stjstone's page

I think the other issue with ending up in the air after moving, jumping and attacking a flying creature is that you can’t end your turn in an illegal square. I believe that the air (when not flying or such) is an illegal square.

Page 194 Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space:
Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it’s not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there’s a legal position that’s closer.

The closest legal position for a jumping creature out of actions would be falling to the ground.

Wait I don't think that is right...

I need to make a 2nd grapple check on round two to move (so no fly by grapple) the elf wizard 1/2 the giant eagles speed. But is my move just reduced by 10' or 1/2 for flying under medium encumbrance.

So would my giant eagle's move be 35' or 20? Flying medium encumbrance and grappling...

As a GM I’m attacking with a standard giant eagle (Str 18, Flyby Attack, CMB +9, CMD 22 & Fly +8). My intent is to fly down, grapple PC (elf wizard CMB +1; CMD 12 that weighs 150lb wet with all her gear).

I think it goes like this:

Eagle fly’s down (80’ movement), grapples the elf wizard (grapple check against wizards CMD) and on success giant eagle will carry elf wizard 40’ away @ less than 45 degree angle or 20’ away at greater than 45 degree angle – due to weight of elf wizard. Because the giant eagle is taking the elf wizard into a hazardous situation, the air, prior to being lifted away the elf wizard gets an opposed grapple check (against giant eagle’s CMD) to break free. Failure means the elf wizard is carried away.

Sound about right…

Grapple flow chart

The can you hang in midair per below:

If your jump check exceeds your allowed movement you remain at the end of your movement in air and on your next round you will complete your distance jumped as part of next rounds movement.

Answer NO:

from JJ:

Jumping is part of your movement. You can't jump further than you can move. If you have a speed of 30 feet and you have an ungodly high Acrobatics check and want to jump over a 40 foot gap... you'll need to take 2 move actions to do that since you can only cover 30 feet of that jump in a move.

Rule on page 88:
"No jump can allow you to exceed your maxiumum movement for the round." It further says "For a running jump, the result of your Acrobatics check indicates the distance traveled in the jump (and if the check fails, the distance which you actually land and fall prone). Halve this result for a standing long jump to determine where you land."

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Charge has to be in a straight line.

If you have the ability to turn during a charge it should work fine.

Since you can jump over obstacles as you charge, the 'straight line' part is a straight line in two dimensions.

Malachi Silverclaw,

Correct

Per James Jacobs, @ http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2b6x?Jumping-Charge-official-word-would-be-nice #0

Nothing's changed here, really. Jumping is a part of movement. If you're charging and part of that charge needs to be a jump, that's fine. You'll just need to make the appropriate Acrobatics DC to make the jump; if you fail the jump, obviously your charge is wasted.

By the way the above was in relation to jumping over rough terrain during a charge.

I think the rules below hold up...
.
.
.
.
From Ssalarn:

1) I see no reason a person can't jump into the air with the appropriate acrobatics check and attack a target.

2) If you do not have Spring Attack, you cannot attack and continue your movement, so, if you don't have Spring Attack, your jump must terminate in the air in a space adjacent to your opponent (this can be 3D adjacent, so it could be the square directly below them, diagonally below them, etc.) make your attack, and then commence falling forcing you to make the appropriate acrobatics check for the distance fallen to avoid taking damage and landing prone.

3) If you do have Spring Attack, you may make a single Acrobatics check to jump as part of a move, strike your enemy in the middle of said move, and then continue your arc to safely land in a square of your choice within your available movement range without having to make a second Acrobatics check.

4) Falling from an adjacent square does not cost you movement, as you are not expending any particular effort to propel yourself, but it does count as deliberately falling since you chose to end your movement in an illegal square (i.e. in the air)

5) Since you are leaving a threatened square when you fall, if you do not have Spring Attack, which specifically prevents the attack of opportunity you might provoke from your target, you may provoke an AoO from your target when you leave the threatened square you attacked from.

From stjstone:

I would only add to 5) that when you provoke an AoO from falling that you would at that time be flat-footed.

Also a note on falling:

"If you want to jump up into the air to stab a flying creature or someone on a ledge or whatever... you take a move action to jump up, a standard action to stab, and then falling back down is free. You take the falling damage on your turn after you move and attack." James Jacobs

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Charge has to be in a straight line.

If you have the ability to turn during a charge it should work fine.

Since you can jump over obstacles as you charge, the 'straight line' part is a straight line in two dimensions.

Malachi Silverclaw,

Correct

Per James Jacobs, @ http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2b6x?Jumping-Charge-official-word-would-be-nice #0

Nothing's changed here, really. Jumping is a part of movement. If you're charging and part of that charge needs to be a jump, that's fine. You'll just need to make the appropriate Acrobatics DC to make the jump; if you fail the jump, obviously your charge is wasted.

Actually I think that may be a bad tactic. As if I were defending against that (land, run, jump & attack) I would ready where the jumper would land. On his way down he would provoke and I would get my AoO and ready on the jumper...

Best laid plans.

graywulfe wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

graywulfe wrote:

Okay, to the people saying that the individual would fall immediately after movement ended, I have a question. How would you rule the following situation?

Player Q is on a rooftop, Q has a 30 ft movement rate. Q needs to jump a 30ft gap. Q is 50ft from the ledge. Q opts to double move, this gives Q 60ft of total movement for the round. Q moves to the ledge and jumps. Q makes his Acrobatics check and achieves a roll of 50. This means Q has succeeded at the requisite Acrobatics check and therefore has successfully jumped the gap. However Q only has enough movement to make it 10 ft into the gap this round. Would you rule:

A. Q's movement ends with Q midair and next round his first action must be movement that has Q complete the jump, landing on the other side of the gap.

B. Q's movement ends with Q in midair and he immediately plummets straight down.

C. regardless of remaining move Q's movement ends with Q on the other side of the gap

Q's jump cannot exceed his available movement, so he falls from the rooftops if he attempts to jump without enough movement left.

