difficulty setting has the same number of scenarios we currently have?

Do they divide up the current output so that anyone who's only interested in one difficulty setting is now playing only one-third as often as they used to?

Do the different difficulties provide different rewards? (Remember that any non-always-available item which appears in the scenario MUST be on the chronicle sheet.)

I'm in the middle of a scenario's level range; do I play up into easy? Or do I play down into hard? What's the difference in difficulty between the two? What's the difference in gold rewards?

What if we can't muster tables where all the players can agree to a given difficulty setting? (That is, what if there are only 4-5 players and some want "hard" while others want "easy"?)

What if some newbies show up so I make a PC appropriate for "easy" mode, but after about 5 games they stop showing up, and all the remaining regulars mostly play "hard" (might even be my own preference as well)? Now I have a PC with 5XP whom I can't play because he'd die in the only local games.

Make all of those issues go away, Red Ninja, and I'll consider your idea.

I'll do my best to keep that in mind. Thanks for the clarification of intent.