With the regards to the SRD, in the Traps, Hazard, & Special Terrains section it cost out traps as a 1000gp per CR. It lists 12 bear traps as CR1.
From the Adventurer's Armory:
From the Advanced Player's Guide:
Bold sections added by me as directly pertinent to the discussion.
I am of the opinion that "Prying open the jaws or pulling the spike from the ground requires a DC 20 Strength check." from the APG is in error.
Under the Traps, Hazard, & Special Terrains section of the SRD:
In the Advanced Players Guide:
The Adventurer's Armory says:
Which of the three is correct/current?
Further, as 3 of the 4 "standard" bears withing Pathfinder are large creatures, is is safe to assume that a bear trap will work equally well on an ogre as "bear traps work as well for trapping humanoids or monsters."
And finally, if I wanted to secure the trap to a tree instead of spiking it to the ground, would you consider the chain that is part of the trap (for spiking it to the ground) is of sufficient length to wrap around a typical tree?
Beware where you go with this. Could a feather falling player have combat rounds with a flying opponent? Unless you can find something official floating around (pun intended), I suggest you read it as while feather falling the only action a player can take is the move action to "fall." Unless of course, this is the style of game you want.
Just my thoughts.
I am looking for advice on whether or not an NPC in a party should receive loot. Note, I am not in need of a distribution method.
It would seem that if the party hired the NPC, then the amount of reward would have been decided in the contract. But what if the NPC is just someone you encountered on the road and happens to be heading your way? For example, Shalelu in the Rise of the Runelords AP (please no specifics, I am a player, not the GM). Is she entitled to loot?
It does seem quite clear that Paizo does intend that she NOT take away from the party's XP earned.
Also, one might argue that she helps the party and risks life and limb while doing so. But, is she really on par with the rest of the members of the party? Is she geared as a PC would be for her level? Is she of equal level to the party? If not, she is either not pulling a full "share" of the weight, or may in fact be pulling too much of the load (if higher in level and gear).
Assuming she is lower in respect to level/gear/power, then she is similar to a cohort. Cohorts don't inherently earn a share of loot, or do they?
While the above is my specific situation, I am asking the question with the hopes of finding a more general reply.
Actually, RAI is not open. Per SKR: here.
A monster's type (such as undead or construct) tells you what sort of effects it's immune to. If the type doesn't say "immune to illusions" or "immune to blindness/deafness," then it's not immune to those things.
Also, note that the ooze type says
whereas the construct and undead types DO NOT say that, so constructs and undead are not blind, and are thus not immune to gaze attacks and so on.
This comes from the Combat Rules under the Initiative section: "Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed." It refers specifically to a Combat Round.
This comes from the Combat Rules under the Surprise section: "Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC." It refers specifically to a Surprise Round.
My argument is that there is a distinction between a Surprise Round that has combat in it and a Combat Round that has combat in it.
I understand what you are saying, but the rules are a set of instructions for running the mechanics of a game. If we follow your logic, which is more real life in nature, the undead skeleton that a caster might raise via the animate undead spell would not only not be able to be blinded, but would never hear the verbal commands that the caster is suppose to use to command them in the first place as skeletons clearly do not have ear membranes.
While as a GM you could rule as such, what you cannot be aware of at first thought is how else your ruling may change other events. You just took away a PC's ability to handle the horde of undead. Might that not also increase the CR and XP of the encounter. If you move the undead as independent creatures with tactics have you over stepped their "mindless" nature or allowed their creator too much of a free hand in issuing those voice commands?
Again, I am not saying your way is wrong, but I am saying that changing RAW or RAI can lead to consequences we have not anticipated. I know, we nearly had a TPK last week due to such an event.
Let me see if I can rephrase your meaning SG. Your view is that an item is not an IW until such time as it is used/readied as an IW. If this is your logic, I can accept that. It would seem to keep proper "flavor" for things as well.
The bard is playing his banjo. The banjo is not an IW nor is he threatening with it atm. It becomes the bards turn to act, he declares he is using his banjo as an IW and swings it at his opponent. It is now and until the end of combat or used in a non-combat manner, an IW; and will threaten as the combat continues.
Yes, BBT, which is what led me to my thought/question, which is not so much can you do it (threaten); but rather, that almost all the time you will be threatening (unless you are holding nothing in your hands) and does that break "flavor" not RAW nor RAI even. My research shows that it is clear that IW's threaten, and that RAI agrees they should.
If anything, within GM caveat, can be considered an improvised weapon, and you can threaten adjacent squares with improvised weapons (fact), then wouldn't almost everyone always threaten and be eligible to conduct attacks of opportunity? If so, does this break part of the "flavor" of the game. More importantly, to me personally, by threatening, they increase the likelihood of a rogue being able to get into a sneak attack position.
1) a bard playing a musical instrument could use the instrument as an improvised weapon.
2) a ranger could use his bow as an improvised weapon (not to shoot arrows with but to strike the opponent with physically), or an arrow for that matter.
