concerro's page

If you have a longsword, and a shortsword, and armor spikes then you can only use 2 of the 3 weapons in one round.

Either the longsword or the shortsword can be the primary weapon, but once you use one as the primary weapon the other one defaults to being the off-hand weapon/attack. Once the other one is used the armor spikes can't be use. If the spike are used then which ever one that has not been used is shutdown.

The idea is to shutdown attacking with your armor spikes, a spiked shield, and every other off-hand weapon all in the same round.

In short they are saying you can't use the armor spikes with a 2nd off-hand weapon.

Real life physics dont apply to game magic. As an example lightening cast into water won't electrocute people. The only rules based exception is fire based spells.

Spellcasting Underwater: Casting spells while submerged can be difficult for those who cannot breathe underwater. A creature that cannot breathe water must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to cast a spell underwater (this is in addition to the caster level check to successfully cast a fire spell underwater). Creatures that can breathe water are unaffected and can cast spells normally. Some spells might function differently underwater, subject to GM discretion.

You take no penalties to attacks made with the shield.
The longsword(example) takes whatever penalties it would normally take however.

No such magic item exist that give you TWF.

Neither one allows for an AoO. Harley is correct.

The animal companion version does not get it. The reason is that animal companions are not exactly like the bestiary version, and they only get what the druid section gives them.

Spinosaurus Companions

Starting Statistics: Size Medium; Speed 30 ft., swim 20 ft.; AC +3 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d4); Ability Scores Str 18, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 3.

7th-Level Advancement: Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8), 2 claws (1d6); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4.

Compare to the tiger who gets some of the abilities from the bestiary that I bolded.

Cat, Big (Lion, Tiger)

Starting Statistics: Size Medium; Speed 40 ft.; AC +1 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d4); Ability Scores Str 13, Dex 17, Con 13, Int 2, Wis 15, Cha 10; Special Attacks rake (1d4); Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.

7th-Level Advancement: Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8), 2 claws (1d6); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4; Special Attacks grab, pounce, rake (1d6)

Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light.

This is referring to actual armor, not shields.

Shield don't impact your movement, nor do they have a medium category.

PS:I really wish they would have said suits of armor when talking about the armor that does not include shields.

That was in 3.5, but not in Pathfinder.

When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function).

The information myself and the other post quoted above. It just does not use the word damage.

Here it is again:

Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

In short the double weapon is treated as a one-handed weapon, and a light weapon for all purposed.

This has come up before, and the wording it just bad. When two-weapon fighting the off-hand always get half of the strength bonus unless you have the double slice feat.

When you are TWF'ing the weapon is not treating as a two-handed weapon, but as two different weapons so one end is gets only 1/2 damage.

A two-handed weapon only gets 1.5 times the strength bonus when it used in that manner, and not as two separate weapons(TWF).

A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon

This bolded area is meant to signify that. 3.5 which is where most of Pathfinder is copied and pasted from has a web article explaining it.

I know PF is not 3.5, but the wording is the same in this case, and so are the devs.

Yeah. At 6th level the bonus is +2.

When you look at the spells in the book sometimes they have effect instead of target as an example. That is what I think MDT was referring to.

Example

Scorching Ray

School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 2

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Effect one or more rays[/b]

Phantasmal Killer

School illusion (phantasm) [fear, mind-affecting]; Level sorcerer/wizard 4

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)

Target one living creature

Fireball

School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S, M (a ball of bat guano and sulfur)

Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)

Area 20-ft.-radius spread

edit:I think the version on the previous page was good enough, but MDT's use of effect as a game term reminds of the levels vs levels vs levels thing that gets brought up. Your last wording of -->"The creature is treated as undead for purposes of spells or abilities that use positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage." should be good enough though.

Here's an idea that might appease mdt's thinking without adding really cumbersome additional phrasing to the text:

The creature is treated as undead for purposes of spells or abilities that use positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

Would that be more satisfactory? If there's another category of <insert word other than "effect"> that needs to be covered, it could be changed to "spells, abilities and XXXXX".

Still reads smoother than some of the proposed alternatives while leaving even less room to invent a targeting issue.

