I've noticed that the 2016 official product schedule includes several items from known/popular 3pp companies. I don't recall seeing 3pp material on the official schedule in previous years, so I'm just curious what brought on the change.
For example, the Advanced Races Compendium was on Paizo's official product schedule, but was author'd by Kobold Press.
Is Paizo officially endorsing or approving of those products as being part of their rules/world (as opposed to just acknowledging that they are PF-compatible as per the OGL)?
Are these products that Paizo commissioned these 3pp's to write and Paizo reviewed the material before it went to print?
Is Paizo simply listing these products from the get-go with the intent of having them in their store to start with?
I'm just curious if the official stance towards these types of products has changed.
The spell Create Armaments indicates a material component of "M (diamonds worth price of arms to be created)".
As the verbiage uses the term "price", would a correct assumption be that the spell requires diamonds worth the market value of the item versus the craft cost of the item?
Compared to Fabricate, which calls out "M (the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)"
So I just got an email about JQS3 and figured I'd share it with the community for those that either weren't aware of JQ or just weren't receiving alerts.
I'm not affiliated with ZOE, I just thoroughly enjoy their productions... if you haven't watched The Gamers, The Gamers Dorkness Rising, or JourneyQuest and you enjoy tabletop RPG's, you should probably give it a go.
Diego Rossi wrote:
The images would have the visual effect of Blur, but would they have the mechanical effect of blur? If you had Fire Shield on, thus conferring the appearance of Fire Shield to the images, does anyone who strikes an image take damage as per Fire Shield? I would expect not. And while I understand that Fire Shield and Blur/Displacement are vastly different, the idea is still the same... spell effects should not confer to images.
Diego Rossi wrote:
It would seem I lost the bottom half of my post and didn't realize it... there was supposed to be a quote of that.
But does the game really differentiate between being blind and having your vision obscured?
Why yes... yes it does.
I'm growing increasingly concerned that you are not actually reading my posts before responding and it's making it very difficult to return the favor. I appreciate the varied opinions and open dialog, but please follow without presumption.
Just to be clear, it should be obvious that this response applies to lighting and obscurement, but in case that was not obvious...Miss chances gained by lightning, obscuring effects, blindness, etc should all apply to the images without question.
Personally, I'm not sure if the order matters, because IMO you have to roll to hit anyway to see if you miss by less than 5. Missing by less than 5 pops an image, regardless of why you miss, per the rules for mirror image.
What you've just described now adds a third possibility into the mix...
But you don't get to pick which one you hit, and the boxes are most assuredly empty, unless they are mythic boxes which blind you when opened.
What you don't seem to be following is... just because you're not picking the box doesn't mean that you don't need to determine which box was picked to find out the result. Go ahead, change the example. Now there's 5 boxes just as before, 4 with candy, 1 with the boxing glove, but now there's a guy on the other side of the table wearing a D6 costume. He tells you, "open box number 4" and you have to comply. Do you know before opening box number 4 if you're getting punched? No. You only know that after opening it, and you only can open it after it was determined which one was being opened.
The added note about "miss chances still applying" are to make it clear that the standard miss chances for being blind still apply even though the illusion's added miss chances do not apply.
I agree. I can see both sides of the argument, but (clearly) I have my opinion of how it should work.
It doesn't speed it up though... You're still rolling a chance die on the attack. Whether it's a d% for miss or a d4/6/8 for images, it's still the same number of dice...if the images do not get your miss %. If the images DO get your miss chance, then the order it's done it doesn't matter one bit and you are rolling more dice regardless of what you 'hit'.
I'm sorry, but please re-read the post. I explicitly stated that the bottles were identical.
I think you completely misunderstood my analogy. The revision as you describe would imply that the real bottle was the only one without displacement. In the analogy, displacement=grease.
Sure, let's go with this hidden box analogy. Let's say you have 5 identical boxes on a table. 4 contain candy, one contains a boxing glove that will punch you in the face. You open a box, were you punched or did you get candy? Can you answer that question without determining which box you opened? No.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
"I want to pick up a bottle of coca-cola but I'm not allowed to decide exactly which"is the same as
"I want to attack the wizard but I'm not allowed to decide which image of them to swing at"
Let's try this another way...
You are standing in front of a table.
