I know that many traits, feats, abilities indicate sometimes that you can increase your CL but not beyond current HD, but it's written as something specific
Any place in the rules that refers to the limit of CL vs your actual HD or level??
So for example, if, I'm a level 15 wizard and get an orange prism ioun stone (+1CL), do I now cast spells at CL 16 or I'm still limited by my HD (so 15th)??
Thanks for the answers...
For #4, i forgot to mention that indeed it would be in conjonction with ascetic form (my bad). My question is more on the two-handed aspects.
So ascetic form let me use elbow smash with the chosen weapon of ascetic style (urumi), but if I use it two-handed, can I still make a elbow smash since BOTH my hands I occupied with wielding the urumi and elbow smash requires a FIST ???
Hi everyone. I'm planning to play an unchained monk soon. More specifically, I'm looking at the ascetyc build (home game) and have a few questions:
For the sake of discussion, let's assume I pick the urumi as my weapon (weapon focus)which is part of the monk fighter weapon group. I will take ascetic style ans later ascetic form.
1) Is the urumi's base damage die (1d8) increased by ascetic style when my unarmed damage besomes 1d10 and above? (I've seen many discussion and debate on this, but I don't know if there was a concessus). What is the current accepted interpretation/rule?
2: The special ability of ascetic style indicates that at 5th, it "can use Ascetic Style with any monk weapon, in addition to the chosen melee weapon." Since shuriken is a monk weapon, would it's base damage also increase with ascetic style?
3)If I get an amulet of might fist, does its bonus also apply to the urumi through ascetic style? What if the urumi's is also enchanted?
4)If I wield the urumi two-handed, can I still use Elbow smash? (I understand that the name of the ability relates to an elbow, but the text explicitly indicates that: "The monk must attack with a fist to use this style strike." Since your hand is occupied in wielding the urumi 2-handed, it would seem to prevent the use of a fist???
Thanks you for your help
Since you want to focus on the SG build, may I suggest you buy an elemental spell ROd (or take the feat itself). So at least when you meet demons, you have other options (even though they have resistance).....
Having an intensified snowball ready is also good since no SR (but of course won't be as good vs undead or demons)
BTW: defending bone is an awesome good spell to have...
Was wondering about the spell Revenant armor:(Armor Master's handbook):
This spell endows a suit of armor with a singular purpose realized only after its wearer goes unconscious or is killed; whenever the wearer of a suit of armor warded by revenant armor is brought below 0 hit points or otherwise rendered unconscious (but not paralyzed or held) in combat, the armor is immediately brought to life as a Medium-sized animated object.
This animated suit of armor still contains the unconscious (or dead) body of its former wearer and moves with a shambling gait at a speed of 20 feet. This animated object has average hit points and, if the armor is made from metal, it has the metal animated object extraordinary ability (plus additional abilities based on the type of metal). Once animated, the revenant armor remains standing (and stands if knocked prone, doing so without provoking attacks of opportunity), and prevents the wearer of the armor from being considered helpless. If an ally of the wearer is within range of the armor, she can direct it to move, though it refuses to go anywhere that requires a skill check. If grappled or otherwise restrained, it can attempt to break free with a Strength score equal to your caster level and a CMB equal to 1 + your caster level + the armor’s Strength modifier. If the armor’s wearer is reduced to dust, made conscious, or removed from the armor, the spell ends.
If it stands beside an enemy and an ally direct it to move away, does the movement provokes AOO? (I assume yes).
Does the enemy gets an AOO against the armor or against the wearer of the armor? (can he choose?)
the rules are written based on a 2D perspective, where you seem to try to evaluate them in a 3D pattern (unless I misunderstood your point). If you look at the example on page 194 of the CRB, you will see that.
As for your large creature, since it has reach against creature C, you have to use the rules ranged attacks:
in this case, the north-East corner of A2 (the best square for the big creature), does not have a clear line to all 4 corners of creature C.
if it can help, there was a similar item in the Magic Item Compendium in 3.5.
Just look on the internet for: Gauntlets of True strike. It's a 1/d item, that cost 3500 gp, but on command = Std action (not free).
I personnally would not allow free as it is too strong in my opinion, but a would agree with your quickened true strike evaluation. IF you compare with the gauntlets, your calculation would sound good.
