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

Protoman's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,257 posts (2,270 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 13 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,257 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think standard actions or move actions specifically state it needs to be done in your turn also. Thankfully, they don't need to because one can only perform actions on their turn besides immediate actions and free action (speak) because those ones specifically state otherwise:

Speak wrote:
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
Immediate Action wrote:
However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn.

A 5-foot step is a miscellaneous action that is done on your turn. There are specific cases of 5-foot stepping outside your turn, such as with the Step Up feat, but it turns that miscellaneous action into an immediate action so that it works within the rules. Readied actions also had to specifically state one can 5-foot step and even then readying an action is a special initiative-altering action that essentially let's one delay and finish part of one's turn later, but attacks of opportunities have no such exception granting a 5-foot step.


One day. Some day.

**

First of all, please don't refer to Feint as a maneuver. That just opens up inconsistent terminology.

But to get to case in hand, Feint says:

Feint wrote:
This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

Not, "on your current turn or before your next turn."

Instead it should be read/interpreted as: "This attack must be made [on your next turn] or before your next turn," as grammatically, they're both ("on" and "before") referring to your next turn.

So whoever you were arguing with, yeah they're pretty much completely wrong. Are they actual VCs or just local organizers?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right now I'm not even sure if one could put an enhancement bonus on a regular gauntlet.


It won't provoke in a grapple because of the wording of kinetic blade. However it'll still need a concentration check to simply activate it like any other SLA in a grapple because kinetic blade doesn't give any exceptions to that.


Hmm good point. Still happy I picked up Jet Dash for my soldier to run around with.


I wish they'd simply release a feat for speed increase that doesn't care about armor restrictions. The opportunity cost of a feat giving speed boost vs any other combat feat would still keep it from ever getting abused.


Speed penalty doesn't mean encumbrance, yeah.

If you're slowed down by armor, you're probably wearing heavy armor, then the Fleet feat doesn't do anything for you.

**

That's right. They should be using whatever battery or ammo they find instead of using up their own that they purchased on their own.

Just like in PFS with arrows/bolts found in scenario.


EC Gamer Guy wrote:
According to the SRD text, in heavy armor you gain 5ft of movement from the feat. It's not great, but it's not nothing either.

That's for encumbered, but one still has to be in light armor or no armor (as per the first sentence) to still benefit from the +5 ft speed.

**

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Devasura wrote:
Darkling36 wrote:
You don't get to keep ammo you find, you can use it during the scenarios and then it goes away. And I highly doubt that we'll regularly be finding enough ammo to not have to buy large swaths of it.

Are you sure about this? General consensus seems to be that you get to keep consumables and minor items. And enemies that use ranged weapons also have ammunition for that weapon in their loot so you will be finding ammo certainly (maybe not regularly).

You don't keep ANYTHING in Society play except for boons or rewards granted in the end of a scenario listed by the chronicle sheet.

You find credit sticks? That credit amount gets added and summed up to the stated subtier/out-of-tier payout on the chronicle sheet.

You find ammo/consumables, they get turned in to the Society at the end of the scenario, the meta-explanation is that the loot is part of pay-out.
You're encouraged to simply use them up in game, cuz you don't get to take it with you when you're done. If they're special, might end up listed on the chronicle sheet to be purchased later.


HWalsh wrote:
Protoman wrote:

I find it useful for melee-focused characters who have to get into melee range against enemies who start at the far end of the map. Depending on terrain, spending one round running as full round action is better use of my turn rather than moving twice a round or moving once and hoping my usually weaker ranged attack hits.

Jumping is also great.

"enemies who start at the far end of the map."

Just saying, this should be an INCREDIBLY rare situation in Starfinder.

Happened for me right in the 3rd Quest of Into the Unknown.

Quote:

Even in Heavy Armor after a couple levels Soldiers and Solarians can make a move action and then charge as a standard action. Since the vast majority of Heavy Armor is only a -5 move, or a -10 at the most, they can cross anywhere between 60 and 75 feet and still attack.

That is actually as long as, if not longer than, most of the gun ranges in the game.

I'd rather run and be close and let other melee folks swarm me so I can potentially full attack on next turn a bunch of them or even just one melee enemy that approached, rather than charge for a single attack with -2 to hit. If nothing but ranged enemies, would run from cover to cover.

Also charging as a standard action is a specific build option for Soldiers/Solarian that I won't be doing.