On the table are 5 identical bottles of coca-cola. One is greased up to make it super slippery, but the grease is not visible.
You want to pick one up.
If the images are not benefiting from displacement, then why are you needing to pass displacement before seeing if you accidentally hit an image? You are directly contradicting your position. Either the images are displaced and you would need to roll displacement miss % against them, or you need to resolve the images first.
Suggesting that you resolve displacement first is saying "when you go to attack the wizard, you correctly identify the real one instantly and thus need to roll displacement, but after that your sword arm gets confused and you might redirect your attack to an image"
I don't see how the spells would cancel each other out or promote metagaming. You can't directly attack images, and making an attack without needing to roll miss chance doesn't give you any more information than you already had.
In order to resolve whether or not an attack hits, whether comparing to AC, concealment, or anything else, you need to have the target defined.
Let's say you have 5 targets in a 5' square. 4 images, 1 displaced real target. Your character tries to attack, picking a random one of the 5 available targets. Rolling miss chance before rolling to see which target you chose is the same as saying "you have to roll miss chance to see if you manage to even swing your sword into the 5' square".
As far as I'm concerned, you can't resolve concealment before you resolve what you're attacking.
Lastly, there is a slight difference in the wording of Concealment vs Mirror Image. Mirror Image states that it comes into effect "if the attack is a hit" while Concealment states, "if the attacker hits".
I disagree with your interpretation.
"If the attack is a hit" means that the attack roll would resolve in a hit but the attack hasn't resolved yet
"if the attacker hits" means that the attack roll has resolved in a hit and the attack will hit the intended target
Matthew Downie wrote:
As I see it, if you have 3 mirror images and displacement, your opponent sees six of you - the displacement effect includes the mirror images. If your opponent hits anything in the displacement group, nothing happens. If they hit one of the 'real' mirror images, it is destroyed, and one of the mirror images from the displacement group is also destroyed.
Displacement doesn't create a duplicate of you.
So in your example of 3 images plus one target, one observing this would see 4 wizards within a 5' square (assuming medium wizard). The mirror images would be where ever they came into existence in the square, the displaced wizard would be 2' from the real wizard, and the real wizard is effectively (though not mechanically) invisible. The only one displaced is the real wizard.
Thank you all for the responses so far! Threw the post up before bed hitting the hay, so going to play response catch-up here.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
While it might not have the same spell effects as you, it has the same visual appearance of you; which is part of the effect of displacement and blur.
Visual appearance is one thing, the miss chance added via magic is another. I can have the visual appearance of a dragon, doesn't mean I have dragon traits.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Most people that I know play in the opposite way: first roll the miss chance, and only if there is a chance of a hit resolve the effect of the attack die roll. It speed up play a bit.
Actually, rolling images first would speed up gameplay if the images did not get your miss chance. In that situation you're only rolling your d4/6/8 (for qty=images+1) and not then rolling percentiles if the attack lands on an image.
GM Aerondor wrote:
As per the rules, you can't directly target an image. If you were able to directly target images then I could see the argument for Displacement applying to them holding water, as targeting images would then become the immediate tactic for clearing up the illusion, but you can only ever target the creature.
GM Aerondor wrote:
Yes, Displacement does state that. It specifically states that the creature gains the miss chance. The images are not the creature and while they take the image of the creature...still are not the creature.
Of course you got a mention... there are about 4 or 5 forum posters whose opinions I look for first in threads... you're on the list.
But that's the exact question here. Yes, you can't hit anything with concealment without first resolving concealment, but the question of "do the images gain your concealment?" must be answered first.
Concealment gained from lighting is one thing... if you're in a dark room and can barely see the images then they definitely should gain that concealment without Displacement even needing to factor in, but in this case the question of "does Displacement displace the images" / "does the appearance of being blurry from blur confer a miss chance without the magic of blur actually applying" still stands.
Why would this interpretation make sense? Say The fighter consistently fails his role to beat the wizards AC by 3. By mirror Image rules, the fighter is attempting to target the real wizard. And his near miss Destroys an Image. Slowly widdling down the images until there are 2 wizards left.
That's... kinda the goal of mirror images.
The fighter wouldn't have a 50/50 chance all day. The fighter would have a "one in X" chance (where X is the # of images + 1) of possibly hitting the wizard, and then if was lucky enough to meet the wizard's AC and roll to hit the real one, the fighter would still have a 50/50 chance of missing.
