Chaosthecold's page

Archaeologist’s luck is treated as bardic performance for
the purposes of feats, abilities, effects, and the like that affect
bardic performance. Straight out of the description of the luck ability.

I have an Archaeologist, I love him. Lingering Performance is almost necessary for that character though as they do not get the 2 extra rounds per level of luck.

Yes thats what the link to the PFSRD says, but thats not what it says in the book. What I have copied is straight from the book. That line,

'Some priests of Desna claim to have cloaks of this type that also allow them to dimension door once per day when under a starry night sky.'

This was a PFS specific question. I don't know why they moved it to the rules question. It does not belong here.

They already have a cloak that lets you d-door once per day, and that costs 10k. This lets you use two other abilities also. The small restriction on being under a night sky is not enough for a 7500 gp discount..

Obviously in a regular game it's going to be up to the GM if the one a player gets has the dimension door ability. In PFS though, there needs to be some kind of notation either on a chronicle as (Cloak of the Dark Tapestry w/Dimension door or something of the sort) or just make the blanket bad call that all of the cloaks have the Dimension door ability.

Hi, I did a search of the messageboards about this item and an answer to my question did not turn up.

The item in question is the 'Cloak of the Dark Tapestry' from Pg. 55 of Gods and Magic

I hope with a pricetag of 2,500 bucks that this cloak unless specifically stated on a chronicle sheet DOES NOT come with the Dimension Door ability. There is nothing on it in the 'Additional Resources' except that it's allowed.

The question is, do all purchased cloaks have the dimension door ability?

PCs turns him in/he gets caught: fine equal to the cost of the item (PC gets to keep the item). (authorities turn him over to the Pathfinders and your next mission is to somewhere realllllllly cold.)

PCs convince him to return it or pay for it: Item paid for (PC gets to keep the item) OR returned (PC got to use the nonconsumable item for the course of the scenario)

PCs can't convince him or don't want to turn him in: Same thing happens with everything you don't pay for at the end of a scenario, just with less fun roleplaying behind it. It vanishes!

Unfortunately/fortunately for organized play, there are just some things you can't do that you could in a home game.

It adds some roleplaying, and/or it still gives the PC with sleight of hand something for his time. otherwise...Don't be a jerk Mr. Clepto.

"Knight-Captain Reginald Roscoe Watkins - Halfling Ranger 12"

I think I can guess the answer to this, but I would like to make sure.

A monk with Ki counts his unarmed strikes as magic for the purpose of overcoming DR. This does not count against a ghost's incoporeal nature. Correct?

This was a subtle change from 3.5 that I noticed.

(From the incorporeal ability listed in the Bestiary):
It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or CREATURES THAT STRIKE AS MAGIC WEAPONS, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. (Caps is my emphasis)

So this makes monks able to strike incorporeal creatures since the incorporeal ability specifically calls out creatures that strike as magic.

However

This still hurts archers since the arrows fired are only considered magic for purposes of overcoming DR. Hope you've got magic arrows!

I have a Starsoul Sorcerer. At 11th level, he'll have a Robe of Arcane Heritage, and will be able to access his 15th level bloodline ability.

PRD wrote wrote:

At 15th level, your caster level is increased by 3 when casting spells of the teleportation subschool. In addition, once per day you can teleport a single creature within 30 feet into the void of space if it fails a Will save. The save DC is equal to 10 + 1/2 your sorcerer level + your Charisma modifier. The target can attempt a new saving throw as a full-round action each round to return. While trapped in the airless void, the target suffers 6d6 points of cold damage per round and must hold its breath or begin to suffocate.

PRD wrote wrote:

A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The check must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.

When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates.

PRD wrote wrote:

This spell afflicts the subject with uncontrollable laughter. It collapses into gales of manic laughter, falling prone. The subject can take no actions while laughing, but is not considered helpless. After the spell ends, it can act normally. On the creature's next turn, it may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. If this save is successful, the effect ends. If not, the creature continues laughing for the entire duration.

