Amelia Echorn's page

Anyone saying category isn't impacted by balance is being facetious. If balance isn't a factor in weapon categories, why bother having them be tied to feats at all or class? If a spiked chain isn't better than a quarterstaff who cares if a wizard uses one?

If I can use a longsword and a greatsword, why would I need an EWP to use a bastard sword? Because it's better, mechanically, than a longsword. Kama, really? Falcata? Shuriken? Hand-freaking-crossbow? These are not weapons that require extra training over martial or even simple weapons. And some of them aren't mechanically better either... Why are they exotic?

Who sat at the design table and said, "You know what? This weapon isn't better than any other, but it's weird. We should make players spend a scarce resource to use it." It's fine to say, "Oh you wanna use an inferior choice? Ok, don't expect us to make it not suck just so you can be awesome." Fine, but you don't then add MORE restrictions, "Oh you wanna use an inferior choice? You gotta spend more resources than the guy making the better choice just to not be as good." You can make the spiked chain do less but cost the same or cost more and do more, but how can you rationalize making it cost more and do less?

It's a viable choice for some characters. Just because it doesn't do what you want it to do (deal the best damage) doesn't mean it's not a viable choice for someone.

It's not a viable choice for them though, it's merely a desirable choice. It's not viable because a dex fighter already has to invest a lot of resources just to keep up, why pile on the crap? Look at that dex fighter and say, "I know you sacrificed your armor and your damage to play a character you find cool, and you could just do dervish dance or just use a greatsword, but you want to use an inferior weapon because you have an interesting character idea, and you're totally ok with that inferior choice? You're gonna have to spend an extra feat."

Not cool man, not cool. And the argument that historically people used swords because they were better so most people in pathfinder should use swords is lame. If I wanted to run a historical military simulator, I would. I instead chose the game with dragons and wizards. For. A. Reason.

Is a #2 pencil as good as a dagger? No. Does a character have to spend EWP on pencils? No. If a player wants to use a dagger that looks like a #2 pencil, why say no? /rant

PS: Raise 4 year old Thread.

What's it like having people you've never met drill you with questions?

Tell me Ross! I HAVE TO KNOW!

Can a master summoner be a wild caller?

I guess another form of the question would be:

Could a character two weapon fight with the dart and chain together?

I would say no, but flurrying allows two handed weapons, so....

Crusader's flurry would make the spiked chain a monk weapon usable in a flurry. If regular iterative attacks are OK, flurry should be too. I'm just trying to cover all the bases.

So a character with the rope equipment trick feat can use a rope to do cool things.

Could they:
1. Use the rope section of a rope dart for rope tricks?
2. Use the rope section of a rope dart as a spiked chain?
3. Threaten adjacent squares with the spiked chain?
4. Use the rope dart's enhancement bonus for the spiked chain section?
5. Enhance the spiked chain section separately?
6. Interchange iterative attacks between the two weapon types?
7. Use Crusader's Flurry to flurry between the two weapon types?

I think that's all I've got, for now. I look forward to your replies.

Wow, I've seen lore warden, but never really looked at it. If you intend to use a trip for the flurry taking the -2 every time, especially on all three attacks, and not a grapple though, what's the benefit to Maneuver master 1 over monk 1? I'm thinking that after I grab Lore Warden level 7, I may go back to monk until I get a ki pool. I'll be able to get the extra flurry attack for more trip/stomp action. That would preclude using my swift to Bind though.

Like this:

Monk 1/ Lore Warden 6
1 IUS, Combat Reflexes, Snapping Turtle Style, Vicious Stomp
2 Imp Grapple
3 Combat Ex, Imp Trip, Imp Disarm
4
5 Ki Throw, Binding Throw
6
7 Greater Trip, Snap Turtle Clutch

Also, the style of character doesn't really allow Dirty Trick. I don't think it would violate a Vow of Truth literally, but it'd be rather inconsistent.

