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

Skylancer4's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber. 2,879 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,879 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
thunderbeard wrote:

The ranger spell Instant Enemy reads:

Quote:
With this spell you designate the target as your favored enemy for the remainder of its duration. Select one of your favored enemy types. For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes.

With the kicker being "for all purposes." Does this mean that my ranger with a favored enemy: undead and an Amethyst Pyramid ioun stone can use Instant Enemy to become invisible to any one target?

Other possible abuses:
-With favored enemy (animal), use Animal Growth as a far more powerful substitute for Enlarge Person.
-Use Speak with Plants/Animals as a substitute for Tongues
-Use Charm Animal/Command Plants to be a backup bard
-Hold Animal
-Make an ooze vulnerable to critical hits by changing its type

Unless I am (quite possibly!) reading this wrong.

Read the spell block, it is an enchantment not a transmutation or such. Mechanically it fools your character into thinking the opponent is a favored enemy so you can use your abilities on it. The actual target suffers or changes in no way, unless it pertains to your characters abilities based off of favored enemy class ability.

If the target is an invalid target to the spell you cast, it fizzles as normal.

So to answer your question, no it isn't as broken as you figured it might be.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Mind you, none of this is for PFRPG but, Iron Kingdoms will always have a special place in my heart I believe. I truly loved the Witchfire trilogy adventure, it was a very entertaining read as the GM and a good run for the players. I actually bought twice, originally as pdf and then a print set. I never minded fire arms or the steam punk genre either so take that into consideration. It was a nice take on the mix of fantasy and steam punk, so the campaign is worth reading over to mine for ideas.

Chaositech is another 3pp from 3.5 that would be worth looking at if you were just looking for something strange and or new to toss at your players. Probably could be ported over with little fuss as it wasn't particularly over the top power wise from what I remember. If anything it might need to be tweaked up at this point.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Cevah wrote:

What happens if your Natural-1 exceeds the CMD by 10?

Your attack fails, yet is sufficient to cause the loss of two items.
RAW, the exceed by 10 does not require a successful attack (i.e. a 1).
RAI, I would say nat 1 = nothing happens except maybe drop your weapon.

/cevah

Mechanically a 1 isn't an attack, it would be a miss.

General English, yes you made an attack. Mechanically the roll makes the determination of what the proposed action is "resolved" as. 1 would be a miss, 20 would be a successful attack. The range of numbers between with modifiers compared to the defensive statistic with modifiers determines the outcome.

In other words the proposed action isn't determined until after the roll.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
LoneKnave wrote:
Question: is rhino charge an extraordinary ability? Or only class abilities get pegged like that?

It is a feat as mentioned by the OP and linked to a bit further down.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Nyaa wrote:
Speaking of which, why didn't Practiced Spellcaster make it into PF?

It did... As a trait. Look up Magical Knack.

@Why people don't play MT build often:
MT builds tend to require A LOT of book keeping. You need to be aware of twice as many spell lists that possibly grow with each book published. Having to dig through for each spell, or make copies of each spell you have access to just in case you might need it... Can get annoying. Sometimes convenience and laziness account for class choices.

Also probably less of an issue, having to pay for spells to get them into your spell book (or equivalent) can get costly. PrC classes don't automatically provide spells as you level for wizards and the like. Especially as a "toolbox" type of caster who want a wide range of spells, this could push expenditures up quite a bit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Weapon finesse isn't something you take for specific weapon types. It works on unarmed strikes or touch attacks because they are listed as light weapons. Or are you talking about Weapon Focus?

A rod is a type of magic item, it isn't a light weapon (or any type of weapon) unless it is stated to work as such. Weapon finesse wouldn't help "normally" unless that qualification was made.

-----

The rod would not be able to be used to make an AoO. When an item ability or use has no stated action cost, the default is a standard action. This would prevent you using it to make multiple attacks or AoO's.

-----

Using a rod to deliver attacks as per its ability is completely different than using the rod as a weapon. Even the rods that state they can be used in such a way aren't actually weapons, they just can be used that way with specific abilities. As it isn't a real weapon it is just something that can be used like one, you would be unable to enhance it as such.

-----

I guess unless the rod states it is made out of a specific material or has a specific appearance it could be made out of a custom material. But as you said, it would make no difference. I would imagine most if not all of the weapon-like rods have specific details of what it is made out of, that prevents you from making them out of other materials. This one states what it looks like so as a GM I wouldn't have to say anything else would be a house rule.

-----

SR wouldn't come into play, cold resistance would come into play.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Zwordsman wrote:

I've had one before.

there ended up being a mage who uses magic weapon spell when it's noticed on various people. Doesn't mess with the wealth either.
wand of magic missle that "happens" to be nearly empty when they die. it makes life a little scarier. granted you can hide underground awfullly easy.

Hrm.. I can't remember but is channeling blocked by substances? otherwise it might be eating an enemy cleric's channel whlie underground

Line of effect would be blocked by walls/floors.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
pickin_grinnin wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
pickin_grinnin wrote:
Make sure that at least one party member has the capability to heal the other players. Trust me on that one.
That should go for every group, and without saying should it not?
Yes, but doubly so for this one.

