Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Trumpets

deusvult's page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 639 posts (796 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 12 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 639 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Is the OP looking for ways to monsters to do it to PCs, or vice versa?

Monsters with Fear auras can make great use of the Dazzling Display for easily doling out the frightened condition.


voideternal wrote:

I kind of understand the OP's sentiments. Evasion sometimes acts pretty weird.

I risk derailing the thread, but let me ask this question, as it's related to evasion, Reflex for half, and suspension of disbelief:

There exists a rogue with Evasion. He swallows a bead of delayed blast fireball*. The bead explodes. The rogue rolls reflex, saves, and takes no damage.

I can suspend my disbelief for teleporting, raising the dead, plane-shifting. After all, that's what the spells are meant to do. I can also suspend my disbelief for a rogue dodging a normal fireball. I can't really suspend disbelief for the above case though. I don't really know why. Am I weird or something?

*How and why he swallowed it is of no concern here. You can replace the rogue with large creatures with swallow whole, air elementals in whirlwind, and other things that envelop the exploding thing, as long as said thing has evasion. Similarly, you can replace the fireball bead with any other AoE explosion-like effect.

In all fairness, that's an extreme example. It's like someone insisting that when a character stabs himself in the head with a dagger he only takes 1d4 damage. In situations like that (or swallowing a delayed blast fireball bead) the GM can safely say "no, don't roll damage. You're just dead, you dumb fool."


Still, threatening both adjacent AND at reach simultaneously is just reeking of wrongness. Not being able to AoO adjacent is basically the price of using a reach weapon. Even taking the polearm master archetype doesn't allow for that, so simply from game balance something as simple as a feat shouldn't allow for it to happen.

So it's not RAW that you'd lose reach to turn your reach weapon into an improvised weapon to AoO adjacent, I'd say it's RAI.. and even if not RAI it's at least a fair adjudication.


There might be inherent game balance issues in allowing catch off guard to threaten adjacent squares with a reach weapon.

In that case, probably the way it should work is that the reach weapon, once used as an improvised weapon, no longer counts as a reach weapon until a move action is spent to re-ready it as a 'proper' weapon.


Page 174, CRB covers damaging objects. Ranged attack damage is halved before applying hardness.
Page 174 goes on to cover Animate Objects, implicitly extending this same rule to them.

However it's not 100% clear this extends to OTHER creatures that are not Animated Objects that also have the hardness rule. (for example, Foo Dogs whilst using their Stone Form ability)

Is it a fair leap to assume that any creature with hardness will use the damaging objects rules (to include implications for ranged attacks and energy typed damage), or are the only creatures those rules are to apply to are Animated Objects?


Diego Rossi wrote:

RAW it would work.

Not really, because damage that is typed as negative energy doesn't necessarily heal undead. Note the important use of the word CAN in the rules about undead being healed by negative energy. It's not automatic/universal. Some negative energy, such as Inflict Spells, specifically call out that they heal undead. There are some attacks that are explicitly typed as negative energy however without that accompanying boilerplate about healing undead instead of damaging them. Those won't heal undead. (or Dhampirs)

Take a Shadow's touch, for example. Does it heal other undead every time it attacks them? No. If it did, you could have pairs (or packs) of shadows fading into the walls to heal each other up over and over mid fight. Heck, one could just attack itself for infinite heals.


Neither is Doug always healed by negative energy. For example, when evil cleric channels to harm the living, Doug simply is unaffected. No damage, no healing.

Negative energy doesn't automatically heal undead.. and thus neither will it always heal Doug.. even if the ghosts COULD be loopholed to attack him.


A fun dilemma about cannibalism is to debate where the line actually is about what is and is not cannibalism.

Is it cannibalism for a human to eat an elf?

Is the line for cannibalism the consumption of ANY sentient critter?


In that specific example, you could indeed look at the environmental rules for wildfires.. so even if the improved evasion prevents the AOE spell damage, it won't prevent damage from inhaling the superheated air.

If you wanted to, of course.


I always explained Wisdom to new players as that quality that allows you to realize to not do those "I shouldn't have done THAT.." situations BEFORE you do them.

