Skylancer4's page

But does the limit on the number of rays only limit the number of enhanced attacks or the number of all attacks?

The fact that one can touch up to 6 willing targets with some spells does not have anything to do with ranged spellstrike.

Btw, if you want to mark this for FAQ (I did now since it seems there is at least some confusion with a few other people too), please mark the first post. My second post (which it seems some have marked) does not contain any questions...

The reference was pertinent because we already have something that allows a 'standard' action spell to be used in a full round action (of which a full attack is). Something already exists that allows you to extend such an action and modify its use, which is what Ranged Spellstrike does. The only reason I see to FAQ is your question in this post, how many/which type of attacks are you allowed. From what it says I would say the number of attacks is however many you get from the spell, but that isn't a given.

At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range.....

Spellstrike is actually based off the casting action of the spell and allows for the spell to be delivered via weapon. So the 11th level ability modifies that casting, in essence the casting of the spell and delivering of the multiple rays via weapon, is a full attack action. At that level using ranged spell strike gives you a choice, standard action (make one attack) or full attack action (make multiple attacks according to your BAB if your CL allows for them). The precedence for this can be found under the touch attack rules, you can cast a spell that allows for multiple targets (typically standard action; 1 touch) and modify that into a full round action to touch up to 6(?) allies.

I would run it like a full attack action, allow casting of the spell and 1 attack as a standard action. After this, if they decided to make another attack, it stretches it out to a full attack action.

No it would not.

1) No, natural attacks.

2) Sounds right.

I'm fairly sure it is the second choice as well. The feat is the source providing the 'extra' healing not the channeling itself. All it cares about is how many dice the channeling is providing. I would compare it to an ability that states the weapon dice damage is reduced by 50% when using the ability, that shouldn't reduce the extra damage from weapon group training or the like.

I think he should be in "Ultimate Combat" as a monk archtype.

--------------

This question being FAQ'd means there is a faq'd answer or that we question is awaiting to be faq'd?

It means people would like it to be further clarified by the design team.

I feel this thread may need to be changed / deleted to reflect the actual Design Team statement that provides that deflections are handled differently and the claim made in posts one and two do not reflect this clarification from the team.

It should be deleted, the poster posted the same thing in 2 other threads as well as creating this thread for whatever reason.

why dragonstyle blackblood? ya i was looking at imp grapple malignor. and possibly imp trip as well (thinking dire wolf here)

Extra damage on your first unarmed strike (or natural attack via FCT) and later another bonus on unarmed strikes from the dragon ferocity feat.

And the 'deflected' attack has been further explained in FAQ.

FAQ: Deflected Attacks

Dabbler wrote:

I find the best way to be in these threads is reasonable. Try to never get offended, never insult other posters no matter how obtuse or condescending they are being. If they make a good point, concede it.

[There is great satisfaction in handing a man a shovel and letting him get on with all the digging.

You can give me that concession anytime you want.

Can Dabbler have his/her shovel back?

RAW it would seem it is a hit but has been 'deflected' meaning it does no damage. Now we should open another thread in regards to non damaging attacks or status effects, reason being they are not damage and could still be ruled to take effect technically.

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz

Deflecting Attacks: Does an attack that is deflected count as a miss?

It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
For example, the Deflect Arrows feat says, "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." It doesn't say the attack is a miss or is treated as a miss--instead, you take no damage from the attack. Because it is not a miss, effects that would trigger on a miss (such as Efreeti Style or Snake Fang from Ultimate Combat) are not triggered.
Likewise, the Crane Wing feat (Ultimate Combat) uses similar language and does not say the deflected attack is a miss or treated as a miss.
Note that the Snatch Arrows feat counts as a deflected attack--you do not take damage if you choose to catch the weapons instead of just deflecting it, and catching the weapon does not mean the attack was a miss.

Thank you.

Wow, and here I thought it was a no brainer that these two worked together.

Quote:

Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It's the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you.

