Infinite attacks


Rules Questions

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


With all due respect to the politeness of your warning, it's not abusing the rules unless you actually try to get infinite attacks. Gaining 1 extra attack each round as a Free Action and still being able to use your shield sure is nifty, but it is far from unreasonable at the cost of a Feat, 5000gp, and a magic item slot.

I think it was fairly clear from my post that I don't have a problem with gaining 1 free attack in a round.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:


If it's a typo, it's on Paizo to fix, and if this is a problem with the rules, it is a problem I discovered: not a problem I created. You're welcome.

There is already a fix in the rules:

PRD wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


If "your table" is in your mother's basement among your friends, then feel free to adjudicate any way you want, and God bless.

Actually it is the sitting room of my house, and this kind of ad hominem attack don't win you points.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:


But we pay money for these rulebooks to play Pathfinder Society, and it is NOT appropriate to persecute paying customers who are obeying the rules. If a GM did this to me, he would get a polite warning before I complained to the store owner that the PFS group is bullying paid customers out of the store. Store owners, especially small business owners like most game store owners, tend to notice customer complaints, especially when customers return their products because customers can't rely on them to work the way they say they work. To my experience, game store owners in particular only too happy to crowd out obnoxious gaming groups to make more room for more Magic the Gathering events. I've seen it happen, and I know why it happens.

LOL, so you would feel that you are bullied because someone would require you to respect the rule I cited above and you would try to bully him appealing to the store owner?

You are aware of how childish it sound?


Of course it's not a rule you created. I don't know why you think I think it is. But it's very easy to abuse the RAW. If we did, then the Sno-Cone Wish Machines would exist while being unchecked, parties with casters who take crafting feats (any Wizard would do it) would effectively have double their WBL, and the Overrun maneuver would be broken and nobody could ever use it effectively. And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I skimmed through the books, there's over a dozen more that I can find.

Abusing RAW might be "legal," but it's certainly what causes gaming tables to melt down and become scrapped, and it's also grounds for the Paizo staff to come in and destroy the option altogether. If you want proof, look at the Courageous property: Per RAW, the pre-errata benefit provided a bonus equal to half your weapon enhancement bonus to all Morale Bonuses you were affected by; since it's been abused as such, it's been nerfed down to yet another useless +1 property. And that's not the only thing which has been affected thus far.

It's just like the 3rd post in this thread says: Just because the RAW would permit you to do it doesn't mean that you can (or should) actually do it. I can guarantee you that any PFS GM will take your idea and toss it in the trash, and he'll tell you the same thing I have: The rules might say it does, but it's not intended to work that way, so it doesn't work that way.


*Glances back in*

As a GM, I would let you get a free attack with a quickdraw throwing shield once per round. With one shield. I would permit additional throws with additional shields, but only if you gave up your other normal attacks and took a Full Attack Action to do so.


Diego Rossi wrote:
I think it was fairly clear from my post that I don't have a problem with gaining 1 free attack in a round.

Nope, that wasn't clear at all. If this is just a simple misunderstanding, I can forget about it.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Actually it is the sitting room of my house,

Well, as I said, if we were talking about your homespun campaign, I would resolve any disagreement like this before I started playing. I use the rules agressively to create powerful effects. I know that. I like that about myself, and everyone I know in Pathfinder Society does the same thing. Before I join a group, I make a point of discussing ideas about the kind of campaign the GM wants to run and the kind of character I want to bring in to it, and see about how our visions join to create an awesome story. Vetting: I said that already.

The function that infinity damage would serve in a homespun campaign is that it allows the GM on a case-by-case basis to arbitrate on what he calls "reasonable" and sometimes let the PC make extra attacks if he feels he accidentally created an encounter that was too difficult for the party. And this is an option available to PFS GMs, too, because it is technically legal for a PFS GM to allow infinite attacks for this character. And as they say on Futurama, "technically correct...is the best kind of correct.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I can guarantee you that any PFS GM will take your idea and toss it in the trash, and he'll tell you the same thing I have: The rules might say it does, but it's not intended to work that way, so it doesn't work that way.

And that is absolutely NOT okay. You can't treat paying customers who are obeying the rules that way. If I spend 5000gp, a magic item slot, and a Feat, I expect to get something for it, and if the rules say I do, and you know they do, then I really should.

GM Rednal wrote:
As a GM, I would let you get a free attack with a quickdraw throwing shield once per round. With one shield.

That's exactly what I was suggesting in practice, especially in PFS.

