A very frequent error I see people make on these boards is the notion that if something counts as a certain thing "for purposes of [whatever]", that it IS that thing. This is an error both in rules interpretation and in understanding how english works.
So yes, attacks ARE things that have attack rolls.
So you're suggesting that shooting a fireball at someone isn't an attack against that person? Maybe a deep-tissue massage?
I may not fully understand english, but at least I'm not completely illogical (:
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A very frequent error I see people make on these boards is the notion that if something counts as a certain thing "for purposes of [whatever]", that it IS that thing. This is an error both in rules interpretation and in understanding how english works.So yes, attacks ARE things that have attack rolls.So you're suggesting that shooting a fireball at someone isn't an attack against that person? Maybe a deep-tissue massage?
I may not fully understand english, but at least I'm not completely illogical (:
Fireball isn't an attack as far as the rules are concerned, no. Obviously in non-game terms you'd call it attacking someone, but no, it doesn't qualify as an "attack" as far as Pathfinder rules are concerned.
It's the rules that are being completely illogical, not me. ;)
Fireball isn't an attack as far as the rules are concerned, no. Obviously in non-game terms you'd call it attacking someone, but no, it doesn't qualify as an "attack" as far as Pathfinder rules are concerned.
It's the rules that are being completely illogical, not me. ;)
The rules don't have to spell out everything. There's no breathing rules, so therefore all characters must suffocate.
The rules don't spell out that shooting a fireball at someone isn't an attack. But it's self-evident.
I did a search of the combat section, and the first mention of the word "attack" is in "attack roll". There's no mention of the concept of an attack roll being the only way you can attack someone.
There's touch attacks, attacks of opportunity. . .
Saving Throws
Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect. Like an attack roll, a saving throw is a d20 roll plus a bonus based on your class and level (see Classes), and an associated ability score. Your saving throw modifier is:
Base save bonus + ability modifier
Saving Throw Types: The three different kinds of saving throws are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will:
Fortitude: These saves measure your ability to stand up to physical punishment or attacks against your vitality and health. Apply your Constitution modifier to your Fortitude saving throws.
Reflex: These saves test your ability to dodge area attacks and unexpected situations. Apply your Dexterity modifier to your Reflex saving throws.
Will: These saves reflect your resistance to mental influence as well as many magical effects. Apply your Wisdom modifier to your Will saving throws.
Saving Throw Difficulty Class: The DC for a save is determined by the attack itself.
Hmmmm. But wait, doesn't that mean fireball is a magical attack? I think it does!
-Nice try
You mean the PRD quote above doesn't clarify things enough?
edit: Nice ninja delete (-;
I removed a post that was the opposite of constructive.
Break Enchantment cannot reverse Flesh to Stone. (Not a PF thing, was the same in 3.5.)
No, that was arguable. No one proved one way or other.
The text of 3.5 PHB Break enchantment specifically says "Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as flesh to stone".
But they didn't list Flesh to stone in PF version (in PSRD d20).
Break enchament doeesn't dispel, it reverses the effects.
Link (Discussing 3.5 but same argument fits):
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-157844.html
To explain (if don't feel like reading link):
Instantaneous effects can't be dispelled at all. This spell REVERSES effects that are transmutations, enchantments and curses. The first part (of the spell) never says dispel. Flesh to stone cannot be dispelled, so this clause does not apply to it, you still have to make a caster level check to reverse the effect, however. This means that break enchantment will defeat any non-epic transmutation, enchantment or curse with an instantaneous effect. If the effect is permanent or has a duration, it can be dispelled and therefore this clause applies. Bestow Curse, for instance, can't be dispelled by dispel magic, but it can be dispelled by break enchantment, it has a Permanent duration. The clause in Dispel magic that defines how permanent spells work doesn't say "can't be dispelled by dispel magic" it just says "can't be dispelled."
Instantaneous spell effects cannot be dispelled, the spell is no longer THERE to dispel so this cannot possibly apply, however, the the effect can still be REVERSED so the first conditional is met, but the second conditional is not met because permanent effects can't be dispelled, hence Break Enchantment defeats Flesh to Stone, Transmute Metal to Wood, and so on, regardless of their level. Again, you still must make a caster level check to defeat it.