With those mental scores, I could totally see some sort of lovable rustic type of character who's not at all familiar with big-city-ways but is still quite capable of not just getting by but contributing to a party's success. I could envision a less-whiny Luke Skywalker with such a statline :D


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Clever bit of sophistry, FLite, but the Swarmsuit is 1 item, and its description says it is clothing.

But is clothing the same thing as Clothing?

Not necessarily, and that's the crux of the issue.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

...

His main complaint has been I shouldn't be doing the damage I'm doing until level 16 or so.

I think you've been given good advice on how to handle the guy.. namely ignoring him other than asking a VL to calm him down.

This comment of yours however has me curious about how familiar this guy actually IS with Pathfinder. 2d6+13 once per turn is godawful damage for a mid level barbarian, let alone a high level one...

I kind of suspect that he thinks wizards are supposed to be the kings of DPS, and isn't taking the transition from 3e (or whatever he's more used to) to Pathfinder very well (where spell damage is most certainly NOT the king of damage)


What's that character's Wisdom score? Is it also low?

Linking (only) Intelligence to "smarts" is a pit many Pathfinder players fall into.

If you're linking smarts to NOT doing things that are stupid, (for example, having Common Sense) you're looking at Wisdom instead.

Intelligence is more akin to how much schooling/training you've had. Common Sense is better represented by the Wisdom stat (which, assuming is not also a dump stat, can allow for a low-Int character to not behave stupidly).


Claxon wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Actually that same page I was quoting about ranged weapons dealing half damage goes on to specificially address Animated Objects. They are treated as creatures only with regards to Armor Class (ie, they're not automatically hit). It most certainly does not say they are treated as creatures in ALL ways.

You mean this quote from here:

Quote:
Animated Objects: Animated objects count as creatures for purposes of determining their Armor Class (do not treat them as inanimate objects).

Where it tells you they aren't objects, they're creatures?

That section is about damaging objects. It doesn't tell you to count animated objects as objects for all purposes except AC, it's simply telling you for the purposes smashing an object its a creature.

More broadly, it's always a creature.

We're not disagreeing about whether or not Animated Objects are creatures. We're disagreeing about whether or not being (or being treated as) a creature is a binary condition where one cannot concurrently be an object.

Obviously Animated Objects are creatures, since they're in the Bestiary. Once again, we agree they're creatures. Page 174 however goes on to specifically mention Animated Objects and explicitly mention how they are treated differently from inanimate objects. (TL;DR: You quoted it. The ONLY difference is in calculating AC)
By omission of further explicit differences, it is being implicitly said that there are no additional differences.

Ergo, this means that Animated Objects, despite being creatures, take damage as objects. Not including AC as that is explicitly called out, BUT implicitly including the reduction vs ranged attacks because it was not.


Claxon wrote:

The part of the creature entry in the bestiary that says "type: construct". Constructs are creatures.

Objects are non-living, non-moving things in the world. Trees for exmaples are objects despite being "alive" in the real world sense. But for game purposes they are objects, not creatures. By the same token, for game rules constructs are creatures, not objects.

Page 174 makes a distinction between what you're describing, "Inanimate Objects" and the enchanted Animated Objects. That distinction does NOT involve not halving damage from ranged weapons.


Claxon wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Something that lots of GMs don't realize is ranged attacks (excepting siege weapons) do half damage vs anything with hardness.
... However constructs, and anything that moves pretty much, are creatures not ibjects. Even if they possess hardness. So, since they are not objects, the damage is not halved.

Most constructs have DR which is indeed a separate rules mechanic from hardness. However there are still some creatures that have actual hardness, and animated objects are most notable. (and if you do have caster NPCs of sufficient level, entirely plausible to insert)

Claxon wrote:
However, I still want to reiterate the constructs are creatures and not objects...

I don't mean to be argumentative, but says who? It's a certainly reasonable ruling to say that at your table, while you're GMing, an animated object ceases to be an object and is only a creature. However it's equally appropo to say that it's simultaneously both an object AND a creature. Not only is the keyword 'object' right there in the name of the creature, it makes in-universe sense. It's a magically enchanted table/chair/whatever.

