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

MurphysParadox's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,419 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Short Answer - Yes, the rule only applies to skills which say "trained or no attempt"

Long Answer - Diplomacy does not require training, so the character doesn't trigger the bolded section's qualifier - "... where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results". Despite the fact that the character in question cannot roll a number high enough to pass the DC, there is nothing in the skill that prevents him from rolling.

Now, the best part as usual is the sentence after what you marked as bold. The GM can decide to limit aid others to only situations where the aiding PC is trained in the skill (a house rule I routinely use), but then again... even without the caveat from the quote you gave, it is always the GM's option to do that kind of thing.


I found this page which has a more detailed description of the city plus a map with specific areas called out in more detail than I recall being in Ashes at Dawn itself.


Skeld means during a full attack.

When a character's Base Attack Bonus reaches 6, 11, and 16, they get an additional iterative attack when making a full attack action.

For all other activities, such as standard action attacks, attacks of opportunity, and with natural attacks, only the highest number is used.

See Full Attack for a detailed explanation. It would also be useful to read about base attack bonus on that site too (link in the Full Attack article).


Number of free actions during a combat round are limited by the GM's discretion, per RAW. So it is entirely the GM's decision on how knowledge checks are handled.

One check per turn makes sense. A character has to make at least a cursory analysis of the creature and actively recall what it is. Now, I would consider allowing them as move actions beyond the first, so a character could make up to three a round in my games.


Short answer: No.

Long answer: The improved disarm feat provides a +2 to any disarm combat maneuver action you take. Disarming Strike is not a disarm combat maneuver, it simply borrows the rules from disarm for when you have successfully rolled a confirmation > target CMD.


You have to add some evasive maneuvers by the orc and a bit more comedic hair involvement.

The first strike is by Karl's beard, forked, going for the eyes. The orc ducks to the side, then the beard move to come at him, feinting to the left and the strike at the orc as it dodges right. The orc manages to get one hand up, fingers straight out, perpendicular to the ground, which blocks the forked bear strike fractions of an inch from the orc's eyes. It grins, readying itself to strike back, when Karl's eyebrows strike from the sides, unable to be stopped by the upraised hand as the forked beard had been.

I'm modeling it a bit off the skeleton hands scene in Army Of Darkness.


Nope. Sundering means fairly indiscriminate smashing. You are either destroying the door, thus having no control over the state of the door after its been broken to bits, or you have to sunder the hinges individually since each item is a different thing.

Should have sundered two hinges on one turn, then the next do the third hinge and charge in with the door as a shield. Would have been good fun!


The best way to do things like this is to reskin existing stuff. Instead of 'cure light wounds' it is 'pixie touch'. Instead of 'channel positive energy' it is 'pixie light'. Instead of 'gnome' it is 'pixie'. You don't have to touch any mechanics or get into concerns about balance, just type of a modified version of the character sheet and call it a day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't believe you can provoke 'out of combat' because there's no combat, thus no one is being all 'watch for an opening and strike!' It is simply called starting a surprise round. Now, if you start a surprise round and somehow lose the init to a very perceptive enemy, you can still AOO the bad guy as they move towars/away from you.

So, functionally, it isn't really any different. You say "I am going to attack that guy surprisingly!" and the GM has the guy make a perception check, then everyone rolls inits. You either get a straight up normal attack (target fails perception check or loses to you in initiative) or they have to move through your threatened range and you get an AOO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, yeah it looks like only Behemoths have any rules regarding daze, and it is just that they automatically recover from it, not that they are immune to it.

So yes, a level 7 swashbuckler could stand next to an Ancient Wyrm and let his party murder it (might take awhile, but it will happen).


That makes good sense. I figure it would be fine with a tweak to remove the deed part of the item. So a swashbuckler can still daze someone with it, but only when using the item's ability (and thus limited to 3/day).


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Looking for some agreement on my interpretation of a Swashbuckler with the Cape of Feinting being able to spend an entire combat daze-locking a target.

Cape of Feinting wrote:
Three times per day, the wearer can spend a standard action to purposely miss an opponent, performing a dramatic feint that causes that opponent to lose its Dexterity bonus to AC until the wearer's next turn. If a swashbuckler wearing the cloak of feinting performs the superior feint deed or uses this cape's ability, the opponent is also dazed until the start of the swashbuckler's next turn.
Swashbuckler Deeds wrote:
Superior Feint (Ex) : At 7th level, a swashbuckler with at least 1 panache point can, as a standard action, purposefully miss a creature she could make a melee attack against with a wielded light or one-handed piercing weapon. When she does, the creature is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC until the start of the swashbuckler's next turn.

The way I read it: the swashbuckler with the cape can daze-lock a target, trading their standard action to make the monster unable to act. There is no usage limit and no cost associated to this; they can literally spend the entire combat standing next to the Boss Monster and keep it from acting (no saves allowed) while the party murders it?