I'll start by saying that this has made my head hurt. I already checked for a FAQ and (unless my searchfu is weak today) one doesn't exist. I did find several threads on this topic already, including one with a response from James Jacobs, but nothing that could be considered an official ruling.
The basic question is... If you have Displacement (or Blur) and Mirror Images, what is the order in which a targeted attack is resolved against you?
James Jacobs interprets here that "Mirror image doesn't kick in until you hit the target. So... check for miss chance. If you miss, attack ends. If you hit, then check to see if you hit the actual target or an image." I'll be honest, I do not understand how he came to that ruling and wish he expanded more on it at the time. And I'm aware that his post was his interpretation of the rules.
James Jacobs wrote:
They asked me for an interpretation of the rules as written
The Mirror Image spell doesn't create illusions of you that have the same spell effects as you, it creates illusions of you as you appear. What I'm not following is why the Mirror Images are (possibly) conferred the effect from Displacement. So these figments, which "remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly", when the caster is under the effects of Displacement, suddenly gain the effects of Displacement and the figments now have figments that appear 2' from the true figment? Your illusion effectively has an illusion. As far as Blur goes, those figments would just be a little fuzzy in appearance.
Grick suggests here that "...So while a figment should gain a miss chance from actual concealment, because the figment is granted concealment, it shouldn't be granted a miss chance from displacement, because it's not under the effects of displacement."
Mike Kimmel suggests here that "Each 'image' certainly looks blurry, but it doesn't matter if a blurry part of it is hit or a more 'substantial' part is hit... it's all the same illusion, and any 'hit' destroys it. The blurry outlines of the images are not any more or less real than the non-blurry parts."
Going farther, if I cast Fearsome Duplicate while under the effects of Displacement or Mirror Image (or both), does the Fearsome Duplicate gain those effects? Again, the question of whether or not your beneficial spells confer to your duplication illusions.
I'll see you all at the bottom of the slippery slope...
Yes, I know. Yet another undead+paladin thread.
So, we have the Skeleton Crew spell, which creates multiple undead creatures, but the spell doesn't have the 'evil' descriptor. So immediately, straight to gray area.
So is the use of this spell an evil act? Let's say for instance you have the following:
In theory, you could argue that the act isn't inherently evil, as you're giving the bodies of the slain citizens 'purpose' by using/allowing them to help battle the ones that killed them. On the other hand... you're taking bodies that should probably just be laid to rest and enslaving them to do your bidding for a cause that you can only assume they would follow. Either way, creating undead.
So, at what point is the creation of undead "OK"? Is there ever a point when this falls enough into a gray area to not be considered an evil act? For example, would you need to use Speak with Dead with each body to see if they want to volunteer?
P.S. I'm aware that there is another similar spell, Unseen Crew, but as the question of an undead-creating spell not marked as evil came up, I figured I should look into this now...
Well color me embarrassed about not fully reviewing the daylight spell prior to posting, but knowing about the sunbeam/sunburst spells is definitely a good note. I think I'll note it that a failed save against spells such as those will either remove the special properties from the item, or give the item its own save at that point.
That is a great list! Thank you so much for that. I was starting to build my own list of 'suggested' traits including the ones that DM Papa.DRB mentioned earlier, but having traits suggested by the writers is fantastic.
3. As for being in Rybalka, or any other place like it, you have a great list!
Thank you! I am adding your information/suggestion into the list and my description of the town to help the players with immersion.
4. I'll check with Jonathan about this.
I would definitely appreciate that. Though it's not a big deal currently; I actually managed to rig up a way to redact the text that I needed to, but the process made some of the other text (mainly the credits and authors section) difficult to read. I'd rather not share the document for reading without all of the credits fully legible.
No worries about the NPC resource; I'd say as far as reasons go, that's a pretty solid one (as well as tragic). I truly appreciate that you are offering that document even in an unfinished state (which makes me feel like I'm receiving a developer copy, kinda cool feeling). If a 'finished' copy becomes available, I would love to update my local resource with it, but in the meantime this pdf is more than sufficient for those stat blocks.
