Aris Kosmopoulos's page

Hello,
I am also using the rules considering Wound and vigor and I just entered the forum in order to find the answer in the above question!
Surprisingly no one has answered. Since I cannot offer any official answer I will just describe how I am ruling it in case it helps you in any way.

According to the standard rules you fall unconscious when non lethal damage exceed your current hit points. So IMHO it is not balanced to fall unconscious just when your vigor points become 0 since vigor points are less than the old HP. This would lead to an easier way of making someone falling unconscious.

The way I rule it is that someone also has an extra number of non-lethal hit points to loose until his wound threshold, until he falls unconscious. So for example lets say that you have:

10 Vigor points
20 Wound points
10 wound threshold
20 wound points minus 10 wound threshold => 10 Non-lethal HP

If someone hits you for 11 non-lethal damage you will loose all vigor points and 1 non-lethal hit point.

Balancing considerations:
a) The number of non-lethal HP you have are equal to your wound points minus your wound threshold. In the above example they are 10.
b) You fall unconscious when your Vigor points are 0 AND your non-lethal HP are 0.
c) non-lethal HP return in the same rate/way as Vigor
d) If you receive a critical while your Vigor points are 0 and you non-lethal HP above 0 then you also receive a number of wounds equal to the critical hit modifier. This is the only way to receive wound points by non-lethal damage.

Other example, you have
0 Vigor points
21 Wound points (because of toughness feat level 1)
10 wound threshold => (21 - 10 = 11) Non-lethal HP

Case:
a) You receive 11 non-lethal damage => you loose 11 non-lethal HP and you fall unconscious.
b) You receive 12 non-lethal damage => you loose 11 non-lethal HP and you fall unconscious no extra wound point is received.
c) You receive 10 non-lethal damage from a critical hit with x2 multiplier => you loose 10 non-lethal HP BUT you do NOT fall unconscious and you receive 2 wound points.
d) You receive 20 non-lethal damage from a critical hit with x2 multiplier => you loose 11 non-lethal HP and you fall unconscious and you receive 2 wound points.

At least this works for me, I hope it helps,
Best wishes!

Aris Kosmopoulos wrote:

That's my problem :-) And now add to this that the opponent could also choose a trip CM as an AoP that also provokes an AoP from you So:

.
1) A moves away from B
2) B makes a trip AoP to A
3) A makes a trip AoP to B as a response to the AoP of B
4) now B can make an extra (if he has combat reflexes) AoP and so on
.
The above scenario is ridiculous IMO. So is there any rule that says that an AoP never provokes an AoP?

Well yes they could choose trip but honestly why would they? It doesn't give them anything really. I fully admit to being half asleep here so I might be off by a bit, but attempting to trip you doesn't make a lot of sense. That you are attempting a trip and they get an attack means they know you don't have the feat. If they are a non combatant type (lower BAB) it is more beneficial to them to try and deal damage to you so as to lower your chances of tripping them, win-win for them (damage and likely not tripped). If they are a combat type (high BAB and high damage likely too) they are getting a free hit on you and basically ensuring that the trip attack fails, again win-win for them (lots of damage and very likely not tripped).

While making you prone does have a benefit, they are moving away from you, that benefit is going to be lost for most intents and purposes. Also if they don't have the Improved Trip feat they are giving you a free attack... again losing proposition and all around bad move.

#4 only occurs if B has Greater Trip which allows the person with the feat to make an AoO when they trip someone. Improved Trip doesn't cause someone to provoke attacks when they trip an opponent in PFRPG (it did in 3.5 though if you were used it then). Also, there isn't any "so on" if they have trip, they won't provoke from you as they have the feat. Absolute worse case is it goes back and forth for several attempts as no one has at least Imp Trip - eventually one of you runs out of AoO's. The one with the highest number of AoO's will get...

#4 doesn't need greater trip to happen. The attack that I describe in 4 is an AoO provoked by the AoO of your enemy. It is not the attack of Greater Trip. In my example none of the combatants have feats regarding trip, not even improved trip. The only feat necessary is combat reflexes in order be able to perform more than 1 AoO per turn.

The ridiculous word was used by me in order to describe situations where an AoO is a trigger for another AoO which is a trigger for an other and so on....
As I said above IMO when some provokes an AoO with an action, he should be unable to perform AoOs until the provoking action is over. So while he provokes he should not perform AoO.

WIthout the Combat reflexes feat. You only get one AOP per round

Even with Combat reflexes feat, you only get your dex bonus in AOP. So the chain would be limited to 5 action in most cases, without super dex.

I never said that the chain would be infinite. I agree with you and this is why I also said that the use of Combat Reflexes is necessary. The question is if an AoO can provoke one?

Let me rephrase :

You provoke an AoO when you let down your defense because of an action you took. So when you let your guard down the enemy finds an opportunity to strike. It seems weird that at the same time that you let your guard down and provoke you are still able to threat and perform AoO. Provoke AoO and still be able to perform one seem weird. I always had the idea that when you provoke you do not perform AoO but i there is nothing in the rules to support that.

Imagine A moving without withdraw, he turns his back to an enemy B, B takes the opportunity to strike him with trip CM but A suddenly says oooops you let your guard down B so while I leave I managed to see to you are vulnerable so I attack you. I you were able to perform an AoO you should be also able to not let your guard down, at least IMO.

Am I wrong? Opinions?

Aris Kosmopoulos wrote:

Lets say that someone leaves a square you threaten and provokes an AoO from you. You choose to use the trip CM in order to trip him. BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE improved trip feat.

My question is does your action provokes an AoO from the one that provoked your AoO? Is there generally a chain of AoOs or an AoO does not provoke an AoO?