Actually that same page I was quoting about ranged weapons dealing half damage goes on to specificially address Animated Objects. They are treated as creatures only with regards to Armor Class (ie, they're not automatically hit). It most certainly does not say they are treated as creatures in ALL ways.


Something that lots of GMs don't realize is ranged attacks (excepting siege weapons) do half damage vs anything with hardness.

Animated objects are a great counter to archers!

If you can't add those, you can cook up some situations where the archer has to blow through destructible cover rather than thread his arrows through cover/concealment to hit the baddies sniping back.


andreww wrote:

It all depends on whether or not you treat the reference to clothing in the Sleeves description as literally only meaning items on the clothing list of equipment lists.

The swarmsuit specifically calls itself clothing. The fact that you wear it over other clothes doesn't seem to be relevant. You wear a jacket over other clothes, you wear trousers over your underwear unless you are Superman.

This.

"Clothing" is one of those words that within the confines of the Pathfinder Rules can be viewed as not only a conversational word but also a rules keyword. When choosing to do so, a swarmsuit would be keyed as "Equipment" rather than "Clothing".

By that reading, a swarmsuit, despite being worn, does not technically/fully count as "Clothing". Continuing with this reading, one could also exempt other worn items from being considered "Clothing" (and thus unreplicatable by a sleeve of many garments) such as jewelry, harnesses/belts, backpacks, etc.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

ref Inner Sea Gods, page 203.
Level 5 ability, Aligned Strike.

It seems that either the Deity's Alignment or the Damage Reduction Ignored table on the chart is upside down. Is this the case?

It's completely counterintuitive that, say, a Lawful Good Deity's Sentinel can ignore DR otherwise requiring Evil to penetrate. It makes you good at killing things like Angels rather than Demons.

**

When trying to wrap my mind around the demon baddies' motivations (beyond evil lolz) for taking over the site and enslaving the achaeologists/morloks, I've only managed to solidify my confusion.

Quote:

...a kalavakus demon named

Irorstikal heard the familiar call of its lost mistress.
Thanks to its teleportation ability, Irorstikal arrived
even before the archaeologists discovered the new city
section. Seeing his lost mistress trapped within a lifeless
shell amused the fiend, and he set out to humiliate and
subjugate her for past torments...
Quote:

...Now archaeologists and morlocks work side-byside

to free the behemoth golem so that Irorstikal might
claim the trophy as his own.

Is Severina the mistress in question, or was it the call of the balor bound to the behemoth demon? The text seems on one hand to be suggesting that Severina is the mistress, but the explanations make more sense if the kalavkus means to take the opportunity to torment the more powerful demon that is currently suffering the indignity of powering a mortal-made golem. It seems unlikely that Irorstikal would see Severina and mistake her as being 'trapped within a lifeless shell'. Heck, if he teleported into her tomb itself and meant her ill will, she would have been in a position to F him up. On the other hand, it'd certainly be the first time I've seen a balor referred to in the feminine form.

If irorstikal is digging out the behemoth to 'claim' it, it doesn't make a ton of sense if Severina was the former mistress in question. Granted, he has no way of knowing that she's become quite unattached to her golems. Perhaps, despite his impressive intellect, he simply isn't learned enough to realize that digging out the behemoth golem is actually what's making Severina's escape from eternal imprisonment possible. It just seems a bit off that a demon with 17 wisdom would be written to act so stupidly against his goals... unless of course his goal was to torment the balor inside the golem instead.

**

Simon Kort wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Well the writer assumes the PCs wouldn't be that silly to even try it.. but they do give the age and type so you can indulge the PCs if they insist. ;)


FLite wrote:
Quote:
Would making such a ruling be fair or just look like sour grapes?
Sour grapes.

Thanks for the feedback.

FLite wrote:
Quote:
Another tack is perhaps disallowing
No it is not. Agile is a weapon quality. It is always on, not activated.

Actually, in this context (a +1 amulet of mighty fists), agile is a quality you might reasonably be said to have to actively choose to have instead of a +1 to hit/damage.