So, as near as I can tell, I have a once-per-day "Kill Anything...

nobody puts baby in the Phantom Zone..

All of my character's have table tents with Player name, Character name and titles. I rather like seeing how the adventure starts before doing character introductions because I improv it (but it usually includes a short physical description of obvious items carried and then an in character introduction). I don't think on any of my characters I actually tell you the class I am playing but from the introduction you can usually figure it out. Roleplaying is the most important part of the game for me so I like to have fun with it.

If GMs want to know any mechanical things about my character for 'secret' rolls, they usually pass out little notecards to write information down on.

Quandary wrote:

Quote:

James would like this dichotomy to be resolved by changing grip changing to a move action, I would like it to be resolved by changing dropping an item to Not An Action.

James isn't actually 'changing' anything, but ruling on what is not covered in the rules.

I haven't seen any objective reason from you why Nocking an Arrow is 'closest' to Shifting Grip vs. Drop an Item, you just went on about how Nocking an Arrow is more movement than Dropping an Item (and Shifting Grips), so therefore 'why not' use Nocking an Arrow's 'action cost'... But as you state, then 'why not' change the RAW action cost of Dropping an Item. You never demonstrate why Shifting Grip is closer in 'movement/action' to Nocking an Arrow, you just relied on the fact that Nocking an Arrow is classified as a non-action to justify other stuff that seemingly requires less movement also being classified as that. AFAIK, Dropping an Item and Shifting Grips ARE the most similar in movement, even if it's 'irrational' that they have a 'higher' action cost vs. the non-action Nocking Arrow, they are still more similar in what they do.

I'll be more precise. When looking in the Actions In Combat section for the action type that covers changing from holding a two-handed weapon in one hand to using the weapon in two hands to execute the attack, what is the closest action?

Adding your free hand to the weapon is the opposite of dropping an item! Why would I see that as the nearest action!

I assert that the nearest example we have in the Actions In Combat section is nocking an arrow, which is 'not an action' and is part of the attack itself; in the same way that jumping is not an action but is part of the move action in which you move.

A bow requires two hands to use, but only one to hold. Just like, say, a greatsword. The act of your right hand (which is already holding an arrow) to to nock the arrow (which involves letting the bow string go between the fingers of my right hand...

If regripping things is not an action then there is mechanically no reason for light shields to exist... I drop the grip of my heavy shield, cast a spell and then re grip it. does this not follow your same logic?

I really want to see someone use this as their character pic.

That is now how I will see every character with a 7 charisma. I can't unsee it.

My home group has now just begun making all of our characters from the same faction. Nobody really like the faction missions anyway. This way we are pretty much guaranteed all the P.A. (especially if the mission is to do something and make sure no one else sees you.) and can actually just focus on the actual scenario.

Many of my sessions played outside of our home group have actually been ruined by the faction missions with the GM giving more attention to the faction missions instead of the scenario. (One such instance took an entire hour out of the slot as he spent 10 minutes with each player roleplaying their faction mission. Which sounds fun.. except for the other 50 minutes where you are sitting there with nothing to do..)

But yes, this has totally happened to me before and people get real bitter about you not helping them get their PA.

So going from a side standpoint, I can definitely see how people can read that it is "additional damage" similar to sneak attack and such. It all comes down to the wording of "This attack deals an additional amount

of damage, but no more than once per round." I could see it being read as that the qualifying attack is the attack referenced; however I can also see a reading of it being an "additional (auto-hit) attack."

In the end it just comes down to GM / table variation, which I'm fine with. GMs aren't robots and are meant to interpret gray rules during a game. Also, in this specific case it only came down to a 9-damage difference.

The 9 damage difference was actually the difference between life and death in this case!

Every little bit counts! :P

Seems to be like it would be a legit use of your abilities. Since the sneak attack dice added do electricity damage and they are dice rolled with the spell.

