Small addendum; I was dumb and suggested you could make a ranged attack as an AoO regularly. You cannot; melee only. Further, the "normal" section of the snap shot feat implies I'm wrong about being able to threaten while wielding a ranged weapon specifically, without mention of being armed.
Snap Shot wrote:
Snap Shot (Combat)
With a ranged weapon, you can take advantage of any opening in your opponent's defenses.
Benefit: While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.
Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with that weapon.
This is the only place I've found this clarification so far, and it's the "normal" section of a feat only. People do it regularly with armor spikes, anyways. Functionally, the feat includes all benefits of being "armed" with a ranged weapon for both offense and defense, and adds the capability of making a ranged attack AoO on top of the normally allowed melee attacks.
While I don't think it detracts from my points made, it was silly of me to overlook, and I mention it now in case someone wants to build further argument on it or is inspired to find other examples.
Thank you, bbangerter and Derklord, sincerely. I really enjoy getting into the gritty details of the rules sometimes. ^_^
bbangerter's response is first, then Derklord following.
bbangerter wrote:
I don't find this particularly relevant as I don't believe there is anything to suggest the defensive side of it is more open ended then the offensive side of it., but we can dig into it.
If I am armed with a dagger, and have my other hand free, and a creature provokes from me, can I
a) attack with the dagger?
b) attack with my unarmed fist?
The ability to make an AoO only with the weapons with which you threaten fulfill the offense part of being armed.
Short answer: All the above as long as you are "Armed". A dagger, an unarmed strike (with or without IUS), or a bow (which also usually provokes an AoO itself- an AoO against your AoO). If the taget's adjacent, basically anything works but a reach weapon, which explicitly can't be used to attack adjacent squares.
So, woopsy from me; In answering Derklord, when I mentioned that I didn't know of any section of the rulebook that talked about being armed vs. unarmed in this way, I overlooked three sections: The Attacks of Opportunity section under Combat, Touch attack spells in Combat, and the Improved Unarmed Strike feat itself.
Fun fact; IUS doesn't say you can make AoOs with unarmed strikes or attacks.. It uses the same language of being "armed" vs "unarmed", and uses the Threatened Squares and "Armed" unarmed attack sections to fill in the rest. Here:
Core Rulebook Quotes:
Improved Unarmed Strike wrote:
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Core Rulebook - Attacks of Opportunity, Combat wrote:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Core Rulebook - Unarmed Attacks, Combat wrote:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
In short, I don't believe anything implies that you don't threaten with an unarmed attack EXCEPT when you're considered 'unarmed' and you cannot make attacks of opportunity in the first place. You can do an AoO with basically anything as long as you're armed. You can "threaten" with anything because the rules only concern themselves with "threatened squares" and who's threatening, not what you're using, as long as you're armed and there isn't a special exception.
Offensively, Ranged weapons would still provoke AoO despite the user being "armed" because there's no exemption made for them like there is for "Armed" unarmed attacks. Objects that you haven't yet wielded as Improvised Weapons are a bit of a gray area when it comes to armedness- after all, what objects can you not try to attack with? - but still, Improvised weapons count as melee attacks under the "Actions in Combat" table, and thus don't provoke AoO when used offensively.
I'll admit, I'm struggling to follow what you mean by the defensive side of AoOs being more 'open ended' than the offensive, but I hope this answer suffices.
Onwards to Derklord.
Derklord wrote:
Not arbitrary at all. If it is ruletext, it has to have an effect on the game, otherwise, it does not fit the definition of rule text. So what does it change?
I like the cut of your jib! ^-^ Lovely examples, thorough walkthrough of the text. I'll be honest, I've never read a debate or clarification anywhere concerning what does and doesn't constitute "ruletext", particularly if an excerpt is "reminder text" or a redundant retelling of the rules. And, I'll be honest, I'd side with the Animal Fury example being ruled as a -5 penalty in Any full attack if one solely considered the RAW, and in need of an errata, although I wouldn't use it that way in a real game.
I'll assume you are correct about "ruletext".
My first and immediate response is that the section is not highlighting instances of unarmed attacks; it is listing instances during which a character is considered "armed". Thus, its usefulness is not contingent on whether the examples given are unarmed attacks. See above in the answer to bbangerter why it's important to note that being armed counts for both offense and defense- particularly for attacks of opportunity.
The section covering touch attack spells also clarifies when you are armed, and when you are not (holding the charge, making a regular unarmed attack) during the attack. That is redundant, and favors your view.
The IUS feat uses the same wording, but does not emphasize that this counts both offensively and defensively. However, as seen above, the feat says you are armed and the Threatened Square subsection under Attacks of Opportunity covers what happens when you're unarmed. You've covered the rest. So, redundant once again.
That leaves natural weapons, and it's interesting.
Core Rulebook Quotes:
Core Rulebook - Holding the Charge, Touch Spells in Combat, Combat wrote:
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.
Core Rulebook - Natural Attacks, Combat wrote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
It's a bit baffling when rereading it, but nothing else suggests you are armed when you have natural weapons, except for the "Armed" unarmed attacks section.
The "Holding the Charge" subsection brings into question whether you normally provoke an attack of opportunity with your unarmed attack or natural weapon. That question is answered in the "Armed" unarmed attacks section; when you have natural physical weapons, you are "armed". I can find nowhere else in the book that considers you "armed" from natural weapons alone, allowing you to make attacks of opportunity while possessing them.
That leaves the "Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense" exerpt. As far as I know, that's covered basically everywhere else with the sole exception of gauntlet attacks or similar unarmed attacks (if any) that aren't unarmed strikes.
... THAT SAID.
