Sliska Zafir's page

After the following recent changes to monk's single-weapon flurry, brass knuckles not allowing unarmed strike damage (due to moving it to weapon category not unarmed attacks and removing the text that monks can use BK and get their UA strike damage with them), lessened cost of amulet of mighty fists, and new DR-breaking qualities (lvl 7 now counts as silver/cold iron), how do I go about getting a refund for those MW cold iron and MW silver brass knuckles I bought?

I certainly believe I get a direct return of gp for the AOMF over-pay.

Can I just note on a Chronicle all of these changes, refund my CIBK and ASBK at 100%, and have a GM sign off?

Please advise which section of which document clarifies procedure, if any.

With the incredible CR change for spiders, Perils of the Pirate Pact becomes a potential TPK. Run with caution, friends! It's top on my list of rules rewrite.

Jim Groves - maybe you can write one? Thank you - Dale

3/4" plywood, top grade, 1 sheet 4x8 feet. Paint a neutral gray color (better yet paint it grass, desert and snow) then get a plexiglass sheet 4x8 to lay on top similar to office desk covers. Screw the whole thing onto a 4x6 fiberboard folding leg table.

Then get a magnetic dry erase board 3x4 feet and 'pillar' it up two inches above the table, and install a digital projector above it. Put a drawer container for minis and accessories under the GMs corner and a bookcase behind it for reference materials. Seats 7 comfortably.

Game on.

Bah! (Throws his hands up in the air)...

I'd like to hear any FAQ or official rulings on this idea.

For a case example; let's try a monk wanting to climb onto a Shemhazian Demon, for cool cinematics.

Suggested rules:

A creature needs to be at least two size categories larger than you in order to climb it.

It also has to have an anatomy that is able to support climbing (an ooze is questionable).

A succesful grapple check, followed by a free action release of the grapple, then a Climb check, DC equal to CMD of Shemhazian demon allows you to move to the top (if you have enough speed). You are not considered grappling the creature. You are considered as occupying one of the creatures squares.

You gain a +1 (higher?) to hit due to higher ground. I guess you could argue that the creature is as vulnerable as being prone (+4 to hit).

Share Spells (Ex):
1] The druid may *cast* a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself.
2] A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal).
3] Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion.
4] This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.

Regarding #1, does "cast" include spells cast from magic items?

******************************************************************

SRD: "POTIONS: Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect).

Ugh - potions are "like" spells. The drinker is the "caster".
The potion-taker doesn't get to make decisions about the effect - and the words "the drinker (as the "caster") still controls the effect". The last two statements sound completely contradictory.

Not clear if potions can be shared with animal companion. But it sounds like NO because the character doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect, (but does indeed 'control' the effect?) Ugh!

****************************************************************

SRD: SCROLLS: A scroll is a spell (or collection of spells) that has been stored in written form. Activate the Spell: Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. Determine Effect: A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way.

Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on).

It sure sounds like the druid would be able to share a scroll on her spell list (and follows #3 in "share spells") with her companion. It's a spell that's mostly finished, but some spellcasting remains. It is a spell stored in written form.

***************************************************************

WANDS: Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

STAVES: Activation: Staves use the spell trigger activation method.

Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell.

Both wands and staves "cast a spell," similar to spell completion. It would seem like these can be shared, as long as they follow #1 and #3, share spells (must have target "You" and must be from class (list?) that grants animal companion.)

******************************************************************

Can we get something definitive please?

I disagree - but it definitely comes down to the definition of what "cast" means. Does "cast" mean only spells from those prepared or known, or does it include spells from scrolls and wands that are on the caster's spell list. We use the expression "I cast cure light wounds from the wand".

Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal). Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion. This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.

Read it closely.

Except that the Advanced Players' Guide says that monks can use their unarmed damage with brass knuckles.

* Group multiple dice damage rolls (fireball, disintegrate) etc into values equaling ten points. Have your rogue/ninja buy 10d6 and have it ready to roll for sneak attack.

* Ask for standard buff arrays, have players provide you with "buff suites" in nominations of day long, 10 minute/lvl, 1 min/lvl. When they say we cast 10 min buffs, you'll know what spells they are casting. Also, have them have multiple situation/environment buff suites (for example, a wilderness suite vs. an urban suite.