Quote:


This doesn't even seem like the worst thing they could do with the AC.

Oh that's a given, but at the same time it has nothing to do with the price of tea in china.


The combo:

A small cat animal companion knowing the weapon finesse feat and wearing an amulet of mighty fists +1 (using the bonus for agile weapon quality vice +1 to hit/dam). Rounding out to a 22 Dex at 4th level (aspect of the tiger) and rocking a +7 (+9 with power attack) damage on possibly 3 attacks per round.

Seems all perfectly legit RAW.. although it was a surprise to me that spending 5,000 on a +1 amulet still allowed for agile enhancement to natural weapon(s), even when you have 3 primary attacks.

So, questions. For those of you who believe that game balance takes a backseat to lolz, this thread isn't for you.

For those of you who are still with me, what advice do you have for me? On one hand, I could just ignore it and trust that the uberness won't scale with level. In the meantime so long as no one else at the table shows signs of feeling like a 5th wheel out of the limelight there's no foul, right?

That brings me to the combination of agile + power attack. There's nothing saying they CAN'T work together, yet there's also no reason the GM has to say they HAVE TO work together. PFS OP rules still allow the adjudication of rules interactions, and agile does say that the user is using dex in place of strength, and because PA is based on a STR prereq it can be ruled to count as 'using strength', ergo cannot be used in concert with agile enhancement.

Would making such a ruling be fair or just look like sour grapes? Even if fair, would it really be worth the risk of alienating the player b/c even with PA the performance-beyond-level-appropriateness will only be extended rather than perpetuated?

Another tack is perhaps disallowing the animal-intelligence cat from preferring to use the agile enhancement over the default +1 to hit/dam granted by the magic item?


First of all, are you planning on running it in PFS or for a home campaign?

I ran it for PFS, with all the attending 'you can't change mechanics' and time constraints limitations entailed within.

A few observations:

Exploring the map: Given what they learn in act 1, players will almost assuredly want to search the mines first. It's almost implausible that they'd do anything else. Furthermore, of the many mines on the island, they'll assuredly want to search the two active mines first. I'd say that in virtually all runnings of the adventure, the only cross-country encounters they'll have is what they find between the colony itself, and the two mines in question. Of the 'random' encounters given, you should pick carefully as you'll likely only have opportunity for 2 or 3 of them at most. I regret picking the looney 'can't catch me, I'm the gingerbread man' fugitive... his encounter (and resulting interrogation) ate soo much time (a problem for a PFS game)

Managing time: If you're in a home campaign and can take as much time as you want, this isn't relevant to you. For a game with a set playing time however, this mod has extreme risk of running long. I'd suggest wrapping up the entire act 1 with an in-media-res combat in the mess hall to expose the PCs to the wierdness of the derro experimentations. Handle the entire act 1 by combining the exposition of "how you got here" along with a one-box-text treatment of searching the otherwise abandoned colony. Arm them with the info they'll eventually get anyway up front and set them on their way immediately. There's very important atmospheric exposition in act 1, but really that's all it's there for. Not worth the hour(s) it takes to search the colony for clues when time is a factor to complete the adventure. IMO it's worth the compromise to provide that atmosphere via box text in such cases.

Getting them to explore more of the island (probably not a PFS context issue): As I mentioned, PCs can be expected to quickly home in on where they need to go for act III. If, after clearing out the BBEG's lair, you want to get them to explore the rest of the island.. there are a few ideas. The Bronze dragon is a suggested random encounter- you can have him be the very one rumored to inhabit skull hill. The dragon can see the PCs as heroes and ask them to clear other dens of villainy in the northern portion of the island. Likewise you can have some juicy hints/correspondence in the BBEG's workshop linking him with allies elsewhere on the island.

**

When I ran it, someone playing pre-gen Kyra aced the initial diplomacy check. When Lander started talking about how he wanted a duel "for fun", they fairly beat him at that as well. End result, he was helpful right out of the gates.

I had him try to talk the party into "going on more adventures" but they were understandably having none of it.