Your point is not entirely refuted. Technically speaking, I've found nothing in the equipment or combat sections of the book says a character wielding a manufactured weapon is 'armed', nor an improvised weapon. It's like your bonus feat example; It's kind of assumed that the act of wielding a weapon makes you 'armed', and they make the exception for unarmed attacks alone under its own section. What I've shown is the only instance where it calls into question whether you can normally use natural attacks without provoking; nothing questions whether you provoke with any other kind of melee attack, except for unarmed attacks and certain reach weapons like the whip. I also can't think of any natural weapon that isn't "physical", making that particular word irrelevant. Perhaps an incorporeal one might count?
If you solely want to base your point on whether the section has an effect on the game, it's your own judgement call as to whether it should be assumed that a natural weapon user is assumed to be armed, and whether unarmed attacks are synonymous to unarmed strikes in this instance. I've shown that natural weapons are brought into question once, and answered in that section. I've also shown a few referencial threads and one example in the equipment section in the book that makes 'unarmed attack' a category that unarmed strikes fall into.
I'd love if you showed me something concrete to differentiate between what is 'ruletext' and what is not. It sounds like a rational and good argument; I just haven't found anything in my brief search. If it's included somewhere, and you happen to respond to this thread again, please let me know!
In short, the "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" section is not ruletext, it has literally no effect on the game.
I don't think I can accept that it's not ruletext. That seems like a completely arbitrary judgement. It's not like the 'basic description' of a feat, or the description of a race. It's right there in the combat section of the rulebook amidst rules that are clearly meant to be followed.
Yeah, Catch Off-Guard is the only other scenario that comes to mind that relates to armedness besides this section of the rulebook. However, I haven't found any clear examples where the terms "unarmed attacks" and "unarmed strikes" are used in a way that contradicts one being a subset of the other. They're listed that way in the weapons table.
Derklord wrote:
That is actually a very complicated matter... because a gauntlet isn't actually a weapon. Even if it is, you don't attack with it, and you attack with an unarmed strike, and nothing says you apply the gauntlet's enhancement bonus to the US.
Gauntlets are listed as simple weapons, are a form of unarmed attack. Their description includes the ability to allow unarmed strikes to deal lethal damage, and they are otherwise used for unarmed attacks. Amulet of Mighty Fists would apply to gauntlets. They can be selected for weapon focus, and that applies to their unarmed attacks but Not to unarmed strikes, as you say. In a previous post in the thread, I left 3 links to other threads. It's discussed there.
---
Thank you, bbangerter, for going through a tidy breakdown. This type of answer is exactly what I was looking for. However, I think you've overlooked some crucial sections of the rules.
bbangerter wrote:
These rules only clarify under what conditions an unarmed attack actullay counts as an armed attack. eg. Monk/IUS, touch attack spell, and [attacks with a] creatures natural physical weapons.
Directly following your quoted section, it states "Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)", implying the above exempts one from provoking AoOs as well.
bbangerter wrote:
No mention of unarmed strikes being an option to use in conjunction with their manufactured and natural weapon attacks.
The core rulebook states:
Core Rulebook - under Natural Weapons wrote:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack.
Core Rulebook - under Unarmed Attacks wrote:
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon
...
Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
So, yes, a pedantic reading of the rules allows for unarmed strikes used in conjunction with natural weapons, as long as you can throw a punch, kick, or head butt, and it's a different limb from the natural attack. That's covered. There are probably other guidelines and scenarios not covered explicitly by the rules, but this isn't one of them. Even if you were trying to make a point about picking out selected sections of the text, the effort made to respond is much appreciated.
They are the exact same scenario. They should work the same and they do!
They're similar scenarios. I agree they should work the same way. That's why I pivoted towards natural attacks. They're not the same because one scenario is mentioned in the "Armed" unarmed attacks section, and the other is not, but might be implied due to language surrounding the term "armed".
Basically, if the natural attacks scenario is disproven, that settles the discussion for any kind of "armed".
Sir Longears wrote:
Armed Character/Creature: They have any weapon with them. It could be a dagger, a claw or have the IUS feat. They can make AOOs.
Armed Attack: Making an attack with any weapon. It could be a dagger, a claw or a kick if you have the IUS feat. It doesn't provoke AOOs.
Unarmed Attack Making an attack with anything that is not a weapon. It provokes AOOs.
Agreed on the first two, with a note that an unarmed strike using IUS is simultaneously an unarmed attack and an armed attack. Else, Amulet of Mighty Fists wouldn't apply to it. The feat makes you count as "armed", and the combat section under '"Armed" Unarmed Attacks" makes the attack count as an armed attack, yet it's still listed as an "Armed" unarmed attack.
The last point is also true. However, certain conditions make you count as "armed" for both offensive and defensive purposes, exempting you from provoking AoO.
... Yeah, 'simple and logical' goes out the door quite often when trying to play by the RAW. :P
Real scenario, with players on the table? Coming around, actually. No difference to me between a spiked gauntlet and a blunt one, realistically. Shielded Gauntlet Style feat tree sort of implies you can use gauntlets for Attacks of opportunity, even though the feats don't require IUS. You don't normally threaten with unarmed attacks unless you fall into that subcategory of being also "armed", like with IUS or a held spell. Combat rules around being 'armed' suggests it counts defensively and offensively. The character concept is cool, and allowing blunt gauntlets covers an additional damage type. So, yeah, I'd allow it.
by that i mean its like saying orcs are proficient with torches as weapons since they are "proficient with weapons with orc in their name"
...
and since specific rules over ride general rules in pathfinder you could say the "Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike" over rides the "Counts as armed" general rule (i know "normal" text isnt rule text, just reminder)
They're pretty clearly nested exceptions. Unarmed attacks are "like attacking with a melee weapon, except for" everything in that section. "Armed" unarmed attacks are the exception to the provoking AoO rule. So, yes, the "Armed" unarmed attack section is more specific than the general unarmed attack rules, even when directly referenced by the feat.