3) a wizard with a sheathed sword cane could use the "scabbard" as an improvised weapon.
So, you are happy with:
He might not get last line as he is technically no longer mounted which is why we are arguing he can full round attack (in this example) in the first place.
Martiln is getting to the crux of my point.
Reading further, if your mount charges and you attack at the end, you take all the bonuses and penalties of a charge; ie, you charge.
The "best" money maker (tongue in cheek).
Using craft (alchemy) and a gold coin (platinum has a much higher melting point). As I have the base raw material, the gold coin, it will cost me 1/6th the price of a gold coin to make a gold coin. So, I can now make 6 gold coins with the one gold coin, rinse, and repeat.
But note, due to how RAW works, it takes ten times longer to do this with gold than it does with silver even though silver has a lower melting point as the cost is the determining factor for length of time to make.
And, if I tried to "sell" the gold coins I made, I would only get 1/2 value out of them. I guess I will just need to spend them.
Perhaps a magic carpet or cauldron should be treated as a mount in those circumstances? Should a wagon be considered a mount?
Are you permitted to shoot at the mount separate from the rider? How do the rules apply?
If the wagon is the mount, and it is full of people, which person controls it? The driver?
Suppose the mount is significantly larger than the rider: ie, dragon mount with human rider, does that change how we look at the issue.
TL; DR; reply:
In my games, you would not be able to enchant an improvised weapon with weapon properties, nor would you be able to use them as masterwork weapons if they were otherwise of masterwork quality.
Why? Because as I see it, it is an improvised weapon. Once you make any of the changes you are suggesting, it would in fact be a standardized weapon.
Imagine an open field. It is free of foliage, the day is bright and sunny, not a cloud in the sky, yet, there is an obelisk out in the middle of it (or if you prefer, a large pillar, a stone wall, etc). You see me run behind it. You KNOW I am there.
But, I now have cover. I now go stealthy. You might expect me to exit the other side, but maybe I double back. Perhaps I move away from you keeping the obstacle between us. Maybe my "stealthiness" means I used camouflage and I am now low-crawling towards you, but unnoticed.
I think sometimes we get lost in some of the mechanics of the game vs some of the roleplaying of the game. Yes, we do function off a common set of understood rules, but various GM's will run their games with different flavors. Obviously some small isolated shrub in the open will not really provide much, if any, concealment for someone to go "stealthy" in, but then there were hedges in France that tanks could not go through during WWII. My point being is that not every shrub is equal.
This is, in part, why we have the opposed roll to see if one PC's stealthiness if good enough to beat another PC's sensory perceptions. Or, GM caveat to explain if something is even possible.
In this recent thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0l7?At-what-point-does-a-Coup-de-Grace-break I agree with most of the others who are supporting the idea that invisibility drops after the completion of the attack. I would go further and say it as after the attack action.
This would in turn imply that a rogue sneak attacking an opponent while invisible using multiple attacks via the full round attack action would indeed get sneak damage on each individual swing. Which I also happen to believe is correct.
However, several posts I have seen elsewhere indicate that a rogue only gets the first "swing" as a sneak attack and the rest as normal attacks. Can anyone point me to a PF FAQ or Dev comment stating something specific one way or another?
Part of my concerns mimic NullVOID's.
First, while rolling a natural 1 is an automatic failure, there are no rules for critical failure penalties other than the miss. So, that means that only poison using folks suffer here. Further, the chance of rolling that natural 1 actually increases as you level up due to the ever increasing number of rolls, and thus the higher level pc is actually more at risk.
Secondly, let's assume that using the 5% chance is okay. But should it be the same 5% for a non-poison class pc using a poisoned weapon vs a poison class pc using the same weapon? In other words, in preparation for the big fight, my party has my rogue poison all the weapons. Now it's time for battle. Should the rogue rolling a natural 1 and a fighter rolling a natural 1 have the same chance of actually being poisoned?
While a poison use class (rogue, ninja, or alchemist) cannot accidentally poison himself while applying the poison to a weapon, what about other times?
If he rolls a natural 1 to hit, does he suffer the same fate as non-poison class persons?
What about when he is collecting the poison/poison components from it's/their natural source(s); ie, snakes venom, purple worm poison etc?
The classes themselves speak of: "At 1st level, a poisoner is trained in the use of poison and cannot accidentally poison herself when applying poison to a blade. "
Which is not the same as what is stated in the poison section: "Whenever a character applies or readies a poison for use there is a 5% chance that he exposes himself to the poison and must save against the poison as normal. This does not consume the dose of poison. Whenever a character attacks with a poisoned weapon, if the attack roll results in a natural 1, he exposes himself to the poison. This consumes the poison on the weapon. Characters with the poison use class feature do not risk accidentally poisoning themselves."
Additionally, there are several monster races which describe poison use as: "...are skilled in the use of poison and never risk accidentally poisoning themselves."
Also, does applying poison to a weapon provoke an attack of opportunity? Would/should it count as an "oil?"
Thanks for any help provided.