My reasoning: I see the cape has describing two separate points. First is that you can, 3/day, force an opponent to lose their dex for a round. Second is that a swashbuckler with the cape gets an upgraded effect with their superior feint deed, unrelated to the 3/day ability.

It really isn't much different than a witch with slumber/cackle, but it seems a bit powerful. There's also the fact that daze doesn't work on a fair number of creatures. And the item is a solid 14k, which isn't exactly chump change. Is my interpretation correct?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only if you are actually forcing the player to track rations or making them march through a desert. Otherwise it is nothing but a bit of flavor that will have no mechanical impact on the game.


Your character should, with appropriately high knowledge checks, be able to know that litany of weakness is pointless and ear-piercing scream can't hurt constructs even if you, the player, doesn't. The GM would be the one describing such character knowledge. That's what I had meant about the check; the interpretation of the facts within the context of the gameworld from the PC's point of view.


It appears you always use the Witch's int score, not the familiar's, so the scarred witch doctor is no different in that regard.


Without knowing the particular kind of construct and its particular qualities (which only your GM would know), it is hard to answer. You should make an in-game knowledge check (arcana I'd assume) and ask the GM if your character thinks these things would affect it or not since he or she is the final arbiter of such rulings.

Now, as for your questions in a general sense:

1) Doesn't matter; constructs are immune to fatigue.

2) Yes, it would bypass DR as damage reduction is only for physical damage (bashing, slashing, piercing kinds of stuff), though I make no promises that it isn't also resistant to energy (which is like DR for acid, fire, cold, electricity, etc)

3) Constructs are immune to anything that requires a fortitude save unless it also works on objects. The 'target' line of ear-piercing scream simply says 'one creature', thus it cannot affect the construct. If it could affect objects, as some sonic spells do, it would also say 'one object'. Phew, dodged the bullet on whether or not dazing works on them!


No. It is a single punch despite the extra rolls involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ward and Battle Ward are different hexes and do not share any rules. By what Battle Ward says, there is no restriction to the battle ward on how many creatures it can affect, though it does have the "no more than once in 24 hours" bit. Whether or not Battle Ward is considered a 'ward' for the purpose of the Ward Hex's wording is generally up to the GM, but the game makes no attempt to create a classification of abilities called wards.

Yes, the spirit animal is a familiar with all the rules of a familiar except where noted in the Shaman class feature description. It doesn't comment on the skill bonus, so you do get that.


Quote:
Her fetish mask acts in all ways like a witch's familiar for the purpose of preparing and gaining spells.

You missed the 'for the purpose of...' bit of the quote. It only emulates the spell stuff about a witches familiar, none of the other things (alertness, link, etc). It is not intelligent and cannot communicate.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

You do not get a free attack when fighting defensively, it simply says you can choose the 'fighting defensively' status when you make either a full or standard attack action.

I read it as saying that you can do your normal full attack without penalty, then activate the dizzying defense ability afterwards to get the +4 AC and only suffer -2 on any attacks made from then until the start of your next turn (which would be any AOOs you make). In other words, you get a full attack without the attack penalty and then gain the AC bonus for the rest of the round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, the elemental is a 3rd party creature, so your GM has to allow it. Secondly, channeling is a Supernatural Ability, not a spell or spell-like ability, so the elemental cannot maximize the channeling (only cure spells).

Lastly, the channeling sources do not stack (see this FAQ). So he doesn't have 20 channels, he has three buckets of channels each at a different level. None of the classes indicate their channeling stacks, just that the level in that class are used to determine the strength of the channeling.

For example, a Shaman (life) 2/Oracle (life) 1/Cleric 1/Vitalist 1 with a charisma score of 16 will have a channel pool of 4/4/6 doing 2d6/2d6/2d6 healing (that includes the elemental's bonus). He does NOT have an effective cleric level of 4 with 14 channels and doing 3d6 each use. When he takes feats that allow for extra channeling or stronger channeling, he has to pick which class' channel energy to apply the feat. If he levels up and picks Shaman (life) 3 and boosts his CHA to 18, his numbers would become 5/5/7 doing 3d6/2d6/2d6 (including elemental's bonus).

Vitalist is pretty broken in this case. The only gotcha there is a requirement to be in line-of-sight to all members of the collective. That can be manipulated by the GM through things like darkness, cause blindness/deafness, or mundane walls getting in the way.

So yeah, it sounds like a few bits of information were missed by the player and GM.


Honestly, if the PC really wants to make traps, let him. Create a feat called Craft Trap and use the exact same rules as magic item crafting. Use Craft (Traps) instead of Spellcraft and daily crafting rate is 1000gp per 8 hours. Let him increase DC by +5 to make that 2000gp in a day. Cannot craft traps with a CR higher than his level and any magical traps still require someone to provide the necessary spells. Make this feat accessible through a basic rogue talent as well, for the fun of it.