Name Violation wrote:
and if an attack isnt a strike against your opponent, what are you doing with it? aggressively caressing them?
Yeah, I fully sympathize with this. It's all a bit pedantic when it comes to unarmed stuff. Regarding gauntlets, there was an FAQ that was supposed to appear nearly a decade ago that seemingly never manifested or I've missed it. Then there were the questions regarding monks and gauntlets, and questions about weapon focus on gauntlets.
I'm glad there's a good amount of agreement between others on what happens in an unarmed strike scenario without IUS. The natural attacks thing still concerns me. I don't see anything directly addressing the highlighted rules.
Combat - Core Rulebook:
SRD wrote:
narmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
I'm not asking for more rhetoric. Let's go with the interpretation put forth by most here; If you're using an unarmed attack without IUS, without delivering a touch attack spell, it counts as regular unarmed attack and not an "Armed" unarmed attack. The gauntlet only modifies the damage dealt. The point has been very clearly made by, at least 3 people here, that it depends on what attack you are using, and not what else you have/are holding. As Name Violation says, "If you aren't attacking with that weapon, it doesn't matter when it comes to that attack. Unarmed is unarmed, and thus provokes."
So, help me out by quoting some rules to refute the following:
Give that attacker a natural weapon, a bite attack specifically. The player then argues that because they have a natural weapon, they don't provoke an AoO with an unarmed attack.
They quote specifically "a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed", and that "being armed counts for both offense and defense."
The rules are right there; They have a natural physical weapon. The rule doesn't say they need to be using said weapon to perform the attack, no matter what sense that makes; They simply count as being armed, and thus their unarmed attacks count as armed attacks as per the rules. You tell them:
Sir Longears wrote:
An armed creature isn't the same as an armed attack. Only armed attacks do not provoke AOOs. If you make an unarmed attack without IUS, you'll provoke AOO no matter what, even if you have a dagger in hand or a bite attack.
...Except it specifically says "Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack", and it lists 'a creature with natural physical weapons' as a prerequisite. They reiterate that it says nowhere they need to be actively using their natural weapons. The only case where that's required is when it comes to delivering touch attacks; Those are explicitly armed attacks, stated elsewhere in the rules, and that's why you can't use 'Amulet of Mighty Fists' or the like to modify them.
If you try the IUS feat...
Improved Unarmed Strike wrote:
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack."
They point out that the wording doesn't suggest they'd provoke an AoO, as their character isn't unarmed. They have a natural weapon. They are making this unarmed attack while having natural weapons, thus it's an "Armed" unarmed attack. They aren't making an unarmed strike with their gauntlet either; The gauntlet attack is an unarmed attack, but not an unarmed strike. (That's a whole debate over several threads, AFAIK the consensus seems to be that that is the case.)
The logic behind natural attacks are exactly the same. Take a bull (stats of an aurochs) as an example: the only attack stated is gore, which is clearly an armed attack. However, a bull could still kick someone with its hind hooves or stomp a fallen character, but these are not armed and would provoke AOOs as normal. Just because a bull has mighty horns, it doesn't mean his hind hooves are any more dangerous.
That's.... huh. Okay, I think that opens up a whole other can of worms. I really thought it was cut and dry when it came to natural attacks.
SRD wrote:
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Natural weapon? No AoO. There's nothing in there that suggests the character/creature needs to be making natural attacks, only that their unarmed attacks are considered "armed". I read one as an umbrella category of the other, the same way unarmed strikes are a kind of unarmed attack. This was only natural, since one could combine unarmed strikes and natural attacks together in one full attack.
When I looked up unarmed attacks previous to this post, there were a bunch of threads discussing the difference between the terms "unarmed attack" and "unarmed strike", especially with regards to monks and whether they could use gauntlets in certain ways, such as by enhancing their unarmed strikes with the gauntlet's materials or special abilities.
So... yeah. When a rogue with Catch Off-Guard attempts to flatfoot someone with a natural attack, they fail because the target is considered armed. If that target punches the rogue in the face for their efforts, that's an "Armed" unarmed attack, even if their natural attack is a bite.
If that's not the way it works, I'm utterly confused.
A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. So attacking an armed foe provokes an AoO. The gauntlet bypasses the -4 for unarmed attack doing lethal damage.
As to whether he threatens it is kinda a pickle and the Spiked Gauntlet description argues "NO" for the regular gauntlet.
AFAIK a weapon in either hand(primary or off) threatens within reach but in this case the two descriptions have the regular gauntlet at a disadvantage.
If they attack with the gauntlet and want the AC bonus it attacks as an off-hand weapon and provokes, otherwise normal and no AC bonus that round and it still provokes.
Sir Longears wrote:
Having the dagger in hand changes nothing for attacks with the gauntlet itself and the fact of threatening an area around you has nothing to do with AOO you provoke. It just let's you make them against others.
SRD wrote:
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
I'd agree with you both in just about any other context of an action that provokes AoO while wielding a weapon. Having a quarterstaff wouldn't prevent a wizard from provoking AoO when casting a spell non-defensively, for example. An unarmed attack is clearly an action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
The reason I saw a gray area in this particular scenario is because of the wording under unarmed attacks; It seems to omit characters that are both armed and making unarmed attacks except for those specifically mentioned as "Armed" unarmed attacks. The section highlighted suggests that being armed includes one in the category of making "armed" unarmed attacks, which don't provoke. A natural weapon puts you into that category whether you use it or not, no?
It's a shame that any other weapon, even spiked gauntlets, is clearly categorized or has wording that makes the point moot, but it's still a relavent question if someone wants to throw a punch or kick a knee in the middle of a swordfight.
In retrospect, I'm perhaps reading too much intention into the rules. Weapon or no, Unarmed attacks provoke AoO, that is the RAW.
