Byakko's page

Just to spice things up, I'm going to argue that the DC to jump a 10' pit is actually LESS than 10.

This is because when you're just about to leave the ground, your center of mass could be slighter over the edge since your body is tilted forward. Similarly, when you land, your feet could be ahead of your center of mass.

Thus, the actual distance covered by a 9' jump may be effectively 10', so the DC should be 9. (depending on the height of the individual) *evil grin*

This would also explain how a gargantuan giant may not need to make a jump check at all to cover a 10' gap. The effective gap size, after taking into account the length of the giant's legs and position relative to their center of mass, may be 0.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM, PFS or otherwise, who'd object to that.

Just don't try to have your bird do anything raven-like which a hawk couldn't also do.

Mulet, would you mind sharing some details about the other players' characters? That might shed some light on why they feel ineffective compared to a swashbuckler.

If there are some other damage focused characters in the party, perhaps providing them a bare bones example of how they can perform comparably might convince them that the swashbuckler's damage isn't anything special. Then give them the chance to make a few adjustments to their character, if everyone agrees.

Also, contrary to many of the posts here, I would advise against designing some plot/story to specifically (and temporarily) target the swashbuckler. It sounds like the real issue here is that the player is taking up too much of the limelight in the game, and effort should be taken to shine the spotlight on other characters, and their merits, instead.

Quote:

Anyway, even if it did say "all other creatures", it doesn't change the outcome of the damaging swarms discussion. The +50% damage still only applies to the damage actually dealt to the area... which is just the splash damage.

Incorrect. The swarm doesn't say 150% of splash damage, it says 150% of damage from splash weapons. This includes direct target damage because it doesn't actually say otherwise.

What is 150% of the damage from a typical splash weapon to a swarm?

Just because you're increasing the damage by a factor doesn't mean you get to ignore the other parts of the rules governing swarm damage.

If it said "other", you'd just ignore that second block of damage. (meaning, it'd be prudent not to aim directly at the swarm)

Yup, and those rules existed before the alchemist, so we are supposed to believe that the developers meant for the 150% rule to do exactly nothing.

That seems pretty non-RAI to me.

You're correct, this is absolutely non-RAI. That's why the rules need to be updated, to reflect what the developers actually intended.

*Groan*

The rules are clear.

PRD wrote:

A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons

Not "splash damage". "Splash weapons". Why do people have to try to inject ambiguity where there is none?

Guys, seriously. You all know this wasn't intended, so why even bother? Why are we so obsessed with proving a point nobody actually cares about? It's literally just arguing for the sake of winning, which is basically the Rules Questions subforum in a nutshell.

How do do splash weapons affect an area? By dealing their splash damage to it. Only their splash damage is affecting the area, thus it is this splash damage which is increased by 50%.

Their single target damage, however, does not affect an area, meaning it is not increased by 50%. It is actually negated, instead, due to another part of the swarm rules.

------

The point of "bothering" is twofold:

1) To point out a RAW vs RAI inconsistency. By noting that, technically, splash weapons don't work as intended against swarms prevents people using it as justification for other things by extension. Such as rays affecting swarms. (the topic of this thread)
2) To get the rules clarified/fixed in future editions of the game.

So the better question is, why are YOU so adamant at arguing the rules here are not, kinda, broken? Don't you want things to get fixed?

A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quarter-circle in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and widens out as it goes. Most cones are either bursts or emanations (see above), and thus won't go around corners.

The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. ... If the far edge of a square is within the spell's area, anything within that square is within the spell's area. If the spell's area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.

These are the written rules on how to determine whether a creature is within a cone, and I believe it has been stated that rules text take precedence over things like tables, art, and the like.

The rules for squares affected by cones have 2 key rules:
1) All corners must have a distance from the origin corner equal or less than the cone's radius.
2) The affected squares must lie within a quarter circle, of the caster's choice, from the point of origin.

Using only rule 1), the following squares are within 15' of the character's upper left corner (only drawing the upper semicircle, for simplicity):

o o X X o o
o X X X X o
X X X X X X
o o o ? o o

Now to apply rule 2)... oh wait. The rules never describe how to handle squares which are partially within the chosen quarter-circle.