I find it useful for melee-focused characters who have to get into melee range against enemies who start at the far end of the map. Depending on terrain, spending one round running as full round action is better use of my turn rather than moving twice a round or moving once and hoping my usually weaker ranged attack hits.

Jumping is also great.


Androids don't have the Construct type so they aren't automatically immune to mind-affecting effects.


You can transfer the fusions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The spell would need to specify it's targeting a creature type or that it affects a creature type before Android's Constructed comes into consideration:

Androids Constructed trait wrote:
For effects targeting creatures by type, androids count as both humanoids and constructs (whichever effect is worse).
Core Rulebook, page 334 wrote:
Other spells allow you to target other categories of creatures or items, such as construct, corpse, or object

Mystic Cure doesn't target by creature type, but by if a creature is living or not. Mystic Cure also has the specific case of level 4 Mystic Cure affecting creatures that died, those creatures are no longer living but would be a specific exception stated by the spell. So Constructed trait doesn't come into play. But androids would still benefit from Mystic Cure because they count as living creatures.

Core Rulebook, page 334 wrote:
Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead artificially created beings that are not undead or constructs are considered living for this purpose).

Reincarnate would work for androids also in this case for the same reasons.

Mending, specifies it can affect a construct. That's a creature type, so we can then consider Constructed trait. Androids then get counted as construct and humanoid, whichever effect is worst. In this case, humanoid is worse as humanoids don't benefit from Mending, then androids don't get affected by Mending.

Make Whole and Rapid Repair says it targets a construct. Same case with Mending, Androids get counted as construct and humanoid, where humanoid is worse (humanoids don't benefit from these spells) and so androids don't get affected by those spells.

A spell like Charm Person, Dominate Person, Daze, Hold Person all specify they target humanoids. Androids would then again get counted as construct and humanoid, in these cases humanoid is worse so then the androids gets affected by all those negative spells.

Deep Slumber targets living creatures, which androids qualify. It specifies construct types are immune to it, so we look at Constructed and we see androids counting as humanoid is worse and they're still affected by Deep Slumber, but at least they get +2 racial bonus to saving throws against it.

Entropic Grasp says it would work "against a manufactured creature (generally constructs, but not undead), this attack deals 6d12 damage. In this case, android's Constructed the construct type is worse, and they'd suffer the damage.

Raise Dead is iffy. It targets living creatures that died, which androids count. It also says constructs can't be raised by the spell (page 371), so being a construct is worse for androids in this case and they can't be raised. However, Owen K. Stephens states in the forums that androids are a special case and that they can be raised like any other living creature.


Divinity wrote:

Is there a way I can use Kinetic Fist and Kinetic Blade in the same round?

They are both form infusions... but is there a way to use more than one form infusion at once for this class?

Nope.


Firebug wrote:

Slightly different question: Can you put weapon fusions on the Armor Storm Hammer Fist feature?

I am leaning toward not, since its not actually a battle glove. Its just kinda annoying that if something has DR magic, your fist is the only weapon in the game that can't bypass it. Can you even use Rune of the Eldritch Knight on it from taking Arcane Assailant as a secondary style? Since its not actually a weapon?

Hammer Fist uses unarmed strikes which has no item level (not even zero) so no fusions for Hammer Fist. You'll get to the point where you're better off going with advanced melee weapons (go pulse gauntlet if you wanna keep the "unarmed" aesthetic) as you'd just be missing out on the +2 damage bonus from already having Melee Striker gear boost + Hammer Fist, but you can benefit from usually better number of dice and fusions which would be stronger than Hammer Fist's +2 damage bonus.


Lord Gimblewight wrote:
I'd really like to see someone make a form-fillable pdf version of the Starfinder Character Portfolio. Anyone know if someone is on the track of doing this?

Err assuming you mean the Starfinder Player Character Portfolio, that's not a free product and I don't think would be allowed to be posted anywhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's more like Absalom Station has an abundance of items they're more willing to sell you despite your low level/lack of requisite license other communities would require (level+2).


If it didn't need to be sold in bulk, it probably could have been listed as 1 UPB = 1 credit.

I'm thinking it's expected to bought in bulk, much like 40 credits for 30 small arm bullets. But any GM can say otherwise.

For Starfinder Society it has to be in lots of 1,000 units for 1,000 credits, though.

