Sure, sure, it's PRIMAL fire. But I don't have Primal Fire Vulnerability, I have fire vulnerability.
That's how I would rule it. It may not be right, but that's how I'd see it. I just don't see how you could reasonably bypass the one without bypassing the other.
==Aelryinth
|
Sure, sure, it's PRIMAL fire.
No, it's not.
"breath weapon (80-ft. line, 6d10 fire, DC 18)"
It's still fire damage.
"Primal Fire (Su) A very young or older solar dragon’s breath weapon can affect creatures normally immune or resistant to fire damage."
It doesn't say the dragons breath weapon is 'primal fire' it just says it affects creatures that are normally immune.
That's how I would rule it. It may not be right, but that's how I'd see it.
And that's fine. All I'm saying is that, no matter how unreasonable it may seem, that's the way it is.
The armor check penalty for being non-proficient in worn armor applies to initiative checks.
I have always known initiative was a dex check but I never put the two together.
Initiative is indeed a Dex check, but it isn't a Dex-based _skill_ check (as per the section on armour). So I don't buy that an armour check penalty affects an initiative check. After all, it doesn't affect a Reflex saving throw either.
Unless there is an initiative or reflex skill that I don't known about? :)
|
|
Double-check the non-proficientcy penalty.
A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
and 50 coins weighs 1 poundhum, let's see if I get this right...
1 pound = about 0.45 kg, or 450 g.
50 coins = 450 g, or 9 g per coin
gold is 19.3 g per cubic cm, so 1 gold coin = 0,466 cubic cmWhich makes a gold coin's size somewhere between that of a penny (0.348 cm3) and a nickel (0.688 cm3), and almost half that of a quarter (0.808 cm3)
We're pretty far from big fat gold doubloons!
[edit] hum, this sound about right, according to wiki, a Spanish doubloon did weight 6 or 8 grams a pieces, depending on era...
If we use the standards of fineness of gold coins of, say, Britain from 1500 or so, the gold would be something like 90% pure. So that would bring the size to weight ratio up a bit resulting in a slightly larger coin. Absolutely pure gold probably isn't used.
If we use the standards of fineness of gold coins of, say, Britain from 1500 or so, the gold would be something like 90% pure. So that would bring the size to weight ratio up a bit resulting in a slightly larger coin. Absolutely pure gold probably isn't used.and 50 coins weighs 1 poundhum, let's see if I get this right...
1 pound = about 0.45 kg, or 450 g.
50 coins = 450 g, or 9 g per coin
gold is 19.3 g per cubic cm, so 1 gold coin = 0,466 cubic cmWhich makes a gold coin's size somewhere between that of a penny (0.348 cm3) and a nickel (0.688 cm3), and almost half that of a quarter (0.808 cm3)
We're pretty far from big fat gold doubloons!
[edit] hum, this sound about right, according to wiki, a Spanish doubloon did weight 6 or 8 grams a pieces, depending on era...
Here are the current US 'gold' coins in production.
Specifications
Each of the four sizes contains 91.67% gold (22 karat), 3% silver, and 5.33% copper.
1/10 troy oz coin
Diameter: 16.50 mm
Thickness: 1.19 mm
Gross weight: 0.1091 troy oz (3.393 g)
Face value: $5
1/4 troy oz coin
Diameter: 22 mm
Thickness: 1.83 mm
Gross weight: 0.2727 troy oz (8.483 g)
Face value: $10
1/2 troy oz coin
Diameter: 27 mm
Thickness: 2.24 mm
Gross weight: 0.5454 troy oz (16.965 g)
Face value: $25
1 troy oz coin
Diameter: 32.70 mm
Thickness: 2.87 mm
Gross weight: 1.0909 troy oz (33.930 g)
Face value: $50
These are the Platinum (.9995 fine) coins.
