A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature.
Both archetypes alter the "Domains" class feature of Cleric. Therefore, they cannot be taken together.
I bow to your superior rules fu and stand corrected
1) Yes - Main hand attack sword, Off Hand cast shocking grasp via spell combat and deliver with sword via spell strike
2) No - The first attack cannot be with shocking grasp as spell combat replaces an offhand attack not main attack.
3)Yes - Main hand attack hits delivering held shocking grasp via spell strike, Off hand cast shocking grasp via spell combat and deliver with sword via spell strike.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
I would probably house rule this way as well. If you are invisible there is still a chance that your footprints or something will be seen and maybe give opponents a break on the miss chance or something.
Christopher Utley wrote:
Given that Glitterdust has a round/level duration, instead of being an instantaneous effect, I would say anyone who walks into it gets caught up.
I believe the duration is just for the continuing effects upon those coated by the dust not that it continues affecting new subjects.
Edit: I am not dogmatic about that, however, because I can see it being interpreted either way.
The point about emanations vs spread is not true as fog cloud, cloud kill, etc..are spreads and continue to effect those in their area and those who wonder into their area after they have been cast.
My understanding of Glitterdust in particular is that when it is initially cast those in its area are coated in the sparkly dust and subject to all of the affects for the duration of the spell but someone entering the area affected afterwards is not. This is based on the fact that it doesn't create a sparkly cloud that continually coats things that enter it is described as a burst that immediately coats everything and has ongoing affect upon those so coated. I don't have specific RAW to back that up though (maybe some others can help out with that) so YMMV.
Edit: One point in favor of Glitterdust being one and done is that once you make your Will save to avoid or remove the blindness you don't have to save again even if you remain in the area.
Do paladins, clerics, or any other "church" classes have to tithe a % of their income in Pathfinder?
No that was a rule in AD&D (can I say that here without getting booted?) for Monks and I believe Paladins but hasn't been included since then. (And yes I know knowing that makes me and old fart but I don't care :P)
If your boss told you that you were going to get a promotion along with its additional benefits but would retain your current salary what would you take that to mean?
Would you think that you would get both your current salary and the salary normally afforded the new position on top of it or would you think you are going to get the new benefits (Medical, retirement, etc..) but your salary would stay the same?
That is the sense in which the word retain is used here which is very clear from the context and makes the RAW consistent with the RAI.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Yeah he is calling for a DC 21 concentration check to cast Feather Fall during a fall. She is going to be asking for a DC 500 apologize and beg check before he gets to sleep somewhere other than the couch for a while.
Yeah we may be GMs at the game table but the wife/gf is the GM where it counts!
Are we using the term "witholding the antidote" as a euphemism or something? Like "I forgot our anniversary now my wife is withholding the antidote"?
@Patientwolf, if you want to run the spell that way, you're houseruling it. The spell says exactly what characters retain and what they gain.
I'm not houseruling anything. We've been over and over again in this thread on what it says. It says feats, skills, etc...don't change specifically regardless of how you and others want to twist things to make it look broken.
I'm quitting now on the basis that like the Antagonize thread this one is all about a few people who don't like the way something works and are going to try and twist, wrangle and deceive in order try and win an argument that cannot be won on its merits.
Final Word: Reincarnate does exactly what the text says. You get a change of physical ability scores, you gain no new feats or skills but do gain the abilities associated with the new physical form. Those are the facts and they will not change.
Wrong, it is perfectly clear the in the text that character's mind does not change. Same memories, same mental ability scores, same skills, same feats, etc... Just as the character does not have the knowledge of a new language pop into his or her head so the character does not have the knowledge of how to perform a new feat pop into their head.
Why would this be the case? Just because the spell doesn't mention anything about alternate traits, that doesn't mean the new character MUST start as a completely baseline, normal version of the race. Obviously this part is up to the GM a bit, and if it were me as the GM I would roll a dice to determine any alternate traits that the creature now possessed.
Again because traits represent socio-environmental conditioning upon the character. His or her mind remains the same with a new body but the same conditioning as before.
Yep, this is how the spell works. If you got reincarnated a bunch of time, and hit human several times, you'd be racking up bonus feats and skill points, and probably mental ability score bonuses (since racial bonuses always stack).
No this isn't how it works. You do not get new feats and skills each time. Your mind remains the same, body changes.
