You have my point down exactly. Since creature type (barring some corner cases of things that could at first glance be in multiple categories) is nearly obvious...but still not covered by the rules.
One doesn't need to be able to differentiate between a Demon, Devil, Daemon or Daemodand to tell it's an outsider.
That's an interesting observation - having the skill and being able to make the check pretty much ensures that they are able to narrow down which type it is.
So that would lead me to believe that creature type is far easier, logically, to identify than creature specifics.
Assuming that I know what mushrooms are, I still can't identify a morel from a toadstool.
This pretty much mimics real life for me. I know what a mushroom is, I can't identify the specifics of each unique plant.
So, because you don't know what the specific name of said mushroom means you can't tell its a fungus?
While identifying a creature will definitely lead to knowing the type, it would seem that being able to identify the creature type is not so difficult in some instances as knowing the identity of the creature itself.
My suggestion would be a DC of 10 with a -5 modifier for common creatures, adding a +5 for each rarity category above common.
See subject: The question is not to specifically identify the creature or what it is, but the creatures type, such as humanoid instead of goblin.
The Knowledge skill states that to Identify a monster's abilities and weaknesses is a DC of 10 + Monster CR with differences based on rarity.
But a creature type -- such as undead or native outsider as compared to lich or tiefling is a much more basic question.
Is that check made against the base CR of the creature (modified by rarity), or something else?
As of right now, the number of attacks that the Aberrant has is limited by the number of natural attack customizations he can take.
However, a certain amount of logic should be engaged so as to prevent a ridiculous amount of attacks to be done by a single character.
There is a certain amount of lost momentum if you make contact with something while jumping.
If you are wanting to combine with soulknife, I'd avoid the Aberrant archetype. Many of the weapon specific customizations are Aegis only, whereas if you are more into natural weapons, the aberrant is the way to go.
In basic terms, Aegis = weapons, Aberrant = Natural attacks.
You can't qualify for the Metaforge prestige class as an aberrant.
All of this wasn't really about making magic items -- I was assuming the 3.5 rule was in effect (bad assumption).
It was actually about how much free will a familiar, summoned creature or an eidolon has relative to the ability of it's master to compel it to act against it's own wishes (should they not intersect.
Thanks for all the input.
You can gain feats through things other than increasing your HD. There are examples of existing magical items that grant feats (mainly combat feats, but there is no rule excluding creating an item that grants an item creation feat).
So, not a moot question.
Diego: Thanks for the example.
That infers that the familiar *can* indeed get item crafting feats and can be tasked with doing those. Pretty definitive. So, even with the 3.5 rule in effect, they aren't considered charmed/compelled in any way.
It's a hypothetical.
Can a familiar betray, yes. can it disobey, yes.
Here's one for the developers: Can a familiar choose to not be a familiar?
Diego: Interesting. I didn't see a reference in the core rulebook regarding charmed creatures not able to be tasked with making magic items.
Ok, slight modification to the original hypothetical:
*IF* a familiar was able get the feats (perhaps through a magic item), and had the requisite skills, could they be tasked with magic item creation, or is the simple status of being a familiar that is magically bound to the spellcaster enough to prevent it's creation given the assumption that the 3.5 rule against using charmed/compelled creatures to create magic items is in effect.
This is not a moot question. The question isn't about whether they can or cannot make magic items -- it's whether, given the 3.5 rule, they have the requisite free will to do so.
The question is geared more towards whether the familiar can even make the item in the first place -- since you cannot compel a creature to create magic item for you through charm/domination. Hypothetically, if a familiar were able to get an item creation feat, could they make it -- or due to the fact that they are a familiar prevent them from doing so due to lack of free will?
The fact that there is more than one type of natural attack that is assigned to a limb:
Moreover, there are different types of natural attacks that a limb can perform (slam/claw) which the only real difference is the damage die and type.
A slam is a blunt attack using whichever limb assigned (arm) and a claw is a slashing/blunt attack using the arm as well.
Where does it specifically say that you can't have more than 1 natural attack per limb.