I think the point of pickin's comment, and certainly my view, is that it is really easy to get the ability to heal with a good aligned divine class. They pretty much all have it, even if they don't want it.

But, when you go dark side, it becomes a chore that you have to plan for. And even then, you can never match the healing power of goodies....unless your party is all undead.

We've had multiple successful parties that relied on wands of CLW for the first 3-5 levels before worrying about spells or anything else. In combat healing is superfluous assuming you are intelligent enough to avoid it being needed, aka don't so stupid stuff that might get you killed regularly.

Post those levels there were few if any problems getting healing as needed.

I guess my point is, being evil doesn't mean healing is more important than when in a good party. Alignment is irrelevant as even a "good" party can function without spontaneously casting cure spells or channeling energy.

Healing is good for any party, it being an evil party doesn't somehow make it and even better idea or more important. Channel positive energy without selective channeling is a liability in most cases (in combat). You have to maneuver to not HELP the opponent in such cases. Out of combat the "good guys" will definitely have a possible edge in healing. In combat if you are using cure spells, you are typically fighting a losing battle as those spell slots could be used in other more useful and effective ways. As often as not, letting your ally stay unconscious for 2 rounds while you use the spell to end the fight faster is a better choice than wasting the action and spell slot on the heal and possibly provoking an AoO from casting. End the fight faster and heal out of combat using items that are cheap and renewable.

It isn't about alignment, it is about playing smart and catering to the group make up, using tactics.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
TheTheos wrote:

AFAIK it is legal, though you would have to set more specific trigger.

Though I'm not sure what would happen if you set trigger "A does anything" and A charges you. Then you 2 would simultaneously charge each other - which is a bit strange.

Your readied action would happen before their charge, your charge would go through, possibly ruining their charge by blocking the direction they were planning on going.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

You'd have to consult the GM. Readied actions can be ridiculous to adjudicate at times. "Anyone attacks" could triggered by your allies attacking. Our personal game requires a more specific trigger to try and keep things more sane.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Actually there is a more recent thread where one of the revs has explained why it hasn't been FAQ'd. They are trying to decide what to do about the one or two instances that don't fit the existing tables and make a mess of a unified set. They are hoping to figure out the least impacting way to go forward with it if something does needed to be errata'd.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Malag wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Malag wrote:

Generally, you can't cast stealthy, but you could go behind a corner of a building a cast spell there hoping that nobody will hear or notice you. Distance Perception modifiers still apply in that sense.

Adam

The closest we have is sniping. Pretty much the only way to attack and maintain stealth in the core book. You start hidden, make an attack and can make a stealth check (-20?) after the attack to maintain stealth. Problem is putting the skill points into stealth for most casters. Invisibility will give a nice bonus but will fail as soon as you make an attack (which is where stealth fails as well, making an attack roll), so the stealth roll following to maintain being hidden will be rather rough.

It's not sniping. It's spell casting, so you can't attempt Stealth check, but casting a spell from 200 ft. distance would most likely incur some Perception check to notice spell caster.

There could be some Stealth check involved if the cast spell is Silent but this is more in domain of RAI, not RAW. I believe at least that reasonable GM might grant you a Stealth check under those conditions since there is little difference at that point between regular or spell based attack.

Adam

I didn't say it did work, I said the closest thing we have to hiding an attack was sniping in the CRB.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
carnal wrote:
Now i have a scenario that i might be in where i am a diminutive spider on a ceiling casting a spell against a single sleeping opponent. would i get any stealth spells from being so small and the target sleeping or would they just wake up.

They will get a perception role against you casting, sounds of combat with a penalty for sleeping would be my guess.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
WilliamInnocent wrote:
I didnt think of trying to work around the lycanthrope muzzle as a draconic muzzle.

One of the great things about "fluff" is that it is malleable. If your GM is willing to work with you, changing the "details" is hardly ever an issue as the mechanics aren't changing, so "balance" isn't being altered.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Shane LeRose wrote:

You can finesse unarmed strike

Touch attacks can be delivered via unarmed strike

When you melee spell touch someone it's with you unarmed limb.

No, this is not explicitly spelled out. It doesn't have to be.

You can finesse unarmed strikes, correct. Touch attacks aren't normal melee attacks however, they are attacks made with a held charge against a touch AC.

Held charges can be delivered via unarmed strikes, but you aren't making a touch attack at that point, you are making an unarmed strike vs full AC. Two different things.

It is apples and oranges, so yes it should be explicitly called out if it works that way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Malag wrote:

Generally, you can't cast stealthy, but you could go behind a corner of a building a cast spell there hoping that nobody will hear or notice you. Distance Perception modifiers still apply in that sense.

Adam

The closest we have is sniping. Pretty much the only way to attack and maintain stealth in the core book. You start hidden, make an attack and can make a stealth check (-20?) after the attack to maintain stealth. Problem is putting the skill points into stealth for most casters. Invisibility will give a nice bonus but will fail as soon as you make an attack (which is where stealth fails as well, making an attack roll), so the stealth roll following to maintain being hidden will be rather rough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Paulicus wrote:

There are some examples in PFS scenarios of using bluff to disguise spells casting as "singing and dancing," though as others have said it's not technically 'in the rules.'