So, achieving a hit is dealing a solid, damaging blow. A miss is not explicitly defined. We know that a natural 1 is always a miss. Critical hits says this:

Quote:

Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a “threat,” meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.) If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.

The part I bolded seems to imply a certain dichotomy. A miss is anything that isn't a hit. I can't see how this wouldn't include deflection by Crane Wing or Deflect Arrows.

All your bold quote 'proves' is that when an attack roll (confirmation roll) fails to exceed the AC that attack is a miss. This has no bearing on the point at hand, an attack that has already hit being altered to do no damage.

Heh... Still hilarious...

Do you have any rules or examples to back up your statements?

Or are you just the peanut gallery and this is where you choosing to waste your time?

I find it hilarious that some people insist that a attack that didn't hit is not a miss....

Why not simply admit that you don't like the ability combination and would like to see it nerfed?

Every attack either hits or misses. There's nothing else. "deflecting the attack" is just what caused it to miss, instead of AC, Mirror Image or whatever.

But it's still a miss.

I find it hilarious people argue rules questions based on their opinion alone even when given multiple examples of hot things aren't that 'simple' or 'obvious.' I don't care about the combination, it gets used in our home games, but that is because we house rule it to. The words on the page of the books do not say missed, they say 'deflected' and the attack that hit 'deals no damage.'

But hey, the monk fanbois need something else to complain about, cry 'foul' and 'nerf' to, I get it.

Patently False. An attack can hit and be ineffective, there are numerous ways this can occur. Elemental attacks with resistances, physical attacks with DR, immunities, etc. The reasoning that an attack that deals no damage means it is a miss is just plain ridiculous. The mechanics of the game follow an 'order' sometimes there are exceptions. Just because this defensive ability negates the damage of a successful attack does not mean it becomes a miss. The words on the page don't say that, RAW makes no mention of 'miss' anywhere in connection to this ability.

We have hits that deal damage.
We have hits that don't deal damage.
We have misses.
We have misses that do deal damage.

It isn't binary, the rules have exceptions, Crane Wing makes a successful attack deal no damage. Hey look a hit that deals no damage, that isn't defined as a miss anywhere in its description. Maybe in your mind that is a miss, but the words on the page don't say it missed now do they? Mechanically it is an ineffective hit.

Why? Why would you rather FAQ 5 separate questions when getting a single one answered will answer all of it?

For my 2 cents, I think you're over thinking hit. Hit or miss is a bit of a binary thing. It doesn't matter how the miss is achieved, just that there is one. Either through poor aim or deflection or by hitting a shadow clone, you still missed the target.

But hey, who knows, I could be wrong. Hence the question: What is a miss?

If it were only 'hit' and 'miss' then it could have been binary. As 'deflected' was introduced in the CRB there is and always has been a third option. If the design team wanted to they could have just stated the 'attack misses' in the feat descriptions, instead they used the wording 'the attack deals no damage' not 'it misses.' Apparently the design team does care how it is achieved even though you don't.

As far as I'm concerned:

Weirdo wrote:

1) Can a character with Snake Fang and Deflect Arrows make an attack of opportunity if they deflect the arrow of an opponent within melee range?

No, they did not miss. You deflected it.

Weirdo wrote:

2) The Second Chance ranged weapon ability allows you to, once per round, reroll an attack if you miss. Can you reroll an attack if your arrow is deflected using Deflect Arrows?

No, you did not miss, they deflected it.

Weirdo wrote:

3) Can you use sidestep or Escaping Ward after deflecting an attack with Crane Wing?

4) Can a character with the Second Chance feat use it when an opponent deflects an attack with either Deflect Arrows or Crane Wing?

No, the attacks do not miss, they are deflected.

Weirdo wrote:

Also, I'm noticing a couple of abilities that say "when you miss due to concealment" (ex: Elven Accuracy) which suggests to me that the general "miss" includes attacks that fail due to miss chances (makes sense), but still may not include automatically deflected attacks.