Ahoy! Just want to be sure I'm not missing something vital.
So, I have a non-monk character choosing to use the Shielded Gauntlet style feats. They opted to use basic gauntlets, not spiked gauntlets. The character wields a dagger in one hand. They do not have Improved Unarmed Strike.
The character chooses to make an attack with their gauntlet alone.
1) As this is an unarmed attack, do they still provoke AoO? Or, is the fact that they're otherwise holding a dagger (threatening spaces around them with it/considered armed) mean that they don't provoke AoO?
My opinion is that they don't provoke AoO.
It seems if they didn't have the dagger, they'd provoke AoO as it's considered an unarmed attack, and they have nothing equipped to suggest they're armed and threatening. Likewise, it seems they would provoke AoO if their melee weapon of choice was something two-handed or a weapon with reach.
Combat - Core Rulebook:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
-
=
-
2) The character is an Occultist and wishes to know whether to apply Legacy Weapon or Aegis (Effectively a weapon enhancement bonus or armor enhancement bonus) particularly for use with the Shielded Gauntlet Master feat, which uses this enhancement bonus for extra shield AC.
My opinion is that they use the weapon enhancement bonus.
However, I'm unsure if the armor enhancement bonus would work as well with regards to the feat. I'd be lenient and suggest that both work (without stacking), but thought I'd post the question here.
Shielded Gauntlet Master:
Benefit: While using Shield Gauntlet Style, you no longer lose your shield bonus to AC when you attack with your gauntlet (or spiked gauntlet) or use it to hold a weapon. In addition, you add your gauntlet’s enhancement bonus to the shield bonus to AC granted by this feat as if it were a shield enhancement bonus.
So it 100% raw works with hold person. Hold person paralyzes you. The ability specifically calls out "She can attempt to escape even if paralyzed."
The spell does more than just make you paralyzed, though.
Hold Person wrote:
The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown.
Yes, the spell causes its target to be paralyzed. Yes, it allows them the chance to escape in the form of a full-round action included in the spell. However, it also clearly states that the subject "cannot take any actions".
Because it's explicitly stated as one of the effects, by RAW, the subject cannot take any actions in addition to being paralyzed. The spell puts forth a general rule of 'You cannot act', and offers a single exception. You could interpret this as merely summarizing what the paralysis condition already does. Understandable, Fair, it's probably how I'd rule it in an actual game, and I assume that's how you see it. At least I can show that it's debatable based on the RAW.
Edit: I re-evaluate my position and agree that it should that it should work with Hold Person, based on that last segment. Will leave the above up there as it still shows how I reached my previous conclusion, but I still disagree that you would be able to use it under a compulsion that forces you to take additional actions within a turn.
This is merely an Su that has effects similar to a slow spell. By the RAW, I'd say that it does Not, for two reasons.
First, the victim is only slowed as per the slow spell. The victim doesn't 'have any haste effects dispelled' as per the slow spell.
Secondly, if I were to cast Haste on the same victim again, I'd rule that the "Haste counters and dispels slow" clause wouldn't work, as you cannot dispel a supernatural ability. With the tables turned, it wouldn't work.
I think this is a strange case where the two effects are merged.
- The victim is Staggered (Cannot take Full round actions)
- Movement speeds are increased by 30, then halved.
- Bonuses/penalties on attack, AC and reflex saves cancel out.
... The combination is strange and leaning on negative. That said, by GM fiat/houserule, I'd declare that the two merely cancel out until one of their durations expire, or Delay Poison is used.
No, I don't imagine it allows you to take a 'mental' full-round action Besides what your body is already doing. Its effectiveness depends on the compulsion. Seems appropriate for what a single ability can do. Would advise the Slippery Mind advanced talent and a Master's Spy constant Mind Blank and ability to fool the caster into thinking a compulsion worked, if you want to go nearly immune.
I don't think this ability was designed to be strong enough to escape from, say, irresistible dance. That spell explicitly says the target can't do anything but caper and prance. Nor could it help one escape Hideous Laughter or Hold Person. unfortunately. Aside from the full-round actions that those spells already allow their victim, they say the target "can take no actions" and "cannot take any actions" respectively. If it only said you were paralyzed, sure, but the wording is clear.
But, it can probably help you escape from a lesser geas, confusion if you're lucky on the roll, Dominate Person if you have even a moment's respite, or even Modify Memory (Single chance, since the duration is permanent).
What you ought to look out for is whether your rogue is aware of the compulsion or not, and if they're predisposed to or capable of taking that full-round-action.
As a side note, nothing states that a sleeping person is incapable of taking actions; They're merely helpless, and probably lack the awareness to try. Lucid-dream your way out of that Deep Slumber!
The difference is intention. ... I would say yes, the fact you now care about A over B should apply the -4, because you are trying to be sure you hit A.
No doubt, that's the easiest rule of thumb to stick by when you're at the table and need to make a snap decision. Unfortunately, because you wouldn't be able to move through a bugbear's space uncontested, I wager that's against the RAW; They're most definitely, by any stretch of the word, not a 'friendly' character.
That said, I think that's as far as this little topic can be taken. There's not really any other rule in the books that mentions 'friendly characters'; Everywhere else, the words 'Ally' or 'Willing' are used. Allies are used largely for beneficial effects or teamwork feats, too, and almost always selected by the player.
Question; Does damage resisted still count as damage taken? If it does, this spell could be potentially useful. I haven't checked extensively, in either the forums or the FAQs, but the core rulebook seems to suggest some damage is merely ignored by resistance, not that it isn't taken. It's only immunity or damage resisted completely that negates any side effects of an attack.
Core Rulebook wrote:
The numerical part of a creature's damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks.
...
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as
...
Energy Immunity and Vulnerability
A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type.
...