GM Rednal wrote:
I would permit additional throws with additional shields, but only if you gave up your other normal attacks and took a Full Attack Action to do so.

I like that idea, but I would hesitate to apply that if I ran into this while running a PFS session. All the actions mentioned are Free Actions, and taking Free Actions should not interfere with either your ability to use a shield for an AC bonus or the ability to take the Full Attack Action. If I allowed more than one attack, I wouldn't feel at liberty to create that penalty.

I don't know, maybe I would. I guess it would be reasonable after the PC throws the throwing shield, the Blinkback Belt teleports it back, then you use Quickdraw to re-draw it again as a Free Action, then I could tell the PC, "You've used up your reasonable allotment of Free Actions for this kind of activity. If you make another attack with your Shield, you will have to use an Attack Action." And then the PC would be losing the ability to gain a shield bonus to AC even after re-drawing the Shield.

I guess coming to an understanding is a matter of perspective.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Of course it's not a rule you created.

I never said you said it was a rule I created.

I wrote:
it is a problem I discovered: not a problem I created.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I don't know why you think I think it is.

This:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Scott is just abusing a simple typo (or perhaps a miswording).

As bad as it is to abuse the literal text of the rules, it is much worse to presume you know the intent. You can't run PFS adventures by pretending to know the mind of the creators. You have to represent the product as it IS, never as how you imagine it aught to be.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I can guarantee you that any PFS GM will take your idea and toss it in the trash, and he'll tell you the same thing I have: The rules might say it does, but it's not intended to work that way, so it doesn't work that way.

I suggest that any PFS GM that will honor your guarantee and not Paizo's should throw away their Core Rulebooks while they're at it and run their own games their own way. If those GMs can't respect the ideas of creative players, then they won't be getting much in the way of quality gaming, but at least they will stop sullying Paizo's reputation.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
it's very easy to abuse the RAW. If we did, then the Sno-Cone Wish Machines would exist while being unchecked,

Well, Darksol, this thread is called "Infinite Attacks." The purpose of this thread is to explore ways of abusing the RAW exactly to create this kind of effect. If you have one to share, please do. I'd love to hear about the Sno-Cone Wish Machine.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
parties with casters who take crafting feats (any Wizard would do it)

Well, in PFS, you can't take Crafting Feats. In our own campaigns, we have lots of leeway in setting rules about the cost, effectiveness, difficulty, time-to-construct, unfortunate side effects, and whatnot to make it so that any party that successfully crafts their own Sno-Cone Wish Machine will have paid such a high price that they will have earned whatever they get out of it in the end. This seems like the foundation of a whole campaign, really.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
would effectively have double their WBL,

WBL?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
and the Overrun maneuver would be broken and nobody could ever use it effectively.

This is that thing you were arguing with that guy about, isn't it? I'm sure you're totally surprised by this, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with you.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I skimmed through the books, there's over a dozen more that I can find.

Oh, please do! As I pointed out earlier, this thread is called "Inifinite Attacks," and I think that your ideas you have to achieve infinite attacks belong on this thread for review.

As to the OP's idea, to my eye it looks in practice kind of like Great Cleave in that you only get to keep getting extra attacks is if you continue making successful attack rolls, and as soon as you miss one, then you're done. It is better than Great Cleave in that you can keep hitting the same guy more than once. It is worse in that it can only be done while mounted. Also because it depends on Overrun and Bull Rush, you can only use it on creatures of a certain size or smaller. Also, IIRC, it can only be used during a charge. I'll look again, but my impression is that it's a powerful and interesting combination, not an outrageously broken one.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I'd love to hear about the Sno-Cone Wish Machine

Use this to make this.


For relevance wrote:
Benefit: This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps allowing you to unclasp and throw it as a free action. Tower shields cannot be throwing shields. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply on your attack or damage rolls.

If we are going to play the RAW game here... then technically you can can throw as many of these shields as you want as a Free Action. However, if you want to make an attack, then you must follow the normal rules as written for combat. The text simply says you can throw the shield, it does not specify that it is a Thrown Attack.

Any PFS GM has a right to say that the item is not intended to work and deny you the ability to make Free Action attacks with it. You can disagree with them; however, the proper and mature way to handle the situation is to contact your local VC or VL about the incident and allow them to handle it. Or if at a sanctioned event, speak to the Event coordinator and allow them to handle it. Not to go storming off the business owner like a petulant child.


BigDTBone wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I'd love to hear about the Sno-Cone Wish Machine
Use this to make this.

