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

wraithstrike's page

35,235 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 35,235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
Jayder22 wrote:
You mention +3 evocation spells. Thasilonian magic replaces the regular evocation school, so you don't get the +1 from evocation school and than +2 more from thasilonian, it is just +2 from thasilonian. I think this was covered up thread but it may have been missed.

The regular 3 comes from a high intelligence, and the bracketed 3rd spell slot is when you specialize in a school, from Evocation, as Rysky mentioned, plus the Sin Magic.

----

Ouch. Right from the lead designer. :P

I don't want the sin magic for extra fireballs per say, I want it for extra evocation spells.

One of us is definitely misunderstanding.

Normally specializing in a school gives you 1 extra bonus slot for that school of magic on top of your normal spells per day, plus any bonus slots for high int.

I believe Sin Magic specialist instead gets 2 extra bonus spell slots of that school that must be the same spell, plus the normal spells per day, plus any bonus for high int.

For an otherwise identically built character, the Sin Magic specialist only gets 1 more spell per day per spell level.

You seem to be under the impression you get 1 slot from specializing in the school, 2 from sin specialist, plus the normal spell slots, plus bonus slots from int. I'm fairly certain that's not how it works.

That is how I read it also. You get 2 "instead of" 1, not 2+1.


There is no saving throw. Not all illusions grant saves. Illusion and mirror image are examples of this.

That "Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief):" text is for the ones that have "Disbelief" in the save line of the spell.

As an example look at the Ghost Sound spell.

Ghost Sound wrote:
Saving Throw Will disbelief; Spell Resistance no


There is no rule for it. I would say a DC 10 heal or perception check is required to noticed that someone is conscious, and applying a distance modifier is a fair rule. I include perception because when a monster has regen or fast healing I tend to let them notice that wounds are closing up. I figure healing magic does the same thing.

PS: I prefer perception to notice wounds healing up, and an actual heal check which requires them to go to the body for anything more specific.


Dispel Magic won't work if the Eidolon is called using the summoner's class ability.

advanced players guide wrote:
The eidolon cannot be sent back to its home plane by means of dispel magic, but spells such as dismissal and banishment work normally. If the summoner is unconscious, asleep, or killed, his eidolon is immediately banished.

However if the eidolon is killed once then brought back using the summon eidolon spell then it can be dispelled. The problem here is that the most NPC's will be a lower level than the summoner so they aren't likely to be able to make the opposed caster check.

PS: If he uses a scroll then caster level of the scroll will be at the lowest caster level needed to cast the spell, so it will be easier to dispel.

PPS: I would use multiple enemies. If defeat is certain have them run away. If they are all on the same team they can report party tactics to higher level enemies. Then the bad guys can use custom tactics such as not even attacking the eidolon and saving it for last and/or using hit and run tactics to wear the party down over several combats.


Do you have a link to the shield or can you say what book it is in?


Dracoknight wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Dracoknight wrote:

Brilliance weapon? Or the one version that let you hit undead/ghosts etc.

Brillant weapons work, but I was talking about conventional(non corner case) means since earth elementals tend to be dealt with by level 7 and lower level parties. They top at out CR 11, assuming no templates or class level are assigned to them. By the time you get that weapon you probably have Move Rarth or the entire party can gain access to fly, at least for 1 or 2 encounters and not even be detected by tremorsense anyway, or you can summon your own elementals to deal with them.

Thats fair, but my point was just to figure out how it would work. Maybe ghost touch too, but you still have to deal with the earth, so Adamantine + Ghost touch?

And Hunter ( Ranger with animal focus ) and the dwarf spell deal with the movement options by lvl 5 as they can pick up planar focus and hunters get the dwarf see through spell. So at least you can see and get to it, if you want to fight it your options are unarmed with Magic weapon/Fang, Ghostbane Dirge, Freedom of movement.

Still a interesting encounter.

Ghost Touch weapons don't bypass solid matter when wielded by corporeal beings. They just do full damage against incorporeal creatures instead of only doing half damage.


Dracoknight wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
It has tremorsense. There is no reason it would have to expose itself if it can attack through the ground. You can't ready an action to strike limbs without the strikeback feat.
Sure you can, just requires it to be within your reach (which would depend on whether you're buffed by enlarge person and what size the elemental is).
That is incorrect. If the earth elemental's body is still below the ground reach won't matter. It still has full cover from you. Your reach weapon will not allow you to hit something below the ground anymore than it would allow you to bypass a wall of force. So it can reach you since the ground no longer effectively acts as cover for it, but you can't do the same to the creature.
Brilliance weapon? Or the one version that let you hit undead/ghosts etc.