Unless you're in PFS your GM can just make up a simple system for it though. Bluff, Sleight of Hand, maybe even disguise are skills that could be useful, depending on how you're trying to do it. Silent/still spell metamagic feats and eschew materials may also prove useful.

I think arcane tricksters get an ability to hide spellcasting a few times per day.

There's a feat called Spellsong that lets bards hide their spells with a perform check. Another feat called Secret Signs lets you hide the somatic components of a spell with sleight of hand.

edit- you could also simply turn invisible and use silent spell.

Casting an offensive spell is still an attack and would break the invisibility I believe.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:

Freedom of Movement states that it allows you to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell. You could make a case that, RAW, it temporarily cures the dead condition. Whether it works on difficult terrain, paralyzing poison, and so forth, has been debated for years in past without any conclusive arguments provided by either side.

The idea that it is effective against difficult terrain is quite common and not "on the far outskirts of what anyone would realistically rule".

Again, I will disagree given the wording of the spell. Normal is normal, as in the "normal" rules apply given no explicit exemptions or exceptions as we are dealing with an "exception based" rule system. If you can supply errata or FAQs in support of the spell countering difficult terrain that isn't altered magically, naturally occurring difficult terrain, or any number of other "normal" situations that would occur that aren't specifically stated to be otherwise altered in the spell that text I would be happy to discuss those.

Otherwise it is right up there with the rather ridiculous notion that walls are impediments to movement and so the spell allows you to bypass them. It doesn't take much in the way of imagination or intelligence to come up with tangential cases and link them together to justify what you think should happen. Those same links can be pushed to unreasonable lengths because we want something to work a certain way because of wording vagueness that might have been intended to NOT overly limit the spells effects.

As this is the rules forum I'd like to keep to what the spell says, not put things in the writers mouth or "read into" it too much. I'm not saying it is impossible, but I am definitely saying it takes some "creative thinking" and leaps of "logic" to get from the words on the page start, to where some of the suggestions we've just heard are.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Another common misunderstanding of this spell is that it is restricted to countering magical impediments. This is not the case:-

Quote:
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement

Two things to note:-

• the 'even' means that you can move (and attack) normally, not only when mundane conditions impede you, but even when magic impedes your movement!

• it prevents magical or non-magical conditions that 'impede movement', like....difficult terrain, for example

I'm just going to say, your views are on the far outskirts of what anyone would realistically rule at this point. Thanks for your input, but I disagree and believe you have a very flawed view of the rules.

If you have something concrete to back your stance on it, other than word play and loosely tossing random possibilities at a board to see what sticks, I'd be happy to continue a discussion. At this point you haven't provided errata or FAQs to back your rather "wild" claims in regards to the subject at hand. Especially given the lack of wording to the effect of what you are suggesting.

The spell states what it does, it doesn't state it does what you are saying it does however.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:

Difficult Terrain: Difficult terrain, such as heavy undergrowth, broken ground, or steep stairs, hampers movement. Each square of difficult terrain counts as 2 squares of movement. Each diagonal move into a difficult terrain square counts as 3 squares. You can't run or charge across difficult terrain.

If you occupy squares with different kinds of terrain, you can move only as fast as the most difficult terrain you occupy will allow.

Flying and incorporeal creatures are not hampered by difficult terrain.

Difficult terrain hampers movement. If your movement is not hampered, then it is not difficult terrain for you.

FoM means that your movement is not hampered.

Freedom of Movement wrote:
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell

'Normal movement' is one square costs 5-feet of your movement. Hampered movement is worse than that. FoM prevents your movement from being worse, therefore your movement is not hampered.

Charge wrote:
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles).
So if difficult terrain does not hamper your movement, then you can charge across it.

Umm, you are really really stretching it now. "Normal" movement through difficult terrain in is still normal. It isn't magically altered or adjusted beyond what is normal. Do you have some FAQ or post indicating it breaks the normal rules of movement in the way you are suggesting?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Davor wrote:
Greatclub is pretty generous, imo. I'd probably lean towards Heavy Mace or Light Mace, given the size of a chainsaw and the weight when swung in combat.

Great club is extremely generous. 1d8 is the outer/best case scenario if you are going to use it as an improvised weapon. It isn't shaped to swing heavy end at an opponent like a great club. It has all the heavy parts on the side you are holding to maneuver it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
You could move through a Solid Fog at your normal speed, but if it was cast over an area that was difficult terrain, you would still be unable to run through it.

FoM let's you move normally through difficult terrain (whether mundane or magical), so you certainly can run or charge through difficult terrain when affected by FoM.

What seems to surprise people is just how powerful this spell is. It's a 4th level spell, and has all the lower of a 4th level spell designed to prevent situational nerfs.

Unless there is some sort of errata or FAQ I haven't run across, you are completely incorrect in regards to difficult terrain.

Freedom of Movement wrote:


This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.

The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, grant water breathing.

There is absolutely no indication that it prevents mundane terrain from being "difficult" anywhere in the spell write up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Turner Bout wrote:

On the whole, I feel that I am going to house rule that any substance as viscous, or more viscous, as peanut butter is the limit for freedom of movement.

Icy Prison will fail because it is the act of entangling the individual that makes the target helpless.
If someone were to say - polymorph the air around the target into window putty, I would say that FOM would be worthless. A prevention of movement such as a barrier would be equally effective.