Thus:
It can REVERSE any instantaneous enchantment, transmutation, or curse regardless of level. It can DISPEL any spell with a duration that is not instantaneous that has a spell level 5 and lower that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic and that is a curse, enchantment or transmutation. Flesh to Stone is an instantaneous spell that once it turns you to stone, the spell is no longer in effect, so it cannot be dispelled, the spell isn't there to be dispelled. However, this effect can still be reversed, specifically with a caster level check against the petrifying creature (in this instance, against 11+ the HD of the basilisk)
-Nice tryYou mean the PRD quote above doesn't clarify things enough?
edit: Nice ninja delete (-;
I got confused as to what the argument was about when i read it from post 5 of 10 instead of 1 of 10, and thought ya'll were discussing something else.
Just came across this one recently myself (sorry if it has already been mentioned):
A fighter's weapon training bonus applies to CMD vs. disarm/sunder attempts against your weapon(s) of choice.
Many of the fighter archetypes add bonuses to attack and damage with certain weapons (or in certain situations) on par with weapon training, but the DON'T grant the bonus to CMD vs. disarm/sunder attempts against your weapon(s).
I got confused as to what the argument was about when i read it from post 5 of 10 instead of 1 of 10, and thought ya'll were discussing something else.-Nice tryYou mean the PRD quote above doesn't clarify things enough?
edit: Nice ninja delete (-;
Yeah this thread is giant pile of randomness -- I can't keep track of it either. . .
Just came across this one recently myself (sorry if it has already been mentioned):
A fighter's weapon training bonus applies to CMD vs. disarm/sunder attempts against your weapon(s) of choice.
Many of the fighter archetypes add bonuses to attack and damage with certain weapons (or in certain situations) on par with weapon training, but the DON'T grant the bonus to CMD vs. disarm/sunder attempts against your weapon(s).
I've always said base weapon training is one of the best abilities any class gets. It kicks sneak attack to the curb. Also. . .
A fighter also adds this bonus to any combat maneuver checks made with weapons from this group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the same in 3.5, but many people in the area I live don't know it:
readying an action changes your initiative count.
Want to make an attack with a 2 handed weapon (or use a weapon and shield) while mounted? Ride Check.Took damage while mounted? Ride Check.Though the DC for both of these is so low that it's quite easy to auto-succeed at it even at first level.
Let me add one more rule that is often forgotten, then...
Armor check penalties apply to the Ride skill (unless you are playing a cavalier).
With a -6 or -7 penalty from heavy armors, that makes the skill check much more difficult. Not exactly what I would call "quite easy to auto-succeed at it even at first level."
Add in another -1 or -2 armor penalty from a shield, and you'll find the players playing fighters, clerics, and paladins seriously considering a higher INT when they make their characters, just so they can put some skill points into Ride.
So, anything else? Or have we covered everything?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Armor check penalties apply to the Ride skill (unless you are playing a cavalier).
With a -6 or -7 penalty from heavy armors, that makes the skill check much more difficult. Not exactly what I would call "quite easy to auto-succeed at it even at first level."
Add in another -1 or -2 armor penalty from a shield, and you'll find the players playing fighters, clerics, and paladins seriously considering a higher INT when they make their characters, just so they can put some skill points into Ride.
Did that not used to be the case? Hm.
By the way, your hypotheticals are a bit disingenuous - who in their right mind buys non-masterwork full plate (-6 ACP) or or half plate (-7 ACP)? Or - by the time they can afford heavy armor - a non-masterwork shield (-1 or -2 ACP)? Giving those as examples is setting up a situation that just doesn't happen. A more likely scenario is a fighter with MWFP (-5 ACP) and MW buckler/light shield (-0 ACP), for a total ACP of -5, with a slight possibility of a heavy shield instead, bringing it up to -6. That's a far cry from the 7-9 range that you suggest. Shame on you! *slaps wrist*
Add in considerations for the level you'll be by the time you have heavy armor (additional ranks in Ride, for instance) and it's not nearly so dire as you seem to think.
By the way, your hypotheticals are a bit disingenuous - who in their right mind buys non-masterwork full plate (-6 ACP) or or half plate (-7 ACP)? Or - by the time they can afford heavy armor - a non-masterwork shield (-1 or -2 ACP)? Giving those as examples is setting up a situation that just doesn't happen. A more likely scenario is a fighter with MWFP (-5 ACP) and MW buckler/light shield (-0 ACP), for a total ACP of -5, with a slight possibility of a heavy shield instead, bringing it up to -6. That's a far cry from the 7-9 range that you suggest. Shame on you! *slaps wrist*
Add in considerations for the level you'll be by the time you have heavy armor (additional ranks in Ride, for instance) and it's not nearly so dire as you seem to think.
