An eidolon grows an additional head. The eidolon does not gain any additional natural attacks for the additional head, but the additional head does allow the eidolon to take other evolutions that add an additional attack to a head (such as a bite, gore, or breath weapon). This evolution can be selected more than once.
Seems like a pretty clear delimit on the number of times you can take things to me. It's probably designed this way since the first(default) head isn't considered it's own evolution (otherwise an eidolon could "survive without its head" probably, or at least cause questions of the like).
It's unlikely you will get any developer attention since this system is half defunct after the release of the new one.
I don't see any issue with virtual ranks granting bonuses as actual ranks.
Herolab is notoriously wrong for weird interactions and should never be considered an authoritative rule source. Pretty much comes down to ask your GM, but words like 'substitute' are pretty compelling to me.
Fair enough, however, I personally take it as sufficient evidence to understand intent (combined with the interaction of DR with secondary effects), that secondary effects require at least 1 point of damage to get through defenses in order to trigger.
If you absolutely have to have a written rules source on this to prove it, you may be out of luck.
There's an 'or' there, and it's a stretch to claim you 'lose the right' to your sneak attack dice because it's voluntary, you do 'go without', which is the only stipulation of the abilities care about.And again, this assumes the abilities consume sneak dice (they don't say they reduce your pool, you simply voluntarily "go without").
Everyone here is solely arguing RAI (which I do pretty much agree with).
I stand by my statement that the text is ambiguous.
I completely disagree that I have no case.
The benefits section includes a permissive description about what you can do, "forgo X to increase Y", it then includes a mechanics statement about the process, "if X forgone, then Y increased".
The problem as I see it is that people are approaching the text with assumptions and biases as to what it should do based on comparative logic and past experience.
The abilities all clearly state that you gain an effect if you elect to forgo sneak attack. There is nothing that directly indicates the abilities themselves buy that sneak attack damage, nothing at all (it is all implied).
Sure, implicit meaning has value, but it shouldn't have more value than explicit meaning. (<-This statement is not about RAW vs RAI, but a general comment on communications)
You can still full-attack while grappled, so it certainly doesn't reduce the number of actions you can take, ergo it only prevents you from taking any action that allows you to move (or rather those actions automatically fail and are wasted).
The real kicker here is that you said this was a Su ability, so no concentration check and no real way to stop it short of antimagic.(There may be a few extremely specific anti-teleport abilities out there, but a bear is unlikely to have them.)
I think we're finally getting to the crux of why this seems wrong (outside of blatantly doubling+ up on a benefit from a single resource); ie "lose X to gain Y", it is certainly how they read at first blush.
However, that is not how the benefit is mechanically generated, they say "for every X you lose, gain Y" and in the case of Careful injection it is much closer to "for every X you have lost, gain Y".
Further, I don't think this is particularly sketchy logic, it is just a very literal parsing of the language (and this is the rules forum).
To be more specific, the word "to" you are referring to is in the permissive statement (which can give us clues as to intended function), and appears nowhere in the mechanics description.
Quite frankly the real problem here is the word "forgo", because they almost certainly meant "exchange", which forgo is not (you can always forgo your sneak attack, you just won't always gain a benefit).
Simply put, you qualify for the conditions of each mechanic when you forgo, intended or not.
Getting into the weeds:
Poisons are awful, so this particular combo isn't really as bad as it sounds, and requires relatively heavy investment
That's assuming the act of forgoing is per feat. Both interpretations are valid here.
This is especially true in the case of Careful Injection which uses the past tense(it actually looks like the perfect tense to me) of forgo instead of the imperfect(this implies an ongoing action) tense like the others.
RAW, each ability can be read to only care how many dice were forgone rather than having its own greedy hand out waiting for dice.
Well, quite frankly, I'm not even that convinced that Celestial Poisons doesn't apply. It's a Su ability that modifies the application of a poison to a weapon. Contrasted with the Elemental version which happens during creation.