I know of the no natural attacks at the same time as you have a manufactured weapon rule, but I have yet to see anything specific about two natural attacks with the same limb: such as bite and gore on the head.
Has anyone actually looked up the definition of a deflection?
By both definitions, the deflection is considered to be a hit that has other than expected results...such as no damage or applying the hit to something other than the original target.
Understoodon the monsters vs. PCs. The question came up on a discussion on how to best balance out the eidolon if there was a conversion from summoned companion into a PC class.
Cost of evolutions, what evolutions to discard, etc. and whether claws on the legs/feet automatically grant additional attacks on a full attack without pounce.
Question for the community:
When it comes to a PC, is there any sort of logical limit to the number of natural attacks that can be used by the character? Provided that the character has whatever shapechanging power that allows them to grow limbs or to attach natural weapons to the end of existing limbs?
I'm not confused by anything. However, there is plenty of discussion on these boards vis-a-vis unarmed attacks and whether they are limb agnostic and how they interact with natural attacks, and manufactured weapons.
All statements to date are covering only the specifics of certain situations such as with magic fang, instead of issuing a general rule to apply.
So, given this, I figured that the community could has it out.
Given the vagueness of RAW when it comes to combinations of manufactured weapons, unarmed strikes and natural weapons, I'd like to see if we as a community could issue some rules to be used as RAW when it comes to characters that have the option of using multiple attack modes.
The number of attacks a character can make in a round cannot exceed:
* modified by feats such as Two-weapon fighting, or class features such as flurry of blows and their equivalents.
Example: Natural Attacks and Unarmed Strikes (improved or otherwise)
A character is wielding a greatsword and has two claws and a bite. The character has the option to replace either both claws or a single claw and a bite when making their attacks, should they so choose.
A Cave Druid/Monk has 1 or more iterative attacks using unarmed strikes and 1 or more natural attacks depending on the ooze type. Each natural attack using the ooze's natural attack type replaces a potential unarmed strike and vice versa. The number of attacks available is the greater of iterative attacks (based on BAB) or the number of natural attacks of the ooze type.
Mead Cailleath wrote:
Ah, sorry, my confusion then. Appreciate the explanation.
Loved your Way of the Wicked AP.
Supporting the next Kickstarter as well.
As a suggestion, since Druegar are involved, could you contact Jeremy Smith and see how you can integrate Psionics into the AP as a alternate power system?
Might be more than what you are looking for, but it would broaden the audience, so to speak.
If you have characters that are resistant to giving up their weapons while in town, have the town institute a "Carry Concealed" permit system
They just have to go through a maze of bureaucracy and pay for the services required to do magical background checks and alignment scans to ensure that the towns-persons are safe.
After that, provided they pass, they have to use peace-knots, and carry only "personal defense weapons" of certain types only, etc.
IMO, that would be an avenue of them going around the "give up your weapons with no guarantee of getting them back" type of situation you presented them with.
Personally, I think a better solution would have been for the spellcasters (the witch?) to create a helm of opposite alignment and get her to put it on instead of dominating her.
It makes her alignment more conforming to that of the party, and gives the player an opportunity to modify their character in game vs wrenching control.
See the "serene barbarian" archetype on d20pfsrd for something that could have happened.
I agree that this would be the case. It's common sense. What I believe you are missing is that this check is an opposed one. Their attention to the rear is not absolute, nor is their perception. If a rogue or monk has high enough stealth, they quite simply *can* sneak up on someone as that kind of attention requires actions to be performed (at least move actions). This impacts the number of actions that can be performed against the opponents that can be seen (full attacks are reduced to standard action type attacks).
Does this mean "observing" is an action that must be done by the enemy.
The short answer to this question is: Yes. Read thoroughly the Perception skill rules. In order to attempt to see someone that is stealthed (and by moving around the corner, the automatic observation rule is negated -- moreover, in dim light, which were the conditions outside the torchlight -- @ 70 feet, the spotting of the monk and rogue is not automatic), you have to roll a perception check. This is at the very least a move action. Since the enemy group would likely have missed this check, given a -4 (halflings) to -7 (humans) to their perception given the distance, then the rogue and monk would not have been observed. Once they are stealthed, in order to re-spot the rogue and monk, the enemy group would have to perform actions -- which limits their ability to fight the ones that they can see.
