Elzedar's page

For reference:

Grappled:
A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity

So, in question 2,the standard action required to initiate the grapple, here, would qualify as an attack roll?

Thanks Treefolk.
If someone could provide a second opinion on that just to be safe, that would be great
Thanks!

Question 1:
Can you still get a flanking bonus from your ally if you are grappled and making a melee attack?

It seems so to me:

"Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."

Question 2.
If you want to initiate a grapple, with an ally on the other side of your opponent (which I guess provides a flanking bonus on melee attacks)would you get a flanking bonus on you CMB

It doesn't seem to me like the flanking bonus could apply to the CMB.

Thanks for answering wraithstrike.

Even mass hold monster (spell level 9) would allow saves each rounds.
I thought that for game balance reason, halt undead (up to 3 targets) should allow for saves, but I understand the text is not clear on this.

For reference, here is the text from hold person:

"The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown."

The halt undead spell says:

"This spell renders as many as three undead creatures immobile. A nonintelligent undead creature gets no saving throw; an intelligent undead creature does. If the spell is successful, it renders the undead creature immobile for the duration of the spell (similar to the effect of hold person on a living creature). The effect is broken if the halted creatures are attacked or take damage."

Would an undead get a new save each round, like the hold person spell?

I would assume so, but I guess it could be interpreted that the target is immobile for the duration of the spell.. with no surther save.

Thoughts?

thanks

Hi,
Let's say Kyra, level 3, took "Reach spell metamagic" as a feat.
At some point, she needs to heal an ally, and is out of range (with no more channel).
Could she cast spontaneously a cure light wounds, and increase its reach to close range with the Reach spell metamagic, by sacrificing a prepared level 2 spell?

Thank you.

Normally a goblin warrior level 1 CMD is 12.
This basic goblin has a DEX of 15 for a dex bonus of +2.
If he is pinned, my understanding is that he loose this dex bonus, and it should impact his CMD.
Also, the PINNED condition adds a -4 to AC, and my understanding is that penalties to AC also affect the CMD.
Therefore, the CMD of a pinned goblin would be 12 (base)-2(dex)-4(ac) for a result of CMD: 6.

Am I right?

Thanks

References:
"Pinned: A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus.. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack."

"CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier

The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Defense is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers. A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD."

Elzedar tries to appraise the costs of the balloon.

Appraise: 1d20 + 9 ⇒ (3) + 9 = 12

Esmeralda tries to help Elzedar.

Appraise: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (8) + 2 = 10

Elzedar thinks about how to build a hot air balloon.

Engineering: 1d20 + 16 ⇒ (11) + 16 = 27 This is my knowledge check.

Still working on my PFS lv1 gnome swashbuckler "Cornelius".

I am looking at opportune parry, and I feel like I am overly being punished by my flavor choice of being a small agile gnome.

Let me give you a bit of background:
I am already getting less strength, and because of my size, I am also less effective at performing combat maneuvers and defending against them... that's okay.. I have learned to live with that..

So, I look at opportune parry, and I am hit with a -4 to perform that if I parry against a medium creature's attack.

I feel like saying "Come on.. I am paying the price of my small stature enough.. please don't punish me more"

(I think a small agile swashbuckler, should be viable, as it fits the theme, so there should be a mechanical way to support it, without too much punishment. Otherwise, you will largely just see taldan swashbucklers)

I mean, I don't see why that build should be that bad a parrying.

Thanks.

P.S. sorry if that was covered before. I did not read the 1,769 previous posts.

Good idea!

I am trying to create a gnome swashbuckler for PFS, that would fit with the gnome fighter mini #22 from Pathfinder Battles: Heroes & Monsters Base Set Expansion.

I think it is thematically awesome, but find it hard to make it viable... especially at level 1.

Being a gnome, I would get more panache.. but I have to wait till level 2 to get swashbuckler finesse.. so it's not worth it to invest a feat in weapon finesse yet.. so.. I guess this build will have a hard time hitting until it gets to level 2 where it gets better.

