I figure delay and/or ready should cover it, as he mentioned in his first reply on the subject, wouldn't it?
I believe Style was never banned to begin with, so I doubt it.FAQ Friday returns! And on actual Friday this time! Look upon our FAQs, ye mighty, and despair!Yayy, pummeling style is getting the limits it requires. I wonder if it might get unbanned in PFS now?
Well, techically it was Pummeling Charge rather than Pummeling Style that was banned I guess ;)
FAQ Friday returns! And on actual Friday this time! Look upon our FAQs, ye mighty, and despair!So, that's neat.
If I have, say, 5 attacks, and I pummel them all together, can I declare that the whole pummel is a Stunning Fist attempt? Or just the first punch?
Stunning Fist has really really weird wording. It doesn't clearly indicate with rules text how it scopes (for instance if it scopes over "an attack"). The only reference I see in the feat's text is to an "attack roll", the failure of which negates it, so it would seem that it scopes over that attack roll itself (which may likely, of course, not be true for other rider effects that aren't Stunning Fist).
|
Since the bonus isn't typed, <Coordinated Shot> will stack with itself, correct?
Benefit: If your ally with this feat is threatening an opponent and is not providing cover to that opponent against your ranged attacks, you gain a +1 bonus on ranged attacks against that opponent. If your ally with this feat is flanking that opponent with another ally (even if that other ally doesn't have this feat), this bonus increases to +2.
(I have a player whose Inquisitor archer just grabbed Coordinated Shot at lvl 3. Hooray <Solo Tactics>!)
Since the bonus isn't typed, <Coordinated Shot> will stack with itself, correct?
Benefit: If your ally with this feat is threatening an opponent and is not providing cover to that opponent against your ranged attacks, you gain a +1 bonus on ranged attacks against that opponent. If your ally with this feat is flanking that opponent with another ally (even if that other ally doesn't have this feat), this bonus increases to +2.(I have a player whose Inquisitor archer just grabbed Coordinated Shot at lvl 3. Hooray <Solo Tactics>!)
Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
The Coordinated Shot feat is a source, so the bonus wouldn't stack for multiple allies unless the feat called out that it would to override the general rule above. Still a cool feat, though, given that it's a more versatile form of Enfilading Fire (which it would stack with).
|
|
Since the bonus isn't typed, <Coordinated Shot> will stack with itself, correct?
Benefit: If your ally with this feat is threatening an opponent and is not providing cover to that opponent against your ranged attacks, you gain a +1 bonus on ranged attacks against that opponent. If your ally with this feat is flanking that opponent with another ally (even if that other ally doesn't have this feat), this bonus increases to +2.(I have a player whose Inquisitor archer just grabbed Coordinated Shot at lvl 3. Hooray <Solo Tactics>!)Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.The Coordinated Shot feat is a source, so the bonus wouldn't stack for multiple allies unless the feat called out that it would to override the general rule above. Still a cool feat, though, given that it's a more versatile form of Enfilading Fire (which it would stack with).
Thanks! Where's that text located? I don't see it in the "Getting Started", Combat, or Glossary sections of the book ...
Thanks! Where's that text located? I don't see it in the "Getting Started", Combat, or Glossary sections of the book ...Since the bonus isn't typed, <Coordinated Shot> will stack with itself, correct?
Benefit: If your ally with this feat is threatening an opponent and is not providing cover to that opponent against your ranged attacks, you gain a +1 bonus on ranged attacks against that opponent. If your ally with this feat is flanking that opponent with another ally (even if that other ally doesn't have this feat), this bonus increases to +2.(I have a player whose Inquisitor archer just grabbed Coordinated Shot at lvl 3. Hooray <Solo Tactics>!)Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.The Coordinated Shot feat is a source, so the bonus wouldn't stack for multiple allies unless the feat called out that it would to override the general rule above. Still a cool feat, though, given that it's a more versatile form of Enfilading Fire (which it would stack with).