Icy prison only entangles on a failed save, otherwise you still have 'helpless' which is not 'paralyzed' even though 'paralyzed' makes you 'helpless'. That is why I would treat it like evasion, if you failed you are encased in ice, if you made it you are entangled which is something that FoM explicitly states it does protect against.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Yes, I know that. That was part of the basis of my argument.

Are you arguing intent or RAW? RAW the difference is we have specific exceptions written out.

Intent is.... well anyone's guess, we didn't write the rules nor do we know how any/all of them changed from 3.5 to PFRPG even though they might have been copy/pasted.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
The reasons for allowing the spell to trump FoM being, you are encapsulated in ice which is what keeps your movement from being normal. It isn't a spell effect blocking you movement, it is the physical ice that was created by the spell and is surrounding you or parts of your body which are hindering and continuing to damage you. If you have ice blocks encasing your limbs, you are unable to function normally or move freely. It isn't paralysis, or some magical effect that is hindering you, but actual physical limitations that the spell doesn't remove or prevent.

To play devil's advocate here, the same argument could be made about the massive mouth of a colossal creature who was trying to swallow you, except FoM does keep that from happening. What's the difference between "surrounded by physical ice" and "surrounded by physical flesh"?

The spell states the maneuver is failed in such a case? Swallowing requires a grapple check.

Obviously it is one of those "situation by situation" spells, but it specifically states combat maneuvers will fail. When it comes to spells, it is much less specific, protecting you from paralysis, slows, etc. Helpless by instantaneous ice block prison isn't the same as Hold Person. One is an ongoing magical effect limiting your movement, the other is a physical limitation from materials created by magic. The spell states the exceptions and what it allows, so when something would fall outside the exception list we would go to check what is "normal" to determine if it is allowed. FoM protects your "right" to move, but it doesn't alter it in anyway beyond what is stated. You could move through a Solid Fog at your normal speed, but if it was cast over an area that was difficult terrain, you would still be unable to run through it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Turner Bout wrote:
Most likely you are correct. The question is, how far does freedom of movement stretch. Would it stop say - Icy Prison? Forcecage?

Force cage is a cage, not a movement limiting effect. Freedom of movement doesn't say you get to walk through walls or ignore things that would normally limit your movement. It just prevents effects that would slow or impede your movement when you normally could move.

Icy prison states you become helpless. That means you cannot move or take actions. Again, FoM doesn't protect you from being helpless, it just protects your movement from being impeded when normal actions would be allowed. I could see a GM ruling either way on this one though.

Personally, as you normally cannot move when entrapped in an ice block, I'd rule FoM doesn't work if you fail the save. If you made it, FoM would kick in.

The reasons for allowing the spell to trump FoM being, you are encapsulated in ice which is what keeps your movement from being normal. It isn't a spell effect blocking your movement, it is the physical ice that was created by the spell and is surrounding you or parts of your body which are hindering and continuing to damage you. If you have ice blocks encasing your limbs, you are unable to function normally or move freely. It isn't paralysis, or some magical effect that is hindering you, but actual physical limitations that the spell doesn't remove or prevent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
John McDruid wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
Although bob bob bob is being snarky, he is 100% correct. If you want to use the chainsaw as per the book stats, you need to consume a charge per hour. If you are not, you cannot use the chainsaw as written at all. However, you can use anything as an improvised weapon, given the DM agrees and you take the -4 penalty (and do only the d6-d8 or so damage a large improvised weapon would do). Thus, this is your only option when the chainsaw is 'off'.
How did you come up with 1d6-1d8?

Improvised Weapons

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
pickin_grinnin wrote:
Make sure that at least one party member has the capability to heal the other players. Trust me on that one.

That should go for every group, and without saying should it not?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Ughbash wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Well look at that, it is a stated exception for casting a spell. There is specific wording indicating you don't provoke. Clearly wording is there so it doesn't provoke. Clearly we have a FAQ indicating unless otherwise stated, an action performed as a differing action cost DOES provoke of it would normally.

If you can point to this FAQ I will agree. If not I believe the action type DOES make a difference.

The FAQ that has been linked and mentioned repeatedly that states that the free action ranged attack made as part of casting a spell still provokes an attack of opportunity as normal?

Ranged attacks provoke attacks of opportunity normally. Ranged attacks made as free actions provoke attacks of opportunity still, per the FAQ. The precedent has been set that alterations of action cost does not alter the susceptibility to AoOs for performing the action.

Feel free to read this thread, and click the link to read the FAQ yourself. There are at least 2 instances of the link above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Do a search for Oradin, it can be a very effective tank/healer combination. Probably more so than what you are looking at. Essentially using life links you "soak" up the party members damage every round and use swift action Lay on hands to heal yourself as needed, leaving your full actions/standard+movement actions free to do as you wish.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Agreed, this doesn't appear to be the standard 'move action' to pick up an item, since you can 'automatically' pick up the item even if you don't have a move action available.

As I've stated repeatedly, the action cost of the action is completely irrelevant. A ranged attack made as a standard action provokes, as does a ranged attack made as a free action after casting a spell. The FAQ states this in no uncertain terms.

