i think it's nearly impossible to do that early on. What you basicly need to do, is to one-shot someone that didnt notice you before he can act.
Obviously in later levels with all sorts of magic trickery (silence, invisibility etc) there are many ways.
Pulling that off early in the game could work with a mate that invested in grappling.
You must get to the enemy unnoticed. Invisibility will do, or good stealth checks if its at least lowlight.
supriseround your mate starts the grapple, you aid him to make it sure.
first round of combat you need to win the initiative. If you win your mate pins him and you go for coup de grace. That will most likely one-shot any foe that you encounter in such a situation.
It kinda depends on when your GM allows people to speak, since speaking is a free action that you can do out of order. If he agrees that one can only start speaking when it was his turn and is not flat footed anymore, then this will work out i guess.
Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?
If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.
the great axe is a two-handed weapon but you treat it as being one-handed because of your size compared to the weapons sice. Its not exactly a feat or a special ability like in the question, but honestly the result should be the same.
Its obviously not intended, except for two handed weapons for your size, that can be wielded in one hand such as a lance while mounted.
I dont know the barbarian build you refer to, but there is a "titan mauler" archetype that allows to wield two-handed-weapons of a size category larger then you. But you still wield them as two handed weapon.
the other ability allows him to wield two-handed weapons of his size as one-handed and it explicitly states that its treated as one-handed for things like strength mod and power attack.
So all in all: i´d say no. you treat that thing as one handed weapon in every way, even though its two handed if wielded by a creature of the apropiate size.
i´ve got a Problem understanding the ability to teach my AC skirmisher tricks.
The Sacred Huntsmaster (INQ archetype, advanced classguide) provides an AC that works, like the Hunters (advanced classguide) works. The hunter is allowed to "teach her companion hunter's tricks from the skirmisher ranger archetype instead of standard tricks".
I dont quite get how this is going to work, because the "hunter tricks" are not actually tricks that the AC can perform. The tricks are tricks that the skirmisher "performs".
So whenever my AC gains a new trick, i can use this "trickslot" to teach her a trick from the skirmishers "hunter tricks" list. But its actually the AC that gets the benefits of the trick, and not myself?
one of the chars in our party died. I´m looking for all ways to reanimate him that require a classlevel of 11 or less or less than 30.000 gold.
So far i came up with:
since im expecting that there is no "raw" answer to my question i put it here already.
My Question is: When reincarnation is cast on a dead PC, would he have to decide whether his soul is willing to return before or after the race is randomly selected?
How do/would you run it? is there perhaps any hint or conclusion you could take from similar spells or mechanics in pathfinder?
My major problem is: depending on the race you get, it could easily screw the players char up big time, or make him go berserc pretty hard. E.g. barbarian getting -4 STR would be pretty much screwed, but a barbarian with +4 STR or sth like 2d8 hit dice would just be a monster.
Also fluff wise, there might be situation that the PC would easily take his live if the race is "bad". E.g. a green-skin hating dwarf being reincarnated into a goblin would probably be willing to commit suicide. however it would be not cool to take the roll, and then if its bad, commit suicide.
All in all hard to handle, looking forward to your opinions.
i ran over an somewhat odd wording, and wanted to hear your oppinion.
the blind fight feat denies the advantages of being invisibal to any opponent attacking me.
Spoiler:
CRB wrote:
An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don’t lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn’t get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible.
so when i walk around, combat breaks out (already acted in that combat, so not flat footed) an invisible character gets no benefits.
what about this:
in combat i get blinded and now suffer from the "blind" condition.
it says: "The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any),"
now i get attacked by someone who is not invisible.
blindfight wont help me out because it only denies the bonuses of being invisible, but not the disadvantages for being blinded, though they are pretty much the same.
in otherwords:
if i cant see somebody because he is invisible, im perfectly fine.
if i cant see somebody because he i am blind, im screwed.
seems weird to me. that wording even applies to the further going blind-fight feats.
i have a small cat as companion, and it may attempt a free trip maneuver any time it hits the bite.
I perform an attack, but i use my CMB instead of my usual attack bonus.
The result is compared to the enemys CMD instead of his armor class.
Though i use my CMB, the combat maneuver section states:
CRB wrote:
[...]make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus"
my cat uses weapon finesse. it says:
CRB wrote:
"you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls"
so by raw i guess my cat may use DEX insted of STR for her Trip-Check, even though it is a combat-maneuver, since it requires an attack roll.
But why the hell does the "agile maneuvers" feat exist? would actually be pretty useless, if indeed all combat maneuvers require an attack roll, in wich case i already use DEX because of weapon finesses.
I guess RAW you are right. Makes no sense to me at all, but thats what house rules are for. The Rule Question is answered with that.
If you are interested, here are some thoughts my GM and i had to that topic.
Talked to my GM and we will just replace the ability. We are kinda sure, that this is RAI.
We did some calculation, and comparing the "normal" way to the "optional way" it would be none of an option to take the alternative.