The players were inadvertently victims of their own success and missed a decent amount of the adventure as Lander never wandered off during the night.

@ Horn of Aroden boon: Is there consensus yet as to how that's supposed to work? Since it does nothing (of yet) it seems to me it was meant specifically for Taldor faction PCs and not for everyone who succeeded on the primary mission.

**

Day of the Demon

Spoiler:

The party eventually became convinced 'Tilly' was some sort of devil impersonating a child and figured they held the upper hand because she didn't realize that they already 'realized'. They played along with the programmed storyline and were all smugly complimenting themselves on having "called it" when she began her not-so-shocking betrayal.

The best part of the night however was after she was defeated. They wanted to know how on earth she had electrical resistance? Once they learned the reason, the wizard's player was literally face-palming- he had been burning expendibles to turn his spells from their normal energy type INTO electricity- the only thing she was resistant to :) .


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Deusvult wrote:
I'm not making up that the PRD calls a charge an action and not an attack.

So if its a canine it can't be a wolf?

Not an accurate analogy.

The rules call out actions and attacks as having specific meanings within the context of the rules that are distinct from common English usage.

Besides, your analogy is also not accurate on a logical level.

A wolf is a type of canine. An attack is a type of action.

Yet a canine does not have to be a wolf. An action does not have to be an attack.

So yes, a canine CAN be a wolf, just like a charge CAN be an attack.
Obviously a canine can also NOT be a wolf, just like a charge can also NOT be an attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
deusvult wrote:

The main one you're missing/ignoring is the description of how a charge works. That description not only types a charge as an action (not an attack) it also explicitly says an attack is an option following charge movement during a charge action.

That rule, specifically being about charges, trumps* general categorizations such as a reference elsewhere saying "charges are special attacks".

*= trumps logically, at any rate. If you want to ignore the rules about charges and insist a reference elsewhere renders them invalid, that's on you. Most of us wouldn't consider that a sound reading, however.

You aren't quoting any rules. You've made up your own interpretation that Charge isn't still a special attack action if you don't execute an attack roll at the end. This is your own house-rule and has no rules support anywhere, and several things working against it. A charge is still a charge, even if you don't make an attack roll at the end, otherwise you don't get the bonuses to attack and the penalty to AC, because you aren't charging anymore, you're just moving.

I'm not making up that the PRD calls a charge an action and not an attack. It was quoted upthread, but hey posts are free so why not quote it again.

Definition of charge, per the PRD:

PRD wrote:
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Bolded for emphasis.

The rules for Charging say that Charging is an action. Any mention elsewhere that charging is always considered an attack is in conflict with the rules that specifically govern how charges work.

Rules on attacking as part of a charge:

PRD wrote:


After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

Including an attack in a charge action is specifically called out as being optional/not mandatory by the use of the word "may". This rule, combined with the definition of what a charge is, says that a charge is a special full round action that combines movement with the option to attack.


Ssalarn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
So there are at least 3 different perfectly legal paths to make charging mounts work. If you think its broken its because of how you choose to read it.
List them and include your quotes please, because I have yet to see one that doesn't involve having an animal companion or preparing the action over multiple turns.

The main one you're missing/ignoring is the description of how a charge works. That description not only types a charge as an action (not an attack) it also explicitly says an attack is an option following charge movement during a charge action.

That rule, specifically being about charges, trumps* general categorizations such as a reference elsewhere saying "charges are special attacks".

*= trumps logically, at any rate. If you want to ignore the rules about charges and insist a reference elsewhere renders them invalid, that's on you. Most of us wouldn't consider that a sound reading, however.


Ssalarn wrote:

And even if that did apply to what you seem to think it does, you'll notice it still requires a move action and would make it impossible for

Except that right after that, it says that mounts that ARE combat trained require no ride check at all.

And honestly, if you're riding a non-combat trained horse and trying to lance things, you deserve to have it not work.

Imbicatus wrote:
The defend trick allows the animal to attack on its own with no action made by you. You would only need to...

