Neonpeekaboo's page

AntiPal: "I don't want to bother, and you don't want the needless collateral damage. Im hear to do something that doesn't involve laying waste to this entire town, so keep it in its sheath and back off, Holy-two-shoes."

Pal: "Given who/what you are... How can I know that for sure?"

AntiPal: "Look at it this way. If it did, you'd already be walking through blood-soaked rubble."

Pal: "Fair enough, but just know this.. Me and mine are here, *don't* let me catch you changing your mind about your intentions."

AntiPal: "Mmm.. Either go polish your platemail, pretty boy, or join me for a drink. Just... stop talking."

when the mage throws his hands up, he's actually throwing handfuls of skittles laced with LSD...

Yeaaaaaah no, Fabricate Arms isn't a "Spell", it's a "Supernatural Ability". It has a set duration that's rounds equal to the Technomancer level.. so no, RAW they would not work together.

Here's my take on it.. because it seems pretty clear to *me*.

Vesk are always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal damage with unarmed strikes and the attack doesn’t count as archaic. Vesk gain a unique weapon specialization with their natural weapons at 3rd level, allowing them to add 1–1/2 × their character level to their damage rolls for their natural weapons (instead of just adding their character level, as usual).

So a 5th level Vesk wearing nothing, If you punch or kick a guy with your bare hands/feet, you deal 1d3+4(Str)+7(1.5*5), and they don't count as Archaic.

The Battle Harness has a listed damage of 1d10. It does not list the Archaic weapon quality, because Powered Armor is *not* made of primitive materials. (Archaic Weapon: This weapon deals 5 fewer damage unless the target is wearing no armor or archaic armor. Archaic weapons are made of primitive materials such as wood or common steel.)

If you're punching or kicking with the Powered Armor, and not *your* natural weapons, you would do 1d10+4(Str)+5(standard Specialization).

tl:dr The only time you get your 1.5*Level for unarmed strikes, is if youre using youre your actual natural weapons. The benefit comes from Vesk being able to deal more melee damage with no penalties when they don't have a weapon than other races.

In the case of falling damage, it being nonlethal is only relevant if they only fall that far.. don't forget, fall damage is measured at a cumulative rate of +1d6/10ft(ignoring the first 10ft).

If I have 4hp and make a jump...
10ft fall= No Damage.

20ft fall= 1d6 nonlethal. If I roll a 6, instead of being negative hp and dieing, im only knocked unconscious.

30ft fall= 2d6 lethal.(1d6 for 10-20ft, +1d6 fit 30-40ft) and if i roll over a 4, im dieing..

40ft fall= 3d6 lethal
50ft fall= 4d6 lethal, etc.

Acrobatics might be able to reduce the total number of d6 the fall deals, but its only considered nonlethal between 10-20ft.

You can do that, sure. But if they destroy a tier 1/2 ship with a missile and roll a nat 20 on a roll to check salvage doesnt necessarily mean there's going to be anything left of that slagged heap of metal.. which is what I meant as far as handwaving the DC. Step 1 would either be not to tell the players that theres no real DC and give them the illusion of effort = payoff, or.. decide beforehand if there's anything worth salvaging, make a DC for them to roll against, and modify the BP worth based on how well/poor they did on the roll.

Succeed? gather components worth .XX BP, +.XX/5 over. Fail? gather components worth half as much, -.XX/5 under?

Or, 'roll your check'... 'that's pretty good, you're able to pry out and gather .xx BP worth of salvageable components' if you feel they've earned it... or 'despite your best efforts, the equipment you pulled in is utterly slagged and worthless'.

I use that method a lot in my games as story rewards, and no one has ever felt cheated. They've always felt things were pretty well balanced.. doing it that way keeps people from trying to finagle the system, and gives an air of 'not every ship survives being blown the **** up the same way'.

As I run my game, I plan on running it like this...

They attempt to salvage, making appropriate skill checks to see if they're able to salvage any meaningful components. If they succeed, the exact nature and worth is total fluff..

ie. They attempt to salvage, run a series of checks, perception, engineering, computer, etc.. Whether they succeed or fail, it being completely fluff, is up to the GM. The PCs dont know the DCs, how well they do in regards to how they beat or miss, etc... so you handwave it.

"After spending time pulling what pieces of wreckage you considered to be worth a look into the cargo bay, you spend hours sifting through it and picking out the worthwhile components."

