|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I thought there was an errata that slashed the price of the Amulet of Mighty Fists?
It used to be more than what a TWF would invest into weapons, which considering how many natural weapons you can get was not a huge deal (I think it was something like 2.5x's the cost of a single magical weapon roughly). But as an AoMF was considered a "must have" for classes like monks (who were already considered underpowered) and the majority of natural weapons builds tend to fall off towards the mid/end levels, they brought it down to what a TWF would have to pay a few years back.
Unless you are talking about something more recent, which would surprise me.
If we are talking min maxed NPCs yeah, sure. But the "typical" NPC who is a background item isn't going to be that.
But hey, if you think using a high level protection should automatically make you a target, all the more power to your broken game.
If you compare how much any magic item costs vs the general population (NPC labor costs) the vast majority of people in Golarion aren't running around with any magic items.
Things like Protection from Evil (preferably in Aura form or as an enlarged magical circle, in your case)?
Prot Evil wrote:
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person). This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target. This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.
Also Sessile Spirit spell. Antimagic field in a pinch too. Sure it blocks the forbiddance, but it blocks all the magical ways in too, as well as preventing ongoing effects from functioning. So safe on that front. Better yet, make a magic circle vs evil focused in, cast AMF to disable the possession, communicate with the elementals what is happening to them (possessing spirit shouldn't be able to see/hear anything due to the AMF theoretically, it is surpressed). Ask them to follow the person with the AMF over to the circle and to stand there while you attempt to release them from the possession. Have the AMF person walk out of the circle and have the possessing spirits end up trapped inside the magic circle. Just make sure the circle is in the corner so you can tell them they needed a "time out."
My connection is crapping out so I can't look for more, but those are probably the most easily accessible/effective.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
A heavy blade is still not always a sword, when categorizing things to simplify and speed up game play, items will get put into categories that best fit, instead of making new categories for every item that doesn't fit perfectly.
Being in the heavy blades category doesn't automatically make the item a sword, nor does it mean it has a sword scabbard. A sword scabbard is a pretty particular "object" and not all swords have sword scabbards on top of that (case in point that sword with all the protrusions off of it or the monk sword with the rings through the blade etc). If not all swords have scabbards how are you "logic'ing" that non-swords have sword scabbards?
Not judging, but for better or worse, this is at best a try at twisting the rules to do something they aren't meant to "because similarities". Just to reiterate that isn't an accusation, but this is exactly the type of behaviour/thought proccess that any GM who has had a problematic player in the past will raise an eye brow and wonder what you are trying to pull.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
Source: Animal Archive
One of the surest ways to complicate the relationship between an adventurer and her animal companion is to cast awaken on the beast. The moment the spell takes effect, an animal companion ceases to be a class feature, and instead becomes a person—an NPC whose Intelligence has increased by 3d6 (potentially making it as smart as or smarter than the caster), and who has an increased Charisma score and knows at least one spoken language.
An adventurer considering awakening his animal companion should keep in mind the awaken spell's potential drawbacks. Most pointedly, awakened animals can no longer serve as companions, and the character must follow the rules for Leadership if he wishes to take the animal as an official cohort. Further, an intelligent animal can be difficult to manage. After awakening, animals are predisposed to be friendly toward whoever cast the spell— in this case, presumably their masters. Yet if an animal was mistreated during its time as a companion, or is treated poorly after its awakening, that friendliness is mixed with a sense of confusion that can last anywhere from a few moments to a few hours as the animal reconciles the abuse with the great gift it's been given. Since awaken is not a charm or mind-control spell, there's nothing to prevent awakened animals from resenting mistreatment in the same way a normal person of their intelligence level would, and they're no more inclined to be automatically servile than anyone else. More than one careless druid has found her awakened animal companion refusing to follow instructions, leaving to pursue its own goals, or even seeking vengeance for its former “enslavement.”
The Black Bard wrote:
This is usually covered by templates in game.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
You do if you want to "control" it like an animal companion. That line effectively says "new NPC is friendly to you, it will help like a charmed NPC" which is a completely different situation, opposed to a loyal and always around animal companion/follower from Leadership. Basically it is around and the GM runs it, not you and there is no "staying power" to said creature, it isn't going to be or meant to be around indefinitely.
Or are you suggesting that one spell renders a rather powerful feat redundant and useless?
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
It actually says "sword scabbard" not polearm, covering or anything else, just to point that out.
The two requirements being a sword scabbard and being part of the heavy blades group, that would (at least to me) mean that it wouldn't work with a scythe. It doesn't meet both prerequisites, at least as far as the rules go. If you want to houserule/homebrew things, obviously do as you like, but you should at least be aware of the actual rules preventing it as far as what we have in the write up (this being discussed in the Rules Forum).