Energy Resistance
A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack, but it does not have total immunity.
But, that's stretching it, and probably has been debated to death or FAQ'd elsewhere.
Nah, the only benefit of this spell is that it doesn't have an upper limit, and hence can be used situationally when you both have the health to tank a lightning strike, and wish to hold a touch attack until an opportune moment.
Come to think of it, I would maybe even rule on a circumstantial bonus to the attack, given that the shooter is in essence taking aim at a Large target.
- I'd do so on the fly during a game but should the players try to replicate the tactic, I'd crunch numbers before implementing it more in depth -
That's setting a dangerous precedent. If you're going to take two creatures together as a "Large" target, you could shoot an arrow into an army and be practically guaranteed to hit Something. Not even touch attacks always hit one in a crowd. Similarly, I wouldn't allow a player to target a 5ft cube (AC 5) on a Gargantuan creature. (Though, that's what the touch AC often is, so -shrug- )
... it wouldn't apply unless you were specifically trying to hit one over the other (thus making the other friendly).
Matthew Downie wrote:
"You can avoid the -4 penalty if you're willing to randomly select who you shoot at with a dice roll."
Neat! Alright. So, you both seem to suggest that if the marksman even remotely prefers aiming at one target over the other, the penalty applies. In AwesomenessDog's case, this applies to scenarios where you don't even know *which* of the targets you'd prefer to hit (Since they would apply it in scenario B with the disguised rogue)
That's certainly clear-cut for the player, though naturally the 50% chance is a houserule and/or GM's fiat.
...So, new scenario for you:
G) A bugbear and a green hag are currently engaged in melee. Equipped with a fancy new Slaying Arrow, I want to hit the stronger hag, and not waste it on the bugbear. Both these creatures would eagerly attack me, if I were to move within range.
Do I take the penalty? ... And if so, why?
Before you answer, consider the other place that a "Friendly Character" is mentioned:
Core Rulebook wrote:
Friend: You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging.
...
Opponent: You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless.
In light of that, look through the scenarios again.
Is there melee happening? Are you using a ranged attack? If yes to both, you suffer a -4 to your attack.
...
If the situation qualifies as melee combat, and you are shooting into it... minus 4 penalty. I am not going to sit here and wait for BS shenanigans about who is friendly to whom.
Core Rulebook wrote:
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
If your target is two size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with, this penalty is reduced to –2. There is no penalty for firing at a creature that is three size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with.
Okay. I might have agreed, but:
- The rules explicitly state the conflict is due to a Friendly character being in the mix. In a clear-cut scenario, like the hate triangle in situation A, there's no issue.
- It's not Just the fact they're engaged in melee. Two medium creatures with exception reach can be engaged in melee at 10ft distance, and there'd be no problem. In theory, those characters are still dancing and parrying as would a duel in close quarters.
- It's not a matter of cover or soft cover. Those rules are covered elsewhere.
...So, yes, you really do need to figure out the "BS shenanigans"
Seems like pathfinder just simplifies the matter of 'not accidentally hitting your friend' by slapping on a flat penalty to your attack, and subsequently puts forth a feat that eliminates the issue that's a must-have for any ranged build.
The caveat in C doesn't make a difference, given the definition of "engaged in melee" that you quoted
...
I'd rule no -4 on A-C and yes on the last three. An ally is an ally, good, sensible or not. And no matter how safe you know your ally is, I imagine your instincts are to not shoot them. Plus, an arrow that finds its mark in your enemy is more useful than one deflected harmlessly by your ally.
Ah, but in C's case, are both the rogue and the bugbear not flat-footed when you've decided to attack? Even though they're most definitely not flat-footed once your arrow flies.. but I imagine flat-footedness and threatened spaces are a whole other can of worms. Anyways, thanks for the response. :)
I tend to go by Matthew Downie's interpretation of:
Matthew Downie wrote:
You only get the penalty if your target is in melee with someone you wouldn't want to risk hitting.
Hence, I'd omit the -4 penalty when it came to the rogue in D, but maybe agree that you'd rather hit the bugbear instead of your monk, even if he's cool with it. Debatable. Such a minor, but distinct difference between D and E .
As for the fighter example:
Maybe he's not good at socializing. That's fine. Everything's solved if You're an aloof murder-hobo.
But the real problem with the entire -4 rule of course is that there are no consequences for missing a target (-4 applied or not). There are no rules that if you miss the first target you have a chance of hitting another nearby target.
Yeah, that's the main issue with the rule in general. I thought this post would just be a fun exercise highlighting this rare little dilemma. Nearly anyone that builds for range has Precise Shot anyways.
Like gnoams, and a few other players I know, I'd house-rule in a chance to hit the wrong target somewhere along the way. My personal approach, though it takes a bit of math, would be to take the d20 used in the attack roll, multiply it by 5, and have that be the % chance you hit the correct target. ( I.E. if I rolled a 15 + modifiers to hit the bugbear, I'd have an 75% chance hit the bugbear and a 25% chance to hit my buddy.) I'd then roll percentile dice.
Key word is 'Friendly' here. I understand perfectly fine that in all the above scenarios, there are melee shenanigans going on (With the possible exception of C, depending on how you interpret it).
But of course, not all of them have a Friendly amidst the combat. And, some do, but for the shooter, they realistically wouldn't be aiming to avoid them.
So, I repeat; in which of these scenarios are you shooting into a melee involving a friendly character? Or, has some FAQ already been answered somewhere to completely ignore the 'friendly character' bit?
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other.
I don't have Precise Shot. But, I do have this snazzy bow and arrow.
Which of the following scenarios, if any, suffer a -4 penalty to attack due to shooting into a melee?
A) Two armed bugbears are currently in melee combat, feuding over who will get to eat me. Neither are my friend. Both would happily kill one another and me. I don't care which I hit.