PFRPG pg. 199 wrote:

Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver.

So you attempt the trip, they smack you deal damage and make it harder for you to trip them. Usually a lose situation as you are less likely to get the trip off (as you don't have the feat and are incurring a possible penalty) and are taking actual damage on top of it.

That's my problem :-) And now add to this that the opponent could also choose a trip CM as an AoP that also provokes an AoP from you So:

1) A moves away from B
2) B makes a trip AoP to A
3) A makes a trip AoP to B as a response to the AoP of B
4) now B can make an extra (if he has combat reflexes) AoP and so on

The above scenario is ridiculous IMO. So is there any rule that says that an AoP never provokes an AoP?

yes, the everlasting question about grapple(checks)

Our monk grappled a kobald shaman to question him. He made his grappleckeck and won.
Next turn he rolls to check if he can maintain the check (with the +5 bonus) and after that he changes the grapple to a pin.

now on the kobald's turn, the DM rolls a natural 20 to get out of the pin. What should happen next?

Does the shaman go back to being grappled or is he free all together.

And now that i think about it, he made another grapple check to get out, should that have been an Escape Artist roll?

1) He is being grappled not free after his natural 20.

In order to understand why 1 is true read the escape artist skill were it clearly states that you do not completely escape after succeeding it during being pinned but instead become grappled. I know the rules about grapple are a complete mess. I hope someday they will decide to answer some questions since this forum is full of flagged posts as F.A.Q. considering grapple, but there are no official answers yet. And yes this is a complain :-(.

Lets say that someone leaves a square you threaten and provokes an AoO from you. You choose to use the trip CM in order to trip him. BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE improved trip feat.

My question is does your action provokes an AoO from the one that provoked your AoO? Is there generally a chain of AoOs or an AoO does not provoke an AoO?

I agree with the request/hope for a pdf version of this.

Graywulfe

pdf +1

Most of players print the character sheets, do not photocopy them from the book.
Furthermore some of us live in countries were paizo products need months to arrive. Please give us the pdf now :-)

I am tired of reading threads regarding grapple. I have also created some of these threads in the past. IT IS CLEAR that grapple rules are UNCLEAR, they require clarification.

I do not think that the problem is in the designers ideas. I believe that the new Combat maneuver system is a beautiful addition to the game and I love it. The problem IMO is in the way the rules were written regarding grapple. They are fuzzy and they give space for many different interpretations. So what I suggest ? I would like an article from the designers (less than a page) that answers all these questions that appear again and again in almost the 5% of the rules forum:

1) Clarification regarding pinned and grappled condition: What exactly they would like it to do. An answer that is compatible with problems regarding skills like escape artist and grapplers that use agile maneuver.

2) Clarification regarding in what situation special bonuses apply especially at CMD during grappling. Need to explain when +2 at CMD from improved grapple applied at CMD and what the the word resist grapple at traits and feats implies?
a)Does it apply always when you oppose a grapple check?
b)Does it apply only when some tries to grapple you and not when he tries to escape from you.
c)What happens in the grey area when he tries to reverse the grapple? Remember that by RAW you fist roll and the decide whether you want to escape or revere the grapple.

3) Grab!
a) Can you grab more than 1 in a round? (all agree that you can sustain only one grapple one the second round since it is a standard action so the problem is for the first round).

b) If during a full attack you grab one and you conduct the grapple normally do you continue with your other attacks? Can you grapple a second one afterwards? Do you have to leave the first one as a free action first to do that or even to attack?

c) Multiple grapplings. How A grabs B and C grabs A exactly works? It is more or less explained by many players but a clear example from the designers wouldn't hurt.

d) Can you generally reverse a grab? Can you reverse a grab that was made with -20 penalty.

Generally if all those situations had specific keyword names and the rules used special keywords when referring to one another things would be much simpler. This is just a suggestion. For example there could be a different keyword for the grappler and the grappled or for the situation were a monster grabs someone normally and another when it grapples someone with a -20.

Please F.A.Q. this post if you feel the same way and would like an official answer too. The more we F.A.Q. the more likely we will receive an answer (or maybe not :-P). Please fill free to add anything that I have missed and you think that should be added. The purpose of this thread is not start a debate of what is wrong or what is right but to request for an official answer all together as one voice.

Aris Kosmopoulos wrote:

IMO a sorcerer with arcane bloodline would mostly benefit from arcane bond by choosing a familiar.

I think it really varies on the player on which is best. Right now I am playing a Sorceror in my groups PF campaign and I chose a bonded item as none of the familiars really perked my interest (never been much of a familiar player, anyways). I decided to go with an amulet as the item and since I am going to be going down the crafting route with my Sorceror, I plan to add a wonderous item ability to it later on. Maybe Natural Armor. Haven’t really decided it yet.

So I know many say the familiar is the best option for the Sorceror, but I feel it really depends on the player.

I did not say the the familiar is the best option, I just said that wizards and sorcerers receive the same gain from the familiar but in the case of bonded item the wizards have a greater gain than the sorcerer. Of course one sorcerer can choose it and benefit from it greatly but since he can choose from a limited amount of spells compared to the wizard he will receive lesser gain. I am not arguing that a sorcerer should always choose the familiar because it is better, I am arguing that the lesser gain comparing to the wizard from the bonded item shouldn't lead to the proposed change in the rules that is proposed by carn. This change would be unbalancing for the game IMO.

I just see it as odd mechanics. You can grab someone easier and it is harder for someone to grab you, but it is just as easy for them to escape you after you have grabbed them?