Regardless of whether picking up or manipulating the disarmed weapon was done as a move action or free action or "automatically" the action itself is what causes the AoO. You do it, you provoke attacks unless an exemption was called for it. Disarm has no such exemptions or clauses.

And yet casting a quickened spell does not provoke an AoO while casting normally does. So clearly there are instances where changing the action used matter. Similarly, with the feat 'snap shot' you can make ranged attacks as AoOs without provoking.

The 'exemption' is the word 'automatically'. In fact, one could argue that you're not using any action at all, free, swift, or otherwise since disarm does not say 'you may use a free action to pick up', it says 'automatically' as in it just happens. If something happens 'automatically' instead of as the result of an 'action', then I don't see how you can argue that it provokes at all.

Well look at that, it is a stated exception for casting a spell. There is specific wording indicating you don't provoke. Clearly wording is there so it doesn't provoke. Clearly we have a FAQ indicating unless otherwise stated, an action performed as a differing action cost DOES provoke of it would normally.

Clearly you are grasping at things to make a point, but are unable to grab anything that is relevant or parallel to the rules in question.

Again. No such wording exists for the picking up of the weapon. There is nothing, anywhere, stating you don't provoke. That is what we need, rules wise, to say "look this doesn't provoke," actual wording to that effect.

It provokes because the rules state when you manipulate or pick something up, you provoke when threatened. Disarm says you "pick up" so we go look at what doing that action normally does, as there are no exemptions or exceptions stated. "Automatically" isn't a defined "exemption" by any means.

If you don't like it, hit FAQ. Maybe they will look it over and flesh it out for us.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Agreed, this doesn't appear to be the standard 'move action' to pick up an item, since you can 'automatically' pick up the item even if you don't have a move action available.

As I've stated repeatedly, the action cost of the action is completely irrelevant. A ranged attack made as a standard action provokes, as does a ranged attack made as a free action after casting a spell. The FAQ states this in no uncertain terms.

Regardless of whether picking up or manipulating the disarmed weapon was done as a move action or free action or "automatically" the action itself is what causes the AoO. You do it, you provoke attacks unless an exemption was called for it. Disarm has no such exemptions or clauses.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Well we are all entitled to our opinion. I'm of the opinion the words on the page mean what they say, "pick up" means the action it states. I'm not going to second guess the RAW when it is printed using specific language.

Feel free to FAQ as always, I don't see the need. We have a precedent for the the exact same situation and a FAQ indicating that it works that way as is the intention. You think it shouldn't work that way, that is fine. Show us some rules or FAQ to challenge what we already have instead of stating your opinion as fact. There really isn't much reason to go in circles at this point about it.

Quote:
If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
It also says "automatically". To me, that is the wording which creates the intent that the pick up is not the standard "pick up action" because it is automatic. The sentence would make just as much sense as, "If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may pick up the item dropped." The word automatically must mean something, otherwise it shouldn't be in the sentence. I believe that is because it doesn't provoke, due to the precedence from how disarm worked previously.

How it worked before? 3.5? Has absolutely no bearing on anything in PFRPG, at all, ever. Been through that many many times in previous threads since the beginning of PFRPG. It isn't a precedent at all, it doesn't apply and is completely and totally irrelevant. The only RAW precedent we have for PFRPG is casting spells and the freebie attack that it can provide. Even though the attack isn't the "standard action" one, it still provides an AoO from opponents who threaten.

This means two things, the action itself is what provokes, no matter what the action cost. Also, that the actions are still distinct entities, so both trigger AoO and are not covered under the "doesn't provoke multiple times" clause.

That is the only relevant precedent we have for PFRPG.

Incidentally, it isn't only the "pick up" of an item that triggers an AoO. It is also the "manipulation" of an item as per the FAQ. So unless you are arguing that changing the possession of the now disarmed weapon isn't "manipulating" the weapon in a threatened area, it would still be a AoO'able action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Combat Monster wrote:
Snorter wrote:

Sorry, but you do indeed provoke twice for casting a ranged touch spell while threatened; once for the casting, followed by another for the ranged attack with the spell.

See FAQ

Eh, it's official I guess, but still doesn't make sense. I could see it working that way if the caster held the spell and fired it off in a round after he cast it.

At any rate hopefully if I ever play a caster in a group that runs that way, the foe doesn't have combat reflexes.

Moving on, an attacker disarming while unarmed already prompts an AoO unless you have the Improved Disarm feat and the disarm attempt is done at a -4 penalty. It says that if you successfully disarm the foe, that you can automatically take the weapon. It seems the intent is that the attacker automatically snatches the weapon straight from the defender without excess issues, not that he stoops down to pick it up and prompt AoO's after the fact.

It's been "official" for almost two years now... And it sometimes surprises me how many people arguing rules questions aren't very well versed in what the rules actually are. Not to say we don't all make mistakes, but I would like to think that people are trying to be helpful instead of just argue what they think it should be in the Rules forum. This isn't an attack, I'm just trying to point out a good portion of this thread was unnecessary back and forth due to erroneous information.

No we don't know what the intent is, you would LIKE the intent to be that. None of us having this discussion helped hash out the rules when they implemented changes from 3.5. Intent is completely lost to any of us, what we do have are the written words in the rules book and FAQs on same type situations. You may not like the rules we have but that doesn't change what they say.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Ughbash wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

If the rules said you gained possession or pretty much anything besides "pick up" the weapon I'd see argument against the AoO. Picking up an item provokes if you are threatened.