1/10 troy oz coin
Diameter: 16.5 mm
Thickness: 0.95 mm
Weight: 0.1001 troy oz (3.112 g)
Face value: $10
1/4 troy oz coin
Diameter: 22.0 mm
Thickness: 1.32 mm
Weight: 0.2501 troy oz (7.780 g)
Face value: $25
1/2 troy oz coin
Diameter: 27.0 mm
Thickness: 1.75 mm
Weight: 0.5003 troy oz (15.560 g)
Face value: $50
1 troy oz coin
Diameter: 32.7 mm
Thickness: 2.39 mm
Weight: 1.0005 troy oz (31.120 g)
Face value: $100
The Silver coins:
0.999 Troy Ounce
1.000 Troy Ounces
Diameter: 40.60 mm
Thickness: 2.98 mm
Weight: 31.103 Grams
Face value: $1
And just to be silly the US Mint makes this coin:
Value 0.25 U.S. dollar
Mass 155.5 g (5.00 troy oz)
Diameter 76.2 mm (3 in)
Thickness 3.25 mm (0.128 in)
Note that they are legal tender in their stamped values, although the metal value is much greater.
Interesting responses on the animal companion thing.
I suppose there's nothing in the RAW about how a druid should treat an animal companion, so I can see an argument for trading out companions at will.
But I wonder how many druid players would role play it that way.
I said I had contemplated doing an AC swap when our campaign moved from a temperate forest area into a more desolate mountainous area, and I knew from the description of the campaign we were in that it was going to be a long quest. In the end I decided that the "special bond" between my druid and my animal companion was such that neither of them wanted to separate.
I base this on the role playing decision that an animal companion is not a tool that the druid uses, but is an actual "companion" that shares an emotional attachment with the druid, sort of like a person and a beloved pet, but magnified beyond even that bond, and so I attempt to play my druid as if she truly has such a bond with her animal companio
Food for thought.
Druids could rp this as it would be cruel to take a animal with no heavy coat to a place where it's covered in 20+ ft of snow
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to declare that you're using Guidance before making the roll.
We've been getting this rule wrong for more years than I can remember.
Richard
P.S. If as a GM you ask your player to make a DC 20 Fort save, for example, then by RAW you have (rather unfairly) prevented him from using his Improved Great Fortitude re-roll.
Adamantine ignores Hardness if it is under 20, it does not ignore 20 hardness. So if something has 21 or 20 Hardness, it has no effect.
You have to declare that you're using Guidance before making the roll.
We've been getting this rule wrong for more years than I can remember.
Richard
P.S. If as a GM you ask your player to make a DC 20 Fort save, for example, then by RAW you have (rather unfairly) prevented him from using his Improved Great Fortitude re-roll.
Am I missing something? How does a DC 20 fort save prevent a player from using improved great fortitude? Is it because the player knows what the DC to beat is? /confused
Am I missing something? How does a DC 20 fort save prevent a player from using improved great fortitude? Is it because the player knows what the DC to beat is? /confusedYou have to declare that you're using Guidance before making the roll.
We've been getting this rule wrong for more years than I can remember.
Richard
P.S. If as a GM you ask your player to make a DC 20 Fort save, for example, then by RAW you have (rather unfairly) prevented him from using his Improved Great Fortitude re-roll.
You have to decide before you know you failed, ergo, knowing the DC beforehand prevents it's use.
That's unnecessarily pedantic and assumes there aren't any hidden modifiers going on. Not really what I had hoped for in this thread...
Barbarians can also have levels in Martial Artist Monk archetype and vice versa. Martial artists can be any alignment.
On Touch Attacks discussed earlier:
I'm assuming that the free melee touch attack allowed when casting a melee touch attack w/o provoking doesn't negate the AOO from casting a spell in a threatened area, or the AOO for moving out of a threatened space if you're not within your reach to apply the touch attack (unless using free 5' step).
