Dallium's page

Specific trumps general. Spells trump feats.

DM: Okay, you he casts hold person on you, and you failed you save. It's your turn, do you want to roll again?

PC: No, I Cleave him

DM: You can't, you're paralyzed.

PC: I read on the forums that feats always happen last. So even though I'm paralyzed, that happens first, and then Cleave says I CAN make a single attack at my full BAB as a standard action, so that's the ONLY thing I can do, but I CAN do it.

The spell doesn't care what the feat says. It scoffs at the puny restrictions, does what it was cast to do, and the feat cries quietly in the corner.

I can't find anything that specifically disallows this

You would need to find something that specifically does allow it, not vice versa. Spells do what they say they do, they don't also give you free traits, or the ability to swap between them.

Pizza Lord wrote:

[snip]

So by your logic and the logic of the game persay then this means that theoretically a Belt of giants strength or Boots of elvenkind should not last more than a dungeon or two?

Well, yes. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't LIKE how fragile magic items are according to the rules, for many of the very reasons you've raised. But the fact that I don't like the rules doesn't change them.

The general rule of thumb is if Vital Strike would be good, you've made a mistake somewhere

Yeah, there's no universe where it grants early access to greater bane. You could be 100 levels higher with respect to your bane ability. If you aren't a level 12+ inquisitor, you don't get greater bane.

Now if the Bane ability was worded like "At level 12, the amount of bonus damage dealt by the weapon against creatures of the selected type increases to 4d6." then yes, early greater bane. It's not worded that way. Bane has nothing to do with and has no effect on Greater Bane.

I think the wording makes it perfectly clear that it does not. You have to read into the item (based on its low cost) to come to that conclusion.

No, actually, I didn't. That's how I read it at first brush. Upon further reading, I stand completely behind my initial thoughts.

It's no different than a character interacting with a real door versus an illusory door based on the real one (that they failed the save on), the character would react equally towards both subjects, illusory or not, because the character perceives and interacts with both doors exactly the same.

Ok, that's it, I'm done. These scenarios aren't even remotely comparable. To call them "exactly the same" is so disingenuous it borders on outright lies. Good day.

Dallium wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

True, I think part of what people are overlooking with respect to the blur spell is this:

Quote:

The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).

If the images are also shifting and wavering, why wouldn't they get the same miss chance?concealment

Corrected emphasis mine

Because the shifting and wavering grant concealment, which carries with it a miss chance. An image cannot hide behind itself, therefore the blurred image doesn't have concealment, thus no miss chance.

You can't ignore words that are there. Shifting and wavering mean something,

No they don't. There is no definition of "shifting" or "wavering" anywhere in a Pathfinder rulebook. Also, I can ignore fluff text whenever I wish.

You insist that the shifting and wavering image can't hide, when there is nothing in the rules that says the miss chance is solely from 'hiding' compare to shifting and wavering.

Uh, yes there is. You gain concealment. That's the miss chance. This isn't blink, where you really aren't there.

A blurred image still shifts and wavers, and thus provides a miss chance. In fact, there is nothing in the rules that says this interpretation is less valid than yours.

What? No. Absolutely not. The images don't gain the effects of blur, per the rules. That's unarguable. Mirror Image functions exactly the way it says it does. So does Blur. This has never been about whether the images actually, per the rules, gain the miss chance. Of course they don't. Per the rules, the images don't even change to match the caster if the caster changes, and that doesn't matter, because Mirror Image doesn't have any clauses that would make it stop working.

This has always been about how, conceptually, it SHOULD work. If you wanna bring RULES into it, the Mirror Images don't benefit from Blur because nobody cast Blur on them. Period. There is no argument to be had there. If you think there is, you need to go read the rules again.

Making you look distorted is precisely all that the Blur spell does, which is mechanically simulated by granting a 20% miss chance.

If you want to talk semantics, Blur mechanically grants concealment to the subject of the spell. The conceptual explanation of how it does so is irrelevant.

When you make a spell effect that's entirely visual, and you have a different effect that mimicks those exact visuals, it's basically impossible to argue that they don't receive that spell effect without breaking the fundamentals between either effect involved.