**

Micheal Smith wrote:
Lets look at Star Wars, as far as I know they don't have batteries and basically unlimited fire. But they do overheat and can pbpnly be fired so much at once. I think this how it should have worked in Starfinder

Star Wars used blaster gas to charge their weapons which was a limited resource that had to gathered, like at Bespin for tibanna gas.


Gary Bush wrote:

Shwar,

I think I found something wrong with the skills. Please look at page 133 of CRB. An untrained skill (a skill that does not have skill rank in it) still get the benefit of the ability score modifier. The character sheet does not do this.

Which version of sheet do you have of Shwar's?

And are you looking at trained only skills? They wouldn't get the modifier if untrained because one couldn't use them.


Yes. As established, making long jumps is pretty easy even without the feat.

The feat greatly helps high jumps though.


Oh that's a good point about the running and jumping stating needing a move action.

The part of the jump limit is from a Pathfinder precedent:

Air's Leap Kineticist Utility Wild Talent wrote:
You are always considered to have a running start when jumping, you add your kineticist level as a bonus on all Acrobatics checks to jump, you jump twice as far or high as the results of your check indicate, and you can accept 1 point of burn when jumping to double the distance you jump again (to a total of four times as far).

Mark Seifter basically explains (unofficially in his Ask Anything thread but he wrote the wild talent and it's the only precedent I can find for this situation) that benefit would benefit high jumps.

The feat allowing one to double the jump distance and jump rules stating the jump uses up the remainedsr of movement wouldn't be Jet Dash treating the rules differently, just that it would only benefit specific instances of jumping (not rolling maximum jump distance in distance or height).


The feat lets you double your jump distance.
With a running start, if you roll a 15 on Athletics check to long jump, instead of 15 feet, you jump 30 ft.
With a running start, if you roll a 20 on Athletics check to high jump, instead of 5 feet, you jump 10 ft.

It doesn't change the limits on Athletics check where you use the remainder of your movement.

River of Sticks wrote:

Specifically, a level 5 character with Athletics as a class skill, 5 ranks invested in Athletics, a STR of 14, and a speed of 30' can move 10', and jump a maximum of 20' (remaining speed) at a DC of 20 by taking 10 (10 + 5 + 3 + 2).

How does this character's ability to jump differ with Jet Dash?

The difference for a character with Jet Dash would be that they only needed an Athletics check of 10 to jump 20 feet. Or DC 20 for 20 feet with no running start.

The feat is more limited when only considering long jump with regular default speed.

However it's much more useful with high jumps as the modified DC is only 2x height wanted instead of original 4.

It's also useful if you don't have a chance for running start. The long jump and high jump DCs would be equal to no-Jet Dash Athletics running start DCs.

If wanting to benefit from greater long jump distance get speed suspension augmentation to increase speed, or other methods to increase speed. Or you run (with Jet Dash that'll be 6 x speed) and you'll have all the movement needed for even Jet Dash modified jump distances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm building Atomic Robo with android soldier (armor storm) scholar theme (physical science: physics) for PFS.


The MAIN purpose of the Strike Back feat is so you can reciprocate a melee attack against enemy who has greater reach than the player does.

WITHOUT the feat, a PC could ready an action to melee attack the enemy (who has greater reach) when enemy makes a melee attack, but it wouldn't do any good as the PC's melee attack lacks the reach to hit enemy.

WITH the feat, PC could ready an action to melee attack the enemy (who has greater reach) when enemy makes a melee attack, and then immediately after the enemy's attack gets to make a melee attack and strike the enemy despite the enemy being further than reach. Doesn't matter what weapon the enemy is using, the feat lets you make the melee attack roll as a readied action on enemy's turn, and if you beat enemy's EAC/KAC, you damage the enemy.


All it does is increase armor's hit points and hardness. You're right armour isn't an applicable target for Sunder maneuvers.

However in-game environmental situations would make it useful, like being stuck in a corrosive atmosphere (page 395), falling in a vat of acid, being in a structure that's FULLY on fire, etc.

Once Alien Archive comes out, might find the equivalent of a space rust monster or some other creature that likes destroying objects not normally targetable by Sunder rules.

For now, save the money or buy some other upgrade with it.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

0_o

This...this changes EVERYTHING! 8D

One slightly related question: suppose I go Solar Armor and want a plasma sword with a holy fusion or something. Will I need a backup weapon that deals kinetic damage against enemies with energy resistance?

From what it looks like, Starfinder REALLY encourages you to carry more than one weapon unless you add an elemental fusion to a kinetic weapon, or you go Solar Weapon Solarian and use your powers to add fire damage to it.

