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).
GM Jeff wrote:
Well, if you enter one of the opponent's threatened squares (and we are talking about the ones that are on the higher level diagonal. You would enter them and make the attack.
Under standard charging rules, given a flat plane, you would then stop because you are in control over your own movement.
Since, you are jumping down, and the "down" part is essentially uncontrolled, the rules of physics would take over. You would enter the threatened square, make your attack and then essentially fall. If your opponent were tall enough, you could take damage, and incur a attack of opportunity by "moving vertically" through threatened squares.
Thus, doing a "jump-charge" from an adjacent square would, imo, provoke 2 attacks of opportunity, one from the upward vertical movement, and a second from the downward vertical movement.
GM Jeff wrote:
I gotta say that I would have to disagree with your conclusion of "And, from above, that's in one of the squares above your opponent 10 feet in the air."
Unless you are directly above your opponent and are dropping down onto his head, I don't see this description being accurate in most circumstances. In this circumstance, it wouldn't be a charge, but more of a bull rush, since impact with your opponent when falling on top of him would be nearly impossible to not occur. -- At least that is how I'd rule it.
In circumstances other than dropping directly from above, the nearest adjacent square is the opponent's threatened squares, and it would work just like a charge.
If I were to house rule this, I would say yes you can jump charge, but it would provoke an AoO if you started adjacent to him. Of course mobility would help as would some class abilities and other feats.
I agree. I don't see any reason to require a feat tax to accomplish something that a feat + skill check can also accomplish with a chance of failure.
I can see a feat tax to accomplish this without the chance of going prone, however.
Murder is not necessarily a good/evil act.
By definition, it is unlawful to murder (i.e. it is automatically a non-lawful act because a illegal killing is murder).
Killing, or taking of life is not necessarily evil depending on a multitude of factors...and typically depends on the results of said killing.
Killing of a demon lord: Evil? No. Lawful, depends on the laws, and very likely.
Killing of a devil: Evil? No. Lawful? Probably not.
Killing of a despotic genocidal king? Lawful: No. Good: very likely.
Killing of a rebellious peasant currently taking up arms against said despotic genocidal king: Lawful, yep, evil: yep.
Don't conflate lawful with good or evil. They are different concepts.
I'm envisioning the final fight between Po and Tai Lung here...
Given that the requirement to charge is 10' of movement and falling is, I suppose technically movement, I don't see a problem with what you are doing. I would say that the jump movement, if you are attempting to use it when in a threatened square would draw AoOs, however.
You are making the assumption that an unaware person (aka surprised), can suddenly be made aware of a person who he was not aware of when he was attacked.
While, as a GM, you may make that adjudication, I do not see this assumption as valid. It breaks the definition of unaware, which you are for the entire surprise round. Moreover, you are unaware, potentially, of multiple different attackers.
Arrows are not tracer rounds. They fly almost faster than you can see. From an unaware victim's perspective, you would literally see the arrow sticking out from your body before you have any clue as to where it came from.
Agreed that it will be around 5 or so. Which means our erstwhile sniper won't be doing something like this until they have some really awesome modifiers to stealth.
However, your bolded part applies only to melee attacks that are inside 5' range. "The only exception is..." is the applicable part..which means he knows only the general direction, which means it's not an auto-spot, and in the case of a non-auto-spot, it requires an action. For the same reason that a non-specialist can't snipe in the surprise round, a surprised individual can't use perception to find the archer automatically...because just as hiding immediately after a shot is a move action, so is using perception to try to find him. It comes down to initiative after the start of the normal combat round.
Hawkeye (from Dreamscarred Press - in their Psionics Unleashed book) gives +15 to precision damage at range. (With 10 ranks in perception it's 30'.
The Ninja Trick: Deadly Range (Ex): A ninja with this ninja trick increases the range at which she can deal sneak attack damage by
You are looking at 70' range precision damage right there. If you have 120' darkvision, and your opponent only has 60' or no darkvision at all. Well, that's sniper-town right there.
This right here is why I see it as necessary to separate being the victim being "aware" with being the sniper being "observed" (aka pinpointed).