Just because the act is part of another action doesn't remove the AoO for such an action unless specified. There is no exemption listed, it is an option. You don't have to do it, you can do it.

I agree clarification could be useful for what would happen if you were flying and this occurred. I don't see an argument on the AoO for picking up an item when threatened.

FAQ wrote:
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space.

The rule specificlaly says there is an Attack of Opportunity for a Move Action of picking up an item. You are not using a move action to pick up the item.

Now I CAN see how you would interpret it that any picking up of an item provokes an attack of opportunity regardless of the type of action, I just read the rules differently and do not agree with that interpretation.

Perhaps it is a candidate for a FAQ?

There is no "free action - ranged attack" on the table either. Yet when you make a ranged attack for free after casting a spell you still provoke. There is no exception stated, so you still provoke for the action whatever the action cost ends up being is what our precedent is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Combat Monster wrote:
Just tossing in that I'm in agreement with Tarantula here. Retrieving the weapon is part of the disarm and causing an additional AoO is just a GM being jerky.

Does provoking 2 AoO for casting a spell and making a ranged attack make me a jerky DM as well?

Cause well that is how the game works... So apparently everyone who runs PFS is a jerk, as well as anyone who rules the game as "intended"?

No, it doesn't, that is the rule.

Disarm previous did not use the magic words "pick up" and so no AoO was caused. They edited the ability to show that you are not forced to take the weapon, and instead have the option, and used those key words "pick up" in the new wording. Now you believe that was an intentional change to disarm to make picking up the weapon provoke an AoO. I think it was oversight that those words were the name of an action which provoked, and they would have used other words or exempted the pickup from provoking had they realized it.

Well we are all entitled to our opinion. I'm of the opinion the words on the page mean what they say, "pick up" means the action it states. I'm not going to second guess the RAW when it is printed using specific language.

Feel free to FAQ as always, I don't see the need. We have a precedent for the the exact same situation and a FAQ indicating that it works that way as is the intention. You think it shouldn't work that way, that is fine. Show us some rules or FAQ to challenge what we already have instead of stating your opinion as fact. There really isn't much reason to go in circles at this point about it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Combat Monster wrote:
Just tossing in that I'm in agreement with Tarantula here. Retrieving the weapon is part of the disarm and causing an additional AoO is just a GM being jerky.

Does provoking 2 AoO for casting a spell and making a ranged attack make me a jerky DM as well?

Cause well that is how the game works... So apparently everyone who runs PFS is a jerk, as well as anyone who rules the game as "intended"?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Quote:
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space.
Just to emphasize. That means, "not always". So there are times that picking up/manipulating does not provoke. Taking an item from someone as part of a disarm should be one of those.

Agreed that it doesn't mean always.

PFRPG is a rules exception based game. General rules countered or exceptions made via other rules. Exceptions are stated as such. The rules say you can make this "bonus" action in certain circumstances. They don't say you are exempt from the normal rules. Just like making a ranged attack while threaten as part of the casting of a spell doesn't make you exempt from the AoO for that action. The action of casting the spell provokes "normally" barring exceptions, the free action made as part of that casting to make the ranged attack provokes "normally" barring exceptions. Or are you saying that the disarm and free action is some how different even though there are no rules stating it is?

We have a precedent showing free actions provided by another action still provoke. This is the same situation; action, circumstance, bonus action. RAW, as no exception is made, you would provoke if threatened when "picking up" the weapon.

If you don't like it, house ruling otherwise is always an option obviously.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

If the rules said you gained possession or pretty much anything besides "pick up" the weapon I'd see argument against the AoO. Picking up an item provokes if you are threatened.

Just because the act is part of another action doesn't remove the AoO for such an action unless specified. There is no exemption listed, it is an option. You don't have to do it, you can do it.

I agree clarification could be useful for what would happen if you were flying and this occurred. I don't see an argument on the AoO for picking up an item when threatened.

FAQ wrote:
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

I would still enforce the AoO from picking up, as you are indeed "picking up an item" however it is happening.

The precedent being casting a spell and making a ranged attack. Both actions provoke attacks normally, despite the attack bring part of casting the spell.

I see that as overly penalizing of a bare-handed disarm. Why even bother then?

No more so than any other action that would provoke attacks. You are choosing to do something, you know the risks for doing it. Weigh the consequences vs reward, then decide on the course of action.

As has been mentioned up thread, if you just disarmed someone they probably have no weapon in hand. Unless they took improved unarmed strike they don't threaten and so are unable to make an AoO. Is grabbing the weapon and gaining possession of it worth the possibility of taking an attack? You still gain possession of the weapon regardless, the AoO doesn't keep you from getting it (unless the attack disables or prevents your further action).

If you are doing an unarmed disarm you have probably specialized in such attacks and have gear, feats, and appropriate bonuses to be successful. Taking an action to pick it up and deny the opponent of their probable main attack form? Is it worth taking the attack (which might no even be possible after the disarm)?

