Viggrizzor

EldritchBoar's page

33 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Dazing metamagic adds three levels to a given spell, so I would figure out what level any other effects this spell might have and then add three levels to it.

This.

Another similar effect comes from Dazing Assault, a feat which requires a BAB of +11 and imposes a -5 on all attacks.

Dazing is a pretty nasty effect, so a spell that allows you to daze multiple times in a round for minutes should be quite high-level.

Also note that most whip-creating spells are rounds/level and not minutes/level. A low-level weapon-creating spells that lasts minutes/level is Holy Ice Weapon, but I would consider it an exception (also, it's for cleric/oracle and inquisitor only). All these spells are at least 2nd level, but I suppose a spell creating a weapon without special properties could be 1st level.

Personally I would limit this to 1 round/level, dealing 1d4+casting stat of sonic damage and dazing for 1 round on a failed Fortitude save. 4th level is probably fair.

Since you are using a Magus, a simpler and cheaper option could be to just take Ear-Piercing Scream and make it a touch Magus spell so you can use it with Spellstrike.


Cap. Darling wrote:
I Think no. Personal and a weapon in hand is two different things.

The text for Greater Bloodrage then specifies that the spell must have a range of "touch or personal". Blade Lash has a range of touch, and it only affects your weapon. Of course, in the light of the first sentence, one might argue that "your weapon" is not you... But it's pretty close, mechanically. That's why I was unsure.


Hopefully an easy question:
Is it possible to cast Blade Lash as part of entering a Greater Bloodrage?

I said no at first because Greater Bloodrage says "the bloodrager can apply the effects a bloodrager spell he knows of 2nd level or lower to himself" whereas the target of Blade Lash is "your melee weapon", but maybe I am reading it too strictly?

Thoughts?


Fruian Thristlefoot wrote:

Here is my Bloodrager I just posted for someone else.

build:
Carl Jr.:

Half-Orc Primalist Spell-eater Bloodrager
Alternate Racial Traits: Sacred Tattoo and Shaman's Apprentice
20 point buy: Str: 16, Dex: 14, Con: 15, Int: 8, Wis: 12, Cha: 13
Trait 1: Fate's Favored- Paired with Sacred Tattoo you get +2 Luck bonus on all 3 saves...this is better than taking 3 feats.
Trait 2: Dangerously Curious (cause UMD is a Nice skill to Have...scrolls are cheap)
Trait 3: Optimistic Gambler (this is NOT PFS legal cause it is a campaign trait from second darkness. but if you play in a home game where they don't care about where the trait comes from and allows 3 traits and 1 draw back This is the trait to pick up.) This trait comes from the second darkness campaign and is THE BEST trait for a Bloodrager or Barbarian that is not rage cycling like the build below. Gives 1-4 extra rage rounds after you choose to end your rage every time. Basically its better than taking Extra rage feat 2+ times.
Build By Level:

1 HD: Feats- Endurance(from Shaman's Apprentice Trait) and Die Hard, fast movement, bloodrage, Disruptive Bloodrage (Su)

2 HD: Blood of Life(Su) Notice the SU in that ability. This fast healing IS magical and not a EX ability like a majority of Fast Healing

3 HD: Feat-Fast Healer, Blood sanctuary
(because of Blood of Life (Su) your fast healing IS magical...makes Fast Healer actually work for you to increase your amount of Fast healing by 1+ Half CON modifier= 3 currently)

4 HD: Eschew materials, Blood casting, Arcane Bloodrage (Sp)

5 HD: Feat-Raging Vitality, Spell Eating (Su)
(another source of Magical healing in spell eating and Raging Vitality makes your CON effectively 2 points higher and you don't end rage while unconscious so you can fast heal while down to stabilize and get back up)

6 HD: Bloodline Feat- Power Attack

7 HD: Feat- Arcane Strike, Fast Healing/ Increase

8 HD: Greater Arcane Bloodrage (Sp)
(Doesn't every melee frontliner want Displacement to add layered defense to your AC...amazing ability to have as a free action)

9 HD: Feat- Sunder , Bloodline Feat- Iron Will

10 HD: Fast Healing/ Increase

11 HD: Feat-Bloodied Arcane Strike, Greater bloodrage (Need to take bloodied Arcane strike to free up your swift actions for Raging Brutality and Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier.)