If they happen to choose a straight-up cone, and we include any square partially touched by the quarter circle, the result is this:

o o X X o o
o X X X X o
o o X X o o
o o o ? o o

Incidentally, the above is the same drawing generated if you only include squares at least 50% covered. However, if you only include squares which are entirely within the quarter circle, we have this:

o o X X o o
o o X X o o
o o o o o o
o o o ? o o

I'm going to guess the first of these two is intended as it looks more like a cone in most cases.

------------------

Finally, I'd like to note that nothing in the rules stipulate that the chosen direction's angle must be a multiple of 45 degrees. ;) If you choose to aim it a little to the left, you might wind up with something like this (with the >= 50% rule):

o o X X o o
o X X X o o
o X X o o o
o o o ? o o

Create Pit wrote:

You create a 10-foot-by-10-foot extra-dimensional hole with a depth of 10 feet per two caster levels (maximum 30 feet). You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size. Since it extends into another dimension, the pit has no weight and does not otherwise displace the original underlying material.

As long as the door is big enough to cast the spell underneath it, it should still function. It could not be used to go under a wall in the same manner as the wall would be blocking the surface area.

I think that's an excellent rules quote, but my conclusion is the opposite. If there's a door in the way, then there's not a surface of sufficient size. (at least, not extending under the door)

If you allow people to bypass doors with this, then you're also allowing them to bypass walls, btw. I know there's a crack under a door, but in the pathfinder grid world I believe a closed door is effectively the same as a wall when it comes to spell targeting.

Portcullises, on the other hand, I'd be fine with creating a pit under since you basically have line of sight to the entire surface.

In additional to all the above comments (which are all very pertinent, but I'll spare everyone the repetition), one thing that hasn't mentioned is that the elimination of knowledge checks also removes the usefulness of character builds and concepts which focus on... knowledge.

This is similar to what would happen if you decided traps are too annoying to deal with and are either totally ineffective or too deadly. While their elimination may simplify things for you and the party, it's not going to be fun for the roguish type who was hoping to put his trap disarming skills to good use.

As has been mentioned, knowledge checks should be useful but not required. They should be just useful enough that players will often think, "I wish we had someone around who knew something about this... it would make things a lot easier", and consider investing a few skill points in them.

Hmmmn.

So if you've taken 0 non-lethal damage, does this mean you're staggered when you hit 0 hp and become unconscious at -1 hp, per the nonlethal damage rules?
(independently of the normal rule for reaching 0 hp)

Byakko wrote:

Everyone is free to RP their character however they want. If I refuse to have my character use his legs, that's my choice.

The difficulty comes when mechanics and RP collide. Your RP can't prevent actual game effects from taking place, and can't grant you a mechanical advantage without an investment of resources.

What happens when your bedridden PC is dominated and told to attack the rest of the party?

Same thing for characters claiming blindness from birth, or counting as another race because of their "heritage", or passing as another race because of description (without Disguise), and other similar instances.

This is true, but this is why I qualified it as freedom to RP. If there's a mechanical effect, such as domination, which is forcing something, that's different. I would just chalk it up to the magic enabling the body to do what it normally couldn't handle, and just leave it at that. (although I suspect many GMs may take a character's description into account when adjudicating effects such as this)

In the poster's case, that's less of an issue as there are written rules which cover having peg legs. So he's well within his rights to apply it fully, both from a RP, and a mechanical standpoint.

Let's take this a step further:

If I'm playing a random character with some ranks in UMD and some scrolls of Dimension Door, does my character count as having the ability to cast Dimension Door? Can I use this to qualify for the mentioned feat?

Or if you take issue with a scroll's transient nature, how about a staff with the ability to cast dimension door?

Now, most people accept that some magic items can be used to qualify for feats. I would say the commonly agreed upon ones provide a benefit of a continuous nature.

My initial thought is to draw the line at items which require a "magic item activation" action to use. With this division, effects from activated magic items don't qualify as being possessed by the user. But these effects are still "cast" by the user for the purposes of things like DDoor's turn ending effect.

In any case, there's inevitably going to be a large amount of table variation here, so ymmv. I'd likely need to look at such situations on a case by case basis before handing down a judgement, if they happened to be used in play.

