CMantle's page

151 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I would imagine that ranged attacks take the penalty associated with charging according to their movement distance. If the mount only moves up to its speed on the charge, then the rider takes no penalty on its ranged attacks, if the mount moves more than its speed, up to double its speed, rider takes a -4, if somehow the mount can move more than double its speed on a charge, the rider takes a -8.

This isn't anywhere RAW, but I'm drawing my opinion based on precedent from the lines in mounted combat about ranged attacks on a "quickly moving" mount:

"You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally."

And I'm drawing from the charge rules, where there is some indication that it is "easier" to charge only up to your speed, as opposed to double your speed, since if you only move up to your speed you can also draw a weapon as part of the charge (but cannot draw a weapon as part of a charge where you move any more than your speed (without quickdraw)). The quote below is taken from the "movement during a charge" rules:

"If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1."

This obviously has nothing to do with ranged attacks, but personally I think these two together serve as a standard for balancing for a good way to rule it. Obviously if there's any official ruling on this that I just overlooked, completely disregard what I've said.

Duration of the spell changes the possible duration of the rage from barbarian level + x to the spell’s duration. I had considered that as well, but don’t think it matters for unconsciousness since it doesn’t actually mention anything about it, which leads us back to identical to barbarian rage.

I don’t think I’d ever seen either of those linked responses, I’ll have to save those somewhere for the future. Just to make sure I understood them after my quick read, you *can* still take full round actions (or a move and standard) if your mount charges, you just don’t gain the benefits of a mounted charge unless you *also* take the charge action?

To ask on top of that, you still take the -2 AC right?

kyubi3009 wrote:
This may sound like a weird question but can the rider of a charging mount do a full attack with a thrown weapon?

Yes because they’re ranged attacks.

“You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.”

The mount is charging and grants you the normal bonuses on your melee attack for charging, but does not restrict you into a charge action, only the mount is taking the charge action. However you don’t get the attack bonus for charge with your ranger attacks.

I don’t know enough on the topic to give a perfect answer, but untyped bonuses from different sources stack... both of these bonuses to caster level are untyped, both are from different sources (2 distinct, separate feats). So in my mind it works unless I’m missing a more specific rule about caster level bonuses.

The real question is are you also grabbing the magical knack trait (+2 trait bonus to caster level up to total hit die for multiclassing) or the gifted adept trait (permanent +1 caster level with a single spell chosen at the time of the trait)?

Edit: if all of these do stack, you’re gonna have some good fun with the feat Spell Perfection.. “In addition, if you have other feats which allow you to apply a set numerical bonus to any aspect of this spell (such as Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Weapon Focus [ray], and so on), double the bonus granted by that feat when applied to this spell.”

Doubles all those caster level bonuses for one spell... that’d be noice.

The target of the spell is “one willing creature per three levels...” meaning the creatures at least get a choice at the *start* of the spell. I’m under the impression it works like rage and falling unconscious ends the rage and removes the temp hp from your +2 Con.

Regardless of it being a spell effect granting rage, it specifically says “otherwise identical with a barbarian's rage except that the subjects aren't fatigued at the end of the rage.”

Meaning other than the changes listed in this spell, it’s identical. The spell doesn’t mention unconscious conditions, so we use the rage unconscious conditions

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I agree. But when you ask for the rules on something in the Rules Questions forum the written rules, FAQ, and designer quotations take precedent. No one is marching into your game night with an armed squad to demand you follow the RAW, but the Rules Questions forum isn’t for everyone’s opinion on the most balanced way to rule it, it’s for the actual Official Rules to be given so that the OP can make their own informed decision on how to let it effect their game.

Edit: in the spirit of irony, in case you think that’s just my opinion on the purpose and use of this Forum, here’s the RAW on it too:

“What this subforum is NOT for:

Lengthy rants about the way the rules have been written. ”

Yes it’s very clearly worded. It gives the description of what a gaze attack is and then very clearly describes when you make saving throws. At the start of every turn inside it’s range and whenever it actively gazes at you. I understand that it might make sense to make a save when you enter the range, but that is *nowhere* (absolutely nowhere I’ve found) RAW. And if it’s not RAW it doesn’t belong to be treated *as if it was an official rule*... and if you’re giving your interpretation on the intention of rules (not rules as written), you should be making that clear when you comment in the “Rules Questions” forum...