Brillant weapons work, but I was talking about conventional(non corner case) means since earth elementals tend to be dealt with by level 7 and lower level parties. They top at out CR 11, assuming no templates or class level are assigned to them. By the time you get that weapon you probably have Move Rarth or the entire party can gain access to fly, at least for 1 or 2 encounters and not even be detected by tremorsense anyway, or you can summon your own elementals to deal with them.


Milo v3 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
It has tremorsense. There is no reason it would have to expose itself if it can attack through the ground. You can't ready an action to strike limbs without the strikeback feat.
Sure you can, just requires it to be within your reach (which would depend on whether you're buffed by enlarge person and what size the elemental is).

That is incorrect. If the earth elemental's body is still below the ground reach won't matter. It still has full cover from you. Your reach weapon will not allow you to hit something below the ground anymore than it would allow you to bypass a wall of force. So it can reach you since the ground no longer effectively acts as cover for it, but you can't do the same to the creature.


Lorewalker wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:

It's not often that I disagree with Wraithstrike, but this time I do.

I think using Earth Glide to attack incorporeal or other creatures hiding in walls, floors and other solid material is valid. The treatment of earth as water for the purposes of melee attack penalties seems reasonable. I would also rule that in such cases the earth provides total concealment rather than total cover. The earth glider can't see their opponent but the earth isn't providing cover, other than acting as water.

Having the earth elemental use real earth as cover seems like a valid tactic. They would suffer the in-water penalties as well though so is more likely to be used as an ambush or defensive tactic.

That's the whole reason about using the readied action, because at the point the creature is reaching out to do it's nasty on you, it's exposed for retaliation.
It has tremorsense. There is no reason it would have to expose itself if it can attack through the ground. You can't ready an action to strike limbs without the strikeback feat.

As the Incorporeal rules for attacking out of a solid would fit easily with Earth Glide rules for treating solid stone as water(solid for others but not itself) I suggest using this rule associated with Incorporeal.

Incorporeal Universal Monster rules wrote:
"An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks."
You will notice that an incorporeal creature may be attacked while performing its attack from inside solid matter with a readied action. The same should hold true with an Earth Gliding creature.

That is because the rules specifically say it has is adjacent to the edge of the object and that it has to expose itself, and as I pointed out before those rules are specific to incorporeal creatures. An earth elemental has no such rule, and there is no general rule to see a creature must expose itself if it can attack from behind total cover.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:

It's not often that I disagree with Wraithstrike, but this time I do.

I think using Earth Glide to attack incorporeal or other creatures hiding in walls, floors and other solid material is valid. The treatment of earth as water for the purposes of melee attack penalties seems reasonable. I would also rule that in such cases the earth provides total concealment rather than total cover. The earth glider can't see their opponent but the earth isn't providing cover, other than acting as water.

Having the earth elemental use real earth as cover seems like a valid tactic. They would suffer the in-water penalties as well though so is more likely to be used as an ambush or defensive tactic.

That's the whole reason about using the readied action, because at the point the creature is reaching out to do it's nasty on you, it's exposed for retaliation.

It has tremorsense. There is no reason it would have to expose itself if it can attack through the ground. You can't ready an action to strike limbs without the strikeback feat.


Ridiculon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ridiculon wrote:
Earthglide =/= Burrow. not sure where you got that idea from? The earth is still a physical barrier to something that burrows, but not for something that earthglides.

It does not equal burrow, but that does not mean it has extra abilities beyond burrow either.

How is something supposed to fight(not run away from) an earth elemental under you interpretation at levels 7th, and earlier?

They max out at CR 11 so it makes sense that if they can ignore the ground as a barrier Paizo had some idea of how to defeat them.

You don't fight it on something it can earth glide through. This doesn't really have any bearing on how the ability works, its just an argument for upping it's CR.

EDIT: it is also an argument for the GM governing when to use the tactic, maybe lesser elementals just aren't smart enough? I can't think of any reason for an earth elemental to WANT to come out of the earth, its their natural habitat. When was the last time you caught a wind elemental digging a tunnel or a water elemental flying? Or an earth elemental swimming? why should they be any less averse to exposing themselves in open air?

Furthermore, and this has been brought up in other earthglide threads, if an earth elemental cannot attack creatures while earth gliding then the plane of earth must be a very peaceful place indeed

Humanoids can go there. You don't have to nr below ground completely surrounded by earth to fight, and if you won't directly answer my question you may as well not bother replying. Right now all I'm hearing is the party will automatically lose.


Not rolling. Other than that point buy and stat arrays are both fine.


Ridiculon wrote:
Earthglide =/= Burrow. not sure where you got that idea from? The earth is still a physical barrier to something that burrows, but not for something that earthglides.