If you are interested in the comparison
If you take the normal way you gain (assuming you picked weapon finesse):
-2 AC (-2 DEX and growing medium)
-2 AB (growing medium and -2 DEX)
+2 damage each attack (+4 STR)
+1 avarage damage on the bite (d4 to d6)
+0,5 avarage damage on each claw (d2 to d3)
+3 CMB (growing medium and +4 STR)
Sprint special ability
+2 CMD (-2 DEX, but +4 STR and growing medium)
If you take the Option you get:
+2 AC (only if your armor allows DEX-Mod +7)
+2 Reflex save (dex)
+2 to hit (+2 DEX and staying small)
+1 CMD (+2 DEX)
so its very very very much stronger to pick the ordinary way.
the only real benefit on the alternative way would be the AC, but actually it wont matter too much. going the usual way you are at DEX 19 (without the level progression). so you can equip it with a chainshirt.
that puts you to +4 Armorbonus and +4 Dexbonus.
going the alternative way you are at DEX 23. thats only +6. you could pick a leather armor, wich offers another +2 allowing +6 DEX. so overall you are at +8 aswell. no advantage there. perhaps sometime, when you have the money to afford a mithral chainshirt for your pet. Till then its no benefit at all.
so basicly you sacrifice +3 Damage on bite, +2,5 damage on each claw, better CMD and better CMB (important for animals that eventually have trip) only for a little better AB and Reflex save. Should never ever be worth it at all.
Still its arguable if growing from small to medium is an actual benefit. You lose +1 on attack rolls, +1 om armorclass and bonus to other things like stealth.
Seing the ordinary developement on abilities you gain +4/-2/+2 wich overall makes +4, just like pickung the +2/+2 option.
If everything is replaced its basicly never a good idea usong the option, since you loose so much (damage on attacks, special abilities and lets be honest: +4/-2/+2 is stronger than +2/+2 according to the ability-buy sytem in pf).
Its a s*@+load of downsides compared to only switching the ability bonuses between the physical stats.
If you all read it like that, i think im gonna stick to the ordinary way and just buy a dex item. Its never worth giving up everything your animal gains just for the stat-switching
the section "animal choices" (CRB->classes->druid) says:
"Instead of taking the listed benefit at 4th or 7th level, you can instead choose to increase the companion's Dexterity and Constitution by 2."
Does this only refer to the ability modifications, or to all modification.
example:
i have a cat(small) and use this choice at level 4.
My cat would get +2DEX/+2CON instead of +4STR/-2DEX/+2 CON.
But would also remain small sized, keep the lower damage on her bite and claws and wouldn´t it get sprint?
Im pretty confident it only refers to the ability modifications, but the rule isnt 100% clear, as the other changes are generally also "listed benefits".
if have a question regarding how to get along with handle animal.
First lets make sure i got RAW correctly:
Anytime i command my animal companion to perform a trick (like attack, come etc) i have to roll on handle animal?
Seems a little weird to me. Assuming you are a 10th Level Druid, you fought for years with your ac and yet still it has a 5% chance not to listen to simple commands?
Even more weird is: From Level 1 to Level 20, the chance of failure remains the same. On level one you have +8 (1Rank +3 via Class skill +4 via link = +8) so you only fail on a 1. Due to the fact you always fail on a 1, your animal doesnt get any more reliable throughout the entire character development.
Do you all play it like this, our did you houserule anything?
Sorry, OP. You're straight up misreading the rules. Arguing with everyone that responds to your thread won't change that. It's one of the most basic and commonly used rolls in the game.
for sure you noticed i only argued with gauss, as you propably read the thread carefully ;)
thats why you also read, that 10 posts ago i already called that thread done for me. i dont see a point in you post at all. its not on the topic, its not helping anyone and its not even true, so...
i´m well aware now, that 90% of the players say that RAW is what gauss explained, so as gauss mentioned correctly: a discussion about weather it makes sense or not doesnt belong in here. thats why i called that topic closed and thanked him for his opinion and advice.
However if its RAW or not, i discussed it with my group and in another players forum and roughly everyone agreed, that playing it strictly this way is hilarious bullcrap, so we decided to screw RAW and play it pointfully. but that is nothing that belongs here, thats why i called that topic closed that early.
Frankly, knowing type is extremely useful as you will the know all of that types general abilities.
in order to make that statement work, you need to take for granted, that any given character knows the general abilities of magical beasts, a dragons, a plants and so on. Otherwise getting to know the type would not be a useful information at all.
so what you are saying is:
You know e.g. any sort of dragon has an odem, but you don't recognize a a dragon in front of you without hitting the DC on knowledge arcana.
To me that sounds weird and not being intended at all.
Even the chance of not being able to recognize a bear or a dog as an animal is so rediculously weird that its obviously not RAI.
Also giving the INQ a classfeature to use bane on a specific type, but not giving him all knowledges required to identify a given creatures type as classskill can't possibly be intended.
Even on the the skills he has as classskill he will have a hard time keeping them up to a level, where he can reliably use his bane ability. A fighting INQ will have WIS14-16 and INT 7-8 wich means his maximum bonus is level +4 or +5 on a classskill. basic DC is CR + 10 so he will always run with at least a 25% chance of failure in order to use his signature ability.
For me that all points in the direction, that detecting a cretures type cant be at the same DC as getting to know about specific weaknesses.
Gauss wrote:
What you want is not something for the rules forum, it is something for the Advice or PFRPG discussion forum.
You are right, would have probably a better place for it. so to me thats closed here.
I know this oppinion. Also read a thread where a pfs GM had the oppinion that the INQ just knows the Type...
Gauss wrote:
Talk to a scientist sometime, identifying something also identifies what family it is in (ie type). So yes, linguistically it works too.
If a sientists "identifies" a mammoth tree, by saying its a plant he is probably bad. if you meet a biologist that said he sucesfully identified a new species by saying: "thats an animal" he is probably jobless.
Gauss wrote:
Ultimately, you will not get a rules answer that you want here. The rules state you identify it and get a bit of info. What that means to different people is different and there is virtually no guidance in the rules on this.