Granted this is a different edition than 3.5 but there was a similar thing that came up (what happens if you sneak attack with a vampiric touch? Do you get the temps from the sneak attack dice too?). The answer to that was yes(as per official FAQ) In both cases you are increasing the damage done by the spell.

Chaosthecold wrote:

Played a mod this past weekend, was killed during it. Got home from the convention and reviewed the scenario... Monster that killed me hit me 5 times in one round one of which was a critical hit for a total of 147 points of damage. After reviewing the stat block I noticed that something was off, as 147 was the maximum damage the monster could have done rolling max on all attacks (including max rend and assuming power attack which did not happen.

Is it possible for anything to be done after the fact? I assume it was just a judge accidental mathematical error. I had no reason to suspect foul play during the scenario so why would I question it at the table?

What creature was this? (so we can look it up) What level were you? Race/Class? What is your AC? HP total? Did you have any buffs on you at the time? (magic items or spells?) What did the GM roll to hit (each times)

Why did you fail to give any details?

Does the (147) max damage listed in the monster stats assume max crit?
Even if it doesnt- did you add up all damage from each attack to verify that it equaled 147?

And- are you saying that he hit you for 147 in ONE attack? and that it wasnt that your total damage was 147?

If none of the creatures SINGLE attacks get anywhere near 147, even on a crit (according to its bestiary entry) and the GM said it did...then he is wrong.

Sounds like a rookie GM... as in sounds like he didnt know how to handle combat with unusual creatures.
The chances of hitting all 5 times even with a monster who gets his highest attack modifier for all 5 attacks... is moderate at best, unless your AC is somehow 10 or less.

I didn't give details because I didn't want to debate it on the forums, I was asking for the protocol for appealing something that happened which doesn't require you to know the details. Nor was I complaining about the GM,he was not a rookie he was a fantastic GM.

I'll let Mike address any outstanding questions about how players should handle disputes after the conclusion of a scenario, but I did want to clarify the use of the Power Attack feat with a rend attack.

Power Attack grants a bonus on "all melee damage rolls," which includes the melee damage rolled as part of a rend attack. Since it also states that the bonus to damage is increased by half when using "a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls," such would also apply as long as the rend damage listed in the creature's statblock dealt 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier, which is most often the case but isn't a requirement. The feat interacts with attack rolls and damage rolls separately, so it doesn't matter whether melee damage is rolled as part of an attack or a special attack; the difference between the two might have an impact on whether or not the creature takes a penalty on the attack, however.

the only problem I have here is rend is not a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your strength on damage rolls. its a special attack with a primary natural weapon (claws which are not 1-1/2 str) So at the very least shouldn't you be getting the lesser power attack number?

What is the easier wizard school for a newbie? What are the common opposition schools for evocation?

When I played an Evocation specialist. For roleplaying reasons I got rid of illusion and enchantment. "Why assault the mind when you can assault the body!?" was his logic.

Pirate Rob wrote:

Under what circumstances should we go back and change things, and should there be some sort of time limit?

If a PC dies (permanent or not) or is otherwise rendered unplayable, I think a player should be free to politely appeal. (I say this having been on the GM end of such a situation before.)

As far as a time limit... There shouldn't be an exact one. Just "while it's still feasible to fix".

This is what I was asking. I was trying to figure out the appeals process. I wasn't complaining about the GM at all. I have since spoken to him and worked it out.

Played a mod this past weekend, was killed during it. Got home from the convention and reviewed the scenario... Monster that killed me hit me 5 times in one round one of which was a critical hit for a total of 147 points of damage. After reviewing the stat block I noticed that something was off, as 147 was the maximum damage the monster could have done rolling max on all attacks (including max rend and assuming power attack which did not happen.

Is it possible for anything to be done after the fact? I assume it was just a judge accidental mathematical error. I had no reason to suspect foul play during the scenario so why would I question it at the table?