It totally includes miss chance--it's even called miss chance--but not deflection, because you don't deflect attacks that miss.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Can you use the Sudden Shift ability of the Deception Subdomain, in response to deflecting an attack via Crane Wing?

No.

But again, I'd rather FAQ those five questions than FAQ a general "what is a miss?"

4/5 of those can be consolidated into "Does a deflected attack count as a 'miss' for abilities that rely on 'missed attacks'?"

The miss due to 'concealment' has a specific condition so I'm not sure it needs to be explained further, the specific condition is precise enough.

they get +2 for invisible, and target loses dex bonus to ac, but they can't flank the target. unless they had see invisibility up maybe. being invisible lowers target ac by alot usually so it really doesnt matter if you flank. since you can do sneak attack damage anyhow

Just...what? Flank is about position and the ability to threaten the target. There is absolutely nothing about 'being aware' that comes into the equation.

Congrats, you posted some flavor text regarding AC and how they described what the mechanical value does in game...?

Two paths that lead to the same destination are not the same because they end up at the same location.... the details make a difference.

The lack of the word 'miss' being used and the authors instead describing an entirely DIFFERENT way to get the same result, not using that word...

They aren't the same, I'm sorry. If it was a miss, you don't think they would have saved on word count and just stated 'the attack misses/missed/some other version of miss....'?

Seriously?

No, they used the term deflected and then went to explain that means the successful attack deals no damage when targeted by the effect of Crane Wing....

If you want to keep on arguing, I can't stop you. At least the boards are useful for a good chuckle here and there. Just try and do something useful, like click the FAQ if you haven't already, while you try and convince people that the word 'miss' is buried someplace in the rule mechanics regarding Crane Wing.

Missing is not failing to contact. Misses occur all the time where the attack glances off armor or natural armor.

Bolded: Do you have RAW/FAQs to justify that statement mechanically? It sounds like you are making up a description for the results of a game mechanic. A 'miss' is fairly well defined in the game mechanics. Typically from a miss chance (concealment) or failure to hit a predefined number with your attack roll, the attack is stated to miss.

Italics: YAY Flavor text and Fluff! Unfortunately neither of those impact the actual game mechanics. A miss is a miss regardless of how your AC stacks up from whatever sources and bonuses. The game makes no differentiation of such matters regardless of how you want to describe it...

An attack roll of 14 misses the monster with a natural armor bonus of +6 and a base AC of 10. It misses, it doesn't glance off, it doesn't go 'thud' and deal no damage. It missed.

Crane Wing says the successful attack deals no damage, it does not say it made the attack actually miss. The end result may be the same, but the mechanics of each are absolutely different by the wording and description of the ability opposed to a roll resulting in a miss.

RAW, the succesful attack is deflected and deals no damage. Words straight from the ability. The term 'miss' is NEVER used. You can describe it as a 'miss' if it hurts your head to do otherwise but RAW says mechanically it hit and something happened so it was ineffective.

No it is 'clearly' an attack that hit and dealt no damage due to another ability.

Deflect Arrow has the same wording, it deals no damage.

It has no wording or mechanical description (fluff text is irrelevant, as always, to rules discussion) dealing with making the attack actually miss. The damage it would have dealt is prevented. An attack missing and the damage a successful attack deals being prevented are two completely different situations. Snake Fang triggers off of a miss, not a successful attack being prevented.

If you deflect an attack the attack misses. What type of word games are you guys trying to play. Even when dealing with AC, a sword could hit your armor and be deflected away from you.

I think you guys are just thinking about the result that you want and crafting an argument around that result.

Deflected, dodged, blocked by shield, blocked by armor all equal missed unless you are parsing words to reach some desired end.

If you are going to 'make things' up feel free. RAW the attack HIT, the character in question used a reactive ability to 'DEFLECT' the attack which means (quoted from the source) it 'deals no damage to you.' If you spent half a second to actually look at it, you'll notice the lack of anything referring to the word 'miss' or 'missed' in any of the ability details. It doesn't miss RAW.

... you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.