Doesn't make much sense to me. You are either a better wrestler or you are not. Just my opinion though

Lets say that you have a level 10 human fighter with feats for grapple. Until the alternative racial traits appeared I had the same opinion as you. But now this fighter receives an extra 10 to its CMD if this is true and an extra +2 from improved grapple. I do not think that this was intended. I know that these are 2 different abilities but this made me rethink if paizo wants to mean something different with phrases as whenever an opponent tries to grapple you and resisting. Of course it could just be a bad choice of words and means nothing.

So in the case of human fighter favorite option how would you interpret the rules?

As I read it, trying to break the grapple or escape it is not the same thing as someone trying to grapple you. If he tried to reverse it on you the +2 would apply.

I think that if it was intended to be applied more broadly it would say something like: "You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense on all grapple related checks" rather than using a phrase that distinctly limits the situations it would apply in.

I agree with you and I also rule the same for human fighter favorite option:

But I have no idea of what the majority thinks. More opinions please.

-Yes- upon failing the last save it is permanently petrified as if by the spell (which can be undone by any of the normal methods to restore petrified characters)

If you are in despair and cannot find a spell to solve the problem (turning it back to normal), would you allow to break it down in to pieces (using a maul) in order to kill it and then summon it at have of its hit points?

So the question really is can you kill a petrified creature. If I am a poor peasant and my wife was petrified, can I somehow kill her without the use of magic in order to let her soul rest in the realm of her god/s?

In the last sentence of the feat it says:

"You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to grapple you."

A has improved grapple. A grapples B. B tries to escape with an escape artist check against A's CMD. Is A's CMD increased by 2 from Improved grapple?

I have asked something similar in the past regarding the favorite class options of human fighters in order to resist grapple, but this is a more clear and straight example. By RAW it is not clear but at least I want to know how the majority plays it?

Aris Kosmopoulos wrote:

b) The sleep in shifts. If yes then lets say that we have 4 PCs. If the all guard for two hours at least then in order for all of them to sleep 8 hours they should rest for at least 10 hours all together. Except if you say that 6 hours are enough for a day.

This is how my parties handle it. Sleeping in shifts is safe, and it gets everyone rested. If there's enough of a hurry that shift-sleeping isn't practical, then it's usually enough of a hurry that sleeping at all isn't practical. My current group usually creates overlapping watches to get through the night, so that no one is ever awake alone. Having had to do shift-sleeping in real life (long car trips, and weekend boffer LARPs), having an accountabili-buddy makes a world of difference on the quality of your watch.

Jeremy Puckett

So when sleeping in shifts how much time do you usually demand from the PCs to sleep overall?

IMO you :
1) add or subtract any modifier to your initial speed: for example +30ft ,-20 ft or whatever.
2) Then apply any armor or encumbrance penalties.
3) You multiply the new speed by the multiplier -> 0.5 in the case of exhaustion.

At least this is how we always played and this is how I receive the results that I would expect from the system.

Really now regarding resting we know that the RAW doesn't say a lot of things, but I would really like to know how different groups handle it. Let's set a specific example:

Traveling from town A to town B (distance = 16 hours walking). You initially walk your 8 hours for the day and decide to camp. You have 16hours to make your camp, cook or whatever else and also sleep. The most common question is who will guard for the night (8 hours). So what do you usually do in practice ( I mean during your campaigns not in real life :-)?

a) Everybody sleeps except one who will sleep next day? i have seen this in games. Would you allow it, loosing a night's sleep without any penalties if it is only for 1 night. Not 2 nights consecutive.

b) The sleep in shifts. If yes then lets say that we have 4 PCs. If the all guard for two hours at least then in order for all of them to sleep 8 hours they should rest for at least 10 hours all together. Except if you say that 6 hours are enough for a day.

c) Doing something else?

I would truly like to know how other DMs deal with these things :-P

IMO a sorcerer with arcane bloodline would mostly benefit from arcane bond by choosing a familiar. If however he chose to bond an item, he would only receive an extra slot (that cannot be modified by meta-magic feats) that he could spend for any spells he knows. NOT for spells that he could have chosen to know as you suggest.

I agree that the benefit for a wizard is grater since he has a magic book that tends to be filled with new spells as time passes. But that doesn't mean that it should have an equal benefit for the sorcerer.

So I believe that this ability was mostly created in order to give the opportunity to a sorcerer to have a familiar without multi-classing. It doesn't prohibit you from bonding to an object but your benefit doing that is in inferior to that of a wizards. I repeat the gain is bigger for the wizard not the result is more powerful for him.

This happens very often with feats for example. The gain you receive from the power attack for example as a fighter is usually greater than the one you receive as a wizard/fighter since you will have a lower BAB in the second case. The gain from a choice does not have to be the same in all situations. This is what power players do most of the time. The maximize the gain from each character building choice they make in order to maximize the marginal gain.

What you suggest IMO is very overpowered and I would not allow it even as a house-rule in my sessions. The gain it provided for the sorcerer is much larger than the one received by the wizard. This is a clear indication that it is overpowered. Once per day the sorcerer can choose a spell from all the spells that he could have chosen to know compared to the wizard who must choose it only from the spell in his spell-book.

Aris Kosmopoulos wrote:

Weapons that you are not proficient with and improvised weapons are not the same thing, not even one is a subset of the other.

An improvised weapon is something that it is not designed to be used as a weapon. A fork, a pan, a branch of a tree. Catch Off Guard feat allows you to use these kind of things and the DM is the arbitrary which decides if you can use it and how much damage it does from how looks like. This feat is not designed to never allow you to use anything that can be found in the weapon lists.

Something in a weapon list needs special training in order to use it (spend time using it, balancing it in to your hand,learn the basic moves with it == this is proficiency).

