Deep Crow

Tarantula's page

3,119 posts (3,147 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Snowlilly wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
It still doesn't make them a Primary Natural Attack which is required for the Power Attack benefit.

RAW states all natural weapons must be categorized as either primary or secondary. When an effects checks if a natural weapon is primary or seconday, you don't get to say neither.

If you can present evidence that a monk's IUS should be classified as a secondary natural weapon for the purposes of effects please do so.

IUS is not a natural weapon so it is not required to be classified as primary or secondary.

The Monk ability that says to treat its IUS as a natural weapon for spells and effects does not specify primary or secondary, so it is neither.


Quote:
For the spell's duration, the wearer can use of any of the bound outsider's spell-like abilities as if they were his own.
Quote:

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure

another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel
abilities.

The summoned monster cannot use summon or teleportation abilities. You can use that summoned monsters abilities as if you had them. It cannot use them, so you cannot use them. You don't get the abilities of a out of the bestiary hound archon, you get the abilities of a summoned hound archon, which includes the inability to use the summon or teleport abilities.


Darksol:
In the revised analogy, you don't get an orange unless you A) take the standard action to cast a spell(get an orange), or B) use spell combat to trade the extra attack (apple) for casting a spell(orange).

The criticism of the analogy was if you spell combat first, then you have an orange, and whirlwind doesn't take that away.

I don't think the order matters. Whirlwind says, "did you take an extra attack this turn?" not "give up any extra attacks you have remaining".

Again, this falls back to the interpretation that spell combat's casting of a spell is intended to be analogous to the extra attack from TWF. RAW it isn't, it is the weapon not the attack.

I think we've all covered this from any angle someone wants to approach it from, and the likelihood of someone ever making a whirlwind attack magus is still approximately 0%.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:
What is the lighting condition, to an elf, 25' from a torch?

It depends on what the lighting was without the torch.

Outside at noon? Its normally bright light. The torch can't increase this anymore, so its still bright.
Inside a dark underground area? Normally Dark. The torch increases this by one step to dim. Creatures in the dim light still have concealment to the elf, as LLV only lets them see twice as far, it doesn't remove the concealment.

[quoteLow-Light Vision]Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the tiniest candle flame is next to him as a source of light.

Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.

The light is dim. The LLV character can see twice as far. LLV doesn't change the actual light condition of that space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it is dim light, you have concealment from a human. This means anyone could make a stealth check in this case, because they have concealment from the human and concealment is what is required to make a stealth check.

If the human was a dwarf instead, they could not make a stealth check, because they do not have concealment from the dwarf. They are still in an area of dim light, they just don't have concealment, because dim light doesn't provide concealment against things with darkvision. Kind of like invisibility to blindsight. You have concealment with invisibility to things that see normally. You do not have concealment to something with blindsight.

Now, HIPS. The requirement is that you are within 10' of dim light. You could be in bright light, but have dim light 9' away, and use this ability. You don't need any concealment to use HIPS, because you are near dim light. That replaces the requirement for concealment. It doesn't matter if they have LLV, Darkvision, or any other kind of vision. You can make a stealth check because you are near a dimly lit area.

As to the how, its supernatural.


Snowlilly wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Quote:

Power attack is a beneficial effect. Exactly what that effect is depends on weapon type, weapon usage, and strength modifier applied with the specific weapon.

In the case of IUS + Dragon Ferocity + Power Attack, counting as a natural weapon is more beneficial than counting as a manufactured weapon.

Power attack is more beneficial for primary natural attacks. Monks ability doesn't let them treat their unarmed strike as a primary natural attack, so they can't get that benefit.

Your are conflating attack with weapon. Monk's IUS counts as a natural weapon for beneficial effects.

All natural weapons are either primary or secondary. RAW has been repeatedly quoted making this explicit.

Monks don't have a natural weapon, they have an unarmed strike

Monks unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for benefits and effects, but it does not specific primary or secondary, so it does not count as either. It only counts as a natural weapon.

A monks unarmed strike is not counted as a primary natural weapon, so it doesn't get the power attack benefit.

You have shown many times how similar a monks unarmed strike is to a primary natural weapon, and they are similar, but the unarmed strike is not a primary natural weapon.


Quote:

Power attack is a beneficial effect. Exactly what that effect is depends on weapon type, weapon usage, and strength modifier applied with the specific weapon.

In the case of IUS + Dragon Ferocity + Power Attack, counting as a natural weapon is more beneficial than counting as a manufactured weapon.

