|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Oh right, you can already swap a standard for a swift. Just ready a swift action. That's explicitly allowed by RAW. Make the trigger condition "now". Fortunately, ready requires a standard action.
The problem is that the text of swift action says you may only perform one swift action per turn. So you can't take a swift, then ready another swift, because you'll have already taken the one swift action you're allowed that turn.
Yeah, my apologies for the confrontational tone. It's just that I'm currently playing an inquisitor with the Repose domain in a Carrion Crown game and as of 13th level I almost never use the level 1 power. So as I read this thread my incredulity rose to levels where some snark came out. My bad.
As an aside, Carrion Crown is probably the AP where this ability would be weakest, what with all the undead. The whole auto-sleep thing isn't an issue for them. Though the staggering could be nice, since it lasts longer on undead. Then again, most high-level undead are scary due to their special abilities, not their ability to take full attacks. A vampire only level drains once per round, after all, and a staggered lich is still pretty damn dangerous. So I guess it's a wash.
I'd absolutely agree with you there, FLite.
I think that the thing about the mask in particular in social situations is that the cosmetic alterations it applies to the character are really kind of creepy. If somebody came up to me in the street and began talking in an expressionless monotone, their face barely moving, I'd be a bit freaked out, regardless of whether their face looked like stone or not.
But I'd be equally freaked out if their hand was crackling with lightning (whether or not I could recognise they were holding the charge on a shocking grasp), or if they, say, kept playing with a dagger while talking to me.
For the examples I've offered, for the instance of the mask, I don't believe its cosmetic effects would be serious enough to shift the NPCs starting attitude for Diplomacy, so a circumstance modifier may be called for. For some NPCs (say, those used to dealing with adventurers!) the mask's effects may not cause them to bat an eyelid. For the lightning and the dagger, I think it'd be a circumstance modifier, or if the NPC thinks that the action is actively threatening, would likely shift their starting attitude for Diplomacy to Unfriendly or even Hostile.
In the end, appearances do matter. To take things to an extreme, you can't just walk up to the gates of Nerosyan wearing robes emblazoned with the unholy symbol of Deskari, wearing a helm that's shaped like the head of a locust, and expect the gate guards not to freak the hell out just because taking that action has no mechanical effects spelt out in the core rules or in the hypothetical scenario itself. Things like waving weapons around while trying to be diplomatic may result in lesser penalties than the above example, but it's the same kind of thing.
Matthew Trent wrote:
Page 402-403 of the Pathfinder Core, the 'GM Fiat' section.
As an example, nowhere in the rules does it state that if the player gets any kind of bonus to a social skill check if they roleplay that check well. It's not in the rules. But GM Fiat allows the GM to grant a small bonus to the check due to good roleplaying, and I think that sort of fillip is something that people tend to enjoy.
Matthew Trent wrote:
I don't believe redward is suggesting that the DCs of encounters should be tinkered with.
It's important to note that DCs cannot be altered, but circumstance modifiers to a skill check are permitted, if the GM believes them to be appropriate - whether positive or negative. (Though circumstance modifiers should be no larger than +/- 2, or perhaps +/- 4 in extreme conditions.)
And for the use of bluff, the believability of the bluff is also a factor. It is possible that some bluffs may be less believable coming from a monotone mask.
Of course, other bluffs may in fact be more believable in that situation.
A player wearing the mask may want to try and use bluffs that would be enhanced by the mask's physical effects, and avoid bluffs that the mask may hinder.
I think the flavour of both the key and the mask could result in some tricky responses from certain people.
For instance, if you're trying to rouse a frenzy in a crowd by lying about the hideous things their Duke gets up to with their firstborn children, you may find that speaking like a cyberman is going to hinder your impassioned verbiage. ("Won't. Somebody. Please. Think. Of. The. Children.")
Similarly, if you get searched at the gate by the City Watch and they find 6 skeleton keys in your pockets, you may expect some difficult questions, or at the very least your description getting circulated, just in case.
This is incorrect.
The mask grants 'a bonus to a common use of a skill check'.
The key replaces your usual Disable Device skill bonus with a flat +10.
The items would only be comparable if
a) the key granted a bonus to your usual Disable Device skill bonus to open locks
b) the mask replaced your usual Bluff skill bonus with a flat +10 to tell lies.
Granting a bonus and replacing are different things. For a start, the key will become irrelevant a lot faster than the mask will.