Meh if you are holding a great sword by the blade and using it as a club I could see calling that an improvised weapon.

if you are holding a great sword by the blade then you are not using a great sword. Of course it is an improvised weapon but:

So actually someone using a greatsword that way is not actually using a greatsword in game mechanics. The weapon list describes the statistics of a proper use of the weapon. In the same way I can use my bow as a baseball bat. At that time I am not using the bow described in the book but an improvised weapon that the only similar statistic it has with the bow is its weight.

Considering the question about DR ->

James Jacobs wrote about Rendthat:

Rend adds damage to an attack; it's not an attack in and of itself. Just as power attack won't increase sneak attack damage or constrict damage, it won't increase rend damage (although it DOES increase the damage inflicted by the attacks that are necessary to trigger rend in the first place). Rake attacks ARE attacks, so power attack applies there.

Rend kills enough PCs anyway. There's no need to increase its damage, for the same reason there's no reason to tie a machine gun onto a nuclear bomb!

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/rendPowerAttack&page=1#9

So IMO if rend cannot be increased with power attack is shouldn't also be affected by DR.
If you do not apply DR again to sneak attack you shouldn't also apply again to rend. As James said Rend adds damage to an attack it is not an attack of itself.

You'd choose 1 square of the creature's base as the target and the splash effects around that.

I agree that this is how it should work but this not what the RAW says. Do we all agree that with me and Rathendar? This is how it should work?

Weapons that you are not proficient with and improvised weapons are not the same thing, not even one is a subset of the other.

An improvised weapon is something that it is not designed to be used as a weapon. A fork, a pan, a branch of a tree. Catch Off Guard feat allows you to use these kind of things and the DM is the arbitrary which decides if you can use it and how much damage it does from how looks like. This feat is not designed to never allow you to use anything that can be found in the weapon lists.

Something in a weapon list needs special training in order to use it (spend time using it, balancing it in to your hand,learn the basic moves with it == this is proficiency).

Anyone notice the summoners Eidolon has no limit per round to rending? Or is that every monster that has more than one set of claws...

Rend (Ex)

If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent's body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature's description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus.

I would say that since rend belongs to the universal monster rules it can be used only once per round regardless of who or what has it. In order to bypass this rule an Eidolon should clearly say that it ignores this rule and let it use it X times per round or something. If it doesn't say anything then it obeys the more general universal rules. So it is once per round.

Thanks guys. I also play it full damage as a DM. I see that in the rules is not clear and anyone can argue that by RAW this is not supported, so this is why I asked your opinions.

I more question regarding splash damage weapons. Lets say I throw alchemist fire to a medium (M) size creature. I hit it. I deal splash damage to the adjacent squares. Now the question!

XXX
XMX
XXX

If I throw the splash weapon to a Large creature (L) and hit it, do I deal damage to the all the X squares?

XXXX
XLLX
XLLX
XXXX

And if yes then what about a larger creature? By RAW this would be true but I think that it cannot continue for ever? There should be a limit.

So am I interpreting the RAW wrongly or something need clarification?

Does it deal full damage?
Does it deal full damage + 50%?
Or
Does it deal splash damage + 50%?

By full damage I do not mean maximized dice.

Benefit: When making a charge, you can attempt to overrun one creature in the path of the charge as a free action. If you successfully overrun that creature, you can complete the charge. If the overrun is unsuccessful, the charge ends in the space directly in front of that creature.

hmmmm.. the thing in the way of my charging is usually an ally...

Since both you and the mount are effectively charging i would say as long as either of you have it you're good. If the mount is charging the mount is charging. If the mount is charging you have all the benefits and drawbacks of a charge, one benefit of which would be the ability to use this feat.

Charge Through (Combat)

When someone tries to overrun with his mount an enemy who overruns? He or his mount? Whose CMB do you use for the check? Mounts or riders? This shows who overruns? The way I played it I used the mounts cmb and I demanded from the mount to be able to know improved overrun. I do not if I am right, at least tis is how I understood the RAW but IMO the mount overruns not the rider. So if this is true then the answer to the Charge through question is simple: If the mount overruns the the mount must know the charge through feat in order to use it.

If I am wrong then this means that mount and rider both benefit from feats that affect charge and only one of them is necessary to know the feat in order to use the action while mounted. But if this is true the mount is not a companion how will it gain the feat in order to do so?
This would mean that a normal mount could never learn improved overrun so it would be impossible for a rider to improve overrun with it. So I am confused and I believe to tink that I am wrong and you are right, but I do not know.

An what about trample? Who overruns there you or your mount? Meaning which CMB is lost and who loses the attack? If your mounts looses it then you can still make a normal attack after?

If you try to compare all the archetypes of the fighter class you might notice that they do not follow a very clear and specific pattern. For example some archetypes offer 3 abilities that increase by level while others only 2. Some archetypes offer something at 2nd level others do not. You are right that those two abilities look very similar so they would probably follow the same pattern. But this in not necessary. For example someone like the designer could argue that one of the abilities that a free hand fighter gains at later levels is stronger than the one of the archer. So in order to balance it the fighter's Singleton does not increase while expert archer does. This could be another explanation so it is not 100% that we are talking about a typo.

Personally comparing Timely Tip and Safe shot (9th level abilities) I can not say that I believe that one hand fighter's ability is better in order to no not receive a +1 damage and to hit, but that again is my opinion.

One advantage that I can see considering the singleton ability is that it applies in many weapons comparing the normal weapon training and to expert archer that applies only to bows. So in that way the expert archer ability is a restriction of the general weapon training so it should be at least of the same power of the weapon training ability. On the other hand the singleton ability allows the fighter to apply the bonus to a larger collection of weapons comparing to a single weapon group offered by the weapon training ability.
.