Power attack is more beneficial for primary natural attacks. Monks ability doesn't let them treat their unarmed strike as a primary natural attack, so they can't get that benefit.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You're right, summoned monsters can't. But you're not a summoned monster, are you?

Therefore, that restriction doesn't apply to you.

If I can use the abilities it can use, and it can't use teleport, then I also cannot use teleport.


Fantastic.
I agree under strict as written, spell combat doesn't have an attack, so it works fine with whirlwind.

I don't think that was the intention, and would rule that spell combat replaces the off-hand attack with the spell casting for my own game, if it ever came up, which it won't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The spell restrictions only apply to the monster you summoned, if those monsters were bound here through, say, a Greater Planar Binding, they could likewise use those SLAs. They don't apply to you, because you're not a summoned monster.
If the monster you summon can't use the abilities, they effectively don't exist. To expect that you can use abilities that are unavailable to the monster granting them is... a stretch.

They can't use them because of the rules regarding summon monsters. Rules which don't apply to standard creatures. Which you, the wearer, are. And not a summoned monster.

Not being able to use abilities doesn't mean you don't have those abilities. It's like saying, because you can't use teleport into or out from an Anti-Magic Field, that you don't have the Teleport spell. Not only is that blatantly false, but its unavailability is circumstantial at best, because the rules and effects of Anti-Magic Field means you can't use them, just like how the rules and effects of summoned monsters means summoned creatures can't use them.

There's no text that says you use abilities as if you're that very summoned creature. In fact, it actually says the opposite, that you can use any of its special abilities as if they were yours.

So yes, just because they can't use them doesn't mean that they don't have them.

Quote:
For the spell's duration, the wearer can use of any of the bound outsider's spell-like abilities as if they were his own.

I can use the monsters SLAs, as if it was my SLA. Summoned monsters can't use teleportation abilities. If he can't use it, then I can't use it, because I am taking his spell like abilities as they are for the summoned monster.

You can't say, "its in the statblock so I can use it". You have the specific creature you summoned in the mask. That specific creature has specific abilities it can use. Teleport is not one of them, so you also cannot use it.


bbangerter wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


I don't know about that. To be two-weapon fighting you must take a full-attack action, and get an extra attack from your off-hand weapon. If you don't take the attack, then you aren't two-weapon fighting.
This isn't true. If I start a full attack action using TWF, and after my first attack (with all the bonuses and penalties applied for TWF and whatever feat chains I've taken are applied), then decide I don't want to make any more attacks I can still take a move action. I did not take any extra attacks, but I was TWF, and the penalties still are applied.

You took the penalties for it, but were you really two weapon fighting? No, because you never attacked with two weapons.

Quote:
I could likewise take all my iteratives under the TWF penalties and benefits, then decide for any reason to not take my off-hand attacks (enemy is dead, enemy is unconscious, I'm just feeling moody, doesn't matter).

I know iterative attacks have to go from highest to lowest, I thought all the attacks went highest to lowest. Are you saying you could go (20/15/10/5) for main hand iteratives, then -10/-5/-TWF for the off-hand? Because nothing says what order you have to take the offhand attacks in?

Quote:
I can clearly get the penalties for TWF without getting the benefit of an extra attack.

And if you don't make an extra attack, you aren't really fighting with two weapons. You were planning to maybe, but you didn't actually do it.

Kind of like, if you spell combat, and plan to attack, then cast a spell, but your attack kills him, so you don't cast the spell. You didn't actually complete your action.

Quote:

The optional combat stamina feat also clearly shows you can combine WW and TWF. With the feat you can then get the extra attack out of TWF as well.

WW Attack wrote:


When using this feat, you can spend stamina points to still take bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. You must spend 5 stamina points per extra attack you take in this way. This combat trick allows you to make extra attacks to which you have access—it doesn't by itself grant extra attacks.
Emphasis mine. The combat stamina trick doesn't say "Now you can combine WW with TWF when before you couldn't." It merely changes the restriction the default WW feat has of no extra attacks, to now allowing the extra attacks ALREADY available to you.

Ok, I get this. You can declare TWF and Whirlwind, take the penalties and get no benefit. With the stamina spent, you can get the extra attack.

Why do you think the extra attack isn't analogous to the cast spell in spell combat? Is it only because spell combat says the off-hand weapon is replaced by casting the spell? Do you understand my point of view that stating spell combat works much like TWF says to me that it is the off-hand weapon and attack that is being replaced?


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
If you don't get it, you don't get it.