Unless an ability or item indicates otherwise (or is always active), it requires a standard action to use. "At will" typically means you can use it as many times as you like, but each use still requires a standard action.

Vital Strike can be used as part of an Attack Action, which is a standard action. Note that Vital Strike generally can't be combined with other types of specific actions in combat. See this FAQ for more.

Prestige classes do not extend the whole class so they do not stack in regards to arcane spellcaster level. They are a different class and have a different level pool. Yes, I know it sucks.

The others have been discussed at quite some length in other threads, but I find this one quite peculiar. You can have a prestige class which grants full arcane caster progression yet at the same time counts as 0 levels for the purposes of "Arcane Spellcaster Level".

------

When the Improved Familiar feat was originally written, only arcane casters had the ability to acquire familiars (correct me if I'm wrong). Now days, there are as many non-arcane classes which have the potential to acquire a familiar as those with arcane ability (or pretty close to). It feels like the limitation imposed on Improved Familiars is a pure artifact of an antiquated version of the rules and should be updated to reflect the true landscape of current potential familiar use.
Imho, anyway.

Valet familiars do not gain Speak With Animals of its Kind at 7th level.

Thus, an Animal Speaker Valet familiar will not gain the ability to speak with all animals.

------

Don't overthink it guys - it's really that simple. Even if you try to apply the Animal Speaker first, it will immediately be disqualified for the speak with all animals ability as soon as you apply the Valet familiar archetype as it no longer has the required 7th level ability.

bbangerter wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

bbangerter wrote:

You ignored the second point: I can ready an action to move 30' if I am attacked and invalidate the attack (or teleport, or do something else that makes me no longer a valid target)?

For the third(?) (fourth?) time, please do not confuse readied actions with immediate actions.

Readied actions can explicitly interrupt other actions in progress. There is not such ability given to immediate actions.

Mentioning them doesn't mean I think they are the same thing. Understanding how rules work for them can help give possible insight into how immediate actions are intended to work though.

Please do not confuse readied actions with immediate actions. The mechanics is not the same and there is no reason to believe that an analysis of readied actions will provide any insight into a completely different game rule.

Otherwise, you're basically saying "Hey, red dragons can breath fire; this will help give possible insight into how an elf's breath weapon is intended to work."

Any argument that involves a statement like "readied actions work in this way; therefore immediate actions should ..." is an immediate example of the Argument by Amazingly Bad Analogy fallacy. As Dave Barry put it, "you can teach a dog to fetch a stick, [but that doesn't mean] you can teach a potato to dance."

You're kinda missing the point, Orfamay.

No one is claiming that readied actions and immediate actions are the same thing.

What people are saying is that if there's a point in time when a readied action could be used to accomplish something, an immediate actions can also be used at that very same point in time as the rules say immediate actions can be used at any time.

Expect table variation.

Technically, the FAQ beats an unofficial forum post.

But many GMs will allow something reasonable like this unless it results in a balance issue (which I imagine is unlikely in this case).

Elbedor wrote:

If I'm controlling a grapple on a subsequent round, I must either spend a Free Action to end

You don't even have to spend a Free Action to end a Grapple you are controlling. If you catch your GM on a day when he is in a mood to limit the number of Free Actions you are allowed to take in 1 turn, allowing the Grapple you are controlling to end doesn't even count as a Free Action.

Actually, it is a free action:

Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.

Yep, if you're nauseated, the game crashes.

Abort, Retry, Fail?

Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

"Unaware", on the other hand, has never been properly been defined, to my knowledge, so expect to see a great deal of variation. Some might say you are unaware of things you can't see/know the precise location of, but I will note that an adventurer is likely to be very "aware" of the presence of a troglodyte, even if it's retreated behind a wall.

In any case, Uncanny Dodge protects against being flat-footed, but Hidden Strike damage is triggered by the target being unaware (in this example). Thus Uncanny Dodge won't lower Hidden Strike's damage, but it will allow you to retain your dexterity modifier versus the attack.

Ah, this old thread.