No, you don't get the bonus feat. Feats don't change as specifically spelled out in the text.
Yep, exactly how it works if you are lucky enough to get to be a human.
There is no contradiction and it isn't munchkin friendly. You got called on the carpet by a poster for belligerently declaring you don't care about RAW and the boards can go to the nine hells for all you care and now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing trying to make it seem as if you had a legitimate point all along.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Right...you don't have to swim faster than the shark...just faster than your buddy.
Yeah this has got to be the worst idea for trying to game the system I have ever heard. What GM worth his salt is going to accept that your character would legitimately let the other players kill him over and over to try and get better "ability scores" which don't exist in world.
The spell in question can be found here:http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/reincarnate.html#_reincarnate
Look at the table and you will notice that the STR, DEX and CON ability scores are changed with the new form. Even if the new form would normally get a boost to at mental stat the character does not. The text says they retain nearly all of their previous memories. It has nothing to do with the original stats rolled Int, Wis, Cha are not changed.
It retains any class abilities, feats, or skill ranks it formerly possessed.
Feats are specifically called out in the text as being retained.
You said you don't care about RAW and were asked why post that on a rules forum. You tried to defend it saying it is all house rules. Now you are trying argue that you were consistent with RAW all along?!?
So you come to a rules board and spout off about not caring about RAW and then when called on it say the spell says nothing about the subject at hand so any ruling is house ruling. When it is pointed out that the rules do have something to say on the subject you add an additional word to the text, i.e. the word BASE, and say you interpret it completely different than anyone else.
You could have just stopped at saying you don't care about RAW because your entire interpretation discounts RAW. One then still wonders why you are bringing it up in a rules forum?
Unfortunately for an animal companion you can only cast "You" spells on your companion that come from a class that gets an animal companion and Expeditious Retreat isn't on a Druids or Rangers list.
That'll teach me to just skim a post instead of completely read it =D
Analyze Dweomer says:
"You can observe magical auras. Each round, you may examine a single creature or object that you can see as a free action. In the case of a magic item, you learn its functions (including any curse effects), how to activate its functions (if appropriate), and how many charges are left (if it uses charges). In the case of an object or creature with active spells cast upon it, you learn each spell, its effect, and its caster level."
Now does this tell you only that the item requires a command word or does it actually tell you the command word?
just a thought just closing your eyes doese not make you blind, if you want to make a person not to see what or where he is you blindfold and turn him around 3 or 4 full circles. this is because the image is stil in your mind you can get the visual from mymmeory. and also this would fool you! Unless you had your eyes closed befor the spell was cast or befor the caster with mirror images came into sight! as long as your memory has a picture of the images you can be fooled!
I agree to a point here. Opening and closing your eyes throughout the round would not bypass the effect as you are still going to make choices based upon what you see each time you open your eyes. However, if your eyes are shut the entire round, thus conferring all of the penalties associated with blindness, you would suffer the 50% miss chance rather than hit an image.
Unfortunately, I think we are destined to disagree. Both of you posted things you think should be changed, but don't think it's broken. If it is not broken, it doesn't need to be changed. If it needs to be changed, it is broken/bad/whatever you want to call it.
Saying that something can be done better or in a way that makes more sense is not the same as saying it is broken. A mechanic doesn't have to meet all of my preferences not to be broken. Broken to me means it ruins game play. For example, I think Witches should be Wisdom based casters not Intelligence but just because I think that should be changed doesn't mean I think Witches are broken the way they are (I am, in fact, playing one right now).
I prefer rather than making it a save making it an opposed roll with sense motive or making the DC 10 + sense motive or something. It just makes sense to me that sense motive would allow you to realize what they are up to and check your emotions.
As it is written, it makes anyone in any setting fly into a rage and attack and the only way to claim it's not broken is to weasel around with 'what is an attack' and try to claim casting heal on them is an attack. Sheesh.
I still disagree with this point of view. I still don't believe the intimidate based use can be used in just any conditions and I still have yet to see a convincing (to me) scenario where its use is obviously game breaking . It may not be ideal (as described above I think the mechanic can be tweaked) but I don't think it is broken.
And your entire argument is simply an ad hominem claiming that those addressing the scenarios aren't doing so in good faith rather than addressing their responses to the scenarios.