I think I understand your position. I don't understand why it isn't covered under the invulnerable to spells during the time stop duration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Acid Fog wrote:
Each round on your turn, starting when you cast the spell, the fog deals 2d6 points of acid damage to each creature and object within it.

So, each round during the time stop, the creatures in the are are immune. When time stop ends, each of the casters turn deals the damage.

Cloudkill wrote:
A living creature with 6 or more HD takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud (a successful Fortitude save halves this damage). Holding one's breath doesn't help, but creatures immune to poison are unaffected by the spell.

Again, each round on the casters turn, it has an effect. That effect is still present when time stop expires.

What is similar to those in wall of fire?

Wall of Fire wrote:
One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet. The wall deals this damage when it appears, and to all creatures in the area on your turn each round. In addition, the wall deals 2d6 points of fire damage + 1 point of fire damage per caster level (maximum +20) to any creature passing through it.

Every casters turn, deal 2d4 or 1d4 damage depending on distance from the wall. Additionally, deal damage to creatures passing through it. Those effects will start when time stop expires.

The difference is wall of fire also has this section.

Wall of Fire wrote:
If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall.

This happens during the time stop, so the creature is immune to the passing through damage.


My pricing for a continuous ring of true strike was as follows:
Weapon bonus from the table, (20^2x2000)/2 since it is only attack and not damage.
400,000.
Continuous CL1xSL1x2,000.

Total: 800,000,000 or 400,000,000 if you craft it yourself.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Effectively count any spells cast under timestop as taking effect right at the start of the first normal round when timestop ends.

That doesn't match what time stop says.

Quote:
While the time stop is in effect, other creatures are invulnerable to your attacks and spells; you cannot target such creatures with any attack or spell. A spell that affects an area and has a duration longer than the remaining duration of the time stop have their normal effects on other creatures once the time stop ends.

Since the spell has one effect when cast, and a different effect for the duration, it looks like the creature would be invulnerable to the "when cast" effect, because time stop is still in effect.

So, is the "normal effect" to deal passing damage? Or is it the 2d4 damage within 10' and 1d4 10-20'.

I don't know of other area spells that have one effect on cast, and another effect for the remainder of their duration, or I'd look to those for guidance.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
I think there's no way to force a target to count as "passing through it" just by putting it on top of him.
Wall of Fire wrote:

In addition, the wall deals 2d6 points of fire damage + 1 point of fire damage per caster level (maximum +20) to any creature passing through it. The wall deals double damage to undead creatures.

If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

That was actually a response to thaX's point of "the orange (the spell) does not exist," which is silly. But I'll bite.

What text says TWF and Whirlwind Attack doesn't work together, exactly? None. No (relevant) citation has been given. So, you can certainly use both, as there is nothing that says you can't, and there are no other conflicting mechanics; but I, as well as most everybody else here, have said that there is no benefit for doing so, and the penalties you incur for the assumed benefit simply take place. I mean, you can have two weapons drawn at once, and make your attacks with either weapon via Whirlwind Attack, but that doesn't make it TWF, per a relevant FAQ.

TWF grants an extra attack. Whirlwind attack forfeits extra attacks.

Quote:
"No benefit" does not equate to "Mutually Exclusive". This isn't Vital Strike and Spring Attack, it is the equivalent of using Smite Evil on a Good or Neutral character; that is, it can be done, but there is no mechanical benefit for doing so, meaning there is no sane reason to do so other than to just to do so.

I don't know about that. To be two-weapon fighting you must take a full-attack action, and get an extra attack from your off-hand weapon. If you don't take the attack, then you aren't two-weapon fighting. So I submit that using whirlwind does stop you from TWF, because you give up the extra attack TWF provides. It results in you simply wielding 2 weapons, and making a full attack with whirlwind.

Quote:
Spell Combat, on the other hand, has a completely separate benefit from TWF's extra attacks, which is casting a spell while being able to full attack normally with a light or one-handed melee weapon. This is separate from TWF, which normally requires two weapons (of which a spell certainly isn't, even if it is a weapon-like spell), and they must be drawn and ready to attack with. If those conditions are not met, you cannot TWF, and at no point in time could you feasibly meet those conditions to perform the stringent requirements of Spell Combat (which, according to everyone else, is TWF), at least without pulling shenanigans like an Alchemist's Vestigial Arm.

TWF: You get all your main hand attacks and 1 extra attack with your off-hand.

