CMantle's page

134 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

You're using a set of optional rules, so it's going to rely heavily on interpretation, but here goes...

"Usually, neutralize poison or remove disease immediately moves the victim to a healthy state on the respective track, and a heal spell will work for both. However, once the disease or poison has reached its end state, only a more powerful spell such as miracle or wish can remove its effects."

I believe Resurrection would resurrect you without the poison/disease, and Raise Dead would have no effect (if the target died by the poison/disease). I believe this because Raise Dead is a *weaker* spell than Heal (which it says as written would not remove the poison/disease at its end state), so regardless of the fact that raise dead *should* be able to raise them, it *cannot* reverse the end state cause of the disease/poison, which happens to be death, which means it cannot raise them.

Resurrection on the other hand is a more powerful spell (one level higher on each specific caster spell list: witch, cleric/oracle, shaman, and domain lists). *And* resurrection specifically notates that it does not care about the "conditions of the remains", and the individual is "immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health."

*However* the only two spells it gives as examples that are strong enough to overcome poison (the end state is made far too strong in the unchained rules) are both level 9 spells.... which are an equivalent power of stopping time, creating demiplanes, and literally breaking the most fundamental natural laws. So in my opinion a level 8 spell should work just fine to both resurrect and get rid of your newly ridiculously-strong poison. Because if Resurrection isn't strong enough to get rid of the poison, that's extra crazy, since you can literally turn someone from a pile of ash back into a living human... So if you can't also get rid of the poison in the process of restoring an ash pile to life, you have your priorities of spell power very backwards...

As a general rule, you need to look at the precedent that the written rules set, and use that to make your judgments where the official rules are silent.

Also, if you're not the GM, ask him why in the world you guys are playing with unchained poison rules...

Bonus Answer: yes. Though you could argue Regenerate (same level as resurrection) would work (Poison is obviously affecting organs, being transported via your blood, and regenerate can grow entirely new organs from ruined ones - repairing existing would be even easier).


Quixote wrote:


You take a -4 penalty for shooting and throwing into a melee if the enemy's square you are targeting is at least 10ft. from the nearest friendly participant.

Except this part is just barely backwards... it's that you *don't* take the penalty if the enemy's square you are targeting is at least 10 ft form the nearest friendly participant... closer than 10 ft (ie: sharing the enemies' square or adjacent) takes the penalty, 10 ft or farther (a one square gap or more) does not take the penalty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AsimTheAnubite wrote:


"Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other."

What this means is if two characters are within melee range, are enemies, and at least one of them threatens the other (Meaning they could take an AoO if that person tried to move away), then precise shot would be needed to not take a -4 penalty. Including if they have reach of some sort, it would still count because one person is still threatening the other with a melee weapon, just like Meirril said.

But if you continue reading, the section I posted is almost directly after that quote. Reach *does* matter for shooting into melee. If an enemy is at least 10ft away from all allies, you do not take the penalty for shooting into melee. Or if it is a large (10x5 or larger) creature, taking up multiple squares, *if* you can target a square of the creature that is not adjacent to any allies, you do not take penalties for shooting into melee.

Y'all need to start reading entire rules sections

EDIT: TL/DR? Engaged in melee =/= shooting/throwing into melee. Penalties for shooting/throwing into melee *only* occur when you target a square of the creature that is adjacent to any ally.


Shooting or throwing into melee rules:

“If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.”

So if they’re not adjacent, or they take up multiple squares and you can target one of their non-adjacent squares (like if you’re behind them), you don’t need precise shot.


DarkPhoenixx wrote:
So if someone with sanctuary wants to pass through blocked corridor without breaking Sanctuary their only option is to Acrobatics check DC+5?

Or any way that includes not attacking... there are a multitude of magical ways... Dimension door, teleport,stoneshape on stone walls, wood shape on wood walls, passwall, etc...