I apologize if I am incorrect here but I don't feel like going back through pages of posts. I believe you are one of those that claim that when this is used you are able to disguise your antagonize as normal speech and provoke a reaction which the text of the feat plainly disproves.
So not only are you arguing using a logical fallacy you are, in fact, guilty of the very behavior of which you accuse others.
Mirror image does not have to specifically say something about closing your eyes because it says the attacker "must be able to see" the figment. It is unnecessary to list every single possible action or situation that might result in the player not being able to see the figments. I've already mentioned being more than 5' away in a fog cloud which is not mentioned in mirror image either. There is also an arcane archer firing a seeker arrow around a corner at the sorcerer he can't see. Closing your eyes need not be specifically mentioned than either of these for it to be RAW because of the phrase stating that the attacker has to be able to see the figments.
First off no scenarios offered have been ignored. They have been dismissed as unconvincing and IMO your scenario fares no better. If the hobgoblin has readied an action to perform a coup de grace on the dying player if any hostile action is taken. Antagonize should definitely be considered a hostile action triggering the coup de grace which means the coup de grace would go off before the antagonize completes and thus the dying PC would be dead. This would be the same result as if the players tried get off a command spell, fire an arrow, or any other action. Are those actions broken because an opportunity for role play will be missed if the characters are foolish enough to try them?
@Umbranus: The text already makes it clear that Antagonize can't be disguised as normal everyday speech. Hurtful words and biting remarks are NOT normal speech and are recognizable for what they are.
Blind isn't the only thing called out. The spell says:"An attacker must be able to see the figments to be fooled. If you are invisible or the attacker is blind, the spell has no effect (although the normal miss chances still apply)."
The sentence about invisibility and blindness is a conclusion based upon the fact that an attacker must be able to see the figments. There are other effects that prevent you from being able to see the figments that also aren't spelled out, being more than 5' away in a fog cloud for instance.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I completely agree with Diego on this one.
All of the images are occupying the exact same square so even if all of them are making sounds or giving off scents, and that is very questionable, you aren't going to be able to differentiate between them like you would with actual sight unless you have some really acute senses like blindsight.
Can spells from a staff or wand be counterspelled? This came up in a recent game and the GM thought that they could but I didn't think so. I thought I saw somewhere that you have to observe the spell being cast which you couldn't do with a spell from a staff but I can't find requirement in the counterspell rules now.
Bill Dunn wrote:
I really like this. It would make a lot of sense to allow sense motive to resist Antagonize. I think I will suggest this to my GM if it ever comes up again.
It is still just a d20 roll with some modifiers. You don't like the difficulty of that d20 roll but either way just a d20 roll with some modifiers. Window dressing.
Of course command has a more difficult margin of success because it is useful in a much greater variety of situations.
1) Saving Throw or skill check it is still one roll of the die to determine whether effective or not. Window dressing.
2) Kyrt-ryder already blew holes all through your spell resistance argument like 10 posts ago.
3) Window dressing. You are forcing him to use his standard action in a limited way. Antagonize forces you to use your standard action in a limited way.
4) THE USER HAS TO MAKE A FREAKING SKILL CHECK TO USE ANTAGONIZE!
We get it you don't like Antagonize. You really really really don't like Antagonized. In fact you are getting really Antagonized by how much you really really don't like Antagonize and are about to fly into an uncontrollable rage. However, 99% of campaigns that allow it never have any problems with it.
But...but..but Knight's Calling would make my archer act against his nature and close to melee range!! Waaaahhhhhh!!! Broken!! Unfair!!! Must Ban!!! /sarcasm
Antagonize is mind affecting as well. Both force the player to do something. It is all window dressing. Same or similar effects just described differently.
And if you don't have any of those spells? Or aren't even a spell caster? The feat is pretty specific, you have to attack with melee, ranged attack, or spell. That's your three options. Spitting on someone is not an attack. Throwing a shoe at them is not an attack, unless you use the improvised weapon rules, in which case, the shoe does damage like a dagger (1d4 bludgeoning) and you have violated your pacifist tenants over 6 seconds of words. Slapping is not an attack unless you can do HP damage. In which case, it's an unarmed strike doing non-lethal damage (but it's still a hostile action which negates your tenants again). That's my biggest issue, as you say, it makes you choose to attack in some way, even if you wouldn't. It doesn't force you to attack, it makes you decide to attack, as you state. That's a huge piece of barf to me.