Yep, there are plenty of 3PP feats (Hawkeye from Dreamscarred Press) + Rogue Tricks, + Sniper archetype abilities that allow increased range on precision attacks.
There are also goggles that allow for range precision attacks without regard for range.
This scenario isn't anywhere near to being unrealistic. The only time that we are talking about this occurring would be a un-archetyped rogue attempting sneak attacks without magical items.
Which, I do not think from a "realistic" perspective should be able to be accomplished. Especially since you are talking a distance of 10 yards.
Again, this is false. If the victim starts our the surprise round unaware, then he is unaware for the entire surprise round. You don't become omniscient of your surroundings just because you have an arrow suddenly appear in your chest. Sight is a limited resource, as you have major blind spots has a humanoid. Sound is limited, as bow shots are exceedingly quiet.
Personally, I would say that given the flat-footed mechanic is in place, I would say that it is a qualified substitute for "awareness" of you are sneak attacked at range.
If we are talking your standard rogue, then yes, I would say that you cannot "snipe" in the surprise round, at least without any sort of help.
However, not being stealthed and remaining unobserved are two separate things. Especially if you can stay out of their range of vision (such as at night against someone without darkvision/low-light vision).
David Haller wrote:
Absurd? I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion. The question that should be asked of Paizo is the fact that you cannot attack and then immediately stealth in the surprise round intended?
Sniping irl is a very exclusive skill set. Not everyone can do it successfully and are usually specially trained in the skill. This would mirror the requirement of having Bandit/Sniper archetypes have the skill available in the surprise round and not just anyone with the stealth skill.
You seem to be restating what I said earlier. Where do you see the disagreement?
That depends on whether the opponents know the rogues "general location" or can pinpoint him.
If they know his general location, then yes, he can continue to sneak attack at range (i.e. he is effectively invisible for game play purposes -- if you look at it, invisibility is just *really good* stealth (+20 to +40 modifiers)).
However, if at any point they *pinpoint* his location his condition becomes "observed" and he won't be able to restealth until he can do something to turn their attention from him (bluff) or move to a position where they can't naturally see him.
If you stealth with concealment and your opponents see you anyway, you don't have concealment anymore. ( You may qualify as concealed for miss chance purposes, but not for observational purposes).
The question is not whether the guy who got shot can do something in between getting shot and the sniper taking additional actions. The question is when the perception/stealth contest is resolved. And what happens as a consequence of the resolution.
If the rogue trying to snipe fails in the post-attack stealth check, then the victim has now pinpointed his location and the rogue will now have to take that into consideration when making his next action. If the check succeeds, he can't move (excepting special conditions), and when the victim gets to finally act, the victim will have to take into consideration that he has no flippin' clue where the guy who just shot him is.
Sniping, in essence, ensures that the victim doesn't automatically pinpoint the rogue's location once shot, flatfooted or not.
In our sniping scenario, if the victim is unaware of our sniper, then he is equivalent to being invisible.
The following would apply:
This is an inaccurate description of what is happening. I see it as the following:
A victim is not automatically aware of his attackers in the surprise round after being attacked with a ranged weapon If he starts the surprise round unaware, he gets no actions, and deliberate usage of the perception skill is a move action. The only immediately observable stimulus in the case of a bow-using sniper is the arrow sticking out of the victim's chest. Since the victim was surprised/unaware, he obviously did not see where the arrow was coming from and would not be able to automatically see the attacker's location.
Sniping allows the rogue to not have to break concealment/cover in the process of taking his actions. If you are talking non-total concealment and non-total cover, when you move, your victim is now aware of your presence and to take actions based on that info. Sniping keeps the victim continually unaware of your exact location -- it works similar to invisibility -- the victim would then have to choose a square to attack and take the penalties that come with that lack of knowledge.
If you don't declare that you are "sniping" (i.e. attempting to immediately re-stealth after shooting), then it is presumed that you give up your stealthed condition.
What needs to be clarified, imo, is when exactly does an unaware opponent become aware of an attacker when transitioning between the surprise round and the normal combat round.
A Bandit/Sniper rogue has a small advantage during the surprise round against an unaware opponent, since they can make the "immediate stealth check" in the surprise round itself, instead of having to wait until his initiative in the normal combat round, providing them with more options once the normal combat round begins.