It's under spells on p208 (but clearly is a universal rule, not just for spells, since it also talks about several types of bonuses that spells never grant). I'm not sure how it got to be there. It really really should be in the places you looked too, but them's the breaks in a large undertaking like the CRB, I guess.
(Things like this do make me long for a rewrite/reorganization of the CRB—though I know that's very unlikely.)
*cough*PathfinderizedRulesCompendium?*cough*
Hands down, the most useful book of the 3.x era, imo.
If the inquisitor had Improved Precise Shot, would they get apply the Coordinated Shot bonus even if the ally was applying soft cover?Since the bonus isn't typed, <Coordinated Shot> will stack with itself, correct?
Benefit: If your ally with this feat is threatening an opponent and is not providing cover to that opponent against your ranged attacks, you gain a +1 bonus on ranged attacks against that opponent. If your ally with this feat is flanking that opponent with another ally (even if that other ally doesn't have this feat), this bonus increases to +2.(I have a player whose Inquisitor archer just grabbed Coordinated Shot at lvl 3. Hooray <Solo Tactics>!)Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.The Coordinated Shot feat is a source, so the bonus wouldn't stack for multiple allies unless the feat called out that it would to override the general rule above. Still a cool feat, though, given that it's a more versatile form of Enfilading Fire (which it would stack with).
I would say that then it isn't providing cover against your attacks, since your attacks ignore cover. It may be providing cover against others' attacks, though, so if a cavalier used tactician to give this to the whole party, the archers for whom the ally was granting cover without IPS wouldn't get the bonus.
|
SMT:Persona games have interesting character depth and inspired the modded relationship system I use in my Jade Regent game
BTW, Mark, I am about to begin JR with my players and I am greatly interested in knowing whether you plan on making this system (or some evolution of it) available. The bits of info on it that you threw around were excellently tantalizing, to say the least ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SMT:Persona games have interesting character depth and inspired the modded relationship system I use in my Jade Regent gameBTW, Mark, I am about to begin JR with my players and I am greatly interested in knowing whether you plan on making this system (or some evolution of it) available. The bits of info on it that you threw around were excellently tantalizing, to say the least ;-)
This is a thing that is happening soon(?). It will exist. At this point, I have even seen the art. I can't for sure exactly when, but I do know that support for additional characters (beyond the core four) will surely depend on the success of the original product.
I believe that right now, one character readies an action to move with the other, or they are tethered by the tether (as the boggard tongue ability). This reduces their effective potential movement speed to 30 feet (if they both have a normal single move of 30 anyway).That somewhat begs the questions, though (the traditional "beg the question", not the common misuse). I've seen people try to move when they are tied together, and I'm not convinced that they would move 60 feet out of combat to begin with.I'm saying that they can move 60' out of combat, while tied together. But sure...let's say they only move 50' per round, or 35'. Or maybe it's a magical chain which imposes no movement restriction until you try to exceed the distance or you intend to exceed the chain length.
I'm more focused on how one facilitates this movement in combat that is possible out of combat. Do the rules facilitate two characters electing to move together at the same time? e.g. "we both want to move here...together."
It's simple thing, but I'm thinking it has been entirely overlooked by the rules.
Apologies, I must have a mental block because I'm still not understanding something.
Let's ignore combat for a sec and talk out of combat. How fast can two loin-clothed humans move if tied together by a 5' rope around their wrists?
The rules don't say. I'd say half speed would be OK by me.
|
This is a thing that is happening soon(?). It will exist. At this point, I have even seen the art. I can't for sure exactly when, but I do know that support for additional characters (beyond the core four) will surely depend on the success of the original product.SMT:Persona games have interesting character depth and inspired the modded relationship system I use in my Jade Regent gameBTW, Mark, I am about to begin JR with my players and I am greatly interested in knowing whether you plan on making this system (or some evolution of it) available. The bits of info on it that you threw around were excellently tantalizing, to say the least ;-)
Just let me know when to tell you to shut up and take my money.