Not to mention, if you fail your check to move around them with acrobatics and you have sanctuary on, they can't take their AoO (assuming they failed their will save on sanctuary), meaning you can sit there and try again with another move action (a failed check only wastes the current move action), or just wait for next round, for as many rounds as you have sanctuary in effect.


“All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks.“

A quote pulled from the special spell effects section of the Magic rules, but one that is used as the Paizo standard for an “attack.”

Overrun is, without a doubt, an attack. It is a targeted maneuver that has the possibility of hampering the target. An individual with the Sanctuary spell on them cannot make an Overrun combat maneuver without breaking the spell, regardless of if the target of the maneuver chooses to let them pass or if any attack roll is made. (Not all attacks require attack rolls, given that a multitude of attack spells do not require attack rolls).


Not to mention that Ancestral Weapon is arguably one of the best traits... Traits are supposed to be 1/2 as strong as feats... this one gives you a bonus equivalent to Weapon Focus (that also stacks with weapon focus), as well as a Masterwork Cold Iron or Silver Weapon (which you can tailor to the campaign you're in)... So you not only get a nice +1 to hit, but you're also (at least) 300gp above everyone else, NOT TO MENTION AN ADDITION +1 because you have a masterwork weapon at level one.... meaning if you grab this trait and weapon focus at level one, you effectively have a Bab + STR/Dex + 3 to hit. Which is *huge* for a level one character.

Imagine complaining that *after* this feat got "nuked from orbit" that it was still this strong.... you kids are insatiable.


Dave Justus wrote:
Magic.

Yes, I understand and agree.... But it isn't magic, it's an extraordinary ability you can give to your eidolon, but we'll ignore that for now

If it *is* magical "scent" for an incorporeal creature, why would the incorporeal creature's "scent" be bound by corporeal means (such as passing through corporeal objects).

Incorporeal creatures either smell other beings like corporeal creatures (which isn't physically possible), or they *magically* smell scents as incorporeal creatures (which means we follow incorporeal rules, and an an incorporeal can pass through any object not wider than they are, which means they can "sense" through any object that doesn't impede their movement, so they can "smell/scent" through any object they can move through...

It's either magic or it isn't.... and in this case it's clearly supernaturally by any means (because they can't both be incorporeal *and* have a physical "scent" ability), so we can't follow normal "scent" abilities... whatever their "scent" ability is, if they can get it, it clearly transcends our corporeal sense of "scent" which to me means they can "smell" incorporeal beings so long as they can interact with them, which includes being adjacent to an open square while being entirely submerged in a wall.


No. Escape artist is entirely separate. HOWEVER, you CANNOT reverse a grapple with escape artist, you can only escape it.

So they don’t get their bonus to CMD, but you don’t get to grapple them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magda Luckbender wrote:
baggageboy wrote:
I disagree that longspear is the "best" simple weapon.
Thousands of years of Asian martial arts tradition disagrees [Wikipedia: Qiang]. In Pathfinder terms, what other weapon can nearly every 1st level PC use to delivers multiple attacks per round at full BaB and damage? P.s. I've wandered off-topic, so maybe ignore this post.

The Greeks and every other ancient civilization also disagree. The long spear was a revolutionary weapon as much as the longbow, crossbow, and black powder firearms. It forever changed how warfare was done. It was an incredible weapon for its time, so much so that it’s first major battle (the battle of Megiddo) is what our coined term “Armageddon” is based on. The longspear is legit


Okay, explain to me how an incorporeal being “smells” a corporeal scent, then... Because “scent” is a corporeal function, it requires a physical body to interact with. So either an incorporeal with scent is partially corporeal, or it’s not “smelling” a corporeal scent, it’s “smelling” something incorporeal, which wouldn’t be bound by the normal physical limits of the travel of smells


The very idea of an incorporeal being able to “smell” is weird enough already... if they’re incorporeal then they definitely aren’t “physically” smelling the way we do, which means physical barriers wouldn’t stop scents like they do for us. However, if he’s partly corporeal you could rule he senses smell normally, meaning physical barriers would effect it (if there was no way for the smell to get to creature, such as being fully immersed in a wall).