Are any of the additional resource animal companions available for Rangers(Non Archetyped)? Or are we still stuck with the short list?

I REALLLLY want my Halfling Ranger to ride a giant gecko....

Thanks

After digging through these forums it appears the answer to my question is no. Granted the last ruling was made two years ago..Perhaps this could be revisted. I understand the want to have the less combat oriented animals on the ranger list...So perhaps open the less combat oriented ones to the Rangers. As a Ranger I can still have a wolf, which would tear the crap out of a Giant gecko any day :)

Are any of the additional resource animal companions available for Rangers(Non Archetyped)? Or are we still stuck with the short list?

I REALLLLY want my Halfling Ranger to ride a giant gecko....

Thanks

Mike,
Freely opening most items and PrCs is my group's biggest issue with PFS. I have played in many Organized Play campaigns over the years and my favorite system had to be Living Greyhawk.

PrCs were either Open(Always had access), Limited (Needed campaign documentation), or Restricted (Never available). Which PrCs were which was spelled out in the Campaign Sourcebook. Building a character with hopes of finding a limited prestige class was a gamble...and it brought great victory to you if you finally attained it.

There was a select list of items that were always available (Magic Weapons/armor, Stat bump items, Rings of Prot, Cloaks of resistance, etc.) But other than that you needed campaign documentation much like chronicle access to get anything else. This also added suspense when handing out chronicles at the end of a session because it was like christmas with players going "ooooooOOOo What did we get access to?"

As it is right now the only thing I am excited to see on a chronicle is partially charged wands.

Do I suggest you mimic this? No. But I do think they are good ideas you might consider when going forward.

A few suggestions I do have:

1) Revise the PA/Fame chart. PA is not a limiting factor in what you can purchase it still remains to be can gold. Even in our Year 0 party when we were actively trying to stop each other from completing faction missions we could still buy anything we could afford when we wanted to. PA has never been a limiting factor for any of my characters.

2) In 3.5 PFS each faction had SPECIFIC magic items available at certain PA levels, maybe make more items unavailable and have factions give access to some of these.

Reading most of these posts on here I have seen a few people bring up "I want to know ahead of time so I don't miss out on this PrC for my applicable character" keep in mind that a) you are not the only person at your table. Maybe you don't have use for that cool wizard prestige class but the wizard at your table might. Maybe you should just be happy for him? Would the fact that you don't have a use for ONE of the rewards change your game experience? and b) As of this time you can replay scenarios with different characters. So now that you know that adventure X gives access to PrC X, then just play it with your character who wants that class and call it a day.

At the end of the day, Our group would very much like to see more restrictions on what is always available in this game. It makes the rewards more rewarding.

my final point to try to convince you otherwise is this:

By your logic you could Two weapon fight with a Greatsword and a spiked gauntlet by making a Greatsword attack, then spiked gauntlet, then Greatsword, etc. Since it is a free action to switch between the two. This is OBVIOUSLY a break in the games mechanics so how about we just stick to the rules. :)

The real point is what you just weighed your opinion on in your previous post, that is, that re-readying a 2h weapon after you release a hand is a move action.

1) What is your Armor class bonus? +4 or +1

2) What is your Armor class bonus vs. Incorporeal creatures? +0 or +1

1) +4

@ James Maissen

But switching my morningstar to my shield hand, casting, then switching back is okay?

You don't have to do this... you have a free hand with a lgt. shield anyway.

Personally for myself I feel it is bad form for a GM in a PFS game to finish off a character that went into negative hitpoints with their remaining attacks once they are down, unconscious and bleeding unless there are extreme circumstances. As examples:

Dying PC caught in an area effect spell, channel etc...
Monster specifically called out to do so in tactics (looking for food, etc)
A PC who is shown during the battle to continually come back up and is too dangerous every time and the monsters are smart enough to catch that, though this should be rare.