Not only is it not "basically impossible," it's the only argument that makes any sense whatsoever. You're arguing that the image can just grant itself concealment because. Just because. The only thing it can possibly use to grant itself concealment is itself. If the caster holds a blanket up in front of themselves, they might, theoretically, if the GM is feeling particularly generous, grant themselves concealment, because you don't know exactly where behind the blanket they are. The Mirror Images, being mirror images, would also hold up blankets, but since those blankets are part of the images, they wouldn't grant concealment even if that tactic worked for the caster. The caster has a physical blanket that isn't made of caster. The images don't.

Again, if you could directly cast Blur on one of the images (somehow), you would have an independent illusion over another independent illusion, in which case everything is hunky dory.

If the Mirror Images are supposed to mimick your visuals exactly, then I fail to see how Blur, a purely visual effect, doesn't transmute over to them, both mechanically and visually.

Well, it doesn't transfer mechanically because Mirror Image doesn't say anything about effects like Blur transferring in it's spell description, and Blur doesn't say anything about transferring to effects like Mirror Image in its description. Mechanically speaking, no interaction.

Which makes perfect sense conceptually, because the Mirror Image of a caster with Blur doesn't have an outline that APPEARS "blurred, shifting, and wavering," it has an outline that ACTUALLY IS "blurred, shifting, and wavering."

After all, if I Polymorph into a Dragon, have my AC change based off of my new form, wouldn't the Mirror Images now have the new and adjusted AC (for the purposes of calculating near misses)? According to you, they wouldn't, based on you saying Blur doesn't transfer.

Uh, yeah, the AC change doesn't transfer to the images, but not because Blur doesn't transfer. It doesn't transfer because Images don't have an AC for any purposes. The caster has an AC, not the images.

What I'm contending is that, to a visual degree, spell effects on the caster transfer to the Mirror Images, because if they didn't, then Mirror Images would break and not work as they're intended to.

I mostly agree with this.

And based on my above argument, I'd have to say that the spell effects are transferred to a degree even greater than that, since then we'd have to sit there and calculate what the Mirror Image AC would be if spell effects (such as Mage Armor) didn't factor into your Mirror Images.

And I'd have to say you'd be wrong in every case where the actual mechanics of the effect don't at least imply they would transfer to any illusion effects the target is subject to.

Also Mirror Images don't have an AC. The caster does.

So, if this is applied fairly - "spell effects being carried over to Mirror Images is absurd" - then a caster under the spell effect of an alter self, polymorph, hat of disguise, etc, would have mirror images of what they actually look like, because no spell effects carry over to the mirror images. In fact, any magical alteration of the caster would not carry over to the mirror images at all - a simulacrum casting this spell would have mirror images of an ice sculpture of the caster because they were made by a spell effect.

I don't... this is nonsense. I can't understand how you could honestly think this is either a cogent argument or a logical consequence of the logic at play here. How can you possibly equate "the image only looks blurred, it isn't actually blurred" with "polymorph renders the spell useless."?

I think we're all operating under the assumption that the images created by mirror images are created indistinguishable from the caster, and the spell allows them to change so as to remain so, as that's ostensibly how the in-universe workings of the spell are explained. The spell doesn't actually say that, and within the game system the images could all be ducks without affecting the mechanics of the spell one iota. But I think we're all taking it as read that the images have to look like the caster for the spell to function conceptually.

So the images look like they've been polymorphed, or fire shielded, or blurred, or whatever they need to look or sound like to continue to be indistinguishable from the caster, but they are not any of those things. They just look like they are.

I honestly don't understand what's so hard about this. For an image to appear blurred, something has to blur it. If someone somehow casts a blur spell on it, great, the blur spell handles the blurring, and it gets all the benefits of the blur spell. In absence of another effect, the spell adapts itself to appear to be blurred. It isn't actually blurred. Mechanically because nothing actually grants it that status, and conceptually because the only thing it can use to blur itself is itself.

On the other side of the coin, if the caster uses disguise self to appear a foot shorter, and something (somehow) attacks the apparently empty space 6 inches above the caster's head, they hit the caster in the face, because that's where the caster's face actually is. If something (somehow) attacks the apparently empty space 6 inches above an images head, the attack travels through the actually empty space. It's not a 6 ft image with a disguise self effect making it appear to be 5 ft tall, it's a 5 ft tall image.