Unfortunately pathfinder does not include the science of scent in its ruling, and just blanketly gave distances regardless of impediments to air flow.

If you would rule that a character with the scent ability could not smell enemies through a closed door in a room (and thus determine their type, amount, etc...), then the eidolon shouldn’t be able to use scent in the wall (unless we’re considering it a “metaphysical scent” since it’s incorporeal).


avr wrote:
It's implied by Firebug's post, but one correction to CMantle's - nonlethal damage equal to your hit points drops you unconscious. There is no equivalent to staggered at zero HP if you have any nonlethal damage.

(In my best Trump debates impression) ‘Wrong.’

“Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious.”

I’ll check the actual Core Rulebook when I can, but every online resource i’ve found has this rule.


Well it's great news for my Swashbuckler/Fighter. Damage is going to start falling off, so tacking on to my crits will be very helpful. Then by level 15 I'll be adding another critical feat with Critical Master and every crit will have a chance to disarm, cause bleeding, and cause one other debuff yet to be chosen. All of this on top of if I get lucky and the crit happens to be on my Called Shot.

Crit builds are fun!


That's a good question. The Slayer Talent Class Feature is technically unleveled, which means *theoretically* a level 1 Slayer has it. However, you only start benefiting from the class feature when you actually *get* slayer talents. I would say the logical answer is no, because you don't technically have any Slayer Talents, so you don't technically have the Slayer Talents class feature. My big question is why are you so fixated on 6th level? Why not take it the first time at level 6, and then at level 7 take Extra Slayer Talent and get it. Or even retrain one of you feats after you hit level 6 to grab Extra Slayer Talent?

I wouldn't allow, or think that it's possible, for a level 1 Slayer to pick "Extra Slayer Talents" as a feat, so I don't think you can do it until you have a Slayer Talent. That's just my interpretation though, I have no idea where the RAW stands on that.

EDIT: I let the fluff sentence of Slayer Talents confuse me, since it didn't start with " At x Level ..." Re-reading it and the other class abilities, it's clear you don't get this ability until *at least* level two, and more than likely until you actually gain a slayer talent (For cases of archetypes like yours). I would imagine it's not legal to take Extra Slayer Talents until you have a slayer talent


1) The 6th level combat feats are not available RAW the first time you take Slayer Talent: Ranger Combat Style. You would have to take it twice. The first time gaining one of the pre-6 ranger combat style feats, and the second unlocking your 6th level feats.

Here's your line in that slayer talent that makes this RAW: "The slayer selects a ranger combat style (such as archery or two-weapon combat) and gains a combat feat from the first feat list of that style"

It specifies the "first feat list," regardless of what level you take this slayer talent (Or else players would just ignore taking this talent until they hit level 6 and just get a better feat... they'd grab other useful slayer talents for their 2 and 4)

2) There is nothing RAW stopping you from using any weapon you want


I don't know when Disarming Strike was released as a feat, or why it wouldn't be included as a "Critical Feat," but does that mean that on a given critical hit I can apply both Bleeding Critical and Disarming Strike? Bleeding Critical is not on the list of exclusive feats per critical hit for disarming strike:

("You can only apply the effects of one of the following feats to a given critical hit: Bull Rush Strike, Disarming Strike, Repositioning Strike, Sundering Strike, or Tripping Strike.")

And Bleeding Critical specifies:"You can only apply the effects of one critical feat to a given critical hit unless you possess Critical Mastery."

I would assume that Disarming Strike is technically a critical feat, and so you can't do both, but I just wanted to be sure. My main hesitation is two fold: 1) Disarming strike does not have Critical Focus as a prerequisite (and thus might not be a "critical feat" specified in Bleeding Critical) and 2) that bleeding critical is a sure thing, but Disarming Strike requires the confirmation roll to beat the creature's CMD (typically a good bit higher than their AC), and so wouldn't be a sure thing every crit, so maybe they're supposed to be able to work together? Any input would be appreciated, RAW or interpretations of intention.