Ah, you create a Simulacrum of an Efreeti. Clever. I have some thoughts about this.

First, Simulacrum is a level 7 spell, so at minimum we are talking about a level 14 Wizard. If your thesis is that level 14 Wizards are very powerful, you can stop right there: I agree with you.

Level 14 PCs are not allowed in PFS, so we are talking about a homespun campaign, and GMs have broad leeway to interpret the rules, such as:

Simulacra are made half of ice and snow. Efreeti are Fire creatures. A simulacrum of an Efreeti would burn itself up quickly: better make your wishes fast, and when you do better hope it makes it's own Concentration Check as it burns itself alive. Also, Efreeti have vulnerability to Cold, and the Simulacrum is made have of snow and ice! Better to make a Marid, which only grants 1 wish/year, but you won't have that problem.

A Simulacrum has only half the abilities of the original. So a Simulated Efreeti wouldn't grant 3 wishes/day. It would grant 3 Limited Wishes every 2 days. Also, not at CL 11, but at CL 5, whatever that means for a level 9 Spell!

Even though the Simulacrum remains under your control at all times, it is still intelligent, and it still has a Simulated personality. And an Efreeti's personality is just like mine: I will abuse the Wish As Written in order to create awful effects that were never intended!


PFS is a little more regulated, yeah. XD I only play home game stuff, so I don't usually worry about that.

Otherwise, though, I have no particular problem with someone whose character idea involves chucking teleporting shields at their enemies. I don't want to say "no" to ideas without at least trying to make them work. XD Definitely the sort of thing you'd want to check the interactions on, though, to see what numbers apply at what times.


Faelyn wrote:
For relevance wrote:
Benefit: This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps allowing you to unclasp and throw it as a free action. Tower shields cannot be throwing shields. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply on your attack or damage rolls.

If we are going to play the RAW game here... then technically you can can throw as many of these shields as you want as a Free Action. However, if you want to make an attack, then you must follow the normal rules as written for combat. The text simply says you can throw the shield, it does not specify that it is a Thrown Attack.

Any PFS GM has a right to say that the item is not intended to work and deny you the ability to make Free Action attacks with it. You can disagree with them; however, the proper and mature way to handle the situation is to contact your local VC or VL about the incident and allow them to handle it. Or if at a sanctioned event, speak to the Event coordinator and allow them to handle it. Not to go storming off the business owner like a petulant child.

But PFS GMs have a customer service obligation. It's one thing to invoke the "reasonable limit" rule to prevent in infinite Free Action Attack loop, but the Player really should expect to get something for something. And the combo I'm talking about is not cheap. Like I said, it costs 500gp and a Feat. That's not an unreasonably cheap price to pay for 1 free attack.

Faelyn wrote:
the proper and mature way to handle the situation is to contact your local VC or VL about the incident and allow them to handle it. Or if at a sanctioned event, speak to the Event coordinator and allow them to handle it. Not to go storming off the business owner

Of course you should always give people the chance to do the right thing. Tabletop RPGs are a lot about relationships, and you have to give them a chance to work. I was only referring to those GMs who refuse to honor Paizo Publishing's implicit guarantee that their product will work the way they say it will and instead honor Darksol's guarantee that they will throw away players' ideas. I'm not just needling Darksol: I believe he is describing a real phenomenon, a serious quality control and customer service issue for Paizo to wrestle with. The product has to work the way it says it works, otherwise no one should buy it.


Simulacrum:

Samsaran witches can grab Simulacrum off of the summoner spell list to cast it at level 9 (albeit not in PFS).

An efreeti simulacrum still has immunity to fire damage, so fire can't harm it. And ordinary ice isn't deadly, even to fire elementals - there's just the environmental effects, which can be dealt with using endure elements.

A simulacrum does not have half of the abilities of the original, it has the abilities of the original modified as if it had half of the original's HD. Neither a simulacrum's spell-like abilities nor the caster level of those spell-like abilities is dependent on its HD, so it retains its ability to grant wishes.

The nice thing about having a creature under your "absolute command" is that you can directly order it to never act in accordance with its evil personality, instead acting in accordance to what you want, to the best of its understanding.


More Simulacrum:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I'd love to hear about the Sno-Cone Wish Machine
Use this to make this.

Ah, you create a Simulacrum of an Efreeti. Clever. I have some thoughts about this.