Kevin Mickelson wrote:
Well the issue specifically with the Liavous-Infused Materials is that they lose their adamantine-esque properties if exposed to sunlight. So the question is if the daylight spell mimics sunlight well enough to ruin the items.
I have officially made it through my first full read-through of The Darkness Arrives and begun referencing/notating places/people/etc from the main Rise of the Drow book. I have some new questions and a request for input on some of the notes I've put together for the PC's as a supplement to the official player's guide.
I'm struggling to find an active discussion forum for GM's running this campaign. The AAW website seems to require a paid subscription to be able to post on their boards and the post that I made in the thread created by AAW on these boards here hasn't seen a response yet. I am very excited to run this campaign and have several players who are itching to jump in, so the sooner I can find answers/resources, the better.
Thank you in advance for any assistance!
I apologize in advance for necro'ing this thread... I will try to be as succinct as possible.
To provide some context to my situation:
Running this campaign has already hit a major snag. Hopefully you can help answer some basic startup questions that need to be answered from both a player and a GM standpoint.
1. What are the suggested races for PC's? The Player's Guide provides some teaser information and even goes as far as to suggest "Players are encouraged to create PCs using the species in Underworld Races for use in the adventure path", but it doesn't provide contextual information as to why players would be encouraged in that direction or what level of relevance/interaction the PC's will have with the campaign by choosing one of the Underworld Races versus an Upperworld Race.
When I brought up Rise of the Drow to my playgroup, at least two players immediately started asking about playing as a Drow or even a Drow Noble...
2. As a follow-up to #1, would my players 'miss out' on immersion by not playing as an Underworld Race? Looking at the AAW website, there are quite a few Underworld Races, each with their own splat book. Beyond the potential of missing out on immersion, would I as a GM find myself struggling to connect dots or provide information for Knowledge checks throughout the campaign if I do not have access to all of this race information?
3. The Prologue suggests that the easiest way to place the PC's in Rybalka is by plying through AAW modules A0-A2. While A0 was included with the RotD kickstarter pack, A1 and A2 were not. Popping open A0, that module has a lot more of an explanation as to "Why are the PC's here?" in it than The Darkness Arrives. My concern in gathering A0/A1/A2 and playing through those in order to get to TDA is that those modules take the PC's from Levels 1-3, which is the same leveling path that was built in TDA. So I would either have to scale up TDA, which would scale the rest of the adventure up, or let 3rd level PC's power through content in TDA that's designed for 1st level PC's.
I already intend to read through all of the material that I have at least 2-3 times and take notes on NPC's, lore, and important plot information, but my concern is that I'm going to need to throw together 'house rule' information to get my players started.
I'm also a little concerned about the possible mounting cost to make this campaign happen. Beyond the initial investment in the campaign books, if it turns out that the Underworld Races and Classes books are needed then I will have to spend quite a few more dollars to get a campaign started that I won't even know that everyone will like.
4. What are the suggested classes for the PC's?
5. What deities/domains/etc are used in this campaign setting? The players guide mentions Balir and Mistress of the North Wind... but I have no information on those or any others.
Possible extra costs:
Guidance would be greatly appreciated.
It is unrealistic to assume (and it is an assumption) that (Su) acts differently in this respect without something to specifically say it acts differently. The fact the (Su) doesn't say it overrules the ranged attacks rules is quite telling in itself.
I do not see why it is unrealistic to speculate that a ruling on one type of ability does apply to a different ability type. It is an assumption that Supernatural doesn't act differently.
That said, I have agreed with your stance at least twice in this thread as being the likely RAI. Unfortunately, my point still stands that it is a gray area. A FAQ on AoO's+Spells+Rays is a good jump point to base unlisted answers such as this one, but it is not final authority on it.
No matter how many times it is said that "ranged attacks provoke", that does not change the fact that specific rules can overrule the general rule, and the only specific rule regarding Supernatural abilities and AoO's indicates that there isn't an AoO. There is a direct conflict of specific vs general here, and typically when that occurs the specific overrules the general.
I understand that you are pushing your stance hard on this, and I appreciate that input because that is partly what I was looking for in this. But we're going in circles on what is clearly a gray area. The rules do not state anywhere in plain text that "ranged attacks granted by a Supernatural ability provoke an AoO". The abilities themselves do not indicate that it provokes at any point. We have a specific rule saying 'no' and a general rule stating 'yes'.