Just let me know when to tell you to shut up and take my money.This is a thing that is happening soon(?). It will exist. At this point, I have even seen the art. I can't for sure exactly when, but I do know that support for additional characters (beyond the core four) will surely depend on the success of the original product.SMT:Persona games have interesting character depth and inspired the modded relationship system I use in my Jade Regent gameBTW, Mark, I am about to begin JR with my players and I am greatly interested in knowing whether you plan on making this system (or some evolution of it) available. The bits of info on it that you threw around were excellently tantalizing, to say the least ;-)
I will keep you in the loop. I hope enough people give me money that the whole set of NPCs become a thing. That would be an ambitious project, as the core 4 are less than 10% of the full potential content, as I've modded it to include all the major NPCs from every volume of the AP, plus a few more I made up (Huldra masquerade reveler anyone?). When you see the length of detail for each NPC, you'll see why those other NPCs have to come later. The durned thing would be longer than all of Ultimate Campaign otherwise!
The interest in this thread has brought a further update. It's missing basically one art piece, so black raven, perfect timing. It could come out at any time, really, once that last piece is in. Anyone's guess is as good as mine. Pretty cool, huh?
The rules don't say. I'd say half speed would be OK by me.Okay, so 30' with a double move.
Now in combat, should they be able to do the same thing? Or rather, is there anything in the rules that is intended to prohibit that?
In combat, one of them can ready an action to move, and the other can move 30 feet (also the one who didn't ready can take a standard action, and the one who did ready can take a move action that doesn't move, like drawing a potion). I would just let that handle the half speed aspect in combat, and not append an additional half speed to them. It would take a lot of synchronicity to pull it off. Unless one of them is strong enough to just drag the other along bodily, which could work like a grapple check to move the person you've grappled (Also half speed).
That's what I got, as far as already-written rules for it.
As long as they are proceeding at an even pace (single move), they can manage it as above. If they start hustling, then there isn't a way to ensure that they move atomically with no change of distance short of mounting each other.
In combat, one of them can ready an action to move, and the other can move 30 feet...How does that work if they can't be more then 5' apart? The rules allow the person who Readies the move to then move along with the second person?
As mentioned a few times, I would allow it. The rules are pretty murky about readying and continuous actions that take non-instantaneous times, though, only telling you that your action happens some time after theirs started and before it ends, so it wouldn't be out of line for a GM to disallow it, which would really screw over the people handcuffed together. As an example of the confusion of the non-instantaneous stuff and readied actions, consider that one could ready a standard action to cast a non-quickened spell to counter a quickened spell, but in the world of non-instantaneous actions, surely the time from start to finish of the quickened spell's casting is far shorter than the time it takes to chant the whole non-quickened spell (as an aside, in my home games, I houserule that particular interaction).
What are your top 10 favorite video games? (platform doesn't matter)
...so it wouldn't be out of line for a GM to disallow it, which would really screw over the people handcuffed together.Yeah...you'd effectively shut down a pair of chained prisoners simply by throwing something at them (entering combat and forcing combat rounds).
Okay. Thanks for the responses.
Apologies to Mark for hopping in with thoughts...
You might consider allowing Acrobatics checks to allow the handcuffed/chained individuals to "Jackie Chan" their way through a fight with fewer movement restrictions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...so it wouldn't be out of line for a GM to disallow it, which would really screw over the people handcuffed together.Yeah...you'd effectively shut down a pair of chained prisoners simply by throwing something at them (entering combat and forcing combat rounds).
Okay. Thanks for the responses.
Apologies to Mark for hopping in with thoughts...
You might consider allowing Acrobatics checks to allow the handcuffed/chained individuals to "Jackie Chan" their way through a fight with fewer movement restrictions.
I totally might allow it, if they both rolled the checks, though it might be a "sometimes" thing for Jackie Chan style action instead of an "always" thing to allow potential abuse of teamwork or other adjacency abilities.
As a completely unrelated note, FAQ Friday is back. And it's a big one this time (the #2 most wanted desperado of all FAQs is behind FAQ-bars now at your favorite FAQ location).