Bleeding Critical: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/bleeding-critical-combat-critic al/

Disarming Strike: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/disarming-strike-combat/


AssKing4AFriend wrote:
If the spell converts 14 points of lethal damage into non lethat damage it would have 1 current HP, 14 non lethat dmg, and 4 lethal dmg.

I think this is where you're getting tripped up. Nonlethal damage never (never) effects a characters current hit points. You keep track of nonlethal damage 100% separately, and if at any point the nonlethal damage amount becomes more than current HP, the creature falls unconscious (but does not start dying).

EDIT: Also where you're getting tripped up is in your understanding of the rules. Too often players and GMs read a phrase like: "This effect counts as healing for the purpose of stopping bleed damage" and try to extrapolate that this means that this spell is incapable of healing (which is sort of what converting lethal to nonlethal does), and so you completely disregard what the spell already told you it does. Phrases like this tacked on the end of spells, feats, class abilities, etc... almost always *ADD* to the ability, instead of restrict. Restrictions are normally clearly stated, and will actually use words like "only" or "must be" or "restricted to." Don't read those words in if they aren't there


As a general rule, if you're unconscious *before* the damaging spell gets used, you might as well start rolling up your new character.


No. It converts the lethal damage into nonlethal.. meaning the horse now has 15 HP, and 14 nonlethal damage.

It doesn't say that the spell ONLY works as healing to stop bleeding, it says "This effect counts as healing for the purpose of stopping bleed damage."

It adds that because magical healing always stops bleeding, but this spell isn't a healing spell, it's a necromancy spell, without the subtype [healing]. *all* of those spells stop bleeding, what this spell is saying is that regardless of it *not* being a healing spell, the spell also stops any bleeding.

So what this spell actually does is transfer X Lethal damage into nonlethal damage, as well as stops bleeding.

You might be thinking this spell is really good or something, but functionally the horse is still only 2 Hit Point away from being unconscious (0HP is staggered, not unconscious). Whether it takes that as lethal damage or nonlethal doesn't matter, because if it gets to 16 Nonlethal damage at 15HP, it's unconscious, and if it drops to 13HP and has 14 nonlethal damage, it's unconscious. All this spell does is put a buffer between unconsciousness and death, and helps the creature heal faster (bc nonlethal damage naturally heals at a quicker rate)

TL DR? The horse is not unconscious after casting this spell


Lelomenia wrote:

I agree that they both count as fighter levels, it’s just questionable whether you can add them together. For example,

Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

Hey Mark, How does having 2 sources of the same class work?

Like a fighter 3 brawler 1, does he count as fighter 4 for things like weapon specialization or is he a fighter 3 and fighter 1?

I think technically it only stacks if it says it does

Could you link where you pulled that from? That's a horrible ruling if that's what he actually ruled. Entirely counter-intuitive


Lelomenia wrote:
I think brawler and Warpriest levels technically don’t stack for fighter feats. Not to be pedantic, but it is the rules forum.

Brawler levels always count, Warpriest levels only count as fighter levels *for bonus feats gained by the Warpriest class*.

Under brawler's Martial Flexibility: "At 1st level, a brawler counts her total brawler levels as both fighter levels and monk levels for the purpose of qualifying for feats."

From the Warpriest's Bonus Feats section: "Finally, for the purposes of these feats, the warpriest can select feats that have a minimum number of fighter levels as a prerequisite, treating his warpriest level as his fighter level."

