I believe the function of the spell is exactly what is stated and no more.
Unfortunately, I have trouble reconciling this around the rules with weaknesses.
CRB p453: If you have a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage, such as water, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it.
Hitting a werewolf with a silver coin should trigger the weakness, not because of the spell flinging a silver coin, but the interaction of the creature and its weakness with the coin.
The spells listed effects aren't an issue. The B, S, or P damage is treated normally vs immunity/resistances, and the silver weakness is triggered secondarily as untyped damage.
If allowed by your GM, please remember the projectile must be an unattended object so an extra action will be needed to interact then release the object prior to the casting if you aren't using the default pebble or such.
Errata that makes Arcane Cascade work with Starlit Span would not be totally out of bounds. We're talking about +3 damage once per round at 20th level here.
There is no once-per-round damage limitation on Arcane Cascade. Any melee strike is imbued with the extra damage. Even at +1 damage (typed by your spell) can be a game changer when interacting with a creature's weaknesses.
I think this has far more potential than described. It may be the intent to add an element of risk in these situations rather than sniping a creature's weakness multiple times a round from afar after using one spell of the right type.
I agree with the hand free interpretation but less so about the healers kit.
The closest approximation Battle Medicine has to real life is applying a tourniquet. Although even new "high speed low drag" tourniquets require more than 2 seconds to apply and at least one hand to tighten it. (2 hands would be a vast improvement on time but not an absolute requirement but it is impossible to accomplish while someone is swinging a sword no matter how many hands are used.) Some suspension of disbelief is required in either case.
As a former combat medic I can assure you I had tourniquets at the ready but the emphasis is to always use the patient's gear first. People expecting trouble would have strips of clothing on a belt to minimize these item access troubles. Therefore, I don't think a healers kit is necessary for a once a day combat patch job.
I do look forward to clarification in any case though.
No. It still has to be in your spell list
This is also covered by the FAQ that states adding a spell to spells known doesn't allow an alternate class lacking that spell from using spell slots to cast it.
Can a mage armed only with a dagger threaten and provide flank against an opponent with 10 hardness?
In other words is the ability to flank reliant on actually hurting your opponent or just able to attack them?
RAW interpretation, the latter is correct and the shadow flanks.
The former is not unreasonable especially if a critical hit or coup de grace with the weapon couldn't do 1 point of damage.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
... or that Comey was lying to avoid embarrassing his boss. That seems to be SOP in the Trump administration, until people wise up that, first, it doesn't actually protect them, and, second, Trump is likely to undercut them for no apparent reason (just to keep everyone off-balance?)
Possibly, but I find it doubtful. This is the guy that reopened the Clinton email investigation days before election based on new information. During testimonies about this decision (paraphrasing here) Comey stated "I follow the letter of the law". There are already statutes that dictate if an investigation is being coerced, it must be reported to the DoJ "immediately". The Trump-Comey meeting is months old and if we are to believe this memo is a smoking gun Comey will essentially plead guilty to several crimes.
I don't think he's worried about how his new boss looks. I think is worried about walking a fine line between keeping secrets and revealing them now he is being subpoenaed.
Thank you for the response as I did learn things from it. As a Professor I'm sure you are familiar with asking a leading question to stir conversation like throwing a little gasoline on the fire.
In 2009 Democrats held both houses and the Presidency, They could have passed ANYTHING including student loan reform or socializing secondary education. My contention this was never done since universities are bastions of liberal philosophies. The implication of socializing something is the government gets to dictate worth and value rather than the free market. If its okay to tell doctors how much they can charge or be reimbursed, why not do the same to professors and college administrators? Yes it's murky waters since state universities receive significant funding and constraints from the respective state already.
In hindsight, this is sufficiently off topic enough I will refrain from making or accepting further comments off topic from the main discussion, but I am not cutting and running. If this topic or the opportunity to "school me" interests you feel free to open a new topic.
On the original topic
On 8 May Comey testified that the investigation was not pressured in any way.
HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
Since the memo about the Trump-Comey meeting was in January there seems to be difficulty in making the jump that Trump ordered the investigation closed and serves as further evidence that an informal (and legal) request was more likely.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Also, by placing more money into the hands of the people, they spend it on things which increases the tax base as activity is taxed, not things, allowing it to gain value more than it sitting idle in the Federal bank account.
Edit: Good night. Sleep. Work. Game. Sleep. Work. Gotta Pathfinder game tomorrow night so stay classy in my absence. Offline awhile so keeps please wait in line to dog pile =)
No because the question is a non-starter. No other country's medical care is rising at our current rate so the rest of the question is inevitably false. Socialized medicine doesn't work (well), it has been tried but innovation drops down and equipment ages without updates as indicated in both the UK and Canada. The first couple of years is fine but there isn't money to replace gear and wait lines are horrible.
A large chunk of our increasing costs are derived from innovation and overhead of dealing with insurance agencies as a barrier to care.
Can I reverse this question a moment? Student debt is skyrocketing, yet colleges are paying professors to do research rather than teach day in and day out. Why shouldn't we socialize higher education as well?
No debate happened with the ACA. Even Then-House Majority Leader Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill, to know what's in the bill".
The ACA is terrible for this country, it was negotiated in secret. Relied on lies to get it to balance out by the CBO cost estimate, and passed without debate. This was done to finish it before Kennedy's seat was replaced by the Republican was seated a few days later.
However, they were right. Once given, it wouldn't be taken away. It's just we gotta fix this garbage legislation now. It was written with the express intention of growing government and placing more control into politicians hands as the starting point, not lowering costs.