And this is why I would only play a druid archetype that loses Wild Shape. :)

I've yet to see an archtype that loses wildshape that is even remotely worth it. It isn't at all complicated if you actually read the rules (which do happen to be a little scattered).

The term used by the feat is 'deflected.' So it didn't 'miss,' it was 'deflected' which is explained to mean it does no damage.

I've always found grappling confusing.

However, the rules say that while you have the grappled condition you can perform any action that doesn't involve both hands, including making full attacks. So even if you chose to grapple on your first attack, there's no reason to think you couldn't continue attacking.

That isn't completely correct. Maintaining a grapple and being the object of a grapple are two different situations. When in charge of a grapple you need to take a standard action (barring feats or abilities that adjust action cost) to maintain the grappled condition on the target. You may do damage as part of that standard action, you cannot full attack and maintain a grapple however.

@ OP, the easiest way to deal with the situation as you get a free grapple on your attack is to use that attack last (assuming a form without Rake OR better/more attacks than the Rake provides). Make both claw attacks, resolve those (as well as a possible rend depending on your form), then resolve the bite attack and grapple before the end of your round. This gets you your full attack and leaves the opponent grappled (if successful obviously) until your next round. Now when your turn comes around again release the grapple as a free action, do it all again.

Pros: No possible issues with the grapple rules and maintaining your access to full attack actions.

Cons: You lose out on the +5 for maintaining the grapple from the previous round.

Unfortunately you are trying to quantify something in an abstract combat system. RAW, flanking just requires two creatures who are capable of threatening the same creature in a specific position. There is no need for them to see each other.

Look at the table associated with whichever class you are interested in, specifically 'Spells Per Day' and then check your casting attribute to see if there are any bonus spells to adjust the table with. You may only prepare spells of a level you can actually cast (if your bonus spells grant you a second level spell, you could not prepare/cast it until your class allows you 2nd level spells).

Depends on the class, class level and attributes that influence the casting class.

I punched in a search at d20pfsrd.com and got a result under Equipment / Damaging Items. Did the same at the PRD and got a similar result after a little bit of looking.

but the taxt says :

At 9th level, the Hellknight gains his third discipline, choosing this one from any of the disciplines listed below, even those not from his own order, with the exception of Pentamic Faith.

for RAW is possible

The problem is the ability says nothing about allowing you to take an ability twice. Just because it allows you to choose anything you like does not mean you can choose things twice.

The biggest issue for PFS is it isn't actually LoH anymore. It is 'Charitable Hands' which functions like (IE mechanical reference) LoH. This falls under the 'replaces' portion of the archtype rules.

Dreamscarred Press' Aegis class fits the part as well, if not significantly better, than the synth summoner. If you want an 'intelligence' take the feat to get a psicrystal and wear it like an amulet or some such.

Other than that, DM fiat with the feat to make constructs into body armor is your only real option and once worn the golems 'intelligence' shuts down to preserve action economy (I'd imagine).

D20pfsrd Aegis

Skylancer4 wrote:

If the globe were an omnipotent magical intelligence who could read timestamps on other magic effects, I suppose I could back your opinion on the subject.

It is sufficiently advanced technology. Reading timestamps is easy for it.

I suppose the fact that 'timestamps' don't exist as either a game mechanic or in game object is a shame then.

But enough witty banter, FAQ'd for the masses.

Skylancer: the globe "just knows". The game rules plainly states it doesn't affect spells already in effect, in precisely the same way it doesn't affect 4+ level spells. How it knows is a mystery, but it does know, because that's what the spell description says.

In regards to the area affected by the spell? Absolutely.

Anything outside the area of effect of the spell? Not so much.

Anyway, I disagree with Skylancer. Enemies/allies who move into the GoI do not see their buffs stripped (nor curses lifted).

PRD wrote:

Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast.

Any spell that's already in effect when the globe is cast is totally not affected in any way.

If it were different, that would open up all kinds of shenanigans, like moving into the GoI if you get cursed, to suppress the curse.