Indeed it does; but that's crossing over into 'turn after the charge' territory. I was just talking about how, in the post-faq world, a charging (non animal companion) mount could attack the same turn its rider could.

I don't think it can. I just disagree with those who share Ssalarn's view that the faq also puts charging outside the reach of a mounted rider's action economy.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
deusvult wrote:


So, in the case of non-reach charging, per the FAQ, a rider can still charge but must forfeit his mount's attack on the charge turn unless he can handle animal AND perform a full round action in the same turn.

Its a trained combat animal. It is set to defend its owner against attacks. It just saw its owner whack the soldier/orc/ peasant worth the 1 xp he needed to level.

It attacks. Using the defend trick doesn't take an action.

Unfortunately, using any trick IS indeed a move action. (barring class abilities that change the rule)

PRD Handle Animal entry wrote:


Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle an animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.) For tasks with specific time frames noted above, you must spend half this time (at the rate of 3 hours per day per animal being handled) working toward completion of the task before you attempt the Handle Animal check. If the check fails, your attempt to teach, rear, or train the animal fails and you need not complete the teaching, rearing, or training time. If the check succeeds, you must invest the remainder of the time to complete the teaching, rearing, or training. If the time is interrupted or the task is not followed through to completion, the attempt to teach, rear, or train the animal automatically fails.

So in that the doom and gloomers are right; they were just missing that a charging mount is under no requirement to attack, thus there's no requirement for handle animal to even come into play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Hmmm? Little confused

If you're doing this with a sword, the horse attacks too. A charge is a move and an attack for both you and the horse. I don't see why the horse would have to wait.

Because having the horse following thru with an attack after concluding the charge movement constitutes an 'attack', which is not covered under the actionless ride skill and requires usage of an animal handling check (attack trick) instead.

For most riders, that costs a move action, and ruins the full round action for the rider.

So, in the case of non-reach charging, per the FAQ, a rider can still charge but must forfeit his mount's attack on the charge turn unless he can handle animal AND perform a full round action in the same turn.

This isn't at all the same doom and gloom as insisting that a charge movement not being followed by an attack also must be covered by the handle animal skill, thus (by this reading) rendering any charging at all impossible by the rider unless he can handle animal and still perform a full round action.


Ssalarn wrote:


It's specifically listed under "Special Attacks". Did you miss that?

No. A charge attack, when made, is a special attack. fine.

You're willfully ignoring that a charge MAY include an attack. "May" means it is not mandatory.


Ssalarn wrote:
deusvult wrote:
You don't need to perform animal handling checks to make a mount (animal companion or otherwise) perform a charge.
Charging is an attack.

Actually I think you've sunk your own argument. As Aberrent Templar pointed out, an actual attack is an optional conclusion to a charge ACTION.

PRD wrote:


Charge

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

...

Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

There is no requirement to attack when making a charge action. Hence, no requirement to make a handle animal check (since ride would satisfy controlling the mount's charge movement that was not followed by a melee attack). And since there's no handle animal check, there's no wasted move action that precludes the rider performing a full-round charge action in concert with the mount's full round charge action.


Ssalarn wrote:
deusvult wrote:


Now, you and your mount both need to take the charge action to perform any of the mounted charge abilities.

This is where one of us is wrong. Admittedly, it could be me, but here's where I'm coming from.

The faq isn't saying the mount must also make the charge action.

The faq is saying that if one of them, either the rider or the mount, performs a charge, the other suffers the same consequences/gains the 'I'm charging this turn condition' (such as -2 AC, cannot make a full attack, so on)


Ssalarn wrote:
deusvult wrote:
You don't need to perform animal handling checks to make a mount (animal companion or otherwise) perform a charge.
Charging is an attack. It's specifically listed as such. Commanding an animal to attack requires the Handle Skill, specifically a move action if it's not your animal companion. There is nothing in the Ride skill that overrides or precludes anything in the Handle Animal skill. Go check. They're specifically complementary, one does not override the other, instead, each covers specific types of actions. Ride generally covers actions performed by you the rider. Handle Animal covers actions performed by the mount.