What's your stance on interrobangs?
What's your stance on interrobangs?
Say what now‽
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.
So if I'm reading this right, "Charisma bonus (if any)" is considered a Charisma bonus on saving throws, and would therefore not stack with other Charisma bonuses on saving throws as per the "same source don't stack" rule. But if you had a Charisma bonus and, say, an insight bonus equal to your Charisma, those would stack because the insight bonus is measuring itself against your Charisma, and isn't actually a Charisma bonus. (In effect, the same difference because a natural armor bonus and an enhancement bonus to your natural armor).
How does this work with baseline ability score bonuses? For example, all characters add their Dexterity bonus on Reflex saves. If there was a theoretical ability that "added your Dexterity bonus (if any) on Reflex saves," would the two of them stack? The reason I ask is specifically for the interaction between Divine Grace and the lore mystery's sidestep secret, which I've quoted below:
"Sidestep Secret (Su): Your innate understanding of the universe has granted you preternatural reflexes and the uncanny ability to step out of danger at the very last second. Add your Charisma modifier (instead of your Dexterity modifier) to your Armor Class and all Reflex saving throws. Your armor’s maximum Dexterity bonus applies to your Charisma instead of your Dexterity."
In effect, is that baseline "all characters add their Dexterity bonus on Reflex saves" considered an ability bonus for the purpose of this FAQ?
Yes. You don't get your Charisma bonus twice to Reflex saves in that case.
Ah, so now there is a difference between "adding your Cha bonus" and adding "a bonus equal to your Cha modifier"?
Ah, so now there is a difference between "adding your Cha bonus" and adding "a bonus equal to your Cha modifier"?
Nope, check the FAQ, that exact wording counts the same. But "a deflection bonus equal to your Cha modifier" is different.
Can't find the FAQ. :/
Is there any case where the same ability modifier is applied twice on the same roll?
Have no fear! I've linked the FAQ above and Alexander Augunas has also quoted it.
Found it. Thanks.
I'm a bit confused as when the attribute counts as two different bonuses... Is there any case where that happens?
Whenever it grants a typed bonus equal to your modifier, that is different. Your modifier itself, and an untyped bonus equal to your modifier are considered the same.
I see. What if the attribute replaces another and then another ability adds on top of it?
e.g.: You replace Str with Dex on trip attempts, then add a bonus equal to your Dex on all trip attempts.
It wouldn't stack then, right?
I see. What if the attribute replaces another and then another ability adds on top of it?
e.g.: You replace Str with Dex on trip attempts, then add a bonus equal to your Dex on all trip attempts.
It wouldn't stack then, right?
That's right, it doesn't stack. A very nice poster in the FAQ thread that spawned this FAQ has been consolidating a list of places where that happens. So far only Dragon Ferocity (which has confusing wording that needed rewording anyway, which is what caused it to get snagged) has proven to need a FAQ to nudge its wording a little.
Okay. Thanks... Sorry for the repeated posting.
Have a good night and enjoy your weekend.
Okay. Thanks... Sorry for the repeated posting.
Have a good night and enjoy your weekend.
No problem. Believe me, if this was simple, we could've gotten this FAQ out sooner (given it was the #2 most FAQed FAQ out there). Hope you enjoy your weekend too! I'll be running Jade Regent tomorrow with my old Boston group.
Wooot! thank you!
Hey, Mark, I just saw this post of yours:
You can blame those darned gnomes and halflings and their manufactured weapons for that. Seriously, I created something elegant that had thus-far pinned down everything, only to find that those small races were the only thing in the game that couldn't fit. Come, my friends, let us band together and lay waste to the villages of all the gnomes and halflings until we have our FAQ!
Couldn't the dev team say the damage dice for Small characters are always 1 size smaller than the ones for Medium characters? That would mean that they fit in any progression you guys come up with...
BTW, right now, 'til Paizo publishes an official answer, this is the progression I'm using:
1d8 -> 1d10 -> 1d12 (or 2d6) -> 3d6 ->
3d8 -> 3d10 -> 3d12 (or 6d6) -> then keep adding 1d12 (or 2d6) per additional size category.