I dont want a specific answer here. i want to widen my hozizon on this topic, to find a good way to play it. and arguments that ignore any principle of ruleinterpretation are not widen it in any way.
its just bad technique to cut out 8 words of a whole paragraph, and interpret them by ignoring the rest of the paragraph.
so however, thats my last post about the meaning of the word "identify" in the context of the knowledge skill, the game and linguistics.
Here is the analysis of the skill in a spoiler if you are interested.
Spoiler:
The opening sentence. what can u do?: use that skill to identify AND get to know about powers and vulnerabilities
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.
the second sentence: what do you do, and how hard is it?
In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more.
and finally, what is the gameplay effect of using knowledge to identify a creature and their specia abilities:
A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.
you can just cut away the first 8 words of the first sentence "You can use this skill to identify monsters" and then then explain the word "identify" in another way, then the rest of the actual skilldescription does it.
identifying in the sense of that skill means: getting to know useful information about the specific monster.
thats the gameplay effect of rolling knowledge in order to "identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities."
thats one thing. its not: throw knowledge to identify the creature OR his special abilities.
once again. i never questioned that the rules are clear about the dc of identifying something.
but you are neither using the word identify in the sense of language nor int he sense of the game.
Identifiying a creature means:
"that is a bear" or "that is a wolve"
it does not mean: "that is an animaly"
if you go in the forest and identify a tree you dont say:
"yep i have identified it. its a plant"
u say:
"yep i have identified it. its an oak"
identifying means you know what specific creature it is. not what type of creature it is.
i identify a dragon i know: "i have identified it, its a red dragon".
thats how its used in language. i identify the killer by his name, not by knowing he is a humanoid.
even in the context of the pathfinder rules, the word identify is used in a sense, that you know very very specific things. like identifying a longsword as a longsword +2. not identifying a longsword with the result of knowing its a martial weapon.
i dont see this getting any further with us.
if somebody else had something new to the topic, i´d be pretty thankful.
you are relying way to hard on that word. its in the opening sentence, that you can use knowledge to identify a creature. What it means to identify the creature in the context of the skill, is described in the following 3 sentences. in the same paragraph. identifying a creature in the sense of the skill means, that you remember useful information about it. all you rely on is the opening sentence, without setting in into context with the following sentences, that actually explain what it means and how its used.
We are actually talking about the rules.
Sometimes, if its arguable what the rule says and what not, it helps to think what makes sense and what not.
The rules talk about "useful information". So we need to know: What are useful information in the context of a skill, that is available for any given class in pathfinder.
I would highly question, that the creature typ is a "useful information" in the sense of the skill.
the skill is available for any sort of class. the information about the creature type is only useful for the specific class of the inquisitor.
"useful information" for any class are e.g. the special abilities of a creature.
If you say that knowing the type of the creature is a useful information, the skill gets useless for any other class but the inquisitor. At least it would give them "useful information" that are not actually useful for them at all.
how could it be useful for a rogue knowing that the creature is an animal? That won´t help him in any way. the special powers or vulnerabilities would be a useful information for him, just as for any given class.
so you would say other classes get to know about powers or special defenses like damage reduction or supernatural abilities, but the inquisitor only gets to know about the type? Thats a pretty big difference in the quality of information for the same roll, on the same creature depending on what charater class made the roll.
going with your understanding, you would need to define for every class what a "useful information" is, depending on their class abilities.
if you read the full description in the knowledge skill completly it says: "A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster."
so would say "a useful information about a bear is, that its an animal"? probably not.
if i remember a useful information about a bear, because of my knowledge of the nature i wont go like "hey buds, i got something useful here. that guy is an animal!!!".
It would be things like they are afraid of fire or sth like that.
if a skill, thats available for every class gives you "useful information", then these are probably informaton that are useful for any kind of character, not only for an inquisitor.
also: to make a knowledge check in order to get information about a creature you need to know what type it is. if i want to know something about a worg, i need to roll knowledge arcana, since its a magical beast. if i dont know, that its a magical beast before, i cant even roll the correct skill in order to get information.
I´d disagree on that.
Identifying a monster would mean, i know what specific monster it is.
E.G. that gigantic big thing there is a cloud giant.
But only knowing that this gigantic big thing there is a monsterous humandoid would not require a knowledge check.
Also there is no DC for it in the skill description. only a dc to get to know about " their special powers or vulnerabilities."
lets stick with the giant example:
the smalles DC that the knowledge skill describes would be 10 + 11(CR) so 21. since you can not roll knowledge untrained for DC above 10, noone that has 0 ranks in knowledge nature would ever be able to know, that the giant is a monsterous humanoid.
things get even more hilarious on animals: a brown bear is CR5. so lets face it: the DC to identify him would be 5 + 5(CR). so a fighter, who lives in that world, has a 50% chance of not knowing that this guy is actually an animal. really?
Or Skeletal Champion: probably 10 (not very common) + CR2 = 12. So noone without knowledge religion, would be able to know that this walking skelleton is an undead...
i´m pretty confident that cant be intended...
playing like this, the inquisitor would rarely be able to use his bane ability
At Level 5 the Inquisitor gets the "bane" ability. It allows him to imbue the "bane" special ability on one of his weapons.
When he does so, he has to select 1 creature type (or subtype in case he picked humanoid or outsider)
So to use that ability properly, you will somehow need to know, what type the creature you are fighting belongs to.
I thought you would do it with a knowledge check, but in fact, thats not correct.
Knowledge allows you to identify creatures and know about their special powers or vulnerabilities.