No, I know what you're trying to say. You're saying that, because an image is blurry, and you hit the blurry part of the image, you still hit the image because the blur is part of the image's appearance. Problem is, the distortion isn't what the image itself actually is, as that's simulated with a 20% miss chance of you not actually touching where the original image is, as per the effects of Blur. By that logic, Blur does nothing to the original caster because the blurry part of the caster is still part of the caster, so I should've still hit the caster anyway.

You can't make an argument that Blur doesn't apply to the Mirror Images, or vice-versa, without breaking a key functionality of either spell. Blur's sole purpose is to make you look distorted without actually being distorted, and Mirror Images are meant to be exact copies of you, spell effects included.

I don't think you've a leg to stand on with any of this.

Firstly, the image is objectively not under the mechanical effects of Blur. Nobody cast Blur on those images, and you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that you COULD deliberately target them to cast Blur on them. The image looks blurry because it's trying to mimic it's caster, but there is only one illusion going on there; mirror image. It's just an simulation of blur, not good enough. A mirror image illusion wrapped in a blur illusion would benefit from blur. That isn't the case here.

Secondly, the notion that somehow this logic carries over to blur having no effect is strained at best. The caster has an illusion laid over them to appear somewhere they aren't, something the images don't have. Blur is not disrupted by near misses. An attacker can strike at what appears to be the caster while "hitting" a visual-only illusion. The image is only pretending to have a second illusion layered over it. The only actual illusion present is mirror image, so any part of the total effect that it hit is actually the mirror image. Hit the blurry part of the caster? You actually hit an illusion that doesn't care, and thus miss. Hit the blurry part of a mirror image? You hit a mirror image pretending to be a blurry mirror image, thus destroying it.

Thirdly, there is no reason, at all, to assume that spell effects are carried over to mirror images. That's, frankly, absurd. Are you contending that if you hit the mirror image of a caster with fire shield, you take elemental damage? If yes, what part of the spell description of either of those spells leads you to believe this? If, OTOH, you believe there is a distinction between blur and fire shield, what is it?

Ok so, it totally makes sense from an abstraction stand point that a blind attacker could pop mirror images. That's something my intuition and emotions are telling me you should be able to do.

BUT. The rules don't actually appear to support it. Houserule away, I guess.

Dallium wrote:

That is, in fact, precisely what you are saying.

No it in fact isn't.

YES IT LITERALLY IS! You keep saying "We aren't saying that." Then go on to describe your position as exactly what I'm saying it is.

You are DENYING the implication that chosen weapon refers to the weapon you chose. You are. That's what you are doing.

You are FAVORING the implication that phrase "chosen weapon" somehow give you the ability to chose a weapon. That's what you are doing.

Unless you SOMEHOW think it's NOT an implication, but it is, because you are never explicitly told to make a choice, just told that you've already made one. Even assuming you're correct (and you aren't) you are still gaining a chosen weapon by implication.

An Elf can't take Rapier as his proficiency from his class proficiency because he's already proficient.

Why not? What rules prevent this? It's almost as if you're making stuff up.

If you don't agree with the above (and by "you" I mean anyone who thinks a Kensai can't choose a simple weapon), then you're completely making stuff up,

It would help if the above wasn't complete nonsense based on insane troll logic. If you think you get a pick a weapon whenever you want, YOU are the one who is "making stuff up." The rules don't say what you want them to say.

The problem is your taken what the Kensai is proficient in and trying to apply that to every ability they ever get.

Because the only other possible explanation is that the Kensai gains NO BENEFIT from any other class feature that mentions a "chosen weapon." Those abilities do not say to choose a weapon, therefore you don't get to choose a weapon.

I'll agree that, in practice, I would have no qualms in allowing a Kensai to choose pretty much any melee weapon he or she wanted. It seems a particularly stupid restriction to me. That doesn't change the rules one iota.

Isn't the stance that the chosen weapon isn't necessarily the chosen weapon self-defeating? It's denying one implication (that all instances of "chosen weapon" are referring to the same weapon) to uphold a second (that Uncanny Defense allows you to make a second, unrelated choice), isn't it?

If you're going split hairs enough with me to say "the weapon I choose to take proficiency with isn't the same weapon that benefits from Canny Defense," I'll counter with, "Then you gain no benefit from Canny Defense, because it doesn't explicitly say to make a choice. You're referring to a NULL variable."