Thoughts?

I like this one also.

PS:I do not envy game designers.

It is in the magic section under Aiming a Spell which goes into more detail:
Here are examples:
You have targets-spell like magic missile or charm person
You have effects-things like rays
You have area-AoE(fireball) and Lines(lightening bolt)

No offense Jiggy, but you are wrong. If your wording addressed it, then I wouldn't be pointing out it doesn't. Saying that they are treated as undead for effects (which by the way, is a specific game term) is not the same as saying they are the treated as undead for targeting.

Fair enough. I checked and you can not be target by effects so we need something that included effects and targeting.

The creature is treated as undead for the purposes of effects, or any situation when it is targeted that uses positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

If you want to take it farther you can say:

The creature is treated as undead for the purposes of effects, areas that include it, or any ability that targets it that uses positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

The above entails all the ways of targeting a creature, and they are all game terms.

Jiggy wrote:

The creature is treated as undead for purposes of effects that use positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage.

That's all great, any time he's effected by positive or negative energy, he's considered undead. However, if he's not effected in the first place, then he's not effected. Channel says you have to choose to channel against living, or undead, not both. If you channel vs undead, the NEA creature is not effected because he's not undead. Nothing in the quote above says they're a valid target when targeting undead, it says they're treated as undead for the effect. If the effect never occurs, then the reversal of the effect never occurs.

The above is very clear to me. It does not say "when he is affected he is treated as though he is undead". It is saying for all effects that heal damage of inflict damage upon undead creature X is affected as if it is also undead.

For your interpretation to be valid it would have to read "The creature is treated as undead for purposes of effects that affect it if the effect uses positive or negative energy to inflict or heal damage"

My wording of your interpretation calls for the creature to be affected before it can be affected.

Jiggy's revision of my statement just says that the creature is counted as an undead for effects that inflict or heal damage if they use positive or negative energy to do so.

I see no resemblance between Jiggy's edit and what I bolded in my second paragraph.

MDT how can the last two submissions be misread as anything other than treating the creature as an undead?

I agree. Inflict is not a game term, and if they take it that far....well I think the point has been made.

PS:Ignoring my incorrect spelling of were, and the misplaced comma either version works. I think Jiggy's flows better, but at the end of the day both should be usable.

I like the "inflict" better than "deal".
I can accept your edit. :)

Good catch Beckett.

Then what about--->"The creature is affected by Positive or Negative Energy effects that either heal or deal Hit Point damage, as if they where Undead."

Both of them read the same to me. At some point we have to just ask the question "Is it clear enough for the average person to understand?"

Creatures are assumed to have the average hp just like in the book.

The summoned creature really exist. When you kill it, it just does not really die like a called creature does. It just gets sent back to its home plane.

Empower and maximize only affect die rolls that such as the damage from magic missile. At no point does the spell(summon monster) tell you to roll for hp.

Skilled only counts toward levels. Racial HD are not levels.

All cleric spells are oracle spell unless an exception is noted, just like the wizard/sorcerer list is the same except for special cases.

Why would Chill Touch be an issue. You would use the line that shows how it affect undead instead. I have that one memorized.
As for the others if they say this spell does X to undead then you apply X to the dhampir if the spell/effect specifically says it uses positive or negative energy.

I don't think raise dead calls out positive energy. If it did I overlooked it.

There are spells are can be assumed to use positive or negative energy, but if it does not say it then those spells are not intended to count toward special(not necessarily) better treatment for the dhampir.

Jiggy wrote:

Despite being alive, the creature is treated as undead for purposes of positive and negative energy effects.

I don't think simplicity will work here.

This version means all those unexpected affects froms spells are back, and Positive and Negative Energy effects is not specific.

What are some examples? I tried to look for some earlier before I agreed with his rewording.

That is better Jiggy. I have changed bandwagons. :)
I just remembered that I got into a debate because someone wanted to call something an aura(a specific game term) that did not have aura anywhere in the description or name. I am sure the same could happen with an AoO type effect.

I like that version Enevhar. That way it covers targeting and AoE's.