In each thread there is a button that we sometimes use in order to flag a post as F.A.Q.
Is there a link/place/pdf that all these questions are gathered and answers received. Until now I have only seen the faq section in each product which rarely changes and has more or less 10 question-answers. So were do we expect to see an answer?

Aris Kosmopoulos wrote:

There are also some spells that buff only the caster like Bomber’s Eye and have a duration 1 round per level. So if you are level one and you cast it, it is useless since it would buff your standard action to throw which is already spent to cast the spell :-)

Is this also a mistake in your opinion?

In the case of one round per level spells, the spell can be used for your next action.

You spend an action casting the spell. At the end of your action your bonus is now available. So it only makes sense that the spell's duration lasts until the end of your next action (meaning you have exactly one action to use the spell). Look at it mathematically. Let's say your initiative is 10 and you cast a spell, and the end of your round 10.9, your spell goes off. If the duration of the spell doesn't last through 10.9 of the next round (i.e. after you've used all your next action), then the full duration didn't occur.

I understand what are you saying but for some reason I had the impression that in dnd rules for simplicity durations end at the beginning of your round. I do not know why and probably it is a wrong impression :-(

Thanks, if what are you saying is true then it solves some similar problems.

There are also some spells that buff only the caster like Bomber’s Eye and have a duration 1 round per level. So if you are level one and you cast it, it is useless since it would buff your standard action to throw which is already spent to cast the spell :-)

Is this also a mistake in your opinion?

Grappled condition (p567):

Grappler & grappled can do full attack action or move (not displacement) + standard if it is an action which doesn't require 2 hands to perform.

The first round, the grappler has no need to take a standard to maintain its grapple, so it may keep on to strike and grapple and finish its full round attack action with opponents grabbled.
Of course the grappler need tentacles or hands available & free to strike.

If it keep its grapple, it has a penalty of -2 on its attacks. If it release its grapple by free action, it has no more penalty.

But i don't know if the penalties for grapple (-2 attack) stack with the number of grapple you have.
Ex: if monster has already 2 grapples, has it a penalty of -2 +(-2) =-4 for its 3th attack & grapple???

I believe that it is clear that they do not stuck. The -2 penalty originates from the grappled condition. A condition can be applied only one time, you cannot be stunned and stunned as you cannot be grappled and grappled. So it is clear for me that the -2 does not increase by RAW.

So in your opinion a creature with three available parts of its body that can grab can grab on the first round 3 creatures and w8 for the 2nd round to decide which one of them to sustain. Is this generally acceptable? For example BigNorseWolf said that :
-"normally" creatures can only make one grapple check in a round, not as many as they have limbs. So if the monster chooses to act without the -20 penalty it has to stop attacking and concentrate on the grapple.

What is the right argument for this. For now both of the explanations feel reasonable so I do not know which one is true. I had both of them in my mind before starting the thread and I am still confused.

By the way a grappler without 2 free hands have a -4 to grapple check. Does this apply to grab attacks or not. And how 2 hands free is translated for creatures with tentacles tales mouths and claws. It is a bit fuzzy in those situations.

Sneak attack:
Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he
is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she
can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

It is a precision strike for extra damage. You just choose the right part of the body to maximize destruction. It is strike a vital spot for extra damage not strike a vital spot for extra something.

If you are saying this as a joke then it is really funny as the above ninja :-).

Think of it differently the healer who is also an assassin is ready to touch with his healing hand, but wow he manages to exactly touch the right spot of your wound in order to maximize his spell :-P. Honestly it would be a nice idea for a prestige class that could do this (rogue/priest). I do not know how balanced it would be but as a flavor it would be very funny to play such a character. Oh by the way he should heal you when you haven't notice him to receive the extra healing. He would attack his mates while they were sleeping to heal them. Professor chaos (south park)

Perhaps i have made another mistake for CMD

1) Does flatfooted means you lose dexterity bonus for CMD?

2) the character who pin (i.e the grappler):
p 200 Pin: "...Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC."

Does it means the grappler lose his dexterity bonus for his CMD when he pins an opponent?

If 1) & 2) are ok:
For my Ex:
CMD fighter grappler 23-2 =21
CMD fighter who pin 23 -3 =20
So all the Escape Artist will gain +5% chances of escape "pinned" on my exemple

CMD rogue pinned
Dex 18 Case A.....CMD 17 -4 AC -4 flatfooted= 9 (instead of 13)
Dex 8 Case A.....CMD 12 -4 AC = 8 (no change)

Dex 18 Case B.....CMD 17 -4 AC -4 flatfooted= 9 (instead of 11)
Dex 8 Case B.....CMD 12 -4 AC -2 penalty (-4 Dex)= 6 (no change)

For case C, no change

So

1) a flat-footed yes. BUT a the grappler that pins someone is not flat-footed. it says:

"Pin: You can give your opponent the pinned condition
(see Appendix 2). Despite pinning your opponent, you
still only have the grappled condition, but you lose your
Dexterity bonus to AC."

This is way it says the above and not flat-footed.

2) So the answer is No. The CMD of the fighter does not change and as you can see the desired analogy in your scenarios only remains in plan B. This is how and why I concluded to plan B and why IMO this is the right case. I tried to described all these with words but your analysis with examples helped me even more to show what I mean. Thank you very much.