Rolling 1 on the check ?

That's just an automatic fail. Officially, there is no such thing as a "critical fail." Rolling a 1 on an attack or saving throw automatically fails. It does nothing else.

Rolling 1 on a skill check just means you rolled a 1. If you have a +5 and the DC is 5, you passed.

The spells are deceptively light on details like "does delivering a touch spell provoke an AoO?" because such rules are given once so thay each spell doesn't have to restate them in their own descriptions. Certainly review the beginning of the chapter...

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity

For OP's reference

It's totally fine if in your setting, "Goblins" are Huge, benevolent guardians of peace and Good that command such reverence from the populace that offering them violence is unthinkable, and instill such terror in the forces of evil that even the rumor of one in the next county will send them scampering for safety.

It is totally not fine to fail to tell you players.

BigDTBone wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

As the developers have stayed repeatedly, common sense is required ; they cannot write thousand page books in legalease that cover all possible scenarios and interactions.

DrDeth wrote:

No, because no one would want a PHB edited by a team of lawyers, being 6" think and costing $500. The Devs are human, they left some stuff out when it was just plain common sense.

Why do advocates for clear rules always come up against this asinine argument? It is entirely possible to write both more clearly AND more concisely. Is it easy? No. Can you sit down and pound out 3000 words in an hour that way? No. It requires skill, finesse, and some talent. I, for one, happen to believe the dev team is up to it.

But for the sake of this discussion "adding clarity" and "adding length" ARE NOT the same things. Please stop with this ridiculous argument.

How many books do you have to your credit?

The argument is in no way ridiculous.

Yes, it really is.

Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

Chess Pwn wrote:

thaX wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

thaX is incorrect, based on the false belief that he has that is contrary to every ruling and example in the game.

Is there something I missed? Is there something you can add that would dispute anything I have said in this and other posts?

Yes, and I have done so in many other threads. Since you wont change your mind it's not worth discussing it with you and derailing every thread you enter.

You have often repeated the same correct interpretations and cited the very rules that directly contradict the conclusion that I have proffered.

FTFY

I think the root of the problem here is that the unwritten hands of effort rules are still unwritten. You have to read between the lines and tilt your head to find them in the rules, and mostly exist in FAQs, which we are explicitly told to interpret as narrowly as possible.

Unless I'm wrong, and they finally got around to actually explicitly and broadly establish the hand of efforts concept in official rules somewhere?

are you suddenly incapable of breaking a fragile object intentionally while standing still?

Maybe. It's magic. Maybe if you aren't falling, the item has normal AC, HP and hardness for an magical item of it's size, and the item magically "knows" when you're falling and then allows you to break it. It also "doesn't make sense" that it suddenly takes a much larger investment of time and effort to break a fragile object intentionally while standing still, but that's what the rules imply.

Golarion is sufficiently from out world that none of us are really qualified to decide what does and doesn't make sense.

The rules don't cover it. Period. Rules discussion over. Take further advice or houserule suggestions to the Advice or Houserule forum(s).

Oh for crying out loud. There's a difference between knowing that Black Widow is presumably still in the vicinity, and being aware of her. By that logic, simply knowing that Black Widow exists is enough to keep her from picking your pockets in combat. You have no reason to suspect she's anywhere near you, let alone right behind you, but you have immunity because you know her name. Please

Also Hulk is at most Large. Most of his forms are less than 8' tall, so those aren't even Large.

How about you reroll the GM.

Every this I have. I am now out of this. Does anyone know where I can order more this?

ACTUALLY the ability says a bard MAY MAKE all knowledge checks untrained. 'Make' implies success. Therefore, if a Bard can never have no possibility of succeeding at a knowledge check, and it's up to the GM to figure out how to make that work. They don't need to have a GOOD chance of success, but it has to be non-zero per a totally valid reading of the ability.

This is fun.

It does not state it allows higher DCs to be attempted.

Yes it does.

A bard ... may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained.

Unless you are claiming that specific no longer trumps general, there is nothing more to be said. There is no possible interpretation of the actual wording of the ability that supports the position that a bard can't attempt all knowledge skill checks, regardless of DC. The fact that you're reduced to arguing that "maybe the author didn't know the rules" should make that clear.