Yes. Have backup weapons. Wield a battleglove if the aesthetic of extra weapons does not appeal to you. Carry a ranged weapon of some sort though for hard to reach (let's say vertically) enemies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Leverage Wikipedia entry

Basically a gang of thieves led by former insurance investigator pull heists against the corrupt and powerful to help the downtrodden.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Protoman wrote:
Profession (con artist).
While that IS a viable (and probably common) option, I think the OP's character is a true believer rather than just another huckster, and isn't using the credits for their own personal desires, at least as far as I can tell from the OP's description.

<shrug> You ever watch Leverage? Could use con artist skills for good!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Profession (con artist).


Operative melee weapons are automatically finessable, you can use Dexterity modifier for attack rolls instead of strength. They also only add half character level to damage via the Weapon Specialization feat though.


The kineticist. Good damage. Great HP. Depending on build though, AC would vary. With high HP I didn't bother trying to keep up with the AC race and focused on HP and status/damage mitigation effects with magic items.


What did you think differently about?

Owen's comment about short rest healing of resolve:
The rule is that regaining stamina requires spending a Resolve point and "10 minutes of uninterrupted rest."


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I think we'll have them as soon as Alien Archive arrives. The anacites of Aballon just might be the droids we're looking for!

I hope so. If they just end up as NPC/monsters with no player options like the security droid in First Contact, I'll be seriously disappointed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My androids will be looking as inorganic and as robot-like as possible until there's robot player races available.


Michael J. Card wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
My apologies if I came across as hostile, that was not my intent. :-)

No worries. My initial post was somewhat hostile, and I've never posted on these boards and had such a barrage of replies, and felt the general tone was hostile. I really didn't appreciate the person in the store interrupting me as I tried to immerse my players by describing the setting, introducing the Pact Worlds, Absalom Station, the concept of the Drift, etc, with a bunch of technicalities, because I knew my table was full of role players, not metagamers. So, yes, I probably came across as angry, because I was.

All the posts have made me change my mind as to my initial ruling, and in the end it didn't apply, since no one chose more than one profession. However, if they did that because of my incorrect ruling, I'll be giving them a mulligan next week on skill choices.

Two sessions from now, I have some very experienced Pathfinder players at my Starfinder table so I want to be very rules prepared for that session.

Once again, thanks for everyone's comments, I will apply the new rule as soon as we start again next week.

I don't think you'll have to worry about anyone picking up more than one Profession skill very often in Organized Play. Between themes and one Profession skill, roleplayers ought to have all they need for their background. And optimizers picking up Profession is probably for the day job checks in downtime and need their non-Profession skill points elsewhere.

EDIT: Reading my original post I can see how I came off not in the best light, so I apologize for being short with you there.
You're doing a great, enthusiastic job setting up Starfinder Society in Edmonton, by the way, Michael.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're not gonna find much discussion (if any) or any FAQ or previous developer ruling on the topic because it's such a clear-cut case. There's no rule, ever, that only first Profession is a class skill. Profession is meant to be an easy class skill for anybody and if one takes a new type of Profession, it's still a class skill.

Just like with Pathfinder with Craft with different specializations or Perform with different instruments, they're all class skills.

Don't overthink it and change rules that's already there, especially for a Society game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll repost what I said in another similar discussion in the Rules forums:

The spell would need to specify it's targeting a creature type or that it affects a creature type before Android's Constructed comes into consideration:

Androids Constructed trait wrote:
For effects targeting creatures by type, androids count as both humanoids and constructs (whichever effect is worse).
Core Rulebook, page 334 wrote:
Other spells allow you to target other categories of creatures or items, such as construct, corpse, or object

Mystic Cure doesn't target by creature type, but by if a creature is living or not (also with the specific case of level 4 Mystic Cure affecting creatures that died, no longer living but specific exception stated by spell). So Constructed trait doesn't come into play. But androids would still benefit from Mystic Cure because they count as living creatures.

Core Rulebook, page 334 wrote:
Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead artificially created beings that are not undead or constructs are considered living for this purpose).

Reincarnate would work for androids also in this case for the same reasons.

Mending, specifies it can affect a construct. That's a creature type, so we can then consider Constructed trait. Androids then get counted as construct and humanoid, whichever effect is worst. In this case, humanoid is worse as humanoids don't benefit from Mending, then androids don't get affected by Mending.