Doug Maynard wrote:
There's precedent in Ultimate Equipment for intelligent items being able to withhold the negative level, rather than being forced to bestow it on anyone who picks them up. In Ultimate Equipment there's a CN weapon (the hammer of enemies) which loves battle so much that it explicitly doesn't give a negative level to its wielder regardless of their alignment. I'd say a small tweak to the effect that Gamin can choose not to bestow a negative level unless he really takes against the person carrying him wouldn't make much difference to the scenario and would prevent an out-of-nowhere accidental death.
Confirmed on the attack splitting - the relevant tactics section reads '[the creature] wades fearlessly into the largest mass of enemies it can reach, using its size and many attacks to deal damage to as many creatures as possible each round.'
Huh, I thought somewhere it asked GMs to e-mail the organisers, but maybe I'm just making that up. Entirely possible. Ignore me!
Will Johnson wrote:
Uh...dude...that's *not* a waffle maker.
I'm with Jiggy on this. The absolute highest starting stat I've ever had on any of my 10 PFS characters has been 18. 20 just isn't worth it for the hit you take everywhere else. Some of my characters don't have anything above a 16 (like my paladin). 20 just seems unnecessary to me in a great many ways.
Thomas Graham wrote:
The module explicitly mentions that
'The stone dais in this room does not count as an altar for the
(see the Ebon Acolytus's 'During Combat' section for that text.)
Unfortunately, Thomas, the only reference to altars under Prostration is:
So the ebon acolytus doesn't get the +2, but the perma-death thing still works, as the text of that is under the Sacrifice ability, not the Prostration ability.
If the tiger maintains then it can't take a full attack. It can choose to deal damage as if it had hit the creature it's grappling with one of its attacks. This can be its bite, or either claw. No attack roll is made for this; the maintain roll is treated as the successful attack roll.
It then gets to make attack rolls with its 2 rakes as a free action.
If the vials aren't shattered exactly simultaneously, then it works as follows.
Step 1: Each Player rolls 1 DC 20 save. If he passes, repeat this step for the second and subsequent saves, returning to this step after each successful save. On the first FAILED save, deal onset damage and proceed to step 2. If all 6 saves are passed, this sequence terminates.
Step 2: Having taken the onset damage, the player turns to the remaining doses and begins making saves against them. The save is now DC 22, as he has one dose of poison in his system. If his saves pass, he continues making DC 22 saves against remaining doses until he has passed all remaining saves, returning to this step after each passed save. On the second (and subsequent) FAILED save, proceed to step 3.
Step 3: Deal onset damage. Then, for every failed save after the first, increase the DC of all remaining saves against the poison by +2 and increase the duration by 50%. Return to step 2 after increasing DC and duration.
If the vials are shattered exactly simultaneously, then it's as follows:
Step 1: Each Player rolls 1 DC 30 save. If he fails, he takes the initial onset damage and is poisoned for (normal duration +50% x5). The saves during this duration are all DC 30. If he passes, he is not poisoned. End of sequence.
For the poison cloud afterwards, it's debatable if it counts as a concentrated dose of the poison. If you think it does, that's a DC 30 save each round to avoid either a) onset damage and being poisoned, or b) onset damage, +2 DC and +50% duration if already poisoned. If you think it doesn't count as a concentrated dose, it's as above, but only DC 20.
Poisoned characters then have to save during each of their turns to avoid ongoing poison damage, at the DC set by how many doses they have in their system, and for a duration based on the number of doses.
Paizo Blog on poisons may also help.
I would tend to agree that demoralising a giant crab would seem to be impossible on the face of it. The crab has no concept of your threats. How, exactly, are you able to scare a crab any more than you can scare a table? You're not causing it physical injury or laying hands on it; you're just yelling aggressively at it. It can't understand you. It doesn't know what your stance, volume, or tone of voice mean. It doesn't know if you're trying to be friendly or antagonistic. It just doesn't understand.
Here you go:
Natural Attacks (From the Bestiary, Universal Monster Rules)
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.
Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks differently, such as dragons, which always receive 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the creature's description.
So Mergy is right; 1xStr on the quickwood's bite.
Demoralise applies the shaken condition.
The shaken condition comes under the 'fear' heading.
Paladins of the appropriate level cannot become shaken, frightened, or panicked.
Whether you succeed your Intimidate check or not, the shaken condition that would result from it is negated.
So yeah, +1 for 'It doesn't matter if Demoralise is a fear effect or not; the condition it applies *is* a fear effect, so anyone trying to use it on a paladin (of 3rd level or higher) is SOL.'
Scott Young wrote:
The owlbears are noted as being fast zombies. None of the other zombies in the adventure are.