If the globe were an omnipotent magical intelligence who could read timestamps on other magic effects, I suppose I could back your opinion on the subject.

The spell gives no such description or abilities in the write up. It just tells us what happens in its area. I'll agree to disagree.

Barring some specific rules to the contrary, you'd be an incorporeal XYZ (new shape). The new rules from polymorph don't actually turn you into the creature unlike 3.5, you'd still be a ghost/whatever you were that makes you incorporeal, just in a different shape.

'Rare' is going to vary wildly from game to game. Some groups will spend rounds pre-buffing before a fight. Every round spent buffing up would count against the rings duration depending on order. This could easily push making the decision to renew the ring versus doing something else earlier in combat and making a second activation common. Also think about what blinking does and its use as utility spell.

There are cases of an action provoking two AoOs. Casting a spell provokes an AoO, then the spell states you make a ranged attack, which provokess another AoO. This would be the case with held charges except for the rule treating them as 'armed.'

In this case the activation of the ability is SU, so no AoO. The ranged attack is another separate action which would still provoke an AoO.

And then you activate it again. There's no limit on activations so why bother making the PC activate it every 7 round?

Because it has a caster level and refers back to the spell? Action economy is part of 'the game,' decisions about what to do are part of 'the game.' When something has a short duration effect like this, it forces a character has to make those decisions. That is intended.

Also if you look at the pricing guidelines for a continuous effect of this spell, you'll notice it is drastically underpriced.

It says as per the spell, the ring has a CL of 7. Once activated it would stay active for 7 rounds.

The item says nothing about being continuous or always on and activation action has no bearing on duration unless mentioned so in the items description.

Golarion has no Drizzt.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the thread at hand... I'm fairly certain we're talking about a monk, no?

Darklands is the Golarian equivalent to the Underdark if you need to get nit picky, not that it matters for a rules discussion.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

I would simply change the fluff and keep the abilities the same. Aspect of the owl could easily become aspect of the bat. Find other underground animals with similar traits and change the physical change to match.

That's a fair point actually. I don't see that easily being done with the tiger or monkey though. I think Oni should be easy enough, Kirin I'm less certain for. Carp obviously just substitute some underground fish.

Why less certain? Do nightmares instead of kirins. Aurumvorax(?) instead of tigers. There are plenty of animals/creatures to replace the fluff with.

Yeah, I agree about the Mage Armor probably not working.

What I mostly want to hear though, is does it cancel out preexisting buffs on people moving up to fight the wizard? It looks like I got mixed answers on that one. I think RAI is that the clause about not affecting spells already in effect only applies to spell inside the globe at the time of casting, but Orfamay is right that there isn't any RAW about this limitation.

If a creature has buffs of 4th level or lower and then enters a globe, those buffs would be suppressed. The spell has an area, the spells text details what happens in that area, as far as the spell is concerned anything outside its area doesn't exist. The bard is outside the area, the spell doesn't have any bearing on them, it doesn't concern itself with anything outside its area until the moment it enters its area.

So:

1) The bards mirror image would be suppressed once they enter the Globe if they started off outside of it when it was cast.
2) The wizard is ok, they were inside the globe when it was cast so the False Life is accounted for by the wording of the globe.
3) The potion should be able to be used, spells can be cast through (meaning inside) or out of the globe. The Globe isn't an antimagic field, it doesn't block LoS or LoE, it just prevents certain 'external' effects from being manifested within its area.
4) Yes, again, this isn't an AMF. You can cast spells within the globe then make a touch attack out of it. However if you were outside the globe and had a held charge then attempted to attack into the globe you'd have a problem. The spell suppresses external magical effects but allows for effects to pass out of the globe.

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Howie23 wrote:

A paladin's smite evil overcomes all DR, whether the target is evil or not.

That target needs to be evil.

What's nice though, is that a Paladin's Smite will even overcome DR/-.

Hmm. It looks like there are a couple of conflicting statements in the rule.I see:

"Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess."

and

"If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect."

. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.