* Roll attack and damage dice together with coded colors (black is my highest, green is iterative attack, yellow hasted extra, etc.) On occasion, a player may wish to have redirected an attack to a different target, even though they already rolled the attack. I'm OK with this in general to speed play, unless it was a tactical blunder...

Still no FAQ entry on this. Ugh.

You're going to want to take Far Shot with those shurikens (range 10) if you don't want to have to get too close to enemies.

Just wanted some insight and suggestions as to which feat/ trick to take and at which level and such. Thanx...

How does the projector thing work? Someone care to explain it to me?

Mount it above your game table, project it downward onto the surface, open your favorite image file (maps available at lotsa places online), and voila.

I know not many GMs use this, but it doesn't seem like much to ask, and I'd be willing to pay extra for the product.

I have a digital projector, and project scenario/module maps onto the game table.

While pretty awesome, and expeditious, there are two hangups.

First, I have to copy cut the maps into a image editor, if I want a fog of war effect to cover unexplored parts of the map. Often the original image integrity is not preserved.

Second, if the map is not player friendly (marked up with trap symbols, secret doors, and monster locations), I have to perform some clone square graphic maneuvers which never make the map look as it would from a player perspective. Simple smudges or pixel-off proper location creates disbelief and suspicion.

Is it possible that when the maps are being created as images, when the creation gets to the stage where it looks like what the players would see, can Paizo devs save a "Player Map"? I'm pretty sure the players map is created before the GM map reaches its final stage, full of traps, secret doors and monster locations.

Or have a file with a "PC/GM switch" button, which removes the GM layer?

I don't think this would take much programming, and I'd pay the extra $1-2 per scenario for one that included them.

Land of Linnorm Kings

Qadira

Eye of Abendego

Shoanti in the Storval Plateau

And especially Azlanti-centered

Store them digitally, and buy a projector. I did, my projector was on the fritz, I busted out my 50+ laminated babies for some "old school" gaming. I have them in an "art student" black vinyl, wide portfolio. http://www.ehow.com/how_5717511_construct-art-portfolio-container.html But now projector is fixed. YMMV.

So, how do the rest of you that draw your maps out ahead of time store them?

Also, when I do use battle mats, it's pre-draw, layer and peel for me. That way I don't have bored players and down time. Of course, with three young boys, pre-drawing time is at a premium. But this method gets rave reviews from players.

As originator of the post I do have some further comments:

I'm pleased that people have been addressing the format and layout of the paragraph and heading.

Hearing the discussion, I'm more inclined to believe the devs intended the second paragraph in question to refer to the *action* "draw or sheathe a weapon", not the literal "draw a weapon".

In a game where, arguably, the action economy deserves the most scrutiny, clarity could have been easily achieved with just a few more words (sorry, devs, but clarity WAS needed on this one, not RAW.) [sigh]

It becomes more problematic in Pathfinder Society, where players/GMs vary. And on this basic action question, it sure seems like a clarification is long overdue (nudge FAQ).

Also, I'm glad people have mentioned the logical absurdity of being able to drawing a polearm as a free action in a 5' wide corridor while moving and not being able to draw a wand as a free action while moving in same said corridor. We're talking about a bulky 4'-5' weapon versus a 1' slim stick.

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move.

The first paragraph describes wands as weapon-like objects.

However, the second sentence states "draw a weapon", not "draw a weapon or weapon-like object".

The question is, should it be Read exactly as Written (RAW)? Or should we read it as, " If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may [perform the] "draw or sheathe a weapon" action as a free action combined with a regular move (RAI)?

RAW it is:

"If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move."

I still think the developers' intention is that "If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may (take the) "draw (or sheathe) a weapon" (action) as a free action combined with a regular move."

I say one may take the action of "Draw or Sheathe a weapon" as a free action combined with a regular move, which would include wands.

Either it was left unclear accidentally, or they are strictly limiting the combination of "move and draw" to just weapons (not weapon-like objects.)

Which is it?

The question is:

Does the sentence "If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move" refer to the "Draw or sheathe a weapon" *action* (which is where they break down everything that action contains), or literally just drawing a weapon.