A big revelation to me was learning that all those Improved Combat Maneuver feats that eliminate the attack from provoking, only cancel the AOO from using the CM, not from any movement involved in leaving a threatened space to get up to the foe being CM'ed. Same for a charge. I'd always thought that a charge didn't provoke, including the movement through a creature's reach. Have to reconsider when charging and/or using imp. bull rush/overrun, or add mobility to shore up defenses.
|
|
Heavy shields are incompatible with characters that switch between making melee attacks and casting spells, such as Clerics.
With a light shield, a Cleric can temporarily hold his weapon in his shield hand while he casts a spell with Somantic components or Channels Energy by presenting his holy symbol. With a heavy shield, the shield hand is useless, so the Cleric must either sheath his weapon or drop it.
Richard
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Relatedly, Shields are Martial Weapons, and characters who may have proficency in them as Shields don't necessarily have proficiency in them as Weapons.
Taking 20 on a perception check takes 1 minute.
An active perception check is a move action
2 move actions/6 seconds= 1 action/3 seconds *20= 20 actions/1 minute.
Clerics do not need rest prior to casting spells: they can pull all nighters.
On the topic of shields, characters who are using weapon finesse (like a dagger/rapier) take the AC penalty from a shield (like a buckler) to their attack rolls, if they choose to "carry" one.
On the topic of shields, characters who are using weapon finesse (like a dagger/rapier) take the AC penalty from a shield (like a buckler) to their attack rolls, if they choose to "carry" one.
Because Rapier/Buckler combos never happened in real life. /sarcasm
One of those rules I tend to ignore.
Interesting responses on the animal companion thing.
I suppose there's nothing in the RAW about how a druid should treat an animal companion, so I can see an argument for trading out companions at will.
But I wonder how many druid players would role play it that way.
I said I had contemplated doing an AC swap when our campaign moved from a temperate forest area into a more desolate mountainous area, and I knew from the description of the campaign we were in that it was going to be a long quest. In the end I decided that the "special bond" between my druid and my animal companion was such that neither of them wanted to separate.
I base this on the role playing decision that an animal companion is not a tool that the druid uses, but is an actual "companion" that shares an emotional attachment with the druid, sort of like a person and a beloved pet, but magnified beyond even that bond, and so I attempt to play my druid as if she truly has such a bond with her animal companion.
But that's a role playing thing, not a mechanics thing. I can see how a druid could be role played differently and could be more of a "spread the wealth" sort of druid who believes that bonding with multiple companions over time is an important part of being a druid.
In fact that's making me think a bit about my own role playing approach. My druid is currently without a companion, having lost her third companion in battle recently and deciding as penance to not take a new companion for a while. Perhaps her reaction to this will be to approach the animal companion experience differently and decide that she should experience a wide range of companions WITHOUT killing them off.
Food for thought.
First time seeing this thread and there's no way I'm reading through the whole thing, but I had to comment on this post.
Dr(uid) Who! Keeps his (animal) companions until something forces him to change them. Occasionally goes without for a time while he mourns the loss of a particularly treasured one. :)
|
Don't forget each time you switch your animal companion you have to train it to do all those tricks again.
Richard
True, but it is also true that by say, 6th level, this becomes automatic. You may Take 10 on Handle Animal checks.
In PFS, you can attempt 1 check per rank in Handle Animal per scenario.Any self-respecting animal handler has at least a +10 to this skill by then, so it's a no-brainer.
If you aid someone performing an action that would normally provoke an attack of opportunity, then the act of aiding another provokes an attack of opportunity as well.
Taking 20 on a perception check takes 1 minute.
An active perception check is a move action
2 move actions/6 seconds= 1 action/3 seconds *20= 20 actions/1 minute.
I think this is more subjective than the specific RAW for "intentionally searching for stimulus."
While intentionally looking for the source of a sound or other active stimulus might only be a move action, to search, for example, a necromancer's laboratory for clues, hidden items, or something similar (that is, there is no "active stimulus," it is just an extended search), it would take much longer than one minute.
Can't the druid just cast Endure Elements on the companion?
If you aid someone performing an action that would normally provoke an attack of opportunity, then the act of aiding another provokes an attack of opportunity as well.