I am curious how other GMs feel about this? I don't get to play often and I experienced this at GenCon while playing there and was so surprised when it happened.

Is it something I should expect from most GMs or did I run into a rarity?

Don't get me wrong I have killed PCs before, even killed one with 1 hp left with a rend from a Gug (I blame Kyle!), but I have never killed a PC once he was down and out of the fight when it did not match the above examples, and even then it was only when the body was in an area effect.

PS to the above GM, though I did not agree with you doing the above, I still enjoyed the game you ran and would like to thank you for bringing the game to the hotel when we ran out of time in the PFS room.

Attacking an unconscious enemy is tactically a bad move. There are other threats your immediate area that should be considered over an unconscious/dead PC (ESPECIALLY the guy who keeps making people stand back up.)

In the case of 'But I still have one attack in my full attack left and no one within a five foot step!' it's still pretty shoddy especially since these NPCs are unaware of the rules that govern them. Forgo'ing an attack and stepping towards another player taunting them adds to the roleplaying immersion of the game while putting your extra attack into a downed PC 'just because you don't want to waste it' usually comes from GMs who play against the players instead of with them.

I have seen this very few times.

Basically SKR and James Jacobs seem to imply that changing your grip on a weapon (1 hand to 2, 2 to 1, whatever) is a free action. And NOT one of those "A GM has authority to regulate the amount of free actions that can reasonably be taken" kind of free action, either. You just do it.

Both of those are referring to weapons that can be wielded with one hand. You are no longer wielding a two handed weapon in one hand so must spend a move action to reequip it.

I've asked for rules references to the contrary and have only been met with 'nuh uh you're wrong' so I really don't think there is anything I can do to help you.

some people seem to be confusing spell strike and spell combat. they are to different things.

the two handed weapon bit works with spell strike. it does not work with spell combat. the prohibition requiring a light or one handed melee weapon is for spell combat not spell strike.

The arguement is with Spell Strike, You don't have a free hand to cast the spell when wielding a two-handed weapon. Nowhere in the rules does it state that you can as a free action, drop your weapon from one hand cast a spell and then put a hand back on it.

Drawing a weapon is a move action. You are not wielding it anymore if you are holding it in one hand. What do you do to attack with a weapon that you are not wielding? You draw it.

Don't like the term drawing because it's not in a sheathe? Ok. Move on to Manipulating an item, which is also a move action.

These are all rule references to back up why I think that you can't just ignore the fact that you can't cast a spell while wielding a two handed weapon. There was even a feat in 3.5 called Somatic Weaponry that allowed you to trace the somatic components with your weapon. Why would such a feat even exist if you could just juggle your giant sword around? The action system hasn't changed.

I would like to see rules references for the other side, because everything I've seen so far is just "You can do it because I said so.."

I've got a question from a game last night. I need an actual PFS verdict, and as usual the Rules forum is giving 2-3 different answers. So please, don't bump this thread out of the realm of PFS.

Anyways. We had a magus using a 2h weapon. The magus would "hold" the weapon one handed, cast, put both hands on the weapon, and then deliver the attack through a 2h weapon.

I don't think that the magus (or any other class) was meant to be able to cast spells while wielding a 2h weapon. Otherwise, there is no purpose to the text requiring a free hand to cast spells. Can anyone give me a "hand" here?

There is going to be GM variance on this as there is nothing that states you can hold a two handed weapon in one hand and then essentially "re-equip" it as a free action. The only rules reference to such an act is on page 186 of the core rulebook under draw or sheathe a weapon which states,

"Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action."

Having to reorient your hands around a weapon that requires two hands to wield properly would surely fall into this category especially since it specifically calls out "so that you have a free hand". You are not considered wielding said weapon so putting a hand back on it, pulling and readying it into a combat ready state does require the same amount of effort as drawing it from its sheathe.

Again, GM variance on the basis of 'Doesn't say I can' vs. 'Doesn't say I can't'.

