Bizbag's page

Organized Play Member. 1,196 posts (1,199 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 1,196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The Crane Riposte feat description there bears no resemblance to the pre-errata version, nor to the FAQ/Update version. Instead, it looks like the errata for Crane Wing has been applied to Crane Riposte instead.

Looks like that is exactly what has happened. The PRD is in error. The errata/FAQs for Wing and Riposte stand; use those.

This is essentially a hat of disguise with a more limited scope; it only affects the item itself, not the wearer, and doesn't offer a skill boost. The spell used to craft it would also be Disguise Self, but it might only cost, say, 600 gold.

2) Make your natural attacks and then with quickdraw take out your weapons and also do your iterative weapon attacks.

The rules state that since your arms/hands already "did something" this round, you could not do this, just like if you were "handing off" the sword to free up your claws.

Wouldn't it be simple just to say that a lance gets double damage on the first attack, but not any subsequent ones? You get the benefit you invested in (extra attacks from pounce, extra lance damage) without going all force-multiplier on the game.

It actually doesn't matter at all which you apply first. There's a 20% chance to miss entirely, and a random selection of who gets hit if it goes through. Assuming, say, 3 images (and a real target), the chance to be hit is the same; 0.8 x 0.25 if blur is done first or 0.25 x 0.8 if it's done second.

It's faster to do Blur first, since you can ignore the Mirror Image check if they miss, whereas if you do Mirror first, you still have to check for Blur.

Do note that all of these attacks are likely to suffer against anything with DR, since the only way to bypass will be with Bless Weapon/Align Weapon or an Amulet of Mighty Fists.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
neferphras wrote:
flaming duck, ok so err... back that up. The DR chart CLEARLY and i mean very very clearly says equivalent bonus. FAQ talks directly to equivalent bonus and how it applies. So where are you getting this from.

The "equivalent" refers to the special material it is equivalent to. The text reads:

Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.

A +1 Holy weapon does not have a +3 enhancement bonus; it's just priced like one.

This is the kind of situation I usually prefer to leave to an an hoc GM decision. A player wanted to move through a closed door (he knew what was behind it, but the other route was blocked). Normally he'd have to stop and spend an action to open the door, but I called for a STR check to kick it open and continue normal movement.

In this situation I'd allow a run, but call for a constitution check every time you moved your speed (up to 4x), failure meaning your movement stops.

This is actually my backup plan if a GM vetoes a dual-wielding shield build for being too silly (if legitimate).

I prefer not to allow a way to quick-sheathe, because it allows players to exploit things like reach weapons without any penalty to themselves (just attack with a sword, sheathe it and draw a spear to threaten further out!), or to fight with weapons but then sheathe to have a "free hand" to Deflect Arrows or other. Dropping a weapon is one thing, because it can't be quick drawn again.

The thread title made me think "Bullette-slapping"

Zombies can be controlled, as can all undead; via spell or Rebuke/Command Undead or whatever it's called now. As a GM call, the zombie would use the sword; it says it forces the user and doesn't specify itself as mind-affecting. And because I find it amusing.

bbangerter wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
A single action never provokes more than one AOO from the same opponent. A move can, but not more than one for any given 5' of movement. With Greater Trip, the opponent is considered to have provoked an AOO from anyone who threatens them.
PRD wrote:

Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.
A single move, whether that is 5' of movement or 300' of movement, only provokes a single AoO from a given individual.

Ah, even better. Even more to show that Greater Trip is one AOO, but for anyone.

Drejk wrote:
Laughing Goblin wrote:
Holy crap, sorry about that. I could have sworn they were range personal. Looks like it wasn't even personal in 3.5 I have no idea what I was thinking.
You probably thought of shield.

I never understood this restriction. Yes, it's a way to get spells onto characters who'do normally be invalid. That's good - it allows players to be clever and I has a cost to it (actions and money).

It bypasses the need to be a caster - how you'd need to use a relevant wand or scroll (UMD nonwithstanding), but that's the whole point of potions.

It's a curse, not an enchantment. I think it's more fun to say that he zombie is compelled to use it. Yes, it's mindless, and you can't charm it or talk to it, but the damn thing won't put down that sword.

A single action never provokes more than one AOO from the same opponent. A move can, but not more than one for any given 5' of movement. With Greater Trip, the opponent is considered to have provoked an AOO from anyone who threatens them.

You're technically right that he can activate Smite, but it skirts the issue that Smite is primarily useful for its offensive benefits, which can't be utilized if you've spent the whole turn on Detect.

anthonydido wrote:
@Bizbag - I can see both interpretations but your theory is debunked because, even after taking a standard and a move, the paladin could still smite as a swift action.