So a use of a sucsessful knowledge check would be: i know that worgs that can speak common, and use their voice to trap people.
so it gives very specific information about that creature.
The use would not be: okay, that creature there is a magical beast, or an animal or whatever.
But this would be the only thing i need, to use my bane ability properly.
Can you take it for granted, that a character simply knows, to what type the creatures he meets belong? nothing about the abilities, just about the very type of the creature.
Obviously often this would work out pretty good, allowing every character to know, that a goblin is a humanoid.
Sometimes it seems to be fair to have the character do some sort of check. E.g. for knowing that a Wyvern is actually of the dragon type. Or that this big wolvelike looking thing (worg) is actually a magical beast and not an animal.
Im 99% sure there is no raw solution to this. So i´m also asking for advise or experience how you handle or how you would handle it.
the feat refers to the characterlevel wich is 10.
my character level is 10. im not a fighter with animal ally feat, im a 10th level fighter/Inquisitor with the feat...
so it seems it's kind of an unwritten rule that your animal cant be on a higher druid-level then your character level. im fine with that.
with the sacred-hunter/fighter i could get it up to character-level using the boon companion feat. i can pick 4 levels as fighter and boon companion increases my pets level by 4 to a maximum of my character level.
Still, if somehow possible, i´d like to get it up with an ordinary INQ picking the animal domain. (dont wanna lose judgement due to Sacred Hunter archetype).
that would work out with my first way, but not with boon comapion since i need to get the fighter at least on level 3 for armortraining II (using the "sash of the warchampion")...
got 2 questions about the animal ally feat. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/animal-ally)
1: "must not have an animal companion or mount that advances as an animal companion."
Does that mean i cannot pick that feat if i start level 1 as a druid or knight or sth?
2: If i start my charakter with 5 levels of Fighter, i can pick nature soul level 1 and animal ally level 5. my effective druid level would be 2. (5-3)
Not i go into inquisitor - sacred huntsman (or any other class with full druid level) for the next 5 levels, would my effective druid level be 12?
calculation:
5 levels in INQ-SH would grant me 5 effective hunter levels (=druid levels)
animal ally grants effective druin level 7 (character level 10 - 3) and explicitly says that it stacks with other sources.
isnt it stupid that i must spent full 5 levels of none-animal-companion class? im thinking about fighter / sacred hunter but want my animal companion at full progression. i´d prefer going into the sacred hunter first and dip in the fighter later, but that seems not to work.
after a long break im starting up with pathfinder again. i´m planning to play an inquisitor. I found an old build-concept of mine and used it as basis of planning the char.
coming to the point, i saw that i used the spells divine fevor and divine power. I also read some guides recommending these ones.
i checked the paizo prd and saw that these spells are actually not in the inquisitors spell list.
DP: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/divinePower.html#div ine-power
DF: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/divineFavor.html#div ine-favor
however e.g. on d20pfsrd they are in it:
DF: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/divine-favor
DP: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/divine-power
even in this forum here, there are post that refer to the version where its in the inquisitors list:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ng4x?Divine-Favor#1
did i miss some erata or sth where its added to the inquisitors spell list?
The thing that provokes is moving out of a threatened square?
Did the rider move out of a threatened square? Yes. Did he spend a move action to do so? Doesn't matter.
It does matter, because the rules say you need to take an move Action to provoke AOO, as i cited above.
Claxon wrote:
That's why actions like reposition explicitly tell you that the movement doesn't provoke, because otherwise it would.
not any rule can be taken reversely. there are constitutive and declarative rules (like in laws).
this sentence is declarative. it just repeats a rule given(the rule i cited), to make sure its not forgot.
RAI i´d argue, that the rules try to treat a mounted rider as 1 creature most time. they share the same space, the share the same cover, they threaten the same squares, they both take the AC-Penalty of a Charge etc.
according to this i think RAI its correct that the "mounted rider" provokes 1 AOO in sum, and you can decide if you wanna attack the rider or the Mount. however raw he didnt take a move Action, so he doesnt provoke, see cites above.
But i have to admit, one can read it the way you did, understanding this addon sentence as constitutive. the main reason i feel that i read it right, is the Point, that the General rule calls for an Action to provoke, and that i think provoking 1 AOO together RAI is clear. but your Argument is defenetly reasonable aswell.
Do the rules for antimagic fields talk about modifying weights?
No, the antimagic field stops magical effects from working. like e.g. enlarge Person, even though antimagic field says no word about "enlarge Person.
alexd1976 wrote:
Does the entry for the armor talk about it?
does "enlarge Person" talk about it? no, why would it?
the entry for the armor says its a chainmail. a chainmails weight is 40lbs. the armor has 20 lbs. thats 20 lbs difference. that can be caused by 2 things:
1: magicly, in this case the weight grows in an antimagic field.
2: by material property (like mithral), in this case the weight stays at 20 lbs.
alexd1976 wrote:
No?
no the book is not telling us that the chainmail is made of mithral, wich would explain the weight loss.
so either "Gold and silver" in this armor is much lighter than common Gold or silver, or the weight is changed magicly.
"alexd1976 wrote:
Then don't modify it. It weighs 20 lbs because the book says so.
thats the conclusion, if you think the 50% weight loss is caused by a non Magic effect. so you mean silver and Gold in pathfinder weights about he half of steel.