But if the mount isn't attacking, it can't possibly be using the attack trick. In fact, ride DOES indeed cover the case of maneuvering the mount:

PRD wrote:


Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

The only reason a horse is considered charging when a lance-wielding rider is charging is because the faq said so, making that explicit change in the rules covering 'attacks'. Not because the horse is actually making any attack, thus no handle animal check was ever necessary.

but perhaps with all the variations on the meaning of the word attack, you're right in that my post should have been worded better.

Consider me to instead be saying:

You don't need to perform animal handling checks to make a mount (animal companion or otherwise) perform the movement necessary for the rider to perform a charge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm guessing the nerf to mounted combat change in question is this faq entry?

I must be missing something because I don't understand what makes spirited charges unworkable. You don't need to perform animal handling checks to make a mount (animal companion or otherwise) perform a charge*.. it's a ride check instead and if the mount is combat trained, it doesn't even eat an action.

*= after posting I suspect I see the problem.. you're assuming you want the mount to attack the target as well via attack trick. Well, if you're using a lance a standard mount won't get the attack anyway b/c it doesn't have reach. Just move the horse, it gains the charging condition because it must when the rider is charging, via the faq, and bam you skewer something with a lance. If you spirited charge with a non-reach weapon, take your x2 damage with a non-lance and consider the nerf just saying the horse may not also attack. It's still a win.

**

Sniggevert wrote:
Check the CRB FAQ on the LoH, as it has been clarified to be positive energy. Dhampirs can not be healed by it.

Ah, they finally added that? I like to think I had a hand in that finally getting on the FAQ

Still, I think my example remains. When RAW is 'obviously' missing a caveat or limiting consideration, even if only in the eyes of the GM(s), it's still legal in PFS OP to add that RAI to the RAW even before it's formally errata'd/faq'd.

Or to say it another way, a player riding that "but technically/RAW it's legal.." razor's edge has to expect table variation rather than expecting that the GM has to go along with it.

**

RainyDayNinja wrote:
This has already been answered, but it has yet to be added to the FAQ.

I found it unlikely that noone had asked about this particular interaction before but couldn't find anything about it.

Thanks for the link.

**

PFS does not allow house rules.

PFS does however allow GMs to adjudicate a rules interactions.

So, in the case of an Aasimar with a favored class oracle:

Using the ARG alternate favored class benefit for oracle, they can have an effective oracle level of 150% their true oracle level for one revelation.
By choosing Lunar Oracle, they can gain an animal companion as a revelation.

By RAW, they can have an animal companion at 150% power.

Obviously in PFS a GM cannot house rule that players cannot have an animal companion calculated at an effective class level higher than your actual character level.

However a GM is still allowed to 'adjudicate rules interactions'. It's generally considered permissible (at PFS tables) to disallow Dhampirs from being healed by a paladin Lay On Hands, even though the "By RAW" argument there's no reason they couldn't be (LoH is never mentioned to be positive energy). In fact, the "By RAW it's legal" argument is seen as being rules lawyer-y on behalf of the player rather than a GM overstepping his bounds by 'changing the RAW rules".

I'm not trying to rehash that argument; I bring it up because it's precedent that a PFS GM is not required to agree to strict RAW, especially when the GM is insisting that the RAW suffers from omission of a reasonably assumed relevant caveat or clause.

So, is PFS GM within his authority to adjudicate the rules interaction of aasimar oracle favored class and animal companion revelation RAW rules as 'clearly omitted an intended caveat/consideration' about effective oracle level not exceeding true character level?

If not, is a PFS GM then authorized to disallow such an aasimar lunar oracle from being played at a table when his animal companion is appropriate to a character level that is out level for the scenario?


A couple of thoughts for the pro-skills camp:

Some of the spells that are commonly thought of as making skills irrelevant actually still involve a check. Exibit A: Knock. It doesn't automatically open locked doors.. you still need to make a caster level check against the Disable Device DC. You can more easily get bonuses to the skill check (morale, equipment, etc) than to the caster level check.