RAI certainly seems to be that no other discoveries outside those the archetype introduces apply, but the wording is extremely strange to me, it would have been easier to say "only the discoveries listed here may modify arcanotoxins" than try to be cute.
See, I tend to agree that what you all say is RAI, but I see nothing RAW that disambiguates the issue.
Each ability is it's own source, and it isn't asking to spend the sneak attack dice in a direct exchange (that part is implied), it is asking you give up the dice. Once the dice are sacrificed, it grants a benefit based on the amount lost.
This is more about it being poorly worded based on some convention set by precedent in some rogue abilities a long time ago(ie "forgo") and then sloppiness not accounting for the potential existence of similar abilities (as demonstrated by the feats that actually do account). The fact that some abilities restrict max DC while others do not typically implies that it is an intentional choice on the part of the author. Very murky here.
It's a pretty stupid rule, but it's there.Given that it's there, does RAI exclude tasty goodies like ?
You are trading alchemist progression to get it, but the interaction with other abilities didn't seem to be considered.Does arcanotoxin only count as/act like a poison in certain contexts? Why wouldn't the author just spell that out instead? It's clearly called out as a poison in the first paragraph.
Additionally, qualifying discoveries as "mundane" is confusing to me, as it implies there are also discoveries that cover more than mundane. Further, I'm confident I could work out something mechanically to use Poison Conversion on something like Cloud Kill (unintended, almost certainly), so does that mean it's exempt now?
So is it RAI to be able to manipulate arcanotoxins with abilities that are not "alchemist discoveries"?
Specifically, I'm going to be asking about features that improve poison DCs, but the discussion shouldn't be limited to that as there are other abilities out there that forgo sneak attack as well(should multiple abilities ever affect the same mechanic as these do poison).
I put forgo in quotes as the meaning seems a bit ambiguous RAW vs RAI...
Additionally, this talent
Accurate Poisoner (Ex) wrote:A rogue with this talent delivers poisons with deadly precision. When the rogue successfully hits an opponent with a poisoned weapon and would deal sneak attack damage, she can forgo the sneak attack damage and increase the poison’s potency. If she does, the poison’s duration increases by 2 (for example, large scorpion venom lasts for 8 rounds instead of 6 rounds, and drow poison lasts for 4 minutes instead of 2 minutes).
Other abilities seemed to keep this potential stacking in mind
So, the question is, RAW what stacks? and RAI what stacks?What is the key language that indicates it must be an X->Y exchange if that is your position?
Does a horse have two natural attacks (bit, hoof) or three natural attacks (1 bite, 2 hoofs)? Also, are the hoof attacks considered secondary if the animal companion is trained for combat, or are they considered primary, like normal combat-trained horses?
Relevant Rules (natural attacks will be parsed for illustration purposes)
Docile (Ex) Unless specifically trained for combat (see the Handle Animal skill, a horse's hooves are treated as secondary attacks.
1. The context of "attacks" almost always refers to 'attacks' rather than 'weapons'.I am fairly confident that this means your horse has 3 attacks.
2. The Docile SQ of the base horse is what overrides this rule.
3. However, your AC no longer uses #2 because it now has more than one type of attack, forcing the hoofs to default back to secondary as per the table.
I hope this was helpful.
Because the summoned monster is the one doing the damage, not the spell.
I find it more accurate to say that it's because the arcana requires casting.
In the case of flame blade and SM, the effect can be argued to be part of spell; but that's irrelevant because their damage isn't directly tied to having cast the spell.
My recollection is that most of the spells this trait was intended to boost (ie. ones that gain a mechanical benefit prior to Occult Adventures) have a ritualistic fluff (ie. take longer than a standard action to cast).
I strongly suspect "use as an additional focus component" also intended that same fluff of sitting down and actually manipulating the deck over the duration of the cast.
Occult Adventures: Psychic Magic wrote:
Focus components work the same way with psychic spells as they do with other spells.