James Risner wrote:
The weight could be 1 lb with some gold and silver flakes coating a t-shirt.
considering the fact, that its a "chainmail" by the items description, that is wrong.
this is a chainmail:
"UE -> Armor -> Chainmail wrote:
Unlike a chain shirt, which covers only the chest, chainmail protects the wearer with a complete mesh of chain links that cover the torso and arms, and extends below the waist. Multiple interconnected pieces offer additional protection over vital areas. The suit includes gauntlets
doesnt Sound like a t-shirt iwth some metal flakes on it. sounds like a full Body mesh-armor, with additional plates to protect vitals.
Probably a never ending Story.
however, the rules define what a chainmail is.
so this armor is a full-body armor (Standard weight 40 lbs).
the rules introduce a Special material to us wich reduces the weight of an item by 50%. The material is called mithral.
this armor is NOT made of mithral, as we know its made of silver and Gold.
if you dont try to argue that Gold and silver is so much lighter than steel -> the weightloss can only be explained by Magic. wich doesnt work in an antimagic field, so it gets heavier.
if you think Gold and silver weights about the half of steel -> fine, then the 20lbs are generated by the material Gold and silver, and it wont Change in an antimagic field.
still not a gamebreaker, any GM can find a respectable decision, however just saying "its 20lbs because its 20lbs" is not an Argument and not a Response to any Argument given.
saying its weight is not Magic based, because there is no spell, is just as much of an Argument as saying its Magic based, because there is no Special material, that would grant the benefits.
what do we know: its a chainmail made of Gold and silver. Gold and silver are not half as heavy as steel. thats a fact.
now you can decide what seems more legit:
In a Fantasy world a specific Magic item gets lighter then it should be by the material, because of its Magic, even though there is no specific spell, that grants this benefits,
or:
Gold and silver have a defined weight in this Fantasy world, but THIS Gold and silver is somehow lighter because its Special Gold and silver... but still Gold and silver.
or you say, every property from an item, that is granted by its Magic, Needs to be in a spell, that is required to craft it:
some examples for items, that have other properties then the spells required to craft them grant:
Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier: +1 luck Bonus on AC.
Cape, Highwayman’s: where does the Bonus on skills come from? no such spell required.
Cloak of Arachnida: luck Bonus on fortitude rolls. no such spell there aswell.
there are many many more items, that grant benefits, that are not from the spells that are required to craft them. endless examples. i just picked These items randomly from the list, i didnt even know 2 of these before.
is it so hard to believe, that the weight Bonus is magical aswell, especially, when there is a Special material that would grant the benefit, but the item is explicitly NOT made of this material?
i´d say if you read a Magic item and there is not a clear, non-magical Explanation for its properties in the items text, the properties are probably magical.
i think that is pretty clear. thats why you use readied Actions vs charging Mounts.
only moving out provokes, there is no exception for creatures with a size > 1 square. so they dont provoke it a part of them leaves a threatened square.
Two kinds of Actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
so weather or not you provoke an AAO is decided by the fact if you did take a move Action. the first sentence tells us provoking the AOO requires an Action.
in mounted combat we learn:
Combat -> mounted combat wrote:
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
so the rider does not provoke an AOO. yes he did move out of a threatened square, but he didnt take a move Action, wich is a condition to provoke the AOO.
This is RAW, however it should be considered that the mounted combat is pretty poorly ruled.
Personally i feel, there should be 1 AOO and you can decide if you want to attack the rider or the Mount.
to your specific example:
i dont think there is an AOO at all. I try to "paint the example".
the guy with reach weapon is "O". 1 square.
the mounted rider is "RR". 2x1 squars, if he rides a horse.
threatened square is "T".
other Sqares is "X"
your Situation is (from the side):
OXTXXXXXXRR
now the rider attacks:
ORRXXXX
the rider is in contact but did not yet leave the threatened square, because he is 1x2 squares large. So he doesnt provoke, because he did only enter, not leave a threatened square.
also you would have to pick the two-weapon fighting feat.
during a flurry of blows his attacks are calculated "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat".
but the rules dont say, that he has the feat, or that he fulfills the Prerequisites for a feat with it.
so you would have to pick twf first, and then twd. dont think anyone would do this...
Quote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
To me that overwrites the “normal” feat text that doesn’t allow it to be used with unarmed strikes.
how do you come to this conclusion?
this sentence is a specific rules. it says for the purpose of spells and effect that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons [...]
is the feat an effect that enhances or improves the unarmed strike(wich could be considered a manufactured weapon)?
not at all. it gives you a bonus while u wield 2 weapons, but it doesnt improve the weapons themselves. so TWD is not even in the scope of this rule.
if you pick Two-Weapon fighting and use Monk weapons for the flurry, you can legally use two-weapon defense, but i dont think its worth in any case
The Problem appears many times.
You will find many feats, class-skills etc that use the mechanic of an attack Action. like overhead-chop from the two-handed-fighter archetype.
The fact that while performing e.g. an overhead-chop, you use the same mechanics as the Standard Action "attack(melee)" from the combat section, doesnt make it the same Action.