And he wouldn't get to use it until his next turn unless the enemy provoked an AOO (in the first round of combat, no less, when you typically aren't in range yet anyway. It's not debunked, because they cannot actually attack that round, or move other than 5'. The paladin has to spend his whole turn activating Smite. It's fair to have a cost to determine Evil, but the whole point is to make it easy, not to waste the Paladin's whole turn.

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

I love a conversation about the Paladin that is relatively civil.

Should someone drop an alignment/falling bomb into this otherwise genial Paladin discussion?

I like to think of Paladins as simply having a very high skill floor when it comes to roleplaying (not their mechanics; they're not terribly complex). They also have a generous role-playing skill ceiling as well, thankfully. By contrast, fighters hav a lower roleplaying skill floor and a lower ceiling (in that the class itself doesn't give you much to run with).

That's not to say any individual class is best for experienced role-players, some just give you more material to work with (Paladins and Druids, for example).

The whole point of introducing the ability to determine a target's Evilness with a move action is to make it feasible for a Paladin to do so before committing a Smite. Paladins had the ability to Detect in 3.5 but had to go through the process first. PRG added the quick-detect, presumably for a reason, and I sincerely doubt the reason was "make the paladin spend his entire first turn determining a potential smite target's alignment.

The paladin technically has two different SLAs, not one; Detect Evil as the spell, and a special Detect Evil that is a move action and only detects on a single target. The current entry covers it, though; I've never personally met anyone confused by it.

Horgus Gwerm wrote:

Hello everyone!

I have three questions about making stealth and perception checks:

1) When you stealth for the first time, how many times after that do you need to make the check until you jump out of your hiding place? So, for example, if I was hiding behind a corner (cover) and I was in dim light (concealment), and an enemy walked up behind the corner, would I have to make another stealth check?

2) When it says in the stealth description:

Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.

What does that mean? You can stealth when you have concealment, but why do you have concealment when you stealth?

3) Can you stealth in the middle of combat?

1) If you're not moving, you just make your initial check and use that if someone comes by.

2) it's just clarifying that you have all the benefits of concealment if they aren't aware of you. They lose their Dex bonus to AC, etc.

3) Yes, if you can break line of sight via cover or concealment, subject to GM ruling. This doesn't make them forget where they lost sight of you, of course, so they may chase you down and find you.

Imagine I'm sprinting at you and half way there someone sticks out a foot and I trip on it, but instead of galling flat on my fave, I instead do a tuck-and-roll and continue back onto my feet. I van still keep running at you, can't I?

While I don't necessarily disagree with your rules interpretation, this example could just as easily be the result of a failed trip attempt (since your dexterity does add to your CMD).

Jiggy wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
Some things are single items, though, that can't be "interrupted".

So what are the component parts of "I walk over there as a move action" between which "I draw my weapon as a free action during my movement" occurs?

It seems as though you're under the impression that the ability to take free/swift actions during a charge is something special about the charge action or maybe full-round actions in general. Did you miss that the rule allowing free-swift actions during other actions is a global rule that applies to actions in general, including standards and moves?

How many standard actions or move actions have multiple component parts that you need to wedge your free actions in between?

A) I didn't say all actions were discrete. Why are you asking loaded questions about move actions and drawing a weapon?

B) Your assumption about what I seem to be under the impression about is wrong, and is in fact directly countered by the fact that I said you could interrupt actions. Why are you being so aggressive?

There are some things you can't interrupt. You can't drop a weapon and draw another with QuickDraw after you have made an attack roll. You can't cast a Quickened Bestow Curse after you cast Dominate Person but before they get a save. I prefer to think of a charge that way as well.

So how are you coming to the conclusion that you have to wait for your movement to complete before you can take a free or swift action, when that directly contradicts multiple plainly-written rules?

Because there's an undefined concept we're interacting with. Sometimes, a formal Action is comprised of multiple parts, and you can take free actions in the middle of that. Some things are single items, though, that can't be "interrupted". I've been using the word "act", but maybe that's not the best for this purpose. You can't cast a quickened spell after you roll an attack roll, but before you roll damage (unless it specifically says so).

So there are discrete items that cannot normally be interrupted by free actions. I prefer to think of Charge as one big one, but that is a personal preference.

1) No, you may 5 ft step into a square if you can stay there (Tiny can stay in Medium squares.) This is debated, so YMMV.

The movement itself may not provoke, but "entering an opponent's square" may, which is the source of debate. Like Mr. Risner said, YMMV

You can take swift/free actions in between actions. Sometimes "actions", for this purpose, are not literally Actions - you can LoH between attack rolls of a full attack.

Rolling damage is in no way a separate action - it is simply a consequence of the attack roll. Unless an ability lets you make decisions before you roll damage, there's no "break" between the two; it is one "act".