Then just assign that bunch a number to denote tonnage and worth.
"This haul will take up a 1ton cargo crate" and when you 'sell it' (since the equipment isnt compatible with their ship), it nets them .XX BP in component trades, which then takes up space in their hold, or you could treat it as a 'debit stick' that theyre slowly building up to afford an upgrade of their choice.

Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

Your rules lawyer must've gotten his degree from the same website my cousin got his 'ordained minister' certificate... The DC of the check is just how difficult it is, it not the required# of skill ranks needed to try.

"The base DC for many of the tasks of the Computers skill is equal to 13 + (4 × the computer‘s tier)." So your skill check is 1d20+Modifiers, and the result must meet or beat the DC.

A computers lowest Tier level is 1(not 0), so the lowest DC without GM modifying it is DC (13+ 4*1)= 17. Beating the DC by 5 is not the same thing as Increasing the DC by 5.

"A starship has a basic computer of a tier equal to half the starships’s tier (minimum 1)", so a Tier 1-3 Ship has a Tier 1 computer, Tier 4-5 has a Tier 3 computer, etc. They can be upgraded with modules like Anti-Hacking(+1DC), or Countermeasures.

Time: 1 Full round per Tier of computer.

Here are few examples of using Hacking to open a door controlled by a Tier 1 computer..

Authorized User with Root Access: No skill check required; Standard Action, door opens.

Unsecured Computer with No Firewall, No Countermeasures: DC 10; Standard Action, door opens. (If untrained, can be done in 2 minutes by taking 20).

If NOT authorized, however, you must Hack.

Tier 2 Computer: (13+ 4*2) = DC 21; It takes you 2 Full Round Actions of hacking, after which you make your check. You roll 1d20= 19(+10; Your Computer skill Mod)= 29. You beat the DC, You now have access to the basic functions of the computer. No further skill check required; Standard Action, door opens.

OR

Tier 2 Computer: (13+ 4*2) = DC 21; Instead of taking 2 Full Round Actions to attempt, you actively CHOOSE to increase the DC by 5(This represents you attempting to work faster) to try and hack it in 1 Full Round Action, (13+ 4*2 +5) = DC 26. You roll 1d20= 19(+10; Your Computer skill Mod)= 29. You beat the DC, You now have access to the basic functions of the computer. No further skill check required; Standard Action, door opens.

Now, hacking incoming missiles.. that's a whole other thing. For the sake of the situation.. let's say you're trying to hack the missile itself. You have to be able to access the on-board computer, which itself might just not be possible. If it IS possible to access it via Hacking Rig in flight, you'd have to factor in 1 Full Round Action to Hack and gain access, then most likely bypass a firewall which is another full-round action, then use a standard to disable it or whatever... which brings you to 3 rounds. A tactical nuke has a speed of 10 and a range of Long, which really cuts into your window before it goes big-bada-boom.

I'm waiting idly by for a Drone Starship Bay. Let's a Mechanic temporarily download their Drones AI into a space combat capable body that can be launched as a 'tiny' support fighter.

Or Space Combat capable Summon effects.

on a serious note tho...

76) The ship is of an ancient make/model and the computer system only recognizes genetic relatives of the original race as potential crew due to the original builders xenophobic lifestyle. The PCs, for whatever reason, have faint traces of genetic code that the ships biometric lockouts considers valid. This renders the ship useless to anyone they try to sell it to, because... wouldnt you know it... the would-be buyer lacks the genetic coding, and refuses to buy a ship that they cant reliably re-sell.

74) Whenever they try to sell it, during the inspection a black light is used, and it lights up like a J'axon Pu'lak.

75) ..... the ship has space herpes.

I know it's been creeping up a lot, but my SF Standard core book is also starting to come apart at the glue strip in the spine. I've email pictures and description to customer.service@paizo.com (although i think i failed to add my shipping address).

So, did I read something wrong..? Yoon's lvl 1 sheet says she has the Basic Pyrokinesis utility talent, which wouldnt normally be available until hitting level 2...? Granted, she's also getting to be a small human for story purposes, so what do i know.. just hadnt seen anything mentioned about it... /shrug.

Flurry of Blows would not benefit from Two Weapon Fighting, correct... partially because it IS Two-weapon fighting. A very specific version of it, letting a monk make extra attacks, all at a -2, using his level as his BAB.