You could say cleave is a Standard Action, that includes one to two attack Actions.
imagine you hit your first attack using cleave, then you will attempt your second attack. if you say attacking in a cleave is really the Standard Action "attack(melee)" from the combat section (core rule book), you would result in performing two "attack(melee)" Actions, wich would be two Standard Actions. but you have only one.
so as the the FAQ (quoted by campincarl) says: cleave is an own Standard Action.
the "can" doesnt mean you can decide not to cleave after you did the attack. It has another function:
it gives you the Option to stop your cleave, after succesfully hitting your first attack. but you still did a cleave. why would that be usefull:
there are many cases. E.g. Monsters that have some sort of passive after dying (like "exploding sekeletons" that explode after they die).
what could happen:
you face 2 skelettons (you dont know them, so you dont know they can explode).
you move in contact to both of them (move Action).
you call your cleave attempt (Standard Action).
you kill the first skelleton, it explodes and you drop to like 2 HP.
you decide not to continue your cleave, because you dont want to risk dying by the second Explosion.
your turn Ends.
if there was no "can" you would have been forced to perform the attack and eventually die. There could also be NPC interaction that stops you, like somebody telling you not to kill the second one, because he wants to examine him.
i think it is important to split it into base and Bonus damage, because of this:
Quote:
The damage of an alchemist's bomb increases by 1d6 points at every odd-numbered alchemist level (this bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit or by using feats such as Vital Strike).
the scaling 1d6 is a Bonus damage.
saying it is 5d6 + INT at 9th Level(as the Chart says), would lead into the conclusion that a vitalstrike would deald 10d6 + Int.
But correct would be:
1d6 (base)+ 1d6 (Bonus base damage from vital strike) + 4 or 5d6 (Bonus damage depending on the question above) + Int.
its clear that 1d6 is the base damage for all purposes and the scaling part is Bonus, for things such as vital strike.
so you would say we dont Count Level 1 as a odd-numbered Level and say the scaling Bonus damage Begins at level3?
i always thought, that bomb damage is 1d6 per odd-numbered Level. so level1: 1d6
level3: 2d6 etc.
but actually the rules say:
Quote:
On a direct hit, an alchemist's bomb inflicts 1d6 points of fire damage + additional damage equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier.
so "base damage" is 1d6 + INT
Quote:
The damage of an alchemist's bomb increases by 1d6 points at every odd-numbered alchemist Level
as we know the number 1 is odd, so +1d6 at Level 1. That means:
Level1: 1d6 + Int +1d6
Level3: 1d6 + Int +2d6 etc.
that fits to the german rules aswell. In the class Chart from the german rule book at Level 1 its called out: "Bombe +1d6" while in the english Version its called out: "Bombs 1d6" without the "+".
I think the rules are pretty clear, but the Chart is misleading. however im totally not sure now, whats correct.
Any help?
As far as the rules go however it looks like you're all confirming I can threaten to create a flank while still ranged attacking.
thats pretty clear i think. if someone argues, while Shooting you dont use the sling staff as melee weapon, just pick up armor Spikes, or sth like this and you will be fine.
i´d replace coordinated. coordinated gives +2 = +10% hit-Chance.
precise shot negates the -4 so it effectivly gives you +20% hit Chance.
since your AC doesnt benefit from coordinated, its worth swapping.
i wonder on wich Level you took the warpriest.
on 2nd Level the hunter gains either outflank or precise shot for free.
you picked outflank as Bonus teamfeat at Level 6. it seems you forgot to pick the free feat at Level 2 then. (Precise Companion (Ex))
ok first things first:
i like that build, funny idea.
i´d consider picking rapid shot. an additional attack is a huge damage boost. -2 doesnt really hurt you, since you have a ton of bonuses.
i´d consider picking precise shot. if i understand you right, you plan to fight melee with you slingshot. so you will always "shoot into melee" and get -4. that hurts to much. also you Need it for enfilading fire
Edited the rest away,forgot 1 rule, Point 3 is 100% correct.
+4 for your AC by flank+outflank
+4 on ranged attack for you by coordinated shot (+2) and enfilading fire (+2).
correct.
to calculate your manufactured weapon penalties (such as TWF) you totally ignore that you do additional natural attacks.
to calculate your additional natural attack mods its pretty easy:
Did you perform an attack with a manufactured weapon this round?
1. yes:
All attacks are considered secondard attacks. secondary attacks suffer a -5 Penalty. the multiattack feat reduces it to -2
2. no:
your Primary natural attacks have no Penalty,
your secondary attacks suffer -5. the multiattack feat reduces to it to -2.
some rules to your Hand:
Spoiler:
CRB -> Combat -> Standard Actions -> natural attacks wrote:
Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5.
-------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------
When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks
Except Overrun is a Standard Action to perform, which the text does not supersede it requiring.
Going over it again:
"As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge..."
So, from this, we know Overrun is attempted as a Standard Action, full stop. There's nothing that suggests we can do this for anything less than a Standard Action. Now when can this Standard Action be taken?
This cant be correct i guess.
You say an Overrun is a Standard Action, no matter what. if you do it while charging or if you do it while moving: you must take the Standard Action when you come in contact to the target of the overrun.
so you do:
full Action: Charge
and additional to the FULL Action Charge, you do the Standard Action overrun? sounds kinda impossible to me, except you find a way to gain a Bonus Standard Action.
That's the crux of the argument. You must spend a Standard Action for it. It cannot be substituted for an attack roll. There's no permissive language or text allowing it to conceivably work with a Charge; and there are Combat Maneuvers which do work with a Charge that behave similarly, i.e. Bull Rush.
Overrun is just written poorly; if it was cleaned up and written to actually work, then it wouldn't be so looked down upon. Errata is needed.
so what you mean is that you overrun the target of your Charge, instead of attacking it?
that cant work aswell.
Charge FORBIDS to move any further than the closest square you can attack your target from.
"You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the Opponent"
And it FORBIDS to move after you attacked.
"You must move before your attack, not after."
Overrun Forces you to move when you succeed.