I partially disagree.
A victim is not automatically aware of his attackers in the surprise round after being attacked (he is still flat-footed, and thus susceptible to further sneak attacks). If he starts the surprise round unaware, he gets no actions, and deliberate usage of the perception skill is a move action. The only immediately observable stimulus in the case of a bow-using sniper is the arrow sticking out of the victim's chest. Since the victim is surprised/unaware, he obviously did not see where the arrow was coming from and would not be able to automatically see the attacker's location.
If the rogue has cover/concealment (which is what is required in order to "immediately re-stealth"), then by definition, he is not obviously observable. Searching for a non-obviously observable stimulus (i.e. the rogue that just shot you) is a move action, which they don't get until the start of the normal combat round.
The way I read it, in order to snipe, you have to have concealment/cover because it requires stealth. Sniping doesn't automatically remove that cover/concealment condition, just heavily modifies it for your next check once you attack. Since you are covered/concealed, someone looking for you would have to do so deliberately thus requiring a move action on their part since it is taking a certain amount of their attention that they cannot devote to other things.
Sneak attacking with a ranged weapon against surprised foe is not "sniping". In order to qualify as sniping, you would have to be hidden prior to the act of shooting your victim.
IMO, any perception check that is modified to be more difficult than 0 would require a move action vs being reactive (although common sense exceptions exist). Basically, you would have to do the "Shhh!! I 'm trying to listen" in order to make any check with a modifier above 0.
Hmm.. I see what you are saying.
It seems the only way to snipe in the surprise round would be to already be stealthed, shoot and then hope to have a high enough initiative to be able to re-stealth as a move action before the initiative of your victim comes up.
I think the question comes down to the transition between surprise round and the normal combat round. At what point does an unaware victim force the sniper to be "under observation" so that they can no longer stealth without having Hide in Plain Sight.
A RAI to RAW correction would be simple enough to change the first attack of a surprise round to be a AoO (and thus not even an action), allowing the sniper to re-stealth in the surprise round vs at the start of the normal combat round.
Although upon pondering *intent*, it may be that Paizo didn't want sniping to be something that just anyone can do. Even rogues.
You don't have to roll initiative to use stealth. You can use the stealth skill at any time pre-combat.
Scenario: You make camp for the night and you are on watch. Use stealth (w/ camoflage) to put yourself in the most advantageous position.
Enemies approach. You and the GM should be making perception rolls to determine who is aware of whom.
If you spot them and if you are already in stealth mode or you stealth upon spotting them (no attack and thus no initiative).
The perception rolls determine who is aware of you and who you are aware of. At this point, initiative is rolled, and since there are unaware combatants on one side or both, a surprise round happens. Initiative determines who gets to act first.
With the sniping rules under stealth, you get a sneak attack and then can immediately (FREE ACTION) attempt to re-stealth to remain hidden and thus be able to start the normal combat round stealthed for additional sneak attack love.
Note that it is entirely possible that you were unaware of 1 or more of the enemy and you could also be sniped on that the enemies turn in the surprise round.
Awareness of the enemy is not a group on group thing, if surprise is to be run properly.
Have the +1 Con come weekly (and make the rogue happy) and have it come from the primary ability scores of his companions.
My only question at something like this happening (and I've been playing since the early 80's -- and had many characters die for even more trivial reasons), is why would a BBEG who is supposed to be "E" actually trust one of his minions with firepower of that magnitude. It could quite easily be turned on him.
Sidious never trusted Vader with that kind of power, for obvious reasons. No BBEG I would ever play (as my character) would trust a minion unless he was fully dominated and once that happened, spellcasting or magic item use is pretty much out of the question.
Roleplaying-wise, there would have to be some major justification in play.
At one time prior to 3rd Ed there was a Dragon Magazine that redefined the classic alignments in terms of a hierarchy of loyalties and superstitions. Can't remember the specific volume number, but it was in the 170's or so.
Lawful Good had a loyalty system with the individual at the bottom, and Chaotic Evil had a loyalty system with the individual at the top coupled with superstitions.