I see it as pretty common sense if someone is pinned (to the floor, to a wall, or any which way) that another person could come and coup de grace them with a full round action. The idea that you have to cut his/her throat to coup de grace is a misnomer, as long as they can be critted, they can be coup de grace'd, and you can even coup de gras with a ranged weapon if you are adjacent to them. Yes, a pinned creature can try to wriggle out from a pin, but they cannot otherwise move, much at all... remember, they cannot cast spells with a somatic or material component, so the idea that they can possible cover a specific part of their body when you are pinning them is pretty nonsensical. Yes, I agree that this is powerful, maybe too powerful, but I still read this as the rules. I do say that the person pinning cannot perform the coup de grace, as they are actively stopping the pinned character from moving and such, and therefore do not have the ability to take a full round action like coup de grace requires.

I completely disagree. A pinned character has a huge number of penalties to his AC. He receives a -4 to AC class, he is flat-footed and IMO he also has an extra -4 to Dex. So he is VERY vulnerable to the attack of any one, even by a peasant, so this reflects what are you saying that he cannot effectively protect himself. But he is still fighting to escape, he isn't left paralyzed w8 for his death in that way you cannot coup de grace him. Think of it differently with one example:

1) We have a knight with an enchanted Full Plate that is pinned.

2) We have a peasant or even a rogue with common clothes that is pinned.

In reality it is much easier to hit the rogue or peasant while being pinned compared to the full plate knight which has a small amount of vulnerable spots available.

With the rules as they are (not being able to coup de grace him) this fact is reflected well enough. With what you suggest it is equally easy to kill them in the above situation.

Aris Kosmopoulos wrote:

Why in case A and B you give a -4 penalty in escape artist and CMB while being pinned?

Where did it came from. A pinned character has -4 to AC not -4 to its escpale artist or CMB to escape.

+12 escape artist = 5 ranks + 4 bonus dex + 3 class skill bonus

when pinned, character is flatfooted so lose his bonus Dex +4
so
case A:
escape artist pinned = 5 ranks + 0 bonus dex (flatfooted) +3 bonus class skill =+8

case B:
escape artist pinned = 5 ranks + 0 bonus dex (flatfooted) +3 bonus class skill -2 penalty (-4 Dex) =+6

case C:
escape artist pinned = 5 ranks + 0 bonus dex (flatfooted) +3 bonus class skill -5 penalty (Dex of 0) =+3

I flat footed creature only looses his Dex bonus from AC and CMD not generally. And I am sure about this. It was always like this and it will always be like this. There is no reason to apply -4 to escape artist. An as you can clearly see this changes everything in the above analysis. I propose to fix this and analyze it again.

"Flat-Footed

A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Manuever Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.

Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. "

I believe that this rule takes in to account your speed before encumbrance or wearing an armor. When you wear an armor or you have an encumbrance effect you receive check penalties which apply to your Acrobatics check. In that way if a paladin fullplate is already penalized by the huge check penalty of his armor. He shouldn't also be penalized by the reduction of his speed. The effect of the armor to the checks is already applied by the check penalty.

Two creature that initially have different speed are supposed to also have different anatomy. For example longer limbs or something similar. For simplicity and abstraction all these are combined and derive from the base speed of the creature this is maybe why the bonus was called racial. At least this is my opinion.

Why in case A and B you give a -4 penalty in escape artist and CMB while being pinned?
Where did it came from. A pinned character has -4 to AC not -4 to its escpale artist or CMB to escape.

If a player provokes and AoO by moving out of a threatened square can his opponent use a Combat Maneuver like grapple or trip instead of taking a physical attack? Or is the AoO limited to a physical attack only?

Some combat maneuvers require an attack action. Others are in place of a melee attack. When you make an AoO you make a melee attack so you can use in its place CM that require a melee attack. So in your example you can make an AoO trip but not a grapple (grapple demands a standard action)

What is not totally clear for me is that:

The first attacks succeeds. The monster chooses to make a free grapple. It succeeds! (without the -20) Then it doesn't release the victim as a free action (it chose to do so, in order to be sure that it has him) will the rest of the attacks happen or since it hasn't released him the rest of the attacks are lost?

By reading these 2 threads it is not clear for me if the rest of the attacks are lost when:
a) you succeed a grapple check?
b) you succeed a grapple check and do not release as a free action?
c) They are never lost but on the next round you can maintain only one of them of course.

HERE I am always talking about the first round and without receiving the -20 penalty(the monster receives grapple condition normally). It is clear for me the next one.

Thanks in advance!

I totally agree with you. The problem is that not all people think the same so this is why things like this are removed from the rule books. I have played with more than 10 different systems and in no way I can say that d20 focuses on to being realistic but instead in to being fast and enjoyable. So the good news are that this problem can be very easily be fixed by the DM. If you think that +4 is to little in a situation increase it up to +8, use the rules to hit cover or anything else. If you and the players like it then it is perfect. Other people think of it as too much, especially if they are DMing for the first times. So all can be happy the way it is :-)

The real problem would be to had change the rules so much in order to be very difficult for the DM to do changes on the fly like that. This is what I hate in 4th edition. Rules are so tight and specific that suffocate you. PCs must always press the desired button from available ones and the DM only inspects if the players are cheating and also presses some buttons for the monster. Imagine that I bought 13 books of 4th edition in order to understand this. I feel so stupid :-(.

On a related note, if you miss the attack by 4 or less where there's soft cover involved, shouldn't it hit the other creature (if it hits their AC)?

IMO it depends on the DM. If you wish to use the old rules that I have mentioned in the past then YES. The best explanation is that you hit the soft cover creature.

But then you have a problem: what if the AC of the soft-cover creature is grater than the attack?
It probably means (especially if the cover person has dex bonus or dodge bonus) that the arrow didn't hit at all the cover (not even his shield or armor, so no damage involved). Which in turn means that the initial target shouldn't have the +4 to its AC so the initial target is hit normally.