You are ignoring the line before the statement, taking it out of context to create a conflict that doesn't exist. In context, a valid target for smite doesn't benefit from DR regardless of if it takes additional damage on the first successful attack or not.

Even without context the two lines you chose don't actually conflict, the target of the smite isn't a target if the ability fails and is wasted. It's akin to casting charm person on a tiefling, you can do it but noting happens as the spell fails.

DR that PCs get through Core rules is hardly ever game breaking. It is just about only effective versus the 'minion/mook' type opponents. If a PC has DR, spells and SLAs become the go to for dealing with those characters.

That being said, the first AP of the WotW might be rather 'easy' for this party make up. To make it more difficult you will need to actually use tactics and have the opponents play a little more intelligently. Don't have the guards rush up and get mowed down, have them use ranged attacks to pull the PCs to them to get off an attack or two in. There will also be some encounters that are really difficult, a flying opponent with ranged attacks versus a majority melee group is a terror.

Typically items are created and mimic the 'common' spell cast by an unexceptional caster. The spell functions the same across all wands so every wand is the same value and worth no matter who crafted it (even though it might be more 'expensive' for certain classes to make the same item, market price is usually set by the lowest possible price). The DC is set (unless you modify the spell with a heighten metamagic, and so raise the spell level) and would not take into consideration the creators actual stat modifier, it gets treated as if the caster as the minimum required stat to cast the spell IIRC. For wands that means 1st level being treated as a stat mod of 0, from an 11. For 2nd level it would be +1 so the DC is 13 (10+2+1). For 3rd level spells the DC would be 14 (10+3+1). Any adjustments to the Caster Level (choice of anything over the minium to cast the spell) or Level of the spell (meta feats) would influence the market price of the item and raise it, also raising the cost to make the item.

Just about all of this information is spread around the item creation rules but might not all be in the same place. Adding in certain class abilities that modify spells you cast isn't detailed in the crafting rules, the default assumption is least possible CL and level of the spell. This helps to maintain a certain balance and limit the required book keeping regarding where one item came from versus another.

Alter Self is a transmutation(polymorph) spell which seems to say that you lose your gross physical characteristics and replace them with those of the new form with whatever bonuses the spell use grants. Alter Self doesn't grant you a natural AC bonus, the polymorph school says you lose SU/EX/physical attacks that depend on your form.

Altering Self from eidolon to let's say an elf form, I would rule that the Nat AC goes away as well, extraordinary abilities (EX) are typically non-magical physical qualities or attack/attack routines. As per the school write up it is up to the GM, but I'd use the loss of natural AC as a baseline in this case. The spell doesn't say you keep it and it doesn't grant a natural AC (unlike the rest of the poly school spells). Allowing the lower level spell to provide a better bonus is not in line with the rest of the spells.

Why can normal creatures gain HD but not undead?

Besides the fact that it is a minion npc and doesn't gain XP unless the GM says it can? Again Leadership is the only rule I can point to that gives a PC controlled NPC actual advancement (beyond familiar/companion bonds). Anything else is 'as created' and would only advance if the GM says it does. Undead minions that are created by a character do not get a share of the XP for an encounter, the party isn't considered one or more larger because of the minion(s). The PC party isn't 'docked' XP for having the minion with it.

Now if your question is why a creature cannot advance in general, mindless creatures are generally limited in what they can do (as mentioned in the template, not gaining skill ranks etc.)

Why can normal creatures gain HD but not undead?

Besides the fact that it is a minion npc and doesn't gain XP unless the GM says it can? Again Leadership is the only rule I can point to that gives a PC controlled NPC actual advancement. Anything else is 'as created' and would only advance if the GM says it does. Undead minions that are created by a character do not get a share of the XP for an encounter, the party isn't considered one or more larger because of the minion(s). The PC party isn't 'docked' XP for having the minion with it.

Now if your question is why a creature cannot advance in general, mindless creatures are generally limited in what they can do (as mentioned in the template, not gaining skill ranks etc.)