No matter who was picking up the weapon, the rules state you'd provoke. If you made an unarmed disarm you are allowed the extra free action of picking the weapon up as part of the combat maneuver. How is that an "over penalization" for disarming while bare handed? Seems to me like it is a bonus... Something above and beyond the norm, that you wouldn't be able to do normally. Not a penalty in any way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

The problem with running the PFRPG game in a Rift-esq type setting is... Well to be blunt. Rift wasn't balanced the same. There were classes that relied HEAVILY on gear on "keep up" with some of the OCC/RCC/PCC's. Right off the batt you're talking significant time trying to figure out what level you wanted to let the game start at depending on which character concept was the most powerful and then balancing out the rest of the characters. Then finding/creating level appropriate adventures to challenge them.

This is of course if you are trying to make a "true" version of Rift using PFRPG. If you are only talking setting, that is probably a bit easier but still a decent amount of work. Having a multiverse means having a very "open" sandbox type game. There are MANY ways a group can jump the tracks and completely derail your plans as a GM even innocently and unintentionally. That place you placed a rift and expected the PCs to go through... Well they never even got near it as something about that last D-bee they ran into peaked their interest and they trailer it back to where they came from. You'd have to create the organizations from scratch as well. Even just the "basic" setting will require some serious time investment or preplanning to cover your bases if you don't want to railroad the characters.

I know there was a d20 version of rift being put together at some point which you might be able to crib from, but I believe it was based on d20 modern rules, which aren't the same as PFRPG. So again, the easy way out, still requires some retooling of the rules/setting. Basically if you want to do it, you're going to have to put in some time to get it rolling.

That being said, I did love Rift and how open the game was. But many many people will tell you it was completely unbalanced, and unless you had a very good GM, that was pretty true. Some choices were just so significantly better that they could run the show and make other characters background sadly.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Iron Heart wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Iron Heart wrote:
Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to have standard starting wealth when starting wealth is expressed in dice. Perhaps it's meant to be average?
I'm 99% sure the average amount stated in the class write up is what you should use, but it should be noted organized play starts all characters off with the same amount regardless of class (150gp).
Starting wealth isn't in the class write-up. It's in a table at the start of the chapter, which lists dice amounts by class, and has an average column. Makes no mention of 'standard', so I assume it means average, but I still recommend the contest say 'average'.

My apologies for not being particular about what I said, when posting from my phone I tend to use the d20prd instead of opening every PDF I might have to reference, the amount is listed there on the class page as part of the write up.

Tomatoes vs tomatoes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I would still enforce the AoO from picking up, as you are indeed "picking up an item" however it is happening.

The precedent being casting a spell and making a ranged attack. Both actions provoke attacks normally, despite the attack bring part of casting the spell.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Thefuzzy1 wrote:
There are a couple of ways I see to resolve it one is to errata SR to be supernatural resistance applying to spells and psi equally. Another is to include the 3.x psi and magic are different side box that outlined the additional math needed if the DM wants that flavor of game. To add PR would mean every monster printed would need to be gone back over with a should this get PR question, then a huge errata made. I don't see the last one as very likely though.
Exactly. Every single iteration of psionics came around the end of a D&D edition, heralding the coming death of the ruleset. If we don't want psionics to herald the demise of Pathfinder, it needs to be done right and it needs to be perfectly balanced with other classes and spells. None of that "3.X psi and magic are different" option B.S... that just won't do.

This made me laugh out loud. Blaming the demise of rules editions on psionics is such an.... Well it amused me in its "ignorance is bliss" point of view.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Iron Heart wrote:
Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to have standard starting wealth when starting wealth is expressed in dice. Perhaps it's meant to be average?

I'm 99% sure the average amount stated in the class write up is what you should use, but it should be noted organized play starts all characters off with the same amount regardless of class (150gp).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

The more I think about it, a good portion of that fluff could probably be packaged into a nice little book. Similar to the PFRPG Companions. Mix in the characters with story/backgrounds tied to plot hooks with places of power and NPCs with ties to the various traditions. Depending on how involved it is, do it in 16-32 pages.

It would be a good avenue to publish more fluff/setting material with sprinklings of crunch to entice those of us interested in such things ;)

For a book like PoW:E, I'm shopping for more options, more classes, more maneuvers and feats. More of what I got from the original book, lots of crunch for the players to pour over and tweak their existing characters/concepts. The expectation (or at least from my perspective it is) of expanding on the rules we got from the first book.

That isn't to say your "fluff" isn't good (what I have read is good and enjoyable), but most of it isn't going to mesh with what is going on in a currently running homebrew/home game. Thus it doesn't have much marketing value in such a scenario. Giving a page of tradition background and a page of crunch for it, means I am probably going to have to rewrite or disregard a page of the book to fit it into the game we run. It isn't that it is "bad" it just isn't "useful" for my game. As the world has been in play since 2nd edition, it isn't very often something comes out and can be transplanted right out of a book fluff intact, into our games. Way more often, it gets tweaked and placed in an appropriate place that has preexisting background. I would imagine that would be the case in games that haven't been running as long as ours as well.