Could a monk take TWF? Sure thing. He would have to meet all the prereqs for it. He would have to use different weapons, sure ok, but it's still moot, as there is no such thing as Off-Hand for him.

Could a monk use one attack from Flurry and hit with a quarterstaff, and his second attack with a kick? Yes, Flurry specifically says he can.

Could a monk take the actual TWF feats, and use.. say a quarterstaff, and make an attack with the quarterstaff, and then one with his kick? I'd say No, because you cant TWF with a two-handed weapon.

"When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to utilize this ability)."

You show me THAT, and ill gladly concede and change any future rulings i make in my games accordingly. :)

Neonpeekaboo wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

Neonpeekaboo wrote:

bigrig107 wrote:

With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.

No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.

I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as it's not supported by the rules in any capacity. You're never considered to be the same creature as your mount, except for the purposes of determining what space you're in.

Therein is the problem. Where does it say you get two attacks?

Here.

Neonpeekaboo wrote:

If youre mounted, and it charges, you're both charging both take the penalty to AC.. if youre NOT considered one unit for the Charge itself.. then youre implying the mount, and only the mount, is charging.. which, we can all agree on, is not the case.. because youre charging, and barring Pounce, or pounce-like abilities, means you can make one attack at the end of a charge. Not two, which is what youre saying is possible.

You're ignoring a third option, which is what's actually happening. Both rider and mount charge, using the rules for charging, and gaining all benefits and drawbacks of it. One of said benefits is getting to attack.

Neonpeekaboo wrote:

I understand the mount is actualy its own unit, and if youre not charging, sure you could control it to move and you both take youre standard action to attack... but charging is a specific and special circumstance.

Both rider and mount are charging. Both get to attack. This isn't that hard.

Neonpeekaboo wrote:

It is simply the best reasoning that makes the most sense, it still grants all the benefit/penalty of charging without unbalancing it. Tryimg to tear into it any more than that, and its a purposeful attempt

...

nowhere in that faq does it say you get two attacks. It says you both charge in unison. ie. As one. Yes, you both get the benefit, and penalty. If the mount makes the sinvle attack allowed at the end of a charge, it gets +2. If you make the single attack allowed at the end of a charge, you get +2 to attack. Since youre both charging in unison, you both take -2 to AC, regardless of which one takes the attack.

Its not that im using strange logic to come to conclusion not supported by the rules. its that im using the simplest logic supported by the rules, and not overthinking it to try and get an extra attack that isnt supported by the rules. ie. Nowhere ive seen does it say at the end of a mounted charge that you AND your mount get an attack.

the tearing into it to get more and more out of it, is really the only reason there's so much confusion surrounding it.

Mounted combat is really simple. people make it more complicated than it needs to be, for the sole purpose of getting more out if it than should be reasonably expected.

Neonpeekaboo wrote:

bigrig107 wrote:

With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.

No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.

I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as it's not supported by the rules in any capacity. You're never considered to be the same creature as your mount, except for the purposes of determining what space you're in.

Therein is the problem. Where does it say you get two attacks? If youre mounted, and it charges, you're both charging both take the penalty to AC.. if youre NOT considered one unit for the Charge itself.. then youre implying the mount, and only the mount, is charging.. which, we can all agree on, is not the case.. because youre charging, and barring Pounce, or pounce-like abilities, means you can make one attack at the end of a charge. Not two, which is what youre saying is possible.

I understand the mount is actualy its own unit, and if youre not charging, sure you could control it to move and you both take youre standard action to attack... but charging is a specific and special circumstance.

It is simply the best reasoning that makes the most sense, it still grants all the benefit/penalty of charging without unbalancing it. Tryimg to tear into it any more than that, and its a purposeful attempt to get more out of.. ie. An extra attack.

Deighton Thrane wrote:

With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.

No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.

Yeah.. I had wanted to rock a a Dwarf Ranger with TWF who used a Longhammer, and a Boulder-helmet for 'off-hand' head-butts. I think it would be awesome and hilarious, sadly.. it doesnt work :(

Nefreet wrote:

Since rider and mount are both performing a charge, which is movement, then attack, the charge ends the moment either can reach their target.

There is no stipulation in the rules for choice (outside of feats, such as Ride-By Attack and Wheeling Charge).