The only benefit I see to maneuver master here would be the ability to wear light armor. Oh, and I guess you'd get +1 CMB for the flurry maneuvers. But if I go back to monk at level 3 that gets picked up anyway.

So whaddya think?

I'm looking at making a monk character who specializes in some maneuvers to work as a bodyguard. I'm also planning on taking some Brawler levels to help out with lack of a bruiser and to get the feats faster. ANd I was thinking of picking up some vows that really suit the character.

At level 7 the build is Monk4/Ftr3. The question is, should those monk levels be regular or Maneuver Master? Here's a look at the feats, and a list of what I've identified as pros and cons

Feats:
Human Monk (Maneuver Master) 4/Brawler 3
1 IUS, Imp Trip, Imp Grapple, Ki Throw, Stunning Fist
2 Imp Disarm
3 Binding Throw
4
5 Snapping Turtle Style, Snapping Turtle Clutch
6 Combat Reflexes
7 Greater Grapple

Human Monk 4/Brawler 3
1 IUS, Combat Ex, Imp Grapple, Imp Trip, Stunning Fist
2 Combat Reflexes
3 Ki Throw
4
5 Snapping Turtle Style, Snapping Turtle Clutch
6 Binding Throw
7 Greater Grapple
-----

Maneuver Master Pros:
Skip Combat Expertise
Can grapple on a full attack
Reliable Maneuver ability allows an attack reroll for 1 Ki point.
Non maneuver attacks don't suffer the -2 penalty

Cons:
Can't use Ki to make additional attacks
Greater Grapple and binding throw almost recreates the benefit of flurry of maneuvers
Reliable maneuver, binding throw and turtle clutch all require a swift action.
At later levels, Maneuver penalties are INSANE
No vows due to loss of Still Mind

Regular Monk Pros:
Flurry of Blows
1 Ki point to make an additional flurry attack
Trip and Disarm can be used in a regular flurry
Can benefit from Vows

Cons:
Grapple will require a standard action
Must take Combat Expertise (losing out on Imp Disarm)
Extra Attack, Binding throw, and turtle clutch STILL all take a swift action
----

I was hoping you could help me decide which would be better, but I'm also open to advice on reworking the build flow, but I'm pretty set on the style and overall feat choices. But nothing is in stone.

Thank you in advance.

Old thread, but I'm looking at something similar myself.

What a load of bullocks that the two abilities can't be used together, even on two separate maneuvers.

It depends on the WIS bonus I suppose. A reroll could potentially give you an increase of 19, but also of 0, whereas your WIS is a sure bet of 3-6 or so. I'd probably tend to take the sure thing. Ki is too hard to come by to waste on chance.

Raelin wrote:

I hadn't seen the movie in a long ttme so I pulled up a youtube video of the fihgt scenes, and I saw him do a lot of impressive spinning and flips, dual wielding and finesse-y looking spear wielding.

Why do you connect spinning and flipping with finesse fighting? I just rewatched it and saw numerous occasions in which he was out-muscling Hellboy and decapitating "strong guys" in one cut. You don't slice through that much muscle and bone with precision alone.

He was fast--extremely fast--and that is entirely a matter of Strength, not Dexterity. I've experienced that first hand, actually. I was involved in some reenactment type fighting and faced a guy significantly larger and stronger than the people I was accustomed to fighting. Foolishly assuming he'd be slow, with poor recovery and thus easy to beat (thanks to every piece of media ever, especially video games and their "powerful guys are slow" rule of thumb), I quickly discovered that his strength made him the fastest fighter I'd ever encountered and it became a rather desperate situation for me.

Speed is a function of Strength.

The rest of what Nuada does is based on Skill. I think a lot of times, people see this kind of stuff in movies and books and video games and, because it's the way they're accustomed to playing, assume that the opposition these characters face is their level or thereabouts, thus making the wins more impressive. However, most of what goes on is Nuada just showcasing that he is vastly more skilled than anyone else he fights, and only Hellboy's raw physical talent is capable of matching him. Those strong dudes he fights with the bird face mask things are probably roughly Ogres to his level 10+ character--barely a distraction.