Spell Combat: You get all your main hand attacks and 1 spell cast with your off-hand.
Those are pretty similar to me. As far as spells not counting as weapons, all touch spells count as armed attacks, so they certainly could be used as the off-hand in TWF.

Quote:
There's also the idea that Spell Combat, if it is to function as TWF, doesn't say that it excludes the standard penalties for TWF. So, not only am I suffering -2 to all of my attacks because of the specific text of Spell Combat, but the TWF penalties apply as well, which is -6 and -10 to attacks with my off-hand (or -8/-12 total), since, you know, you're TWFing, right? Of course you are, because that's what the text says, right?

It says it functions like TWF and then stipulates how it is different. Instead of an off-hand weapon you have a spell cast, and instead of TWF penalties you have -2 on all the main hand attacks.

Quote:
Now you see why the analogous interpretation of "Spell Combat = TWF as Spells = Attacks" fails upon itself. The reference of TWF, in my honest opinion, does nothing more than complicate the ability in question, since:

No, I don't.

TWF: All main hand attacks as normal, one extra off-hand attack.
Spell Combat: All main hand attacks as normal, one extra spell cast with the off-hand.
They are very similar. The differences being TWF feat isn't required for spell combat, and instead of an extra attack you get to cast a spell.

Quote:

A. The feature's ramifications are already quantified further than what TWF's base mechanic applies. There is no "off-hand", because you are never making an off-hand attack, you are always casting a spell. You aren't making extra attacks as if you are TWF, you aren't even getting any more attacks than if you weren't using TWF. The ideal that your hand must be free, regardless of Somatic components, is specifically noted, whereas TWF would have made that an ambiguous assumption.

B. Applying other mechanics (because it doesn't say you don't, and you're saying it functions as the other aspect) to an already well-defined feature causes the original ability to fail upon itself due to lack of feasible usage and conflicting mechanics. I mean, how is a 1st level Magus supposed to hit with -8/-12 to his attacks? Unless he's targeting an object (and even that's not a guarantee), it's not gonna happen. And that's not including things like cover, miss chance, and so on.

So yeah, I'd much rather go with the interpretation that doesn't turn the Magus into the next Flurry of Misses Monk or "I Can't Do Anything" Rogue, since I highly doubt the Magus was intended to be the worst class in the history of Paizo.

A) It is clear there is an off-hand when using spell combat, as the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. Spell combat overrides the normal TWF penalties with its own.

B) As I said, it stipulates its own penalties instead of the TWF penalties. How is a level 1 magus supposed to hit with -2 to his attack?

Lastly, If Spell combat is treated as a full-attack action that allows for other effects to add extra attacks, can you spell combat and TWF?

That is to say, Main hand is a longsword, off-hand is unarmed combat. Magus has IUS and TWF, so he should be able to Spell Combat TWF at -2 for SC, and -2 for TWF, total -4 to the attacks.
He can cast a spell like frostbite, then make Main attack longsword, Free attack with longsword from the touch spell and spellstrike, Offhand attack unarmed combat, and deliver the spell with each successful hit.
So that's 3 attacks at -4/-4/-4. Do you agree with that?


dragonhunterq wrote:
time stop wrote:
In fact, you speed up so greatly that all other creatures seem frozen

Time stop doesn't really stop time. It speeds you up.

Treat spells and effects as 'on hold' while time stop is in effect. For durations and effects treat time stop rounds as if they hadn't happened.
Time stop wrote:
While the time stop is in effect, other creatures are invulnerable to your attacks and spells;

Its not on hold though. Wall of fire has an effect when cast. And when it is cast, the enemy is invulnerable to your spells.

The question is, does the damage from being in the space when the wall of fire appears happen during the time stop (and thus creature is invulnerable) or is it part of the "normal effects" that happen when time stop expires.


I started a thread to get some insight on this. Waiting for a ruling before I take my action.


Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:
I'm not sure either options are entirely accurate. First no one takes any damage from the creation of the fire walls, but anyone inside it would take 6d6+30 damage (2d6+10 for our example lvl 10 caster times 3 firewalls) moving through the firewall if they move. If they stay in place they take the fire damage on your turn, or finally (at least I would apply it this way) if a creature used magic or a SU/SP ability to teleport out of the fire they did not move through it, nor will they be in it on your turn. Allowing them to react in a way to completely eliminate them taking any damage from your fire walls.

If they move they take damage for moving through the fire?