It does not equal burrow, but that does not mean it has extra abilities beyond burrow either.

How is something supposed to fight(not run away from) an earth elemental under you interpretation at levels 7th, and earlier?

They max out at CR 11 so it makes sense that if they can ignore the ground as a barrier Paizo had some idea of how to defeat them.


Snowlilly wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't think we are going to agree on this one, but out of curiosity how would you expect a party to defeat an elemental(s) in this case without strikeback under your interpretation of how the rule works?

Use the same rules you would use for fighting back against incorporeal creatures attacking from a wall.

Quote:
An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks.
RAW does not give us an explicit answer, but it does offer us an example of how the problem is dealt with in near identical circumstances.

That rule is specifically for incorporeal creatures. It it said something like "creatures who can attack from behind barriers..." that would be different.

Personally I think that is not a bad way to handle it, but the rules don't support that.


Ridiculon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Except even if we take your position on this wraithstrike there is still no cover. You determine cover by what is interposed between the corners of your square (or cube) and the corners of the opponent's square (or cube). If you are just below the surface then there is no such cover.

Example: (H = human on surface, B = Burrower just underneath the human)
H
B

No cover.

Now, if the burrower was 10' away then there would be cover.

I don't the distance matters. Either you can attack through solid ground or you can not. If a human is under the ground(how he isnt' suffocationg doesnt matter for this case), he cant attack someone above ground.

Being adjacent does not remove cover. Otherwise Wall of Force would not work in some cases.

I think your definition of what Earth Glide does is flawed. You are saying that the power to 'move through' the earth is not enough to allow it to attack through the earth (in as much as the earth would otherwise be considered cover).

Why, if it's entire body can move through the earth, would a single part of it's body consider the earth to be a physical barrier? That doesn't seem to follow from your own definition (correct me if i have incorrectly understood your definition).

Earthglide basically works like burrowing in that in can move its body through the earth, but it can no more attack someone through solid ground than a beaver could, and they also burrow. That is how it can move itself through earth without being able to attack through it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

You shortened my statement. I said 'taken his word as meaning something'. I did not flat out state 'taken his word'. Please, keep my statements in context. :)

Simple, use the water rules because that is what Earth Glide says. The Earth Elemental gets Improved Cover.

As an alternate, house rule, you could use the incorporeal rules which would prevent full attacks (readied actions only) but reduce the cover bonus from +8 to +4.

Personally, I would use the incorporeal rules as they fit more closely.

But in either case, JJ also stated in another post that burrowing rules are really undersupported in Pathfinder. Because of this you really need to look at the RAI rather than the RAW.

Expect massive table variance.

That is fair. :)

Yeah, I agree that burrowing and/or Earthglide needs an update.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

While we know James Jacobs is not official in any way you and I have at least taken his word as meaning something if there is no other Dev comments to the contrary.

James Jacobs saying yes, you can attack creatures via the water rules (improved cover) while using earth glide.

I haven't always taken his word. When he want to apply the Intensified Spell feat to magic missile or scorching ray I disagreed with that.

I don't think we are going to agree on this one, but out of curiosity how would you expect a party to defeat an elemental(s) in this case without strikeback under your interpretation of how the rule works?

We can assume the party is level 7 or lower for this question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

4. Either there is a clear point to the surface or there is not. If he is below ground there is cover. If he is above ground there is no cover. There is no rule saying you have to above ground to interact with it, but the rules do state that you attack beyond cover.

In my old post I said
"Note that only one of these ignores concealment. The others only give the location.

The earth element still can't attack through the ground so it does not matter. I will ask this question again though. If the elemental could stay submerged and attack freely then why would it ever come to the surface?"

I was not disagreeing with what I said today.

I also said "Yes really. Ignoring cover is not a small thing. If there is no specific rule rule that says you can break a general rule then you can't do it. There is no rule saying the earth elemental can break the rule of bypassing cover."

Some of my later quotes were written to make a point that if tremorsense and earthglide worked a certain way this would be possible.

However if I changed my mind in another thread feel free to provide a link.


I personally would prefer if it did work, but I would also prefer if they used the incorporeal rules for readied actions to attack the earth elemental in return.

Of course rather than just go back and forth I will just start an FAQ asking if not mentioning that was an error.

PS: Actually I prefer for it to be started by someone else so that my wording doesn't appear biased.


Gauss wrote:

Except even if we take your position on this wraithstrike there is still no cover. You determine cover by what is interposed between the corners of your square (or cube) and the corners of the opponent's square (or cube). If you are just below the surface then there is no such cover.

Example: (H = human on surface, B = Burrower just underneath the human)
H
B

No cover.

Now, if the burrower was 10' away then there would be cover.