True, masterwork is just a drop in the bucket by the time you can afford these. However, I disagree with the assumption that a shield-using fighter will be using a buckler or light shield. If you are maxing out AC (and if you bother wearing heavy armor, why wouldn't you), you are going to have a heavy shield.
Also, how many people use 2-handed weapons AND a buckler? Ranged weapons, sure, but not 2-handed weapons. Having a constant -1 penalty to your attack rolls sucks, and if you do actually attack, you end up losing the AC benefit of the shield, which completely defeats the point of carrying it in the first place. Since you can't even shield bash with a buckler, you end up with all of the negative, and almost none of the positive benefits of a shield.
Regardless, I said it wasn't an automatic-succeed, which is what Shisumo was stating, and that these classes have very few skill points to spread around (who doesn't max out Perception).
A -5 to -9 penalty, on top of the actual DC can't, and shouldn't, be ignored. As per the rules, these rolls needs to be made in EVERY one of the above examples, meaning that a mounted character could possibly be making 2-3 ride checks every round. One or more of them will eventually fail, at least at low and mid levels. Most people don't follow the rules, which is the point of the thread.
Anyway, you don't seem to agree with me. That's fine, I can live with that. This is only my opinion, and I did list several other examples of mounted combat not mentioned by Shisumo.
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 have had people get mad and start pouting at this, but it makes complete sense. Try firing a crossbow at two moving combatants, while your friend stands in front of the target dodging and leaping around. I think World of Darkness gives a -2 attack modifier, but that seems a bit weak. +4 cover bonus to AC makes much more sense.
If a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage. This does not apply to creatures with regeneration. Such creatures simply accrue additional nonlethal damage, increasing the amount of time they remain unconscious.
This came up with the sap master doing ridiculous nonlethal damage.
If a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage. This does not apply to creatures with regeneration. Such creatures simply accrue additional nonlethal damage, increasing the amount of time they remain unconscious.
This came up with the sap master doing ridiculous nonlethal damage.
I have used this as a houserule, but I have never been able to find it as an actual rule. Do you have a link or page number?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The number of people that keep wanting to use spellcraft for concentration checks is baffling to me. 5 out of the 6 newest(to me) players I have met are surprised when I open the magic chapter to the part where it shows the concentration rules, and how they work.
Maybe it was that way in the beta version.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry if I missed it:
You can wield a two-handed weapon, take the TWF and Imp Unarmed feats, and make an attack with each in your full attack (with a -2 hit penalty each and 1/2 STR on the unarmed). Easiest way to visualize is with a kick as the unarmed "offhand" attack.
It was apparently the same in 3.5.
@wraithstrike
core page 191, last sentence of the page
also on http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ under nonlethal damage, staggered
happy to help
I have used this as a houserule, but I have never been able to find it as an actual rule. Do you have a link or page number?If a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage. This does not apply to creatures with regeneration. Such creatures simply accrue additional nonlethal damage, increasing the amount of time they remain unconscious.
This came up with the sap master doing ridiculous nonlethal damage.
Yeah, I would like to know as well.
Found out something new today.
An alchemist can make more than one mutagen per day, they just need to stop for an hour in between uses.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can shoot gargantuan two handed rifles in one hand .
Seriously, a gargantuan double hackbut in one hand, well with enough strength. Sometimes rules are so silly they are cool again. Anyone care to convert 2d12 (from normal) to gargantuan damage?
@wraithstrike
core page 191, last sentence of the page
also on http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ under nonlethal damage, staggered
happy to help
thanks
You can shoot gargantuan two handed rifles in one hand .
Seriously, a gargantuan double hackbut in one hand, well with enough strength. Sometimes rules are so silly they are cool again. Anyone care to convert 2d12 (from normal) to gargantuan damage?
The weapon becomes a seige weapon for you, but that would be funny to see someone one-arming a building size weapon. I think this is one of those things were intent should take over in which case you can operate the weapon, even though I dont see how, just not in one hand. The other extreme is a gargantuan sized monster using a weapon sized for a diminutive creature.
The other extreme is a gargantuan sized monster using a weapon sized for a diminutive creature.
The number of people that keep wanting to use spellcraft for concentration checks is baffling to me. 5 out of the 6 newest(to me) players I have met are surprised when I open the magic chapter to the part where it shows the concentration rules, and how they work.