Lets say I invest for a 14 in STR, getting reduced to a 12 by racial modification.. this gives me a meager 1d4+1 damage per attack.

So, with STR 12. my first level is really not interesting.
I'll hit at +3 for 1d4+1.

I like the concept, but mechanically it is sad.. at least at first.

Any other opinions out there?
Thanks

Yes Codanous.
And I am not thinking about wielding or holding weapons, but to retrieve them.

So a medium sized character with a prehensil tail would be able to retrieve a light weapon.

That was my initial understanding as well.
According to this ruling, a light weapon (i.e. shortsword) would be allowed, but not a one-handed (i.e. longsword).

Thank you.

I am looking forward to hearing from other players, to concur, before bringing this to my next Pathfinder Society game.

What qualifies as a "small" item to be retrieved by a prehensile tail?

Shortsword (light melee, 2 lbs.)?
Longsword (One-handed, 4 lbs.)?

Thanks

I am currently considering a LN Human Inquisitor of Asmodeus with the deceitful and alertness feats. He would use the sub-domain of Devils, and have the Hell's Corruption domain power.
With the disguise self spell and a skill rank in disguise, combined with the Hell's Corruption power, I would use him as an infiltrator.
Through corruption, he would bluff his way through the enemy lines.
Through alertness and stern gaze, he would be a good lie detector.

I haven't figured out the whole background, but he would be sent by Cheliax to clean up the mess a relative made.

That offers some good roleplay I believe.

So, my understanding is that a 2nd level wizard spell obtained from an NPC spellcaster sharing his spellbook to a PC in a large city like Absalom would be 60gp (40gp as the copying cost, and half of that for the privilege 20gp).

I would assume that a PC should have a minimum fame of 5 to do this, as his Maximum item cost is capped at 0gp until he reaches a fame of 5.
Would that make sense?

Thanks

I technically would not apply that much force in attempting to deflect it from its trajectory.
Also, I understand that a bomb is a supernatural abilities, so.. lets consider a thrown alchemist fire instead.

But anyways, I can understand that it is not RAW.
This is likely not the best forum to post it but I wanted to also have the RAW point of view on this.
So thank you all for your input.

My guess, would be to allow a mage to try it on a readied action, but I would give it a high AC for a ranged touch attack because of the speed of the object in the air.
That still has some cinematic value, and allow an out of spells mage to do something cool.

Ok, so maybe deflecting a thrown alchemist fire then?

Yesterday, one of my fellow Pathfinder was thrown a bomb at, by an alchemist.
If my wizard would have readied a mage hand spell to deflect the bomb thrown at the dwarf... would you have allowed it?

(given that the bomb trajectory would be within spell range of course)

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for that. Really looking forward to use this material with the 4 kids I GM these days.

Is there any GM PFS boon for running this material?
(not that it would change the fact that I will run it, but a reward could be nice)

Excellent.
Thanks for your help.

Hi guys,
I would like to be sure I am reading Low-Light vision properly.
My understanding is that it extends the area we can see in DIM LIGHT, but it does not extend the area of NORMAL LIGHT.

So, normally, a torch shines NORMAL LIGHT at 20' and increase the area after that to DIM LIGHT for the next 20'.

With Low Light Vision, the NORMAL LIGHT area would remain the same, and the area of DIM LIGHT would be doubled for 40'. So an elf could see up to 60' from the torch. (20 in normal, 40 in dim)

My reasoning is based on this text:
"they can see twice as far as normal in dim light"

I have heard interpretation that it doubles the area of NORMAL LIGHT as well, and I want to make sure.

Thanks

test 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (14) + 8 = 221d100 ⇒ 60
test

Si quelqu'un veut faire un test et ajouter quelquechose.. ne vous gênez pas. Vous pouvez tester les fonctions de dice.
Tout ca est écrit en bas, dans la section `how to format your text`

This is bold and italics

This is a test.

Merci!