This lets the player do what he wants at a reasonable and comparable rate to magic item crafting. It won't break the game and it'll make the PC happy to do something he wants to do.


Balance? Logic? There is only magic.

PCs aren't generally meant to make non-magical stuff (except the Alchemist, though it gets a handful of class features which makes it actually practical). The GM can fiddle with the system if they want but it is hard to tweak the numbers and still be reasonable; you almost have to redo the entire formula. A good guide are the Alchemists class features (use gold instead of silver pieces, you get several of the item instead of just one, you get numerous bonuses, etc).


It is a supernatural ability which is a standard action that does not provoke an AOO. Individual abilities may override this default by explicitly stating so in the description.

Table of Actions, the last entry in the Standard Action section.


Sorry, I meant to state that in my game, I ran it such that the guards were not dominated to get around the issue raised by Voomer. They were just hire-a-thug style. I had also planned for a dominated city guard captain to show up with normal city guardsmen when the PCs left the tailor's shop, but things didn't quite fall that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope, that's it. Unless you can convince your GM that there is totally something called the Orc Bastard Sword and Orcatana (get it? Orc Katana? I'm a comedy genius!)


The guards protecting the tailor's shop (and the abbey, actually) weren't dominated. They were just guards, reasonably well paid, and not interested in talking about the situation. Considering how fast they get killed, most won't have time to withdraw from a fight.


Short answer - Yes

Long answer - The link you posted specifically says it does 1d4 bleed damage. With a hyperlink to describe what bleed damage means. And if you click the word 'bleed', you will see that any damage described as 'bleed damage' is by definition a continuously bleeding wound.


Two points - first, this is the forum for beginner's box set questions, not general questions (which belongs in the rules forum). I've flagged it to be moved. Don't worry, it happens from time to time.

Second, it is just like a druid's animal companion, so yes you'd have to meditate or pray for a replacement. However, the oracle's specific ability overrides the location specific aspect of the druid ability, as it specifically indicates the companion list.

I'd say you do not have to be in an appropriate location, but you do have to take time to get a new one.


Well sure, you are the GM, you can just make it happen.

You could just say that the shack could be used as a kitchen but then it cannot be used for sleeping. That way, if four PCs put their shacks together, you could have a 200 square feet of living, 100 for sleeping, and 100 for cooking (fire pits, counter space, food preparation, disposal, etc... which can add up to a fair amount of floor space but can easily feed four or maybe more people). Otherwise, they are cooking at the camp fire outside (which is also fine; they could easily build a rain cover with some craft (woodworking) checks or something.


I don't think you could add anything to it for free; it is quite clear on what is in the shack. You'd probably have to spend additional... something... to add a basic kitchen. Of course, back in those days, the 'kitchen' was a fire pit out front, or even in the center of the shack with a hole in the ceiling for some smoke to eventually exit.

I actually have no idea how Ultimate Campaign does stuff, just basing my answer off the words you quoted; specifically "... contains a simple table, pallet bed, and stool".


You have quoted the entirety of the rules on this issue. Anything else is determined by the GM.

Disarm isn't "take item from person", it is "make person drop item". Once that step is complete, you may now pick up the item if you did this all without a weapon.

So, as written, the item hits the ground or falls into the lava or is lost in the hurricane-strength winds or disappears into the maw of the giant pit worm. But if it is still there after it is dropped, you can pick it up.

Alternatively: You snatch it from the air as it is dropped. The rules don't say anything about the item having to actually hit the ground between being dropped and being picked up automatically.


I'd say no. Difficult terrain makes all movement cost double. So to move 5 feet, you have to use up 10 feet of movement. Dodging Panache only grants 5 feet for moving, so you cannot use it just as you can't use a 5' step to move in difficult terrain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They are refused docking rights at any harbor because no one wants a zombie croc. Now and then, they have to fight off some Pharasma inquisitors who want to destroy the abomination. Maybe the croc gets loose and goes around eating fishermen while the players are in town.


The wording looks to indicate that the extra attack is not modified by the iterative attack rules. Your cleave is rolled like a normal attack with all the bonuses you use to make a normal attack (specifically, the first attack).

Normally, if you make more than one attack on your turn, the first is at full strength and each following one is at an additional -5. So if you have a to-hit of +17 (+13 BAB, +1 weapon, +3 strength), you'd roll +17, +12, +7 for the three swings of a full attack. Cleave is saying that both the first attack and the bonus attack are at +17.


You make a CMB check but add any weapon specific attack bonuses to the CMB check.

If you are using a +3 longsword to disarm, you get +3 on your disarm check.

If you are using a disarm weapon (whip, flail, etc), you get a straight +2 bonus on your cmb check.