Maybe it was that way in the beta version.
It was. Similarly, I keep wanting to use the Appraise skill with Detect Magic and/or Identify.
|
Just noticed:
you can't use swift actions during the surprise round.
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.
First printing of the Core rulebook said that you can take a swift action every time you can take a free action, but the text was changed.
Currently it say:
Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.
|
It's late and I'm about to hit the sack, so I'm not going to go look this up, but I believe the "improved precise shot" feat allows you to ignore this cover penalty, but you have to have "precise shot" first, which is what Verse was referring to when he said the "Precise Shot feat lines."
Precise shot is not related to this issue, the cover is in addition to the -4 penalty you get for firing at a creature in hand-to-hand combat, together they can give you an impressive 'penalty' to hit.
you can get improved precise shot for a ranger bonus feat at 6, if you can survive without otherwise having precise shot until 6th level, since you don't need to meet the prerequisites for ranger bonus feats, just be in no armor / light armor
Mending has a casting time of 10 minutes.
Mending has a casting time of 10 minutes.
Well, I'll be dipped!
Mending has a casting time of 10 minutes.Well, I'll be dipped!
I know right?
Also, I think this is the longest thread about Pathfinder that isn't a flamewar. hm.
Scale mail, chainmail, banded mail and splint mail come with gauntlets.
In the past I have purchased gauntlets to go with my chainmail--boy do I feel silly.
Mending has a casting time of 10 minutes.Well, I'll be dipped!I know right?
Also, I think this is the longest thread about Pathfinder that isn't a flamewar. hm.
Your Mom is so fat she... :P
I couldn't find these, so excuse me if they have already been mentioned.
Mithril armors count as one step lighter, but still require the profiency in the original armor type.
and
The trait Armor Expert can completely replace the need for Armor Profiency for certain armors.
- If you are using Studded Leather, Masterwork Chain Shirt, or Mithril Breastplate, you have a -1 Armor Check Penalty.
- If you are not profienct with an armor, you take the ACP on all attack rolls and all skill checks involving movement.
- If you have Armor Expert, you reduce you ACP by 1.
So if you have armor with an ACP of 1, and Armor Expert, your ACP is 0, so non-prifiency gives you a -0 penalty to all your attack rolls.
This is a great trick for rogues and bards because it lets you move up through the light armors toward a mithril breastplate without having to take medium armor profiency to avoid the -1 penalty.
I'll start.
A Bard doesn't need the Perform skill. The only performances that require it are Countersong and Distraction. Inspire Courage et al don't mention it at all, and you don't even need to use your primary artform when using it. It was intentionally left ambiguous so bards didn't have to keep on playing their instrument while using the performances. It's a free action to continue the performance.
The Spellsong Feat uses Performance checks. A nice way to keep the BBEG from noticing that you're casting spells to buff your party or debuff his mooks. Also a nice way to cast something like Charm Person without your Paladin noticing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
* I often find myself in games where the GMs think any and all stairs count as difficult terrain, but as per p.415 of the Core Rulebook:
characters can move on stairs with no penalty, though they cannot run. Acrobatic skill checks have an increased DC of +4 on stairs, and some stairs are particularly steep and thus are treated as difficult terrain. Paraphrased slightly there to save time and the last bit is the goblin I believe has resulted in many thinking all stairs are difficult terrain
* Also, and this one is evil but fun when your players are being overly heroic with their mounts, remember that the fast mount/dismount action may only be a DC 20 ride check, but you must still have a move action available that turn to attempt this skill check (p.104). This can result in amusing gobsmacked expressions when players ride in, full-attack, then attempt to fast dismount into the fray ;)
Marked for later use. Nice post!
Fantastic. So many posts to go through, but this thread is pure gold. Dotting!
"Hat" and "headband" are separate magic item slots in Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, and this one is evil but fun when your players are being overly heroic with their mounts, remember that the fast mount/dismount action may only be a DC 20 ride check, but you must still have a move action available that turn to attempt this skill check (p.104). This can result in amusing gobsmacked expressions when players ride in, full-attack, then attempt to fast dismount into the fray ;)
Here's an unfun, possibly related one: The vast majority of characters can't ride more than 5 ft. on a mount and make a full attack.
From Combat While Mounted,
"If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack."
Ranged attacks work fine though, though there are penalties for higher speeds.