I feel the same way about charging. I can see that nothing forbids LoH in the middle of a charge, so legally you can LoH in the middle, I guess. It seems to violate the concept, though - you are running at full speed at an opponent to throw momentum into your attack. I wouldn't think you'd have time to use powerful magic in the middle of it. I certainly wouldn't think you could cast a spell, either.

I am not so passionate about the issue that it's important to prove it one way or another, but it's possible to say that a Charge is one action - it does not comprise distinct acts (a full attack is a FRA but contains two or more acts. A charge is not a double move, then an attack, it is all one thing. Moving and attacking is all one thing you do at once. But that's kind of a personal interpretation based on how I would prefer Charge to work, so take it as you will.

I'm not sure if it was mentioned, but I noticed it was said that the "no off-hand attack" rule for Monks appeared only under Unarmed Strike and not under Flurry. It appears under Flurry as follows:

"Flurry of Blows wrote:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.

You don't automatically get anything on the list for changing size except the derived bonuses inherent to being a different size. That is, you don't get a STR bonus or DEX penalty (note the spell gives you this separately) nor a NA bonus. You get the attack roll and AC penalty, the reach, the increased size, the skill penalties (to Hide), and the CMx bonuses that are inherent to being a different size.

It's a GM call. My opinion (of what would make the game fun) is that they are living embodiments of, well, elements (gasses, liquids, solids, and reactions), so I'd probably go for "mineral". Going for animal, or even both, could be a fair ruling too.

Solid Note does not break the wizard's line of effect, so it does not intercept the spell.

I allow a degree of Scry and Die tactics, but I warn players of the consequences. In my game, the tactic is considered a war crime and enemies will retaliate in similar ways (read: if you scry & die, enemies will do it to you).

blackbloodtroll wrote:
I miss the Fleshwarper and Blackguard.

Wasn't the Blackguard just rolled into the Antipaladin?

Gator the Unread wrote:
My fellow players hate it when I point out how the rules are suppose to work, especially when a mistake on the rules is in there favor. I come from the school of "if the characters can do it, so can the monsters" so breaking the rules usually leads to my character dying.

I do that with player tactics. When my players tried to use Planar Binding to pull a sort of reverse scry-and-die on a recurring devil, they were warned that other devils (who would see this as a sort of war crime) would do the same to them.

Is this all technically possible? Yes. This is more of a role-playing scenario than a hard mechanics one- you have to convince any given animal to train as a Druid, then it has to train any childer it creates, and pretty soon you're in a bizarre version of a Vampire game where the various Clans of creature (the bear tribe hate the oak tribe, you see), where the legends tell that the original Awakened was not an Animal or Plant type at all, who was cursed with Awakening by the gods themselves, or that he comes from a people who are all Awakened and do not require The Gift to be bestowed...

This is how they do it.

Shield Slam uses an attack roll in place of a CMB check entirely, so Improved/Greater Bull Rush likely do not apply - they add to any "checks made to bull rush a for", but an attack roll doesn't usually count as a "check".

You can get bonuses to an attack roll much more easily, though, with magic, feats, weapon training... So that may still be preferable.

Why wouldn't it count? You're proficient with the weapon, so you count as having the proficiency feat for that purpose.

Ah, excuse me- the PRD does say that skeletal templates can be stacked. No matter; it was an aside anyway. Your main question was re: cold, and that answer is the same.

Majuba wrote:

On the Gloves: I'd put it as non-slot cost (20k) for the second glove. Glove of Storing is pretty specific about not allowing a second glove to work by default.

The PRD quote above is (I believe) the result of the FAQ on this topic. gnomersy is correct that the three sentences are all separate, and not meant to be taken as a whole. In other words, you can do (p-primary, o-offhand):
+6p/+1p, +6o/+1o OR

As a DM, I would forbid something like this:
+11p/+6p, +11o, +1p, +6o/+1o

Either do in order by hand, or order by bonus. And it aggravates me when people add their haste attack last... grr!

This is when I'd rub the bridge of my nose and say "just make all your attacks from highest BAB to lowest and start rolling already". Our hasted TWF'er would do 11/11/11/6/6/1/1 in that order. Mix up whether the off hand goes first if you must, but get on with it already, you have seven attacks to get through before your turn is over.

They'd be immune to cold. Technically, they'd have both qualities, but the 50% extra damage is still reduced to 0.

Edit: note that technically your combination is not allowed by RAW, as the SC template cannot be applied to an undead. Not that doing so bothers me, but there it is.

The first answer to your question is still valid. A skeletal champion red dragon would be immune to cold.

doc the grey wrote:
When a dragon gains HD through aging does it also gain ability score increases like other creatures or does it only gain the advancements listed in the tables provided?