I don't the distance matters. Either you can attack through solid ground or you can not. If a human is under the ground(how he isnt' suffocationg doesnt matter for this case), he cant attack someone above ground.

Being adjacent does not remove cover. Otherwise Wall of Force would not work in some cases.


Gauss wrote:

Ok, lets look at the various elements here:

1) Is Burrow clearly defined? No
In 3.5 burrow was barely defined, in PF it is even less defined. The major change appears to be the removal of the 'cant charge or run' statement that 3.5 had.

2) Is Earth Glide clearly defined? Also no, but it clearly does indicate that, for at least some purposes it functions as water. Which purposes is the disagreement.

3) Can a creature with burrow attack another creature underground?
If the answer is no then we have a potentially ridiculous situation.
Situation: there is nothing in the rules that states a burrowing creature can create a tunnel thereby opening up space. Yet we know that burrowing creatures create tunnels through many many references in the various adventures etc.
So, if the answer is no then it directly contradicts the logic that burrowing creatures create tunnels thereby allowing themselves to meet other burrowing creatures that create tunnels.

Earth Glide is an extension of burrow but leaves behind no tunnel, so #3 clearly solves both.

4) Can a creature with burrow attack a creature on the surface? If the answer is no then how does the burrowing creature REACH the surface? You have Schrodinger's burrower.

Clearly, burrowing creatures can reach the surface, clearly they create holes to attack from.

Earth glide is, against, an extension of this but they ignore the lack of a hole.

Now, how that gets resolved is not in the rules, but you can look to the incorporeal rules to address it (which btw, wraithstrike suggested a couple years ago in another post on this topic).

In short, there is no RAW on this, you have to look at the RAI.

P.S. Cover is only cover if it is solid to the attack. If you are using something that passes through the material then there is no cover, but it is probably concealment.

2. It never gives complete equation to water. It only says it moves through it as if it is swimming.

3. Burrowing creatures can't attack through the earth either, not unless they can come to an empty pocket, at which point they are no longer burrowing.

4. It reaches the surface by traveling through the ground until it is above ground. That has nothing to do with being able to attack through the earth. To allow this would give more reach than the ability was intended to have.

The attack itself also creates no holes.

I do agree that if the creature can ignore cover it is effectively "not cover", but I don't see it as "not cover" in this case.


Ridiculon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Side question: At what point was it insinuated that special movement types meant someone could not attack? Before we go back and forth for due to a misunderstanding I want to be sure you are understanding what I am writing.
Side question answer: by saying that something that uses earth glide cannot attack something on the surface that's what you are insinuating.

Before that I explained that there was cover in the way, but I do see how that comment may have been missed.


Side question: At what point was it insinuated that special movement types meant someone could not attack? Before we go back and forth for due to a misunderstanding I want to be sure you are understanding what I am writing.


Ridiculon wrote:

Answer this: In what way does having a special movement type STOP you from attacking?

After you answer that I can try and find some exception for this case, but from where im standing there is no conflict between moving in a certain medium and also attacking across the barrier into another medium, much less within the same medium. Krakens do that exact thing all the time, anything with ground-to-air or air-to-ground does that all the time. Incorporeal to corporeal and vice versa. The added wrinkles of cover and concealment do not cancel out your ability to attack as long as you have some way to deal with them, and in this case Earth Glide and Tremorsense combined seem to account for both cover and concealment respectively.

I never said a special movement type could stop anyone from attacking.

I am saying the whatever is on the other side of the earth has total cover, and the earth elemental being able to move through it is not the same as being able to attack creatures in other squares if he has to go through the cover.

From what I am reading people are saying the earth elemental gets to ignore the cover based on him being able to travel through earth, but I am not seeing it. <---Rules based issues

Nor am I seeing how PF or 3.5 expected for you to deal with the encounter unless you were specially prepared for it and/or of a certain level. Insert other corner cases such as someone having strikeback or making sure the PC's can run away, which is not really always an option.<-----Logically I can't see how to get around this with .


I am not needing a dev to give an answer, but I do need more than extrapolation, and some hope of escape that isn't promised.

Even another ability that supports the stance works.

As an example I have used class abilities in other discussions to show evidence that certain things are not allowed by the normal rules. As an example the ranged fighter archetype allows for you to do combat maneuvers without being in melee.

That or a rule that I am missing that allows the party to deal with issue other than hoping the GM put in an escape path or the entire party can fly, or they just happen to be in a terrain that allows them to lose the elemental, or hoping someone took feat X or something like move earth, IIRC that damages them.

So far I am seeing no solid rule proof or ideas to stop the tactic that can be shown to generally work.