Make Whole and Rapid Repair says it targets a construct. Same case with Mending, Androids get counted as construct and humanoid, where humanoid is worse (humanoids don't benefit from these spells) and so androids don't get affected by those spells.

A spell like Charm Person, Dominate Person, Daze, Hold Person all specify they target humanoids. Androids would then again get counted as construct and humanoid, in these cases humanoid is worse so then the androids gets affected by all those negative spells.

Deep Slumber targets living creatures, which androids qualify. It specifies construct types are immune to it, so we look at Constructed and we see androids counting as humanoid is worse and they're still affected by Deep Slumber, but at least they get +2 racial bonus to saving throws against it.

Entropic Grasp says it would work "against a manufactured creature (generally constructs, but not undead), this attack deals 6d12 damage. In this case, android's Constructed the construct type is worse, and they'd suffer the damage.

Raise Dead is iffy. It targets living creatures that died, which androids count. It also says constructs can't be raised by the spell (page 371), so being a construct is worse for androids in this case and they can't be raised. However, Owen K. Stephens states in the forums that androids are a special case and that they can be raised like any other living creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moorningstaar wrote:
I'm afraid you are incorrect. You can ENTER a threatened area all day and never provoke an AOO. It is only upon LEAVING a threatened area AND taking more than a 5ft step that you provoke. So why reiterate when the rules only look for exiting? They don't care about moving within a threatened area from one square to another. Only exiting.

Threatened AREA and threatened SQUARE isn't the same thing.

I gotta reiterate the point that they're not the same thing constantly because it's not clicking with you.

Exiting one threatened square (provokes) AND entering another threatened square (doesn't provoke) EQUALS moving within a threatened area (which consists of threatened squares). So moving within a threatened area provokes because of exiting that first threatened square in the area.

I'm concluding you haven't read the Core Rulebook enough and your rules knowledge is unfortunately from mostly reading d20pfsrd.com (while a great reference resource, not ideal for learning to play the game in a holistic manner). I suspected as much from constant referencing to the Actions in Combat table that we all know about because anyone that's read the Combat chapter knows of it and the obstinate lack of understanding of move action does not equal movement in game terms.


Azten wrote:
Has anyone figured out a way to make Flurry of Blasts kind of decent? I can't really figure out what good a tiny amount of damage will do, even with the penalty it makes the target(s) take.

For flame, I'm still considering it for upping my chances with Unraveling Infusion. Ought to work well with Flash Infusion too.


Moorningstaar wrote:

No what you seem to be having trouble understanding is that there is no difference between moving out of a threatened area and within a threatened area. The game doesn't care or pay attention to this. All it looks at is whether you left an area. You insist on suggesting that this feat in effect says:

"You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or out of a threatened area. A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses."

You read both 'out of' and 'within' as the same. Why the two iterations then? Did they stutter? Did Porky Pig write it? Or is it even slightly possible in your mind that they were describing different qualifiers.
And yes those actions listed under move are ALL move actions.

Yes there is a functional difference to moving within and out of a threatened area. I'm just simply using the appropriate term "threatened squares" when I make my argument.

Threatened area consists of threatened squares. When one moves from one threatened square to another, they're moving within a threatened area. Leaving a threatened square, does not necessarily mean leaving a threatened area. If a medium size creature was adjacent to a huge creature with 15 foot reach, leaving one threatened square is not gonna get out of the threatened area.

So Mobility works like this:

You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of (when you leave all the threatened squares of enemy) or within (when you go from one threatened square to another threatened square) a threatened area. A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.

Yes both instances of leaving a threatened are and moving within it provoke. The feat simply mentions both cases. IF it only says moving out of a threatened area, then if one was to simply move from threatened square to threatened square, they'd still provoke but not benefit from Mobility. It would have been better if it was written as leaving a threatened square instead.


Moorningstaar wrote:

And as explained, REPEATEDLY, it already specifies movement out of a threatened area. It does not care if the movement is to another threatened square. AOOs could care less. You could move 600ft away from the threatened area and you'd still provoke an AOO. You could do laps around the threatening creature and you still provoke one AOO.

If someone leaves threatened area, they left all the threatened squares. We all know that.

If someone moves from one threatened square to another threatened square, THAT'S moving within a threatened area.

You're arguing that simply performing actions that are classified as move actions to be moving. It isn't. Mobility's use of "move out of or within an threatened area" is about movement from square to square, not using move actions while staying in one square.