As for TWF requiring Dexterity, who cares? He's the BBEG. He can have a high enough Dexterity for TWF and a strength that's even higher. So, he is very much a Strength based fighter--and a very strong one at that--with a very high BAB. That's pretty much it.

As for...

But who says dex fighter can't be strong? He was definitely getting his AC from dex, and likely Dodge and Mobility, not armor. So we have a Dex based defense, and TWFing is typically a dex based offense. He just also happened to have strength behind his attacks.

I think either interpretation is valid. I wasn't so much against him not being a dex fighter, I just think it's not so certain a thing. He may just have 18s across the board and do as he pleases.

Raelin wrote:

I don't believe for a second he is a ranger. At all.

Why?

Being a Ranger, doesn't fit into only one kind of flavor.

You restrict yourself by class names.

You will never have the expansive number of available concepts by doing so.

Open your mind, and let the possibilities astound you.

If you must stay with such close-mindedness, then I am sorry for you.

I can't tell if you're countering my snark with your own and I'm missing it, or if you missed mine to begin with.

Raelin wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Raelin wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Nails wrote:

Just watched the second Hellboy flick. The fae prince dude is probably the kickass-est depiction of a dex/finesse fighter ever.

Having seen the movie, I don't believe for a second he is a dex/finesse fighter at all.

Really?

Yes. Why the incredulity?

I hadn't seen the movie in a long ttme so I pulled up a youtube video of the fihgt scenes, and I saw him do a lot of impressive spinning and flips, dual wielding and finesse-y looking spear wielding. That was only about 5 minutes of a presumably 90 minute movie, but I think it was enough to make a case. I surely don't see how it could be argued he isn't one "at all". I mean, TWF does have a Dex prereq.

Not if you're a Ranger.

I don't believe for a second he is a ranger. At all.

Raelin wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Nails wrote:

Just watched the second Hellboy flick. The fae prince dude is probably the kickass-est depiction of a dex/finesse fighter ever.

Having seen the movie, I don't believe for a second he is a dex/finesse fighter at all.

Really?

Yes. Why the incredulity?

I hadn't seen the movie in a long ttme so I pulled up a youtube video of the fihgt scenes, and I saw him do a lot of impressive spinning and flips, dual wielding and finesse-y looking spear wielding. That was only about 5 minutes of a presumably 90 minute movie, but I think it was enough to make a case. I surely don't see how it could be argued he isn't one "at all". I mean, TWF does have a Dex prereq.

Nails wrote:

Just watched the second Hellboy flick. The fae prince dude is probably the kickass-est depiction of a dex/finesse fighter ever.

Having seen the movie, I don't believe for a second he is a dex/finesse fighter at all.

Really?

I'm not sure what your getting at.

What I was getting at, however long ago I said this, was "What then is the point in distraction?"

Edit: Of course if the only thing you were hiding behind was a tree, your enemy could simply move to the other side of the tree on his turn. You would no longer have cover, and could no longer stealth.

This is what I'm saying. Just because the opponent CAN walk right where you are and see you (or jsut go ahead and attack there), doesn't mean you assume they ARE observing you and ignore stealth.

It's my understanding that the rules of stealth allow for multiple types of distractions. I see no reason to think that bluff checks are the only form of distraction. It's a shame to think that a sudden explosion or something would have to still to have an accompanying bluff check to allow the rogue to sneak off in the confusion.

1. Only if he ended in full concealment/full cover or had an ability that allowed him to hide while being observed.

2. If he's using a distraction to hide while being observed then he takes the penalty.

3. You cannot hide while being observed. If you are in full cover/full concealment, then you cannot be observed.

4. GM discretion.

5. Dim light provides enough concealment to stealth provided you enemy doesn't have some way of seeing in dim light (ex. low-light vision or darkvision). You still can't hide while being observed, though.

Would you change your answer to #3 if the tree were a redwood?