From the PRD:
"No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round."

That produces a Wile E Coyote image for me. Common Sense would indicate that that is not the intent of that line in the rules. At least from my point of view.

In character, at the end of your turn, you don't wait numerous iterations of 6 seconds as every other participant of the combat does their actions. In character, at the end of your turn, you immediately begin your next turn. The rule you are quoting is there to prevent option C from being the result. Option A is the only remotely realistic result. To me, options B and C are not just wrong they are ridiculous interpretations.

Option A seems like the better, more realistic option at first glance, and it would probably be the one that I would use in my own game as a GM. However, it his...

So what you are saying that if I were a jump master and I could easily jump 15’ vertically and I had 40’ of movement.

I could then make a range attack (standard action round 1) move 25’ & jump 15’ high (Completing round 1's move action). At that point my standard action and move action are complete and I would hang in the air out of reach from medium sized melee. Then round 2 I could land completing last rounds 15’ of movement move 10’ Jump again 15’ high (completing my move action for round 2) and attack from 15’ in the air. So unless people readied like you said, I would be immune to medium sized melee attacks. – unless a melee attacker could jump…

Rinse and repeat land - run - jump & attack through out the battle.

I don’t know if I like that… Would that fly in Society play?

@stj

I'm going to repost this since it may have been lost in the flurry of discussion there and it has bearing on your question:
Let me break down my view on this so we're all perfectly clear:
1) I see no reason a person can't jump into the air with the appropriate acrobatics check and attack a target.

2) If you do not have Spring Attack, you cannot attack and continue your movement, so, if you don't have Spring Attack, your jump must terminate in the air in a space adjacent to your opponent (this can be 3D adjacent, so it could be the square directly below them, diagonally below them, etc.) make your attack, and then commence falling forcing you to make the appropriate acrobatics check for the distance fallen to avoid taking damage and landing prone.

3) If you do have Spring Attack, you may make a single Acrobatics check to jump as part of a move, strike your enemy in the middle of said move, and then continue your arc to safely land in a square of your choice within your available movement range without having to make a second Acrobatics check.

4) Falling from an adjacent square does not cost you movement, as you are not expending any particular effort to propel yourself, but it does count as deliberately falling since you chose to end your movement in an illegal square (i.e. in the air)

5) Since you are leaving a threatened square when you fall, if you do not have Spring Attack, which specifically prevents the attack of opportunity you might provoke from your target, you may provoke an AoO from your target when you leave the threatened square you attacked from.

To everyone else:
Remember, we're a community of people with shared interests. Let's all try not to get too wound up when people disagree with us on either front and focus on the fact that we're all here to help and share our love of the game :)
(cue Saturday morning Fox Kids music)

Ssalarn,

I would only add to #5 that when you provoke an AoO from falling that you would at that time be flat-footed.

BiggDawg wrote:

Odraude wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

@Odraude

You have jumped 10+ feet in the air. You have deliberately put yourself there, so you are deliberately falling. Your argument is silly, it's like saying "I walked off that cliff, but I'm not deliberately falling, gravity just jumped up and surprised me!"

"Falling: When you deliberately fall any distance, even as a result of a missed jump, a DC 15 Acrobatics skill check allows you to ignore the first 10 feet fallen, although you still end up prone if you take damage from a fall. See Falling Damage for more details.)"

You're deliberately jumping, not falling. Deliberately falling would be going off a collapsing bridge into a river, or going out of a building into a cart of hay to escape. The rules already cover failed jumps and successful jumps and you only take that fall damage when you fail. And you fall prone.

And hell, if it's silly for me to not punish my players for succeeding in a freaking Jump check, then I'll go ahead and keep on being silly.

You misunderstand the target of the jump. If the target for your jump is to land on the ground then you can do that without taking falling damage, however you cannot attack mid move without Spring Attack period cannot do it. So if you want to attack the target of your jump has to be up in the air, which would cause you then to fall not because of a failed acrobatics test but from ending your move mid air exactly like if your character walked off a cliff with their movement to swing at a monster hovering just off the edge of the cliff.

THANK YOU!!!! I'm glad someone else is seeing this.

OK, Dose this cover the fact that you can't move, attack and move with out spring attack?

Melee attacking flying creature:

Make an acrobatics (jump) check as part of your move action. Success means you can reach the flying creature to melee attack it and failure means you cannot reach the creature in flight.

If deemed you can reach the flying creature you may attack but your move and standard actions ends after your attack, Because you immediately fall after your attack you still provoke an AoO for moving, attacking and moving/falling, unless you have spring attack.

When falling make a free action acrobatics check to avoid falling damage and landing prone.

Since you begin falling after attacking and thus provok an AoO the flying creature will be able to attack attack your flatfooted AC.

Charge applies normally +2 to attack -2 to AC.

(it's actually getting simpler)

stjstone wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

On a related note. If a character walks to a cliff and falls, how many rounds does it take for her to reach the ground.

Let's say a 300ft fall.

Does she immediatly fall to the ground, since falling is a free action?
Does she fall slower if she uses a standard action mid-air?
Does she fall slower if she jumps down, because jumping is a move action, and she can only make up to two of those per round?
What if she has Feather Fall or Slow Fall?

500 ft in the first round, and 1500 ft for each subsequent round (terminal velocity).

Okay, so if a character jumps up to her movement (or twice his movement speed, if we consider a charge) and then uses a standard action to attack a creature, doesn't it make sense that she would immediatly fall up to 500ft afterwards?

Jump 60ft (move action), hit dragons (standard action), fall 60ft (free action).

In one round you're up in the air and back to the ground. Seems simple enough.

Yea, that works but you would provoke and since your falling you would be flat footed.

Thus +2 attack (charge) and -2 AC (charge) + flatfooted for dragon AoO. Still no problem that you would be allowed to try it if you could jump 60' high or out over a 60' cliff.