Nice one Owly. That has some ramifications for combat maneuvers for my group I would expect.
Dunno if its already been said, but:
If you are casting a spell with a casting time of a full round or longer (such as summon monster spells), you do not threaten.
It takes an extra full round action to spontaneously add metamagic to a spell with a casting time longer than one standard action. So a druid casting Extend Summon Nature's Ally # on the fly would take two rounds to bring forth the creature.
However, this can also be silly if you deal with spells like Contingency, with a 10 minute casting time. An Extended Contingency would take 10 minutes and 6 seconds. An Extended Scrying would take an hour and six seconds.
Also, it may have been said, but Empower Spell also adds bonuses to die rolls, as well as number of damage dice.
Dunno if its already been said, but:
If you are casting a spell with a casting time of a full round or longer (such as summon monster spells), you do not threaten.
Isn't this obvious? You're busy casting a spell, of course you can't stab that guy as he runs by you.
Just learned last session that Dispel Magic no longer has a limitation of +10 to the roll. It only removes one magical effect, however. Oddly enough, it hasn't come up before in the 4 years we have been playing Pathfinder!
When using a ranged weapon, if there is anything blocking line of effect or providing cover, or a creature (enemy OR ALLY) in between you and your target, the target is given a +4 cover (soft in case of creatures) bonus to AC (unless you have certain feats).
This applies to reach weapons as well when used against targets that are not adjacent to you (such as with a spiked chain or with certain class abilities that allow you to use a reach weapon against an adjacent opponent).
I've lost count of the number of times people have been surprised by this, mainly that allies can provide an opponent with soft cover.
I'm not sure this is true and would love to see some citation. The first part is definitely true, but, the way I understand the rules on cover, the thing about using the rules to determine cover for ranged attacks when you're attacking a non adjacent creature with a melee weapon only means to refer to the previous paragraph. Melee cover is normally determined from all of the attackers squares, but ranged cover is determined from one square chosen by the attack to all the opponent's squares.
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
I understood this to mean that you use the first paragraph for determining whether or not a target has cover from your non-adjacent melee attack, but you are still making a melee attack to which soft cover does not apply.
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
The emphasis is, of course, mine. Now I know there was a bunch of confusion regarding this issue and an errata for the 3.5 PHB, but was there a similar errata issued for this? Because from what I see determining whether or not a creature has cover (based on corners of squares) is not the same as determining whether or not a type of cover applies to a particular type of attack. It doesn't say "treat your melee attack as a ranged attack"; it says "use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks" which are immediately above that.
Obviously I could be wrong, but I couldn't find any clarification for PF when I saw this claim.
Most people don't know that Fighters CAN'T be BBEGs.
On the topic of shields, characters who are using weapon finesse (like a dagger/rapier) take the AC penalty from a shield (like a buckler) to their attack rolls, if they choose to "carry" one.
Where is this stated? I know that happens if you're not proficient in the shield, but where does weapon finesse come into it?
Wrong thread, dudes. Let's keep the snark to the relevant threads.
You cited the proof you want yourself. Go read the bit on how you determine ranged cover again. Ignore the soft cover rules, they're irrelevant to the issue. I've emphasized the part you seem to have missed.I'm not sure this is true and would love to see some citation. The first part is definitely true, but, the way I understand the rules on cover, the thing about using the rules to determine cover for ranged attacks when you're attacking a non adjacent creature with a melee weapon only means to refer to the previous paragraph. Melee cover is normally determined from all of the attackers squares, but ranged cover is determined from one square chosen by the attack to all the opponent's squares.
I understood this to mean that you use the first paragraph for determining whether or not a target has cover from your non-adjacent melee attack, but you are still making a melee attack...To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Didn't miss that. Specific trumps general. The soft cover (the type of cover provided by a square occupied by a creature) rules only applying to ranged attacks (which your melee attack did not suddenly become) is more specific.
edit: What I'm saying is that the rules tell you to refer to the ranged section for how to determine cover (i.e. from one corner of your square to each corner of your opponents) not for what provides cover because it doesn't change the type of attack you are making.