12 HD: Bloodline Feat- Disruptive, Primal Choices: Superstitious & Witch Hunter
(you're giving up Caster's Scourge (Ex) for 2 rage powers. You should already be a caster's worst nightmare with Disruptive Bloodrage (Su), Disruptive feat, and spellbreaker feat. Now add in more damage you're doing to casters and increasing your saves seems more important to me)

13 HD: Feat- Raging Brutality, Fast Healing/ Increase

14 HD: Indomitable will

15 HD: Feat- Eldritch Heritage- Orc ,Bloodline Feat- Spellbreaker

16 HD: Fast Healing/ Increase, Trade out True Arcane Bloodrage (Sp) for Eater of Magic and Spell Sunder

17 HD: Tireless Bloodrage (Su), Feat- Improved Eldritch Heritage (Strength of the Beast (Ex) from Orc bloodline...+4 Str now and +2 more at level 19....this is a +6 str INHERENT boost. Means it STACKS with whatever Enhancement bonuses you may have acquired)

The gear I recommend:
Headband of Cha +2 or GREATER (You don't need to +1 Cha if you go this route to cast your highest level spells)
Jingasa of the Fortunate soldier- This gets you +2 luck AC and 1/day critical negation for 5k...this really is a bargain Item.
Spell Storing and Furious Adamantine Weapon (preferably reach)
Spell Storing Armor (W/armor spikes if you took a reach weapon)
Spell Storing allows you to cast more spells a day by loading them in your down time. They also are a way to free up action economy and using Vampiric touch or a debilitating Touch attack can make you even better front line tank.

You can also drop arcane strike and Bloodied arcane strike for other feat choices and move them around abit. But the jist of it is I have:
Fast healing, Other sources of healing, UMD, Choice of Resist energy, Haste, or 20%->50% miss chance (I go Displacement all the time), Great Saves, and full CL on self buffs.

You can also switch Sunder and Eldritch Heritage around if you prefer the Touch of Rage over Sundering earlier.

rorek55 wrote:

That guy, here is something I've cooked up

build:
half-orc w/ the alt racial shaman apprentice and sacred tattoo
bloodrager (spelleater/primalsit)

stats on 20pt buy
Str: 18 (16+2)
Dex: 10
Con: 15
Int: 07
Wis: 12
Cha: 14

Feats:
1- endurance, diehard
3- blood of life
5- raging Vitality
6- (bonus feat) power attack
7- arcane strike
9- bloodied arcane strike
11- open
13- open

Now, for your bloodline/ rage powers-

this is up to you but you will be throwing at least 2 away for 4 rage powers.

Arcane- provides more defenses and good bonus feats (Iron will, combat reflexes, power attack,
Draconic- easy powers to give away, and keep, wings for when you are in rage, not as good bonus feats as Arcane
Abyssal- my least favorite, gain a free enlarge person per rage, increased strength bonus, and claws
Celestial- really good for evil heavy campaigns, decent to good otherwise.

Anyway, you want these rage powers IMO-
Increased DR x2 (for extra regen)
superstitious
witch hunter.

the other powers you could go for if you so desired are CAGM/Reckless abandon

at level 10, lets assume 16 con, +4 from enhancement, you have DR/4 which translates into fast healing 5, +3 from con, so you are fast healing 8hp every round. now, I am unsure of this, but if fast healing works with rage modified con you are getting 26 con, so 8, so 9 fast healing a turn, at level 12. for no action cost. Plus you can sacrifice a spell to cast CLW-CCW on yourself.

this is nasty without worrying about UMD or wands/scrolls. If Arcane this gets even nastier, with 50% miss chance for enemies.

you have great damage, and saves, the only save falling behind is reflex, which tbh you won't care too much about.

Are you guys sure it works that way?