The battle poi definitely DOES get a damage modifier based on strength. There are no special rules for the battle poi saying it doesn't get this bonus damage, thus it it treated like any other weapon.

graystone, you keep bringing up that line that "the poi is insufficient to deal physical damage". But guess what? That doesn't matter.... the extra damage from strength isn't physical damage. It's fire damage, like the rest of the damage the weapon causes. Your net example is also a poor one, as it doesn't have a damage roll to apply strength to, unlike the poi.

Murdock:
I would say the oil lasts however long it would normally, typically 6 hours I believe. While the poi might shed some light, I wouldn't give this any mechanical lighting effects. Table variation here would be reasonable, tho.

I'm going to lend my voice to the opposing position.

Actions provoke attacks of opportunities. If someone isn't performing an action then they don't provoke. The AoO rules are referring to movement made by the active player, not other relative movement which might be occurring.

For example, I do not believe passengers on a moving vehicle/platform provoke if it should happen to be moved past a foe.

Nor do I believe that a dragon who has lifted a character into the air should be allowed an AoO if it chooses to drop them.

Dallium wrote:

I don't have a goblinoid in this fight, but is that SKR post from before or after the "forum posts are not official rulings" policy went into effect?

After, but even if it was before those ruling no longer are official. With that said as a person that helped design the game I would say he knows what he is talking about. With that aside permanent and temporary scores are not treated the same in all cases.

Temporary bonuses to ability points do not actually increase your score. Permanent ones do. <---This is in the book.

You need to actually have the score needed to qualify for a feat. Nothing in the book says you can take the feat without actually having the score.

This is one of those odd times I'm going to have to disagree with you, wraithstrike.

I am entirely of the opinion you can qualify to use a feat strictly on your current temporary score. (although whether you can take the feat in the first place is still under debate)

I believe there was a post somewhere saying a barbarian with 12 strength who rages can use Power Attack while raging, for example.

Perhaps there's a more recent ruling, but this post may still be relevant:

Here's the official word:

1. The game differentiates between permanent ability score bonuses (such as +1 every 4 character levels and wearing a +2 belt of giant strength for 24 hours) and temporary ability score bonuses (such as from barbarian rage, an alchemist mutagen, or a bull's strength spell).

2. Permanent ability score bonuses do count for the purpose of qualifying for feats.

3. If you lose a permanent ability score bonus, you still have the feat, you just can't use it until your ability score qualifies again.

4. Temporary ability score bonuses do not count for the purpose of qualifying for feats. (My earlier statement contradicting this point was my opinion of how it should work.)

5. I personally believe that differentiating between permanent and temporary scores in this fashion is needlessly complex and only hinders player choices in a metagaming way.

6. I personally believe that you could revise the feat prerequisite system so characters could select feats before they actually meet the prerequisites, but wouldn't be able to use the feat until they do, which would allow (for example) monks and rogues to take Weapon Focus at level 1 in anticipation of having the required BAB +1 at level 2.

7. Implementing points 5 and 6 as official game rules would require making revisions to language elsewhere in the game (such as qualifying for a prestige class), similar to how the discussion about revising the Stealth skill is a significant change that affects other parts of the rules (such as scent and hide in plain sight).

8. The design team hasn't discussed implementing 5 and 6 as official game rules.

Dr. Stryx:
By what rule are you becoming voluntarily helpless? You can't just magically give yourself conditions if it suits your purposes.

Kazaan:
While you can't enter the space of an opponent, you can certainly -try- to enter the space. You may fail because, well, there's an opponent there, but that doesn't stop your character from trying. It's this failure to succeed which is giving the information.

Let's be realistic here, though.

Most monsters don't have that many particularly interesting traits. It's usually not that hard to figure out what may be useful for the party/character upon a successful knowledge check.

Further, if a player knows what the creature is OCC they are far more likely to ask a "critically important" question, whereas someone who honestly doesn't know anything about the creature will often ask the "wrong" question. Thus, allowing players to ask questions actually punishes those who need it the most.

Sounds about right. He focused on his Con rather than Str.

One error that I spotted, though: the Defender of the Society trait is only selectable by the Fighter class.

I'm sure this will just start another argument but I feel I must point out that humans do in fact have tails, they are just so small they are internal. That's what your tail bone is, a vestigial tail.

Thus, the argument that you can't grow an extra one if you don't have one is moot.

Within the context of the game, I believe humans don't count as having tails (even if they do in a strict anatomical sense).