I thought that normally, cast wall of fire in creature space, they take 2d6+CL damage. On their turn, they can move away from the wall and not take damage, because they don't have to move through it. If it was cast bordering their space, they have 1 direction they can move without crossing the wall. If it was cast intersecting their space, they could move either direction without crossing it, as they are already half in it (evidenced by taking the damage when it was cast).


Not sure what the interaction is here and wanting to get some other peoples opinions.

First, the spells.

Time Stop wrote:

This spell seems to make time cease to flow for everyone but you. In fact, you speed up so greatly that all other creatures seem frozen, though they are actually still moving at their normal speeds. You are free to act for 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time. Normal and magical fire, cold, gas, and the like can still harm you. While the time stop is in effect, other creatures are invulnerable to your attacks and spells; you cannot target such creatures with any attack or spell. A spell that affects an area and has a duration longer than the remaining duration of the time stop have their normal effects on other creatures once the time stop ends. Most spellcasters use the additional time to improve their defenses, summon allies, or flee from combat.

You cannot move or harm items held, carried, or worn by a creature stuck in normal time, but you can affect any item that is not in another creature's possession.

You are undetectable while time stop lasts. You cannot enter an area protected by an antimagic field while under the effect of time stop.

Wall of fire wrote:

Duration concentration + 1 round/level

An immobile, blazing curtain of shimmering violet fire springs into existence. One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet. The wall deals this damage when it appears, and to all creatures in the area on your turn each round. In addition, the wall deals 2d6 points of fire damage + 1 point of fire damage per caster level (maximum +20) to any creature passing through it. The wall deals double damage to undead creatures.

If you evoke the wall so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall. If any 5-foot length of wall takes 20 points or more of cold damage in 1 round, that length goes away. (Do not divide cold damage by 2, as normal for objects.)

Wall of fire can be made permanent with a permanency spell. A permanent wall of fire that is extinguished by cold damage becomes inactive for 10 minutes, then reforms at normal strength.

The situation. 20th level caster casts time stop and gets X rounds to play with. They spend these rounds casting wall of fire in the space their enemy is located in.

The question is what damage does the enemy take? We have 2 thoughts on this currently.

1) The walls of fire have duration longer than the time stop, and have their normal effect when time stop ends. The normal effect when in the area of a wall of fire that is cast where a creature is located is to take 2d6+CL fire damage.

2) The enemy is immune to the spells during the time stop, so they do not take the 2d6+CL damage. Instead they only take the damage on their turn if they pass through the fire, or end their turn in the hot zone.

Thoughts?


Quote:
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

You are not two-weapon fighting just because you are holding an off-hand weapon. The only way you are two-weapon fighting is when you use an off-hand weapon to make an attack.

Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

If you wield a second weapon (the spell) in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Two-Weapon Fighting is taking an extra attack with your off-hand weapon. Spell combat functions like TWF, but replaces the off-hand weapon with the spell, and logically the casting replaces the attack of the weapon. The spell is the weapon, the casting is the attack.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Now you're saying the spell in Spell Combat does not exist? Then what are you doing with your "off-hand"? Something that is unspeakable and I dare not ask what? Your "off-hand" is used to cast the spell, even if you have a Still Metamagic (or non-Somatic Component) Spell that you are casting. Full stop. Most everybody agrees that is the case.

The off-hand is used to cast the spell, in the same way that TWF the off hand is used to make an extra attack. TWF and whirlwind do not work together. Spell combat says it functions like TWF. It follows that Spell combat and whirlwind do not work together.

Yes, spell combat says the off-hand weapon is replaced by the spell and not the off-hand attack. I understand that. I think the concept includes casting the spell taking place of making an off-hand attack, not holding an off-hand weapon.

RAW: The off-hand spell replaces an off-hand weapon, and because Whirlwind only denies additional attacks not holding a weapon, it technically works.

RAI: I think that spell combat functioning as TWF means the spell is your off-hand attack, and so whirlwind and spell combat should not work, as casting the spell is taking the place of the off-hand attack. I think that is what was intended and they said weapon to emphasize that the hand must be empty and not holding a weapon (so as to be free to cast the spell with), not because it doesn't replace the off-hand weapon attack.


andreww wrote:
He takes damage when it is cast (nothing during timestop) but when time stop ends it is still my turn. Wall of Fire deals damage on the casters turn. Time stop says that area spells which are still in place when it ends do what they do. If you stay standing in a wall of fire you take the damage again.

If that's the case, then you only get the radiant heat damage, not the passing through damage.