I guess you can draw anything as "an improvised weapon", and be fine.

Perception is also sound-based, and scent-based. Just because something flanking you is invisible doesn't mean you are restricted to ignoring it as a threat. In fact, if anything, it's more of a threat, because it smells awful, it's making a horribly threat with its wheezy voice and you have no idea where its coming from. Hell yes you better pay attention to that!

Also, as a DM in my home games, I've played creatures with DR 10/magic who ignore the threat presented by the nonmagical 1d3 small sickle-wielding halfling once they got hit and nothing happened. He doesn't threaten because he can't harm the creature, so the creature can ignore his potential threat until he's been given cause to be concerned. He just simply turns his back on the halfling - haha!

Wands are allowed. How is he even arguing against it if it is in the book?

He's say the text, RAW, says "If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move."

RAW, it says "draw a weapon", not "draw a weapon or weapon-like object", therefore only weapons.

It depends on whether its the action of "Draw or sheathe a weapon" that sentence is referring to, or if its truly just a weapon only.

I say my Oracle 4 can draw a wand while moving my speed.

The DM says only a "weapon" can be drawn with BAB +1 while moving your speed.

The text is incredibly muddled. RAW, the DM is right, but the "Draw a Weapon" as a move action includes weapon-like objects, specifically mentioning wands as OK.

Is the intention of the last sentence this, "If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may take the "draw a weapon" action as a free action combined with a regular move." ?

PFSRD below:

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move.

I thought it funny that the Scenario Chronicle has "Among the Living" as it's adventure name.

Where(which book) is this FAQ entry about only allowing neck slots and barding?

It's actually for Pathfinder Society, where cheese can reign if not reined in. I'd consider it the strictest interpretation of the rules.

It was just ruled in the Pathfinder Soociety FAQ that animal companions get to wear armor and have a neck slot only. No other wand use or magic item slots. With that in mind, I'm trying to outfit a Large Animal Companion with Large Mithril Chain Shirt Barding for a Nonhumanoid (x4 cost).

What does it cost?

Is it base armor type x4 (Large Nonhumanoid Barding), plus +1,000gp?

Or does the mithril cost of +1,000gp also get multiplied by 4?

So is it:

Chain Shirt 100gpx4(Large Nonhumanoid Barding) + 1,000gp mithril = 1400gp

or

Mithril Chain Shirt 1100 x 4 (Large Nonhumanoid Barding) = 4,400gp

That's a 3,000gp difference...

For Large Nonhumanoid (x4 cost), text says, "Apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question."

Does "armor type" include material cost? Or is the mithril cost added on top of the x4 mithril shirt?

How about Compel Hostility worked in conjunction with Sanctuary? Is Compel Hostility considered a non-attack spell?

"I got him to attack me, but then he couldn't. Sucka!"

First, I don't think monks are inferior. They are a style choice. Play a max-DPS build if your main concern is monk's inability to compete with other classes' damage output. Nobody is faster, can jump higher or can lockdown a caster better (except a char specialized in steal). They have their rightful niche in the game.

I'd like to see some posters offer a clarified wording of the flurry of blows power that accurately describes all the developer dialogue so far.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Sean K Reynolds or Joshua Frost, issue a LONG overdue FAQ ruling on this topic! 400 pages of posts? In that FAQ, please directly address usage of the temple sword as an example.

I play a monk with temple sword, and one tablemate thinks "combination" means I can't attack twice with a temple sword, because that is not a combination by definition. The definition of combination needs clarifying for FoB. Is the same thing added to itself truly a combination? If the relevant text said "combination of unarmed strikes *AND* monk weapons", I'd agree. But it says "may" and "combination of US *OR* monk weapons", which is more vague, and could allow two TS strikes.

FoB states: "When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)."

"As if using the TWF feat" refers only to a feat that lessens penalties for fighting with a weapon in each hand.

The rules for fighting with a weapon in each hand are as follows: "Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon...If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light." However, following normal rules for fighting with a weapon in each hand limits the temple sword to one attack, as it is held in one hand. The monk has unlimited "off-hands" to fill the second "weapon" attack. Or even if you treat the unarmed strike as primary, and the temple sword as second weapon.