Only the warpriest's class feature is restricted to feats gained by warpriest bonus feats. So for your Warpriest 3rd level feat you would count both your warpriest levels, and your brawler levels (meaning you would qualify as a 4th level fighter for weapon spec)

EDIT: I think you might be getting hung up on the line "treating his warpriest level as his fighter level." This is not an exclusion of other fighter levels, this is a bonus you get from the warpriest class. For instance, if I was a fighter 10/Warpriest 3, I would treat my normal feat progression fighter level as 10, and for warpriest bonus feats I would treat it as level 13... NOT level 3, and excluding the 10 fighter levels. It's similar to the old monk flurry of blows line "treat your monk level as BAB," where there were some geniuses ruling that you didn't get to use your BAB from other classes when you used flurry of blows, you *only* got monk level. When in reality the intent was to give you a bonus, *not* a restriction


This is sort of shenanigans, but yes it works. You're taking a level dip in witch, needing to have improved unarmed strike, feral combat training, and 2 style feats (that require high wisdom... whereas your hair damage is INT based) *as well as combat reflexes (edit)*, and risking taking an attack of opportunity in the process... That's quite the investment to make just to try to bait attacks of opportunities when the % chance that you both succeed your attack *and* the grapple is relatively low, especially since you're lower than Full BAB.

To give you an idea of why this certainly isn't broken, a Swashbuckler can do the exact same thing with 0 feats, as a level 1 dip. Roll once to beat the attack, then riposte, and choose to disarm as your riposte. If they are disarmed (and do not have a natural attack or improved unarmed strike), then they cannot continue their attack of opportunity against you.

TL;DR? Your attack of opportunity interrupts theirs. If in the course of your attack of opportunity you make it impossible for them to continue theirs, they cannot make the attack of opportunity against you. The question of if it counts as a spent attack of opportunity for them is another question entirely, though.

EDIT: Also, you do not get "free attack actions" in retaliation, you use up an Attack of Opportunity.

EDIT #2: ALSO-also, you would need to take weapon focus for your hair, which is a huge waste of a feat unless it's your primary attacking weapon, and with a 1 level dip into Witch, that's just a waste of your time, since it does tiny damage and you won't be getting the additional effects. If you're actually playing a witch and using it, I'm amazed that you have high enough Int, Wisdom, Constitution, and your fighting stat (Dex or STR) to make this work well.


Can't remember if there was an official ruling on a similar scenario or not... but I thought that Heirloom Weapon (the trait) proficiency didn't count as having proficiency per the feat requirements... If that's the case then I would imagine that proficiency via weapon group from Versatile Design also wouldn't count for feat prerequisites. However, if it *does* count for Heirloom Weapon, then I would imagine it counts for this as well... Precedent and consistency is your absolute best bet in cases where Dev's are silent.


That's correct. However, if it enhances your melee attacks or defenses in any way, you can take it. For instance, feats like the style feat "Startoss Style," which enhances a thrown weapon, also grants a damage bonus (whether it used in melee or ranged), and thus would qualify for the Brawler Bonus Combat Feat. What feat(s) did you have in mind?


You're right, maybe loophole and exception were the wrong words to use. Happy? You still can't enhance your Helm of the Mammoth Lord as a weapon. <3


If a RAW answer exists that hasn't been stated yet, go find it yourself. Other than that, try to find peace with your disappointment, because at this point it's becoming pretty clear you're just here to argue with people about obscurities and anomalies in the game. "Finally," finding loopholes and exceptions to the rule to try and manufacture other loopholes and exceptions *factually* is trying to "cheat the system."

If it's not game breaking, and is actually balanced, you should be able to convince your GM of that. But we all know you're here because your GM/group already told you that you couldn't do it...


The point about it cheating the system is that if you had, for example, an amulet of mighty fists +2, and you also wanted to grant your natural weapons a +1 magic ability, to increase the amulet to an effective +3 would cost 20,000 (36,000 - 16,000). However, if you could instead enhance the natural attacks separately as individual weapons, it would only cost 2,000 to add the +1 magic ability to it. Meaning you could individually enhance 10 of them for the same price as increasing your AoMF by 1.