The advantage is in grappling a flying creature. Well not a dragon, but perhaps a Harpy and try and drag it down.

On a related note. If a character walks to a cliff and falls, how many rounds does it take for her to reach the ground.

Let's say a 300ft fall.

Does she immediatly fall to the ground, since falling is a free action?
Does she fall slower if she uses a standard action mid-air?
Does she fall slower if she jumps down, because jumping is a move action, and she can only make up to two of those per round?
What if she has Feather Fall or Slow Fall?

500 ft in the first round, and 1500 ft for each subsequent round (terminal velocity).

OK, I updated it a bit from comments.

Melee Attacking flying creature:

Make acrobatics check as part of move action Success means you can reach the flying creature to attack it and Failure means you cannot reach the flying creature.

If deemed you can reach the flying creature you may attack and land within the movement allowed, but still provoke an AoO for moving, attacking and moving, unless you have spring attack. Additionally you can add long jumping distance to your overall high/long jump you may land beyond the flying creature.

If the distance required to land it greater than your allowed movement you immediately fall to the ground adjacent to the flying creature, which would require you to make a (free action) acrobatics check or fall prone and take appropriate damage.

In either case (unless you have spring attack), because you continue to move you would provoke an AoO. If you begin falling after attack the flying creature the creature attack your flatfooted AC.

Charge applies normally +2 to attack -2 to AC.

Right except the acrobatics check is part of a move action which is a discrete action while the attack is a standard action another discrete action. You certainly could jump up within range of the target and then land safely, however the issue becomes when you stop your move action to start your standard action. If you allow the person to jump up (move), attack (standard) and then land safely (move) you are simulating Spring Attack. However if you let them jump up (move), attack (standard) and then fall down (no action) that follows the action economy rules and then allows players with Spring Attack to do something cooler which is what feats are all about. Now that may be totally fine in your book, just don't be surprised when an enterprising character takes that to mean acrobatics lets you spring attack and he decides to jump over an enemy attack them and then land well beyond them.

Good point... We need could really use a FAQ on this. I don't know if I've ever seen so many different views on a topic in so few posts.

Artanthos wrote:

The acrobatics skill allows a character to do so. Make your skill check and the action happens. Landing is part of the skill check. There is no mention in the rules of jump height being limited by remaining movement. I am just as legal to jump at the end of my movement as the beginning, in or out of combat.

If the flyer is stupid enough to remain that low, it deserves to get hit.

Landing is part of the skill check - I agree, but would say, if you have the movement to make the jump. When you run out of movement in a jump, you fall.

"Jumping is a part of movement" from: James Jacobs (Creative Director) Apr 5, 2010, 01:31 PM. Thus you can not jump more than your allowed movement.

Lemmy,

This question came up in my game because we had a ninja with a base 30 jump and rolled high. He didn't have enough move to land so with no rules we just had him awkwardly hang in the air till next round.

In the future I think I will use...

Melee attacking flying creature:

Make acrobatics check as part of move action, success means you can reach the flying creature to attack it and failure means you cannot reach the flying creature.

If deemed you can reach the flying creature you may attack and land within the movement allowed (single movement if you do not have spring attack and if you can add long jumping distance to your overall high/long jump you may land beyond the flying creature).

If the distance required to land it greater than your allowed movement you immediately fall to the ground below the creature, which would require you to make a (free action) acrobatics check or fall prone and take appropriate damage.

In either case (unless you have spring attack), because you continue to move you would provoke an AoO. If you begin falling after attacking the flying creature the creature you would be flatfooted during the creatures attack.

If you charge the charge attack applies normally +2 to attack -2 to AC.

Unless a developer comes in makes an Errata or FAQ.

OK here is how I see the rule...

Melee attacking flying creature:

Make acrobatics check as part of move action, success means you can reach the flying creature to attack it and failure means you cannot reach the flying creature.

If deemed you can reach the flying creature you may attack and land within the movement allowed (single movement if you do not have spring attack and if you can add long jumping distance to your overall high/long jump you may land beyond the flying creature).

If the distance required to land it greater than your allowed movement you immediately fall to the ground below the creature, which would require you to make a (free action) acrobatics check or fall prone and take appropriate damage.

In either case (unless you have spring attack), because you continue to move you would provoke an AoO. If you begin falling after attacking the flying creature the creature you would be flatfooted during the creatures attack.

If you charge the charge attack applies normally +2 to attack -2 to AC.

Ssalarn,

OK, I just was not sure if you got two skill checks in one round if you have used your move and standard actions. If a skill check was a free action the answer would be no right? You only get one free action per round... Right?

Additionally by rule once the person moves then attacks (Unless using a feat) their movement ends, so yes they just fall to the ground (Which is not movement). Normal falling rules apply.

Malach the Merciless, the character made an acrobatics check to jump, do they get a second acrobatics check in the same round to avoid the falling damage?

O.K. This is getting too complicated - what I'm looking for is if the character does not have enough move left after a jumping charge what happens.

1) Does she hang in the air until next round.

2) Does she fall continuing her move even though she does not have the movement left.

Their are some problems with both.

Such as With #1 If character hangs in air after attacking and the Harpy does not fly away, the character would get a 2nd attack on the way down as part of his standard and be able to make a 2nd acrobatics check that would allow the character to land with out being prone.

And with #2 the character would have more movement (falling), but since she used her acrobatics check to jump, would she get another to land, to avoid falling prone and taking damage (I think anyone who can jump 15' off the ground, like a ninja, can likley land safely... maybe). Also, by continuing her move she would provoke an AoO.

I think you should be able to do this just what happens to the character - Hang in mid air or gain extra movement and fall to the ground?

Lets say, the character has a long sword, 30’ of movement and no special feats to do the trick, except that he can make the acrobatics (jump) check.