I see it this way. He was immune during the time stop. If not, he would have taken:
Round 1: 2d4+20
2: (2d4+20)x2
3: (2d4+20)x3
4: (2d4+20)x4
5: (2d4+20)x5
6: (2d4+20)x6
Time stop over
7: (2d4+20)x6

Instead, he just takes 7, the round as the time stop ends.

I can see the interpretation that since the spell was cast while under time stop that Marv is invulnerable in regards to the clause of immediately taking damage as if passing through the wall. That would mean I take no damage until your turn in the round after time stop.

GM?


james014Aura wrote:
Spell Combat says you never had the apple in your left hand, and had the orange all along. Some spells let you trade the orange for an apple, though (and would not be allowed/work, because Whirlwind trades future apples, too.)

That is where I disagree. Spell combat trades the apple for an orange. It doesn't act as if the apple was never there.

Whirlwind takes all apples. If you declare you want to full-attack, then say, "Oh, and I'm TWF so I get an extra attack" roll, and then say, "Oh wait, I meant to whirlwind attack instead, let me just pretend I didn't roll that extra attack."


Isn't spell combat also a full-attack action?

Example:
Player: "I use a full-attack action."
GM: "Okay."
Player: "I want to use spell combat to cast shield, then make my attack, then 5 foot step and I'm done."
GM: "Okay, that's your actions next player."

Not:
Player: "I use a full-attack action."
GM: "Okay."
Player: "I want to use spell combat to cast shield, then make my attack, then 5 foot step and I'm done."
GM: "You can't do that its a different action than full-attack and you didn't declare spell combat when you said it so you have to full-attack now."


Quote:
Natural Attacks Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks.

Unarmed strike is not a natural attack. You can't quote the rules for a natural attack and apply them to an unarmed strike. Unarmed strike can be treated as a natural WEAPON but not a natural ATTACK.

Only natural ATTACKs must be primary or secondary. Natural WEAPONs do not have that requirement. A monks unarmed strike is treated as a natural WEAPON and therefore does not need to be primary or secondary.

Monks do not have any natural ATTACKs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unarmed strike is not a natural weapon, so classification is not required. You have not proven that classification of unarmed strike is required.


Snowlilly wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


Whirlwind requires a full-attack action, and specifically changes the attacks allowed. That is the difference.

And....?

How many extra attacks does spell combat provide? Zero. None. It provides you all the attacks a full attack action would require, and a spell. A spell is still not an attack, no matter how many times people repeat it. Some spells provide an attack once the casting is complete (which would not be compatible with WW), but a spell is just a spell. WW replaces all your attacks in a round with a single attack against all enemies in range. It does not replace all spells you might cast in a round, it does not replace all potions you might drink in a round, it does not replace all 5' steps you make in a round. It replaces only attacks.

Spell combat functions as TWF where casting the spell is the offhand weapon. Instead of attacking you cast with it. Casting the spell replaces the offhand attack. If it only replaced the weapon then it has no need to refer to TWF because you can hold two weapons and not be TWF. TWF is using a second weapon to get an extra attack, which spell combat replaces with casting a spell.

Yes, it replaces,

Replaced = old thing is no longer there, a new thing has taken its place.

The new thing is not an attack, which is the only thing disallowed by Whirlwind.

So which comes first, chicken or the egg? I mean, TWF/Spell Combat or whirlwind?

If whirlwind first, then it replaces any extra attacks, so you can't replace the extra attack granted by TWF with casting a spell.

If spell combat comes first, you replace the extra attack with casting a spell, but then whirlwind says "you can't have any extra attacks" which is questionable as to if the replaced extra attack counts as having been used when it is replaced.

As a different analogy.
You have 2 apples, one in each hand.
Spell combat trades the apple in your left hand for an orange.
Whirlwind trades all apples for a cantaloupe.

Depending on the order you apply this, you can either:
A) Trade your left apple for an orange, trade all your apples for a cantaloupe. You now have an orange and a cantaloupe.
or
B) Trade all your apples for a cantaloupe. You now have no apples to trade for a orange.

The question is in what order does it happen. Or, do you have to have the extra attack available to trade for spell combat to function.


Snowlilly wrote:
Mantipper wrote:

For Monks it's still a light weapon that happens to be treated as both a natural weapon and manufactured for the explicit purpose of spells and effects that enhance and improve them.

Power Attack is an effect that enhances/improves.

For the purpose of resolving Power Attack, the monk's UAS counts as a natural weapon when beneficial to the monk.