Ridiculon wrote:

Wraithstrike this is a situation in which you need to provide proof for your stance. Earth Elementals have the ability to attack, they have the ability to earth glide, they have tremorsense. You will need to provide some example of these abilities canceling each other out, not the other way around.

Move Earth, climb a tree, fly, swim, burrow, run away. It sucks when it happens but its not impossible to deal with.

The ability never says they can attack through the dirt. It is an extrapolation being made with no backup. If anyone needs to provide proof it is not me.

I have even provided a 2nd reason as to why it should not work, but that is being ignored.

The ball is not in my court right now.

Your answer did not address how to defeat the earth elemental. Running away is not always an option, not all of those options are going to be availible.

Telling me it sucks is not the same as saying "here is what to do".

Despite what many optimizers(such as myself) like to list as options that players should try to get ASAP, flying is not always an option. As for the other things, I am sure you know why they are not always an option without me having to mention them.


Quintain wrote:

Fans of WWF Wrestling in the 80's will remember the figure-four leg lock, which is a grapple without hands, as I recall.

Unless you think that your legs are "metaphorical" hands.

Just throwing that out there.

Hands are need to set the move up.


Snowlilly wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Earthglide does not allow you to punch through the earth, and that would be needed to hit someone in an adjacent square while they are beneath the ground. If it worked like that earth elementals could stay below the ground, and attack those who are above ground.

It allows for them to travel through the Earth, nothing more.

Earth elementals can stay below ground while attacking those on the surface.

They have always been able to do so. They just have to deal with total concealment.

1. Do you have any proof?

2. How was this dealt with in 3.5 and Pathfinder(other than the strikeback feat)?


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


If I say I pass through the schoolyard, through town, and so on me moving my hand into the area does not count as passing through it.

You have to be able to move your hand into that area prior to being able to complete the movement of your hand out of the area. And when swinging a sword or attacking with a claw, that's exactly what you do. You reach out, hit them, then draw the weapon back to it's original position.

Nothing about "pass through" requires entering and then exiting a zone on opposite corners. You can enter and exit through the same location and you have passed through that location.

You do not need strike back at all, because you can attack adjacent creatures while earth gliding.

With regard to strikeback I was saying the PC's would need it.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Moving through water is not attacking into another square.

you aren't "moving through water", you are "passing through". Note the verbiage that does not restrict activity to just movement.

And in order to attack something adjacent to them a fish would very much indeed have to "pass through" water to make an attack. Just like a normal humanoid would have to "pass through" the air to do the same.

Humans do not pass through air when attacking. I see this as an attempt to change the normal use of the words. If I say I pass through the schoolyard, through town, and so on me moving my hand into the area does not count as passing through it. I have to actually go through it. So me moving my hand around does not count as me passing through anything.

That and I don't think Paizo would force someone to take strike back just to deal with a creature.

Unlike incorporeal creatures, who give you a chance to hit them an earth elemental would never have to reveal itself.

Despite them not being too bright, they are smart enough to attack from the most advantageous position, and if they can hit you, while you can't hit them, there is not too much that trumps that.

edit: "Swims though" is pretty much synonamous with "move through"


Gauss wrote:

Locating the incorporeal creature is going to be the problem. Tremorsense and Blindsense/Blindsight (usually) won't work here.

Tremorsense: The incorporeal creature does not make contact with the ground it occupies so tremorsense will not work.

Blindsense/Blindsight usually rely upon senses such as hearing, which also won't work since incorporeal creatures are silent. Visual based Blindsense/Blindsight will not work either because it is underground.
Only if the Blindsense/Blindsight was based on a non-visual, non-auditory sense would it work (perhaps something similar to lifesense but applicable to undead).

wraithstrike, I don't believe you are correct here.

CRB p122 Earth Glide wrote:
Earth Glide (Ex) A burrowing earth elemental can pass through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth except metal as easily as a fish swims through water.

To the user of Earth Glide the earth is the same as water is to a fish. Fish can attack other fish in water, so the user of Earth Glide can do so as well.

Sissyl, incorporeal creatures are no longer ethereal, that was one of the changes Pathfinder made from D&D3.5.

Moving through water is not attacking into another square. I am still sure earth elementals can't attack people above the ground because of cover.

edit: If that were the case you would need the strikeback feat to attack them, since you that is the only way to attack limbs when you can't reach the square something occupies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Earthglide does not allow you to punch through the earth, and that would be needed to hit someone in an adjacent square while they are beneath the ground. If it worked like that earth elementals could stay below the ground, and attack those who are above ground.

It allows for them to travel through the Earth, nothing more.