Its not just you :) . My Rogue wanabe druid runs into that "rule" a LOT. And for some reason the idea that you can't try to pick a lock more than once. (which as far as i can find goes all the way back to second edition... 3.5 explicitly has Lita retrying on locks)
Well, I can at least say I run it right at the table...I just had a momentary lapse when I came to post. The lock thing I don't see as much, these days; most people I see just take 20 on it, so they know straight-out whether they succeed or fail with their level of skill.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Ugh, I knew that! Clearly it's too early in the morning for me to be posting on the boards..
I ran this at the weekend.
I concur that the zombagus' cannot take full attacks due to their staggered condition; I had them taking one slam attack per round, end of.
The porcupines also aren't capable of taking full attacks. I had them taking one slam attack per round, and dislodging quills. Two of the porcupines got off one attack (both of which hit, dislodging 4 and 5 quils respectively!) before being destroyed, while the third was ganked before it acted.
It's a simple fact that if the enemies are staggered, full attacks are not possible, regardless of what the stat block says. The only way to get zombies to have full attacks is to make them variant zombies that lose the staggered condition. Since the owlbear zombies earlier on are specifically fast zombies (which do not have the staggered condition) while the zombagus are not, I assume that this is a deliberate design decision, and full attacking zombagus' were not really intended.
Heh, you should look at my review of the module in question. I actually had a real beef with that haunt because it *didn't* give any information, despite the fact that the players have no idea what's gone on in that area and it's a place where a haunt 'info dump' would be perfect.
Can't be bothered running through 8 pages to see if the right answer to the question's been given, so I'll post it here.
Firstly, check the 'maneuver master' monk archetype in UC, which says:
'At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action.'
So this clearly gives us two options for Combat Maneuvers: 'replaces an attack' (usable on a full attack, can replace multiple attacks) or 'requires a standard action'.
Then look at the Combat rules in Core for the following text:
Bull Rush: 'You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.'
So you can't Bull Rush with one of your attacks in a full attack action (unless you have the maneuver master archetype)
Disarm: You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack.
So you can disarm with one (or more) iterative attacks in a full attack action
Grapple: As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.
So you can't Grapple with one of your attacks in a full attack action (unless you have the maneuver master archetype)
Overrun: As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square.
No Overrun on a full attack
Sunder: You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
Wording on this one is clunkier for no reason, but we know from maneuver master that we have a binary choice when it comes to these maneuvers. This doesn't take a 'standard action', so it falls into the 'replaces an attack' category.
So you can sunder with one (or more) iterative attacks in a full attack action
Trip: You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.
So you can trip with one (or more) iterative attacks in a full attack action
Have a summary for convenience (and I'll throw in the UC manuevers as well):
Replaces one (or more) of your iterative attacks: Disarm, sunder, trip
Standard action: Bull rush, dirty trick, drag, grapple, overrun, reposition, steal
I played that module last Saturday evening, and I absolutely concur.Another example of a good use of a haunt is in
Echoes of the Overwatched, where a haunt is your first encounter and helps set up the plot.
I bet more than a few of you have read that title up these and given a little sigh before clicking on this thread. I can't say I entirely disagree – if there's one aspect of PFS that's been overexposed recently, it's haunts. This situation is only compounded by the fact that many people are still shaky on the way that haunts actually work; and even for the rules-savvy of our community, there are still some grey areas on how they function.
I'm not intending to talk about the mechanics of haunts in this post. That topic's been done to death all over the place. I'm also not intending to harp on about any haunt in particular. This post is on haunts in general, and their use in Pathfinder Society Organised Play scenarios.
In recent seasons, haunts seem to have become extremely popular with scenario writers. Every other scenario I pick up has a haunt in it somewhere. Enough is enough. I believe that there's a right way and a wrong way to use haunts, and far too many modules of late have been using them in the wrong way.
First and most importantly: A haunt is not a trap.
Read that sentence a few times. Engrave it into your brain. It's the most important part of this post.
As most of you probably know, haunts originated in Pathfinder #2, The Skinsaw Murders. The haunts in that adventure told the story of a doomed family, torn apart by insanity, jealousy and betrayal. As characters explored an ancient, crumbling manor house, they saw the ancient fall of the manor's former owners play out before their eyes – indeed, they themselves were forced to re-enact some of the horrific events of the past, possibly with fatal consequences.
Can you spot the most important detail of that paragraph? The key element that every haunt should possess, the element that differentiates them so absolutely from being a trap by any other name?
Information. It's that simple. First and foremost, a haunt is a way to provide the player characters with information that they have no other way of discovering, and to do it in a creepy and interesting way. If you're using a haunt, you're able to give the characters ringside seats to ancient secrets, hidden tragedies known to not a single living soul.