But if you insist, wish granted:

You now have extra human tail bones. I suppose this would result in a very large and unsightly growth on your lower back.

Guys, retraining as a whole doesn't make sense from an in-character perspective. You can retrain a high level wizard into a fighter or vice versa. Finding a way to swap out some additional traits is a pretty minor thing if you're already allowing retraining.

While you may eek out some minor advantage by swapping out two traits, it's generally not much different than swapping out a feat. Just make sure you do your best to revert any benefits gained, as best you can, and avoid being overly cheese-weasily over such minor stuff.

Well... looks like I'll just give my +1 to most of the answers in this thread. It's too late for the player. He had his chance to react, and declined to use the EFS (in this case due to lack of knowledge of what was coming). It's too late once the blade barrier is already there.

Similarly, if someone attacks a wizard with a melee weapon, they could react with EFS causing the melee attack to fail. But if they choose not to, and the creature rolls a a natural 20, it's now too late to put up the EFS to try and negate the (now more dangerous) attack.

The existence of relevant spells which are both "you"-target and "humanoid"-target is irrelevant, and the FAQ doesn't clearly cover this question. So no point using those as logical justifications.

That being said, the rule is worded thus:

Share Spells (Ex)

The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself. A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list.

This ability does not allow the eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.

Those are quite clearly two different sentences, and the second in no way references the first.

Thus I agree that these can be taken as independent rules and that Enlarge Person can be cast on your Eidolon with the normal associated benefits and penalties.

There is one counterargument I see, however, which is actually the 3rd sentence:

Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list.

What is "this" referring to? Shouldn't it read "either of these ways"? Because it uses the word "this", it implies that the preceding two sentences are actually a single joint ability...

Being unconscious doesn't affect a creature's ability to make saving throws, with a few exceptions:

* They are treated as having a Dexterity of 0.
* They are considered a willing target (although they can still make a saving throw).

Additionally, it's reasonable to assume that any spell which requires them to see or hear specific things will fail to work, but these types of things are typically called out in the spell in question.

However, shadow evocation has very real effects, even if they're mostly illusionary. Thus, they get a saving throw as per normal. If you'd like, consider their subconscious to be potentially tricked by the spell.

Vrischika111:

The guys above me covered most of it, but the fuller answer is that it doesn't work due to the semi-unwritten "hands of effort" rules, largely presented and discussed in lengthy forum posts by paizo staff.

The easiest way to think about it is that every attack you make which requires you to use two hands, whether it's a two-handed weapon or a bow or whatever, consumes both one primary hand's and one off-hand's worth of effort.

Generally, this means you can't combine two-handed attacks with two weapon fighting.

------

However, note that if you have +6 BAB and ITWF, you COULD do the following (hopefully this isn't confusing!):

Attack with your bow at +6 BAB
Drop the bow and quick draw a sword and dagger
Attack with the sword at +1 BAB
Attack with the dagger at +1 BAB

The reason this is possible is that the first bow attack only consumes your first primary hand's and off-hand's worth of effort, leaving a second primary hand and a second off-hand attack available for the following attacks.

Guys, it's okay to admit there's a problem with the rules here. It's not necessary to force common sense upon them to try and make them work "perfectly".

Nor is it an easy problem to resolve. Simply banning 5' steps with readies isn't enough to remove the potential abuse, although it's certainly the most visible one.

Unless the Paizo staff come up with some really clever way to fix readied actions (and AOOs) timing, this is just going to be one of those things the GM has to resolve at the table, on a case by case basis, and hopefully take steps to prevent it becoming a standard tactic. (while tactics like this are possible to beat strategically, it doesn't generally make for fun combat)

I'd just like to give a big +1 to much of what Coffee Demon was saying.

Knowing when and how to initiate combat is a fine art that you learn with GMing experience.

Also...
At the start of combat, if your initiative is lower, you ARE flat-footed, even if you knew combat was about to start. It's not just about the knowledge, but about reactions. Doing it any other way is a house rule.

I am going to guess no, based upon this:

FAQ- CRB wrote:

Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?

Yes.

posted May 2013

So it still counts as 2 handed even while you are doing this.