If I was arguing that you can take more than one 5ft step in a round, and my only defense was the author of the combat section of the rule book didn't know the rules, would you lend me any credence?

Why are questions of RAW and RAI even entering this discussion? The ability says Bards may make all knowledge checks untrained. Bards may therefore make all knowledge checks untrained. The RAW clearly and explicitly says that Bards may make all knowledge checks untrained. This includes skill checks with a DC of 11+.

The inference "they intended the DC 10 limit to stand" is unreasonable, because if they'd meant that, they'd have left the entire second half of the sentence off, not added additional language that both a) adds confusion and b) arbitrarily increased word count.

The inference "they intended the DC limit to be bypassed" is unnecessary, because the ability already says it does that (all means all).

This is no different from claiming the sentence "You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round" means you may take TWO 5-foot steps in a round.

Oh look, its another one of those threads where the OP goes "I can do this thing, right?" and everyone goes "No, you can't, for a variety of excellent reasons," and OP goes "Well I'm gunna!"

RAW is an interpreted thing.

There is no one true RAW.

This is an example. You can interpret this to only remove TWF penalties, and that will match RAI. If a player at your table uses the "all is everything under the sun" you can simply say "no not at this table."

I fundamentally disagree with you, as I have before. RAW, to me, and to I believe the overwhelming majority of posters here, means "Rules as written," IE what the book actually says. What the GM says are the rules have absolutely zero bearing on RAW, those are the rules at play. I recognize that neither of us is likely to change our minds, so let's leave it at that.

That's a specific kind of Tarrasque. They otherwise generally don't have that ability.

There's only one Tarrasque.

And just to be clear, even if you unknowingly say something false, it's still a lie.

You're being disingenuous. True, one definition for the English word "lie" is "a falsehood," but the act of lying requires intent. There's a reason eye witnesses who misidentify a defendant don't get charged with perjury.

To the topic on hand...

Look, there aren't any written rules either way, as can be seen by the numerous threads about this. Both interpretations (that having extra hands does or doesn't grant extra offhand attacks) are equally valid. On one hand, there is substantial implications that this is in fact the case (bestiary entries, the language of the Multiweapon feat, the fact that many of the ways to get extra hands explicitly say "you don't get an extra off hand attack" but some of them don't, etc), but on the other hand, nothing is actually written down about it, either, and so even if that's accurate, it's a rule by implication, not RAW, by definition. (I'm not getting into the Permissive system argument)

But that's not the point. People are wasting an enormous amount of time arguing both sides of this thing, sometimes even with valid arguments. And while you'll never find me saying that just because people are arguing about something, it must be unclear, but in this case, both sides have merit. The PDT needs to step in an clarify this. And it'd be the easiest FAQ ever!

"Do characters gain an extra off hand attack per extra hand they have, simply by virtue of having another hand?"

a) Yes, unless the ability that grants the hand(s) says otherwise

b) No, never

c) Yes, but only weapon or natural attacks that actually utilize those hand(s), and unless the ability that grants the hand(s) says otherwise

grease does not say it creates difficult terrain, therefore it does not create difficult terrain

Quoted for truth.

fretgod99 wrote:

[It's not 5' stepping through it (pretty sure that wouldn't be ok). It's 5' stepping out of it, so the square you're moving into (which is typically what controls insofar as difficult terrain, etc. is concerned) is not contained within the area of the spell.

Hm? I've never heard this interpretation before. As far as I know if your starting OR ending square is difficult terrain, that terrain is considered difficult. You can't walk through a 20 ft. area of difficult terrain one round, stop on the last square, and then 5 ft. step next round, because you're still in difficult terrain when you start.

You absolutely can. The square you're entering determines how much movement is required/if you can 5-ft step, not the one you're leaving.

Difficult terrain, obstacles, and poor visibility can hamper movement (see Table: Hampered Movement for details). When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move.

Dallium wrote:

I also once again repeat my request that someone expound on how this ruling could possibly make the game MORE complicated. Literally every question we have about this ruling already existed preFAQ.

Also, why exactly are these manifestations invisible when they are neither part of you nor part of your gear?