May I reccommend the Lucerne Hammer, if you think about sundering an armor. It allows a low level character without improved sunder, to sunder with a reach, wihtout provoking attacks of opportunity. It does a nice 1d12 and as a two hand weapon, it does a lot of damage if you have a nice STR stat. Combined with Power attack, it can rip to pieces a medium armor.
If you add the improved sunder feat, it gets really strong.
Worked well for me.

So, do you think scenario 1 makes more than scenario 2, or this is impossible with the rules as they are written?

Basically, should we have the -10, or not, or this can't be done.

(thanks a lot to those that already voiced their opinion on the matter)

Thanks

Humm. this thread should not be under the "advice" category, but under "Rule questions".
Not sure how to change that or how this happened...

They tested some changes, but they are considered rules variants at this point. (to my understanding)
So they are not legal on Pathfinder Society games for example, but you could use them on home games.
I haven't tried them yet.

On distraction rules:

There is the "Creature making the check is distracted" +5 to the perception DC, that we can see in the perception skill modifiers.

Although I would assume you are saying that the conditions for being distracted are pretty much left to the GM.
(which the GM could flavour with a favourable or unfavourable +2 / -2 perception modifer)

Of course, anyone else input would be also greatly valued, on whether you would go with scenario 1, scenario 2, or.. if this is impossible with the rules as they are.

Thanks!

BigNorseWolf, are you sure that the rogue would be spotted even by a DISTRACTED shopkeeper, by RAW?

Because the point of the bluff diversion to hide is to momentarily DISTRACT the shopkeeper.

So, the RAW would say that that if the rogue DISTRACTS the shopkeeper withn a bluff he can move with stealth(at -10), but if he waits for the shopkeeper to be distracted by another stimulus, then he is automaticlaly spotted?

I understand RAW can be tricky, but that is too much.

EDIT: Hey, sorry if it looks like I pick on you. I am not at all. It just looks like you have a good understanding of the RAW and I value your input.

Fast stealth would allow the Patient rogue to move 30ft instead of 15ft with no -5 penalty, and you may or may not rule that it allows you do reduce the penalty of moving quickly after a diversion, or from between cover to cover against a distracted shopkeeper.
(it makes sense to me by the way)

Although, I would appreciate your opinions on whether we should go with scenario 1 or 2, for a rogue without fast stealth.
Thank you.

That is how I saw it as well.
The -10 would be in the event where the rogue is observed in front of the shopkeeper for example.
He creates a diversion and moves afterward to the shadows.

The -10 applies because the rogue had to disapaear (after a successful diversion) from being observed in front of the shopkeer basically in the bink of an eye.

When initially not observed, versus the perception of a creature which is already distracted (lets say the shopkeeper dropped his pen) I would say the -10 would not apply because you are not creating the diversion and have to hide just the second after you made it.

I understand this is subject to debate, so I wanted to poll the community for feedback.

Guys, I encourage you to continue providing your thoughts on this.
If by some luck we could come to some form of consensus, that would be great.

Scenario 1
Patient Rogue is successfully stealthed behind a cover, 30ft from the shopkeeper and is observing the shopkeeper
Patient Rogue readies a stealth move on the criteria of the shopkeeper being distracted (by outside stimulus)
Moves toward his next cover as a standard readied action (move done from cover to cover, with no concealment in between)
rolls a 10+7(stealth)+5(creature making the perception check is distracted) {22} vs rolls a 10+1(perception)-3(distance) {8} = Shopkeer's reactive perception fails by 14

Note: The Patient rogue is not creating a diversion (bluff) to go from being observed to being unobserved and thus (in my opinion) would not
take the -10 penalty for needing to move quickly in this circumstance (but I humbly could be wrong here).
He is also not moving his full speed of 30ft to go to his next cover (15ft away) and does not take the -5 penalty for that either.

But he is moving though an area with no concealment or cover, where he could potentially be observed by the distracted shopkeeper.