B) A bugbear and the party rogue, disguised as a bugbear, are in melee combat. The bugbear would attack me, the rogue would not. I can't tell which is which, but happen to select the real bugbear as my target when I attack.
C) A bugbear and a disguised rogue are side by side. Neither are currently in melee, but both are armed and suspicious. Both have a readied action that if anyone attacks, they'll melee one another. I choose to attack, and trigger the readied actions in the process.
D) A bugbear and that one Chaotic-Stupid rogue are engaged in melee combat. The bugbear would attack me, the rogue would remain an ally- probably. No disguises. I don't care which I hit. Seriously; an 'Accident' would be perfectly fine here. Please.
E) A bugbear and the party monk are engaged in melee combat. The bugbear would attack me. The monk would not; He has Deflect Arrows, and sincerely doesn't care if I hit him by accident. I don't care which I hit.
F) A bugbear and a Lawful-Stupid monk are engaged in melee combat. The bugbear would attack me. The monk would not attack me- Unless I miss the bugbear. He has Deflect Arrows, Snatch Arrows, and Throw Back Arrows. If I hit the bugbear, the monk will remain an ally. If I miss, he will be my enemy. If, somehow, he counts as being targeted, he'll throw it right back. In spite of my best interests, I choose to be Chaotic-Stupid and go for it anyways.
Scenarios A through F; Which are fine, and which are friendly?
Bonus Round)
The monk from scenario F and the rogue from scenarios B&C , are in melee combat. The rogue is disguised as the monk, and has betrayed the party. Same rules as F apply for the monk. I attack, and question my life choices and judgement of character.
- Influence is not 'reset' every 24 hours, hence you don't risk going comatose by not meeting your scheduled seance on the exact same hour every day, and you're capable of achieving the stated maximum of 6 influence.
- Influence penalty from LEGENDS work as written. Biggest tradeoff for having 6 points of influence available; Near constant penalty, until you exhaust the influence.
- Influence penalty from the Spirit(Su) class feature is not applied at all. It doesn't make sense flavor-wise if you rule it to apply either way; Either you'd be getting an initiative penalty from having a stronger bond with 'yourself', or you'd be getting a bonus to saving throws against possession when you lose touch with 'yourself'. Skip both.
I like the thought- I was simply hoping there was something in there already. Given there are plenty of other area effects such as walls, a burst centered on self, cones, lines, etc, I was hoping that the issue was already covered somewhere.
You'd think having mastery over the elements meant not accidentally frying your rogue's hide, or magnetizing the fighter... Or freezing yourself solid.
Does a blast with the Cloud, wall, or other form infusion, also damage a kineticist that is caught in its area? Is there a way around it?
I like the idea of using Ride The Blast to appear in the middle of a Blizzard cloud, obscured and dangerous, but I don't want to be buffeted by my own powers!
Perhaps I missed a feat somewhere that acts like the Selective Spell metamagic?
As far as I understand, Using stealth does not guarantee the flat-footed condition, but is a useful tool for initiating that surprise round and first round of combat in your favor. It does not allow you to attack an enemy that's already in combat and strike as if they are flat-footed to you, regardless of whether they were aware of you to start with.
As for the whole of Total Concealment benefits, I'm a tad unclear about that myself. That's what I'm looking up next. At the very least, they'll have trouble targeting you.
Heyo. Asking this because my search-fu has only yielded many older, long threads with regards to attacking from stealth, and I haven't quite found a conclusive statement.
Is attacking from stealth still debated? Does a character that chooses to attack after using stealth (Say using the Hide In Plain Sight ability) get any bonus or deny the opponent their dexterity?
It seems the PRD still has the "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking" quote, but I'm not sure if the 'Breaking Stealth' section is a newer addition or otherwise not present when the above was discussed years ago.
And @James Risner ... Alright. I take it from that answer that any attack that counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming magic damage reduction will thus count as a magical attack.
What counts as a nonmagical attack? What counts as a magical attack? Is an attack that overcomes magic DR automatically considered a magical attack?
Here are some examples I'd like clarified:
A) An attack by a fighter with a +1 longsword
B) A level 4 Monk's unarmed strike (w/ ki pool)
C) A natural attack by a creature w/ DR/magic
D) An attack using the spell Stone Discus
There are also several effects in the game that reference nonmagical attacks, but don't necessarily cause one to become incorporeal. See a Breeze-kissed Sylph , or Subjective Reality from Occult Origins (Though the latter can be debated). This question only exists because most of the above claim to be magical "for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction".
It isn't really specified what they look like from outside and whether an astral traveler could just walk on in into one, it's really the purview of the DM,
..."Extradimensional" or "Nondimensional" should cover that, I would think. Likewise, there would be no overlap, as the demiplane's space is not part of, overlapping, or shared with the plane it's housed in. It has no space within that plane of existence.
the rule is if you have a pole arm, at the end of your turn you decide if you hold it to threaten at reach or if you hold it as an improved club to threaten at close. So what you do on your turn has no bearing on what you're required to do off your turn, unless something lasts longer than just your turn and lasts the entire round.
Hmm....
I suppose I was wrong / not as updated on that as I thought. You're right, you could choose to wield something differently as a free action after your attacks are made.
I withdraw my points and submit my apology. Sorry.
I was struggling to find the relevant one... I feel there's a rule out there, but my search-fu is weak. The closest thing I could find was a similar argument with regards to polearms and spiked gauntlets/armor spikes.
In short, if you used your reach weapon that turn, you could not make an AoO using your armor spikes or spiked gauntlet; You've already chosen the weapon you were using this turn.
I was trying to point out that using a buckler as a weapon would fall under a similar category. Because you've chosen to use it as a weapon, this turn, it's a weapon. It disqualifies the use of precise strike with your falcata. (Though of course you may still AoO with it).