All natural weapons must, by RAW, be classified as either primary or secondary. This becomes relevant when using both Power Attack and Dragon Ferocity.

The monk does not have a natural weapon so it is not classified.

The monk has an unarmed strike, which can count as a natural weapon for effects and spells, but does not specifically state primary or secondary, so it is not.

Therefore, you don't get the improved effect from power attack because it is not defined as a primary natural weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bbangerter wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


Whirlwind requires a full-attack action, and specifically changes the attacks allowed. That is the difference.

And....?

How many extra attacks does spell combat provide? Zero. None. It provides you all the attacks a full attack action would require, and a spell. A spell is still not an attack, no matter how many times people repeat it. Some spells provide an attack once the casting is complete (which would not be compatible with WW), but a spell is just a spell. WW replaces all your attacks in a round with a single attack against all enemies in range. It does not replace all spells you might cast in a round, it does not replace all potions you might drink in a round, it does not replace all 5' steps you make in a round. It replaces only attacks.

Spell combat functions as TWF where casting the spell is the offhand weapon. Instead of attacking you cast with it. Casting the spell replaces the offhand attack. If it only replaced the weapon then it has no need to refer to TWF because you can hold two weapons and not be TWF. TWF is using a second weapon to get an extra attack, which spell combat replaces with casting a spell.


Quote:
3) The FAQ only applies to haste and effects that emulate haste. (This is the strongest, and only valid argument IMO, as to this being possibly RAI). Problem: It doesn't say haste like effects. It just says "other effects". Other effects without further clarification could very well include other things that are not haste like.

Haste, speed weapon, blessing of fervor, stalwart defender smash, cleaving finish, wild fighting.

Maybe monk flurry of blows extra attack from 1 ki spent. Not sure if that combines with spell combat or not.
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

Those are some "other effects" that allow extra attacks that could work with spell combat. Anything that requires a full-attack action, and grants an extra attack should work.

Whirlwind requires a full-attack action, and specifically changes the attacks allowed. That is the difference.


Quote:
Nothing else is visible due to the impenetrable smoke.

What smoke?

Can you also use the coordinates on the map I made for the location of the large glowing multi-coloured dome and sphere of shimmering emerald light?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Actual natural weapons must be primary or secondary. You can't quote a rule saying Unarmed are natural except for effects, and since it doesn't say primary or secondary it's neither.

And you cannot have a natural weapon that is neither.

If you have Raw that supports your position for an unclassified natural weapon post it.

You've seen the RAW stating all natural weapons must be either primary or secondary a dozen times.

I've posted the RAW stating this at least that many times.

That's fine, because the monk does not have a natural weapon. He has an unarmed strike.

Does the monk have a natural weapon? No.
Does the monk have an unarmed strike? Yes.
Does the unarmed strike count as a natural weapon for effects or spells that benefit? Yes.
Does it say that it counts as a primary or secondary natural weapon for effects or spells that benefit? No.
Therefore, the monk has an unarmed strike, and effects for natural weapons can count it as one. It does not count as primary or secondary and does not need to because it actually is not a natural weapon, it just counts as one for spells and effects which benefit them.


Quote:
Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.

The FAQ explicitly states that spell combat is not the full-attack action.

The earlier ruling said no extra attack, spell combat was its own action. The new ruling says that haste does allow the extra attack when taking the spell combat action. It does not address other full attack actions.


It should work yes.


Danzibe1989 wrote:
but per DM decision, you can throw those rules out and do it anyways.

Usually called Rule 0.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Any attack made without a weapon is an unarmed attack.
Per RAW, not so. A Grapple is an attack made without a weapon, and yet it is not an unarmed attack. I know this to be true because the Amulet of Might Fists, which enhances Unarmed Attacks, does not enhance Grapples. I am proud to say I was instrumental in forcing Paizo Publishing to make a ruling on that matter.

Grapple is a combat maneuver that is not made with a weapon (typically). It is not done with unarmed attack, as evidenced by the mighty fists not benefiting grapple checks. Some combat maneuvers are or can be done by weapons (trip, sunder as examples) but not all of them are.


With how magic mart™ is treated in the game world, I'm surprised anyone important allows hats (or anything on the head/in the hair) to be worn at all during any social settings.


Ravingdork wrote:
I was implying that the rope was rotted, or otherwise unfit for climbing (or use in general). No one would bother inventing a rope that could not serve its intended purpose.

Its pretty simple. You invent a rope. Then over time and use, it rots and becomes unsuited for its purpose.