Herald wrote:

Ranged Grapple:

PRD wrote:

Telekinesis

School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Target or Targets see text
Duration concentration (up to 1 round/level) or instantaneous; see text
Saving Throw Will negates (object) or none; see text; Spell Resistance yes (object); see text
<snip>
Combat Maneuver: Alternatively, once per round, you can use telekinesis to perform a bull rush, disarm, grapple (including pin), or trip. Resolve these attempts as normal, except that they don't provoke attacks of opportunity, you use your caster level in place of your Combat Maneuver Bonus, and you add your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer) in place of your Strength or Dexterity modifier. No save is allowed against these attempts, but spell resistance applies normally. This version of the spell can last 1 round per caster level, but it ends if you cease concentration.</snip>
So it can be done.

Rules Form rule #1:

When people say ____ can't be done they are assuming no feats, spells, class abilities, and so on are giving you an exception to the normal rules.

As an example if I say humans can't fly in Pathfinder, it is assuming magic, wings, nor anything else is in play.


Ridiculon wrote:

Where are the "weapon based maneuvers" defined? as far as i can tell they are all just combat maneuvers and all follow the same rules. The "weapon" you use for combat maneuvers is your unarmed strike by default, which is a light weapon.

EDIT: again, not trying to be an ass or combative, im seriously asking in case i missed something

That is not true at all. You use certain limbs which can reasonable grab someone such as your hands. For some monsters these limbs also double as weapons, such as bites, and tentacles.


share langauge

Basically, it allows the caster to transfer his ability to communicate in a specific language to another person.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
now not to doubt you but 5 might be high but now that i look over it your dividing into comprehension and direct knowledge for mechanics would maybe be an average of those 2 things so maybe 3.5 - 4? i don't think dividing it into comprehension and knowledge would be necessary but maybe. i'll think on it. and if you played all the APs then yeah I guess 5 would be right.

AP, you have a point, but the mechanics was really defined as to what you meant so I split them up. I think the ability to apply the knowledge is more important than knowing every option because if you are good at making characters you really only need the core book. The rest is just a bonus. At the same time if you have all of the books, but your comprehension of the rules is not at least average the your character will still suffer mechanically. Basically comprehension and the ability to build a character is about 90%. Having knowledge that ___ exist is about 10%.


RaizielDragon wrote:

I'm curious as to how character deaths typically are handled in other groups. Our group has currently had a bit of a stir-up due to a character death.

As background, we are playing through Legacy of Fire (WARNING: potential spoilers throughout).
** spoiler omitted **

One of our players has died 3 or 4 times since we started, amounting to about 5-6 different characters since the very beginning of the first book, since he started with a different character when we picked it back up recently. He has just gotten kind of unlucky with being critted and the unfortunate target of some high rolls in combination with playing squishier characters. All-in-all, it's been kind of a rough time for the player, making a new character every week, only for them to die after half a session. To top it off, he normally likes to play characters that fit the theme of the setting (arabian or desert-themed) and he's starting to run out of ideas that haven't been done between all the other players and all the characters he has been through.

On the other side of this, we have one player who has been playing a shocking grasp Magus since we started back up (he was not in the original group that played through the first chapter). Who made it all the way through this chapter but then died at the very end, on the way to the big city (forgot name) due to a ** spoiler omitted **.

Now the first player has been understandably glum, and I feel for him, and would be perfectly understanding if he was frustrated. However, he has handled it pretty darn well, other than being kind of lost for what to play next.

The second player (who got to see what the first player was going through) was extremely upset about his character dying. More so than I've ever seen a player upset about a...

Res magic is assumed to be a part of the the game, and while the GM gets final say I think any deviation from the norm should be stated before the game starts.

In the spirit of fairness I would allow the rez to be used since it was not mentioned beforehand, but I would also let the party know that paying for a rez going forward would be either be not allowed or not likely depending on the stance.

As for who pays for the rez, that is tricky. The party should definitely not be obligated to pay it. If the GM wants to be nice he can work something into the story that puts the character in debt to someone(maybe the cleric who does the rez), and whenever the party gets loot that character can lose 25% of his pay until all of it is pay back to ______. Why the cleric would take that gamble on a high priced spell is hard to imagine though, unless he has some connection to the character that died.

Considering the GM's stance on rez's and death though, I doubt he will do this.


Rysky wrote:
vhok wrote:

Lesser and Greater Metamagic rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower.

metamagic rods say they can affect level 9 spells. not sure why your randomly asking this?

I specifically asked about the feats, not the rods.

The rods apply the feat. It is basically a feat from an item vs you having the feat so it applies the same way, so the rods follow the same rules as the feats unless stated otherwise.