Try looking at the Shielded Gauntlet style feat. It's very similar in nature, and I assume d20pfsrd has managed to copy it precisely (I don't own the book).
Well, I suppose the first thing we can agree upon is that the Forbiddance would not affect other planes of existence. Correct?
I suppose you're right about the Secret Chest thing. However, I'm not seeing at all where you derive your second response from.
The demiplane is extradimensional; It has no dimension- neither volume, nor place, nor the ability to 'see into it'- from another plane. It exists outside of that plane's dimensions, whatever those may be. Whatever dimensions you can assume a traveler to possess in that plane of existence, this demiplane does not possess, so there's no such thing as 'seeing into it' from the Ethreal. The only ways to get a defined opening into the demiplane is through spells like Gate.
I would make the same argument for a demiplane in the Astral, even though the astral is described as having 'motes' to other planes. Whatever you describe this mote to be, the demiplane's does not have any dimension and thus shouldn't be perceivable.
PRD; Wondrous Items, Ultimate Equipment wrote:
Extradimensional Spaces
A number of spells and magic items utilize extradimensional spaces, such as rope trick, bags of holding, handy haversacks, and portable holes. These spells and magic items create a tiny pocket space that does not exist in any dimension. Such items do not function, however, inside another extradimensional space. If placed inside such a space, they cease to function until removed from the extradimensional space. For example, if a bag of holding is brought into a rope trick, the contents of the bag of holding become inaccessible until the bag of holding is taken outside the rope trick. the only exception to this is when a bag of holding and a portable hole interact, forming a rift to the astral plane, as noted in their descriptions.
Odd...I would have ruled it otherwise. Yes, in the core rulebook, it does state clearly that demoralize does not create a stronger fear condition. But would that not be bypassed by the skill unlock, which simply imposes X condition regardless of what their last fear condition (or lack thereof) was? It's not going through a progression like many other fear effects... It's applying that condition. period. And it's specific > general. You've unlocked that capability.
It does not make sense to me that the skill unlock would force you to wait out the 3+ rounds before attempting to frighten again. What if they were shaken due to another source? Would this skill unlock not make the Enforcer feat a liability, if it were ruled that way?
I'd rule that you'd never get more than 1 round of Frightened, naturally, but that each successful demoralize exceeding the DC by 10 Will grant the chance to impose it again (With another Will save).
1) A light source does not permeate into the area of darkness. (It does not illuminate that area)
2) You cannot see a light source through an area of darkness.
It's not a major leap to assume that if you're inside the area, you can't see light outside of it. Look into the rules in the prd for Darkness, and Blymurkla is correct in taking the literal stance that within that darkness, a character without darkvision is effectively blinded
Line of effect is not blocked. Line of sight is blocked, either because you can go the rational way and say 'the combination of these two FAQs suggests that light from an external source does not reach me in this spell area'... Or because you're effectively blinded, as per the environmental rules.
Unfortunately, from what I remember the last time I've seen this come up on the forums, the answer seems to be 'no'. This talent really was intended to be used with the specific mechanic of concealing a hidden weapon via the Sleight of Hand skill.
A spiked gauntlet might work, with GM's interpretation, but is still debatable. Although it's a light weapon and an object you could potentially conceal, attempting to hide a worn spiked gauntlet bypasses the whole standard action to draw it, and thus avoids a lot of the drawback behind this talent. It's also debatable whether you can conceal something you're wearing.
Unarmed strikes are a hard no, unless the GM rules you can use stealth or invisibility to be considered a 'hidden weapon'.
Oh...Then I would think that would be a clear 'no'. There's nothing in the ability's description to suggest the hunter is capable of changing the aspect on himself without sacrificing the duration; You're selecting a new animal focus as a swift action.
The only time that wording is used is for the animal companion, which has a permanent duration, or when your animal companion is dead, in which case yours is permanent. I'd suggest that the word "Change" in the following quote...
PRD wrote:
The hunter can select or change the animal aspects on both herself and her animal companion as part of the same swift action.
I'd wager "Yes" to the first question, but "No" for the second. The reason; They've attacked with a weapon in their other hand (The buckler, specifically). They could, however, make the AoO with their buckler and apply precise strike.
It's a situation too similar to the FAQ for two-handed weapons. You've already decided what you're attacking with that turn, and your buckler has been used as a weapon.
It's a swift action. So, yes, you can change which animal focus you want on your next turn. Of course, you normally can't have more than one active, so it's assumed the previous effect ends. You are wasting whatever time was left in the last minute's duration.
I don't have a rule in front of me to suggest that's how all activated time increments work, but I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find a GM that rules it otherwise.
But I figure, maybe this is one of those times the designers assumed their readers are reasonable, rational humans with experience of the real world. Like the condition Dead not stating that you can't take actions. Maybe the designers intended GMs to use their own judgement on the subject.
+1 to that. The rules are similarly fuzzy when it comes to using the perception skill at a very far range, such as spotting a castle on the horizon, a mountain or even the moon. Instead of adding +528 to the DC per mile, use a GM's judgement.
Of course, if I were GM, I'd probably associate some sort of penalty to literally not being able to see your own hands are. But your target is: Not using stealth, perfectly well lit, and fully visible. Even if your GM were to be a jerk and suggest you can't find your quiver or aim down a crossbow, they definitely do not have concealment towards you.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the question, but I don't imagine Demiplanes actually occupying space on the ethereal plane (and thus not the material plane, either). They're extradimensional spaces. Thus, if a Demiplane has Forbiddance cast on it, that spell's effect occupies that demiplane alone, and not the material or ethereal.