So you are playng a pacifist non-caster. Every time you guys have to resort to these really wacked out unrealistic scenarios in order to try and show this feat is broken.
Bull Rush = non-damaging attack
Bull Rush wrote:
If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back 5 feet.
Disarm = non-damaging attack
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands).
Both of those also say they can be used in the place of any melee attack. Since antagonize calls for a melee attack you can substitue one of those for that required melee attack.
Androids are part of the Golarian world, and have a racial penalty that they can't get morale bonuses or penalties because they do not have emotions. They are not immune to mind effects, they have minds, they do not have emotions.
In the SRD androids are listed as specifically being immune to emotion-based effects and so would be immune.
No, I don't, because the feat says you must attack melee, ranged, or with a spell. If you aren't making an attack roll, you aren't attacking. And if you don't have a spell, you are down to a ranged attack or a melee attack. Even if you go for non-lethal means, you have made an attack and by the feat you decided to do it.
Do you know what the word requirements means? The "attack melee, raangers or spell" ARE the requirements. You get to decide within those requirements how to act. Not all
I'm not twisting his words. In the context he was implying that because it is so easy and useful that just about everyone would have it.
I didn't make anything up. That was exactly his implication. He was implying that the feat was broken because everyone in the world should have it if it works well. Go back and read the post in its entirety and it is clear that is the implication.
The fact is you have to pull out the off the wall utterly unrealistic scenarios when 99.99% of the time the feat isn't going to be an issue. I usually don't even bother taking it on a character because most of the time it is of little use as the enemy is going to do one of these things anyway. Maybe if I am playing an invulnerable rager barbarian this would be helpful for getting enemies to attack me and not the squishy mage but it sure isn't going to break the game.
This feat doesn't make you behave out of character. It just makes you decide how your character would react within their nature if enraged beyond reason. If a pacifist this might mean casting a daze, entangle or web or some other non-harmful means of disabling the antagonizer within the limits of the feat. You might have to get creative to figure out what your character would legitimately do to remain true to his nature and stay within the limitations of the feat but your character doesn't have to act contrary to his nature.
2) Do you have no problem with the fact that it provokes an emotional response in sentient beings that don't have emotional responses (androids for example).
You have androids in your fantasy game? Wouldn't those be constructs and therefore immune to mind affects. Pretty much any mindless, emotionless entity such as mindless undead and constructs are immune to mind effects and thus would be immune.
3) Do you have no problem with the fact that it affects, for example, an outsider that is a pacifist? Invoking them to rage?
Even a pacifist can get angry. You just have to get creative to how they will meet the requirements of this feat yet remain a pacifist.
4) Nobody has said the average farmer takes it, that's a bogus argument. You might just as well say you don't think it's something the average dolphin should take, it's just as...
3. The feat constitutes nonmagical "mind control", and it's as easy to learn to do as Toughness or Improved Initiative, so why wouldn't much of the world learn this valuable and useful skill?
So yes, someone has argued that much of the world, which includes farmers, housewives, and town drunks, should have learned this valuable and useful skill.
First off I have not made the argument that you can just throw a harmless object or cast a buff spell on the antagonizer. I have argued that you can punch the person in the nose, kick the person in the groin, throw dishes at him, or use other less than lethal attacks.
Also no one is arguing the words can't be spoke in a calm manner only that they are biting and hurtful words. You can't antagonize by walking up and saying "Nice weather we're having" which is pretty much what a previous poster was arguing.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I can't believe you are sticking to the claim that just a simple normal phrase that no one in a court room or social situation would think out of the ordinary constitutes "biting remarks or hurtful words" sufficient to induce a rage. The idea that you can just slip the use of this feat in disguised as normal conversation is ludicrous and in no way supported by the actual text.
As for your dismissal of the "turn" argument. Just recently in our game we were in an inn in which a bard and our barbarian got into a heated argument. The bard used his facinate ability and suggestion to make the barbarian do the "I'm a little tea pot dance". According to your argument as soon as he used facinate it should have gone into combat rounds, which would have instantly bogged down what turned out to be a fun and hilarious role playing scene. It is up to the GM to decide when to call for initiative which begins the combat rounds and turn by turn actions.