Do animal companions get max HP for their first HD?

Thanks

For this ability, 'another character' means anyone except the person with opportunist. If you try to say another Player Character then that means that summoned monsters/animal companions/dominated opponents/etc. would not trigger the opportunist.

don't forget Happler, feats and skill points... only characters get those too!

Well, my opinion is biased in some ways. I started playing in year 0, when factions were designed to be antagonistic. Chaosthecold and I played many a scenario at odds, my Cheliaxian vs. his Andoran. And we had our fun. We let another person play at our house, and played the original way, and he went balistic when he didn't get his PA by our actions.

Next thing, he got Brock involved, posted on here, and many many MANY of you called me a bully, and said I was breaking the rules of the campaign. These faction missions have changed so many times since year 0, with strangeness throughout. I don't do them anymore, and find them incredibly annoying, as many do, when they derail the module I am playing. But that's my choice.

In summary, make it just role-playing choices if that is what people want and toss the missions out. People apparently weren't mature enough for the year 0 system, and there's still too much periodic disagreement on these issues. It serves no purpose other than to fractionalize the party and call for a few skill checks. Toss PA while you're at it, give module access to items with favors, and for heavens sake start limiting access before the next magic item compendium comes out.

But hey, according to many, I'm a bully (some prefer 'jerk') so what I mean to say is that 10 factions are awesome, and you should all agree with me. (Reverse psychology works, right?)

Quit being a bully Bill! :-D

from PRD:

** spoiler omitted **

Looks like ogre could call his pets since only his near square and not his far square was in the Area of effect.

Edit: this is interesting to me because I always let players hit large things with a fireball on their near edge, looks like I was wrong

I don't agree with you on this one, it says the far edge of the square not the creature. If he is half in the silence then the far edge of one of his squares is touched by the area.

what your bolded text is saying is that if the area and the creature are sharing a border then it is not effected.

Edit: 5 ft radius is four squares since you place the center on a crosssection not the middle of a square.

Player wrote:

The other thing I am afraid of is when a player actually does want to be involved in the political battle. I have a cleric of Sarenrae who takes the faction's political struggle seriously and wants Qadira to win. He, therefore, does not assist other players in their missions if he suspects their action involves their mission. He has good sense motive skills and he's intelligent enough to make inferences. It shouldn't make me a douche because he is built that way. He especially dislikes Taldor because of their laws forbidding his religion. That being said, he happily heals, buffs, etc. and cooperates towards the primary goal.

There are many who share your viewpoint, In season 0 our group actively attempted to stop each other from completing faction missions, and it was all in good spirit and fun. Back then the faction's operated differently then they do now. Which I can totally understand the change because its one thing to screw your friends, but strangers at a gameday? totally different, especially if they can't have fun.

Even now though I would still never help someone complete their faction mission... One game in particular I recall being scoffed at for my Taldan PC not helping convince someone to free his slaves for an Andoran player, which I thought was kind of silly for him to ask of me in the first place.

Sometimes you miss P.A., it happens, the game isn't designed for you to get all P.A. that could be awarded anyway, or else it wouldn't exist.

In both cases, it is each time.

Putting this in the PFS thread specifically because any answer I get in the regular rules forum is just going to be 'its up to your GM' and that doesn't really fly in PFS.

Expanded Repertoire (Ex): At 2nd level and every four levels thereafter, a magician can add one spell to his spells known from the spell list of any arcane spellcasting class. The spell must be of a level he can cast. This ability replaces versatile performance.

Is there anything stopping you from taking Haste as a 2nd level spell off the summoner list? It doesn't seem to be against the RAW of the ability but I do admit it's a bit lame.