Why would you interpret the rules in such a way as to make it so dysfunctional? Shouldn't the assumption be that the rules are intended to work?

The thing is, The mount isnt making an attack. That means it doesnt have a target. It's just running, while the rider has a taget... because the rider is making the attack.

If the You have a Longsword, and are mounted on an Axebeak... you charge. Using the Axebeaks movement. Ok, so far so good.

You want to have the Axebeak attack... the Axebeak has a target, movement ends at 10ft, and the Axebeak makes it's attack.

----OR----
You dont want the Axebeak to attack. It has no target, and continues it's movement until You are in range to hit with the Longsword (5ft). Movement then stops.

The stipulation is in the difference between having the Mount attack, or saving the attack for your Longsword.

"I'm an evil spellcaster who crafted this one of a kind item for one very specific purpose, using a web of illusion, diviniation, and necromantic, conjuration, evocation, transmutation(any of the oldies but goodies, or something like a targeted telekinesis that pinches the carotid artery like Laurel Darkhaven in the 'Rising Stars' comic) or a perversion of abjuration magic(making an air tight forcefield around their head until they suffocate, like in Modesitt's 'Ordermaster'). And the illusion/divination component makes it appear to have belonged/created primarily by one of the PCs."

sure, it's technically GM Fiat.. but even the most basic of magical items start somewhere.. its best part of magical plot devices. I need a thing that does a thing, Magic.

If you want the PCs to be able to have a chance at preventing the thing from doing it's intended task.. work that into it.. detect magic, caster lvl check vs the DC you decide is enough for the party wizards spell to pierce the intricate web of magic surrounding this item... which then reveals the thing. Spellcraft check to identify? High DC.. 'you're unable to determine the exact nature of the spells webbed together, but you can see the tell tale signs of X schools of magic.. that possibly interact to this particular effect. One thing is sure, this is a dangerous item.'

ok.. now i want to make this character.

The way I see it, is for the autograpnel with vital strike would deal 2d8+6. Because the +6 is from it's effective strength bonus, and unless you have Mythic Vital Strike, it's not increased.. only the Damage Dice is. The +6 is not a damage die, therefore not increased.

As for vital strike working with the Kinetic Blade? No way. You have your attack action. With that You can:

Attack Action: Use your simple Blast.
Attack Action: Kinetic Blade to make an attack.
Attack Action: Vital Strike with a weapon.

You cant use your attack action to make a Kinetic Blade AND a Vital Strike at the same time.

As a full attack action you can
FAA: Kinetic Blade and make your iterative attacks. (2 at 8th lvl, 3 at 15th.)

I do have to hope that like most classes, it gets better and better. As it stands, I plan on running an Telekinetic. My my idea will be to not be a blaster, but more of a battlefield controller.. I think that would be super satisfying to play.

Throw all the things.

Master Summoner/Wilde Caller. Super evolved familiar for scouting, and then popping out several instances of Augmented T-Rexes. Everyone takes a 20 minute break while the summoner resolves his turn.

Yes, I think the entry for the elemental type saying "proficient with simple weapons" is pretty compelling. I hadn't seen that yet back when I wrote that post last month. I'd just never seen an elemental with weapons.

The main problem with this arguement, is that your type doesn't change. Wildshaping into an elemental doesn't give you the elemental subtype, you're still you and treated as having your own weapon proficiencies.

IMO, Specific Imp rules trump Universal general rules.

I see it like this...

You wildshape into an Elemental. You, however, are still you. You maintain your own personality, memories, etc.. that means you retain your weapon and armor proficiency.

So long as your new form is ABLE to use them, then you can use them. I do agree that anything on your person when you wildshape melds with the new form, so you have to wildshape and then pick up items.

ryric wrote:

Edenwaith wrote:

Octopuses do have the aquatic subtype however, druids wild shaping into an octopus does not gain the aquatic subtype, just like wild shaping into an elemental doesn't bestow the elemental subtype. Therefore, not only can you breath air but you CANNOT breath underwater. Better mem water breathing.

Actually the druid is fine:

Magic chapter, polymorph subsection wrote:

If the form grants a swim or burrow speed, you maintain the ability to breathe if you are swimming or burrowing.

As an amusing consequence of this a druid can breathe water while wild shaped into a rat:

Dire Rat wrote:

Speed 40 ft., climb 20 ft., swim 20 ft.