As for how I got the idea that you think the players should be railroaded into the prewritten script. Your very arguments were that because antagonize would allow deviation from what was written and allow the story to go off script it should not be allowed. In every one of those examples that was your argument. That the scene as written would not work if antagonize was allowed. If that applies to antagonize then that applies to any PC skill, feat or spell. No off script allowed.
You are deliberately interpreting this feat beyond what is written to twist it into something that is broken when it is not.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Example #1: It clearly states that you must be able to understand you for the antagonize to be effective. It is unlikely that a fleeing individual in a crowded city is going to be paying enough attention to what you are saying to understand the content and be antagonized. This is a matter of GM decision not a problem with the feat. Also I'm not familiar with this module so is that chase scene handled in combat turns or just a series of skill checks? If it isn't round by round combat then the antagonized individual doesn't have a next "turn" on which to be forced to act.
Example #2: Notice that you have to work around specific feats to make this as egregious as you want it to be. If the GM does this it is because it is the outcome he desires. Second you characterize the antagonize as being some benign statement like "This will destroy your kingdom". That is your characterization not the description. According to the feat it is an insult or slur so heinous it causes a rage not just some small statement and everyone present would hear it. Yes the PCs may use it against him as well and it may result in him loosing (although again all present would hear the PCs provoke him to the attack). Apparently you think that the PCs should not be able to use skills and abilities to influence the situation and should be railroaded along the prewritten script of the module.
Example #3:Here again you had to have the specifically exact stats on the part of the NPCs to make this feasible. If the GM does that it is because he wants that result to happen. Second the antagonized PC does not have to attempt to "murder" the antagonizer. A non-lethal unarmed attack, i.e. a punch to the nose would fulfill the requirements. Third this is not in combat so there are no "turns". So the requirement that the PC attack on his next "turn" is null and void since there is no turn to trigger the act. Also it seems that since this could be an intense RPG scene you think the players and NPCs alike should be railroaded into it. Heaven forbid the PCs be able to do something that goes off script from the scene as written.
Example #4: A court trial is not handled in "turns" there is no "next turn" for the PC to be forced to attack on. Second again you are dictating that the PC would go into a murdering rage and attack the crowd or throw a spell but the PC could just punch the prosecutor in the nose. Also again the prosecutor would have to utter a horrendously provocative slur or insult to produce this reaction that would be heard by all including the judge.
Example #5: Again the thief is probably not going to be paying enough attention to understand any insults being hurled. Also as noted above the chase scene is probably not in turn by turn combat rounds so there is no "next turn" for him to be forced to act on.
Not one of the examples you give is ruined by the use of this feat even in the few instances you correctly determine it could be used.
Now this I agree with. My witch can cast a spell on the antagonizer but Agony or Ice Tomb hexing the sucker is out of the question?
Bill Dunn wrote:
The likelihood that any of the scenarios given would occur is ridiculously small. Even in those scenarios, as you point out, there are things that can mitigate the situation.
As Redward pointed out it all comes down to the argument that only magic should be able to make a character behave contrary to their nature or interests. It also seems that many have a problem with the fact that it is the GM rolling the dice, i.e. the skill check, instead of the player rolling the dice, i.e. a saving throw, to determine if it is effective.
I've watched in real life as a woman that I know to normally be a good, loving mother jump out of her car in a parking lot without putting it in park to attack another driver in a fit of road rage leaving her infant child in the now driverless moving vehicle. If it wasn't for a bystander the car would have rolled back out into traffic. She later said she had no idea what she was doing and it was all indistinct and dreamlike. This is exactly what antagonize does.
Bill Dunn wrote:
But the loss of a desired action on the part of the cleric trying to save his buddy? Not a balance issue.
Yeah, I'm really not seeing the problem either. According to the feat on the Pathfinder PRD:
"On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell."
It seems to me that this feat forces you to do what you are going to do in 90% of situations. Attack, make a ranged attack or cast a spell that includes the antagonizer as a target.
As for the situation of having a group of commoners around the enemy and only having one spell. How likely is it that you don't even have a cantrip you can use rather than blowing up the commoners? RAW doesn't even specify it has to be a damaging spell you use. You can cast light on the idiot or something.
All this feat seems to do is limit the way you can use one of your standard actions by forcing you to target the antagonizer.