Can you choose manifestations that are non-visual and/or non-targeting, like an area-wide sequence of chimes, or runes that appear over a 100' diameter area? If not, would choosing an auditory manifestation that identifies the locations of the caster auto-pinpoint a caster if he was casting in darkness or while invisible?

If manifestations emit light, do they follow the normal invisibility rules and emit light while invisible, thus, once again, pinpointing the caster?

If the visual manifestations are 'skin-tight', such as magical runes that appear on the person's flesh, can they be hidden with clothing?

If manifestations are purely visual, can creatures that are naturally blind know when spells are being cast?

For a start anyways...

Right, these are all valid questions. But literally every one of them existed before the FAQ to people who assumed, for whatever reason they had, that there was something obvious about spell casting, whatever it was.

There are also a bucket load of questions that come up if you assume that you need to perceive the components. Some of them are even the same.

Can i spellcraft a spell with V components that's being cast by a wizard hiding in a bush/who's invisible? If so, do I have a penalty and how much?

If I am recently deafened, can I identify a spell with S and V components at all, or at some penalty? What's the penalty? What if I can lip read (assuming there is a mechanic to lip read)?

What's my penalty to identify a VSM Silent Still spell? Slient and Eschew Mats? What if it's a focus spell?

My basic point against the "the game is more complicated now" idea is that pre-FAQ the question was "do you need to see the components or is spell casting itself obvious? Either way, I have several follow up questions." The pool of potential questions has been cut in half, give or take. And one question in particular has been definitely (if also vaguely) answered.

The way I see it, the FAQ answered one question, and precluded an unknown number of others. That people who played the way that turned out to be contrary to the FAQ hadn't considered the questions being raised here doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to the FAQ, it simply means they hadn't considered them.

Thus, by [DM Beckett's] reading, the human gets a qualitatively greater morphological change from the feat than the (natural) kitsune does.

Yes. Absolutely. 100%. Because the Human took a feat to be partly Kitsune. Of COURSE the character with 2 feats gets more benefits than the one with only 1.

So Animal Companions. They're pretty cool, cause they get progression. But what happens when they die?

1) If an Animal companion is killed and immediately (the same day or week) revived by an appropriate spell, is it still bound to the PC, or does the PC have to preform the binding ritual again?

2) Sometimes an AC is disintegrated or otherwise killed in a way beyond the party's immediate ability to restore. What happens if several months later the PC is able to revive his/her old AC? Is it bound?

2a) What if the PC has taken a new AC knowing they want to dismiss them as soon as the old one is brought back? Which is bound? If the new one, will the old one necessarily hang out long enough to be bound again? (I assume that if the animal obeys the long distance "come" command, it would hang around)

3) What if a PC that has an AC and sufficient Cleric levels kills their own AC and raises them as an undead? Is it still an AC, just with an Undead template?

3a) If it's both, does it count against the character's AC or total undead HD controlled, or both?

3b) If the undead AC is now a former AC, does still have all the progression of the AC it had before (except it's feats, because usually those get stripped from an undead template)?

3c) Do you still make Handle Animal checks to push an Undead AC?

3d) How many tricks can an Undead AC know?

3d.1) Does it even NEED tricks as an undead?

This is what I think about.

It is any 1-5 lb object, that can be thrown up to 15 feet in any direction.

Yes, I have been hit by a rock in school, it only weight about 1 lb. Any it hurt like crazy.

I was refereeing to using the spell, to make one melee attack with a un-attended weapon, once per round. I do not see this is ground breaking, overpowered, or against the rules, as listed in the spell.

........................................

The spell does not directly effect living creature, and will not go down that line of non-sense.

1 lbs of force is not the same as the force of a 1 lbs object traveling at some unknown velocity.

An object that moves 15 ft/6 seconds is moving at less that 2 mph (around 1.7). The average human WALKING speed is 3 mph.

Imagine the force of a human accidentally strolling into you. Now imagine that human weighs the same as four sticks of butter.

EDIT:

In fact, imagine someone gently tosses a pack of butter (four sticks) underhanded to you and you let it hit you in the chest. That force is several times the maximum force Mage Hand could exert.