Right on, missed that. I'll drop that water breathing spell on my druid now:)

While I get the interpretation of that.. I mean.. c'mon..

You can still breathe, sure. You can breathe while swimming, sure. However, swimming doesnt necessarily mean swimming underwater.

Like I said, I see where you're coming from, but turning into a rat (that cant breath underwater) wouldn't give you the ability to breath underwater.

Takhisis wrote:

As the title says. How would one RP this? Almost all the Abadar clerics I have seen in-play are lawful neutral. However, I like the idea of a lawful evil cleric of Abadar, but models from actual Pf games are few and far between. So, how would you guys here RP a lawful Evil Abadar cleric?

I'd RP him (or her) like Tyrion Lannister. Snide but somewhat friendly, and abusing the rules to get his way.

I dunno about Tyrion, but a comparison to a Lannister isn't far off.

Greedy? Like a Banker. He would definitely dig on the wealth/merchant aspect, minoring in Law to use the loopholes and whatnot to manipulate it to his own ends.

I would think a LE Cleric would be the point where Capitalism and Religion meet and have lunch.

:)

How about a kobold gunslinger who insists on carrying a Medium-sized musket?

blunderbuss. Rp the shots knock him back 5ft and prone... heheheb

Kobold cavalier/rogue(scout). Boon companion, MC, RBA, and Spirited charge. Beast bond and day raider racials, lightning rider trait. Little bastard started charging 95ft and dealing 6d6+modifiers as a drive by with a lance. He and mount both had stealth synergy. /\€_=! £¥×\#/ annoying, but funny.

This is pretty much the same Idea I had.. Kingdom runs, using the PFS scenarios as a basis for the side-missions, the Ruling PCs can spend BP to hire a group of lower level adventurers to go on missions.. they can level up and everything, and the higher the level.. the more BP they cost.

If they succeed in their missions (make them difficult so there's a real risk vs reward) then the Kingdom earns bonus BP... which could be explained as increased moral and workforce due to national pride.

Adventurers cant be be higher level than the PCs, and the main GM determines the amount of BP won.

Human Warpriest of Erastil.

Build just like you're standard archer. Your bonus feats help to balance out, not as many as a fighter, but still... better than nothing.

Granted, it's a 3/4 BAB, but.. once you hit level 10+, you really start to shine with your sacred weapon damage.

Me? Yeah, I'm firing a Composite Longbow that does 1d10dmg. lvl 15? 2d6 per arrow. with feats like weapon focus and spec, manyshot, imp precise, cluster shot, etc..

You then get the added bonus of being able to use Fervor, Channel Enery, Spells for buffing, and enchanting your weapon/armor, and blessings.

in the event of both scoring a nat 20, I would default to what the actual attack roll after modifiers is, as if the Nat 20s cancelled each other....

ie.

Attacker Rolls Nat 20, with a +15 to hit = 35.
Defender Rolls Nat 20, with a +13 to hit = 33.

Attacker would win, and score the hit.

Attacker Rolls Nat 20, with a +10 to hit = 30.
Defender Rolls Nat 20, with a +15 to hit = 35.

Defender would win and deflect.

Although I would houserule that if both were 20s, the Parry would at least negate the critical so that it would just be a regular hit. But that's just me.

"You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance."

Yes, it does say perform any other kind of movement. then it goes on to say "You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance."

Strict reading, as written, if your move action on your turn is to move 30ft, then you cant use a double move to then take a 5-foot step. If you have moved at all, any distance, during the round then you are unable to take a 5-foot step.

As written, that tells me that if you start your turn in a square that you didn't end your previous turn in.. then you have moved. If you have moved any distance in the same round, you cant take a 5ft step.

Obviously, we all consider this incorrect (I actually agree with you on that point). And we can all agree that it's perfectly ok to move 5ft and cast Teleport, or Dimension Door, or even Blade Dash.

My whole stance, is that if you can 5ft and cast, then you can cast and 5ft, because the Spell is not performing movement, so much as it's moving you.. and if you can 5ft after being moved by a bullrush, then it's perfectly reasonable to 5ft after a spell moves you 30ft.

"You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round." Your actions are spell combat, which lets you cast a spell, and attack. After which you may take a 5ft step.