I am asking because I recently built a character with a very similar concept (black blood primalist/spelleater) but I have been told that the Fast Healer + Blood of Life combo is not supposed to work and "cheesy". Even on these forums there is no consensus, as some argue that the fast healing provided by Blood of Life is extraordinary and not supernatural: Blood of Life (Su) gives Fast Healing (Ex).

For example, see here, here and here.

Also, as far as I know Blood of Life does not say you translate your DR into fast healing. Some think it does because the text is convoluted, but as written you get a DR 0/- to which you can add more DR from stuff like the Improved Damage Reduction rage power. Fast Healing remains a separate thing.

That said, if you can point me to sources that clarify your interpretation, I will be happy to use them to defend my build as well :)

Concerning primalist/spelleater builds, a less powerful but interesting combo that seems to work without issues is Spell Eating + Lesser Celestial Totem. A few times per day, you get a healing swift action that scales with your level. To compensate the loss of spell slots, you can use a bunch of 1st level runestones of power.

Also, a Courageous weapon is a very nice item for anyone using morale bonuses.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
TL;DR: actions allow you to do anything you want, so long as what you actually do is permitted by the Action In Combat that you chose. You are not compelled to do anything at all, but if you do something then that act must be permitted by the Action In Combat that you chose.

In fact, every type of action in the Combat section is described as "allowing you to do something"... Besides, it makes sense and seems a good way to handle a lot of scenarios.

Komoda wrote:
The contention will always be: at what point can a change in battlefield conditions allow you to change your actions and at what "action cost?"

True, this is why I was considering, for simplicity, to allow such changes in response to any interruption (where an interruption is something that is triggered in response to an action and is resolved before said action). I would also allow to break down full-round actions so that you can spend only a "lesser" action as long as what you did before the change fits with that action (similarly to when you can decide to only spend a standard action after the first attack of a full-attack action).


Gauss wrote:

FAQ question: If an AoO (or Readied Action) prevents you from completing an action can you change your action or change the order of your actions?

Example: I declare I am using a "Move" move action to move out of a threatened square. I move zero distance when the Attack of Opportunity (or Readied Action) results in my being tripped.

Change action: Did I actually use my "Move" move action even though I didn't travel any distance before I was tripped? Ie. Can I replace the "Move" move action with another action?

Change Order of actions Can I use the Stand Up action and then use the "Move" move action I had already declared?

This has come up in multiple threads (this is the latest).

I am interested in this topic (being a fan of Combat Reflexes, reach and maneuvers) and I marked the OP as FAQ candidate, so I thought I might as well put my 2 cents on the matter:

The rules simply do not address this issue properly, so it is difficult to deduce a solution from them. Specific rules such as feats are hardly a good reference, considering that they have been sometimes designed in apparent ignorance of the parent rule :\

My opinion, like for others in this thread, is that the "action resource" (standard action, move action and so on) that you expend to perform an action must be effectively consumed for the AoO to trigger, otherwise the attack of opportunity would be activated by an action that has never even begun.
The OP example is a situation when expending your action effectively nets you 0, but what if the AoO triggers in between a 30 ft move, after you have already moved a few squares? That is a move action as well, except that the AoO triggers later, but how do you define "later" action-wise? You can do so only when the action includes movement, because squares are the only "dimension" taken into account in combat.
I think the "1) expend, 2) resolve" approach is the best way to handle it.

That said, I think I would allow to stop an action after an AoO (or similar interruption) triggered by that action. The move/standard/whatever action is still expended, the AoO is triggered, but the triggering action does not have to be resolved. A bit brutal, but it helps avoiding headaches from situations like: a character is charging and has his weapon sundered via AoO in the middle of the charge, what does he do? Is he compelled to continue the charge with another weapon at hand (armor spikes, unarmed strike, improvised weapon)? There are no strict requirements over what you have to declare when starting an action, so there are no rules handling what happens when an action parameter changes dramatically.
This is house rules territory anyway, that's why I hit the FAQ button.


A couple more discussions on ghost touch + blink here and here.