Use Headbutt!! wrote:

Wait, so people are really arguing that perception of a creature provides flanking? I mean if you think that not knowing a creature is there prevents it from flanking than the opposite (certain that a creature is there even if there isn't one) must provide flanking. In this way lies madness. 1st round of combat: the gnome rogue uses ghost sounds to mimic someone drawing a weapon behind the fighter and says "Ok bob, when he lets his guard down, hamstring him from behind." For the rest of combat (or at least until the fighter wonders why nothing has happened yet) the fighter is flanked. Heck, with a high enough bluff check you could probably convince the fighter even without ghost sounds. I am all for preventing a invisible caster from flanking if you are willing to let a couple skill ranks do the same thing. On a completely unrelated note, I have a rogue that I would love you play in a game you DM.

<.<
>.>
<.<
...what? no reason.

Do you know why flanking works the way it does? It's because having to deal with two opponents on opposite sides, forces one to lower his defenses. It's also why certain creatures and classes, having superior abilities to deal with such distraction, can not be flanked. If he's not aware of an opponent on one side because the opponent is concealed, invisible, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, NOT DOING ANYTHING, then there is no basis for the flanked condition.

No, flanking works the way it does because rules.

This.

I mean, if you heighten Cure Light wounds, it doesn't become Cure Moderate.

Just because Summon X spells have level dependent versions at every level doesn't mean this silly tactic would work.

So yeah, you could use this trick, picking from the appropriate level list of summonable monsters. Level 1.

This reasoning was already proven wrong up thread. Mount becomes a level 9 spell. Summon monster IX is a level 9 spell. You can therefore, according to the wording of ASM, choose from the Summon Monster IX list (or Nature's Ally IX, if you want).

Great, so it's even MORE broken than we thought.

Dallium wrote:

You still must threaten the enemy who triggers the feat, because the rules of the attack say you have to. If Bodyguard triggers, and the Bodyguard doesn't threaten the triggering enemy, nothing happens. No AoO is expended, because the Bodyguard doesn't threaten, and so can't attack, and so can't use Aid Another.

This is not accurate.

If it were, Bodyguard would be useless against ranged attacks or enemies with reach.

That is not how the feat works.

Clearly it is. Aid other requires you to be "in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat." Bodyguard says you can use Aid Another as either an immediate interrupt or AoO depending on your reading of the skill. It doesn't say you can use Aid Another on ranged attacks (which isn't allowed by Aid Another) and it doesn't say you can use Aid Another on an enemy you can't hit with a melee attack. The feat doesn't spell out exceptions to established rules, therefore those rules are in force. Does that make Bodyguard useless? Very nearly. But that's what the rules say.

Dallium wrote:

Aid Another IRT skills is not the same ability as the (Special) Attack Aid Another. They are different concepts that have the same name. You can tell, because they don't use the same language, or function the same way, or have the same action economy, and they're in totally different parts of the book. They don't reference each other. They are unrelated.

Funny you say that, since Aid Another in the Combat section does mention aiding skill checks and spells in the same section that involves AC and to-hit.

You're right. That's what I get for trusting the website without checking the CRB.

That said, you would clearly use the version of Aid Another that covers what you're trying to do. The rules specify how Aid Another works with Skill checks. Using Aid Another in combat to either give a bonus to attack or AC is explicitly called an attack by the CRB. It explicitly asks you to MAKE AN ATTACK ROLL. When using Aid Another on skill checks, it explicitly asks you to MAKE A SKILL CHECK. What exactly it means by "such as when he is affected by a spell" means is up in the air. Presumably you can give them a bonus to their saving throw, but that needs an FAQ of it's own.

What you don't know, is the RAI regarding the feat. Bodyguard is supposed to circumvent these restrictions, and unfortunately, doesn't actually say that. The developer of the Bodyguard feat himself, says all of this. It's also been FAQ'd to hell, given how many posts and threads have been made to provide an answer, and there still isn't a FAQ for it.

Quite frankly, if it was FAQ'd, I can guarantee you that Bodyguard will be nerfed to uselessness just like every other Martial option in Pathfinder, and its relevant feats (In Harm's Way, Combat Reflexes, etc.) will indirectly follow suit.

I apologize for my language. It seemed clear to me from your posts that you didn't know how Bodyguard actually works. And I've been presented with the author's intent several times. I simply don't see why I should care.

Here's the most important part of what Jason said:

While as always my authorial opinions are simply that, and not official errata in any way for the purpose of RAW, PFS, etc....