Driver 325 yards wrote:
It is still a distinct weapon and because the game is an exception based rule set, you need a specific rule allowing you to "stack" them. Something to the effect of "abilities that alter your unarmed strike also apply to the gauntlet" would be required for the AoMF to be viable. There has never been anything like that introduced for the base weapon in all the years the game has been out.
You are either using your actual unarmed strike which allows for the AoMF to work or the gauntlet which functions like, but isn't exactly the same as, an unarmed strike. They are two separate and distinct instances of statistics.
Basically what a gauntlet does is say "when using this weapon, copy the table's unarmed strike entry and make the damage lethal." That is completely different from "this is interchangeable for all instances of unarmed strike" which is what you are attempting to use it as to get the AoMF to work.
It is either the +1 gauntlet or the AoMF, not both.
I've only done it once intentionally too. More because the psionic and the psicrystal were bickering and got tired of it and wanted to make it stop. When questioned by the party about it (I think we were having lunch at one of the character's houses trying to decide on our next move) "It's me, if our positions were switched it would have done the same thing, and I'd understand why too." It also helps the character is an Elan lol.
These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch.
Benefit: Brass knuckles allow you to deal lethal damage.
Drawback: You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting).
Note: Monks are proficient with brass knuckles.
They now have a stat block, so you no longer "get to use" the unarmed strike.
If the club didn't hit, would the fire still burn the creature?
As the answer to this mechanically is "No" the fire isn't the attack, it is the rider effect.
The club being the "attack" limits where the bonus is applied.
However, this doesn't keep you from using another weapon (such as that flask of alchemist fire) which would get the added bonus in the most beneficial way (all fire damage). And this is where "system mastery" (aka knowing the in's and out's of the rules and how they work) comes into play. "Knowing the right tool for the job" and all that jazz.
Slightly off topic:
If you want something to happen, find the rule or mechanic that specifically allows that to happen (or you character to do that thing). Sometimes that leads to "homework" as you go look through the books or PRD for the best fit sadly :(
Incorporeal (Ex) [/i]An incorporeal creature has no physical body[/i]. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.
I'm with DM Blake, no body to get into. The above and that it takes the time to point out incorporeal and non native outsider's bodies are their souls means even if you cast the spell, when you do you imprison their soul (and thus the body) inside you. Which means what you were going to occupy is now gone when the spell is successful.
Basically they are valid targets for the spell, but it will fizzle if you cast it on them.
Alignment check, not loss of class abilities, for sure. It isn't a "nice" thing to do, and if it becomes common practice should have ramifications, but as pointed out above nature isn't particularly nice either. Survival of the most fit, etc.
Unless there was an over abundance of those animals in the area (aka deer hunting season) in which case, everything would be on the up and up.
Unfortunately, the rules don't always make logical choices or follow "rational" thinking. It isn't the first time a rule "doesn't make sense" to someone. Nor will it be the last time people throw their hands up in the air screaming "science doesn't work that way!!" in regards to how the mechanics function, I'm sure.
They make approximations and make the game world a semblance of the real world. And by no means does that mean parallels should be drawn. Because the closer you look at it, the more it falls apart.
If they meant blind, they had an in game mechanic, fully fleshed out and described. They didn't use it. Word choices mean something. If they meant blind, they would have stated blind. There is absolutely no reason for them to have not done so. Instead they used a term that has context beyond the most simplified description that happens to be shared with another term (which they knowingly didn't use) as well. It amazes me that in a game where there are so many "similar to, but not the same" mechanics people argue over it when it comes up. Just because something is functionally the same, doesn't mean they are interchangeable in this game.
Goth Guru wrote:
The GM can always ban any spells that make their brain hurt.
PFS doesn't allow GMs to be that lazy... No banning of spells because you don't want to think.
And if a GM actually said they were banning a first level spell "because it made their head hurt...(or for any reason really)" I would genuinely politey excuse myself and leave the game. There is no possible way it will be a fun and enjoyable game, sorry.
Because the rules don't parse that finely to keep the book keeping down and save time.
I guess the best way to explain it is, some attacks have "rider" effects. Rider effects don't benefit from the additional damage. The are just something extra tagged onto the attack when it occurs. This also prevents the damage from being applied twice (once for the attack, once with the rider), to prevent double or triple (or more) "dipping" making the ability more powerful than it is intended to be.
The club hits, it gets the bonus damage. The additional fire is a "rider" the damage doesn't apply as from that point on it is basically an environmental effect, having nothing to do with to the character.