I did see that, and nowhere under that does it say someone with improved unarmed strike (the feat) can use kicks, headbutts, etc. It just say that striking with a punch(everyone can do), kicks(monk), headbutts(monk) is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except the following:

absent is the text that says "A 'character with improved unarmed strike' attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a 'character with improved unarmed strike' may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."

only says it under monk. A MONKS' attack's...(insert rest)

but as I said, this falls under the 'it doesn't say you can't vs. it doesn't say you can' and as I am usually on the 'it doesn't say you can' side.

Edit: I am not arguing that it provokes, it does provoke. But you can't do anything with a bow in your hands unless you are a monk. (they can kick and headbutt, but you lack to training required to move around on the battlefield maintaining normal combat efficiency while leaving all of your limbs available with a weapon.)

Now I have a silly image in my head of an archer trying to fire accurately whilst kicking someone. :)

It depends on if the character with the bow is a monk with improved unarmed strike or not.

According to RAW:

Unarmed Strike (Monk):
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved
Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be
with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk
may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is
no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus
on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.

Unarmed Strike (Feat):
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when
unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when
you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can
deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed

After reading all of the unarmed strike stuff, I do find these to be two different cases. A character with improved unarmed strike has been trained to fight with his hands, while a monk has been trained to use his whole body since it's specifically spelled out in the monk entry (and not in improved unarmed strike)

But either way since most 'it doesn't say I can't' players will oppose this call I imagine then it will still be left to the GM.

Grick wrote:

Chaosthecold wrote:

The only way I would say No is if a creature had an ability that existed in 3.5 (Not sure if it does anymore) called 'Surprise Reach'.

What about an Aberrant Sorcerer using Long Limbs (Ex) and a readied action to shocking grasp the wizard from 15' away if he begins casting a spell? The wizard shouldn't know that he can get zapped until he's seen it happen.

"He's an unarmed human. Even if he takes a 5' step, I'm still out of reach. No defensive casting for me, huahua!" zap

This isn't even the same thing... but would fall into the same category as the surprise reach ability. The wizard would not expect that from the character unless he has already seen it done. the ability itself even says it doesn't increase your threatened area. Your sorc. appears to be waiting for something with a crackly hand (if you spellcrafted the shocking grasp you know he can't get to you). Perhaps he has some trick up his sleeve to hit you...maybe cast defensively just in case....not that it matters since you have a readied action to interrupt his casting... Fool me once shame on you...

For me your characters retire too quickly to even take GM credit. I enjoy playing a character from start to finish. So I don't even take a chronicle for the scenarios I judge.

The only way I would say No is if a creature had an ability that existed in 3.5 (Not sure if it does anymore) called 'Surprise Reach'... Its name tells you everything you need to know about it... "Hey...wow...I'm Surprised he could reach me from there with those tiny arms." /stretch armstrong.

The only addendum I would make to Grick's post is that unless you roll initiative when the PCs start smashing the door the archers can't ready actions since you can't do that outside of combat.

You either start the initiative and they have readied actions or they get a surprise round(unless you gave your PCs a perception check to hear them). Either way it pretty much equates to the same thing.. Baddy's get a shot as you open the door.

EDIT: If you really want them to go first just don't give your PCs a perception check... They get surprised... The busting on the door is just too loud for them to hear the subtle knocking of arrows.

in 3.5 it was an issue....but not nearly as bad as it is now since putting an ioun stone in a wayfinder 'grants you protection from mental control'....

Going to more gamedays I see people more and more who think they are immune to almost all enchantment spells and effects and it actually hurts my enjoyment of the game that some people abuse these rules in this fashion....

The biggest two components I have to defend why these people are wrong is... READ THE BOOK.....and ARE YOU FLIPPING KIDDING ME?!

Under the enchantment school in the core rulebook:

Charm: A charm spell changes how the subject views
you, typically making it see you as a good friend.
Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act
in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some
compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the
effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the
subject’s actions when you cast the spell, AND STILL OTHERS GIVE YOU ONGOING CONTROL OVER THE SUBJECT.