Situation - A harpy is flying 10’ away and 15’ high and the character charges and jumps to melee attack the harpy – What happens.

1) Is that even legal and if so…

2) Does the character hang in the air if she does not have enough movement to land?

3) Does the character continue moving until she reaches the ground even if she does not have enough movement left – (that would be spring attack without the three required feats.)
a. Does the character land directly below the creature like a player dunking a basket ball?
b. Does the momentum carry the character a distance away from the creature?

4) Does the character provoke an AoO

Is there a rule that clarifies what happens?

Berselius wrote:

Quote:

nope; not this time. Maybe later.

Nutbunnies.

Please tell me that nutbunnies made it into the book.

Nutbunnie

Special Attacks nut crunch, double nut crunch

Ravingdork, I think a fly or perhaps the head of an arrow is fine size so I would probably stick with diminutive. Though both you and Stubs McKenzie make good arguments for using the cover bonus which I think is the way to go.

As for the DM fiat I guess everyone is considered moving in combat so it's not necessary.

Thus I'll go with:
Base AC = 10
Juggernaut DEX is 6 (advanced construct) = -2
Improved cover bonus = 8
Total AC to place the bead of a fireball through the arrow slit of a moving juggernaut = 16.

I'm OK with that since the more I thought about it makes sense to section off the interior to a "T" like shape, to protect against fireballs (Driver up front and attackers on the side). At the level this will go off a wizard would likely have a 50/50 shot at passing the bead of a fireball through the opening of an arrow slit. Furthermore, The driver in front will have a glass window that would cause early detonation of at least the first fireball. This way hit or miss a fireball will still be effective against a juggernaut and if you hit you'll take out some, but not all the bad guys. It's victory, but not total with one spell. It lets the PC's feel good, but keeps the combat running. Of course, the trick is not to destroy the juggernaut as you can capture it and drive it around the desert, with it which I think my PC's may enjoy as well. Also, it valuable, but in LoF it's not that useful.

You can find a similar image to what my juggernaut would look like in the AD&D module X4 "Master of the Desert Nomads", both on the cover and inside the module. Another image source is the 1986 Game Accessory AC9 (TSR# 9173), "Creature Catalog". There is a 3.5 image of a juggernaut on page 132 of the Monster Manual II, but this juggernaut is nothing like that one. Mine is just an embellished advanced huge animated object.

I may be using parts of the AD&D module X4 "Master of the Desert Nomads", in my Legacy of Fire campaign. Modules X4 and X5 were given 10 out of 10 by white dwarf magazine, plus the modules are at the right levels and set in the desert with a swamp (i.e. the Vargas Swamp which the PC's have to pass on the way to the city of Katapesh.) Though I may simply use the juggernaut in, "The Jackal's Price" when Shiz attacks the PC's.

Well I could probably not give both the cover bonus +8 and diminutive bonus +4 since a person firing out through an arrow slit dose not get both. However I can certainly give a "DM fiat" bonus of +2 for the movement of the juggernaut. So now I just need to decide which mechanic feels more correct the cover or size bonus.

Taking votes:

I have a wizard who is trying to fire the bead of a fire ball into a moving juggernaut (war wagon) through its arrow slits in hope of killing the occupants. What AC dose the wizard need to hit in order to have the fireball detonate inside the juggernaut.

A)
Base AC = 10
Juggernaut DEX is 6 (advanced construct) = -2
Arrow slit AC (diminutive) = 4
Movement (DM fiat) = 2
Total AC to place the bead of a fireball through the arrow slit of a moving juggernaut = 14.

B)
Base AC = 10
Juggernaut DEX is 6 (advanced construct) = -2
Improved cover bonus = 8
Movement (DM fiat) = 2
Total AC to place the bead of a fireball through the arrow slit of a moving juggernaut = 18.

c)
Other.

So here is the deal. I wrote the Juggernaut (Stone)to use in a Legacy of Fire campaign I'm planning on running. I'm planning on using it in the beginning of book 3 when the PC's are traveling to Katapesh. I'm guessing most everyone has skimmed the AP at this point and I just want to throw in some surprises.

Since my juggernaut attackers can fire out of the juggernaut I assume that my PC's will be able to fire back. That being the case the most effective tactic would be to slip a fire ball into the cab of the juggernaut killing the occupants. Of course I could be a evil DM and have the driver give the command attack with his dying breath allowing the damaged juggernaut to roll on.

So from what I can gather from the rules it would be an AC 12 to slip a fireball bead into an arrow slit of an juggernaut (unless someone can point me to some new info).

Base AC = 10
juggernaut Dex is 6 (Advanced construct) so = -2
Arrow slit AC (diminutive) = 4

With this being the case I may just section off the interior of the juggernaut into a "T" shape. With the driver up front and attackers on the sides. I can add a glass window in the front which will cause early detonation to any fireball, Which will still damage the juggernaut and blow out the glass shield so a second fireball would be even more effective.

Scott.

Since this in an arcane construction. Perhaps instead of BAB it should be INT modifier.

That would probably also mean a higher value target inside the construct who is driving and not attacking.

Base AC = 10
juggernaut Dex is 6 (Advanced construct) so = -2
Arrow slit AC (diminutive) = 4
Driver BAB (3ed level NPC human wizard) = 3
Distance = 0
Movement = 0

AC for the bead of a fireball to pass through the arrow slit = 15.

Or would it look like this:

Base AC = 10
juggernaut Dex is 6 (Advanced construct) so = -2
Arrow slit AC (diminutive) = 4
Driver BAB (2nd level warrior) = 2
Distance = 0
Movement = 0

AC for the bead of a fireball to pass through the arrow slit = 14.

OK, say your being harried by a war wagon (construct) or a juggernaut (stone construct on rollers) with it's occupants attacking you from within the construct. They are firing at you through arrow slits and the vehicle is moving. Your 50' away and the construct is circling you at 60' per round. What AC dose the wizard need to hit to send the bead of a fireball through that arrow slit to kill the constructs occupants.