Thus, you run into the 'armor spikes' problem- you only have two 'hands' worth of actions. Since this counts as 2 handing, it takes both hands. So not TWF.

I am pretty sure you can grab a shield though. So there are still bonuses over not using 1 hand. Sweet, sweet AC enhancement slots...

This seems... logical to me.

If it counts as a two-handed weapon (while wielded in one hand) for Power Attack, it should count as a two-handed weapon for other purposes... such as consuming the off-hand's worth of effort during attacks.

This isn't really that different from someone attacking with a two-handed weapon, then dropping it and quick drawing another weapon and trying to make an offhand attack with it.

As per the subject, can we have a clarification on what familiars can and cannot use?

The Pathfinder FAQ states:

It is intended that animal companions or familiars can not activate magic items.

However, there is a highly contradictory thread where Michael Brock states or confirms, among other things:

* A select list of Improved Familiars can activate wands (specifically: faerie dragon, imp, lyrakien azata, mephit, quasit, and sprite)
* Bipedal familiars can wear\wield whatever, provided it is available on the Biped (hands) chart

However, none of these things ever made it into the FAQ!

So what gives?
Are we supposed to assume that every buried thread and comment made by staff in these forums, even if multiple years old, should be taken as official?
That the FAQ entries can't be taken at face value, as they lack key and important information?
Additionally, it appears the wand-capable list given is somewhat arbitrary, conspicuously skipping over some intelligent creatures with hands. Guidance on how to classify newly created improved familiars would also be helpful.

Can someone who takes the Racial Heritage feat select Aasimar (With the Scion of Humanity alternate trait) as their parent race?

Absolutely not.

Racial Heritage requires that you choose a humanoid race.

Aasimars are outsiders, not humanoids.

The fact that the Scion of Humanity option exists for Aasimar is completely irrelevant. This is an option you can choose IF you're an Aasimar. You're a human and thus can't choose this option.

Captain, you're overthinking it.

You can safely ignore the construction line of a magic item unless you're actually crafting it.

Clair can be used at the same time as the Gloves (although I don't think this would be useful). You can use Mule Cords and Bull Strength at the same time.

Unless it says it functions as a specific spell, then the effect is unique to that item and follows the normal stacking rules for distinct effects.

The construction requirements have no bearing on the categorization of the actual power(s) of an item, unless it says otherwise. These gloves provide a school-less magical effect which allows you to see and hear through solid material of up to 15'.

Yes, they are extremely good.
Yes, every party should probably have a pair if they suspect a challenging dungeon.
Yes, they can wreck many encounters where the monsters are just "waiting around to be attacked".

Solutions:
1) Try to create more dynamic fights where the monsters bring the fight to the party or where reconnaissance is less useful.
2) Start rolling perception checks for the monsters inside. You may be surprised how easy it is for most monsters to hear the clanking tin-can paladin or fighter, despite an intervening wall.
3) Use a bigger complex and don't give any hints as to which doors/walls are important to check. This works even better if the rooms aren't rectangular in shape or there is "stuff" in the way. They might have to burn multiple charges to scout a single room.

Wait, so the Paizo Bow of Ashes, which is an adaptive flaming composite bow doesn't actually transfer the flaming property to the ammunition?

Apparently not.

It has the flaming property just in case you feel like using it as an improvised weapon.
Obviously.

It says your spells and spell-like abilities count as psychic. It doesn't say anything about other features of your class or of the class overall. Only the nature of your spells and spell-like abilities are changed.

As you pointed out, however, what defines a class as being an arcane spellcasting class may well depend on the -nature- of your spells, so it's actually not that clear after all.

Crimeo, I think your argument may have merit in the sense that the rules need some clarification here.

But honestly, we all know how these rules are supposed to work. I get it - it's not perfectly spelled out. But at the end of the day, it's just a poorly worded section of a game we play for fun.

In any case, this thread's gotten long enough that some developer has made a footnote in their list of things to eventually reword. Arguing further isn't really going to accomplish much. Can we all move on to a different topic, perhaps?

That's a specific (additional) rule for Dweomorcat cubs. Most familiars don't have that sort of line, but my previous comment still holds.