The damage from the torch is the damage from the "weapon" and is the only damage that will be done with that attack so it isn't a "rider" effect, it is the attack. That is why it gets the bonus on the initial hit.
I'm just going to disagree that scientific discussions have anything at all to do with rules in pathfinder, unless we are talking logic for the statements. Adding science into the equation seriously just convolutes the issue beyond measure.
Unless making a complete mess of things is the point.
We are parsing rules that have a semblance of what happens in real life, not enforcing real world standards on the mechanics like would happen in a simulationist game rule set. Science pretty much means nothing beyond what the rules tell us is important in this respect. At least for this game system.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
As opposed to the players metagaming their way through the game?
Not saying you are wrong, but there are A LOT of assumptions and outside knowledge a player would have to have to get to the point where you are taking things.
Besides, the OP was setting up a situation to understand the spell, it doesn't seem like it was a real situation. A therotical "how does this work"? Not a "how do I screw the rogue over"?
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Only if the other 3 (assuming typical party size the game accounts for) are incapable of dealing with the encounter (which is pretty much never the case, the game is stacked in the players favor).
You might feel useless, but you are far from dead.
If you are sticking with the OGL everyone reading will have access to the PRD. And given the ability to insert hyperlinks into documents you would be better served doing that. No need for book names.
How about this. If they meant blind, why didn't they use that term?
It is a game mechanic. It is in the glossary (and has been through 3.x).
They didn't use it though now did they?
They used sightless, which has connotation beyond "effectively blind" and has definitions (which I pulled from a Google search) that show context and meaning beyond the "simple" blind you keep pointing to. It want just one, but two and three of those "definitions" which emphasize a meaning beyond simply "effectively blind" to actually being unable or totally lacking the ability to see. Physical inability (lacking eyes or pathologically inability from disease) is what the several definitions I provided stated.
They didn't use blind or blinded, it being a mechanic that was easily available to reference in the same book, they used sightless. That should tell you something.
This is where knowledge checks come in.
If you have the appropriate skill you can make a check to identify these particular defenses or vulnerabilities. It is pretty much what they are there for and why certain types of creatures are part of the skills.
As for DR if you didn't make the check, we play it as "the attack didn't seem as effective", and that is even part and parcel to the ability explanation. But beyond that, we don't really get into the numbers, just if it worked. Reason being the randomness of the die. DR 5 fire, might as well be immunity against a d6 fire damage. So the attack either works (they roll a 6) or it doesn't, and that is all that is said. How are the characters supposed to know if the extra damage is effective or not (besides meta gaming by watching the roll)?
Concealment would only matter for targeting... Unless you are stating that if someone is in a darkness effect and another person outside cast a fireball into the effect, it would miss everyone inside because of total concealment.
If you are in the cone, barring other stipulations, you will take the effect of the color spray.
Except in the places where those are legitimate ways to avoid the effects and are explained. In such cases they actually give bonuses or explicit effects when such is done.
This isn't one of those. It doesn't say you can close your eyes and be immune or have a bonus to resist.
It states sightless creatures, creature who have no sight at all, are immune.
Being able to see isn't sightless, no matter how you shake it. You have sight, you are just unable to make anything of it.
Being effectively blind isn't the same as sightless.
Doomed Hero wrote:
No, any creature who was not "sightless" in the area of effect would be hit by the spell. The flavor text mention light etc, the mechanics however are mind effects and no mention of darkness or such blocking the effect. Mechanics trump flavor text.
They don't give an option for closing your eyes to avoid the effect (unlike another spell or ability I've read before so the precedent is there). And the spell makes no mention of being blind as a defense (which is what darkness is doing), but stipulates sightless.
Agreed, being sightless is a distinctly different situation then being unable to see light due to darkness. Having the capability temporarily suppressed versus the inability. In some situations the end result may be similar mechanically, but that doesn't mean the starting point or even the path to the end result are the same.
A creature who is blind is sightless, a creature who closed its eyes is not. They might both be "blind" at that moment, but one is definitely not sightless.
Also the quote above mentions being in the area of effect of the spell, so it stands that regardless of the darkness, if you are in the effect it would work on you.
Also notable, they didn't actually say blind creatures were immune, but sightless. This means you are unable to close your eyes (or other ways to impose the status) and blind yourself to avoid the effect. Which is effectively what darkness is doing.
Or in this case they couldn't, as nothing allows them the ability to do so.
Which makes "extrapolating" a non issue. Because there isn't a reason to do it. It isn't allowed regardless.
That isn't to say there isn't an ability out there that could allow it. But we aren't talking about that ability right now are we? Or if it exists, someone hasn't brought it up in all this time maybe?