I'm not trying to exploit the rules, mess with a GM, or anything like that. I happened to find something in the rules that opens a gray area that for some reason has not been answered and I would like to know with certainty what that ruling is.
Spell like abilities also don't say that the ranged aspect provokes.
Correct. But Spell-like abilities are also listed in the previously referenced chart as provoking in the first place. The only clarification needed there was how many times it provoked. The difference here is that the Supernatural ability has a hard NO for AoO's, which can be open for interpretation.
The FAQ makes it perfectly clear that the ranged attack is separate from activating the ability.
The FAQ makes it clear that there are two points to provoke AoO's with a ranged spells.
As supernatural abilities are governed by different rules than spells, I don't see a FAQ on magic spells applying to supernatural abilities.
That may be RAI, but it's not RAW. As I pointed out before, the chart does not state that the "no AoO" only applies for the activation of the ability.
Conversely, there's nothing that states that the rules for Supernatural abilities doesn't overrule the rule for ranged attacks.
If the rules assume that all ranged attacks provoke AoOs by default in every case, I don't think there needs to be a precedent.
The rules have always been written with a general ruling that can be superseded by specific instances if spelled out as such. While you are correct that ranged attacks typically provoke, it is entirely probable that this could be one of those specific exceptions to that standard ruling. We have conflicting statements here:
"All ranged attacks provoke"
Needs clarification on precedence.
If the referenced chart had a legend that defined the AoO column as "Does activating this ability provoke an AoO", then I could see the ranged attack rule applying. However, the chart's legend has different wording:
Once again... that FAQ spells out "casting a spell", not "activating a supernatural ability". It only references spells. The RAW posted above pretty clearly indicates that Supernatural abilities do not provoke. The FAQ needs an update.
Secret Wizard wrote:
It is not an Attack of Opportunity. The feat name definitely causes confusion. Additionally, the feat isn't granting an "attack action". The feat grants an untyped "ranged attack", as noted.
Okay, for some reason, I glossed over the crunch text in favor of the name.
You wouldn't be the first... I made that mistake at first glance, as did a GM/player that I know.
I wouldn't expect that "loaded" argument to fly for PFS, but I'd also expect a lot of variation across other tables.
While I'm not too familiar with how well that kind of an argument would work at a PFS table, the fact that is can be raised at all should indicate that it needs clarification.
Even in raising the original question, I'm fairly certain that the feat was designed with the intent of allowing a single basic attack as an immediate action. However, open for interpretation is open...
As to Vital Strike: this has be clarified to require "an attack action", not merely "an attack". I do not find the language used for Target of Opportunity to be ambiguous.
Touche, I didn't recall the text for vital strike spelling out the 'attack' action. You can disregard that musing.
The trouble here is that all of the FAQ's on ranged attacks, rays, and AoO's specifically call out Spells. There are no specific mentions (that I have found) of whether or not the AoO rules change when involving a Supernatural ability that makes a ranged touch attack. I agree with your assessment that it logically should provoke, but the text does not support that.
I just paged through almost every domain/bloodline to try to find a Supernatural ability that was based on a ranged touch to see if it contained "this ability provokes", but I couldn't find one for precedence.
Thank you for your thoughts.
The ray itself is ephemeral, existing only in the instant it is created and fired. As such, it is never ready and "in hand" when the AoO is triggered even if your holy symbol or focus is.
Technically true, from one standpoint. But just to play devil's advocate, the ray itself is simply the 'ammunition', the holy symbol and the caster could be considered the weapon... So the weapon would be "in hand" and "ready to be fired" by having the holy symbol present already.
The conductive property would allow you to bypass the activation time of channeling, which sets precedence that the activation time is not set in stone. Also, keep in mind that the feat isn't actually granting an AoO--it's granting an untyped bonus ranged attack.
Those GM's would be wrong per RAW... the feat does not change the ability from supernatural, and there is a handy chart indicating that Supernatural abilities never provoke.
As a side-note....
As per the FAQ, rays counts as weapons. Being that they are ranged, would they count as a ranged weapon?
Target of Opportunity wrote:
Your ranged weapon must be in hand, loaded, and ready to be fired or thrown for you to make the ranged attack.