As you can see the more realistic you try to make it the more complicated it becomes. I honestly do no know which is the golden step to stop (balance realism and complexity). This is why I am saying that it is up to the DM and players and the way they like to play.

Unlikely. There is no reason to say "grapple and pin don't stack" doesn't change the penalty to Dex because the only part that could stack is the penalty to Dex. Pinned replaces Grappled.

I disagree with your probability of truth because it is opinion. You believe the designers screwed up one way and I believe they screwed up another.

Of course it is my opinion. I never said that I know the truth, otherwise I wouldn't have filled the forums with questions about grapple but instead make a statement that I know the truth and then share it with you. But for each rule that we debate for there is a number of interpretations that are likely true.

For each one of there is a probability about each one of them to be true. This probability derives from reading the rules, comparing them with all the texts of the books that affect them and by listening different of opinions and evaluating them. So here I just shared my highest probability opinion and the reason why I converge to that. The facts as I see them are:

1) Pinned is globally accepted as problematic and need fixing. I do not say that it is problematic in the minds of the designers. But it is problematic in the way it is written. So IMO it is more probable that here we are not facing a mechanic problem but a description problem. The problem is not what they had in mind but how they wrote it, which leads the players from interpreting the rule differently than the intended one.

2) The main problem of the pinned condition is that flat-footed compared to the -4 Dex penalty of the grappled condition. -4 Dex affects skills and attacks and also affects AC and CMD even if you do not have a bonus to your DEX, it equally affects a 12 DEX PC and a 8 DEX PC. On the other hand we have a more sever condition (pinned) which affects only bonuses to AC (flat footed is the same for AC whether you have 10 DEX or 8 DEX) and doesn't affect skills or attacks or grapple checks of an agile maneuver PC. THIS IS AN ERROR with 99% precent probability IMO and rings a bell inside for the first time I read. I guess the same happened to most of us writing in this forum so lets try to see what was behind the designers mind but was written so purely.

3) To main possibilities IMO:
a) The -4DEX for grappled is an error. It was never intended to affect skills and the CMB of agile maneuver grapplers. It was only aiming to affect Defenses -> -2AC and CMD
b) The pinned condition was purely written and they wanted to keep the -4 to DEX and also apply a -4 to AC and the flat-footed condition.

From those the b is more probable IMO with my mind, WHY?
a) Pinned is generally purely written so the error is more probable there than to the grappled condition which is also newly designed so probably the designers took greater care of it.

I will no argue for example if a pinned character is helpless or not. I know that is not. I will not even ask the designers of their opinion about that because even if the say to me that he is helpless IMO they would be wrong. As a 10 year DM I have a complete awareness where something like that would lead and the results clearly show me that this should never be the inattention of pinned condition in a D20 game. T

b)

I recently read the pinned description of the DM screen. It states that pinned character is as a grappled one with some deferences. So it still has a -4 Dex penalty. THIS IS VERY important IMO. WHY?
i) In DM screen most of conditions are rewritten in order to take lesser space. So this was an opportunity for the designers to rephrase what was on their mind for pinned with lesser words. It is a second chance and it is better written IMO.

ii) The screen came after the core book. So it like a late print for me. This increases a bit the probability for me to be right.

iii) The way is in now described leaves only one inconsistency. That agile maneuvers are penalized compered to the strength ones. This is could be intentional. I am not saying that I agree with it. Only that it is debatable and that it is possible. So this is not a problem of system flaw but a perspective argument which I personally do not care to argue for. If this is what they wanted I am happy with it.

So from all the above IMO again the most probable truth is that the -4 penalty to DEX also affects pinned characters. I am not saying all these to persuade anyone. I am just trying to help everyone take in to account all these facts before shaping his opinion. What I cheerfully expect in return? Similar arguments that I am not aware of and that I didn't notice to shape my opinion. My opinion was not this when I first wrote about this subject, it was shaped by the DM screen and your (plural) opinions. I am not trying to so or convince that I am right. I only search for truth, a balanced and logical way of playing grapple.

Aris Kosmopoulos wrote:

The Soft cover and generally the cover mechanic do not imply that the attacker may shoot the cover by mistake but that it is more difficult to aim since you are trying to find an open spot. So actually the partial cover guy isn't dodging the arrow since the attacker aimed at a clear spot .

If the mechanic were concealment, I would buy this a lot more. Cover means something is physically blocking you. If you are partially behind a fence that can stop arrows, you get cover- if the cover was responsible for the miss, presumably *it* took the hit. Concealment is when there are leaves or what have you.

I guess what I'm saying is, it would be good if there were ways to just "fire at the bad guys" without having to resolve the arrow as if it was you sniping all the time.

I agree that cover means something physically blocking you. We do not disagree with that. What I am saying is that the shooter is not stupid. He aims at the spots of his enemy's body that do not have a cover. This is also clear if you see it from the perspective of the size modifiers and AC. The smaller you are the largest the bonus to your AC? Why? Because you provide less hittable area of your body to your opponents. The same goes with cover. Part of your body is protected by cover, so only the rest is available to be hit. The same goes with improved cover. You are behind an arrowslit, so there is only a small part of your body available to be hit. The shooter aims at that spot but since the available area to be hit is must smaller it is more difficult for him to hit you. He must w8 for the right time that he can see you and aim at this small hole.

In the abstractive system of DND all kinds of protection usually cover some part of your body. So if we are not talking about actions like sunder most of the time cover/armor/shield completely protects whatever is behind it, no matter the material. We are always talking about available spots to be hit and not about how hard the material that protects is. This is why adamantine armor does not increase your AC. The available spots are the same with a normal armor of the same type. It offers instead DR to simulate the effect that the blow hit you but it wasn't to deep because of the greater resistance of the material of the armor.