I mean I'm not going to lie, I'm going to buy the book one way or another. And any others for the PoW that come out "fluffy" or "crunchy", but I know that isn't necessarily an option for everyone. Just like I subscribe to the companions, adventure paths and modules. I've supported DSP for a long time, our group enjoyed ToB and we will enjoy PoW. I'm just the type of consumer who would prefer my crunch and my fluff in mostly separate books. It is kind of like when you had to haul around books, I would have my rule books all the time, and extras as needed. It is much easier to flip through a crunchy book (in PDF form using search as well) looking for what I need than to read through a book with them both interspersed when we need questions answered.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Actually DSP follows that trend as well in the Ultimate Psionics.

Not to say I don't like or appreciate a good character write up, just I buy most of my books for the crunch. If I need a NPC for something I write it up. And we tend to strip/alter the fluff for the homebrew world we run in. I'd much rather 6 pages of crunch vs 6 pages of characters back story, tactics, etc. Rules and such that expand options for the characters > stuff I can make up myself on the fly.

If you have that much "fluffy" stuff. Maybe do something similar to Psionics Unbodied? A book of characters to be used and tactics for them might help those new to the system learn it as well as get the creative juices flowing for future character concepts.

A little bit of fluff is good, it puts things into perspective. Too much is bad, so it is a balancing act. Unfortunately the "right" amount depends on the person.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Dafydd wrote:

Normally, my life oracle sets up his life link at the beginning of the day/adventure. You are level 1, so you only get 1 link though.

As long as you are within medium range and familiar with the target I believe you can make the link. If you are worried about hard cover, I will point out that the effect does not care if there is a whole city between you and the life link partner, as long as you are within medium range.

With clouded Vision, you can still hear, you can still make a link. I do not see a line of sight or line of effect restriction in the ability at all.

The ability may not require LoS or even LoE during its course but designating a target still requires that you can target it. If you target a creature at the beginning of your day, and it goes invisible that doesn't break the link as it was already in effect. If you tried to target an invisible creature your link would fail as you don't have a target to give the effect to (as it requires a creature to target not an area with a creature in it).

LoS and LoE can be tricky and cause some odd things to happen occasionally.

Long story short, you would still need to target he creature you want to give the effect to as pointed out above. If you cannot target it (either by being out of range of sight or complete cover) it isn't "valid" so the ability would "poof" with no effect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

You also don't seem too enthusiastic about Paizo's choices on this book, which has been stated already a few times, meant to be "psychic" ala SP abilities and following the typical spell slot that is already used in game. AKA magic.

You can view it as a missed opportunity, but the reality is a long time ago they was discussion about psionics and they kept quiet about it as they knew no matter what the answer was, it wasn't going to be well receipted by a good portion of the players. Psionics tends to have two very distinct camps, either pro or against. They decided they weren't going to implement a new rule set that would further complicate the game and DSP stepped up to take advantage of it.

What makes you think if they weren't going to do that, that they would complicate the game with an all new rule set for alternate psychic abilities and Psychic Resistance that doesn't mesh with the current in game Spell Resistance? But does mesh with the spell slots and SP abilities? It makes absolutely no sense to do so.

The reality is, what you want isn't going to happen no matter what you say or lobby with. Accept it and move on. I honestly don't even know why this discussion is still going on (not even trying to be a jerk about that).

Also, it is your loss if you don't want to use DSP's material. Ultimate Psionics rivals pretty much anything Paizo puts out in terms of quality and balance (if not MORE balanced in some cases). If the material fits the bill for what you are looking for, you should at least take a look at it. And seeing as it is free to do so at d20srd... Well no reason not to right?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Gwiber wrote:

Not everything is about balance. Or SHOULD be about Balance.

Sometimes the world is "sh*t" and bad stuff happens. Sometimes there are things you just can;t deal with under a normal circumstance.

Psychic power, ISN'T spell power. That's kinda the point.

You make it rare, and unique.

It needs to be different from Magic. Removing Spell Resistance from the equation goes a long way to doing that. Showing that it is, not, magic.

It is psychic.

Seconded that it is a bad idea to remove SR. This is still a game, and some choices should be better than others on some ways. Despite how YOU think about it, mechanically balance is a "thing" as they need to consider how it works in organized play and such.

Removing SR makes it vastly superior to spells. Not in a "sometimes you are unlucky way" but in a "every instance of this is better way" and that isn't good for the game as a whole. "Rare" is meaningless in a vacuum, in each setting this can be as rare or common as the setting makes it. That isn't a "mechanical" system limitation, like you are proposing. ANY "special" ability can be fluffed as "rare" or "unique" be it spells or psychic abilities or what have you. The mechanics don't make it "rare", your desire to see it that way in your game does. The mechanics still need to be balanced in regards to other existing abilities for when they aren't "rare" for other people's games who don't share your opinion on the subject.

Fluff or description of an ability makes it what it is. You could use two differing mechanics and call them both spells or psychic abilities. It doesn't matter as long as one isn't significantly better than the other so it is always "the" choice to make. The new mechanics are still "special powers" above and beyond normal physical damage such as smacking you over the head with a club. That is what "spell resistance" protects against, the supernatural, not the mundane (in the general sense not system mechanical). Whether it be spells or psychic ability, SR is the defense versus "caster" types as a whole.

The "fluff" makes it different than magic, it doesn't need this mechanical change to make that obvious distinction more obvious.

1 to 50 of 2,879 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.