Too many haunts in recent scenarios provide no information whatsoever. They're simply traps by another name. When these haunts are over, the players have no more information about the plot of the scenario than they did before.
So please, scenario writers. Before you include a haunt in your module stop and think. Ask yourself this question: What does this haunt tell the players? What information do I need to impart with this encounter that I can't impart in another way?
And if you're not telling the players anything with the haunt, then please consider replacing it with a trap. A trap doesn't have to tell a story.
Please stop cheapening haunts, and let them return to the rare, evocative, informative encounters that they were initially designed as. I can only hope such behaviour will result in less haunts in modules, and improve the quality of haunts in those cases that they do appear.
A haunt is not a trap. Please stop treating haunts as if they are.
Exactly this. 2 Deeper Darkness spells doesn't overpower one Daylight spell; all 3 spells are ineffective in their overlapping areas of effect.
The only way to end an ongoing Daylight with a Deeper Darkness is to have the Deeper Darkness caster touch the item that the Daylight is emanating from. That ends the Deeper Darkness that they just cast before it starts, and dispels the Daylight. If there's still another Deeper Darkness spell in the room, it is now unhindered in its effects.
Jonathan Cary wrote:
Very true. I apologise for not mentioning that in my post.
...There *isn't* a parrying glove out there, right? :S
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Well, the trick is that Ezren's 'cane' is identical to a club in everything but name. You couldn't, say, have a short sword with a lockpicking kit hidden in the pommel, meaning it can double as a set of thieves tools. Basically, re-skinning an object can't grant you any benefits beyond those the object already grants you, nor remove any penalties that the normal object applies. It has to do exactly what the object does, but you just describe it differently. A re-skinned object is not 'based off' the legal item - it *is* the legal item. It just looks a bit different.
For instance, one of my characters has a 'parrying glove'. It's a series of metal strips and mail mesh that fastens on like a forearm-length glove, and helps him deflect attacks. Mechanically, it's a buckler. It's priced as a buckler, it's statted as a buckler. I mention it when I describe the character, and if anyone at the table objects, for that scenario, it really *is* a buckler, and not a glove*. It's only there because the character is a duelist type, and a buckler didn't fit my image of him, but a 'parrying glove' did. That's the limit of re-skinning; no mechanical differences from the base item, period.
* That's the other thing you have to be prepared for with re-skinned items; you need to be able to let them be 'un re-skinned' on a scenario-by-scenario basis if a GM or player objects to your re-skinning. If they're asking, it either bothers them, or they have another equally good reason for asking. If you've re-skinned an item, you don't get to object to this. You just have to play it as the base item for that game. If the re-skinning truly is purely cosmetic, this shouldn't prove an issue.
1) Bought a club. (an item defined as a weapon)
His cane isn't a custom item; it's an item in the base rules that he has reskinned. In all ways, his cane functions as a club, he just calls it a cane.
In a foolhardy attempt to prevent a thread derail, I'll just say that this topic has been discussed at length more than once, and the most recent thread can be found here.
I sincerely hope we can avoid turning this topic into another full attack debate and stay on topic to the thread title.
And here's the nub of it - I don't believe your italised argument is correct. I have seen poor editing lead to ambiguity before, and I believe that has happened here. I believe that the text explicity refers to a full attack and then lets you back out of it, while you say that it means nothing of the sort.
Now I really *am* done. Promise.
So you're saying you can back out after the first attack if you've only taken a penalty at that point, but can't if you're benefited in some way?
What about flurry of blows? You take a -2 to hit to gain an additional attack on a full attack, but you also set your BAB to equal your monk level for all flurry attacks. Can you declare flurry of blows and then cancel out after the first (increased BAB, -2 to hit) attack?
I believe that this section *is* a subsection of full attack, which concerro does not. Therefore I believe that it refers to the first attack of a full attack, because if it did not, it would be talking about a standard attack.
The text refers to 'your first attack' and then 'your remaining attacks', so I believe it is discussing attacks within the context and framework of a full attack. As such, I believe that this text provides an explicit way for a character to declare a full attack at the start of their turn - which is when you declare things like this, not after your first attack - and then abort that full attack after they have taken the first attack, with all attendant bonuses and penalties to that attack.
Setting aside Manyshot for the moment, my reading avoids situations such as a character declaring Two-Weapon Fighting, taking a -2 to hit on their first attack, and by killing their target with that hit, screwing themselves out of a move for no gain whatsoever, but in fact causing themselves a net penalty through no fault of their own.
People are hot on not wanting a Manyshot 'exploit' in this way, but what about TWF, where your reading actually penalises the character for no gain whatsoever?