Another thing that often skews in favor of spells over skills is a loosely enforced equipment system. Yes, a scroll of fly or spider climb will render a skill check moot, but should the scroll or potion even still be intact after you were slimed, fireballed, dropped down a pit, or etc earlier in the adventure? Checking for damage to equipment is virtually never done when a PC fails a save vs some nasty fate, and remembering to do that can help reward skill investments.

Skills, unlike potions or scrolls, can't be sundered or stolen.

Skills, unlike spells, can't be turned off via Dispel Magic.

**

Clerics may be preparation-based spellcasters, but they don't need to specify their spells when their spell slots refresh. They can prepare spells into available spell slots at any time of the day.


Agreed with posts above.

Hardness and Damage Reduction are two totally separate rules phenomenae. Golems and other constructs, being creatures, don't have hardness.

A couple things that ARE often overlooked is that the GM is given the prerogative to not only allow certain energy types to ignore hardness (this is the caveat that allows a GM to say Fire can ignore wood's inherent hardness that would otherwise be doubled vs energy damage).

Likewise, a GM is allowed to rule that certain weapon types are ineffective against certain objects. The GM is allowed to say that even an adamantine mace will not ignore a rope's hardness, because blunt weapons are just Bad at damaging ropes..no matter what the mace is made out of.
If, for whatever reason, you don't want an adamantine longsword slicing through walls and doors with the greatest of ease, the rules have your back. You can say the sword, even adamantine, does not ignore such things' hardness.


Never seen one at a carnival?

think of it like a vertical roulette wheel.

I was saying you could use that as an Intelligence-linked game by logically figuring out what sorts of probable bets to make.


A Dex challenge game: shooting gallery with toy gun/crossbow
A Con challenge game: bobbing for some prize that doesn't float (hold your breath!)
A Wis challenge game: Three shells and a pea game
An Int challenge game: Wheel of Fortune game
A Cha challenge game: Pick a lucky duck from the hundreds of them in the flowing trough


*casts resurrect thread*

I'm really curious about something.

There seems to be a discrepancy for medium riders in the rules for 4th and 7th level threshholds for the Exotic Mount ability.

PRD wrote:
Medium beast riders can choose a camel or horse mount at 1st level. At 4th level, a Medium beast rider can also choose an allosaurus, ankylosaurus, arsinoitherium, aurochs, bison, brachiosaurus, elephant, glyptodon, hippopotamus, lion, mastodon, megaloceros, snapping turtle (giant), tiger, triceratops, or tyrannosaurus as his mount. Additional mounts might be available with GM approval.

Most of the critters on that list are still medium sized animal companions until 7th level. How then does a 4th, 5th, or 6th level Beast Rider work with say a Lion or Tyrannosaurus mount that isn't large size until 7th level?

I'm guessing the answer is they just have a melee companion to fight next to rather than a rideable mount, but am I missing something?


Right, but if the paladin declares smite on the CE barbarian, I'm saying he should get the bonus damage whether he's performing a 'white' attack on the barbarian's person directly, or if he's sundering equipment worn/carried by the barbarian, since the barbarian is a legal smite target. Should he shatter the evil barbarian's weapon, the smite doesn't end because the barbarian was the target.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I too 'wasted' a replay under the impression that the replays would refresh the first day of every Gen Con. Had I known at the time that my replay wouldn't refresh, I wouldn't have spent it. I'd have rather played at that table for no credit and save the replay for a special boon or chronicle item for a character that could really make great use of it.

I suppose it's better to use a replay than never use it because you save it forever.. but mark me down as one of those who think it SHOULD refresh every year.


Would a smiting paladin gain the bonus damage when performing a sunder attack upon equipment held/worn by an evil opponent, even if that bonus damage doesn't ignore hardness?

And would the answer be different if the first attack of the smite was the sunder?

Personally, I'd say yes to the former, and no to the latter.

EDIT:
Another question would be does the smite end if the sunder successfully destroys a piece of equipment. I'd say, no.


Cavaliers can be good faces, particularly Cockatrice Cavaliers.

Although I suppose 'heel' would be a better way to put it.

Still, it's rather fun to do the (arrogant) talking for the party.

1 to 50 of 639 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.