Could go with Sy-Celia (as in she's breaking your heart and shaking your confidence daily).
In bestiary 2, the dinosaur, compsognathus can be taken as a familiar which grants a +4 initiative and has a poison WAY better than the greensting scorpion. Essentially there is no reason to ever take the scorpion other than for flavor. Compsognathus is better in every way. Maybe this isn't quite what the thread is about, but I found it very interesting and likely something many people will miss.
In defense of Tiny Tim, my greensting, he has better Stealth, darkvision, is lightweight (matters, as I have 7 STR), and can easily fit in my pocket (stays within arm's reach so that I get Alertness).
Does my opponent get an attack of opportunity if I successfully use Bluff to create a diversion to hide? In 3.5, under the Bluff description, it reads:
"Creating a Diversion to Hide
You can use the Bluff skill to help you hide. A successful Bluff check gives you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Hide check while people are aware of you. This usage does not provoke an attack of opportunity."
I'm assuming PF rules are the same, as PF mentions this use of Bluff under Stealth, but doesn't really flesh out the specifics like 3.5.
I wasn't sure if "this usage does not provoke an attack of opportunity" applied to the Bluff check only or if it applied to the entire combination of Bluff + Move + Stealth. I'm hoping it's the latter as it would not do me much good to avoid an attack of opportunity on the successful Bluff check, only to take one when I moved away to hide.
I am going to play a tiefling with a prehensile tail. If I grab a smokestick as a swift action and then activate it (I would assume as a standard action), do I take an attack of opportunity?
Source: Orcs of Golarion
Can one apply the trait above to creating a diversion to hide? In 3.5, the "Creating a Diversion to Hide" use of Bluff was detailed in the Bluff description. In PF, it is only mentioned under Stealth. I think because of this, there are exactly zippo traits related to creating a diversion to hide, as it's easy to overlook.
Advanced Race Guide:
Your eyes develop keener sight in dim light and darkness.
Prerequisites: Darkvision 60 ft., tiefling.
Benefit: You gain low-light vision and your darkvision improves to 120 ft.
Special: You can take this feat twice. When you take it a second time, you gain the see in darkness universal monster ability."
I just looked up information for PFS near me, and unfortunately the closest events are two states away in Washington
I've just started playing PFS (three sessions so far). There are some folks who are serious and some who aren't. On Saturday morning, we had dwarves (with Scottish accents of course) leading our not-so-stealthed party through the dungeon. And in the later session, one guy had driven down from Oklahoma. Maybe you could do monthly road trips?
Still debating between this and Trap-spotter... both appear to be really good abilities. Kind of sad that I didn't take one of them earlier. I am actually thinking that the two abilities are good enough that I will be taking Extra Rogue Talent at 7th level as a feat, so that I can get 'em both, earlier.
I'm taking them both too for my PFS rogue. Just hit level 2, so taking Trap Spotter now. Have Bleeding Attack slotted at level 6. (Combat Trick at level 4.) Oh, and I agree Bleeding Attack does additional damage.
I just started playing a rogue who tries to get sneak attack damage from ranged attacks (sniping). I need some help (please!) understanding what my protocol should be.
Round 1: I believe I am stealthed. I shoot/snipe and then stealth as a move action at the end of my turn. I notice that the GM lets me apply my sneak attack damage. That means I was stealthed at the beginning of my turn. I still don't know whether my Stealth check at the end of my turn (at the -20) was successful or not.
Round 2: I assume that my Stealth check at the end of Round 1 was successful. I shoot/snipe and then stealth at the end of my turn. I notice that the GM lets me apply my sneak attack damage. That means that I made my Stealth check at the end of Round 1. However, I do not know whether or not I made the Stealth check I just attempted at the end of Round 2.
Round 3: I assume that my Stealth check at the end of Round 2 was successful. I shoot/snipe and then stealth at the end of my turn. I notice that the GM does NOT let me apply my sneak attack damage. I only hit for normal damage. That means that I did not make my Stealth check at the end of Round 2. It also means I was not stealthed at the beginning of Round 3.
My question is for Round 4...
Which Possibility (if any) is correct?
Advanced Race Guide wrote:
Adaptable Luck: Some halflings have greater control over their innate luck. This ability gives them more options for how they can apply their good fortune from day to day, but also narrows its scope. Three times per day, a halfling can gain a +2 luck bonus on an ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check. If halflings choose to use the ability before they make the roll or check, they gain the full +2 bonus; if they choose to do so afterward, they only gain a +1 bonus. Using adaptive luck in this way is not an action. This racial trait replaces halfling luck.
If you use this after rolling a natural 1 on a save, does it change the result to a 2, meaning you could possibly make the save?
Amber Scott wrote:
For example, Black Butterfly's obedience of doing an anonymous act of charity could involve leaving some gold on a doorstep, knocking, and running--no need to turn it into an hour-long ritual.
Can anyone think of some other good ideas for the BB act of charity?
Also, does tithing mean at least 10% of income or can I tithe a copper piece if I'm filthy rich?
Finally, is there a 24 hour window on the seeing/speaking to bit? If I'm in a conversation with someone and learn that I helped this individual four years ago, is it blindfold time? Or am I only on the hook for the last helpee?
My dad and Catholicism didn't mix too well (back in the days they spoke Latin at service). I know he at least once fainted while in line to confess his sins because he was scared/nervous. When he was 14, his father died and he took that opportunity to inform his mother that he would no longer be attending service. This equated to Sundays off for me growing up. :)
I was in a holding cell for four hours for public intoxication. We were required to remove our shoelaces. I was taking a nap and I could feel one of my Stanley boots beginning to slip off my foot. I quickly repositioned my legs and ended my nap. Whoever tried to yoink them suffered de-feet.
Or"Guys, do we want a personw ith us who can't communicate in battle or stressful situations unless we all stop what we're doing and watch him wave his hands around at us?"
Wizard: *Bluff check: raises hand (to draw Group's attention) and nods in response to question, giving Group "for shizzle" facial expression*
...and depending on wizard's Bluff roll vs. any applicable SM checks...
Majority of Group: "Yeah, I guess we do want that."
But then what are you doing for verbal component spells?
Eschew IncantationsYou have no need to speak to cast spells.
Prerequisite: Silent Spell
Benefit: You do not need to fulfill the
verbal components of spells in order to cast
them. You effectively treat all the spells
you cast as if they had been cast using the
Silent Spell metamagic feat, but the spell’s
level does not change, and no extra time is
required to cast it.
Jack Spellsword wrote:
Wait, y was this thread necromancered?
I'm making the attempt to be LG in real life, so I did a search on LG and this was near the top of the results. The specific necromancy was due to me really liking Huma's post. In his example, I wouldn't confess or turn myself in.
A low level LG character lives in a backwoods rural town...What does this character do, or any good adventuring party that meets him and figures out the true story? Plenty of law vs chaos role playing and spice!
In the spirit of plenty of spice, I'd ask him if he likes dragons, wait for him to respond, and then finish the deez nuts joke.
My point was that his fallibility increased the drama and thrill of the match. Had he ruled correctly, a pinch runner would have been used, resulting in less drama/thrills.