It's my understanding that stepping out of vision would allow a character to stealth, and at that point it's up to the GM to adjudicate the difficulty of any checks. But I don't see how you could argue against that person being unobservable without the enemy possessing abnormal sight or scent. I'd really love to have more clarity of "observed." Am I just missing that somewhere?

1. Incorrect - unless the target he attacked was killed in the attack.

2. If the attacker moved more than half his total speed in making the spring attack, then he would take any relevant speed penalties.

3. Uncertain. I believe it would require a Bluff check. Now, if you could enter into cover, then move into a different location, and your opponent went to where you were and you weren't there anymore, then I'd probably consider that sufficient to make a new Stealth check.

4. I would say no; the reason your opponent retains his DEX against a target is because he's actively keeping track of where his enemies are, meaning that even as he's parrying an attack from your fighter friend, he's keeping tabs on where you are as well.

5. Will have someone else answer, I'm not the best when it comes to lighting rules. First thought is that you could use it to regain cover by using a distraction, assuming that none of your foes had low-light or darkvision.

1. Attacking ends stealth yes, but how does it prohibit additional stealth checks? If stealth is part of movement and you move after attacking in spring attack, if that movement allows you to end your turn in cover, does the skill preclude you from making another check? I see evidence both ways. The intention seems to be that id does, and I think that's the stronger case, but I'm not sure.

2. I'm referring to the stealth penalty "While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast." and not any actual speed penalty.

3. But if your opponent thinks you're one place and you're not, haven't you already successfully "stealthed" him?

4. True, but if keeping tabs was all that were required to avoid stealth, how would a distraction ever work? I imagine an enemy in melee while the rogue is standing next to a tree. The enemy averts his gaze for a moment to deal with the combat and the rogue "acts quickly" (taking the -10) to dive behind the tree and stealth. This is opposed by the enemy's perception, effectively his check of how well he was keeping tab on the rogue. This doesn't seem much different than sniping. It sounds fair and logical to me.

I don't mean to disagree with everything you say (and truly I don't) I'm just trying to be thorough. I've not encountered a lot of stealth focused characters and I'm trying to research before GMing for one. I don't want to over or under power stealth and ruin it for someone.

Should I FAQ flag this?

Railin:

If you use spring attack I see you when the attack is made. You can not make a stealth check while I am eyeballing you. You might have cover, but I can still observe,even if I can't see you since I know where you are. If I know you are behind that boulder/tree/etc, you need to distract me.

Here is the thing about distraction. One use of distraction(from the bluff skill) allows for you to hide and quickly move to a new location, but it is also used to apply a penalty to perception. The second example applies in combat, but if you are active in combat the GM may not allow it since as a threat it makes sense to focus on you also.

As far as trying to stealth in dim light, it depends on whether or not they can see you well. If the opponent has low-light vision or darkvision you may not have concealment, and even then they have to not be observing you.

But once I get behind cover, you're not "eyeballing" me. In what way are you observing me? If you can observe me even if I'm behind cover, how is cover sufficient to make a stealth check?

Concerning dim light, if you're unaffected by it, it wouldn't provide concealment and that question wouldn't matter. But since it would provide concealment normally, it is relevant in that context. Since pathfinder has no facing, what would constitute whether or not you are being observed? If you have to make a perception check to decide whether or not you're observable, you're already stealthing aren't you? Based on the wording of HiPS, being observed means being not behind cover or in concealment.

I don't think some of this stuff has been brought up since the errata, and if it has I couldn't find it.

1.If a rogue were to sneak spring attack from stealth and end in concealment/cover, he could still make a stealth check correct?

2. Would this check make the -10 "have to move fast" penalty?

3. If a rogue is facing an enemy and side step behind a tree, is gaining cover sufficient grounds to stealth even though he was observed until that point? The skill description seems to say you have to have a distraction (such as a bluff) to even attempt this. But it also says concealment/cover is sufficient to prevent observation by sight. Which is it?

4. Does your opponent being in combat with your allies constitute a distraction?

5.If the tree thing works, then what about if you're simply in dim light? Can you move through an area of dim light and just begin stealthing even with enemies around? If they are in combat?