Nope. It would allow your familiar to improve according to the familiar chart,which is what boon companion does, but it does not improve your caster level for the purposes of getting the improved familiar feat.

The robe only improves the use of bloodline power as if your level were higher. Improved familiar is a feat, and not a bloodline power.

You would pretty much have to find a way to boost your actual caster level.

The orange ioun stone will get you one extra level. That is the only one I know of from Pathfinder that would help you get early access to an improved familiar.

PS:I have a stake in this also since I am thinking of a similar character.

Sean Reynolds I think you should read this post.
This ability still has issues.

Sorry Richard I got off-topic. Your initial question is still no, but if you multiclass the familiar does get better with boon companion.

Spells that use attack rolls count as weapons for the purpose of effects.

Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.

The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.

Where did I get the idea that a melee touch attack spell was needed? I can't even find the post now, not that it matters since spell strike only calls for a melee range of touch.

It does work for familiars. I guess next time I should read the feat instead of go off of memory.

You can't ready full round attacks.

Are you saying no touch attack is needed for inflict light wounds? I do agree that it does not call for one, but I don't think that is RAI.

Good catch. I guess we can go to DR's link and hit the FAQ button since I still think the intent was not for all touch spells to be "touch attack" spells.

I think Bob the Literalist would have this one so I won't even try to counter it RAW.
I think this is another example of the rules written with the assumption that people have 3.5 experience, however.

concerro wrote:

You need a damage roll, which is only mentioned in certain situations.

But not in all situations.

So why, in this one, it would be necessary ?

And a channel energy provokes a damage roll on undead.

Thanks for yours answers, but i still stand on my first idea.

RAW I think you have a strong case by RAW. I would hit the FAQ button on your original post though. It is better to try to find out up front, than get to level 10 for your paladin, and find out they changed the wording.

Someone just posted in an old "paladins are OP" thread early this morning. I can say it is fine for me, but for the sake of argument, if this is applied RAW people will be bringing their proverbial pitch forks and torches to take care of the paladin.

I guess FAQ'ing the OP thread won't hurt though.

D.Rossi thanks for the explanation. I think you may have put it better than I did.

PRD - Magic: Attacks wrote:

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

By all accounts, using an arcane mark as a touch attack is an attack according to the rules. In fact, there are reasons to do so from a combat perspective. For one, you are tagging an opponent, which allows you to later scry on them if they escape, and cannot be dispelled except via an erase spell, which means most monsters like demons who can dispel magic cannot erase your mark to keep you from tracking them. If placed upon a creature, you can use detect magic which causes the mark itself to glow and become visible, revealing any enemy who decided to become invisible, and puts a magic aura on them as well.

Arguing that arcane mark, when used as an attack, is not an attack, is like arguing that casting solid fog into a group of enemies is not an attack, or using dimensional anchor is not an attack. Arcane mark can in fact be used offensively, and with good reason to do so.

How can anyone be so narrow minded?

Finding a way to use a spell in a way that it was not intended does not allow you to change its initial function.

It would require GM adjudication to make it into a touch attack since the spell does not call for one. If the GM has to go outside of the rules to call for a touch attack then the spell is not a touch attack spell.

Talonhawke wrote:

No James I mean attack to mean something that is a threat as in something that would deal damage not that you get to run around touching things all willy nilly.

How much damage does touch of fatigue do?

Straight up it does 0 damage, but for most things being fatigued (on a failed save) is worse than the 1d3 damage that a close range ray of frost would deal. Frankly this is the wrong criteria.

Again it's contortions. You don't like it, my suggestion remove it from the spell list as a house rule. Or if you want to agree with the designers you can swap it out for another touch attack cantrip that doesn't offend you personally.

To the others, arcane mark is a touch attack spell. So is, for that matter, cure light wounds. Are you going to claim that when trying to hurt undead with this that it's not a touch attack spell?

Now light is not, as you'll notice you cannot target a creature with it. But if you still could, it certainly would be a touch attack spell to cast on an unwilling target. Any thief PC or NPC certainly would object to lighting up like a christmas tree!

The contortions that people go through to avoid something weak from being allowable. It's fairly silly.