Is it any close to the one you created? :)
|
|
The interest in this thread has brought a further update. It's missing basically one art piece, so black raven, perfect timing. It could come out at any time, really, once that last piece is in. Anyone's guess is as good as mine. Pretty cool, huh?
Awesome !!!
How will we know that the stars are right ?
Hey, Mark, I just saw this post of yours:
You can blame those darned gnomes and halflings and their manufactured weapons for that. Seriously, I created something elegant that had thus-far pinned down everything, only to find that those small races were the only thing in the game that couldn't fit. Come, my friends, let us band together and lay waste to the villages of all the gnomes and halflings until we have our FAQ!Couldn't the dev team say the damage dice for Small characters are always 1 size smaller than the ones for Medium characters? That would mean that they fit in any progression you guys come up with...
BTW, right now, 'til Paizo publishes an official answer, this is the progression I'm using:
** spoiler omitted **
Is it any close to the one you created? :)
Ah, the trouble is one of not changing things too much. Your progression is solid, and it works perfectly for the gnomes, but if that became universal, it would weaken monks and larger folks, since for instance a large longsword would now do 1d10 instead of 2d6. My progression was a little different, and it fit all the charts in the game except for halfling and gnome greatswords and bastard swords and similar weapons (without an inelegant and confusing exception, it would weaken the greatswords/greataxes to 1d8).
The interest in this thread has brought a further update. It's missing basically one art piece, so black raven, perfect timing. It could come out at any time, really, once that last piece is in. Anyone's guess is as good as mine. Pretty cool, huh?Awesome !!!
How will we know that the stars are right ?
I heard all the art is in and that it's in layout. How cool is that?
Hello Mark,
Query I had recently come up. Per the Paizo Blog only combat maneuvers directly involving weapons (normally trip, disarm and sunder) are allowed to add weapon bonuses (enchancements e.t.c.) to the maneuver attempt.
Grapple is not normally one of these maneuvers, but what about weapons (and natural weapons) that patently are involved in the grappling process, that is, weapons like the Mancatcher and a T-Rex's bite with the Grab special quality. Would, for example, weapon focus and enhancement bonuses on these weapons add to the maneuver itself?
Many thanks for your and the PDT's continued hard work, we, the players and DMs might not always agree with what you decide, but we are always thankful for your effort.
prototype00
Hello Mark,
Query I had recently come up. Per the Paizo Blog only combat maneuvers directly involving weapons (normally trip, disarm and sunder) are allowed to add weapon bonuses (enchancements e.t.c.) to the maneuver attempt.
Grapple is not normally one of these maneuvers, but what about weapons (and natural weapons) that patently are involved in the grappling process, that is, weapons like the Mancatcher and a T-Rex's bite with the Grab special quality. Would, for example, weapon focus and enhancement bonuses on these weapons add to the maneuver itself?
Many thanks for your and the PDT's continued hard work, we, the players and DMs might not always agree with what you decide, but we are always thankful for your effort.
prototype00
Thanks for your kind words. It's important for all of us in the PDT to note, also, that even if many many people agree with a FAQ, it wouldn't be a FAQ in the first place if there wasn't some controversy about it, and the people on the side that is not supported by the FAQ will always be more represented in the ones who respond, since expressing disagreement would motivate someone to post more than saying "Yes. I agree with this new FAQ".
As to your question, it is an interesting question to be sure. In my games, I would say that the weapon bonuses still don't apply, but then again, I've been on the receiving side of a giant monster's grapples enough times to know that the status quo is already on the grappler's side enough that I wouldn't want to push it even more in that direction (for instance, my poor brawler in the playtest for my two Occult Adventures classes has been grappled successfully numerous times despite my having spend significant character resources on bonuses to prevent grapples). If I didn't see the status quo in that way, your question is close enough to a toss-up for me that I could have seen myself answering the other way.