Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Setting the Record Straight Re: Apes with Hammers and "Druids"


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

151 to 170 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

james maissen wrote:
If you want to tell your animal companion outside of your turn then use speak with animals, etc.

It's just weird to say that a player can discuss specific, complicated tactics off turn, during combat, but can't say "Guard" to a trained animal companion. As you said, the argument could theoretically be make for wands then as well. Either way, it's the GM's call I suppose. Considering the number of GM's who don't even require any Handle Animal checks at all, and allow the companion to act as an extension of the master, it is not worth it to devote a lot of attention to this aspect.

*

First, I'm sorry I didn't clarify that I switched to my actual name just to avoid any kind of "internet anonymous trolling" conjecture, but I didn't make it clear that I'm actually the OP (KEJR).

Second, I apologize for responding. I really just wanted to make the statement and move on, but I let myself get worked up and into back and forth statements.

Third, thank you to Matthew Morris for mentioning Detective Chimp. I love him almost as much as Gorilla Grodd . . . ;)

I'm going to go try to focus on some positive stuff for a while . . . hope everyone enjoys their weekend.


Talonhawke wrote:
You can also draw arrows outside your turn which is listed as a free action.

The only justification for that was a dev trying to make the new feats/Zen archer bow AOOs work out...

And the justification, iirc, was that it was part of the attack action rather than a free action.

I could be off on that, but that's what I recall offhand,

James

Qadira ****

james maissen wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:


Depends on the GM. Some free actions can be done off turn. The one I know of off the top of my head is talking. If you have an auto-success at handling your animal companion and speaking a command is all that is needed, then some GM's will allow that off-turn.

I guess I see using a skill as different than speaking. Much like speaking a command word to activate a magic item is different from just speaking.

If you want to tell your animal companion outside of your turn then use speak with animals, etc.

The ONLY free action that you can do outside of your turn is speaking, and that's an express exception. Or I'm I missing another?

And why would it matter whether or not you have an 'auto-success' at the skill whether you could do it or not?

-James

I can hit someone with my sword outside my turn (AOOs).

Oh, and I can tell Joe the Barbarian to hit the guy in front of him outside my turn... but not if Joe is my AC...


nosig wrote:


I can hit someone with my sword outside my turn (AOOs).

Oh, and I can tell Joe the Barbarian to hit the guy in front of him outside my turn... but not if Joe is my AC...

Yes, you can hit someone with your sword via an AOO. But you can't vital strike or cleave with that AOO as you need standard actions to do so.

You can speak outside of your turn (within reason dictated by the GM) but you can't use skills or activate magic items that require free, swift, move or full round actions to do outside of your turn as you don't get those actions outside of your turn.

Life's tough in D&D,

James

Qadira ****

james maissen wrote:
nosig wrote:


I can hit someone with my sword outside my turn (AOOs).

Oh, and I can tell Joe the Barbarian to hit the guy in front of him outside my turn... but not if Joe is my AC...

Yes, you can hit someone with your sword via an AOO. But you can't vital strike or cleave with that AOO as you need standard actions to do so.

You can speak outside of your turn (within reason dictated by the GM) but you can't use skills or activate magic items that require free, swift, move or full round actions to do outside of your turn as you don't get those actions outside of your turn.

Life's tough in D&D,

James

so I can discuss with my AC the fact that he needs to bite the smelly Orc back there as a free action... but I have to wait to my turn for him to do it. Got it. (sorry, just being devils advocate here. I'm really pretty restrictive on the Handle Animal side of the discussion)


nosig wrote:


so I can discuss with my AC the fact that he needs to bite the smelly Orc back there as a free action... but I have to wait to my turn for him to do it. Got it. (sorry, just being devils advocate here. I'm really pretty restrictive on the Handle Animal side of the discussion)

Yes you can discuss (briefly) with your animal companion (and smelly barbarian Joe), and if he (or Joe) understands you without you having to do special things (use the handle animal skill) then he can elect to do so as much as Joe the smelly barbarian who likely has a similar INT score.

However, if you DO have to do special things (handle animal) to get your AC to understand what you want him to do then you have to use a free action (or move action or full-round action) during your turn.

Just as much as you can't hold the charge on a cure wounds spell and then have someone else come up and slap your hand to discharge it.. you need to spend the standard action to deliver it after the round in which its been cast.

Just as much as 'Ooga Booga' might be the command words for a magic item, using the free action that you are allowed to do outside of your turn (or during it) is not sufficient to activate the magic item. Rather it takes a standard action on your part to do so.

Just as much as a bard can't start to inspire courage outside of their turn even if it's just oratory..

Just as much as you can't make a diplomacy check to make a request using up the 'free action words that I can speak outside of my turn'.

Make sense? There are a lot of things that one might group together here under the same umbrella as speaking outside of your turn.. but they don't belong.

-James

Qadira ****

james maissen wrote:
nosig wrote:


so I can discuss with my AC the fact that he needs to bite the smelly Orc back there as a free action... but I have to wait to my turn for him to do it. Got it. (sorry, just being devils advocate here. I'm really pretty restrictive on the Handle Animal side of the discussion)

Yes you can discuss (briefly) with your animal companion (and smelly barbarian Joe), and if he (or Joe) understands you without you having to do special things (use the handle animal skill) then he can elect to do so as much as Joe the smelly barbarian who likely has a similar INT score.