If an ally with this feat hits a target within 30' of a Cleric who also has the teamwork feat and the Channel Ray feat and the Cleric already has their holy symbol ready, can the Cleric attack the original target with a channel ray?
Touche... I rescind my previous position. Looks like you're right, without the Deflect Arrows feat, you can't activate the gloves.
So one has to wonder...what prereq's are they trying to avoid? Is it the Dex15 of Snatch Arrows versus the Dex13 of Deflect Arrows? Maybe there's a class that gives Deflect Arrows while bypassing the other prereq's?
Once worn, these snug gloves seem to meld with the hands, becoming almost invisible to casual observation. Twice per day, the wearer can act as if he had the Snatch Arrows feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites for the feat. Both gloves must be worn for the magic to be effective, and at least one hand must be free to take advantage of the magic.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Deflect Arrows, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Seems pretty clear to me... The gloves allow you to catch&keep or catch&throwback projectiles twice a day provided you have a free hand.
Base Price of +3 Armor = 9000gp
Time Required Crafting magic armor requires one day for each 1,000 gp value of the base price.
It will take you 5 days at 8 hours per day. If you can make the check with a +5 to the DC, you can half the amount of time needed (1000gp per 4 hours versus 1000gp per 8 hours).
Edit: Base DC of +3 armor is 14.
Buy Pearls of Power so you can recover some spells.
Cold Ice Strike is a fantastic level 6 spell. Swift action to wreck anything in a 30' line is always quite useful to my cleric.
Holy Word at level 7 can cause some serious havoc on minions, and possibly even the boss, depending on their level.
Waves of Ecstasy isn't a bad way to stagger a bunch of minions either.
I often have a Word of Recall prepared, just in case things go really poorly and we need to escape.
If you have time before the day of combat, maybe grab a Planar Ally to help?
If you're the only spellcaster who will be casting beneficial spells, having a Spell Resistance prepared for use against a spellcaster boss can be a life saver.
I've gotten decent mileage out of Greater Command for locking down large groups of minions.
The UMD check will trick the item into thinking that you qualify for its bonus as if you were a cavalier or a paladin, but you only receive said bonus when you actually use the Challenge or Smite ability. So even though the armor thinks you qualify, you will still never receive the bonus since you cannot activate the required class ability to gain said bonus.
The following is Feedback, NOT criticism
Favored Class Options
Fledging Ahool Racial Class
From a RAW/literal standpoint (I'm not trying to be obtuse), Ahool Apotheosis lists that "the PC gains", rather than "They gain". I make this point because as-written, some might argue that an NPC can't gain this ability.
The Agile weapon gives the wielder the option to apply their Dex to Attack/Damage in place of Strength (specifically Strength) if they posses Weapon Finesse.
A Guided weapon forcefully modifies the wielder's Attack/Damage rolls to apply Wisdom in place of Strength. Using the Guided weapon with any other stat (Strength or Dex) will impart a -2 penalty, as it goes against the weapon's nature.
End result, the character can have both properties, but can only use one at a time. If they choose to use the Guided property, apply Wisdom to Attack/Damage. If they choose to use the Agile property then they can apply their Dex to Attack/Damage, but with a -2 penalty to attack.
Generally yes. However I can think of a specific example where one could come as a bonus feat with GM approval -- the original Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide.
On a quick glance, I can't find this text in the Anniversary Edition Player's Guide, but I also can't find the feats in that version either...
OK, I can tell that no matter how logical my counter argument, you are always going to feel that this is overpowered. You're arguing about damage output at a level of the game where wizards can reshape existence in 60 seconds or less. This ability combo doesn't make the sky fall, the wizard does.
Has there been a ruling by an official Paizo or Society source as to the interaction of Pounce and Rake?
The ability text is pretty clear.
On a pounce the lion gets 1 bite, 2 claws, and 2 extra claws from rake. If the bite succeeds in a grapple and it maintains the grapple on its next turn, it can Rake again.
The qualifying action text for Rake is the general rule that is being superseded in the situation of Pounce. You can have a creature that has Pounce and Rake without having an attack that adds Grab. Think about it this way... the lion charges at you, leaps into the air and pounces on you. Even if you're not knocked down it still is hitting you with all four of its legs/claws and able to bite you as it slides back down onto the ground.