The thing you're not seeing is that *in your individual case* you might not be breaking the system, but the concept you're proposing is one that could be very VERY very VERY very VERY easy to abuse. Because it's much cheaper to spread out multiple low level enhancements than it is to continue enhancing one item. Stop getting all upset about something not working out the way you want it to. You've gotten your Rules as Written answer, *and* you've gotten your logical interpretation of the rules answer, and both are against what you're trying to do. If that doesn't satisfy you, try to convince your GM, but if he has a brain he'll nip your idea in the bud before you or someone else in his group uses the precedent to break the game


tearnImale wrote:
Another question, if the DC is greater than 20+ their CMB and thus can't can't escape (even with a nat 20), does that also mean they can't escape using escape artist as well?

They can still use Escape Artist to escape (it's a process that takes one minute), but it's with the same rules. If their Escape Artist Bonus + 20 < Binder's CMB + 20 then they can't escape. You can find that rule under the Escape Artist skill


Disarming strike says: “Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack, you can disarm your opponent, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack.”

Does that mean disarm plus normal *non-crit* damage, or plus normal damage *for a critical hit*

Link to feat here: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/disarming-strike-combat/


This is from the "Casting a Metamagic Spell" section:

"Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time. Spells that take a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that you begin casting."

Just to reiterate what I was saying


Spells that take a full round action to go off do so immediately after the full round action. What you're thinking of is spells that require "1 Round" (such a Summon Monster). Full-Round Actions all occur on your turn, before enemies act (unless readied actions or AoOs, etc.)

Edit: I think you read this section in Combat: "A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action." and are attributing that to any spell you cast as a full-round action. So what this is saying is "all one-round spells require a full-round action to cast," what it's *not* saying is "all full-round action spells cast are 'one round' spells."


I keep it in my chest pocket, partially exposed... as a handkerchief! And there is no action to activate it, once it's spread out sufficiently it automatically opens ("when spread upon any surface it *causes* an extradimensional space..." causes being the imperative word there. But I know the general item retrieval rules, I'm more specifically asking about the amount of time to fully spread out, or spread out sufficiently, the cloth so that it functions. I don't plan on doing much retrieval, i'm far more interested in.... storage (lightning flashes and thunder cracks in the background, as a familiar musical sting plays)


Is there any official rule on what action type it is, or how long it takes, to spread out a portable hole enough to activate it? *If* someone wanted to spread out their portable hole during combat, what action type would that be? Or is this just something to talk with one's GM about?


Rules as Written, both Good Blessing and Shock do minimum damage. Both of those effects are being delivered by your "quasi-real" ammunition. However, talk to your GM about it. There is an incredible amount of wiggle-room when it comes to how multiple magic/supernatural things work with one another. In my mind it makes sense that you roll your d6 for good and shock normally, but as written you do min damage, because it's all part of your "weapon damage"


I know... I was literally saying you *cant* do it... and the reason I gave is the practical reason why you can’t....


Agénor wrote:

Assuming no invisibility is involved, a spell is cast at the carpet, does the carpet use the save bonuses of the character or its own?

From there, I would determine if the carpet is gear or not.

I think it is gear hence invisible.

It’s not all gear that vanishes, it’s gear being carried, which includes gear that is worn. It could be their intention that all gear the character was interacting with would be invisible, but they didn’t say so. Looking at item saving throws again though I do think it was their intention that “attended” items would go invisible with you... here’s the section on attended items:

“An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character’s saving throw bonus).

I think it makes sense that invisibility would follow the same rules of item interaction as the items being “attended” or not for the purpose of saving throws... that’s how i’ll probably rule it if it comes up and I’m GM


deuxhero wrote:
CMantle wrote:
No. Not at all items can be made masterwork. As far as I’m aware only manufactured weapons and armors can.
Tools, instruments, manacles/fetters, tattoos, and shovels all have explicit masterworks.

I considered exceptions when I wrote it. I assumed people would be smart enough to know what I meant. I assumed wrong. Show me the +1 through +5 tools, instruments, manacles/fetters, tattoos, and shovels. I’m about getting sick of you exceptionists who are here just to play contrary without adding anything to the original question.