Edit: To clarify, think of a Demiplane with a Gate as any other extradimensional space with a portal, such as the space within a bag of holding, or a mage's magnificent mansion spell. Now, eliminate that entrance. That's your demiplane by default- completely inaccessible except for whatever spell, Gate, or similar effect you use to force a new connection. Until then, nothing from either the material plane or the ethereal plane affects it at all, nor can it affect other planes.
Usually, when such a connection is made, the spell or effect that makes it describes what can and can't pass through. However, I'd still argue that there's no such thing as a bleed-out effect that creeps through a Gate from one plane of existence to the next, especially since a demiplane has no dimension within the ethereal at all.
Since we're likely dealing with a spell similar to Darkness or Deeper Darkness, consider the FAQ...
FAQ wrote:
Darkness: Can a nonmagical light source increase the light level within the area of darkness if the light source is outside the spell's area?
No. Nonmagical light sources do not increase the light level within the spell's area, regardless of whether the light source is in the area or outside the area.
If I interpret correctly, then No, the human would not see outside of the area because light from the torch is incapable of permeating that area. Anything outside the area is just as dark(or dim) to him as the area within.
EDIT: Of course I could be Not a moron, and look at the FAQ Directly Afterwards...
FAQ wrote:
Darkness: Can I see light sources through an area of darkness?
No. If a darkness spell reduces the light in the area to actual darkness (or supernatural darkness, if using a more powerful spell), you can't see through the darkness into what is beyond it.
(Upon being attacked) "Oh, that one's going to cost you an arm and a leg..."
(Upon casting an offensive AoE spell) "Clearance sale! Everything must go!"
(Upon making an overhead strike) "Customer Satisfaction Guillotined!"
(Upon dodging a swing) "Hey! No refunds!"
(To the halfling) "...But you're already half off!"
...You have a paladin that wants to outright kill a creature you've captured? Tisk... Not very paladin-like. Not a good sign. And I'd guess he doesn't have touch of truthtelling prepared, either.
At least the heal skill is useful. Or it would be, if you actually had time to torture. Looks like your only option is to go for old fashioned roleplay, and a few well-placed punches. Best hope your bluff is good... Else you're better off just offering him a quicker and less painful death.
First off, the above posts would normally be correct in any game I've played; When a creature is under threat of death, it's basically the GM's job to know what the enemy has to say or is willing to say before the ax drops. It's fairly strange for a creature to be so reluctant;y tight-lipped up 'till the bitter end, but still willing to answer Specific questions.
So... First major questions for You and the group:
Who has the best Knowledge(arcana), Knowledge(religion) or any other Knowledge or Spellcraft checks?
You should be asking the GM first what you know about:
- Storm Hags
- The Birds
- The Orb
- The use of children (pertaining to either hags' diets OR spells/rituals)
- Covens
- This particular fiend that you're trying to interrogate.
As a general guideline of what to ask your prisoner:
-All your questions made in your first post, worded more or less the same.
-Why do you work for and/or support the storm hag?
-How did you first encounter the hag?
- What is the storm hag's main motive and/or purpose here?
- What exactly happened to the previous adventurers? (As many details as you can on this- it sounds like it might be your GM's main hint.)
To be completely honest, judging by the how the original poster describes it, it sounds like this GM has either assigned the task of 'what to ask' to the players or just doesn't have a clear grasp of what the minion should know. That, or they've just determined ahead of time that this creature would prefer death to confessions.
Granted, when you're dealing with a witch, hag, or whole coven, they likely have access to Reincarnation, raise dead and similar spells. If their minion talks, it could be Animate Dead instead...
Agreed. You've already spent an exploit on the matter... Don't sacrifice an entire class level, putting your spellcasting a whole spell level behind the wizard.
You already have the ability to use metamagic feats as if you were a sorcerer. Look for some other method using feats or other exploits if you want better flexibility or the ability to use them without expending a higher slot. Retrain your school understanding exploit into something else when it becomes a liability.
...Exactly how long are you torturing this guy, and why such a short list of questions? Is this a time sensitive ordeal?
If the GM is being stingy, then it's not likely you're actually going to get anything out of this guy before death. This seems like it will strongly depend on the GM's style.
What skills do you guys possess to help? Heal checks will allow you to properly torture your victim, and intimidation is vital. Alternatively, you could probably come up with some sort of Bluff that involves sparing the creature's life in exchange for information, and possibly 'knocking him out' so that the BBEG is tricked into thinking he was loyal to the end. Or just outright Negotiate for his life via diplomacy.
What level are you guys at, and how likely is it that your GM has fabricated his own custom ritual for this scenario?
You do know that spell-like abilities are defined in several area, right? What does the Magic chapter of that core rulebook say? Because that is where I know it says that spell-like abilities have no components.
No components, BUT definitely some visible magical effects. Just to be clear. You can't use Charm Person like as an SLA completely invisibly... There still exists something clearly magical going on.
I haven't actually Played an occultist yet, but I've been planning one this last week...
Illusion at mid-levels will grant you Shadow Beast, for some decent summons that don't stop at early spell levels. Unfortunately, Conjuration's servitors quickly lose relevance.
Transmutation has Quickness, which is why you'll probably want it at early levels. Being able to touch an ally with a haste spell at level 5 gives you a solid buff for your group's fighter at the same time a wizard would normally get it. With a touch more added defense, at that.
Abjuration as one of your first implements is also useful for providing a Shield to a two-handed (or two-weapon) melee character.
It's not my flavor, but I'm sure many will argue for the Necromancy. Needing only a coin as your implement, and the ability to make a long-lasting servant, will probably serve you well.
As for spells...judge for yourself. Abjuration will likely be taken early for the sole purpose of grabbing Shield for yourself, for some tankiness w/ a bonus to con and Mind Barrier. Conjuration lets you become the team healer, but I recommend it early. Else, its servitors quickly become useless for anything combat related. Transmutation's liberating command is a good one too.