What does the bolded part mean?/How does it function?
At a minimum, I assume it has to be in hand, but is this less exploitable than it seems at first glance? (My point being that the trait was never intended as a more broadly applicable Spell Specialization for blasters)
1. Does the Awesome Blow maneuver granted by Awesome Charge benefit from bonuses to the weapon you are using? (since it is ostensibly the delivery instrument)Awesome Blow doesn't seem to normally utilize a weapon.
2. Do you still get to make the Awesome Blow check if you used a reach weapon to make the charge attack? (ie. your target is outside of your natural reach)
3. Charge attacks may also be a Bull Rush; may you follow your opponent so the Awesome Blow is more effective (knocking them into an obstacle)?
I suspect the answers are
I am most interested in opinions on #2
Diego Rossi wrote:
"having the ghost touch special ability"
Ghost Touch does not change the base nature of the item to which it is applied.
A spectral copy is still incorporeal and may pass through solid matter.
Sandal Fury wrote:
Why bother? Incorporeal creatures have no strength score. Barring swashbucklers, dex-to-damage, etc, they're better off using their touch attack.
This is generally the case, but Conductive can really help this. Coupled with certain abilities like Sneak Attack, multiple attacks (from BAB) end up being more advantageous for a few edge builds.
Also, regardless of dex to damage, incorporeals always use dex to hit.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Classic Horrors Revisited wrote:
Ghost Touch only makes a material object "count as incorporeal", it is still material and must target normal AC. (Additionally, this means such an object cannot pass through solid material like the creature can).
'spectral copies' of weapons cannot affect the material plane without Ghost Touch, but because they then also "count as corporeal" I would not let them target touch AC.
Attacks do not need to have attack rolls
Damage wrote:Damage reduces a target's current hit points.
It's true that "ability damage" is defined in this section, but it is defined separately.
Master of Shadows wrote:
Nah, bleed isn't rolled.
I disagree that this "isn't game breaking" (well, maybe not breaking, but problematic)...
30ft on an optimized Channel Negative Energy is already fairly powerful for a number of reasons (regardless of your opinion on the merits of such a build). 1 ring makes this better than it should for the cost, but 2 starts to get silly since the total area is going up geometrically.
Now, realistically it is taking up the ring slots, but experienced players will still be able to work within that limitation, if only situationally, to optimize performance (especially given how cheap the item is).
I disagree with "all".They defined the term "ranged attack" earlier in the chapter and now want it to include "ranged touch attack" which they defined separately.
Either "ranged touch attack" is a subset of "ranged attacks" and they are all weapons, or they are not, meaning you can't gain cover vs ranged touch attacks. You can't have it both ways.
Wow, this is the crux of the issue.
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
However, Melee Attacks clearly differ from Melee Touch Attacks.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
So the issue is that "melee touch attacks" are not strictly a subset of "melee attacks", yet the vast majority of feats and rules treat "ranged touch attacks" directly as a subset of "ranged attacks". (So this is a problem because they elected to save on word count, but that's something I won't blame them for.)
Chess Pwn wrote:
Well they released the Errata for this right? And it wasn't changed. Make it seem less like a mistake and more like it was intentional now.
This kinda overlooks the sheer volume of errata that was issued for this book and the fact that at least a few items which were thought to be on the list were not addressed (although this part is sadly typical...)I think it's fine to ask for another review because it may not have actually received one (but I also think this thread is close to its diminishing returns threshold in terms of interest regarding FAQ clicks).
RegUS PatOff wrote:
Agreed, nothing about VMC or Command Undead indicates that you stack levels to determine effective cleric level. (and in fact, RAW, Power over Undead doesn't actually grant an effective cleric level for the purposes of CU)
James Risner wrote:
While that is certainly pertinent, RAI is way more obvious there than a stacking of "X in place of Y" and "add X" which is the more common scenario.Do you have any WotC commentary regarding that kind of stacking? (since you're bringing them into the discussion)
Was there a "wisdom to AC in place of dexterity" ability?