Kchaka wrote:
Phase Locking Weapon

How would this allow a blinking character to bypass the 20% miss chance from being ethereal?


Imbicatus wrote:
Would a ghost touch weapon allow you to attack from blink without the 20% miss chance from being ethereal?

Nope.

Ghost touch weapons only affect incorporeal creatures. The confusion here is due to the fact that an etheral and incorporeal creatures have much in common mechanically, but if you read their descriptions there are no cross-references. Basically, an incorporeal creature is here, but has no physical body (like a ghost), whereas an etheral creature is on another plane and its interaction with the material plane is mostly limited to sight and hearing within 60 feet.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
EldritchBoar wrote:


Note though, that your attacks also have a 20% miss chance, and that is not due to concealment but due to you being ethereal:
So you don't think you'd even need the Headband of Ninjutsu to apply your sneak attack? Interesting. (Not that it'd be a bad purchase anyway.)

Exactly.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
EldritchBoar wrote:
Unless you find a way to overcome this non-concealment miss chance, I would not consider this build as "working consistently". But then again, I am not very lucky with dice :)
Meh - in terms of absolute miss chance - them being flatfooted from Moonlight Stalker Feint along with the additional +2 to hit from the base Moonlight Stalker feat should more than cancel out a 20% miss chance. Even moreso if you get the extra +2 insight bonus from the Headband of Ninjutsu.

Well, if your attack bonus is high enough, so assuming you hit always except on natural 1s, I suppose missing once every five strikes is not that bad. And if enemies are too hard to hit, you can always turn off the ring.


wraithstrike wrote:

Maybe subtype is the wrong word, but to be more clear I mean when the spell is written like this--> School conjuration (summoning)

The reason this matters is that Paizo may make a spell with the word summon in the title, that is not even conjuration, and does not summon anything. As an example a "summon armor" spell may make armor appear on your body if you are without armor. That could be an adjuration spell. As you level up the armor could have additional benefits. By basing it around the (summoning) as I presented above it is clear as to which spells benefit, and it leaves room to name spells however you wish.

On the other hand, you have spells that are conjuration (summoning) and do have "Summon" in their name, like Summon Instrument, as well as conjuration (summoning) spells that lack "Summon" in their name, like Abundant Ammunition, for which the feat does not work. So even by saying that the feat applies to conjuration (summoning) spells, you will still need to specify that it applies to spells that actually summon creatures (although I do not expect anyone will ever try to apply a constitution bonus to a lute).

Please note that I am in favor of the "conjuration (summoning)" general interpretation, I was just curious to hear other points of view.

In the end, I would personally go with this:

dragonhunterq wrote:
Isn't there a quote somewhere about if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck...something along those lines anyway.

All the spells summoning creatures work similarly, and I doubt there was any mechanical reason to exclude certain spells. Besides, "Summon" spells are still probably the best options around, with the exception of Mad Monkeys and maybe some other specific spells for certain builds.


Jeff Morse wrote:
Nope. Blink is about you being there or on the ethereal plane. You are going back and forth really fast.

On the other hand, the text of Blink says:

Blink wrote:
Physical attacks against you have a 50% miss chance, and the Blind-Fight feat doesn't help opponents, since you're ethereal and not merely invisible. If the attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures, the miss chance is only 20% (for concealment).

Emphasis mine.

The subject is "not merely invisible", but not fully visible either, otherwise there would not be a miss chance due to concealment, and the text of the spell refers other times to the subject being only partly visible. In conclusion yes, it works.

Note though, that your attacks also have a 20% miss chance, and that is not due to concealment but due to you being ethereal:

Blink wrote:
If the attacker can see invisible creatures, the miss chance is also only 20%. (For an attacker who can both see and strike ethereal creatures, there is no miss chance.) Likewise, your own attacks have a 20% miss chance, since you sometimes go ethereal just as you are about to strike.

Note the "likewise" linking the two sentences.

Unless you find a way to overcome this non-concealment miss chance, I would not consider this build as "working consistently". But then again, I am not very lucky with dice :)


wraithstrike wrote:
It should apply to all summoning subtype spells assuming it can be applied.