Also, while you could dominate your ex-(or soon to be ex-)familiar, this won't prevent it from losing its status as a familiar if you no longer qualify for having it as one. You will, instead, have only a dominated creature of whatever type it is.

Improved Familiar

This feat allows you to acquire a powerful familiar, but only when you could normally acquire a new familiar.

Prerequisites: Ability to acquire a new familiar, compatible alignment, sufficiently high level (see below).

Generally, when you no longer meet the prerequisites of a feat, you lose the benefits of it.

In this case, this means the Lyrakien Azata would no longer be a valid choice of familiar and the bond would be broken.

Sure, you got to keep those pesky "unwritten rules" in mind. :)

Indeed, can't have those dead people taking actions after all. ;)

I'm on the fence about the legality of this curious question, however there is something I'd like to add:

As this feat functions as Beast Shape II, you are subject to the Transmutation school polymorph rules which state:

In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks.

Foxes have a natural bite attack for 1d3 damage.

So even though you have no bite to reduce the damage of, you still gain the equivalent bite back from the fox form itself.

IF this is legal in the first place, of course.

graystone:

Quoting the rules for stacking bonuses and penalties, while useful, only applies directly to stacking bonuses and penalties. For other types of stacking, that rules block isn't relevant. I've clearly shown that the word "stack" is also used in the rules for things other than numeric bonuses and penalties. Now you may disagree as to the particulars of those other cases, but you can't deny that the word "stack" was used in these alternate situations and isn't exclusive to the glossary definition.

There are many situations where you can cast a spell without starting combat, although most written encounters aren't set up that way. I have some feedback concerning above posts:

First, casting a silent spell while invisible (probably) won't be spotted. You only break invisibility after the spell is resolved. If the creature considers the spell a hostile action, then combat begins. (btw, whether they get an additional surprise round is somewhat subject to table variation)

Second, even if you're casting a spell in full view of your target, this doesn't automatically mean a fight will start. Many creatures lack enough Spellcraft to determine what you're casting. Basically, the question then becomes: "Would this creature attack if they saw you casting any spell, including non-hostile ones?" While many creatures may be a little cautious, they may not automatically assume you're attacking them.

Third, there are some feats and tricks which can be used to conceal your casting.

Fourth, many of these effects have a duration. While it may not affect the current fight, it may well affect others coming soon.

Fifth, it's entirely possible that some initiative modifying effects were poorly written, or outright don't work as intended, due to a misunderstanding by the author or poor editing.

thorin001 wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

You absolutely can modify initiative during combat, look at the refocus option!

You aren't STUCK at your starting initiative.

You can also DELAY.

I would apply the change immediately, not in the next COMBAT. :D

Of course, things get weird if you start taking DEX damage...

NO! Just no. That way madness lies.

It will inevitably lead to someone effectively getting extra actions.

How? If someone has acted he has acted, even if his initiative change and he would go after the current initiative number.

I don't see why a detrimental or beneficial effect shouldn't have its full effect.

Example:

Bunch of other creatures act, then we get to initiative count 14.
Player A takes his turn.
Enemy 1's turn comes up on count 13 and she casts a spell which reduces player A's Dexterity by 4.
Player A's initiative is now 12.
Enemy 1's turn ends, and we are now at initiative count 12 and Player A gets to act again.

See the problem?

Sure, you can just hand wave this and say the GM can handle it, but far more complex scenarios exist and it can result in a lot of additional paper work and ambiguous situations.

Perhaps more importantly, this is against the rules. The results of rolls are not affected by things which happen later. If your strength is increased, the attack you made earlier in the round doesn't suddenly do more damage. In the same way, if your Dexterity increases, the initiative roll you made at the start of combat is unaffected.

Nope.

I'd like to note this doesn't concern just Tiny creatures:

Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller

Any creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories larger than itself.

A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is. Creatures moving through squares occupied by other creatures provoke attacks of opportunity from those creatures.

I remain of the opinion that any type of movement which trespasses upon another creature's area provokes, regardless of whether it's a move action, a charge, a 5' step, or something else.

I believe the oft-tooted 5' quote is only referring to the AoO normally triggered for moving through a threatened area.

Another pertinent question is whether the Acrobatics skill can be used to avoid one or both of the AoOs. (assuming a creature does indeed provoke twice)