Roric provided another good way to look at it. I've seen the same argument when there was a debate about the Continous ring of true strike.
I tend to agree with him for an item that would be continous, as the cost for a weapon bonus assume a continous effect. But a continous true strike is way overpowered I think....
Personnaly, I would not pay for 80,000 gp for a 1/day free true strike. Maybe 20-30,000 gp, but more than that, I believe I probably could get better things...but of course, it depends on your build!
I would like to point out something that seem to have been omitted:
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
So to effectively use it to get AC, it is clear that you need to use that hand to grip the shield by the end of your turn, otherwise, it doesn't make any sense because it comes down to being a buckler, but his heavier.
But it doesn't preclude you from releasing it, cast, use an item, switch grip, etc.
It clearly stated that you cannot use it to use a weapon (so no two-handed switching grip thing).
So, for a paladin who is gripping is shield at beginning of round he could release as free, use lay on hand with the hand, and then regrip to use AC when his turn is over...
So we kept his character with us and we try to play it as best we can, but having some issues as he’s relatively weak in combat (mostly having low AC and his impact seems minimal).
- Currently, we are all lvl 10
Weapon: +1 Furious Greataxe
Gear : amulet +1, ring +3, +1 furious greataxe, belt of physical might +2 (Con and STR), a bunch of minor wands, extend rod
Spell list: 1st: Ill omen X2, Divine favor X2, Mount, CLW ; 2nd glitterdust, Mage armor, Raven’s flight, bull strength, Web; 3rd Dispel magic, lightning bolt, Summon 3 ; 4th Dimension door, Black tentacles; summon 4
Main issue: when not too many enemies, he will debuff with hexes or cast spell or go into melee. As he built it for EK, he was meant to go in melee, but his AC is really low and his witch class doesn’t allow armor or doesn’t have access to defensive spells such as mirror image, displacement, etc.
So I seek your help for 2 things:
I play a trip/enforcer/bodyguard build magus.
Basically, with the adopted trait, i can considerably boost the AC of my adjacent allies with bodyguard and debuff the opponents by tripping them and using the frostbite build.
Once they are tripped, entangled and fatigued, they can't do very much....
Adding dazing spell to frostbite at lvl 10-11 becomes very interesting!!
Ok one question here:
do the bonus from both arcane pool AND warrior spirit stack together.
According to CRB p.13:
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together
So for a +3 blackblade, both class features adds an enhancement bonus to the weapon that can be used either for direct enhancement bonus or for special abilities...
But do they stack? It would appear that only the highest of the two bonus would apply here....No???
I'm not trying to run anything with my DM.
I started reading the thread about Full Round action and free actions, and saw the two sides debating about the specific in regards to Spellcombat and whether you could take a free attack (given by touch spell) after the full action is completed.
Reading the definition of Full round action that takes the entire round, I just asked myself if you could take free/swift after taking the FRA? (I think somebody mentionned it in the other thread).... So basically just tried to look at it at a higher level so it would apply to all FRA and not just looking at a specific case...
FYI: our group play mostly as side 2 as we never really faced the issue of dealing with those specific situation. The magus in our group always takes his free attack right after casting the spell...
So no shenanigans, but a real interest to know which way is the right way...
Now...One thing is still unclear for me from all the previous interesting discussions:
If a full round action takes the entire round (from 0 to 6), then indeed there should be no time to take other swift /free actions either before/after or during the Full round action because it take the entire round...So technicslly, you should be able to take at all....
But the rules say in the Full Round action description that you can still take Free/swift....
If the Full round action does not last the entire round, then it contradicts its own definition....
so is there a contradiction within the rules?? I saw good arguments on both suides, but haven't see a clear definitive answer...
Well they may seem flawed if you do not know where the argument comes from...
Basically the argument for side 1 (no Free/swift outside FRA) comes from this:
First remember that an action type (standard, move, full round ) is defined as a duration:
Now as for FRA it says at two places:
Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all
CRB p. 187
So as you can see the argument is, as written, the FRA tells you that is last the entire round (from 0 to 6). Therefore, you technically can't take an action before or after because it last the entire round. But it allows you to take Free and swift between individual actions Inside the FRA.
