Corbin Dallas's page

Are you wanting your character to not escape the creature and attack with a light weapon?

I use this.

If you are using animal companions or familiars from another source, you can use the information in this table as a guideline for those creatures. Additionally, GMs may use this table as a guide to determine what kinds of magical gear non-humanoid monsters can wear and use. Note that the rules in this section are merely suggestions, and ultimately it is up to the GM to decide what kinds of animals can use particular types of magic items.

I am saying no to the elemental for my player.

Yes the class feature is what I meant.
Sure, in your opinion it could mean anything you want it to.

From a rules standpoint a player must choose. You won't find any support for "any and all classes".

The player must choose which class channel he wants to apply it to.

The precedent in other PrC's and many traits is to choose.
The feat does not say "all" other classes that grant channel energy that the character possesses. If you are going by wording...

By rule, the answer would be NO. There are ways to do it as the GM, some templates increase DR. Otherwise outside of this I think you would be in houserule territory.

Mishaps are defined under scrolls as well.

Note: It appears the the scroll is not necessarily expended if the CLC fails unless a mishap happens.

Mishaps may require further discussion but is not the pressing issue IMO.

The AoO must be resolved first.

Activate the Spell: Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll. Activating a scroll spell requires no material components or focus. (The creator of the scroll provided these when scribing the scroll.) Note that some spells are effective only when cast on an item or items. In such a case, the scroll user must provide the item when activating the spell. Activating a scroll spell is subject to disruption just as casting a normally prepared spell would be. Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance.

There is rules support.

Action

None. The Use Magic Device check is made as part of the action (if any) required to activate the magic item.

Try Again

Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours.

UMD doesn't provoke.

Spell Failure

If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted.

Spells also fail if your concentration is broken and might fail if you're wearing armor while casting a spell with somatic components.

There you go.

I am still looking through some rules as well. Hendelbolaf mentioned the phrase "exactly as casting a spell". That would mean the spell is lost.

The scribe of the scroll's caster level is irrelevant. Only the the spell on the scroll. 1st -9th.

The AoO is resolved first, then if the caster makes the check from the damage the spell still goes off.

I think your group tried to resolve this situation out of order which is where the confusion started.

Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.

Zombies: A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a physical anatomy.

I would agree with Claxon assuming destroyed = NOT mostly intact.

Where would I look to find examples of odd structures broken down in construction cost using UC rules? I need to familiarize myself with these rules better and would like a "tough" example to go by.
Examples would be the Shadow Clock in Magnimar or some other monument in the Inner Sea region.
Thanks in advance for any help.

Not even remotely, I am giving a strictly RAW interpretation. Not in the FAQ, not in the feats, not in the fluff, nowhere in this situation do you find anything that says anything about growing new limbs, you won't find it because it isn't there. I know you think it is implied but implication does not equal RAW. I'm not asking for or arguing for any separation, because there is none needed, the feats and faq agree, you qualify to take the feat, but taking a feat that enhances a limb you do not have does nothing, case closed.

We can argue "RAW interpretations" till Armageddon. I have no interest in debating with you how RAW is applied. The community at large can't even agree on that topic. We apparently lack a common frame of reference to continue productive discussion.

I stand by my explanations.

The character has a d4 secondary Tail Slap.

Case closed.

As I pointed out in a previous post you are asking things to be separated that are not separate. We can disagree until the cows come home on how RAW is applied in this case.

The character has a d4 secondary Tail Slap.

It is a nice little corner case you have spun though.

That is nonsense. The character has a d4 secondary tail slap.

I mean I don't like this FAQ myself. But regardless of my personal feelings rules are rules FAQ's are FAQ's and benefits are benefits.

Heh.

This short, reptilian humanoid has scaled skin, a snout filled with tiny teeth, and a long tail.

The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.

So those arguing against want the descriptive text held separate from the mechanical benefits. Also, the FAQ has to be ignored since it qualifies a character for said benefits.

Am I interpreting the oppositions position correctly?

A Pickled Punk. Didn't even know that thing existed until this thread. There is generally a benefit as Nefreet stated.
In the case of Pazio material, I don't know of any creature examples that get a overly unfair combat advantage due to this ability or have a very high CR. But I don't have them all memorized.

FlySkyHigh,

This is the wording from the Dragon entry:

"A dragon can use its breath weapon when it is grappling or being grappled."

This is very consistent with the wording under the Combat rules for Grapple. In fact, it isn't all that vague IMO. This is why I am pressing hard for "one is correct and one is not". Initially I was somewhat dismissive of this and in favor of comparison #1. I want to be clear with regard to rules compliance in organized play or home games.

As far as the non-lethal weapons go I misunderstood what the OP was saying in a previous post. I think Bane Of Humanity and I cleared that up as a non-factor for this particular rules discussion.

Out of curiosity what weapons do you mean? I am guessing that they still fall under what the CRB wrote: "unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon".

Gauss,

I understand exceptions. I understand the GM's right to referee. I understand that you post a bunch about RAI vs RAW.

So coming back around...
You are saying that BOTH are rules compliant for organized play and home games or you are not. I am not going to accept that these concepts are separate on the rules discussion forum.
I want more from you than that. Heh :) Obviously you may decline.