"overrun your target, moving through its square"
so it cant be correct that you replace your attack from the Charge with the overrun attempt, because you Need to move for the overrun after you succeed but Charge does not allow you to move after the attack.
but we know that Charge and overrun must somehow work together:
"As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge.."
if you read this sentence your way (that you are forced to use a Standard Action, no mater what), it just cant work.
we learned that we cant replace the charges attack with an overrun attempt, and we know that we cant do a Standard Action combined with a full Action.
the only way that a overrun and a Charge can work together (wich they have to), is that the overrn is a part of the full-action "Charge", and not an Isolated Standard Action.
EDIT: sorry, i just noticed that im moving hardly off-Topic, this post just got me in tunnelview. stopping it here.
Except Overrun is a Standard Action to perform, which the text does not supersede it requiring.
Going over it again:
"As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge..."
So, from this, we know Overrun is attempted as a Standard Action, full stop. There's nothing that suggests we can do this for anything less than a Standard Action. Now when can this Standard Action be taken?
This cant be correct i guess.
You say an Overrun is a Standard Action, no matter what. if you do it while charging or if you do it while moving: you must take the Standard Action when you come in contact to the target of the overrun.
so you do:
full Action: Charge
and additional to the FULL Action Charge, you do the Standard Action overrun? sounds kinda impossible to me, except you find a way to gain a Bonus Standard Action.
Actually RAW is clear, but in the opposite direction Baumfluch. When a rule tells you an action is "like" something else you default to the rules for that like action except where it states otherwise. If you don't follow that principle you have no way of knowing which aspects are "like" and which are not.
You follow the rules for drinking a potion except where it states otherwise. You get to draw it without taking an additional move action, because it tells you you can. You provoke because it doesn't tell you that you don't.
The rules for drinking a potion supercede the rules for (Su) abilities. (Su) is the general rule, the rule on treating it like a potion is a specific change that arises after the part telling you it is (Su).
cant agree. Never ever ever does alchemy tell you taht extracts are "like" potions . it does say "IN MANY WAYS" they "BEHAVE" the same.
In wich ways specificly Needs to be cleared by the written rule.
And one sentence later the SU explains how drinking an Extract works. and thats NOT the same as drinking a potion, because the rule describes a Standard Action including the act of drawing and drinking.
"in many ways" is not equal "they always behave like potions".
if the more specific rule (alchemy) tells you that you that you draw and drink it in 1 Action, thats NOT the same as potions, because they require 2 Actions for the same acts. so in the manner of how to drink: extracts != potions.
you said "you default to the rules for that like action except where it states otherwise". here is where it states otherwise. 1 Action instead of 2 Actions. 1 Action, cant be the same as 2 Actions. so its an own Action, defined by the alchemy SU.
e.g. in the manner how an extract unfolds its Magic: extract = potion.
in many ways doesnt mean in every way. here it doesnt state otherwise, so its the same.
weather an enemy is allowed to make an AAO depends on the Action YOU take.
you perform an Action that includes drawing and drinking an extract.
This Action CAN NOT be the "drink a potion"-action (wich provokes)since "drink a potion" doesnt include pulling out an item. This should be clear because the acts you do dont fit into this Action. so it needs to be another action. and that can only be the "use SU"-Action, because alchemy is a SU and doesnt tell you that you actually perform another specific action. a SU is a std Action that doesnt provoke unless stated elsewise.
besides that, the argumentation that some potion feats/traits dont work for extracts doesnt fit here. those feats/traits are a more specific rule and have a precise scope: the scope is "potion". Example: accelerated drinker.
Quote:
You may drink a potion as a move action instead of a standard action as long as you start your turn with the potion in your hand.
is an extract a potion? no it isnt. is it in the scope of the trait? no because its not a potion. just like an elixir would also not be in the scope of this trait, because its an elixir and not a potion.
can a drunken master use accelerated drinker for drinking alcohol? no, because alcohol isnt a potion aswell. you have the "fast drinker" feat for that.
if you argue like that you can say "a short bow behaves in many ways as a longbow", so if i have weapon Focus for shortbow, it also works for longbow.
i agree that logically it sounds weird because in both cases you drink a liquid from some sort of a bottle, so it should behave the same. but when the rules say it doesnt -> it doesnt. its and Abstract System.
Alchemist uses the Action: use SU(alchemy).
The SU tells us drinking the Extrakt behaves "in many ways like a spell in potion form". so in what ways?
The setences
"An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell [...]"
clearly refers to the way the Magic is unbound, since it discribes how the spell is dublicated after drinking.
the rules for the act of DRINKING an extract are DIFFERENT compared to potions, as the next sentence Shows.
"An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard Action"
this is a significant difference, because drawing AND drinking ist ONE Standard Action, unlike potions. Drawing a potion is a move Action (Retrieve a stored item), and drinking is a Standard Action(drink a potion).
Already the action sequence isnt the same, so 100% sure you are not performing the action "drink a potion", because this wouldnt include the act of drawing the extract, whilst drinking an Extrakt is a Standard Action that includes the act of drawing it. Extrakts behave in many ways like potions, but not in the way how to use them, since the more specific rule tells us here, that it works different.
therefore you perform: use SU(alchemy). the extrakts way of unbinding ist Magic behaves like a potion, but Action and Action sequence to perform it ARE NOT the same as drinking a potion. Since we now know its the Action "use SU", we know that it doesnt provoke aoo, as long as the SU doesnt say it.
Alchemy doesnt say it provokes, so it doesnt.