So, you don't agree with one side, and thatis fine, but is not flawed but based on what's written. at least you understand where it comes from....
I hoped that this thread could resolve at least part of it....
If the FRA takes the entire round as described in the CRB, then the free action cannot be seperated from the spellcombat but has to be within.
Unfortunately, if the FRA doesn't last the entire round, then you are allowed to take free action after the FRA, but doesn't resolve if it can be separated....
The case you described Lorewalker is not an issue per say, because you can technically take a 5 foot step with a Full round action so in this case it has no impact. Actually, there is no issue with the 5-foot step at all...
But the specific case described by Johnny (spellcombat)would be impacted if the full round action takes the entire round or not....see the post of Johnny, thaX or my other post where I describec potential consequences depending on whether you can do free/swift before/after the Full Round Action.
Yuri, Johnny as summarized a good part of the debate in the other thread.
I will just add some of the potential consequences of the good examples given by JOhnny:
in case 3: if the swiftcast is within the TWF (full attack action that last the entire round), then you might get the -2 to hit. But if the swiftcast happens after the completion of the full round action (full attack with TWF that is completed) then you don't get the -2..
as for 4: if the swiftcast happens within the FRA (spellcombat) then you cannot switch grip for 2-handed as Spellcombat requires one hand free for the entire action which last the entire round. If you can take actions after the FRA is completed (spellcombat) then you are no longuer confined by the restriction of spellcombat and can then switch grip to 2-handed once you have swiftcast shocking grasp for example...
There might be other cases where similar questions arise..hence the overall question if you FRA takes the entire round or not.
As for your examples with the rage (or any other example that you gave):
If you declare full attack , you can still start your rage because it is allowed by RAW to do free actions Inside a FRA. SO in this case you would: Start FRA, initiate rage as Free, make your full attack sequence, do other free or swift, then end of FRA (you can also make a 5-foot step somewhere within that FRA....
For this instance, there are no consequences either way as opposed to spellcombat which impose a restriction....
LOLI'm sorry JOhnny, I didn't read that thread, but heard about it. I just saw the divergence in the other thread (Full action + Free actions) and wanted a more general answer that would resolve the other specifics...It seems to me if we have a clear answer to this general question, il will answer the specific ones....one might hope!!
No it is not agreed upon..at least it wasn't in the other thread where many arguments was brought to either side....
there are two sides on this:
1) those that think that cou cannot take free/swift outside of FRA because the FRA take the entire round (therefore the swift and free can only be taken Inside the FRA)
2) those that think that there is a gap (however small) that allows you to take Free and swift actions before/after the FRA.
The Archive wrote:
Just to give some perspective into this discussion. This didn't come up with someone trying to read more into the rules like you are saying. It came up in the other thread because people were arguing about the impact of a full round action on potential other actions in the rounds. Someone then came up with this explanation/defintion in the books and it raised questions that I thought interesting.
MOre specifically, if you take a spellcombat Full Round Action (FRA)or take the full attack action while fighting with two weapons, both action types impose a restriction (one hand free for spellcombat and a penalty to hit for TWF).
Now if someone take take a swift action (casting a touch spell) after completing the main actions associated with the full round action, are they still under the restriction of the Full Round action?
Side 1 said: Yes. FRA consumes the entire round (from 0 to 6 seconds), therefore you still take -2 to hit for your attack or you can't switch grip to two-handed on your touch attack with the swift spell since you are required to have a free hand for the entire FRA with spellcombat.
Side 2 said: No. Once you complete a FRA, you still have time to do swift and Free and since the FRA is completed, you don't have any restriction/penalties anymore.
Please note, this thread is not about resolving theses specific issues (very intelligent people have made good arguments on both sides on this other thread). So go to this other thread if you want to discuss those specifics issues (there are more than one)
But it raised the question on whether you can take swift and free actions before and after the FRA wich I found very interesting....
Understand, that in most cases, I believe that either way, it won't really impact the game as most of the time, you will be able to take the free/swift actions anyway (either within or outside the FRA).
But in some specific cases it might impact, and maybe in the future, there might be other FRAs that impose a restriction on those swift/free actions. Personnaly that's what I want to know.....