Thank you.

If a rogue were to sneak spring attack from stealth and end in concealment/cover, he could still make a stealth check correct? Would this check make the -10 "have to move fast" penalty? On a related note, if a rogue is facing an enemy and side step behind a tree, is gaining cover sufficient grounds to stealth even though he was observed until that point? The skill description seems to say you have to have a distraction (such as a bluff) to even attempt this. But it also says concealment/cover is sufficient to prevent observation by sight. Which is it? Also, does your opponent being in combat with your allies constitute a distraction? If the tree thing works, then what about if you're simply in dim light? Can you move through an area of dim light and just begin stealthing even with enemies around? If they are in combat?

I started on topic but kinda veered off. Maybe I should repost this in Rules.

yep

nothing eh?

I'm trying to play a rogue who pins his opponents so he can execute them with a spring sheath loaded with either a dagger or coat pistol. The dagger build is obviously less feat intensive.

I'm looking at taking the binding throw feat chain to have the prone condition help me with grapple checks.

Is it worth it to take two levels of Maneuver Master Monk to grab improved trip and grapple? Any other tips? I don't do rogues often, and Rogue Eidolon's guide is helpful but doesn't really address this type of build. Any ideas about how to do the gun thing would be appreciated? Should I dip gunslinger? Bother with Deft Shootist?

My book says a pinned creature is flat-footed. This was apparently changed at some point. In either case, you would benefit from having a lower dex.

I'm interested in making a rogue who grapples and then pins, followed by sneak attacking. This has led me to some questions.

1. If you pin an opponent, must you continue to use the pin option to keep them pinned, or could you damage them the next round while they are pinned?
2. Does using the damage option of a grapple check allow sneak attack (i.e. if they are pinned)?
3. Does the -4 penalty for not having two hands apply to the initial grapple check, all grapple checks made by the grappler, or all grapple checks?
4. Could a rogue make a grapple check successfully then use a swift action to pull out his spring loaded sheath and sneak attack with a dagger?

I think that's it.

Oh.

5. If you grapple an opponent if you were to trip instead of maintain the grapple, would they have the grappled condition for the trip attack?

So if I throw up my tower shield for total cover then use this ability, how does that work?

Hey, I'd be interested in playing.

Just in case, Leaotz, are you looking for players also?

Either one of you can email me at jack.d.ellis7@gmail.com

A few observations and thoughts:

1. It seems that the goal of the wizard is to make a statement that the gods did not create any of the races.

2. The Golarion sourcebooks already state that the gods DID have a hand in creation.

3. 1 and 2 do not mean that the wizard in question needs to believe the gods had a hand in creation, but it does not make it any less true. The player is free to play the character as he wishes.

4. The player might want to speak to the GM about whether the campaign world should be altered to make the wizard's claim true. If the GM wants to stay true to the Golarion setting, the GM would have to say no; if the GM is willing to alter the setting ('home-alter' it, if you will) to fit the character, making it like Golarion, but not strictly Golarion, that's cool too. However, this should be something established from the get-go to prevent conflict and frustration further down the track.

5. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Shelyn is kind and benevolent, but is not obliged to respond to everyone who demands that she proves her existence. Her clerics spread her message, and people choose to believe or not. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

6. Similarly, proving that creation of races can occur through method B is not proof that it did NOT occur through method A in the first place. Especially in a world where mortals can create golems and breathe life into homunculi, not to mention control the elements and literally create new worlds, the gap between mortals and deific figures is naturally narrowed, but it is prudent to remember that the fact that mortals can replicate an effect does not mean that the gods did not do it first, or do it in another way (first). Science/magical-demonstration and history are two separate disciples involved in discovering different types of truth.

7. Bringing the arguments to the effect that gods are the stuff of fantasy to a game that is by nature fantasy has the potential to be profoundly frustrating. I'm not saying don't do...