In order for the game to not completely nerf rogues or those who rely on stealth to be effective, you *have* to pay attention to the conditions under which combat takes place. Ignoring this in the place of simplicity is giving rogue characters a handicap that makes the use of smart tactics immaterial.
Pauper Princess wrote:
Let me first say that stealth rules in pathfinder really need a re-working to allow it in situations that are anywhere realistic.
But by RAW, this is how your scenario would go:
You leave combat and turn the corner. At that point, you are not observed and can use stealth.
If you come back around the corner and move to engage in melee, and there are no other conditions that have changed, assuming there are no other methods of maintaining cover/concealment, then the opponents would need to make perception checks depending on the current light conditions as they perceive them. There are a lot of modifiers that go into this check (distraction, distance, etc). You will likely lose stealth at this point.
Unlike the real world, from which your common sense is derived, this is at odds with the game rules. You are essentially trying to sneak up on an enemy when they are facing you. Pathfinder has no facing rules, and therefore they have a virtual 360 degree field of view.
Barring a way to get up into melee range from inside cover/concealment, you lose stealth when you attack, so unless your opponent is flanked at the time of attack, no sneak attacks.
Your DM was wrong in one thing. They still needed to use Perception -- it will be a ridiculously easy check for them, but they still need to do it.
No cover/concealment = no stealth barring certain abilities like "Hide in Plain sight".
The lack of facing rules really devalues stealth.
But mechanically, imposing a larger penalty will make everyone look at all of the races with Light Blindness/Sensitivity and go "F$~* that".
IMO, it would force the player to adapt to what the non-light blind see as common and reduce the commonality that is dark vision. As they seem to go hand-in-hand these days.
Conceptually, I have to say that for a Drow that has lived their entire life underground being blind for 6 seconds and then only having a -1 to hit and a -1 to perception checks doesn't really do it for me.
Has anyone developed rules that are a bit closer to snow blindness in effect?
I agreed. I reviewed that passage last night. The problem I have is that for one, the same text alludes to penalties that light sensitive/light blind characters have, but doesn't detail them. I presume it exists under the individual race description.
Secondly, it seems counter intuitive that a character who is labelled as light sensitive/light blind suffers one round of discomfort/penalty and they immediately adapt and everything is kosher after that.
How far can a light sensitive/light blind creature see during the day?
From under a shaded spot, etc.
Other than the initial daze/blindness effect when first encountering sunlight, are there any negative effects to vision or perception/spot distance?
I would play #2 like this:
Since the text says "can use", the player has the option of using his normal AC or touch AC instead of the check if it is somehow lower than his normal AC.
Personally, I think option #2 is closer to RAI.
(Alchemist Discovery-based NW are defined as not adding additional attacks. It does appear that these NW can be swapped into an attack that could have been made by other attacks, without causing the downgrade from Primary to Secondary for the other NW attacks made at the same time. This, too, is debated.)
Actually, it says that the Alchemist discovery doesn't grant an additional actions or attacks.
Tentacle (Ex): The alchemist gains a prehensile, arm-length tentacle on his body. The tentacle is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though he can use it to make a tentacle attack (1d4 damage for a Medium alchemist, 1d3 damage for a Small one) with the grab ability (see page 301 of the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary). The tentacle can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms can (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, the tentacle to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). Unlike an arm, the tentacle has no magic item slots.
So, by RAW, I would interpret this tentacle discovery as not even allowing a secondary natural attack should our clowns use their manufactured weapons (or even other natural attacks) in the same round, that the only time the tentacle can be used is if it is the only attack being used in any particular round.
The Tentacle Discovery seems to be an exception to the normal natural attack/manufactured weapons rules you are working to interpret (which is spot on).