However, again, the combination definition, and the word "OR" versus the use of "AND" applies now. Also, "may" is in question too.

I much prefer the 3.5E description of FoB: "She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired." Much clearer, and I think the intent of the PF monk FoB too. Maybe we just need to look to the past to see what the intention is.

My suggestion: ""When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). A monk may flurry an unarmed strike with a monk weapon, flurry two monk weapon strikes, or flurry two unarmed strikes."

It's *three* checks with possible variable DCs (CMD for one foe, plus +4 for two additional enemies), but you have to carefully define "Threatened area." If all three foes threaten the square the person is moving through and would provoke AoO from, then 3 checks CMD +4.

It's like this. The first square I leave which would provoke AO is threatened by one foe, so a CMD check to avoid from THAT foe. Then, I move to another square (remember always half speed) and leave that square, and that square is threatened by two creatures, so the second check to avoid AoO from the second foe is a CMD +2, and then final square I'm tumbling through is threatened by three creatures, so a final check to avoid an AoO from the third creature CMD +4.

Alternatively, if I start in a square threatened by all three it's 3 separate CMD +4 checks, the player decides which check is against which possible foe's AoO BEFORE the roll.

Got it?

From the OFFICIAL FAQ:

Acrobatics: How does Acrobatics (Core Rulebook, page 87) work when you use it to avoid attacks of opportunity? When do you make checks? How many do you make?

Acrobatics allows you to make checks to move through the threatened area of foes without provoking attacks of opportunity. You must make a check the moment you attempt to leave a square threatened by an enemy, but only once per foe. The DC (which is based of the Combat Maneuver Defense of each foe), increases by +2 for each foe after the first in one round. The DC also increases by +5 if you attempt to move through a foe. In the case of moving out of the threatened square of two foes at the same time, the moving character decides which check to make first.

For example, a rogue is flanked by a meek goblin and a terrifying antipaladin. The rogue move away from both of them, provoking an attack of opportunity from both, but uses Acrobatics to attempt to negate them. She must move at half speed while threatened by these foes and can choose which to check against first. If she fails a check, she provokes an attack of opportunity from that foe. If she makes it, she does not provoke from moving through that foe's threatened space this turn.

—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10 Back to Top

Acrobatics: What happens if I fail the check when using this skill to move through an enemy's square?

You lose the move action and provoke an AOO. (Note: This means you can attempt this up to two times in the same round, once as a move action and once as a standard action.)

Update: Page 88—In the Acrobatics skill, at the end of the third paragraph (which begins on page 87), add the following sentence: “If you attempt to move through an enemy’s space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.”

—Sean K Reynolds, 08/30/11

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Sean K Reynolds or Joshua Frost, issue a LONG overdue FAQ ruling on this topic! 400 pages of posts? In that FAQ, please directly address usage of the temple sword as an example.

I play a monk with temple sword, and one tablemate thinks "combination" means I can't attack twice with a temple sword, because that is not a combination by definition. The definition of combination needs clarifying for FoB. Is the same thing added to itself truly a combination? If the relevant text said "combination of unarmed strikes *AND* monk weapons", I'd agree. But it says "may" and "combination of US *OR* monk weapons", which is more vague, and could allow two TS strikes.

FoB states: "When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)."

"As if using the TWF feat" refers only to a feat that lessens penalties for fighting with a weapon in each hand.

The rules for fighting with a weapon in each hand are as follows: "Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon...If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light." However, following normal rules for fighting with a weapon in each hand limits the temple sword to one attack, as it is held in one hand. The monk has unlimited "off-hands" to fill the second "weapon" attack. Or even if you treat the unarmed strike as primary, and the temple sword as second weapon.

However, again, the combination definition, and the word "OR" versus the use of "AND" applies now. Also, "may" is in question too.

I much prefer the 3.5E description of FoB: "She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired." Much clearer, and I think the intent of the PF monk FoB too. Maybe we just need to look to the past to see what the intention is.

Finally found a case where 3.5E wording is superior to Pathfinder wording, unless of course, Pathfinder made an intentional change to how FoB works.

I much prefer the 3.5E description of FoB: "She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired." Much clearer.