Good points, and things I have thought about. I would love for whether or not the creation myths are true to be up int he air. I wouldn't want to know before starting, as finding out he was wrong al along would be a pretty important moment for the character and how he deals with it would be very interesting. I will say about point 5 though, that it depends on whom you put the burden of proof. Absence is evidence is evidence if there is other supporting evidence for the opposing claim.

Owlbears were created by wizards and have bred true per their pages. Many of the wacky creatures in the Beastiaries share that.

Also, a wizard could eventually commune with or travel the planes and talk to various immortal non-divine beings to get his answers.

Instead, consider Rahadoumi athiesm, which is actually more anti-theism. It's not that gods don't exist (as their existence is easy to verify with high level magics), but that they shouldn't exist.

Rather than not believing in their meddling (tough to sell when he's casting mortal power spells that can do the same), he believes that they shouldn't. By their hijacking of natural processes, they are insuring a dangerous lack of variation (all diversity coming from same divine sources makes all divine creations vulnerable to dangers that exploit that, regardless of the superficial diversity they've created), as well as robbing people of tools to understand their world independant of divine submission.

EDIT: I originally thought you were talking about denying magical influence on evolution, but looks like you were specifically only denying divine; that there's nothing the gods have done to warp the world that wizards couldn't do too. That's less controversial and interesting to me, just standard prideful wizard stuff. Also means my whole post was unrelated and useless, sorry for the misread.

I don't see the point in denying magical influence on evolution when owl bears do exist, especially if they can breed. It's more scientific to approach magic as a force of the universe, like radiation, which can also alter your genetics, but also make you sterile, which magic seemingly does not.

But I definitely wouldn't call your post useless. The bit about divine submission is key. A big part of the character would be the spreading of knowledge to reduce the reliance on divine explanations or asking for divine interference (even if it is actually possible). Perhaps he would shun divine healing. He's not attempting to rob the divine of their power and say they're no better than wizards, but asserting that they are not the explanation for our existence as they require their own explanation. This differs form the real world because an explanation would need to exist to explain both deities and mortals. His search is for that answer. I would hope to play him in a campaign that involves both galactic and planar travel.

An alchemist probably would be a good idea. I've never played one, they don't excite me, but I'll check them over.

@Fleshgrinder I take it you're talking about species of Golarion. Where can I read about the divine proof of the origin of species? THe idea for the character is that deities' claims are fabricated balogna so they can hold power.

I don't see how explaining goblins is anhy harder than explaining any other race with evolution, but owl bears are the product of gross species genetics are they not? The idea that an in depth understanding of both genetics and magic leads to mastering transmutation is the point. He understands the natural building blocks of life and can alter them magically and as with anything else in fantasy, the implications of magic on evolution have to be accounted for in his theories and could be vital to some stages of evolution.

Mystic Theurge...hmm, also worth looking into. I definitely wanted to go the divination route at the onset, but the abilities and spells don't pan out as scholarly as I'd expect a scientist, and I found overall they helped to augment more than they worked as the main school. But Loremaster completely slipped my mind.

I've always wanted to play a character who studies evolution and tries to thwart the gods' claims of creation. Recently I've been watching Richard Dawkins interviews and thought a wizard who based on him, with his neat-o accent, would be really fun.

I'm thinking of specializing in transmutation with genetics focused spells, but also divination for maybe playing a little paleontologist searching for fossils and what not.

I was wondering if anyone could give advice for either school specialty, spell selection, etc, or probably most important, how to handle magical situations with scientific reasoning and what to do in situations where trying to do hard science and magic at the same time becomes almost impossible. And any input on justifying evolutionary biology in the face of Sarenrae and all that.

I look forward to hearing from you!

So I noticed that the Fused Eidolon ability of the synthesist replaces the eidolon ability of the normal summoner.

But, that's the ability that mentions the 1 minute ritual required to summon the eidolon.

Without that it reads like the synthesist is fused until the thing dies, at which point.... I don't know.

Seems like an oversight, or am I wrong?