Anyway, now that I've summarised my stance, I'm going to take a break from this thread and let others discuss it.
No, that's fine. I admit that anyone coming in and asserting certainty does get on my nerves a little, but more importantly, no argument I make is going to convince somebody who is that certain of their position. As such, I see no reason to continue debating the point.
I am equally certain that you are incorrect. I stand my by assertion that both our opinions are equally valid, and yours is no more correct than mine. I have already explained my view, and I am not convinced by your counterpoints.
I don't see anything resulting from continuing to state our opposing viewpoints, since I'm not going to budge, and I very much doubt that you will either. Therefore I'm going to stop arguing and will just read how this thread goes. I actually don't like arguing very much, and prefer to avoid it when it's clearly not going to achieve anything.
Clearly this is getting us nowhere. I will close by saying that I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Your arguments regarding placement have not convinced me. Your interpretation of the rules has not convinced me. Your certainty has not convinced me. I appreciate you offering your opinion in this discussion, and will await official clarification on this topic.
Gauss, you are correct in stating that PFS characters can take one of these traits at character creation, or at any time in the future with the Additional Traits feat.
I just had a thought.
OK, Fred Fighterman is a longsword-and-shield fighter with a pair of boots of speed. Fred starts his turn adjacent to Thugs McGee, who is attempting to job Fred, despite the fact that Fred is wearing mithral full plate and Thugs is armed with a makeshift cosh made out of a dead rat and a sock.
Fred wins initiative, activates his magic boots, and declares a full attack. Fred takes his bonus haste attack as his first attack - he's entirely within his rights to do this, as the rules say you have to attack from highest attack bonus to lowest, and the haste attack is taken at maximum bonus. Indeed, his haste attack must be his first or second attack of the full attack, or he's breaking the combat rules.
Fred's hasted swing cuts Thugs in half. Thugs takes an immediate action to contemplate his poor decision-making skills, and keels over dead.
Can Fred now abort his remaining attacks and take a move action? haste only adds a bonus attack on a full attack. Has Fred done himself out of a move?
Gauss, I do apologise for that. I would sincerely hope that people arguing on both sides would not represent their point of view as the 'one true way' - it's just that I'm more likely to notice when it's in arguments I'm attempting to rebut. I hope I have made myself clear in that I don't believe my interpretation is correct, and people advocating the oppsite are incorrect; I just believe both are equally valid, and thus people should run whichever one they subscribe to at their own table, pending dev clarification.
Once again, mea culpa.
Concerro - you say people make the 'mistake' of assuming that the text is a subset of the Full Attack Section. It's more correct to say you don't believe it is a subsection of the full attack section, despite its placement in the book. Not having written the text yourself, you cannot know what was intended by RAW - you can only interpret.
You also say 'that is how it is', when what you actually mean is 'that is how I believe it works'. Please don't assume you are defending the correct point of view against misguided people who are using the rules wrong - you aren't. You're supporting an interpretation that has as much (or as little) validity by RAW as the opposing interpretation.
Finally, you also say that you 'trade up' to a full attack after the first attack, but the rules in the book actually couch it in entirely the opposite terms - they describe it as you starting a full attack and then 'cancelling out' in order to take a move action.
Also, iterative attack and Manyshot are not by any stretch the 'same logic' - one is a rider to your first attack, and the other is not. Nobody is going to argue that you can't cancel a full attack after your second action - but clearly many people will aregue that you can cancel a full attack after having used Manyshot.
Yes. From the #3 interpretation, you lose your ability to 'cancel out' after the first attack of a full attack under all of the following circumstances;
1) You have used Manyshot on your first attack, and your first attack has killed your only foe in sight. BENEFIT: You have done double damage on that attack.
I believe in all of these circumstances, you can cancel after your first attack and take a move action, as per the #1 interpretation from the OP and the full attack text.
The RAW does NOT prove #3 correct, no matter what some people in this thread may insist. The back and forth of this argument shows how ambiguous the RAW is.
Regardless, the argument can't be won by either side. It's been tried before. People will just circle round insisting that their interpretation is correct, and we get nowhere. FAQ the OP and leave it at that.
Oh, I run Manyshot as per option #3 in PFS, too. Your interpretation of the rules is not one I agree with, and it is no more valid than mine and Adamantine Dragon's. Hence this thread - and the one before it - reaching no consensus, because there is no clear-cut right answer by RAW. People can parse the text all they want, stressing various sentences where it will do their position the most good, but the text is ambiguous on the face of it, and that's the end of it. Pending dev commentary, of course.