However, if you DO have to do special things (handle animal) to get your AC to understand what you want him to do then you have to use a free action (or move action or full-round action) during your turn.

Just as much as you can't hold the charge on a cure wounds spell and then have someone else come up and slap your hand to discharge it.. you need to spend the standard action to deliver it after the round in which its been cast.

Just as much as 'Ooga Booga' might be the command words for a magic item, using the free action that you are allowed to do outside of your turn (or during it) is not sufficient to activate the magic item. Rather it takes a standard action on your part to do so.

Just as much as a bard can't start to inspire courage outside of their turn even if it's just oratory..

Just as much as you can't make a diplomacy check to make a request using up the 'free action words that I can speak outside of my turn'.

Make sense? There are a lot of things that one might group together here under the same umbrella as speaking outside of your turn.. but they don't belong.

-James

Darn - you keep sucking me into these things.

Yes to almost all the above. Except the bolded part needs some move/different notes. You can cast the spell and deliver it as an attack in the same round, or cast it (and deliver it) on a friend. Or Cast it and hold it... to be delivered as an attack later, for example in an AOO. Which I have done, both to undead and to friends moving thru my threat zone (raised some eyebrows when I said, "I'll take an AOO as he moves past." the judge wasn't sure and neither am I, but it was cute and he allowed it.).

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

james maissen wrote:
However, if you DO have to do special things (handle animal) to get your AC to understand what you want him to do then you have to use a free action (or move action or full-round action) during your turn.

Understood. We know where we stand should we play at your table and we'll know where we stand if we play at a table with a GM that allows a more liberal interpretation of single word commands with respect to an animal companion. To each his own. Game on!

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

james maissen wrote:
Just as much as you can't hold the charge on a cure wounds spell and then have someone else come up and slap your hand to discharge it.. you need to spend the standard action to deliver it after the round in which its been cast
nosig wrote:
You can cast the spell and deliver it as an attack in the same round, or cast it (and deliver it) on a friend. Or Cast it and hold it... to be delivered as an attack later, for example in an AOO. Which I have done, both to undead and to friends moving thru my threat zone (raised some eyebrows when I said, "I'll take an AOO as he moves past." the judge wasn't sure and neither am I, but it was cute and he allowed it.).

I'm not 100% sure you can hold a cure spell charge. The rules for touch spells only says "most spells" can hold a charge. If you read the spell description it says, "When laying your hand upon a living creature..." That seems to indicate that the touch may represent the somatic component of the spell. Fail to touch the target during the casting and the spell fails. I know that there are a lot of players who cast the spell and then move in to apply it since the touch does not provoke, but I'm not sure that is correct.

OTOH, cure spells contain the same stat block info as shocking grasp (instantaneous, etc) which does seem to hold the charge. Of course that one is meant for an unwilling target so a melee attack would seem logical. I just don't see it requiring a standard action to touch a willing ally within your reach. At worst, it should be no more difficult than drawing a weapon or picking up a prone object, or standing up from prone and it may be no more taxing than falling prone.


nosig wrote:
james maissen wrote:


Just as much as you can't hold the charge on a cure wounds spell and then have someone else come up and slap your hand to discharge it.. you need to spend the standard action to deliver it after the round in which its been cast.

-James

Yes to almost all the above. Except the bolded part needs some move/different notes. You can cast the spell and deliver it as an attack in the same round, or cast it (and deliver it) on a friend. Or Cast it and hold it... to be delivered as an attack later, for example in an AOO. Which I have done, both to undead and to friends moving thru my threat zone (raised some eyebrows when I said, "I'll take an AOO as he moves past." the judge wasn't sure and neither am I, but it was cute and he allowed it.).

Of course, but they would have to provoke and you'd have to use your AOO (and hit their touch AC). It couldn't just be them taking an action to slap your hand...

Bob wrote:

Understood. We know where we stand should we play at your table and we'll know where we stand if we play at a table with a GM that allows a more liberal interpretation of single word commands with respect to an animal companion. To each his own. Game on!

Yes, and such a hypothetical GM might not even require handle animal checks at all. That GM might hand out pole arms to the apes, etc.

But if you're talking about the rules then that's another issue.

And you can certainly hold the charge on a cure spell. Likewise you can certainly take an AOO with it as you are considered armed. Just as you are armed when holding a shocking grasp and AOOing that flesh golem or shambling mound.. Unless of course you have that GM that's again failing on the rules, then all bets are off.

But again this is talking rules and not what rules some judges will get wrong.

-James

Qadira ****

Bob Jonquet wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Just as much as you can't hold the charge on a cure wounds spell and then have someone else come up and slap your hand to discharge it.. you need to spend the standard action to deliver it after the round in which its been cast
nosig wrote:
You can cast the spell and deliver it as an attack in the same round, or cast it (and deliver it) on a friend. Or Cast it and hold it... to be delivered as an attack later, for example in an AOO. Which I have done, both to undead and to friends moving thru my threat zone (raised some eyebrows when I said, "I'll take an AOO as he moves past." the judge wasn't sure and neither am I, but it was cute and he allowed it.).