Torbyne and Suthainn,

I am unclear what you are talking about.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.

If we are dealing with just RAW and the FAQ, then that's that. No GM discretion about a tail growing or fluff text required. The character has a d4 Tail Slap.

gain an oddly worded secondary bite attack?

I don't understand what this is.

Well assuming the FAQ qualifies, then Cap. Darling is correct it's a d4.

Anybody got a link? I don't see it.

edit: Found the FAQ's

May I ask how you intended on taking Racial Heritage feat with your character who is not a human?

Prerequisite: Human.

Only once per round.

Holy crap on a cracker.

Are we still going on this? Hehehe

i was in a group that had a LN dwarf that constantly played LE intil the dm changed his alignment for him. the player went along with it. then a couple of sessons later, the mod we were playing had us encounter a large group of CG outsiders who took one look at said dwarf and said he had one chance. dwarf rolled a 1 on his bluff that he would be "good" and they (the outsiders) splatered him all over the caveren...

That's so Metal....

The OP stated it is a homebrew game and was just curious of the actual ruling. The actual ruling has been provided.

So unless we want to have this moved to the Homebrew/Houserule thread or something it's a dead point to argue creativity>rules compliance or balance>creativity.

There are more appropriate threads for those arguments. I understand RPG enthusiasts tend to take things personal, lets just not do it here. The OP's question was answered.

I agree. Expelled into the nearest legal square.

Looking at this thread here is what I see. Bold is mine.

1) You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This statement excludes all other attack forms.
Hence a dragon cannot use it's breath weapon as part of the damage option under grapple. It requires it's own standard action.

2) You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This statement does not exclude other attack forms specified in other material. The bestiary wording (A dragon can use its breath weapon when it is grappling or being grappled)should be added here.

So for organized play and home games either BOTH rulings are rules compliant or one is correct, one is not correct.

I feel one is correct one is not correct, it cannot be both.

At least we answered the main questions before we went for a ride. Heh.

A problem with that scenario would be that the spell effect doesn't state that it can block vision in a given square or even target a creature.
I feel this is one of those role-play situations players like to specify to gain a significant advantage not listed in the spell.
Keep in mind this is a 0th level spell. I don't see how it could grant any penalties to a creature.

For conditions like Blinded it is usually put in the spells description if the spell can do it as a result of a failed save perhaps. I don't see how it could give a creature the Blinded condition and be rules compliant.

wraithstrike,

Thanks for the response. I suspected that is what you meant. I didn't feel the non-lethal damage is the deciding factor for damage options. I have apparently been in a bit of miscommunication with the OP earlier in the thread.

Is there a specific weapon you were thinking of?
Does the list Rynjin posted cover your want/need list for the character?

Are you talking about the monk proficiency list? Are you wanting to use a weapon for Flurry of Blows?

Mechanically speaking if the character has an alignment that isn't evil then no smite.

I am curious oynaz, what do you mean by lenient? Are you speaking about a GM changing a players alignment in game?

Looking at the rules for experimental spaces-
Would the character not be expelled to the level of the existing material?

I just threw that in there for additional reference. Like SlimGauge posted- Depends on what you want to use the chain for...

Are we talking about climbing here?

Rope Tricks
Rope tricks can be performed with hemp rope or silk rope, or with similar rope-like items at the GM's discretion.

Do you think the GM thinks of chains as a rope-like item?

My additional question was If a creature is pinned and denied his dex bonus completely does he lose his ability to make a reflex save OR does his simply take a huge penalty?

The creature makes the Reflex with the described penalties.

The breath weapon while allowed does not allow for it to be nonlethal, and the grapple rules do nothing to modify the breath weapon.....

So you are saying Breath Weapon is a rules legal option under damage(grapple). IF so, is this due to the bestiary entry?

Well what I am getting at is, this is the Rules Questions forum. Things get very specific here.

I am trying to pin your POV down specifically(no pun intended- heh) in the context of making rulings across the board with regard to the Rules As Written.

You are saying it is rules compliant in PFS Organized Play or a home game for a individual GM to decide if a dragon can or cannot use a breath weapon as part of the damage option under maintaining a grapple. Is this correct?

the pit has no weight and does not otherwise displace the original underlying material.

Using the quote that concerro used-

So you are saying BOTH are rules legal. Allowing it and not allowing it. Correct?

Heh. So you are saying it should be ignored that the damage forms under the specific rules for Damage(under grapple) state that the damage can be lethal or non-lethal?

Keep in mind the Breath Weapon does not have the option of being non-lethal.

Under grapple:

Damage

You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon (A dragon can use its breath weapon when it is grappling or being grappled). This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.

The bold part I inserted it is not present in the entry itself.

Is that what you are saying?

The bestiary entry is not giving the dragon extra actions. I feel the Bestiary clarified that because the Grappled/Pinned conditions don't always specify what actions are limited in all cases.

Combat rules must be satisfied first in this case. Any character normally only gets one Standard and one Move action in a combat round. Both maintaining a Pin and using a Breath Weapon are Standard Actions. The dragon must choose- as I and williamoak stated. All characters need special feats/abilities to maintain grapples as Move Actions.