First, Simulacrum is a level 7 spell, so at minimum we are talking about a level 14 Wizard. If your thesis is that level 14 Wizards are very powerful, you can stop right there: I agree with you.

7 Wizard, 5 Summoner. Either way 13th level, not 14th.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Level 14 PCs are not allowed in PFS, so we are talking about a homespun campaign, and GMs have broad leeway to interpret the rules, such as:

I thought some PFS stuff went past 12th.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Simulacra are made half of ice and snow. Efreeti are Fire creatures. A simulacrum of an Efreeti would burn itself up quickly: better make your wishes fast, and when you do better hope it makes it's own Concentration Check as it burns itself alive. Also, Efreeti have vulnerability to Cold, and the Simulacrum is made have of snow and ice! Better to make a Marid, which only grants 1 wish/year, but you won't have that problem.

While it is created of ice/snow, that does not affect the creature it becomes. See Simulacrum thread for lots of details on how it really [should] works.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
A Simulacrum has only half the abilities of the original. So a Simulated Efreeti wouldn't grant 3 wishes/day. It would grant 3 Limited Wishes every 2 days. Also, not at CL 11, but at CL 5, whatever that means for a level 9 Spell!

Re-read the spell. You get 1/2 HD, and consequences of lower HD. Any SLA not pegged to HD remains at full force. CL may or may not be pegged to HD.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Even though the Simulacrum remains under your control at all times, it is still intelligent, and it still has a Simulated personality. And an Efreeti's personality is just like mine: I will abuse the Wish As Written in order to create awful effects that were never intended!

You can cause alignment shift and personality shift in your absolutely controlled sim. If the now Good efreeti is devoted to you, why would it twist your wishes. Especially, since you told it that it was not allowed to do such twisting.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:
** spoiler omitted **...

Elsa wants to build a snowman?


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

But PFS GMs have a customer service obligation.

...
I was only referring to those GMs who refuse to honor Paizo Publishing's implicit guarantee that their product will work the way they say it will...

This is definitely a tangent, but I would like to point out, just because a rule is in a Pathfinder rulebook published by Paizo does not mean that it has to be supported in PFS play. PFS has its own specific list of which books and which rules/items from those books are allowed, and has the authority to 'adjust' rules as they see fit (they try not to when they can avoid it, but it certainly happens). In that sense PFS fully supports 'houserules'. The only difference is that every single PFS GM/Judge is expected to adhere to the same set of those houserules.

Your attitude that just because it is in a book means that the PFS GM has to allow it is just as likely to get you kicked out of an event as someone who tries to bring their own houserules into PFS, in my experience.

Also, almost all PFS GMs do not represent Paizo. They do not have to be a Paizo employee or work for a retailer that sells Paizo products. They are, 99% of the time, unpaid volunteers who are expected to adhere to certain rules, but there is no legal obligation for them to do so. For that matter, buying the books does not mean you are paying for the right to join in PFS play. PFS is a separate service that Paizo happens to help provide for free. Just because you bought the books does not mean Paizo owes you anything in regards to PFS.

(This probably came off as rude, but I felt like it had to be said with how many times you took the 'Paizo owes it to me' attitude when it is in regards to PFS)


I'll say I agree with What Ziere said about PFS And leave it at that; that is discussion for a different thread.


I still stand by the interpretation that it is the act of removing the shield and throwing that is a free action. If you want to hit somebody with it you need to make an attack action.

I might allow a PC to spit as a free action, but if he wants to spit in someone's eyes to distract them that would be an attack.

Can I ask the community if there are any other instances of an attack as a free action where the character isn't already making a full attack or standard attack?

This QuickDraw shield/throwing shield seems to be a fairly unique occurrence. With it could I run (x4 movement) and make a free attack? Could I move cast a spell and make a free attack?


Ziere Tole wrote:
This is definitely a tangent,

By which you mean that just for bringing an infinite attack method to a thread called "Infinite Attacks," I should not be harangued with ad hominem attacks, called a petulent child, told I should be kicked out of gaming tables, and have my ideas thrown away? I agree with you.

Ziere Tole wrote:
Also, almost all PFS GMs do not represent Paizo.

All PFS GMs absolutely do represent Paizo.

Ziere Tole wrote:
They do not have to be a Paizo employee or work for a retailer that sells Paizo products. They are, 99% of the time, unpaid volunteers who are expected to adhere to certain rules,

So they are unpaid customer service representatives, but they are customer service representatives nonetheless.