Do you mind elaborating on this a bit? While the italicized text argument may not be conclusive, it is something in favor of the stricest interpretation of the feat. I have found nothing supporting the broader understanding of the rule. I can only speculate on the feat being designed to work on all summoning spells, but written without thinking that there are more than just summon monster/summon nature's ally. Also, most "non-summon" summoning spells, like Conjure Black Pudding, are from later books.

wraithstrike wrote:
However just because a spell is a summoning spell that does not mean that augment summoning can be applied. I can't think of any examples, but the point should still be noted.

You mean things like Summon Instrument?


I don't see why the Construct Channel Brick + Reactive Healing combo shouldn't work. It seems the most efficient way to increase your survivability.
I don't think there are other ways of preventing destruction at 0 hp besides, well, not reaching 0 hp... It also depends on your level and build I guess, Rapid Repair would give you fast healing 5 but is a level 5 spell. Depending on how you read the construct creature entry, Infernal Healing might work too.


For reference, here's Augment Summoning.

Browsing these forums, you will find people stating that Augment Summoning should work on all Conjuration (Summoning) spells, and people saying it only works on spells with "Summon" in the title.

The reasoning behind the second interptetation is that, in the feat, the word "Summon" is italicized, thus suggesting a specific wording that can only be found in the name of certain spells ( and working much like clerics' spontaneous casting, as dragonhunterq pointed out). Also, otherwise it would have probably just stated "Each creature you conjure with any Conjuration (Summoning) spell...". You can find a similar discussion here.

That said, I would rule that Augment Summoning affects all Conjuration (Summoning) spells, but that may not be RAW.


Splendor wrote:
Quote:
Twine is not just "fine detail", it is processed material (requiring to remove the bark first, then take the inner layer) and goes beyond the effect of the spell.

But couldn't you say the same thing about any wood from a tree? You have to remove the bark to affect the wood. Shaping the wood into anything requires processing the wood.

Twine would just be the inside of the bark woven together.

Sorry, I am not sure I got what you mean here... Are you implying that you need to remove the bark to target a piece of wood with the spell?

Anyway, what I was trying to point out was the difference between an elaborate process such as making a bundle of twine, which also requires you to isolate a small part of your target, and simply altering the shape of the target piece of wood (worked or unworked) as a whole. The latter case is how I believe this spell works, reinforced by the wording of the spell suggesting that something as complex as a door is crude at best, and moving parts may not work. To me, creating a bundle of twine seems more complicated than crafting a hinge.

That said, I suppose that with "creative" spells like this, you are bound to see some table variation, so you are probably better off asking your GM. Personally, even though I don't think this is supposed to work, I may allow it as long as it brings some creative problem solving to the table (and considering it is hardly game-breaking).


The way I read it, Wood Shape lets you literally change the shape of a piece of wood, much like you could do with a piece of clay (except for the fact that you do it instantanelosly, without actual manipulation). In fact, as the spell states, even simple moving parts may not work.
Twine is not just "fine detail", it is processed material (requiring to remove the bark first, then take the inner layer) and goes beyond the effect of the spell.
For what concerns using it on plants in general, plants are considered objects so no problem there, as long as they have a wooden part (so hay would not be a valid target).


*bump*


Hi, I am resurrecting this thread as I have the same question, and seek to gather some opinions on the matter.

I am also unsure on how this ability is supposed to interact with a Robe of Arcane Heritage:

Robe of Arcane Heritage wrote:
These elegant, dark purple robes are usually decorated with gold stitching suggesting a particular sorcerer bloodline, though some might indicate a family tree. When a sorcerer dons a robe of arcane heritage, the stitching pulls itself apart and reweaves to match her particular sorcerer bloodline. The wearer treats her sorcerer level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of determining what bloodline powers she can use and their effects.

Do you get to select a new spell for the tattoo if the robe brings you to a sorcerer level high enough to gain a new power? If so what happens when you remove the robe (thus losing the power), then don it again? Do you get to choose a new spell?