In the description of a fire ball it says: An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must "hit"? the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
_____________________________________________________________
Dose range matter & how dose it add to the AC?

How about the size of the opening & how dose it add to the AC (Door, window or arrow slit) ?

How dose movement add to the AC?
_____________________________________________________________
What would be the AC for a fireball to hit (Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level):

A Window 100' away.

An arrow slit 500' away.

An arrow slit 500' away. moving 30' (war wagon single move).

An arrow slit 50' away. moving 60' (War wagon double move).

I suppose there's no way now to pre-empt the wide usage of "VC" for Venture-Captain? Here in Canada (and the rest of the British Empire) VC stands for "Victoria Cross", the highest decoration bestowed to military personnel - a bit like the U.S. Medal of Honor. Not saying the new Venture Captains aren't great people, but...

We could call them Venture Directors VD for short or VD's plural. Let's just Google that to make sure it's not taken... Hmmmm... Let see what images has... OH GOD! No that wont do... Venture Captains it is.

blog wrote:

Beatific One

YES

Wonder if this means Asuras for the Bestiary? Really looking forward to Ebon Destroyers.

Is it just me or is she larger than the norm? It's been a while since I ran the previous example that has appeared so far.

Yes the Beatific One is normally medium in size, but perhaps this is a Great or Mahana (great in Hindi - thanks Google Translate) Beatific One. Also the Beatific One is waiting conversion in the D20PFSRD, I'm wondering if Paizo will change her/it at all; a large one would be sweet. Well that is for another post for now.

Congratulations to the new V.C. HIP! HIP!...

Dritzz wrote:

Is it a fake ??? Where we can find the official announcement ?

It is not fake, the official announcement can be found here amongst other places.

I got to say that is hardly an official announcement. For such a customer facing figure to just be "poof" gone is well, kind of wizard of the costy. No matter what happened between the leadership and Joshua J. Frost saying nothing is hardly the way to handle a situation like this and just leads to rampant speculation. Josh was the wizardly face of Pathfinder Scenarios and in general has done a lot of good for Paizo and Pathfinder. That aspect of Joshua J. Frost should have been expressed by the leadership "officially". We don't need to know what happened, but putting out a statement where, after much thanks and accolades due to blah differences (Paizo or Joshua) blah blah blah. Let us welcome Hyrum Savage to blah blah blah.

Rember: We read, respond and sometimes chat or e-mail with your people all the time and to have them just disappear with no word from the leadership is kind of strange and off putting. I still love the Pathfinder brand and everything, but this could have been handled better.

Back to prepping for Legacy of Fire...

1. Denial) I'm still in shock and can't believe your leaving... or already left.
2. Anger) Dam it, what the hell happened!
3. Bargaining) Josh I promise I will stop pestering you to answer my posts. I swear!
4. Depression) Cry...
5. Acceptance) Never! We'll... I'm sure Hyrum will do very well and they say Josh can still write adventures... Sniff...

Thanks for all the work you have done with the Pathfinder Society, the comments you made to many of my posts, and (for me at least) being the wizardly face of Paizo for these past years. Good luck Josh on your new path in life.

OK, how about looking at skills...

Fighter = 2 + Int - Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).

Wizard = 2 + Int - Appraise (Int), Craft (Int), Fly (Dex), Knowledge (all) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Profession (Wis), and Spellcraft (Int).

Eldritch = 2 + Int - Climb (Str), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Knowledge (nobility and royalty) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), and Swim (Str).

Magus = 2 + Int - Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Fly (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (planes) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Swim (Str), and Use Magic Device (Cha).

Well it seems the Eldritch has more choices and that is what really matters. Once a class skill always a class skill so you can get the +3 skill any time after the skill becomes a class skill... I think.

The Eldrich Knight has 19 class skills compared to the Magus that has 12. Granted you can't get Sense Motive with the Eldrich Knight until 7th level, but the Mangus never gets that skill as a class skill.

You can be better at some few skills (by one point) with a Magus and get Use Magic Device which the Eldrich Knight dose not get, though I don't think it's that big of a deal. On the other hand Eldrich Knight gets more class skills by far and access to Sense Motive which I do like.

So on the skills challenge I think I would also give that round to the Eldrich Knight. Also lets not forget you can have a Ranger/wizard build and the skills with that build gives you 4 extra skill points to spend and a bunch of extra skills (But we do so like that extra feat of the fighter...).

Ranger 6 + Int modifier.

Also compare the the HD of the two classes.

Fighter = d10
Wizard = d6
Eldritch = d10
Magus = d8

Then compare them at important "cap" levels:

Low level gaming 4th level: Magus max HP = 32hp
Low level gaming 4th level: Eldritch max HP = 28hp (F=10, W=18)

Mid Level gaming 8th level: Magus max HP = 64hp
Mid Level gaming 8th level: Eldritch max HP = 60hp (F=10, W=30, E=20)

Pathfinder Society 12th level cap: Magus max HP = 96hp
Pathfinder Society 12th level cap: Eldritch max HP = 100hp (F=10, W=30, E=60)

Adventure Path 16th level cap: Magus max HP = 128
Adventure Path 16th level cap: Eldritch max HP = 140(F=10, W=30, E=100)

So at low level the Magus only manages a slight edge on the Eldritch Knight, but the Eldritch Knight Pulls away a high level. Though if you go up to 20th level which I don't play... well almost never... then the Magus comes back into the picture.

20th level cap: Magus max HP = 160
20th level cap: Eldritch max HP = 164(F=10, W=54, E=100)

Overall I'd say it's a tie unless your playing in an adventure path then the round would go to the Eldritch Knight.

What you really need to compare the Magus to is the Eldritch Knight:

Seems I can't format it correctly in this box so the first column is class, then level of that class, BAB, Will, Reflex, Fortitude, Special and finally wizard spells.