They are the ones I see wearing Pathfinder shirts. They have Paizo Publishing printed on their binders full of pregens, modules, and guidelines. And everything that happens at that table is supposed be transportable to every other PFS table in the world. It is their faces I see when I buy use, and audit Pathfinder products. They are the ones who represent Paizo Publishing to me, a customer, and that makes them customer service representatives in the most real sense of the word. They represent Paizo to the Customers!

Ziere Tole wrote:
For that matter, buying the books does not mean you are paying for the right to join in PFS play. PFS is a separate service that Paizo happens to help provide for free. Just because you bought the books does not mean Paizo owes you anything in regards to PFS.

A simple look at reality make is obvious that Paizo does.

There is no reason to buy Pathfinder books except to play in Pathfinder Society. Every single rule required for play is available for free online, and any nerd can run his own campaign at his local gaming store doing what he wants with his own rules, and if I want to play in his game, I have direct recourse to him, and can resolve any dispute with absolute confidence that I have heard from the highest authority in that gaming universe. I don't have to buy a thing for that.

What Pathfinder Society offers is the ability to transfer characters from GM to GM, from store to store, and probably at a more flexible schedule. But the only way that works is if those GMs play according to the rules as written. If I can't count on that, if we can't rely on that, then all of the Pathfinder products are worth NOTHING! Nobody should buy them.

And if you are insisting that Paizo owe us nothing for buying their books, then you are saying that no one should buy anything Paizo makes ever.

The simple fact is that there is a fundamental difference between the relationship between players and GMs in PFS games vis a vis any other game, and that is because PFS Players are customers, and customers have rights.

The fact that PFS GMs are unpaid, and "they are, 99% of the time" also customers, just means that they have the right to demand consistency from Paizo Publishing, too.


Avoron wrote:
Samsaran witches can grab Simulacrum off of the summoner spell list to cast it at level 9 (albeit not in PFS).

But that means my campaign, my rules.

Avoron wrote:
A simulacrum does not have half of the abilities of the original, it has the abilities of the original modified as if it had half of the original's HD.

Yes, it does:

Simulacrum wrote:
half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).

It says right in the spell description, "half the creature's special abilities." A GM is well-within his rights to say that where an Efreeti can grant 3 wishes once per day, a Simulated Efreeti can only grant 1 Limited Wish/day.

And that means

Avoron wrote:
An efreeti simulacrum still has immunity to fire damage,

but a simulated Efreeti is only resistant to fire damage.

Avoron wrote:
The nice thing about having a creature under your "absolute command" is that you can directly order it to never act in accordance with its evil personality, instead acting in accordance to what you want, to the best of its understanding.

The simulacrum is obliged to obey your every command, but it is not mindless. It has a mind of it's own. It has feelings. It has to do what you say, but it has to be the evil creature it is, and that is a roleplaying situation. And guess who roleplays the Efreet.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Avoron wrote:
Samsaran witches can grab Simulacrum off of the summoner spell list to cast it at level 9 (albeit not in PFS).

But that means my campaign, my rules.

Avoron wrote:
A simulacrum does not have half of the abilities of the original, it has the abilities of the original modified as if it had half of the original's HD.

Yes, it does:

Simulacrum wrote:
half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).

It says right in the spell description, "half the creature's special abilities." A GM is well-within his rights to say that where an Efreeti can grant 3 wishes once per day, a Simulated Efreeti can only grant 1 Limited Wish/day.

And that means

Avoron wrote:
An efreeti simulacrum still has immunity to fire damage,

but a simulated Efreeti is only resistant to fire damage.

Avoron wrote:
The nice thing about having a creature under your "absolute command" is that you can directly order it to never act in accordance with its evil personality, instead acting in accordance to what you want, to the best of its understanding.
The simulacrum is obliged to obey your every command, but it is not mindless. It has a mind of it's own. It has feelings. It has to do what you say, but it has to be the evil creature it is, and that is a roleplaying situation. And guess who roleplays the Efreet.

Scott, this one has been best to death other places. You are wrong on the RAW, but it doesn't matter anyway because the tangent is OT for this thread.

Liberty's Edge

BigDTBone wrote:
Scott, this one has been best to death other places. You are wrong on the RAW, but it doesn't matter anyway because the tangent is OT for this thread.

I'd say that RAW says the opposite. A Simulacrum does not get all of the feats of the original at half of the level. Rather, it gets feats appropriate to its reduced power level. Ditto special abilities. Says so plain as day in the text.

At which point we are very clearly in 'differing views on RAI' territory.