CMantle wrote:
No. Not at all items can be made masterwork. As far as I’m aware only manufactured weapons and armors can. My question to you is why *not* just AoNA? Do you have some necklace that’s just that good?

The reason for this is that could start adding effective enhancements to all sort of stuff.. have 2 different +1 armor special abilities in the same armor is 4,000gp, but having one on your actual armor and one on your belt is only 2,000


No. Not at all items can be made masterwork. As far as I’m aware only manufactured weapons and armors can. My question to you is why *not* just AoMF? Do you have some necklace that’s just that good?


Java Man wrote:

Well, if you strap the broom to your back: it is invisible, carry it over your shoulder: invisible, "ride" it like a kid's stick horse: invisible. So if you actually ride it in flight why should it not be invisible?

The carpet is a bit less obvious to me.

The exact logic I was working with. Glad to see someone agrees... if you pantomime riding it it’s still invisible, why would *actually* riding it change anything

Edit: I agree that the carpet would be visible... it’s like riding a non-living mount.. it would be visible imo


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
CMantle wrote:
Pathfinder doesn’t have a “use rope” skill.
Sorry: been playing a lot of 3.5, lately.

Cast atonement to be forgiven, otherwise...


You only get grapple as a free action. Constrict, trip, and the pull are all swift actions, meaning you can choose *one* of those listed per turn in addition to the grapple. So you could grapple and trip, grapple and constrict, or grapple and pull.

Edit: these were all recently errata’d, so I’m assuming they used to be free actions, which are only limited per round by your GM saying “that’s too many things”


Technically keeping a hand on the broom of flying would fulfill the carrying requirement, the same way holding a weapon does. Unless people really want to get into the semantics of “carrying implies you have to fight gravity,” which brings up all sorts of other issues.


However, tied up functions as “pinned” other than the changes it notes, and “Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack“ meaning that your bonus to CMB for grapple checks *does* effect your role to escape being pinned or tied up.

Edit: So to answer the OP, yes. Improved/greater grapple and any other bonuses to grapple function for escaping from being “tied up,” because it functions as pinned.

Edit #2: ahhh I misread your original question. Truthfully I don’t know if it would effect the DC... my gut says yes. Because it functions as pinned, so if the person who initiated it has a bonus to their CMB/CMD vs grapple, then that should apply, since the enemy has to make a grapple check (or escape artist) to get out. But they’re no longer making it *against you* it’s against the rope... also it should be noted that when an enemy uses escape artist instead of a grapple check to escape the grapple, you do not get your bonus to CMD, since they aren’t using a grapple combat maneuver against you


Pathfinder doesn’t have a “use rope” skill.

In the combat maneuvers section under the grapple skill:

“ If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD)”

You do not “roll to tie someone up,” you simply tie them up and the effectiveness of tying them up is modified by your CMB.


Yeah I gave up with him, he’s just wanting to be contrary... but truthfully he’s just proving the general rule by having to find outlier extreme exceptions


blahpers wrote:
The d20pfsrd text appears to be migrated from 3.5 text. I can't find any similar text on the Archives or in the legacy PRD.

Was worth taking a look. Had never come across it before so I figured


I agree with Blahpers on this point, either Barkskin and Slough both work only on creatures with skin, or they work on every possible creature inside of their target listing, “living creature”

You can’t have your cake and eat it too


Definition of Natural Armor on d20pfsrd, from the ‘bonus types and effects’ table under the Common Terms section: “A natural armor bonus improves armor class resulting from a creature’s naturally tough hide. Natural armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to armor class (even with armor bonuses) except other natural armor bonuses. Some magical effects (such as the barkskin spell) grant an enhancement bonus to the creature’s existing natural armor bonus, which has the effect of increasing the natural armor’s overall bonus to armor class. A natural armor bonus doesn’t apply against touch attacks.”

Don’t know if this section exists in any Paizo publication or where to find it though. Link is below:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/BASICS-ABILITY-SCORES/GLOSSARY/#Armor_Class_AC

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>