Well it is not so obvious even though it appears to be. There has been a lot of discussion about this in the Full actions + free actions thread and very good arguments has been made by both sides. In these threads they discussed it in the context of Spellcombat and TWF...
To summarize: Full round action is defined as consuming all your efforts during your turn or requiring entire round to complete:
Full-Round Actions (CRB p.187)
Therefore, if a full round requires en entire round (not part of it), therfore you can't take a free or swift actions before and after.
However, it clearly indicated that you can take them DURING the full round action.
Just like you said:
Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions
Please note. Assuming the Full round action consume the entire round as indicated, you can take the 5-foot step DURING the Full round action before , during or after the actual action associated with the FRA, but not before or after the actual FRA.
Fpr example, if you use spellcomabt that gives you the ability to cast and attack, you can take your 5-foot step before the casting, or after, before the acttacks or after, etc. But all within the duration of the Full round action. Now in most cases, that won't make a difference, but in order cases it will....
Both sides agree that you can take free actions during a Full round action. The question is whether you can take them before and after.
to make it clearer:
side 1 says: During a 6 second Full round action it starts at 0 and end at 6 seconds. Therefore, when your full round action is complete, you cannot do anything else.
side 2 says: you still have some time before and after complteing a full round actions to make free and swift actions.
I'm making this new thread because of other threads that raised a lot of debates and questions but came to a circle with still a desagreement to the correct interpretation (both sides believing they are right)
The two interpretation/opinions are:
1- No. You cannot because the definition of Full Round action indicates that it consumes the whole round and thus you can only take those actions within the Full round action (and under any restriction imposed by the type of Full round action you took)
2- Yes you can. Basically, the notion is that there is a gap before or after that full round actions that allows you to take the Free (which take no time at all) and swift actions.
I believe that this thread is necessary to look at the overall RAW and defines if it is possible or not and should be Faqed because it would greatly benefits from clarification from the PDT and resolve many other threads in the forum.
good point Ozy... For the Free actions, since they are defined as taking no time, I recognize that it might be possible before or after the Full Round action.(BTW, as a side note, it is interesting to see that on their website: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html
Paizo defines Free actions as also consuming a very small amount of time and not no time at all like in the books!!)
But for the Swift, they are defined as consuming a very small amount of time, therefore could not be taken before or after according to the definition of Full round action.
As for the metamagic spell, as a full round action you would make your metamagic spell, but since you are allowed a swift action in your round, then RAW would allow you to make a quickened spell before of after your metamagic spell within the Full round action, and thus within any confine that such an action would impose (in this case none, but for spellCombat it would...)
Darksol has made a very good case of summarizing the arguments of those in support of the Full Round action taking the whole round (like I do). Doesn't mean he believes that's the correct one(hence the comment about magus being broken by the components requirements and all), but I think he understand the reasoning behind it.
Ozy has made a good description throughout this thread why he believes otherwise. I believe we need a specific FAQ for that as I understand both sides and like you indicated earlier, this thread is starting to turn in circle because people strongly believe in their arguments...
I think a Faq request or question to be Faqed should be created like:
Can you take Free actions and Swift actions before and after a Full round action, or you can't because by definition a full round action take the entire turns? (knowing that Free and swift actions can be taken within the Full round action)
I also always assumed like you Agodeshalf that there was a gap, but this discussion made me review the whole idea when I read the definition of full round action type which defines it has consuming the entire round.
Very interesting debate here.
Johnny_Devo has recently summarized (lengthy summary, but a very good one) the key issues discussed in this thread and Ferious Thune, Darksol, and Ozy have proposed different good points of views in that regards.
Here’s my two copper and maybe a few things that seems to be omitted and hopefully helps:
One of the key question in this debate is: How long do Full round action last within a round?
There seems to be two views: either it last for the entire round or not.
My thought process was: is a full round action taking / lasting from 0 to 6 seconds of the entire rounds or it goes (let’s say for argument’s sake and not actual values) from 0.3 to 5.7 seconds leaving room before and after to do free actions and swift actions?
Well, as was indicated earlier, RAW indicates that a Full round Action consumes all your efforts and last for the entire round. So to me, it is clear that it goes from 0 to 6 seconds. So technically, if you declare Spell Combat, it will encompass the whole round and everything is done within that confine.