But *as written* you make saves only if you start the round inside the range, or if it actively gazes at you. *then* you use the rules for averting gaze/blindfolding. Other than that there is no RAW ruling to be made. It’s all interpretation and what each group/GM thinks is the balanced ruling for how it works

It should go down a step due to being medium. You gain the natural attacks, but it specifies you remain medium sized in this form, which lends me to think you take the medium sized damaged dice for that form. However at the end of the day, you’re only looking at an average of 1 damage difference per attack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
I think the actual answer is "If you move into range you make a saving throw at that time".

While you might think that, I can’t find it anywhere RAW. The only saves you make against a Gaze attack are if you *start* your turn inside the gaze, or if the creature uses a standard action to “actively gaze” at a creature, per the quoted section of the Universal Monster Rules below:

“A creature with a gaze attack can actively gaze as an attack action by choosing a target within range. That opponent must attempt a saving throw but can try to avoid this as described above. Thus, it is possible for an opponent to save against a creature’s gaze twice during the same round, once before the opponent’s action and once during the creature’s turn.”

“The opponent” here is who the creature with a gaze attack is targeting. It can save once “before the opponent’s action” (aka “at the beginning of his or her turn”) and also if the creature actively targets it as a standard action (attack action).

The *only* way you have to make a save for entering the range of the gaze attack is if the creature took a readied action to use his standard action Gaze against a foe who enters (and then it would only be the single foe, not every opponent who enters).

EDIT: (comment) everything I say is from my best understanding of RAW. If someone finds RAW that contradicts anything I’ve said i’ll happily change how I view it. Can only do the best with that I’ve read though

The correct interpretation is as written. Saves are only made if you begin the round within range of the gaze attack. The idea behind this (I believe) is that it does take some sort of effort on the part of the creature to effect you with its gaze, so if you’re moving before it in initiative (or after it, when it has taken its turn dealing with something else), you can effectively get close to it before it has a chance to effect you. Since the idea of initiative order is the general reaction time and opportunity-seeking nature of the characters, I think this method makes sense. Players with the ability to get in and out of the range (such as with spring attack, ride-by/fly-by attack, or dimensional dervish) have a build that coincidentally works well against this.

Specific builds work well with specific encounters. Rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock.

As written, you only count as having any barbarian levels for the Rage extraordinary ability, not the Rage Powers extraordinary ability (they’re separate, technically). So RAW you do not meet barbarian level prerequisites for Rage Powers.

*However,* anyone with a brain should be able to infer what you had inferred, that you are more than likely supposed to count as Ranger level -3 for the purpose of rage power prerequisites. Archetypes simply *do not* receive the same level of attention to detail to make sure everything is written perfectly. Honestly it’s not make or break though, there’s plenty of good rage powers without level prerequisites. If your GM is unwilling to make the obvious call, and this actually ruins your entire character, just play with other people or kill off your character. One-time disagreements like this happen all the time... however if your group is constantly intransigent on reading into things like this in the most brain-dead, RAW-zombie way, then finding a new group is probably a good call (unless of course this is for PFS... then you just need to *really* read through any archetype/obscure build you plan to take).

I think you answered your question yourself when you quoted “inherent bonuses to a particular score do not stack.”

So no, you can’t stack wish with any other sources that grant inherent bonuses.

And no, you cannot “at a later time” cast wish again to increase it. Another wish spell has to be cast immediately following the previous wish spell, setting the bonus that one time. Once the bonus is set it is finished, and can’t be later added to.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
CMantle wrote:
The main point is that your personal interpretation of the way Combat Maneuvers work doesn’t change the actual RAW of the exclusivity of bonuses against *actual* combat maneuver checks of the same kind, which escape artist is not.