You defenetly can argue that this might not be intended, or should be houseruled, but RAW we have a clear Statement wich makes a different between drinking potions and extracts, so you cant argue its the same if its not even the same Actions.
so you would argue the bow in combination with the arrow behaves like 1 magical weapon? and in combination may not exceed +10.
seems legit, but for that Argumentation this
"In my knowledge, you attack with a +5 Holy Flaming Frost Distance arrow, and you have an extra attack from Speed since it is an effect on the weapon and is not carried over to the ammo (witch would be quite usless since you can't attack more than once with said ammo anyway)."
should not work.
either you treat it 1 item, and you cant benifit from more effects then a total +10,
or you treat it as 2 items(bow and ammo, since ammo coutns as weapon) then you should benifit from ALL Special abilities as Long as the single weapon (bow or ammo) is not above +10.
This is an important distinction since ammo are still bound by the rule of maximum +10 total equivalent bonus enchants including the ones eredited from the weapon.
Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: The enhancement Bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies.
so: the enhancement Bonus does no stack.
so obviously i have a +5 enhancement Bonus on attack and damage from the bow, and the +2 enhancement Bonus of the arrows is ignored.
but what about the Special abilities.
my first thought was, only Speed and holy from the bow Count, because they are the highest.
actually there is no rule that says, that the different abilities wouldnt apply all. both ammunition and bow dont have a modified Bonus above 10, and by raw only the enhancement Bonus of the two magic items doesnt stack.
so i attack with:
+5, Speed, holy, flaming, distance and frost?
EDIT: and so not a property of bonded objects in general. It was originally added to the AD so that it was possible to select 2H weapons, because you have to wield the weapon while performing somatics. And wielding a 2H weapon requires 2 hands, so to the clause was needed to enable soomatics.
not needed at all. wielding a two-handed-weapon requires 2 Hands. just Holding it without fighting with it doesn´t require 2 Hands. so you can lose the grip with 1 Hand (free Action). then cast and do stuff with the free Hand, then adjust the grip again (free Action) and at the end of your turn u have it in 2 Hands again and threaten People.
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
This entire question is answered by using a buckler. You just don't get the shield bonus whenever you use your shield hand for something that turn.
using a buckler and use the bucklers Hand to cast would works ofcause, but actually: who wants to lose AC Bonus, if you can find a way without?
Diego wrote:
Using a metamagic rod don't require to wield it as a weapon, so you can use one in your buckler hand and still benefit for the buckler bonus to AC.
i dont see the point there.
If you go
left Hand: buckler and rod
right Hand: your weapon
its perfectly the same as using a light shield? 1 Hand has the rod, other needs to be free, so you need to get rid of the weapon, so you need to somehow drop and retake it?!
chess wrote:
By using the rod as a weapon you still hold it in your shield hand when you cast, just like any other weapon, and then switch it back to main hand when attacking to attack with it. This way you don't have to drop any weapons when you want to cast again.
that makes sence.
But just as ascalaphus i highly question rods being treated as weapons to in order to enhance them. it starts with the masterwork. you need to make the rod a masterwork weapon before you can enhance it. how?
however i think there is no RAW answer, so this is a slightly better solution then the weaponcord (wich would be 100% fine RAW) since you need a free-action, not a move-action, to bring your "weapon"(alias rod) back to the main Hand.
thanks.
i knew the PowerAttack FAQ. so i thought raw you wouldnt get 1,5ST but if they even FAQ the Lance get 1,5PA it should apply on ST aswell.
getting 1,5x PA and 1,0ST is kinda weird.
a short one:
Lance while mounted can be wielded one handed. Still it gets 1,5 powerattack damage.
Does it still get 1,5 STR-Mod aswell, or does it only get +1 since you wield it with 1 Hand?
use the metamagic rod as your weapon? get a bonded sword?
that doesnt solve the Problem at all.
given the fact you cant perfom somantic components with a Hand that holds the shield, you gain nothing from doing what you said:
you have:
left Hand shield
right Hand rod (also used as weapon)
where is your 3rd Hand for somantic components?
thats why i asked the Initial question. if you can do:
left Hand: shield and rod
right Hand: free to cast, and pull a weapon when melee breaks out,
you can at least cast being Kind of combat, and dont have to pull out all your stuff. actually i think my best solution now is using a weapon cord.
so left Hand is shield and rod and right Hand is weapon with cord.
if you decide to cast mid-combat you can just drop weapon (free), cast (usually Standard) and get weapon back in Hand (move, doesnt provoke).
the Problem is a cleric only becomes really effective in combat, if he is able to cast. otherwise its just a 3/4 gab with poor stats and proficiency. so basicly you need quicken Magic to get enough buffs out and in my experience you rarely have more then 1, Maximum 2 rounds before melee breaks out (if you have melee enemy ofc).
luckily pathfinder has no Problems with carrying stuff 24/7 so at least you can wield your shield with the rod 24/7, cast as much as u can on Encounter and then draw weapon as part of a move Action when melee breaks out. unfortunatly quicken rod is expensiv as hell.
however if there is no rule for it, we have to deal with it, thats the Name of the game.
thx anyways for the answer
anyone a good idea how to cast as melee cleric? :D
basicly i thought you can either run weapon and shield -> no casting except you use metamagic, wich means you Need to decide at the start of the day what spells to improve with "still spell", or use a towhanded.
only viable opportunities i see is to use a 2-handed. so u can changegrip (free Action), cast, and Change grip back.
or use a weaponcord -> drop weapon (free) -> cast (Standard) -> pick weapon again (move).
i feel there has to be a way of, if a priest cant cast in battle, he´s just a bad fighter. did i miss sth here?