I understand, I already addressed this in my first response.A more complete analysis would use item HP and thickness guidelines.
So it appears that steel items have roughly 1/3 more HP than wooden ones. (And I'd argue pretty strenuously that the precise value for light wooden is 7.5)
Given the values above, steel shields should be 4/9 as thick as wooden ones (assuming no other dimension changes).The listed weight values don't back this up however, and would suggest they are much closer to 1/8 the thickness of an equivalent wooden object by simulationist standards, (that or the game world has some very dense wood).
Note: For some reason they halved the weight of wood when applying mithral to this item, it's not unreasonable to houserule it to weigh more because it likely should (metal items may be thinner than wooden ones, but there's a practical limit to that reduction, and comparing the few items that exist with both materials suggests steel increases the weight by ~50%; the 60lbs suggestion seems quite reasonable in this regard)
It sounds a lot more overpowered than it actually is.
Mount lacks some of the restrictive language present in Summon Monster, specifically teleportation and SLA's with costly material components, so there's almost no difference to a called creature in this respect.
Also, Augment Summons is almost guaranteed (which doesn't affect called creatures).
Touching Planar Binding, how often do you allow PCs to gain such service for free?
Ki Pool wrote:
The ki pool is replenished each morning after 8 hours of rest or meditation; these hours do not need to be consecutive.
Ki is only increased otherwise if the ability expressly states it is.Considering Ki needs rest, you would need a permanent Wis increase. But it should temporarily increase the maximum for things like Ki Leech.
However, I'm confused by what you mean "like rage"? Rage increases Con, which provides both (real) hit points and increases any DC's based on Con for the duration. Edit: nvm, I understand what you meant now, but I would not compare it to rage at all
ps. the spell you were looking for is Owl's Wisdom
Treants are indeed creatures, and can be targeted by Animate Dead.
Edit: It's subtle, but I just noticed the current wording on the PRD is different than yours.
This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive. A plant creature has the following features.
When you create a cleric character, decide whether she uses the standard form of channel energy or a variant presented here based on one aspect of her deity's portfolio. Once this choice is made, it cannot be altered.
A character who has the channel energy ability from a class other than cleric may use these variant channeling rules if the class's abilities are tied to serving a deity.
It appears to me that the choice affects all channeling possessed by a creature and that you cannot apply it "per pool".
As a matter of RAI, I would say that "when you create a[n eligible] character" means "when you first acquire the ability to channel energy".
Wizards can prepare "at any time" however, taking a minimum of 15 minutes.
He should be able to prepare spells in his 9th level slots provided the duration of the bonus lasts long enough (it does).
It's a rather obnoxious way to have to do things (because the duration is unlikely to last long enough to also use them in combat). You're probably better off using metamagic, but it's safer just to prepare 8th level spells if you want to avoid all table variation.
Not really, Bestow Curse does not penalize AC to make your subsequent attacks more favorable (unless you pick the ability penalty option), so it's not really an apples to apples comparison regarding prioritization relative to an enemies weakness.
The only case where ToC significantly loses out is when your opponent has excessively high AC for their CR (not just "above average").
Touch AC is irrelevant to the current discussion however, unless you have a way to extend the duration of ToC. If you could reliably target touch AC and also personally make use of it, it's value skyrockets compared to Bestow Curse. (So Quicken SLA?)
A 5ft is a miscellaneous action that can be taken when you don't otherwise move any distance.
I know of no way to reduce maintaining a grapple to a free/swift action in order to enable a full attack during the same round.
However, you can release your current grapple as a free action which should allow you to attack with your hair each round (but this risks missing and/or failing the grapple check).
Alternatively, nothing actually stops you from making a full attack other than automatically ending the grapple when your turn concludes without successfully maintaining it.