Another example of what I am saying:

1) A shooter shoots a mage who is behind an Orc. The shooter receives +4 to AC because of the soft cover.
2) Now the shooter shoots a mage who is behind an adamantine golem of the same size as the orc. He also receives a +4 AC. The material doesn't change anything since the shooter aims the clear spots not the golem.

This system deliberately does not take into account the case that the partial cover is hit for simplicity. It only cares if the mage was hit or not, not why? The arrow could have hit the cover if for example the orc raised his hand at the same time the arrow was passing or it could have hit the wall behind the mage. The system does not care about these thing but only about whether the mage was hit by the arrow or not. It is the DM/GM's job to handle, describe or change what happened through narrowing, botches, chance roll or whatever other sick system he is using :-)

Thank you very much both of you :-)

As written, creatures with less than 16 Dex are better off Pinned than Grappled because at that point Flat-Footed is a far less damaging condition than Grappled. As far as escaping and Dex reduction goes.

And since there is no condition or definition of "immobilized" the link to Jason stating a pinned creature is immobilized means nothing.

Cartigan If you look at my last post on this thread you will that probably pinned creatures continue to receive a -4 penalty to Dex class as grappled ones. I know that you will probably say that pinned condition is a more severe one than grappled and that the do not stuck. I have discussed these problems in many threads and I had even started one myself. But after taking into account all the sections regarding grapple and pinned and all the posts of other guys in the thread and finally the DM screen which describes pin as a grappled with the exception of being flat-footed and -4 AC and able only to try to break free or do mental tasks I have concluded that the -4 Dex penalty applies to a pinned one. I am not saying trust me I know the TRUTH. I am just saying that IMO this interpretation has the highest probability of being true.

Of course even if this is the answer to main problems lesser ones remain
1) First an average agile maneuver combatant is less effective in Grapple because of the -4 to Dex also affecting his CMB. It is debatable if this was intentional or not by the game designers and I do not have an answer in that, for now I play it by RAW.

2) Where bonuses to resist grapple apply. This is a major issue since half of the people believe that they apply always to CMD when the opponent makes a check during grapple. While others apply it only when you are the grappled one and you resist your grappler's checks. The first interpretation leads to powerful grapplers that when they manage to grapple someone they have a huge CMD which can only be beaten by a natural 20. So I play it using the second interpretation for now.

I hope this summary helps someone and I hope for official answers.

Ah, m'bad. Charging as a standard is only when you're restricted to a standard.

I need sleep lol

NOOOOOO if you sleep I will loose my main target for my question bombarding storm spell.

The Soft cover and generally the cover mechanic do not imply that the attacker may shoot the cover by mistake but that it is more difficult to aim since you are trying to find an open spot. So actually the partial cover guy isn't dodging the arrow since the attacker aimed at a clear spot .

I believe this because if the cover was actually being hit then we would use the old rules about hitting the soft cover in case of missing because of the +4. These rules do not exist in pathfinder and it is better that the do not IMO, too much trouble for something that can be done by the narrowing of the DM. Of course you could always say that a cover is hit in case of fumble rules or any other sick mechanic of the evil DM, but that's another story :-P.

So by RAW soft cover only provides a +4 bonus. BUT the DM is the final arbitrary not of how much bonus a soft cover provides but of when a cover is categorized as a soft one. So again IMO a DM in certain situations as the one above can rule that the orcs are many and that the available clear spots are less. So increase the penalty from +4 to +5,.. or even +8. This is not against the RAW IMO. You are given the mechanics and the thresholds as a DM (+4 is normal soft cover and +8 is improved cover). You know the limits so the game provides everything you need to know. The DM's job is to now adjust them on the situation.

Umbral Reaver wrote:

No.

Reasoning? Just curious if you have any rules citations that back up your no.

Page 72 of the APG

The choice of the class features happens after the choice of the class. So in order to become 1level fighter / 1level Fighter (Mobile Fighter) you have to choose two times the 1st level of the Fighter class. The choice of the same level of a class is prohibited by the core book. For example you cannot become 1 fighter/ 2 ranger / 1 ranger.

In that way the answer is No.
Best wishes and happy gaming.

Thanks both of you. One last question. Why Tanis do you say that when the rider charges spends a standard action? Isn't that a full-round action? This is why I couldn't understand where the extra standard action where found in order to Overrun with the mount.

First of all thanks for the discussion and of course I will not offend as, I hope none of us will.

I started this thread not complaining that bayonet is broken. I started this thread wondering if I misunderstood its mechanics or didn't notice something. For example before our conversation I wasn't sure if this weapon was intended to prevent you from firing with your crossbow while attached. Now it is clear to me since other people understood the same thing after reading the weapon description.

I agree with all those who say that is nice to have it for fluff and things like this. But this is a rule thread. We all know that you can do many things for fluff but considering the rules there is only one Golden rule for me. Everything has a reason for existing in the rulebook of a game except for fluff. Otherwise you could just add it to the game as fluff as a DM and choose that its mechanics are the same as an other weapon of the book in order to make it balanced.

I agree that in later books of most of the games broken weapons/items/spells appear and this is something that should be avoided in my opinion. In Pathfinder this is something that I haven't noticed yet and I am happy with it.

Tanis regarding question 4. You say it is a Standard action. What do you mean? Which one? The charge or what is left after the charge?

Can you give me a full example of what actions and when the rider and the mount takes when the rider hits with a lance and the mount overruns the target?