Would he need to take the -10 anyway, because he crosses an area of normal light with no concealment, even though he
was initially unobserved? (the spirit of this -10 applies if "your observers" are momentarily distracted, which I believe is not the case here because the patient rogue is initially not observed, unless we consider that at the point between the 2 covers, the rogue IS observed)

Note:
I could see the -10 apply if the rogue were observed in front of the shopkeeper, and wanted to flee to the shadows after a successful diversion.
This -10 seems harsh when initially unobserved (behind cover) and my understanding is that it does not apply if the shopkeeper is distracted and the rogue is unobserved.

In the case where he needs to take the -10 on that, here is the result:

Scenario 2
Patient Rogue is successfully stealthed behind a cover, 30ft from the shopkeeper and is observing the shopkeeper
Patient Rogue readies a stealth move on the criteria of the shopkeeper being distracted (by outside stimulus)
Moves toward his next cover as a standard readied action (move done from cover to cover, with no concealment in between)
rolls a 10+7(stealth)+5(creature making the perception check is distracted)-10(observer momentarily distracted, moving quickly) {12} vs rolls a 10+1(perception)-3(distance) {8} = Shopkeeper's reactive perception fails by 4

What scenario here do you think I need to use?
Thanks

So, as there is no rule (as far as I know) to search a 5'x5' area as a full round action anymore, and the distance aspect of 30ft of the spell makes a sight-based perception move-action to be more effective than the spell, the only logical use (beside ways to increase the range of the spell like Sesharan idea of imbued arrows)is use this spell to remotely touch a 10'x10' area at a range of 30ft.

This brings the question, do you have any good suggestion on how this spell can be used in a typical dungeon crawl?

I can think of feelings of cold and heat (like warm blood on the floor) on something you would rather not really touch or on the other side of a chasm.

Lets say you have to jump on the other side of a pit trap.. you could check if the area you would land into is slippery...

You could check how sticky is a spider web.

Any other good uses you can think of?

Yes, I don't get this either.
I thought the idea of an inquisitor using spells to magically investigate a room would be nice for low level characters, but it turns out you are better off using a guidance spell to enhance your peception check, than to cast this spell.

You have to be able to see the area you investigate with sift, so you could just do a regular perception check for anything involving sight.

I just don't get why would they get a -5.
Having a perception spell that allows you to ignore the perception range penalty (-3 at 30ft) seemed fine.

The only different I see, is that you could perceive things that could only be felt by the sense of touch, remotely. So, the inquisitor would know that the blood on the floor on the other side of the room, is sticky, or still warm.

Oh.. and this covers a cube of 10ft x 10ft x 10ft, so it is like basically remotely touching everything within that zone in a standard action (at -5 perception penalty)

To answer your question Curmudgeonly, his feats are:
Combat Casting, Great Fortitude and Spell Focus (evocation).

Elvis is right, the "special abilities" section says he has a +5 to hit.
Which would make sense.

So the +7 to hit seen in "special attacks" is without a doubt a mistake.
I would suggest to have this corrected.

Thank you.

My understanding of hand of the apprentice, is that you use INT instead of DEX to strike within 30ft.

---------------------------
"Hand of the Apprentice (Su): You cause your melee weapon to fly from your grasp and strike a foe before instantly returning to you. As a standard action, you can make a single attack using a melee weapon at a range of 30 feet. This attack is treated as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, except that you add your Intelligence modifier on the attack roll instead of your Dexterity modifier (damage still relies on Strength). This ability cannot be used to perform a combat maneuver. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier."
----------------------------

So, at level one, with 18 INT, he gains a +4, and his cane is masterwork (because of arcane bond) which gives him a +1 for a total of +5.

The only way to get to +7, the way I understand it.. is if you also added his DEX to get him there.

Is there a chance this is a mistake?

Thanks

Guys.. just to be sure.. a spell-like touch of evil (evil domain) charge can be held for as long as necessary right?
So, the cleric could cast it, and be considered armed while trying to touch a PC. When he finally hits (lets say it took 3 attempts at 1 attempt per round) only one charge would be expended (he can do that 6 time per day)

That is my understanding. I would appreciate if someone could confirm.
Thanks!