What about Free actions, swift actions and 5 foot step?
Now from the definition on the CRB p. 181:
First thing we see is that you can perform free actions and swift actions during that Full round action type. So no problem in casting a spell and doing your iterative attacks and then (or prior to) do a swift intensified shocking grasp followed by the free touch attack.
Secondly, contrary to what have been indicated earlier, the paragraph doesn’t mention that you can do a 5 foot step before, during or after the Full round action! It says that the only movement you can take DURING the Full round action (type) is a 5-foot step which you can take before/during/or after the action.
What action? Well the action associated with the Full round action type not the Full round action per say. Therefore, if you cast a metamagic spell, you can take your 5-foot step during or before or after the casting. If you are doing a full attack action (which includes TWF), well this one specifically say that you can not only take your 5-foot step before or after all your attacks, but you can also do it between attacks.
As for SpellCombat:
It allows you to cast your spell and then (or before) make all your attacks. Since it is a full round action type, between the individual actions within that action type, you can do a 5-foot step. You can also take your swift / free before or after those actions
So having SpellCombat last the entire round (as defined by RAW) doesn’t contradict the rules, it goes with it.
The only thing that this discussion made me realize is that indeed, since it last the whole round and you need to have a free hand during the whole Full round action as required by Spellcombat, then you cannot used a free action to switch grip from one-handed to two-handed!!!
Do I like it? Nope…But it works RAW and it goes with the actual design intent that was mentioned earlier…
Apart from the previous good suggestions, I note that you guys already have good tanks/damage dealing PCs. So You might want to either go with an enforcer build to up AC and reduced incoming damage or build around a debuffing character like a frostbite build. You will have shocking grasp as a back up anyway just in case...so might be interesting....if you like those types of builds.
Since you can take a swift action during a full round action, what happens if the magus do this:
1) initiate spellcombat.
Does the free attack in 4 get the -2???
Thank you all for the feedback so far...these are all very good points...So to summarize what I gathered from you guys:
As many of you indicated, there are many tactics to counter this spell. However, I assumed that unless your enemies have invested in the spellcraft spell, most of your encounters will not recognized the spell itself.
So, as many of you have noted, it comes down to observation and interaction with the spell.It is thus reasonable that after a few attacks, some of them will stop attacking you and switch target.
I can see that in some cases, the enemies might use the reach tactics, but if most of your enemies fight you in an adjacent square, observing a 10 feet limit might not be so obvious...
As for the damage output, yes a reflex save is allowed for half but the way I see it, with a successful save, your enemy would get approximately the same level of damage as a fire shield
So, from the very good experience i got from you guys, it is a good spell, not too OP (since there are some counters to it), and thus will not ruin the game...
thanks for the feedback so far...
@Kalridian: good examples...put some perspective. Lots of your points come down to metagaming and GM style, but you're right, that above 9-10 th lvl, many encounters with acid resistance...
- I have a side question: you mention lot of damage with dimension door and spell combat: How do you get to that? I understand that with S.C. you cast DD and then full attack, but magus don't do that many damages without other spells to boost their damage. How does DD helps you increase that??
So, our party reached 10th level and both the hunter and my magus now have access to 4th level spell.
We immediately noticed Caustic Blood....This is soooo good, that i'm beginning to be concerned about the impact on our game. Fire shield is one thing, but 10d6 acid each time you are being hit, is another thing....
I'm looking for any feedback based on your experience to see if we should play with this spell, or if it's too OP.
Our party have access to resist energy, so meeting enemies with this spell is not too big an issue, but I doubt that most of our enemies will have the same access...
So what do you guys think???
thank you for your feedback!!
If you create/upgrade a headband of intellect, can you add (and then use) a trained only skill to it, or it has to be untrained only skills?
For example: could you choose disable device as the skill associated with it when you create a new headbeand of intellect and then use it just like if you were trained into that skill?
I'm surprised to see that Dazing Spell is missing.
My build use a Rimed frostbite (magical lineage)with enforcer and cruel weapon. By level 10, a Dazing Rimed frostbite has a good DC (16) vs will and with each hit the DC increase (because of the penalty debuff from shaken and sickened conditions) making it a DC 20 will save...