Mechanics(knowing all the options by memory): 2.5 Unlike when I played 3.5 I don't have the free time to spend reading every book cover to cover <---not included in score

Mechanics(ability to actually understand the rules and put useful combinations together): I tend to understand how rules, and put them together well. 5.0

lore(Golarion?): My knowledge here is pretty good 4.0
role play experience (specific to PF) Been playing since the official CRB came out.

3rd party: 2.5 I don't use a lot of 3rd party stuff, but I am familiar with the better companies. I know these guys also create stuff for Paizo, and often the quality is at least average.

adventure path: 5.0 I have not written an adventure since Pathfinder started, and I am familiar with the tone of most AP's even if I don't own them.
(overall level?):21.5


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
What we thought you were saying was that even if your limbs could not reach someone, and you had no other way to do get to someone such as spells, grappling arrows, etc etc that you could grapple them anyway.

So, my answer to that question is that Grappling is a kind of attack, and to Attack someone, you need some kind of Reach or Range.

I'm really pretty sure that the Rules as Written will indicate that, though I must say I always just assumed that the rules specified that you had to have reach or range to attack someone.

I guess we were talking past each other.

I agree.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Also, remember that what wraithstrike and I were arguing about most recently is the Hamatula Strike Feat, which had the prerequisite of a +7 BAB. A level 1 Commoner can't have HS.

You completely misread what I wrote if that is what you thought. If I mentioned that feat I was telling you to disregard it for the purpose of my question.

I was never arguing about that ability.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Can you grapple someone who is 1000 feet away as long as you can see them?

No, clearly, you need some means of reaching them, although reach is not necessarily "Reach."

There are a lot means that have been mentioned for Ranged Grapples. Harpoons, Grappling Arrows, nets, and spells such as Black Tentacles, Strangling Hair, and Web.

Those spells and class abilities would be special abilities, and I already stated that those were not to be included. We already know those work because they say they work that way.

What we thought you were saying was that even if your limbs could not reach someone, and you had no other way to do get to someone such as spells, grappling arrows, etc etc that you could grapple them anyway.

Nobody was ever saying that you can only use melee based attacks, even if you have something like a spell, weapon, etc etc that specifically says you can make ranged grapples.

Basically creature X with only his limbs, and nothing else can not grapple someone that is outside of his melee attack range<---That was the point being made.

And no they are not special limbs that stretch or count as ranged weapons. <---In before someone says well creature X can do ____.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott wrote:
Intent is irrelevant.

You do a lot of writing for a simple question.

Are you defaulting to "the words in the book trumps intent"?

Please don't give me a 1000 word essay this time. It's a simple question.


Scott if you answer my last question and you say you believe that a character can offically(per intent) make ranged grapple attacks, even though your limbs nor any melee weapon in your possession* can reach them what is the limitation on distance when grappling? Can you grapple someone who is 1000 feet away as long as you can see them?

No matter your reply, even if you see 1 million miles I won't dispute it, assuming you answer the question. I am just curious about what you will say.

*The game references the number of hands free, and the grappling appendage in the grapple section.

PS: I don't know if this needs to be mentioned, but this question also assumes you don't have any spells or other special abilities that specifically allow ranged attacks such as the ability that the archer fighter archetype has. <----In before someone tries to reply with something such as telekinesis, while being fully aware.

PS2: I am not going to make anymore disclaimers like this. If someone tries to twist the words of the person they are replying to or pretend like they do not understand like Pendagast did earlier I think they should just be ignored. <----That resolves a lot of problems in advance, and it trains people that certain comments won't be entertained.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If you answered the question in your previous post with regard as to what their answer might be I do apologize for overlooking it.

I did. I made a long post, most of the body of the question was about the consequences of trying to use Hamatula Strike with a longbow. Have another look at it, tell me what you think, and I will accept your apology, whether you agree with me or not.

wraithstrike wrote:
If an FAQ were made what do you think they would say.

Again, I feel that this is a framed question. I feel that supposing the PDT were to intervene with an FAQ or any other kind of official answer presuposes that the PDT is grumpy about the idea. The only reason they would respond at all would be to make some kind of ruling against it. What I think is more constructive, however, is to suppose, hypotheically, that they are reading this now, contemplating it, and then we might predict whether they will make an official ruling or remain silent, which would imply assent. I treated this question thoroughly in my earlier post.

wraithstrike wrote:
edit: I don't know what statement the PDT already made so I am asking will they say yes or no to ranged grappling, even if the character does not have a special weapon, special ability, or magic to help them do it.
I was being saucy. There might be an FAQ or Official Rules Post I am unaware of, but meanwhile. I was saying that "no answer" is an answer.

They don't answer unless there is an FAQ. They have not answered questions while being fully aware the question was highly debated, at least not until an FAQ was made. Them not answering doesn't mean anything.