I'm not 100% sure you can hold a cure spell charge. The rules for touch spells only says "most spells" can hold a charge. If you read the spell description it says, "When laying your hand upon a living creature..." That seems to indicate that the touch may represent the somatic component of the spell. Fail to touch the target during the casting and the spell fails. I know that there are a lot of players who cast the spell and then move in to apply it since the touch does not provoke, but I'm not sure that is correct.

OTOH, cure spells contain the same stat block info as shocking grasp (instantaneous, etc) which does seem to hold the charge. Of course that one is meant for an unwilling target so a melee attack would seem logical. I just don't see it requiring a standard action to touch a willing ally within your reach. At worst, it should be no more difficult than drawing a weapon or picking up a prone object, or standing up from prone and it may be no more taxing than falling prone.

Cure spells are often used as attack spells against undead.

I can recall an adventure where we where attacked by Shadows and were in a near panic, as we had no weapons to hit them. Until someone pointed out that 5 of our 6 players had wands of CLW and could use them. From a wand the DC is only 11, but even with a save it does half damage.

but... if the judge rules otherwise... well, time to move on. Pick a different attack.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Just because the animal understands what the master is saying, doesn’t mean the animal will actually perform said task without needing a Handle Animal check.
That's kinda weird. If the animal is supposed to similar to a bonded item and trust you as its friend and protector (vice versa) it would seem that being able to speak in its language would be a perfect way to communicate your expectations and instructions.

Absolutely, but just because it can understand you, doesn't mean it will be inclined to do what you want it to do.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Andrew Christian wrote:
Absolutely, but just because it can understand you, doesn't mean it will be inclined to do what you want it to do.

With respect to summoned creatures, untrained mounts, etc. I can agree, but it seems reasonable to think that the bond between a PC and his companion animal is stronger than that. It certainly implies it in the druid class which is the basis for companion rules. They routinely enter hazardous situations and risk their lives for each other. As long as the AC is actually trained to perform the intended task, I can't imagine many, if any, situations where it would fail to comply. Unless you mean this is in line with JM's action requirements and you have to wait to direct the AC on your turn.


The very first entry on the AC special ability table is "Link", which grants a +4 to any handle animal checks and bumps the time required to make them by one step.

If that don't say "I'm predisposed to take what my master asks of me in the most favorable way possible" I don't know what does.

The spell AND the class feature both indicate the animal will inclined to just do what the caster/master asks. Why would you interpret this to mean "nope, you still gotta roll"? It's punishing the cleric PC with the animal domain for not paying a skill point tax. Clerics only get 2 skill points per level as it is, and with Andrew's interpretation, he might as well not bother with this character concept, as he is forced to put his precious few skill points into a skill that is not a class skill and is not needed when his domain ability emulates a spell that clearly aleviates this shortcoming.

Clerics of Erastil all over Golarion weep for this interpretation.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Absolutely, but just because it can understand you, doesn't mean it will be inclined to do what you want it to do.
With respect to summoned creatures, untrained mounts, etc. I can agree, but it seems reasonable to think that the bond between a PC and his companion animal is stronger than that. It certainly implies it in the druid class which is the basis for companion rules. They routinely enter hazardous situations and risk their lives for each other. As long as the AC is actually trained to perform the intended task, I can't imagine many, if any, situations where it would fail to comply. Unless you mean this is in line with JM's action requirements and you have to wait to direct the AC on your turn.

Summoned creatures are definitely mentally controlled through the spell for purposes of choosing "attack" targets; apparently, the celestial/fiendish templates don't change types in Pathfinder as they did in 3.5 so there's no transition to magical beast to grant languages for Intelligence.... The writeup definitely implies a level of control if you have a means of communication (Speak with animals, etc) similar (identical, to my reading, actually) to the 3.5 interpretations I am familiar with.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Heck, I myself am much less of a d*ck in person than I am online, and I'm just one person!

It's true! Jiggy is not as much of a d*ck in person as he is online!

;-)


Mike Schneider wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Heck, I myself am much less of a d*ck in person than I am online, and I'm just one person!

It's true! Jiggy is not as much of a d*ck in person as he is online!

;-)

Whats scary about this is Jiggy comes across to me as very un-d*ckish person online. Jiggy are you infact Ghandi in real life?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Talonhawke wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Heck, I myself am much less of a d*ck in person than I am online, and I'm just one person!

It's true! Jiggy is not as much of a d*ck in person as he is online!

;-)

Whats scary about this is Jiggy comes across to me as very un-d*ckish person online. Jiggy are you infact Ghandi in real life?

Not quite. My duality is more akin to Benny/Dr. Horrible. ;)

Cheliax *

Apes with hammers I'm ok with. it's monkey gunslingers I'm afraid of. }; )

151 to 170 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Setting the Record Straight Re: Apes with Hammers and "Druids" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 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.