I was considering armor spikes and US as implicit but it wasn't clear, my bad.

Barbazu beard looks like a good comprimise between comical and badass, too bad it grants AOO when used.


SlimGauge wrote:

It's not Pushing Assault's fault that the riding rules require so many checks. How about the following ?

If you PA the mount, the rider is obviously going along for the ride. (pun!)

If you PA the rider, the rider has a choice.

1) Accept being unhorsed. Make a DC 15 "Soft Fall" ride check. Success means no damage and not prone, failure means 1d6 damage (more for specially tall or flying mounts) and prone on landing (unless you've got one of those feats or abilities that negates the prone part)

2) Resist being unhorsed. Make a DC 5 "Stay in Saddle" ride check. (Optional: increase the DC by 1 per point of damage received in the PA attack). Failure means you go to option 1 (Soft Fall or damage).

Simple enough ?

Sounds good, thanks.

Our party is going to battle a tough mounted foe in an upcoming fight, so I wanted to know my options.


SlimGauge wrote:
Option 4) The rider makes a ride check so that his mount shifts under him as well.

You mean like a "stay in saddle" check, DC 5? Or some higher DC (determined how?)

I must say that, since Pushing Assault works in an "all or nothing" way, I would prefer to avoid checks, but it seems fair if there are additional penalties (falling) when hit.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Invest in a weapon that doesn't utilize the hands required to wield the Bardiche.

I only know Blade Boot and Boulder Helmet. Anything else?


Are wrote:
You won't be able to have both weapons available for an AoO at the same time. If you don't grip the bardiche with both hands, it doesn't threaten any squares (thus you'll only threaten with the gauntlet). If you do grip the bardiche with both hands, then the gauntlet doesn't threaten.

This one. To let go or grab your weapon is a free action, and free actions are normally allowed only on your turn, so you will have to choose if you want to threaten with the gauntlet or with the bardiche when it is not your turn.

You could use armor spikes but your GM can say no to this option too, as senseless as it may sound, because of this armor spikes FAQ.

Such ruling seems to prevent any form or "dual wielding with a two-handed weapon", since you don't actually need hands for a spiked armor. You could maybe get around this issue is with Improved Unarmed Strike, since kicks, headbutts and the like are also allowed as unarmed strikes (also, you are investing a feat in order to threaten adjacent squares).


Assuming all requirements for a Pushing Assault are met, what happens if I hit a mounted target?

I see three options:
1) The rider falls from the mount (1d6 damage, prone?).

2) The rider is just two-dimensionally "shifted" on the ground, standing.

3) The pushing assault is not allowed because being pushed down the mount is not considered as "ending the move in a safe space the target can stand in".

Opinions?


CKorfmann wrote:

I seem to have this hangup with INT. I can't dump it with any character for one reason, skills and skill checks are 80% (give or take) of roleplaying. Almost everything outside of combat eventually requires skill checks. If you only care about combat, or you just rely on the party rogue to do everything for you, than it's probably not that big of a deal to you, but in my limited experience, rogues are not that honest and probably shouldn't be. Sometimes you just need to be able to jump, or converse, or know (anything), or just tie your own shoes. I'm not satisfied with anything below a 14 INT with any character and I rarely if ever play a character with INT as a main stat.

It's basically for this reason that I've decided to give a Sorcerer with Sage bloodline a go as my next character just to make it as simple as I can. I'll probably head toward Dragon Disciple with it.

Am I alone on this island? I'm interested in lots of opinions. If you can break me of this long-held belief, I'd be appreciative. On the other hand, if I'm right I'd like to know I'm not crazy.

I played smart characters, average characters and dumb characters. Sometimes the roleplaying was a consequence of the build, and sometimes the opposite, but I always had fun when the character had a nice concept.

Granted that it depends on a group's play style, I don't find intelligence to be so important for a few reasons:

- In my experience, skill checks are not 80% of roleplaying. Choices, character personality and consistency are. In particular, choices had much more in-game impact than die rolls outside combat in the groups I played with.