Class Level BAB WIL REF FORT Special 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
Fighter 1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Bonus feat
Wizard 1st +0 +0 +0 +2 Arcane bond, arcane school,cantrips, Scribe Scroll 3 1 — — — — — — — —
Wizard 2nd +2 +0 +0 +3 4 2 — — — — — — — —
Wizard 3rd +2 +3 +1 +3 4 2 1 — — — — — — —
Wizard 4th +3 +3 +1 +4 4 3 2 — — — — — — —
Wizard 5th +3 +3 +1 +4 Bonus feat 4 3 2 1 — — — — — —
Eldritch 1st +4 +4 +1 +4 Bonus combat feat, diverse training —
Eldritch 2nd +5 +4 +2 +5 4 3 3 2 — — — — — —
Eldritch 3rd +6/1 +5 +2 +5 4 4 3 2 1 — — — — —
Eldritch 4th +7 /2 +5 +2 +5 4 4 3 3 2 — — — — —
Eldritch 5th +8 /3 +6 +3 +6 Bonus combat feat 4 4 4 3 2 1 — — — —
Eldritch 6th +9 /4 +6 +3 +6 4 4 4 3 3 2 — — — —
Eldritch 7th +10 /5 +7 +3 +6 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 — — —
Eldritch 8th +11/6/1 +7 +4 +7 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 — — —
Eldritch 9th +12/7/2 +8 +4 +7 Bonus combat feat 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 — —
Eldritch 10th +13/8/3 +8 +4 +7 Spell critical 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 —

Looking at this the Eldritch Knight has poorer saves, but higher BAB, all wizard spells (possibly) and higher level spells to cast. The Magus has more "Special" like bonus feats, but a lot of that is armor training and bonus feats that the Eldritch Knight already has.

So are better saves and more "special" of the Magus worth more than the higher BAB, spell level, and more spells of the Eldritch Knight?

I'm board so I did some compairing...

Below are four heavy warhorses that are non official except for the 3ed one which is Paizo's Heavy Warhorse. I have placed all four here so you can see where each hose started and what I did. Looking at the four horses, Paizo's heavy warhorse plus one racial hit dice looks a lot like if you Paizoed the 3.5e version of a heavy warhorse (#2 vs #4). Granted it's not perfect, but the AC, attack, HP and damage are close...

1) Warhorse, Heavy (3.5e)
2) Warhorse, Heavy (3.5e - Paizoed) (Converted to Pathfinder RPG)
3) Paizo's Heavy Warhorse (official)
4) Paizo + 1HD Heavy Warhorse (adding one racial hit dice to the official version)

1) Warhorse, Heavy (3.5e)
N Large animal
Init +1; Low-light vision, scent; Listen +5, Spot +4
DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 10, flat-footed 13 (–1 size, +1 Dex, +4 natural)
hp 30 (4d8+12)
Fort +7, Ref +5, Will +2
OFFENSE
Speed 50 ft.
Meele 2 hooves +6 melee (1d6+4) and bite +1 (1d4+2)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
STATISTICS
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 17, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 6
Base Attack/Grapple: +3/+11
Feats Endurance, Run
Skills: Listen +5, Spot +4
_______________________________________________________________________
2) Warhorse, Heavy (3.5e - Paizoed)
N Large Animal
Init +1; Low-light vision, scent; Perception +8
DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 10, flat-footed 13 (–1 size, +1 Dex, +4 natural)
hp 34 (4d8+12 +4 for toughness)
Fort +7, Ref +5, Will +2
OFFENSE
Speed: 50 ft.
Meele 2 hooves +6 melee (1d6+4) and bite +1 (1d4+2)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
STATISTICS
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 17, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 6
Base Atk +3; CMB +7; CMD 21 (23 vs. trip)
Feats: Endurance, Toughness(new), Run(bonus)
Skills: Perception +8
_______________________________________________________________________
3) Paizo's Heavy Warhorse (Official)
N Large animal
Init +4; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +8
DEFENSE
AC 13, touch 13, flat-footed 11 (+4 Dex, –1 size, +2 natural)
hp 19 (2d8+10)
Fort +8, Ref +7, Will +3
OFFENSE
Speed 50 ft.
Melee 2 hooves +5 (1d6+5), bite +0 (1d4+2)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
STATISTICS
Str 20, Dex 18, Con 21, Int 2, Wis 17, Cha 11
Base Atk +1; CMB +7; CMD 21 (23 vs. trip)
Feats Endurance, Run (bonus)
Skills Perception +8
_______________________________________________________________________
4) Paizo + 1HD Heavy Warhorse
N Large animal
Init +4; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +6
DEFENSE
AC 13, touch 13, flat-footed 11 (+4 Dex, –1 size, +2 natural)
hp 33 (3d8 + 15 + 4 for toughness)
Fort +8, Ref +7, Will +4
OFFENSE
Speed 50 ft.
Melee 2 hooves +6 (1d6+5), bite +1 (1d4+2)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
STATISTICS
Str 20, Dex 18, Con 21, Int 2, Wis 17, Cha 11
Base Atk +2; CMB +8; CMD 22 (24 vs. trip)
Feats Endurance, Toughness, Run (bonus)
Skills Perception +9

My revised 'home rule' ideas for mounts. This stems from the idea that in in LoF when you visit to the great market you should be AWED at the choices.

LOF, Legacy of Fire - The Jackal’s Price - The Katapesh Marketplace - The Great Camel-Mart:

While a general riding camel fetches around 300 gp, beasts from the more noble lines can cost 10 or even 20 times that. Such beasts may grant a +2 bonus on Ride checks, have maximum hit points or elite statistics, or simply come from a line celebrated in some song or tale.

