Search Posts
Earlier today I made a post to a thread. The only problem is that the post doesn't show up on the page with all the other posts. I reckon it might have something to do with apparently being post #5086153 in a thread with only 9 posts. I didn't receive any errors or noticed anything unusual when it posted.
...of a halfling rogue tumbling through an enemy's square, up steep stairs, in the dark, at full speed? Using rectal extraction at the table I said -18 to the roll, but I wanted to double check those numbers. Player thought I was being a bit harsh, personally, I was thinking I was giving them a break. Anyway, having a chance to pick through the rules I find: OK, enemy's square is 5 + CMD stairs is DC + 4 (pg 415) blinded is -4 to the check (so, effectively also DC + 4) (pg. 443) Tumbling at 'full' speed DC + 10. Which is still halved due to difficult terrain (up steep stairs). So, I still end up with effectively 23 + CMD to tumble 20 feet as a double move. Blinded moving at full speed also requires a DC 10 to move faster than half speed. (I forgot this but unlikely to matter because said halfling rogue had +20 acrobatics). Did I miss anything?
Situation: Enemy with reach trips my ally 10 feet from himself. I use a 5-foot step to stand between him and my ally. Ally stands up. GM ruled he provoked. I pointed out that I provided cover so no attack of opportunity. GM said soft cover doesn't prevent attacks of opportunity. I didn't want to argue the point in the middle of a game, but everything I can find leads me to the conclusion that in such a case the ally could stand up without fear of an attack of opportunity. Is this a legitimate tactic for helping your buddy stand up without suffering an attack of opportunity? Supporting rules: "Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you." "When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks." "To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC)." "Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check." [no mention of soft cover not negating an attack of opportunity]
Pathfinder changed the wording of natural armor when compared with the 3.5 SRD. SRD: "Natural armor bonus changes to a number based on the skeleton’s size: " PRD: "Natural armor bonus changes as follows:" Then they both list the same chart. I always assumed that you replaced the creature's existing armor bonus with the bonus shown in the chart. However, I'm preparing to run a Pathfinder Society Scenario that clearly shows they added the the bonus from the chart to the creature's existing natural armor. Did the editors miss this or have I been doing it wrong.
The bestiary lists their offense as:
but rules for mixing natural and melee weapon attacks state: "You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon...all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks...all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting." So, shouldn't the block read:
or all similar creatures listed like this and the GM supposed to remember the two-weapon penalty.
Regarding the Animal Fury rage power, does the barbarian gain a secondary natural attack in the sense that normal penalties apply for using it in combination with normal weapons or this a special circumstance. It would seem to make the most sense to treat it as a normal natural weapon, but that really makes it nigh worthless without two weapon fighting. From the barbarian class section: Animal Fury (Ex): While raging, the barbarian gains a bite attack. If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at the barbarian's full base attack bonus –5. If the bite hits, it deals 1d4 points of damage (assuming the barbarian is Medium; 1d3 points of damage if Small) plus half the barbarian's Strength modifier. A barbarian can make a bite attack as part of the action to maintain or break free from a grapple. This attack is resolved before the grapple check is made. If the bite attack hits, any grapple checks made by the barbarian against the target this round are at a +2 bonus. From the combat section: You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
I've been unable to contact Customer Service via email about this problem or they are unwilling to respond or act. I think anyone who uses this site should be very concerned. Two weeks ago I discovered that I could access account information about a person with the same name as myself. I could see what he had ordered and whats worse is I could place an order using his credit card information. It is likely that he could do the same to me. I wrote customer service immediately and have received no reply even after writing them again. I can't believe Paizo is so lax about credit card security and personal information. |