Emphasis mine.

Intent is irrelevant. I'm sure you'll have no trouble on your own coming up with an example of the best of intentions leading to disaster, both from fiction and real life. Jason's interpretation of the feat he wrote doesn't change the feat he wrote. I KNOW, absolutely, unequivocally, that a FAQ will a) make it clear that the AoO is ONLY a resource to be spent, and not an actual AoO and b) allow you to use Bodyguard to use Aid Another against ranged attacks. I know this because that's the feat they wanted in the first place. That's not the feat they wrote.

EDIT: Removed some needlessly provocative language.

Feint

Note: Though the feint action is located here, near the rules for combat maneuvers, and while it seems like it might BE a combat maneuver, feinting is NOT a combat maneuver. The Paizo PRD is organized with the feint rules located in the same placement.
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

When feinting against a non-humanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a creature lacking an Intelligence score, it's impossible. Feinting in combat does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Feinting never provokes and isn't a combat maneuver.

Do mindless creatures/undead know they are flanking?

If they don't, does that mean they can't benefit from flanking?

If they don't, can they not help set up a flank?

Do mindless creatures/undead recognize they've been flanked?

If not, do they take no penalty from being flanked?

Do you see why the rules just say "Are you threatening, which is defined as wielding a weapon you can reach them with? Is so, are you directly across from an ally? Great. You are flanking." This is one of those situations where the RAW actually is crystal clear, and any "but that doesn't make sense" falls squarely into house rule territory.

For those of you with at least one foot in reality, here's what the mount spell does:

1)summons a light horse or pony

2)the light horse or pony is trained to accept a rider

3)the light horse or pony is under magical compulsion to obey you commands willingly and well

4)the light horse or pony has riding tack

and of course, most important :

5) a whole slew of specific restrictions that say the mount can't ever attack, charge, be used in combat, sold to an unsuspecting horse dealer, or enter (and win) a beauty pagent with the help of an extremely talented bard.

so as you can see.... what? #5 isn't in the spell listing? Just 1 to 4? oh my mistake, I thought you could just invent s$$!. This IS the rules forum, I thought, since I'm so awesome, I could just invent rules.

The crux of this matter is whether or not Heighten Spell actually changes the spell's level.

Which I say the answer to is no, based on the wording of the Feat itself. It changes the EFFECTIVE spell level for "all effects dependent on spell level".

But it does not make the spell actually a higher level spell. Just EFFECTIVELY a higher level.

Called it.

That's not what the feat says. It says:

A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies.

The key phrases here are "unlike other metamagic feats," and "actually increases the effective level of the spell." Other metamagic feats require you to prepare spells in higher slots without increasing the spell level. An empowered maximized fireball is still a level 3 spell. A Heightened Fireball in a 9th level slot is actually a 9th level spell. Hence "actually increases the effective level of the spell." It doesn't just say "raises the level of the spell" because then people would be going, "I use Heighten one time and now this spell is a higher level forever because that's what the feat says!"

The ONLY reason this argument is coming up is to have some threadbare RAW reason to counter this horribly broken exploit. But you don't NEED a RAW reason to disallow this, common sense and game balance are enough. You shouldn't allow it at your table. If you have a player whining at you that its RAW, tell them to pound sand. If they can't see that they shouldn't be allowed to extend a round/level spell to 2 hours/level, how can playing with them be any fun?

Yo dawg I heard you like Familiars! so I gave yo' familiar a level of wizard so it has a familiar so yo' familiar has a familiar! Its like familiar inception up in this namean?

To look at it another way:

An 18th level wizard could summon a Nalfeshnee for 18 rounds with Summon Monster IX.
An 18th level wizard could call a Nalfeshnee for 18 rounds with Gate (or for longer if he bargains and pays a hefty sum of cash).
An 18th level wizard could summon a Nalfeshnee for 21,600 rounds with Alter Summoned Monster and Heightened Mount.

That's the equivalent of casting 1,200 back-to-back Summon Monster IX spells.

"Exploit" is far too nice a word for this cheese. So is "cheese" for that matter.

But at the cost of a feat and a 2nd level spell slot! That makes it, no, wait, that's still horribly broken. Any GM would be totally justified in going, "No, that just doesn't work that way."