The other glaringly obvious one is the spell Mind Blank. You know that eighth level spell that used to grant you immunity to all mind effecting spells and effects? What is that you say? It doesn't even do that anymore? What makes you think a first level spell does?

Please god.... If anything... I volunteer to be the official 'slap you in the face for thinking the rules work like that' person for PFS...

" you can power attack with touch attacks if the spell states they are treated as a weapon."

is this stated somewhere? Because power attack specifically says you can't power attack with touch attacks.

EDIT: Especially since you don't even get your strength modifier to the damage... So swinging extra hard would....do....nothing..

Can't power attack with Flame Blade. Attacks with a Flame Blade are touch attacks therefore making them incapable of power attackage.

Shar Tahl wrote:

This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.

So adding my madness to the mix, if we can wield a lance in one hand when riding, then why don't we dual wield lances while riding?

So at a good -4/-4 (with two weapon fighting) my main hand still counts as two handed, but so does my off hand. So the first is 1.5x str mod, but is the offhand half that at .75 str mod, or we doing linear like most multiplier effects in Pathfinder at 1 str mod.

Come on guys... don't be silly. A two handed weapon means it's in two hands. To ChaostoCold, it's hard to get much closer to like a one handed weapon than to 'as a one handed weapon.' Like and as mean the same thing.

Same thing as a bastard sword. If I have exotic training in it and use it one handed... it's a one handed weapon.

It does get closer to 'like a one handed weapon'

"While mounted you can wield a lance, AS IF IT WERE A ONE-HANDED WEAPON."

As it stands now you are wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand. This is a clear exception to the rule because no other weapon has text like the lance does.

A Bastard sword is irrelevant since it ACTUALLY is a one handed weapon. If you dont have exotic weapon prof. you are wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands..... Its not a two handed weapon.

Chaosthecold wrote:

Im curious as to if this as been FAQ'd because as it stands a direct reading of that is you are wielding a two handed weapon in one hand while mounted. (thus giving you -1 for +3 with PA).

Where does it say that? If you are using the weapon in one hand, it's not a two-handed weapon. A Fighter wielding a Size Small Greatsword in one hand gets -1 / +2, because it's not a two-handed weapon at the time he is wielding it.

I guess I can see how, under extremely strict reading of the rules, whilst ignoring all logic, one might make the argument that they get one extra point of damage.

At which point every GM in the world says "no, sorry, that's silly".

Personally, if I'm using a Lance, I'm after the "Double damage" portion; one more point isn't going to matter.

Its still a two-handed weapon.

If they wanted to restrict it like that it would say, "While mounted you can wield a lance, AS IF IT WERE A ONE-HANDED WEAPON."

You can't apply logic to this game...because wholes will start appearing everywhere.

I've actually learned through this board that most people use the "show me where it says I can't" line. While I do not actually believe it should work this way (because I too often apply logic to gaming)...In the spirit of this board I invite you to "show me where it says I can't." :D

Power Attack
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

Lance
Benefit: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.

Im curious as to if this as been FAQ'd because as it stands a direct reading of that is you are wielding a two handed weapon in one hand while mounted. (thus giving you -1 for +3 with PA).

24 hours!

So I just realized that the first slot tomorrow starts before convention registration is open. What do we do in this situation?

See You guys tomorrow!

Hi,

am wondering if you can use your quarry ability on a target you just cast instant enemy on. Also favored defense.

If so this would REALLY make it optimal for rangers to put alot of FE on one enemy.
Say +8 vs evil outsiders.

For example, You could see an enemy taiga giant.
Swift Cast Instant Enemy, then use Quarry as a standard action and remark at the pretty skirt he's wearing.

Giant charges you and you now treat him as an evil outsider (+8 to hit/damage)

If quarry works that +8 became a +10 and you get +4 to CMD and AC vs the giant thanks to favored defense?

Cheers.

Don't forget your bane weapon since instant enemy states you treat it as that creature type for all purposes.