So if you're using a +3 flail to disarm someone, you get +5 on the CMB check to disarm a target.


As written - yes, you could do that kind of cheesy thing if you feel like you don't have enough arguments with your GM.


They cut out that rule between beta test and the full release.


Short Answer - Yes.

Long Answer -

Constrict Rules wrote:
A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, when it makes a successful grapple check (in addition to any other effects caused by a successful check, including additional damage). The amount of damage is given in the creature's entry and is typically equal to the amount of damage caused by the creature's melee attack.

You do the damage as if you rolled a successful attack. So any bonuses, buffs, debuffs, etc will transfer.


He wouldn't necessarily know about the memories yet, so you don't have to specifically define the memory yet. It could be that a memory is triggered when he finally sees Renchurch in its horrible glory, or hears the name Oothi, and so on.

I think having at least one of the alters used for mischief would be good. The barbarian swears he remembers that such-and-such plant is perfectly safe to eat, but instead gives him a horrible looking rash. Or he is convinced the last time he ate chicken, it tasted nasty and how can anyone be eating chicken? Something fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is always argument over the term "When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted". I know GMs that don't allow a take 10 on climbing because there exists a chance of falling. There are also the ones don't allow taking 10 with the spellcraft check made while crafting items because there is a consequence to failure there as well.


You get the first one: +6/+6/+1.


Yeah, most businesses operate at a loss for a few years and rarely turn a heavy profit. When you add to it the fact that a few adventurers can go kill a dragon and get tens of thousands of gold pieces out of what is essentially a week of effort... yeah... businesses will never pay out very well by that measurement.


That's a good way to do it, puts the ol' fear of camping into them!

The vilkacis could use any remaining spells or abilities of the sorcerer, but it probably would generally prefer to use its own stuff. So I'd say it would gladly throw fireballs and burning hands, but using more complex concepts like metamagic or complex/tricky spell combinations would probably be outside its tactical understanding.


Yes they do actually stack, you just never get spells so you never get the Sacred Servant level 4 modification, since it specifically says "At 4th level, when a sacred servant gains the ability to cast spells..." You never gain the ability, so the rest of the statement is moot.


Yes, it modifies the act of casting, but you still cast. You just cast the spell with a modified target (just yourself), materials (ignore somatic component), rules (no AOO). You also do this without having a hand free. However, you are still casting the spell, thus expending the prepared spell.


Yes. Bombs are not a two-handed operation, they are not a spell or spell-like ability. However, there are some things you have to consider.

You have a -4 to dex AND a -2 to attacks, so throwing a bomb is at a -4 total. You are a valid target for splash damage, and likely will take a hit if you are throwing the bomb at the person grappling you.

On the plus side, the person grappling cannot perform AOOs, so that's a plus (well, usually anyway; it is possible to be grappling someone and not have the grappled condition yourself - if they pin you or have several special abilities that allow it).


Makes perfect sense. Perhaps the inquisitor knows something is very wrong, but he has to tone down his persistence on the issue because Siervage has become angry with the constant focus on these useless spawn and their elixir, rather on the true problem of someone killing vampires. It creates a level of dissension in the ranks. While the inquisitor would never betray Siervage, he could provide a bit of a nudge for the party to look into the elixir.

One scene that pops up is when the PCs are meeting with Siervage and he's describing what is up, the inquisitor speaks up and mentions the elixir (or attempts to answer a PC's question) and is shut down by Siervage with a glare/snarl/comment that he is sick of hearing about that dead end elixir. Everyone in the rooms gets reeeeeaaaall quiet and the tension level jumps. The inquisitor looks like he might even be considering the possibility of pushing the issue, before looking away and walking out of the room in a huff.

Heck, it may be that the addicts and dealers aren't being managed because Siervage has basically overruled and demanded the guards/inquisitors focus on finding the killer and not dealing with the idiot spawns. So in a normal situation, they'd have been squashed, but now they are being ignored. This gives the dealers a level of smug superiority, misinterpreting the reaction by the guards and making them bolder.


Should be fine; make sure you set the adopted race as Aasimar in Hero Lab. Though, really, you should probably be asking this question on their forums since it may be a bug in their software or an issue with some setting in the tool.


Perhaps too much bloodbrew makes them incapable of hunting or thinking much beyond their next score... much like many real world hard drugs. At a certain point, their addiction overcomes their self preservation instinct.

Two options for Siervage. Either he has been told but has discounted it and won't listen to the adviser who has found the vials, considering such a drug to affect vampires like this to be impossible. Or the particular vampire in charge of the investigation is addicted to the substance and is lying to Siervage in order to get more elixir. So Siervage is being fed false information by a trusted adviser and does not know it.

Given his power and age, I'd suggest the conspiracy angle. He's not likely to ignore possible explanations, but he's obviously been fooled by other people under him.

1 to 50 of 1,419 << 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.