Ah, I see. You're coming at it from the "This result seems good, so how do the rules need to work in order to get there?" angle. A necessary talent for GMing, though posts of that nature belong in this other forum.

This forum, meanwhile, is for "Let's start with what the rules say, and determine what they add up to whether we like the result or not."

So here in this forum, we look at the rules, and see that they say you can't take a 5ft step if you've performed any kind of movement, not just certain types of movement.

Inventing your own list of which types of movement should and should not prevent a 5ft step is something you'd be generating yourself, not something that can be derived from actual rules, and therefore belongs in the forum I linked.

As for your bull rush example, I don't think I'd say the wizard "performed" that movement.

You say the wizard didn't perform the movement.. but that's not what the rules, per your interpretation, say. It says you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance. Not "you cant take a 5ft step in the same round that you performa move of any distance".

So which is it? Is it ANY movement at all? Or are certain types of circumstantial movement allowed? ie, movement against your will, or spells that move you regardless of your base movement.

Neonpeekaboo wrote:

As far as spell-combat.. You should definitely be able to spell-combat, 30ft move, attack, normal attack at -2, 5ft step.

My reasoning for this, is mainly because in casting the spell, you're not taking a movement, it's part of a spell.

That which prevents taking a 5ft step is not simply "taking a movement".

To quote the actual rules for 5ft steps:

Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, Actions in Combat, Miscellaneous Actions, Take 5-Foot Step wrote:

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.

That seems pretty clear to me.

While I can see where you're coming from, I'll have to disagree.

Fighter goes on 15, I go on 12. Fighter bullrushes me, beats my CMD by 10, knocking me back. I have moved a distance. You're strict intrepretation of that means I can not take a 5ft step on my turn.

This is false.

If I can move 5ft and then cast a spell which then moves me 30ft, there is no reason that I can't cast a spell that moves me 30ft and then take a 5ft step.

What I can't do, is take a 5ft step, then take my action as a move and move 30ft, or move 30ft and take my action as a 5ft step.

So, I'm reading 30ft in any direction means just that. It doesn't consider difficult terrain. The reason it's not a teleport, is because you cant dash through a solid wall. You have to have a clear line of movement. That being said, sure, you can move 30ft straight up and attack a flying creature, so long as you're wiling to take the damage from falling 30ft as you plummet back down to the ground.

If you're levitating or flying? Blade Dash, no fall.
Can you Blade Dash through an occupied square? Sure. Why? Because you can move through an occupied square. under noraml circumstances, you would have to make an acrobatics check to move through a square to prevent the AoO provoked by such movement.. the spell clearly states that you provoke no AoO from this movement.

So, yes, you can definitely move through an enemies square.

As far as spell-combat.. You should definitely be able to spell-combat, 30ft move, attack, normal attack at -2, 5ft step.

My reasoning for this, is mainly because in casting the spell, you're not taking a movement, it's part of a spell.

There's nothign preventing me from taking a 5ft step Away from an opponent, Spell Combat ->Blade Dash (move 30ft/attack).
X=Magus, O=Oppenent

Round Start XO O
5ft step away X O O
Blade Dash = OX OX
After casting blade dash he gets 2 attacks, 1 per the spell against the initial enemy, the second, his standard attack at -2 per spell combat rules.

Your idea of not being able to take the 5ft step would mean that he is unable to make use of the 30ft movement granted by the spell, which isn't restricted to your normal movement. If it WERE restricted to normal movement, it would say so.. which would then open the door to denying the 5ft step, and being affected by difficult terrain.

Granted, until it's FAQ'd we'll never know for sure, and sure.. some people interpret it differently. This is just how I see it, and how it's run on my table.

Is it a great spell? Absolutely. Is it OP? Not really, because you cant use the blade dash attack with a charge from a touch spell like frostbite.

This did actually give me the idea for my next character.

Human Fighter.. builf to rattle skulls, and break things.
Use a bludgeoning weapon.

lvl 1: Enforcer, Power Attack. Fighter Bonuse (Bludgeoner)
lvl 2: Weapon Focus
lvl 3: Dazzling Display
lvl 4: Imp Sunder
lvl 5: Weapon Spec
lvl 6: Shatter Defences
lvl 7: Skill Focus(Intimidate)
lvl 8: Greater Sunder
lvl 9: Vital Strike

The idea is to open with a nonlethal hit.. do enough damage with vital strike on that first hit, and if you pass your intimidate check.. your taget is shaken (skull rattled) for a loooooong time.

