Double-orc's page

Looking at the Honor in All Things ability of a samurai of the Order of the Warrior...

At 2nd level, the order of the warrior samurai draws strength from his sense of honor. Whenever the samurai makes a skill check or saving throw, he can call upon his honor as a free action to grant him a +4 morale bonus on the roll. He can use this ability once per day at 2nd level, plus one additional time per day for every four levels beyond 2nd (maximum of five times per day at 18th level).

Can this be used in situations where you need to make a save not on your turn (where an immediate action would normally be necessary)?

Also, what are your all's opinions on using this ability on the saving throw required to throw off a temporary negative level the day after it was inflicted (to prevent it becoming permanent). The way I interpret the thematic use of this ability is to muster some extra power for an instant in time whereas I consider shaking off a negative level to be more of a day-long process.

Thoughts and comments would be appreciated. Thanks!

If he has cover from the opponent, does the opponent have cover from him?

The important thing to remember is that you cannot make attacks of opportunity against someone with any sort of cover.

So if cover is two way in your example, he would not be able to make his AoO by ducking down behind the mount.

Similarly, he could avoid any AoO by using the same trick. Now they might still wack the horse instead I suppose, since it doesn't have cover and I assume is provoking the same as its rider.

Mounted combat confuses me though, so mileage may vary! =)

The order of actions was as follows:

1. Charging enemy provokes due to movement,
2. PC takes AoO,
3. Charging enemy makes attack,
4. PC uses immediate action to grant cover.

Based on the order of things, he made the AoO while no cover existed.

Greetings,

I have a player who is a mounted combat dwarf samurai and is using his mount for cover from melee attacks. Is this allowed? If so, can the action be performed without any hands free?

I'll give you all a situation that occurred recently: dwarf samurai is wielding a dwarven longhammer (reach weapon) while mounted on his horse. An enemy charges him and he takes his AoO as the enemy provokes due to movement while charging in. As I'm rolling the attack, the samurai says he wants to ride check for cover against the attack.

I initially didn't let him as I didn't think it made much sense for the samurai to make the AoO and duck for cover using his mount at virtually the same time. What would you all have done? I've since gone back on my decision and have decided to just let him do what the rules say he can by RAW which is basically whatever he wants.

Here is the cover entry for reference:

Cover: You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can't attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don't get the cover benefit. Using this option is an immediate action, but recovering from this position is a move action (no check required).

A friend of mine is playing a Oracle with the Lore Mystery and he has taken 2 revelations called Lore Keeper and Focused Trance.

Lore Keeper (Ex): Instead of encyclopedic knowledge, you learn most of your information through tales, songs, and poems. You may use your Charisma modifier instead of your Intelligence modifier on all Knowledge checks.

Focused Trance (Ex): You can enter a deep meditation, blocking out visual and auditory stimuli and allowing you to concentrate on a single problem, philosophical issue, or memory. This trance lasts 1d6 rounds, during which time you can only take move actions. During this period, you gain a bonus equal to your level on all saves against sonic effects and gaze attacks. When you come out of your trance, you may make a single Intelligence-based skill check with a +20 circumstance bonus. You may enter your focused trance a number of times per day equal to your Charisma modifier.

You can probably see what issue I'm currently dealing with. My argument is that if his character wants to use Focused Trance with a knowledge skill (which are traditionally intelligence based skills), that he must use his intelligence modifier to make the check, not his charisma modifier.

An extension of this problem can be seen in traits like "Wisdom in the Flesh: Select any Strength-, Constitution-, or Dexterity-based skill. You may make checks with that skill using your Wisdom modifier instead of the skill's normal ability score. That skill is always a class skill for you."

Would that skill be wisdom based for that character when he chooses to modify it with wisdom?

Thanks for any comments.

Ha well that's pretty interesting. So the rule is that the archetypes can't be taken because they both modify the same class feature...even if the modifications jive with each other? That's a technicality that I'd be willing to overlook. It's the 'commanding undead' part that irks me to no end haha.

It won't work (without GM permission) because they both modify the domain class feature.

I'm not sure if it'd work without that issue. Even if it did, Command Undead would be 100% useless, as you do not have channel energy and there is no general rules for getting Command Undead without Channel Energy. Every instance of that is specific.

I think the domain part of the archetypes is fine actually. Divine Strategist gives the cleric one domain only while Undead Lord gives them their specific one domain.

Pretty simple question here. Can a cleric take both the Divine Strategist and Undead Lord archetypes and still use 'Command Undead' as the feat? Note: the cleric in question does not have the 'channel energy' class feature due to the 'Master Tactician' class feature of the Divine strategist archetype which replaces it.

Some important things to note: Using the feat, Command Undead, which the cleric gains regardless of his/her prereqs (given via archetype), costs 1 charge of the clerics channel negative energy. My argument is that having no 'channel energy' class feature prevents the cleric from having any charges of channel energy (positive or negative), and thus preventing the cleric from utilizing the feat.

Friend and I have been arguing about this for a while...and I figured I'd just make a post here to see where the consensus lies.

Thanks

Hello all,

I am running the Carrion Crown Adventure Path this evening (I am the GM--its our first session tonight). I've read through the first 2 books (of 6) for the AP, and I feel pretty comfortable about the content. However, I'm still really nervous!!

Any last minute tips or bits of advice that could calm my nerves?

Thanks!

You don't. The mount and the knight are a single CR and the mount is already factored in as part of the Paladin's class feature.

Hmm.. I guess that makes sense. If I was to create this creature separate from the Paladin, however, would 13 (12+1 for celestial) make sense given its 16 hit die?

Ok I think I may have found the answer to my question... I think the mount would be CR 13 (12+1 for celestial) given the rules on Monster Creation that I am reading right now. Does this sound right?

I'm pretty new to creating NPCs and monsters. I'm not sure how to calculate the CR of a level 20 Paladin's (Empyreal Knight) mount with the Divine Bond (Su) ability. The mount has the celestial template which gives it a +1 to CR. Does the CR come from the mount's hit die? I believe it has 16 when the Paladin is level 20.

Thanks.

Awesome! So the +3 is to hit and damage? That's sick. Thanks for the quick reply!

New player...first time post >.<

I am playing in a campaign (where we are all fairly inexperienced (including the GM)) and we killed a guy that we weren't really supposed to be able to kill and I got a +3 adamantine butterfly knife from him. What exactly does that mean? +3 to hit? +1 with other qualities?

Also, I had the main cleric in town put ghost touch on it (actually she did it for free since they were sending us to go fight incorporeals), and I was wondering if that was even possible? After reading this, I'm not sure that it was.

Thanks!