Also from what James Jacobs wrote:
"Feats are ALWAYS swap outable. You should be able to buy "specialty" horses with unusual feats anyway; maybe one with Toughness and Lightning Reflexes. Swapping out the feats is a cool way to model different horse breeds, in fact."

I saw what I did above was to much and I revised the mounts (horse/camel). Instead of going up 1 CR at a time I decided to go up 1 HD at a time, big difference. So potential mounts could be.

2HD (light)
3HD (light) improved

2HD Advanced (Heavy)
4 HD (Heavy) (Alternate breed - more HP less damage)

3HD Advanced (Great)
4HD Advanced (Noble)

Now play with the feats (for a cost) and you have an endless number of mounts. The cost counter acts what animal companions bring to a character as they will have magic items as well as a much superior mount.

The more I think about this...

A heavy warhorse main issue may not be the armor proficiency issue, but rather it's hit points. Pathfinder's heavy warhorse only has 19hp while the 3.5e heavy warhorse had 30hp. I went back and looked at my old LG character (Arden) that was a fighter, cleric, hospitaler (not my best build, but fun to play - the times we adventured outside...) and he had only reached 11th level when he was on his 4th horse (Lucky #1-4, with #4 still alive at the end...; all four were heavy). Granted the most effective way to slow him down was to shoot him off his horse, but that tactic seems a lot easier to do now.

In short, this is what i did (following PF guidelines):

Donkeys/mules/ponies would use the current stat block for ponies [2HD],
Horses/camels (riding) would still use normal for horses [2HD],
War pony would use rebuilt advanced template and gain 1HD, Combat Trained (per Combat Training), Endurance (b), Light armor prof (per Combat Training), lose run (b), have 2 feats to put in whatever you want (medium and heavy prof as examples).
Horses (work) +1 HD, toughness (b), lose run (b), endurance, great fortitude.
Warhorse/war-camel gain +3HD (total 5HD) use rebuilt advanced template, Combat Trained (per Combat Training), Endurance, run (b), Light Armor Prof (per combat training), have 2 extra feats.

Though your ideas are good, Paizo is not going to rewrite the bestiary. At most we can hope for is a FAQ and potentially if they really want to address this issue a great or alternate mount stats in 2012+. Also Home rules are not an issue as there are several ideas for mounts in the home rules section of the message boards. Rather, the only issue here is Pathfinder Society where we all play by the book and their are current players with mounts waring barding and attacking as if they have proficiency. Clearly Paizo dose not want to alienate those players and have hinted that they would allow up to medium armor proficiency with some feat swapping, though nothing official as of yet. The Pathfinder Society could "home rule" mounts in their next edition of the, "Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play™", but my money is on a FAQ.

Make horses 3HD; bingo, extra feat.

I've always thought 2HD is rather weak, for a creature that size.

Well the simple template advancement scheme is no weak advancement process. The issue is that with so many players riding mounts the simple templates may have been too simple. Further, none of this was an issue until we all learned that our horses are no longer proficient with armor (which in itself is no great loss). Finally, this only will really cause problems for the Pathfinder Society where we ALL play by the book.

Now in order to attack effectively we need feats, but it seems we will be able to get light and medium armor proficiency as James indicated in my copy paste below.

I think just a FAQ saying that:

At the completion of combat training a light warhorse gains, light armor proficiency as a bonus feat. When purchasing a combat trained mount the player may elect to replace the feat endurance with medium armor proficiency.

That takes into consideration all that James has posted below.

1) A mount that's trained for war gets Light Armor proficiency for free.

James Jacobs wrote:

For now, though, it's safe to assume that a mount that's trained for war gets Light Armor proficiency for free, but needs to spend feats to get better armor. This does mean that most normal horses will never be able to get heavy armor training, and I'm kind of okay with that.

2)Feats are ALWAYS swap outable. Such as, Endurance for medium proficiency.

James Jacobs wrote:

Feats are ALWAYS swap outable. You should be able to buy "specialty" horses with unusual feats anyway; maybe one with Toughness and Lightning Reflexes. Swapping out the feats is a cool way to model different horse breeds, in fact.

3) Bonus feats cannot be swapped out at all. Such as run or light armor proficiency. Thus, you could not swap out, light armor proficiency for weapon focus (hooves). Light armor proficiency, as bonus feat would be hardwired as part of the combat training.

James Jacobs wrote:

EDIT: Yah; bonus feats cannot be swapped out at all. They're hardwired into a creature's DNA.

Scott.

________________________________________________________________________

Horse, Great
N Large animal
Init +4; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +8
DEFENSE
AC 13, touch 13, flat-footed 11 (+4 Dex, –1 size, +2 natural)
hp 34 (3d8+15)
Fort +8, Ref +7, Will +4
OFFENSE
Speed 50 ft.
Melee 2 hooves +1 (1d6+3), bite +1 (1d4+2)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
STATISTICS
Str 20, Dex 18, Con 21, Int 2, Wis 17, Cha 11
Base Atk +2; CMB +8; CMD 22 (24 vs. trip)
Feats Endurance, Toughness, Run(B)
Skills Perception +8
SQ docile

Now you have two feats to play with plus the one indicated by James that you get for combat training, which could give you all three armor proficiencies. Additionally this "great" horse could better survive higher level play. In LG going to 16th level I just gave my horses the names, Lucky #1, Lucky #2, Lucky #3 & Lucky #4. (really).

Just a thought.

Actually the pathfinder heavy warhorse has 19HP and the 3.5 heavy warhorse had 30HP, so I'm guessing in Pathfinder my horses will continue the Lucky line past Lucky #5... :-(

That takes into consideration all that James has posted below.

1) A mount that's trained for war gets Light Armor proficiency for free.

For now, though, it's safe to assume that a mount that's trained for war gets Light Armor proficiency for free, but needs to spend feats to get better armor. This does mean that most normal horses will never be able to get heavy armor training, and I'm kind of okay with that.

2)Feats are ALWAYS swap outable. Such as, Endurance for medium proficiency.