From there, it's Greater Sunder City against a flat-footed target because of shattered defenses... and then you really ARE shattering his defenses.

Against enemies with no actual armor, you're just going to town on a target that's flat-footed to your attacks.

For those who rule that shatter defenses wont proc with every subsequent hit, that's fine.. just take another swing on the enxt round, and re-flatfoot him. If the shaken effect wears off, then ust thwack him with nonlethal again, and start over.

You break armor and skull rattle until he's unconcious.

You can't full attack if the mount moves more than 5 feet.

Also, as pointed out before, the faq ruling means that charging is impossible for mounted combat characters with no animal companion

How so?

I'm just going to be a human monk and take TWF twice, so I can use a full attack and get four attacks, punch punch kick kick.

Remy, you're wrong. You hate to admit it, and now you're just arguing your point because you dont want to admit that youv'e been proven wrong in several different ways. The people who MADE THE GAME have proven you wrong via the FAQ. That being said.. you do whatever you want, run it however you want.

Tryin to get you to see the truth of it is like talking to a brick wall. Twist what you read however you want to support your own conclusion, instead of dealing with the truth of the matter.

That being said, I'm done. There's no point in trying.

But you're not using TWF already, you're using flurry, which functions as the two-weapon fighting feat.

There is no reason why you can't use an ability which functions as-if 'X' in combination with 'X'.

But you are already using a full attack action for FoB, as has been pointed out. You cant take two different full attack actions at the same time.

No. PFS must follow RAW, thus it would allow flurry + TWF to be used together. Since the rules don't explicitly forbid it.

They imply that they shouldn't be combined, and the linked post from SKR makes it clear that the text should be revised.

"Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."

You can't FoB, gaining an extra attack at -2 as if using TWF, and then get another attack using TWF in the same round. Because you're already using TWF.

So, RAW, PFS wouldn't allow it.

This has reached the point of 'why are any of us even bothering?'

Remy has obviously settled on his opinion, and will run it however he wants at his own table (incorrect as it may be), because he is obviously incapable of being/admitting that he is wrong.

If he were to ever sit down at a PFS table, he would be told very simply that what he's wanting to do isn't possible.

If something functions as TWF, you can not gain a further benefit from TWF.

FoB Functions as TWF, Spell Combat functions as TWF, neither can be used in conjunction with TWF.

It is a very simple ruling, one that has been supported several times, and is chock-full of specific rules that trump general rules.

Stop trying to skew the wording to your own benefit when deep down you know you're just being needlessly difficult.

And Remy, if your arguements in this post are any indication of how you've argued your point in the past as Malachi says.. I can understand fully his position.

Quote:

At 7th level, a kensai applies his Intelligence modifier as well as his Dexterity modifier on initiative rolls (minimum 0). A kensai may make attacks of opportunity when flat-footed, and may draw his favored weapon as a free action as part of taking an attack of opportunity.

The questions:

How can you make an AoO if you don't threaten?
How can you draw as a free action as part of an AoO?

The biggest one is that first one. Does that even make sense to anyone?? How can you draw the weapon that you needed to already be weilding to qualify for an AoO as a part of taking said AoO? Ugh >.<

Or you could use the ability as intended. The Kensai may draw his weapon as free action to make an AoO.

Kensai stands next to a Wizard, weapon sheathed. Wizard begins to cast a spell, thinking he's in the clear. The Kensai, who isn't flat-flooted and who is trained in Iaijutsu, draws his sword and makes an AoO.

The fact that the Kensai is trained in Iaijutsu is what makes him threatening even if the sword isn't drawn. Because he can draw and attack in one fluid movement in the blink of an eye.

This is yet another 'specific rule of AoO trumps the general rule of AoO'.

As far as things like the Grab ability. The Grab ability lets you make a grapple check on a successful hit as a free action as part of the attack.

Wizard stand next to Shambling Mound. Wizard casts spell, triggers AoO from Mound. Mound hits, as part of that hit, he gets a free grapple check. Roll beats Wizards CMD, Wizard is now grappled. Mound rolls constrict damage.

Is this a bad day for the Wizard? Yup. Is this how the abilities work? Yup.