On the topic of shields, characters who are using weapon finesse (like a dagger/rapier) take the AC penalty from a shield (like a buckler) to their attack rolls, if they choose to "carry" one.Where is this stated? I know that happens if you're not proficient in the shield, but where does weapon finesse come into it?
In Weapon Finesse.
Benefit: With a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
If you don't count creatures you're attempting to only use part of those rules. You're attempting to apply part of the rules for making melee attacks against adjacent targets and mixing them in with the rules for ranged attacks and melee attacks against non adjacent targets. Note: there's no general rules for cover again making melee attacks, it's quite specific that there's rules for making them against adjacent opponents then there's completely separate rules for targets that are not adjacent.
The edit was an (apparently poorly worded) attempt to simplify my argument. Ignore it, and note that I'm not saying you don't count creatures but that creatures provide a type of cover to which your attack is not subject. Attacks with reach weapons are not ranged attacks.
edit: I don't even entirely disagree with you in a practical sense, but a melee attack at reach shouldn't be subject to all the same restrictions as a ranged attack and as far as I can tell, per RAW they aren't.
I am using all of the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks. The target has soft cover, but the attack isn't actually a ranged attack so soft cover doesn't do anything according to the rest of those rules (specifically the ones regarding soft cover). Unless you're saying that attacks at reach are ranged attacks, but then they would provoke attacks of opportunity...
|
|
I am using all of the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks. The target has soft cover, but the attack isn't actually a ranged attack so soft cover doesn't do anything according to the rest of those rules (specifically the ones regarding soft cover).
Yes, but the rules say the target gains cover, not soft cover.
I am using all of the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks. The target has soft cover, but the attack isn't actually a ranged attack so soft cover doesn't do anything according to the rest of those rules (specifically the ones regarding soft cover).Yes, but the rules say the target gains cover, not soft cover.
So soft cover doesn't exist?
I am saying that melee attacks against non adjacent targets are treated as ranged attacks for the purposes of determining cover, because that's what the rules say.
Yes, and the rules also say that the particular kind of cover applies to ranged attacks. Your attack didn't change types. You only determined that, from your position, soft cover would apply if your attack were actually ranged according to the way the rules are written. Realistically, there should be a specific rule for reach weapons and cover from allies or a feat (possibly teamwork) for such tactics since they're actually viable.
|
|
So soft cover doesn't exist?
It does, but reach melee weapons have to deal with cover, not soft cover.
Edit:
When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
This says 'If not adjacent target then go to ranged attacks'.
If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover
This says 'if this is true, target has cover'.
Soft cover does not apply. The target has regular cover.
You realize that "soft cover" is a type of cover, right? It's the type of cover you get when a line from a chosen corner of your square passes through a square occupied by a creature.
Yes, you look above to determine that the target has cover. You then look below to determine which type of cover that is. Since it's being provided by a creature, it's soft cover which applies to ranged weapon attacks. Your attack is a melee weapon attack.
If you are correct and the target has regular cover, then there is no situation in which soft cover applies... ever.
On the topic of shields, characters who are using weapon finesse (like a dagger/rapier) take the AC penalty from a shield (like a buckler) to their attack rolls, if they choose to "carry" one.Where is this stated? I know that happens if you're not proficient in the shield, but where does weapon finesse come into it?
In the feat text.
With a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
|
|
You realize that "soft cover" is a type of cover, right? It's the type of cover you get when a line from a chosen corner of your square passes through a square occupied by a creature.
Yes, you look above to determine that the target has cover. You then look below to determine which type of cover that is. Since it's being provided by a creature, it's soft cover which applies to ranged weapon attacks. Your attack is a melee weapon attack.
If you are correct and the target has regular cover, then there is no situation in which soft cover applies... ever.
On the other hand, the stance you are advocating for means there is zero reason for the line about reach weapons using the rules for ranged attacks to exist at all.