Then it is a very poor point: between you and me, I am the one who is actually bringing the RAW into this argument.

You haven’t brought any RAW in. You’ve given your interpretation of RAW that had already been stated...

Answer these questions RAW please.

does a person with improved grapple get a bonus to their escape artist check?

do you get a bonus to avoid being knocked prone against any effect that might knock you prone if you have improved trip?

do you get a bonus to your will save to avoid being moved (similar to bull rush) by a telekinesis spell if you have improved bull rush?

Is any effect that ends a grapple considered a grapple check and thus grants the bonus to CMD?

Does “In place of” equate to “this functions as,” and if not, where is your RAW argument to claim that Escape Artist checks to escape a grapple constitutes making a grapple check against the enemy. Not your interpretation, writing by Paizo that equates this check to a grapple combat maneuver check.

Here’s the RAW on combat maneuvers.

“Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents its skill at performing combat maneuvers. ”

“Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMB when performing specific maneuvers.”

“Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers.”

“Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers.”

“A” or “one” [general] combat maneuver bonus/Defense is RAW.

Escape artist is *not* a “combat maneuver,” ergo they do not gain the bonus from their feat/ability to their CMD.

RAW enough for you?

Okay, then isn’t it strange that every single one of your CMB/CMD’s are identical unless you have a racial/class/feat ability that improves one of your combat maneuvers?

Not to mention there is an example (probably several) of going against someone’s “general” CMD... the feat Stand Still, which gives you an UNTYPED combat maneuver check which then *has to be* against an UNTYPED CMD. Or when you use acrobatics to move through a threatened square, it is against the enemies UNTYPED CMD (RAW, I don’t care if you think it’s supposed to be against a certain one).

You have a Combat Maneuver Bonus/Defense, and certain abilities improve certain specific combat maneuvers. You do not have a “grapple maneuver defense/bonus,” you have a +x bonus to your combat maneuver bonus/defense when you make a grapple check or are the target of a grapple.

So does a person with improved grapple get a bonus to their escape artist check? Obviously not, because it isn’t a grapple check. And there is no such thing as “Grapple CMD,” there is CMD vs a grapple attempt, CMD vs *blank* attempt, etc... if you play as “there is no basic CMB/CMD” that’s your prerogative, but it’s not RAW. The point of Escape Artist (and you cannot reverse a grapple with escape artist, you can only escape, or lessen a pinned condition to grappled, it’s seen right there in the Escape Artist entry if you would read the whole thing instead of the tag line ya muppet), is for a non-grappler to have a chance to escape grappled and similar conditions. A dex Rogue is likely not going to be able to grapple against a STR full bab class, so instead of (“in place of”) attempting to a grapple check to get out or reverse it, they can attempt an escape artist check to get out. “In place of” does not equate to “this functions as,”. In fact, the language “in place of” implies ‘here is a secondary, different option’. And if you can get off of being hung up on your interpretation of combat maneuvers, you *only* get your bonus to CMD against *grapple* checks, there is no “well I’m in a grapple so this is my CMD now” (would a character in a grapple use their “grapple CMD” against a trip attempt? Or a disarm attempt? Or any attempt other than an actual grapple check against them? Even if the maneuver might end their grapple? (Yes, there are situational ways to end a grapple with disarm checks, See ‘Weapon trick, arm bind’ and if it was used against someone grappling with a different hand).

Or do you get a bonus to avoid being knocked prone against any effect that might knock you prone if you have improved trip? Or a bonus to your will save to avoid being moved (similar to bull rush) by a telekinesis spell if you have improved bull rush?

The main point is that your personal interpretation of the way Combat Maneuvers work doesn’t change the actual RAW of the exclusivity of bonuses against *actual* combat maneuver checks of the same kind, which escape artist is not.

His bonus to grapple wouldn’t apply. Improved and greater grapple clearly state:

“receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to grapple you.”

Escape artist is *not* attempting a grapple check against the opponent. Therefore the bonus doesn’t apply

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:

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: al/

Disarming Strike:

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:

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)

1 to 50 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>