No, do not use the normal monster advancement rules. Only use the one in the Dragon section.

I mean, other than the usual stuff. Skill points, feats, BAB, that all is tied to their final HD.

I find it thematically appropriate. To a demon, the purity of Good burns them, and to an archon, the foul malevolence of Evil does the same.

Mars Roma wrote:
So, is the Alignment based one at +5 just 'whatever is convenient' or what ever the Alignment of the wielder is. Seems to me like its the former as that makes the most sense, but seems a little Unfair and too easy. I mean what are the chances you're a martial without at least a weapon of +5 fighting a Balor or any CR 20+ creature.

The answer to your question is "whatever is convenient".

If you find this distasteful, you may house rule however you wish - but before you do, recall that the weapons don't get the alignment damage itself (no +2d6 for them).

Personally, I don't mind weapons counting as cold iron and silver, but the alignment part bugs me. There are several ways to get around align DR - several spells do it and some class abilities can allow you to buff your weapon (e.g. a paladin can use Divine Bond to add Anarchic to attack a Marut.) I'd rather increase the availability of these abilities than blanket the +5 with this ability.

Perhaps a good middle ground would be that a +5 weapon counts as *your* alignment.

The Defending property can only apply to the offensive enhancement bonus, but if you possess a second +5 defending weapon, you could add a total of +10 to your AC - but only if you make a full, two-weapon fighting attack.


If a horned, tailed, scaly demon thing can make a disguise check without the use of magic to appear human, why couldn't a PC with similar attributes do the same?

It's one thing to apply a circumstance penalty (say, equal to that of being a different race even though he is still, technically, human), but quite another to say "nope, you fail automatically for no better reason than I said so."

What a jerk move that would be!

My opinion isn't that such an aasimar is incapable if disguise checks. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that with Scion of Humanity, the character is indistinguishable from a regular human - as a baseline. You are entitled to your claws, dragon wings, and scales if your abilities provide them. The DC to hide them is a certain level of difficulty, but there would be no penalty to pass the final result as a human, instead of a normal-looking man who is clearly still not human (an aasimar).

What this means, though, is that you lack license to invent a tail for your character unless you possess an ability that grants one. Some aasimar may have tails, but prior to your character's training in their profession, through their entire childhood, they were indistinguishable from human (remember, Scion is a racial trait, not a Trait or Feat). That they add irregularities later doesn't change that. Humans do not have tails, so you lack one unless your class abilities/feats/items add one. Racial Heritage and Tail Terror don't.

Chemlak wrote:

Ah, the fun of Subtype DR.

Damage Reduction wrote:
A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that matched the subtype(s) of the creature.

Note that this means that a Hound Archon overcomes DR/Good, not DR/Evil.

Yes, for some reason angels are better at fighting other angels than they are at fighting demons.

This was corrected above, but to spell it out:

As a (Good) subtype, a Hound Archon can overcome DR/Good. Hound Archons have DR/Evil, so do not overcome their own DR. Certain fiends have DR/Good, so would be overcome (and often vice-versa).

A Hound Archon is also (Lawful) subtype. Its attacks would NOT break the DR of a Marut, who has DR/Chaotic. A Vrock (Chaotic) would break a Marut's DR, but a Marut would not break a Vrock's, because the Marut does not count as Good.


Question: Can the cat-form actually hold a charge since the claws that would normally be attacking are touching the ground? The relevant quote is "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." So, does the cat running on the ground qualify as "touching anything" and therefore discharges the touch spell before reaching the enemy?

I suppose it depends if the claws touch the ground, but technically tigers have retractable claws like all cats. So, is it feasible for a cat form to hold a touch attack?

There isn't going to be a simple answer, but I'd probably say that no, on the grounds of too much headache over which animals could pull this off or not. I'd let it rest on the decision about whether touching the ground counts as discharging the spell for this purpose - I could go either way on it, but I wouldn't have some animals capable and others not.

Yes. The shield would be Adamantine in both respects; an item is made of a special material or it isn't.

Note that your example shield would have a +5 enhancement bonus to attack and damage, not +6, because the +1 from Bashing doesn't stack. It'd still do its higher weapon die, of course.

Jiggy wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
Depends on the spell. Certain mind-affecting illusions may "force" you to believe them unless your force of will saves you. Phantasmal Killer, for instance.
I'm not sure how helpful it is in a discussion about how the general rules for illusions and disbelief work to point out that some spells don't use those rules.

I should think because it would help clarify where to make such a distinction and why.

Depends on the spell. Certain mind-affecting illusions may "force" you to believe them unless your force of will saves you. Phantasmal Killer, for instance.

1 to 50 of 1,196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>