Same thing with the hat. Originally, it lasted while worn, and over time and edition changes, it now has become unsuited for that purpose, because now it only lasts a few minutes per command word said.


Derklord wrote:
SodiumTelluride wrote:
the ability to strike back each time you get hit is pretty nice.
Unless I'm missing something, it's a mere 1d6 piercing damage with no scaling. How is that not completely irrelevant after a few levels?

Free damage is free damage.

If you get attacked by 4 creatures, thats an average 12 output from you doing nothing. The more you are attacked, the better it is.

In a fight, it can mean the creature drops 1 round sooner.


Snowlilly wrote:
Tarantula wrote:


If we now look at natural attacks.
Quote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb
...

You are defining, for the most part, the mechanics used in combat with natural attacks.

Natural Attacks wrote:
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.

Emphasis mine.

This is the full definition for Natural Attacks, from the Universal Monster Rules.

Monks do not possess a natural attack. They have an unarmed strike, that can count as a natural attack for effects and spells.

Much like a Druid with the Share Spells ability and their animal companion.
The animal companion is an animal type creature. Share spells allows the druid to cast any spell with a target of You on their animal companion, even if it would not affect animal type creatures. It doesn't make the companion humanoid, but it allows the spell to affect them as if they were.

The monk unarmed strike is an unarmed strike. It counts as a natural attack for spells and effects that enhance or improve natural attacks. This allows a monk to benefit from a spell like Strong Jaw or Lead Blades equally well. It does not change what type of weapon the monk has (unarmed strike).


Quote:
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.

Technically, you can't charge a square, as its not an opponent. I would allow it though.

Alchemist can target a square INTERSECTION with AC 5, as can all splash weapons. If you miss, you have the missed direction roll.

The mist obscures all sight.

Quote:
The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet.

It specifically grants concealment to creatures within the square, I would still rule as a GM you don't have LOS to the square. In the fog, I would apply 50% miss chance for the intersection too, but that is not RAW.

Quote:
Even if you are right, even if I can't see the person on such an awesome Perception Roll. A successful roll will certainly let me see the square.

The square isn't hiding. You could roll a 10000000000 result on perception, and you still cannot see through the fog.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Magentawolf wrote:
Monks do not provoke because they have Improved Unarmed Strike, not because their attacks are natural weapons. (Which they're not)
Natural Attacks wrote:
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks.

Emphasis mine.

Any attack made without a weapon is a natural attack. These attacks fall into one of two categories. Primary or Secondary.

It helps to look at the whole section.

Quote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Any attack made without a weapon is an unarmed attack.

If we now look at natural attacks.

Quote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

Monks unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, so they are not natural attacks. They are not primary or secondary, because they are unarmed strikes. They do count as a natural weapon for effects and spells, but it does not specify primary or secondary, so it is neither.

Natural weapons fall into 2 groups, primary or secondary.
A monk unarmed strike is not a natural weapon, but can be treated as one for effects and spells.
Because power attack requires a primary natural weapon, and a monk unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon, it does not apply.


Even a command word truestrike would be too cheap to pay per the guidelines.

For truestrike, I'd argue you take half the price of a weapon bonus (because its only to hit) plus the activation prices.

That gives you 20^2x1000 for the attack bonus. (400,000) * 1800 for command or 2000 for constant. (720,000,000) or (800,000,000). I think 800,000,000 is a reasonable price for a ring of constant truestrike.


James Risner wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Or, follow the item creation rules, to make a constant hat of disguise for 2,000gp instead of the command word for 1,800 that already exists.
Which would violate the item creation guidelines because we already have a Hat of Disguise and Greater Hat of Disguise.

How does it violate them?

Quote:
Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.

The price of a duration limited hat of disguise is 1800. It makes sense that a constant hat of disguise would cost more. Looking at the table, it suggests 2000 as a price for a constant hat of disguise. That is more than the duration based hat of disguise, so it all matches up.


So, what happens?


Quote:
The definition of Primary Natural Attack: attacks made without weapons that use the attackers full BAB and full strength.

Natural attacks are not made without weapons, they are made with natural weapons. Unarmed strikes are made without weapons.

Quote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

A monks unarmed strike is not made with a natural weapon. It is not a primary natural weapon, because it is not a natural weapon. It is neither primary nor secondary. It does count as a natural weapon for benefits, but because power attack specifies primary natural weapon, it does not apply to monk unarmed strikes.


Dragon ferocity still does not make their unarmed strike a primary natural attack.

1 to 50 of 3,119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>