Moorningstaar wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

Actually not all movement is a move action. A charge will provoke a AoO due to movement even though it is a full round (or standard partial), not a move action.

Its your game. If you want to pretend the mobility says "when you make a move action" go ahead. Nothing wrong with a house rule, and personally I think that feat would be better and more balanced with others if it was just +4 to any attack of opportunity, but the actual rules are the actual rules.

You are correct, also a charge specifies it doesn't provoke. Nor does a 5 foot step provoke. But I'm not worried about all move actions in the game. I don't think it works for every move action in the game. I only think it applies to the actions that provoke that are designated as move actions.

Charging ABSOLUTELY does provoke if someone's charge lane involves exiting threatened squares, either passing enemy's buddies or if target had reach weapon out.

No where in the charge rules does it says it's exempt from provoking AoOs normally.


Moorningstaar wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Moorningstaar wrote:
Guys moving IS a move action.
But a move action isn't moving for the purpose of Mobility activating.
Really? How do you figure considering it specifies movement WITHIN a threatened area? As I've already pointed out countless times above this can not be speaking to exiting a square as that is stated ahead of time.

A threatened area consists of all the threatened squares around you. Moving within a threatened area is simply moving from one threatened square to another threatened square. As explained. Repeatedly.


Moorningstaar wrote:

I never said all move actions provoke. I said they do AS PER THE TABLE I LINKED.

Guys moving IS a move action. It really doesn't matter how many people jump on one side or other. This isn't a vote. It's about what works. I find your arguments lacking a concrete proof. You admit you think the feat isn't worded well because it doesn't reflect the way you think it should work. I am simply reading it as written.

And I'm the GM for this campaign. This was about making sure it was Kosher for the players and their enemies as I don't want to cheat anyone.

Those move actions in the table specify they provoke, just like any other distracting act would, be it standard or full round. However, they don't count as movement for Mobility purposes. Mobility doesn't help AC for provoking an AoO when sheathing a weapon or standing up from prone.

It's not a vote, you're reading it wrong and you're adamantly refusing to listen to what others have to say when proof is presented. The only evidence and arguments you've presented basically comes down to: "They're move actions. One has to move to perform them. It's movement within a threatened area. I'm reading it right. All of you aren't."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I posted the original intention of the Mobility feat with the old Wizards of the Coast info. You're right Paizo hasn't errata'd/fixed/changed that, so Paizo is keeping the original intention: Mobility is for leaving threatened squares. Anything else at this point is you being insistent on your interpretation of rules which hasn't changed in 13 years.

Also you started this thread asking for everyone's thoughts but it's clear you were hoping for a ready agreement to your already-made interpretation of the matter, rather than what others had to say about the rules different to your interpretation.

If you're only going to accept assenting views or developers' response, should have done that in the first place so the usual "don't hold your breath" comments could be made since you weren't willing to accept anyone else's comments, quotes, or rule references.

EDIT: And I feel it's been earned again: <face palm> <face palm> <face palm>


Ryan Freire wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Moorningstaar wrote:
The Character's Dex at this point is 28 gaining him 10 AOOs as he already has Combat Reflexes. The question is whether one could take Combat Reflexes twice to gain him a max of 19 AOOs. I know it's hard to wrap one's head around but it is entirely possible for him to use all 10 of his AOOs in a round and need more

As I understand it, you can't take the same feat twice. There's also a bit about being unable to apply the same ability score mod to something twice, so even if you had Combat Reflexes twice, you wouldn't be adding 2x dex mod attacks per round and that isn't legal.

As for gaining additional AoOs per turn. There is a Barbarian Rage power and one of the Elf feats from ARG can each grant an additional AoO per turn which should stack with those from Combat reflexes. Might be other options out there.

And, yeah, I totally get that you can use lots of AoOs per turn. I tried a build like this once, but my regular party members are too overpowered offensively to make it work (nothing lasts more than a few turns, unless no one can damage it...).

God i forget where i read it but i think there was a ...fighter archetype? that let you use your STR for AOO's too but IIRC it was treated as combat reflexes so i dont know if itd apply

From Heroes of the High Court, the High Guardian archetype. Pretty good for a two level dip. It's Strength instead of Dexterity for Combat Reflexes and you get it as a bonus feat instead of regular level 2 feat.

1 to 50 of 2,257 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.