We have a mechanic, that has reference words that match up with other real mechanics. And then we have people trying to show horn in other "stuff" because the wording matches up. Strictly speaking, I'm going to use the "mechanics" definition. Because it exists. It is simple and it is clean, and best of all it functions without issue.
The game uses a language, and some times the mechanics are going to cross with words, used in that language, it doesn't mean the "general" use of those words is what was referred to. When there is an actual mechanic, it becomes very unlikely that the "general use" had anything to do with it. Yet here we are debating that very situation.
We have a mechanic, refer to another mechanic and it functions. Why debate more or past that point?
James Risner wrote:
That just means the "near universe" was ignoring a particular section of the rules for one reason or another.
That doesn't mean they were right or running the game as stated in the rules.
Texas Snyper wrote:
My guess would be no since the spell didn't actually go off.
Unfortunately the other side of that is, I made an attack but missed. Does that mean I'm still invisible?
I'd have to think on this particular situation further, but just because it didn't occur doesn't mean the action shouldn't count as an attack. Intent is a very real part of the game (command word activation requires intent and action cost, instead of just saying the word as a free action).
im actually asking about the oracle's lunar ability form of the beast which acts as beast shape spells but for 1hr per level.
A mentioned in the post above, items that grant armor bonuses stop functioning. That portion is in the Polymorph section of magic schools so would be in effect for your Oracle ability as well. Also Wild armor wouldn't do anything for you because it not being actual Wildshape.
Confusion does remove the targets ability to act however. It is forced to do what the spell says (depending on the roll) unless it gets the "act normally" option.
Also confusion isn't mental control, you aren't controlling it, you just placed an effect on it. Something like Dominate or possibly Charm are where conflicting commands would come in.
As for the resolution, I think Confusion would still take precedent. Murderous Command makes the target try to attack it's ally, or at least move close to it. It basically makes the creature's decisions for the round.
Confusion is a conflicting effect and higher level spell (not that that really means much). It also has specific resolution for pretty much all scenarios. It actually removes the creatures decisions in just about all situations. It dictates what the creature will do unless it gets "act normally".
I personally think the second spell would be wasted unless it got the " act normally" option.
As long as it doesn't provide any sort of mechanical advantage, let them detail to hearts content (at least that is my personal view on fluffing things). If on a plane where magic doesn't work, it doesn't work (barring any exceptions, normally some sort of portal out of the plane etc.) no matter what reasoning they made up. Because that would be a mechanical advantage and not just fluff/flavor.
It is usually much more fun when the players are getting to make those choices about the characters, but you have to be wary of the type of players who will try to take advantage of the situation and try to reason benefits from the explanations they come up with. Just be upfront and tell them they can put any explanation they want as long as it follows the rules and guidelines already established. That way if anyone tries to pull the "well it should work this way because..." You have already nipped it in the bud. Allow them to be creative, not to bend or break the rules.
Usually it depends on the caster/archtype. Sometimes it is from "within" like a sorceror or repetition and intense focus like the wizard. Then it can also come from something more specific, like blood, or a link with other casters, or multitude of various other reasons like the numerous archtypes.
Why do you need to know/what purpose does nailing said workings down serve?
Virtual handedness could or could not be a reference. We know for a fact two handed (melee weapons) are a concrete game mechanic. Ergo, that is what we should be looking at when another game mechanic refers to "two handed weapon" opposed to "a weapon that takes two hands to use." The wording is distinctly different, and that means something. Bows having explicit rules allowing for something to happen doesn't mean you can "extrapolate" for every other rule that remotely relates to the subject.
That is bad logic. We don't "need" to extrapolate as the rules are already fairly obvious in regards to what they point to. And that doesn't include the category of ranged weapons. If it doesn't include them, there is no valid reason to "extrapolate" past that.
The only reason to "extrapolate" is to bend the rules beyond what they allow. You can make all the logical and reasonable arguments you want, but that still doesn't change the mechanics we actual do have nor the lack of need to push the rules beyond what they state they allow mechanically.
Only if you ignore the fact the game has split weapons into very distinct and comprehensive categories like simple/martial, one-handed, two-handed and ranged.
"Could be taken as..." is when you have to stop yourself from making assumptions or taking things for more than they are stated in the rules 99.9% of the time.
All two handed weapons need both hands to make use of, not all weapons that need both hands are mechanically "two handed" however.
The write up is irrelevant. The FAQ as well.
Characters have two "hands" of effort. This has been stated (and often complained about by some) ever since it was explained.
Due to these metaphorical hands, you are unable to take advantage of 2h and TWF/off hand fighting styles. This is intentional and meant to prevent mixing both styles, taking the best of both worlds and negate the drawbacks of each.