If you really believe any of the many versions of the 'Simulacrum spell = infinite power' theory you should FAQ it. How much you wanna bet they don't come back with a, 'yep, seventh level spell of infinite power' answer?


CBDunkerson wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Scott, this one has been best to death other places. You are wrong on the RAW, but it doesn't matter anyway because the tangent is OT for this thread.

I'd say that RAW says the opposite. A Simulacrum does not get all of the feats of the original at half of the level. Rather, it gets feats appropriate to its reduced power level. Ditto special abilities. Says so plain as day in the text.

At which point we are very clearly in 'differing views on RAI' territory.

If you really believe any of the many versions of the 'Simulacrum spell = infinite power' theory you should FAQ it. How much you wanna bet they don't come back with a, 'yep, seventh level spell of infinite power' answer?

Fine, take it to another thread.


BigDTBone wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Avoron wrote:
Samsaran witches can grab Simulacrum off of the summoner spell list to cast it at level 9 (albeit not in PFS).

But that means my campaign, my rules.

Avoron wrote:
A simulacrum does not have half of the abilities of the original, it has the abilities of the original modified as if it had half of the original's HD.

Yes, it does:

Simulacrum wrote:
half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).

It says right in the spell description, "half the creature's special abilities." A GM is well-within his rights to say that where an Efreeti can grant 3 wishes once per day, a Simulated Efreeti can only grant 1 Limited Wish/day.

And that means

Avoron wrote:
An efreeti simulacrum still has immunity to fire damage,

but a simulated Efreeti is only resistant to fire damage.

Avoron wrote:
The nice thing about having a creature under your "absolute command" is that you can directly order it to never act in accordance with its evil personality, instead acting in accordance to what you want, to the best of its understanding.
The simulacrum is obliged to obey your every command, but it is not mindless. It has a mind of it's own. It has feelings. It has to do what you say, but it has to be the evil creature it is, and that is a roleplaying situation. And guess who roleplays the Efreet.
Scott, this one has been best to death other places. You are wrong on the RAW, but it doesn't matter anyway because the tangent is OT for this thread.

I didn't really mean to derail the thread. While the OP was asking about a specific Feat/Ability Combination, since the title of the thread is "Infinite Attacks," I felt like other Feat/Ability combos that arguably grant infinite attacks might also be appropriate for discussion.

The Infinite with Sno Cone was not a combo that I brought up: someone else did, but somebody graciously described it to me. I made my comments, the most pertainent being Simulacrum is a level 7 Spell => Level 14 characters => homespun GM => great leeway to rule. Most of the people that have argued against my point have only emphasized that that central point is my best point.

It turns out to be more off-topic than I realized it would be, a very overpowered combo perhaps, but not an infinite-attack combo, and I don't feel much need to debate it any further.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Both reading are valid, one work with the rules, one go against the rules. What do you think is the one we should use?

Note that Overrun isn't one of the actions listed in the Actions In Combat table. So we only have the phrase:
"As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge,"

So it can mean:
"As a standard action, taken during your move" + "As a standard action, taken ... as part of a charge,"
or
"As a standard action, taken during your move" + (separate statement) "as part of a charge," without any requirement to take a standard action.

The first version don't work with the rules, the second work with them.
The only logic conclusion is that the second version is what the developers mean.

Another hole in your logic: you assume that you are overrunning someone to attack him. Actually in the real word you try to overrun someone to attack the guy behind him, not to attack him.

Read this:

PRD wrote:


Moving Through a Square
...
Overrun: During your movement, you can attempt to move through a square occupied by an opponent (see Overrun).

That is your goal, to move trough the first creature square.

This is all well and good for the basic general default rules of how Overrun works... However the OP is citing a class ability which trumps the general rule... In fact, it makes it a FREE action instead of a Standard action so we take that out of the equation all together:

Breaker Momentum (Ex)
At 2nd level, when a siegebreaker successfully bull rushes a foe, he can attempt an overrun combat maneuver check against that foe as a free action.


RigaMortus wrote:

This is all well and good for the basic general default rules of how Overrun works... However the OP is citing a class ability which trumps the general rule... In fact, it makes it a FREE action instead of a Standard action so we take that out of the equation all together:

Breaker Momentum (Ex)
At 2nd level, when a siegebreaker successfully bull rushes a foe, he can attempt an overrun combat maneuver check against that foe as a free action.

This is why other websites lock threads after a certain point. An 8 year necro-post. Impressive.

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Infinite attacks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.