I asked you the question because I want to know if you are saying "I know ranged grapples are not allowed but the book doesn't make it clear", or if you are saying "I am highly confident that ranged grapples are the official intention".


Pendagast wrote:
Grasping hand can do it at 230 feet or more

Spells would fall into the special ability section also, which has also been mentioned, but not reading past the title you would not know that.

#readinghelps


Pendagast wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?

Nobody is saying ranged grappling is impossible. We are saying that without some special exception you can't do make a grapple without it being a melee attack. Also reach is not the same as ranged. A reach attack such as a tentacle or bite from a large creature is still a melee attack.

Don't be condescending and not know that reach(melee) and ranged are not the same thing.

Telekinesis is still ranged and you can still grapple with it

The OP suggested the only way to grapple should be adjacent foes
A whole bunch jumped in and agreed

A combat manuver by the way is not technically a melee attack, it's done in place of one
Unless it specifically says you can do it as part of a melee attack, like a wolf tripping with a bite

That does nothing to change the fact that it can not normally be ranged attack, and since hands/claws/etc are normally used it is still melee based.

Also telekineses is not a ranged attack when used to grapple. It is a spell that allows you to use a CMB. If it was a ranged attack then cover and so on would matter.

When you are throwing items that is a ranged attack.

But since you just dont want to admit you were too lazy to read past the title consider this conversation over. I don't have time for immature people.


Pendagast wrote:

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?

Nobody is saying ranged grappling is impossible. We are saying that without some special exception you can't make a grapple without it being a melee attack. Also reach is not the same as ranged. A reach attack such as a tentacle or bite from a large creature is still a melee attack.

Don't be condescending and not know that reach(melee) and ranged are not the same thing.


Byakko wrote:

Wow, so many people in this thread doing the knee-jerk "It doesn't work because... because... we know it doesn't work! Reasons!"

Of course we know grappling, and similar maneuvers, are intended to be done at melee range. But the poster is completely correct in the rules failing to mention this, as far as I can tell.

Btw, this is not a case of someone trying to do something not described in the rules. The rules tell you how to perform combat maneuvers, and nothing limits them to melee only. You really have to infer this from knowledge of how these types of things work in real life... which is reasonable. However, it also isn't, technically, by-the-rules.

A lot of the rules are like that.

I will resort to my famous example of the dead condition not saying you can not take any actions.

The answer you get to this question from any one person will depend on whether that person goes by exactly what the book says or if they go by the most likely intent based on inference when discussing a rule. If two people in a discussion are coming from these two different base points they will likely never agree on how a rule works. Most saying that the ranged grapple are extrapolation based on how the game normally works. The book is not a technical manual, and it is expected that you do this to some extent.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
No you can't ranged grapple. That is the reason the fighter needs a special ability to be able to do so with a bow.
Once you have loosed the arrow, you have no particular means of drawing your opponent to you, even technically did grapple them with HS. And the Grappling rules make no provision for reeling in an opponent on a line once you've pinned them at bowshot ranges.
What if the person is already beside you?

Then I guess that would be a legit use of Hamatula strike. But if you are stabbing with the arrow in your hand, that's Improvised Weapon Penalties. If you are shooting your bow at an adjacent target, that's attacks of opportunity.

Edit: at time like that, it would be better just to pull your morning star off your belt, and use HS with that.

What do you think the PDT(rules team) will say about ranged attacks and grappling if they were to pop in here?

Before I begin, I want to analyze your question. I don't think you framed this question on purpose. But this is a framed question.

The question pre-assumes the PDT is going to respond at all. In general, I'd say that the PDT doesn't respond to anything unless they are unhappy about it. Any Official Rules Post on this matter already pre-supposes they are grumpy: they would re-word Hamatula Strike to say Piercing, Melee Weapons, not just Piercing Weapons.

But let's now pre-assume that the PDT is reading these posts avidly, and that "no response" is a response. Like in the Rush song, if the PDT chooses not to decide, they have made a choice. Having answered your literal question, I would like to explore the question I think you meant to ask: will the prospect of players using Hamatula Strike with a Bow inspire a crackdown?

If you use Hamatula Strike with your arrows, that would mean you might impose the Grappled condition on your target for 1 round, but with no...

It was a hypothetical question.

I will rephrase for you.
If an FAQ were made what do you think they would say.
Feel free to get me the short answer.
If you answered the question in your previous post with regard as to what their answer might be I do apologize for overlooking it.

edit: I don't know what statement the PDT already made so I am asking will they say yes or no to ranged grappling, even if the character does not have a special weapon, special ability, or magic to help them do it.

1 to 50 of 35,235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.