As any good party at that level often has a haste in play, with 3 (or 4 when casting) attacks per round, statistics are on your side....
So against a big monster or Boss, this has been very useful for me so far....
Thank you all for your comments!! Very helpful so far...
1. You've misunderstood how Hellknights work. Most of them very much do not worship Asmodeus.
Well, must admit, this is definitively the case....reading through this thread, I realize we didn't know the Hellknights as well as we thought...
I believe that we all assumed that all Hellknights were worshipping Asmodeus. Apparently, doesn't seem to be the case. Do you guys have any reference to point us to so that we can have a look at?
Is there any reference at all that indicates which god each Order (or general overall) worship?
Also on the subject of default game lore, Hellknights count paladins among their ranks - there are, in fact, Hellknight paladins.
That is very interesting, but contrary to what our GM has seen in the books (AP, etc). Aside from the fact that the HK prestige classes only require lawful alignment, we have not seen anything talking about that.
Do you guys have any reference to point to that indicates or gives example of a Hellknight Paladin? is there any Hellknight PAladin NPC in any AP?
Finally, I believe we are all confortable with a Paladin dealing with LN Hellknights of the Order of the NAils. But is it acceptable for the PAladin in allowing the Order to build a temple of Asmodeus if they asked for it???
Thanks MeanMutton...good points like last time...
For the sake of discussion, we are assuming that indeed the temple won'T do evil things associated with rest of the cult.....
As for last point, I too thought that their power came from their gods, but Kazaan (previous link) presented a compelling argument..I also think that smite evil indicates or related to the Powers of Good..so don't know here...
Assuming, it's from their god, why would Abadar give a smite evil to it's Paladin...technically it shouldn't care about either evil or good, thus, strictly roleplaying Wise, if power comes from Abadar, smite evil should have been replaced by smite chaos!!!
Hi guys. This is a follow-up to a recent thread that I initiated:
Many good comments in it....
However, we faced a debate yesterdday about potential interaction with LN Hellknights.
Background: The order of the Nails (LN Hellknights) have established a settlement on the border of our Kingdom. Initial discussions with them went well as they are here to spreading civilization and order and eliminating barbarism, which our Paladin ruler is fine with.
Now, in face of an agressive neighbour, the Paladin pondered if it would be a good idea to propose to the Hellknights a settlement within our kingdom (thus forging an alliance).
1) Assuming the Hellknight would come and build a temple to their God in the new settlement, is that something that the Paladin can accept (having a temple dedicated to an evil Devil) within his realm even though he knows that the Order of the Nails are not evil and are there to propagate law and order?
- two points of view discussed so far about this:
(edit: I repharase those two points of view to present a more neutral aspect of the two points of view)
2) Would accepting such a deal make a paladin falls???
That last question is of particular interest in the sense that if Abadar is giving the power, then he doesn't care that his paladin make deals with Hellknights (hey, he even has lawful evil cleric in his ranks). But if it's the power of Goods, then might be different.
Thanks for your insights....
Thank you all...these were great comments...
This was really interesting as most paladin i've seen were always worshipping LG deities. So ahving a PC paladin worshipping a LN deity was a novelty that brought interesting philosophical debate and perspective....
As some of you debated, dealing with LN heelknight really puts forward the lawful aspect of the Relationship and poitn of view...normally see the Paladin debating good/evil issues, but here it resolve on the common goal of having a lawful and organized civilized society...
Hi Everyone... Trying to get a little bit of perspective and opinions about some tricky situations.
If you have a Paladin of Abadar. That paladin meets a Hellknight of the Order of the Nails (Lawful neutral).
How should the Paladin see that person and what kind of relationship could be expected between the two of them.. Could the paladin forge an alliance with him knowing which God the order worship?
For example, let say the paladin comes into a neighbouring settlement and see the hellknight working on renovating his temple (Asmodean)...if he offers to help him in his work...is it enough to make him loose it's paladinhood? (why would Abadar make him loose it's paladin Hood, since it technically doesn'T care about evil or good; it wouldn't appreciate helping to build another god's temple)
CRB p. 562 from Damage Reduction
"If a creature has damage reduction from more than one
So from your example, the best damage reduction for the given situation would be the stoneskin...
you don't have to choose anything, the best one apply....