-James

Cure light wound is a touch attack spell when fighting undead. Arcane Mark is never a touch attack spell. If you want to argue that the word "attack" should have been left out you can, but as is I think it is shows intent, and was not an accident that it was there.

I will admit that I am arguing more RAI than RAW. RAW the case is strong, but I don't think it was the intent. Most people would only allow it to apply to attack roll based damage so if the intent is for all damage to be affected then an FAQ or errata is needed.

then,

PRD (UC, vehicles section) wrote:

Dirigible: Lighter-than-air alchemical gases can be harnessed to give a vehicle flight. Dirigibles are often easier to destroy than the vehicle they convey. Dirigibles have 5 hit points per square and no hardness. They take double the normal damage from acid, electricity, and fire attacks (multiply the damage roll by 2).

this is a clear counter example to your argument. the "damage roll" from any acid, electricity, or fire source (which would include fireballs and the like) are doubled.

like i said i think the term "damage roll" is a bit vague, but based on the precedent set by litany of vengeance, i think that smite should at least apply to any attack that requires a roll to hit- and based on the clear counter example of the Dirigible entry i think there's a valid argument to apply it any time the paladin has to roll any damage. and frankly, imho, it shouldn't be that big a deal- the smite bonus damage is based on the paladin's level so a character won't be able to dip just for a damage bonus on spells or anything and if a paladin wants to dip sorcerer or pick up a couple attack spells with Unsanctioned Knowledge they're really not gonna gain all that much for the levels/feats they spend. the only time that bonus is really gonna be significant is when a straight class paladin channels against an undead creature targeted with smite but a) only the undead he smote will take extra damage, b)it won't change the DC to reduce the whole channel (including smite damage) by half, and c) if you're in a campaign where undead aren't worried about paladins you're GM is probably doing something wrong.

ps- the favored enemy ability says "+2 bonus on weapon attack and damage rolls" which seems pretty clear in limiting the bonus to 'weapon attacks' and 'weapon damage' (sorry rangers with natural attacks), so that's clearly not relevant to this discussion. likewise, the inquisitor's destruction judgment specifically says "weapon damage rolls"

You have consistency throughout the entire core book, and 1 entry in the last book has a different use. At best it shows bad use of the word.

I guess the OP can be FAQ's, but I like I said I doubt any one is going to let that interpretation work.

Weaponlike spells are treated like weapons for the purpose of effects(feats as an example-->weapon focus or improved critical). I was not dismissing all spell, just ones like fireball, as an example.

Sorry for my english but it's not my birth language. I'm french ;)

I try my best.

I found here that answer from James Risner (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
here

concerro wrote:

do a search for "damage rolls" it only comes up when using a weapon

See answer 3 in the post above. No weapon is need.

If it work for spells, why couldn't it work for smite ? nowhere it is written that it couldn't.

I never said it did not work with any spells. If you use spells that use attack rolls it should work, but I already said that, at least by RAW anyway.

I am saying that it does not work just because damage is done. You need a damage roll, which is only mentioned in certain situations.

No the two feats do not work together. Boon companion affects your effective druid levels for the sake of your animal companion.

Improved familiar requires you to have a certain level in a specific arcane casting class.

Touching and touch attacks have a pretty obvious difference. The spells calling for touch attacks are ones used to harm the enemy. The others do not. It is also far from a coincidence that a combat ability is calling for "a touch attack spell". The intent is rather clear on all accounts.
At best you can try to argue you had bad luck when picking that list of spells you just named, but if that is the case I am sure you can find a spell that does not fit the criteria I just described.

No. That is not a touch attack. Touch attack is a specific term. Teleport spells are also touch, but they are not touch attacks either as an example.

If they wanted all touch spells to work they would have said all spells with a range of touch or touch based spells, and not used the term "touch attack".

The description of such abilities normally go into detail. Magic weapons do work.

Immunity to Magic (Ex) Will-o'-wisps are immune to all spells and spell-like abilities that allow spell resistance, except magic missile and maze.

A magic weapon is not a spell, not SLA that allows for spell resistance. Those are the only magical things it is immune to. Everything else is fair game.