- In PF, I see intelligence as something like "processing power" and memory, but that does not make the character incapable of making good choices that are based on intuition, common sense or experience. For example, I force myself to remain silent with my Int 8 barbarian every time I (as a player) come up with convoluted plans or ideas that would require a lot of thinking, but I feel free to talk about battle strategy for the simple fact that my character is a mercenary by background and has several years of experience in warfare. Similarly, I point out the obvious when others miss it due to "overthinking". I actually did help my party in a few occasions due to my no-frills approach to problems.
In any case, I don't think Intelligence is much more important than Wisdom and Charisma roleplay-wise. Making wise choices (and more important, not making reckless choices) is a life saver, and a low Charisma can have repercussions in many ways even within the party (if you have a weaker personality you should be more prone to leave decisions to other party members and to accept those decisions, for example).

- Having a low stat can be fun and is a challenge when it comes to roleplay. Also, high stats should be roleplayed as well, which can be equally a burden when expressing a character's personality.

- I suffer from "skill point addiction". The more I have, the more I want, especially when I am building around certain character concepts... So sometimes I am better off just living with a few skill points/level rather than stretching the build to its extremes. After all, there will always be something you can't do well enough and will have to rely on other party members, who are not necessarily rogues :)

But I can definitely see your point. Having slightly above average mental attributes gives more freedom in roleplaying, and more out-of-combat resources due to skill points.
With that barbarian I am currently playing, I sometimes had to refrain from expressing ideas that I felt were out of character, but that I am pretty sure would have been very good ones, which can be annoying... Some of those ideas involved using spells though, so they would have been inappropriate for a character totally ignorant about magic (and Superstitious) even with an Int 14 or more.


Feragore wrote:
EldritchBoar wrote:
When you say "Feats to get extra attacks above a normal full-attack" you mean something like Two-weapon fighting? I am not sure how this matters but I might be missing something.

I meant 'combat maneuvers without feats' to get the extra attacks. Say the CAGM Barb had 3 iteratives, he could swing twice then make a trip for the third without Improved Trip, intentionally provoking an attack which results in the CAGM character getting a full-BAB AoO instead of that -10 iterative.

Of course, you'd probably want Combat Reflexes.

I see. Well that works too. The attacks will be resolved in this order: your AoO, your foe's AoO, your trip attack. You still take your foe's attack though, unless you can prevent it, so to make this trick more fun you might want to use some attack that disrupts your target's actions as your AoO: you can try to disarm it (with Improved Disarm), or you can use Pushing Assault or the Knockback rage power to push your enemy out of reach.


Feragore wrote:
A curious scenario came up during theorycrafting that I can't seem to clarify online with the Come and Get Me rage power and intentionally provoking attacks of opportunity by moving, charging or using combat maneuvers without feats to get extra attacks above a normal full-attack. As far as I can tell from the 3.5 analogue Robilar's Gambit, that all works, but it's not the exact same ability so I'm not convinced.

When you say "Feats to get extra attacks above a normal full-attack" you mean something like Two-weapon fighting? I am not sure how this matters but I might be missing something.

Feragore wrote:

And considering the general case, what would happen if you were in the middle of an action and someone you were threatening provoked. For example, you provoked them and they decided to make a trip without Improved Trip.

If you decided to take your AoO, what would happen? Would your action still happen after you make the AoO? Or would the action be interrupted because you decided to stop what you were doing to attack? What about if you were in the middle of a full-attack, would you still keep attacking even if other actions would be interrupted?

In general, I don't think AoOs are meant to be a disadvantage for the one taking them, so they should interrupt an action only when changing some necessary conditions for the action, and this is more likely to happen to the one being hit by the attack (for example, when you successfully trip a charging foe before it reaches the intended target, the charge is interrupted). The rules say that an AoO "interrupts" the flow of actions in the sense that the AoO is resolved before the provoking action, even though is performed after it by the player.

So even if you take them during your actions, the simple act of taking an AoO should not interrupt them.