Feats are ALWAYS swap outable. You should be able to buy "specialty" horses with unusual feats anyway; maybe one with Toughness and Lightning Reflexes. Swapping out the feats is a cool way to model different horse breeds, in fact.

3) Bonus feats cannot be swapped out at all. Such as run or light armor proficiency. Thus, you could not swap out, light armor proficiency for weapon focus (hooves). Light armor proficiency, as bonus feat would be hardwired as part of the combat training.

EDIT: Yah; bonus feats cannot be swapped out at all. They're hardwired into a creature's DNA.

Scott.

I think just a FAQ saying that:

At the completion of combat training a light warhorse gains, light armor proficiency as a bonus feat. When purchasing a combat trained mount the player may elect to replace the feat endurance with medium armor proficiency.

For now, though, it's safe to assume that a mount that's trained for war gets Light Armor proficiency for free, but needs to spend feats to get better armor. This does mean that most normal horses will never be able to get heavy armor training, and I'm kind of okay with that.

&

Feats are ALWAYS swap outable. You should be able to buy "specialty" horses with unusual feats anyway; maybe one with Toughness and Lightning Reflexes. Swapping out the feats is a cool way to model different horse breeds, in fact.

Speaking in regards only to purchased warhorses (combat trained - mounts) it looked like the comments above indicated the result below.

Bonus feat: run

feat (granted by combat training): light armor proficiency

Optional feat (chose one): endurance, medium armor proficiency, toughness, lightning reflexes, etc, etc, improved natural armor, weapon focus (hooves) and multiattack.

I'm just trying to understand how the purchased horse looks and can be played in the Pathfinder Society.

No rush, stop working so hard, it is Sunday and I assume you have family you could be with. I'm now going to try and leave this dam computer and be with mine...

So both light and heavy warhorses now look like this (potentially):

Bonus feat: run

Bonus feat: light armor proficiency

Optional feat (chose one): endurance, medium armor proficiency, toughness, lightning reflexes, etc, etc, improved natural armor, weapon focus (hooves) and multiattack.

Feats are ALWAYS swap outable. You should be able to buy "specialty" horses with unusual feats anyway; maybe one with Toughness and Lightning Reflexes. Swapping out the feats is a cool way to model different horse breeds, in fact.

Thanks James for clearing this up. One last question on your comment above. Can the bonus feat RUN be swapped out? My guess is that it can't..., but maybe it can?

This is the only verbiage I have found describing bonus feats (core rule book page 12).

Feat: A feat is an ability a creature has mastered. Feats often allow creatures to circumvent rules or restrictions. Creatures receive a number of feats based off their Hit Dice, but some classes and other abilities grant bonus feats.

Finally, this is just in reference to Pathfinder Society play, otherwise I would not be pestering James, but my Kingmaker DM. ;-)

Scott.

For now, though, it's safe to assume that a mount that's trained for war gets Light Armor proficiency for free, but needs to spend feats to get better armor. This does mean that most normal horses will never be able to get heavy armor training, and I'm kind of okay with that.

James,

It kind of sounds like a light warhorse would get light armor proficiency as a bonus feat and a heavy warhorse would get medium armor proficiency as a bonus feat. keeping in mind that both a light and heavy warhorse are just 2 hit die animals and a heavy war horse dose not earn an additional feat for it's advancement.

Alternately, could you mean that players can swap out the feat endurance for medium armor proficiency which would mean both light and heavy warhorses could have light and medium armor proficiency?

Scott.

Just trying to keep this thread alive.

Bestiary I, page 307 under animal type: "Proficient with no armor unless trained for war".

That would indicate that combat trained mounts are proficient in all armor as is indicated below.

D20PFSRD (unofficial): http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/handle-animal , Under the heading, Combat Training (DC 20): "An animal trained in this way counts as trained for war, and becomes proficient with all forms or armor."

Life was good, but then the Advanced Players Guide came out with this line on page 33 second paragraph: "The mount is always considered combat trained and begins play with Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat."

That indicates that a mount is not proficient in all forms of armor proficiency. We players would like just a bit of clarification on the subject as it relates to Pathfinder Society games where standardization is the key to fair play.

Is the rule simply that purchased combat trained mounts have three bonus feats in (light, medium & heavy) armor proficiency while companions earn the feats (if desired) by advancement, slowly over time?

This is what the , "Pathfinder Roll Playing Game, Beastiary" says about the heavy war horse:

Heavy Horse: A heavy horse gains the advanced simple template. In addition, it also gains a bite attack that inflicts 1d4 damage, and its hoof damage increases to 1d6. As with a light horse, a heavy horse can be specifically trained for combat with the Handle Animal skill.

Here is the simple template for advancing a creature:

Advanced Creature (CR +1)
Creatures with the advanced template are fiercer and more powerful than their ordinary cousins.

Rebuild Rules: AC increase natural armor by +2; Ability Scores +4 to all ability scores.

Thus, you gain no additional hit dice and no additional feats. The Advanced players guide indicated for the first time that horses require feats to obtain armor proficency in this statement (page 33 second paragraph):

The mount is always considered combat trained and begins play with Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat.

What's more is that if you are playing a society game you may not swap any feats out for animals (Otherwise people would choose multiattack for there mounts) thus, no mount may have any armor proficiency. So for all those knights (fighter builds) attacking with a horse GM's need to ensure the are taking appropriate armor check penalties against there attacks.

Granted it may not be that big a deal except for low levels, but some people just love there mounts and that extra roll of the dice (with a chance at a hit). Furthermore, with not a clear rule except for that one sentence in the APG it may be difficult for GM's to convince players that they need to take a penalty to their mounts attack. Whats even funner is that in the d20pfrpg is this (unofficial) line:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/handle-animal under combat training:

An animal trained in this way (combat) counts as trained for war, and becomes proficient with all forms or armor.

Joy...