Yes Great Rhinaldo. It is true that the map could also be interpreted, that the roof is over the squares in some areas.
Third building from the bottom row seems unlikely to be just a overhanging roof, based on how the roof looks like.
But the building just up of the PC starting zone could be one.

In my opinion, the enemy melee team (Barbarian, Cleric and Rogue) should try to position themselves (except for Ledford lack of tactics) so they can activate the sneak attacks of Larkin, though a front line gang up* and a dismissed obscuring mist when the time comes.

This may seem trivial, but on such a limited battleground, it can make a significant difference for the characters on the ground whether they have the space to do so or not.

Thanks for your input.

Yep. And noticing how the text demonstrates how the evil cleric is ready to hit anyone in her group that does not behave, I really think that a channel of negative energy against everyone (if she is dispointed by her group.. which she will) is not out of the question.
She doesn't have selective channeling, so she may very well blast the PC`s and her own group.
I believe the text supports that, if of course the proper roleplaying is done, to demonstrates how she is the leader, and she has to deal with a group that does not follow the agreed strategy.
The easy way to do that, is if Ledford wants to declare the fight a draw, or if Larkin turns around to flee. Basically, the 2 melee characters that are by her side are not as devoted as she is.. and if it turns ugly she blasts the PCs and the cowards.

If Halli is in the mist,a dn wants to keep in up for a few rounds before dismissing it (prevent the PC from effectively range attacking) I just thought of an idea which seemed fun.
She could use her scroll of unseen servant as a standard action (retrieve it as a move) and then use it.
Then with her spare time, as she can't attack the enemies, even with magic missile if they have total concealment (2 squares away) she would give her 2 potions to the unseen servant on the next round.
The unseen servant would be tasked with pouring a potion down the throat of any dying ally as a full-round action. (which would likely be the barabarian halfling Ledford)
Whats funny here, is that the PC could eventually see 2 flying potions behind the enemies when the mist dissipates.
They could even try to interact against that, either robbing the poor unseen servant if possible, or shooting arrows at the flying potions :)

Caderyn, I like this idea of dismississing the mist at some point to allow the sorcerer to range attacks (her point-blank & precise acid rays)

Also, I see what other posters meant by a choke point... I didn't realize it was that bad until I used the provided map in a simulation against the iconics.
There is no way for the enemies to gang up* properly if Ledford rushes alone in the 1 square wide alley in front of the PC's.
If he wins the initiative, and acts stupidly as he should, he undermines the enemies strategy significantly. He has a move of 30ft in the surprise round, and with a mist up, that would be reduced to half (15ft) [hampered movement - poor visibility x2]
If we wanted to play him with some reason, which would be out of character in that case, he should just do 10ft of movement, which would allow him,the cleric and the rogue to be in melee against a single PC at the choke point.. (the PC would be on the manhole, and could be threatened by 3 squares (Barbarian, Cleric and Rogue))

But I will have him rush if possible, and then have Deandre the cleric shout at him to back-off or she channel him to death! (which would obviously hurt everyone.. but she doesn't care that much about others does she)

I am preparing to run this scenario in a few days. What I find odd, is that the intent seems to be that Larkin the rogue would be on the front line with the cleric and the halfling barbarian. Thus, using the gang up feat, he is considered in a flanking position and can sneak attack from this front line. But that doesnt work if they are in the mist. He cannot land a sneak attack against a target with concealment. I don't think the idea of giving Larkin (a rogue) the gang up feat, was only to have him get a flanking bonus, and no sneak attack. Unless of course, we use the cinematic idea of waiting for the fog to slowly dissipate and reveal the thugs in the alley. Adding to that that the sorcerer plan of attack is to attack from range.. that doesnt work either if they are in the mist. Ultimately, my feeling is that the scenario intent was for a cinematic battle just as the fog dissipates. Make sense?