In the first example, let's say that the CAGM character provokes from the enemy by moving through the foe's squares by charging. if the CAGM character is attacked with a Trip maneuver by a foe without Improved Trip, the CAGM character gets an AoO that is resolved before the Trip attempt (it would get the AoO even without CAGM though). After that, the Trip attempt is resolved and the turn of the CAGM character continues normally, if possible (if he has not been tripped). I am not sure if, assuming you have Combat Reflexes, that Trip maneuver counts as one or two opportunities for the CAGM.

In the second example, I am pretty sure you just keep attacking.

Feragore wrote:
What if you were casting a spell? You're meant to 'concentrate' on the spell, but there's no check for 'Making an AoO during your spell'. A very easy case of that happening is simply someone moving past you as you were casting a summon/enlarge. Or even someone provoking from your reach weapon as they charge towards you (assuming you can wield it i.e. with Still Spell). Somewhat related to that, what about using immediate actions during spell concentration?

It says that a full-round action (or longer) spell must be cast without interruptions, but given that you need only a free hand to cast spells with somatic components (not counting Still Spells) and an AoO is a free attack, I don't think it counts as an interruption as long as you use only one hand to attack. You should ask your GM for this anyway: "attacking" may not be covered by the possible causes of interruption for a spell, but one might decide to apply a concentration check for vigorous motion when taking the AoO, since you will need to rapidly move your arm and change position to take the attack.

Concerning immediate actions during spell concentration I am not sure, but I think that would count as an interruption.


Captain Xenon wrote:
its a useful spell, even in combat. while its not a combat summons, having a large horse suddenly appear somewhere can be a serious tactical advantage, more so when fighting goblins. goblins HATE horses after all.

Hey, now these are some interesting applications for this spell...

And with the Communal version you can even summon a Wall of Ponies!


existence123 wrote:

Player is asking me whether the horse summoned by a Mount spell needs food and water, and whether it feels fear in battle.

I said yes.

I would say yes too, considering how the spell is written.

It just summons a horse or pony as a mount, so I would treat it as a normal horse or pony. As already pointed out, the food and water problem will hardly be relevant in game, but immunity to fear is very useful in combat and I think should have been written in the spell description. It is just a 1st level spell, after all.


Since damage and suppression are simultaneous effects by RAW, I get to choose which one goes first right?

I can't tell which one of the two scenarios was intended by the designers...


On a related note, I was wondering how you handle interruptions generated by maneuvers during AoO when they affect the target's action but do not outright prevent it.

For example, in the above-mentioned scenario of a character with reach tripping a medium charging foe, if the maneuver is successful the charging target falls prone and its action is wasted, but what if the charging opponent gets disarmed instead? Must it finish the charge even if it does not have weapons (using unarmed strike), or can it choose to stop the charge where it is? The same goes for a full attack, assuming the attacker has already moved 5 ft.


About question 1, I think the order matters since weapons, armor and shields gain +2 hardness and +10 hit points for each +1 enhancement bonus. So if you deal damage to an object which is then suppressed, you will not only have to overcome a higher hardness but, sometimes more important, you also risk of destroying the item even if you choose to leave it broken with 1 HP, because of the item's loss of HP when suppressed. Damaging an already suppressed item is easier and gives you the option of "sparing" the item without risks.


First of all, greetings Community! I am new to these awesome boards, aside from some lurking.
I started playing Pathfinder with my group a bit more than a year ago, with a few one-shots and now in a long homemade campaign.

Back to the topic, I got a couple of (hopefully) simple questions regarding the Sunder Enchantment Rage Power:

1) The text of the power states that you suppress a magic item’s abilities when succeeding on a sunder combat maneuver on the item. Does this happen before or after dealing actual damage to the item? In other words, do you resolve the damage on an enchanted or suppressed item? What made me think was in the text of the Sunder maneuver, since it says “If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally.”

2) Does this power work on temporary magical effects such as those granted by the Magus’ Arcane Pool, the Inquisitor’s Bane or the Stormborn Bloodline’s Thunderstaff? If so, do the rounds spent under a Sunder Enchantment count against the duration of the effect, similarly to an Antimagic Field?

Thanks in advance for your input