I had another Combat Patrol question. How does it work while mounted? Would the rider use the mounts movement? Would the mount have to use combat patrol? Would they both have to use it?

Raelin wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Nope. The wording is there to justify you being able to move up to your speed before making the attack. It would have to specifically say the normal limit is ignored in order for it to work that way.

That's what I feel like it's trying to say, but could you explain how it says that? I just don't read it that way, and that's also what the very next sentence clarifies.

When the game allows you to bypass limitations it says so in exact terms.

CP never even hints at being able to break a the limit on AoO's. The only rule broken is that you can move in order to get the AoO.

Example:

Quote:

Strike Back (Combat)

That feat specifically states that it is breaking a rule, and which rule it is breaking.

For CP to work like you are suggesting it would have to read.."you may make attacks of opportunity against any opponent in this threatened area that provokes attacks of opportunity, even allowing you to bypass any normal limits on attacks of opportunities per round."

It hints at it by way of saying what made me ask if it was hinting at it. That's a mean thing to say to me really. Especially since the feat also changes the idea that you can attack any square you threaten without actually saying so, a point of confusion for a couple of other people in this thread. I think that made my question as valid as theirs.

Raelin wrote:

So I had a question about the wording of Combat Patrol. I notice that it says:

"you may make attacks of opportunity against any opponent in this threatened area that provokes attacks of opportunity."

Is this a way to say it bypasses the normal limit of AoOs allowed in a round? Otherwise I don't understand why this wording is here. Because isn't a threatened area always the area in which you can make attacks of opportunity. I would think it could be referring to the ability to move, but the net sentence in the feat is for that.

Nowhere in the feat description does it state or imply that you are allowed to take MORE attacks of opportunity than you are normally allowed.

The limit on AoOs (1 per round, plus more for Combat Reflexes, barbarian rage powers or other effects that give you more) is in the Core Rulebook and is a baseline feature of the rules for attacks of opportunity.

Even within those rules, you can take attacks of opportunity against (for instance) any opponent in your threatened area that casts a spell. This does not mean that you can take unlimited attacks of opportunity if multiple creatures in your threatened area cast spells in the same round.

TL;DR - You get as many AoOs as you get, and then you're done. Combat Patrol is also limited by your speed, in that once you have used up your speed in movement you can't move any more to take AoOs even if people are provoking within your expanded threatened area.

Thank you. That it's a baseline rule is what was confusing me. I didn't see why it was pointed out unless it was intended to change something.

Nope. The wording is there to justify you being able to move up to your speed before making the attack. It would have to specifically say the normal limit is ignored in order for it to work that way.

That's what I feel like it's trying to say, but could you explain how it says that? I just don't read it that way, and that's also what the very next sentence clarifies.

So I had a question about the wording of Combat Patrol. I notice that it says:

"you may make attacks of opportunity against any opponent in this threatened area that provokes attacks of opportunity."

Is this a way to say it bypasses the normal limit of AoOs allowed in a round? Otherwise I don't understand why this wording is here. Because isn't a threatened area always the area in which you can make attacks of opportunity. I would think it could be referring to the ability to move, but the net sentence in the feat is for that.

Every class that casts spells has the following class feature:

Quote:

spells

With a variation of the following text under it:

Quote:

A ____ casts _____ spells drawn from the _____ spell list. (He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time.) OR (A ____ must choose and prepare her spells in advance.)

To prepare or cast a spell, a ______ must have a ______ score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a ______’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the cleric’s _____ modifier.

There is usually extra text with it about some specifics but if you don't have that or an ability that specifically states, "You cast spells as a _________ of _________ caster level" you are not a spell caster.

I'm sorry, did you read the actual post, or just the topic?

I'm interested in taking preferred spell for a spell before I could prepare that spell as a wizard, to save feats. Since I could use a scroll or other item with the spell and it is a wizard spell, is that sufficient?

Basically, is that the spell is on the wizard spell list what "ability to cast" means or does it require the ability to do it at the moment of taking the feat? Would being a high enough level to cast it but not having it in your spellbook stop you?