If you want to cheapen medicine, make more doctors, put tort reform into place, allow more competition in the market place.
Thank you for the question. I don't.
However the reason why may not be what you expect. I believe the above report is flawed. Blue states/areas are naturally urban and more densely populated. The high cost of living in these areas also necessitate the need for higher minimum wages which will skew the average household income in favor of a blue area despite radically increased pricing on all items. I would be interested in similar studies based on cost of living overall.
I left a blue state for a red state and enjoy a higher standard of living despite a reduction in wealth overall.
Conservatism by nature implies saving for a rainy day. Take care of yourself and family because if something really hits the fan the government will be to busy saving itself. This trend overall reduces activity of a dollar overall, because taxation is not on wealth its on financial activity. Stashing parts of my wealth on things that's are stored away reduces activity similar to stashing money in my mattress.
I do think on a national level conservatism is better if we could balance our budget. At nearly 20T in debt we can't save our way out of it, but we cant ignore it either. Soon the interest alone will dwarf any other discretional spending. Reducing expense and government 10% across the board would still take about 80 years to pay our debt without inflation or economy growth. Remember when Democrats said Republicans were draconian and wanted people to die? Well that's when they tried to "SLASH" less than .5% of the budget. The sides need to have a honest conversation without name calling or ideologues.
Actually, I went to sleep, then to work. Patience grasshopper. The night is young and the bees have been busy since I was here last.
I respond to the polite busy bees first.
captain yesterday wrote:
Health care reform... I was not impacted by the previous bill, nor this bill. Understand that the larger argument that we haven't had is "What responsibility does a society have to keep a member healthy / alive?" Consider that the majority of healthcare spending is used in the final years of life. Also consider if you had to bear the responsibility personally for all your bills many would chose to die earlier rather than burden their family with debts, or at the least save their accumulated wealth to pass on to the next generation rather than spend it on themselves.
I understand this will be misconstrued as conservatives want people to die, but that's not the point. The point is peoples attitude regarding spending change drastically if the collective pay for it vice individually.
Imprisoning reporters? Only if they break the law. The Obama administration spied on reporters to identify their sources on at least 2 occasions.
Sharing information? Fine. It's his call. Our allies have seen us as unreliable under the Obama years and our adversaries have grown bolder as a result. Diplomacy takes on many forms. Since the cited article cited only anonymous sources and their were only 6 people in the room the newspaper proliferated the data much more than Trump.
Obstructing justice? No, but I see the concern.
Trump asking Comey if he is ready to give up an investigation is not illegal.
Trump asking him to prioritize his time elsewhere is not illegal.
Trump ordering him to give it up or face consequences is illegal. Note however that Comey BY LAW is required to report interference immediately to the DoJ. The memo was 3 months old... so I'm thinking one of my 1st two scenarios is what happened.
GDP projections for current quarter are estimated at 4%. Obama achieved 3% in 1 quarter throughout his 8 years.
Unemployment rate is 4.7% and dropping.
Illegal immigration border crossing is down between 75 and 85%. This is not a racial issue so much as people come for the opportunity this country creates and pays for via law enforcement, anti-cronyism laws, medical benefits and so forth.
The numbers are coming in. Have faith, but you wont see them presented in the mainstream media, just like you never saw how Obama administration specifically recalculated the reported unemployment rate to artificially inflate his numbers.
Specifically, what did Trump do? He set the agenda. Executive orders and ongoing ACA legislation.
I think it would be more endearing if he helped them in a small but unavoidable bind they find themselves in. That way they feel obligated to return the favor rather than an NPC who keeps needing things from them.
Can't give much advice without any setting information.
-get them out of trouble with the law / guild / ruler by accepting responsibility for them and their actions.
Different or alternative... Does it matter? If we only engage in conversation with those who are of the same political mindset as us it is effectively self-imposed intellectual segregation.
If you only know your side of an argument you don't even know that.
We value diversity in everything but thought. I welcome you to my world anytime. Please wipe off your shoes before entry (i.e be respectful).
Consider an alternative...
Trump doesn't want the country distracted by non-important issues.
If you say he's doing it for his own good, consider this:
This is the stated reason he doesn't want Hillary pursued. (The investigation is complete, the case is laid out, the statute of limitations has not expired). It can be in front of a grand jury next week, but he doesn't need to see a 70+ year woman in an orange jumpsuit because it would only serve as a distraction.
America has problems bigger than Flynn, bigger than Hillary. We need to get to work so our children won't be saddled with our debts. No matter how we would like to cheer like a Roman coliseum mob when the other side gets bloodied, its a only a distraction from the major problems facing us so the comparision is apt.
Racism is bad. (especially when it is used by the Justice Department to justify not pursuing investigations into law breakers of a minority persuasion because of bad optics.)
Misogyny is bad. Too bad Trump had the first successful presidential campaign headed by a woman. Too bad he pays women that work for him based on worth. (Hillary paid female staff workers less than their male counterparts, but hey, locker room talk is much more important than actual real life actions.
Religious bigotry is bad. However, the travel bans do not reference religion in any way outside his campaign statements which are not actually admissible as they aren't attached to the executive order in any way as stated by the judge in the case but he allowed it anyway.
Denial of scientific reality is bad... where to start? shrug... other forums exist on global warming...err cooling, err weather unpredictability.
Staggering incompetence is bad. Which is why Comey was fired after the worst investigation into crimes committed by Hillary and her staff were found, then granted immunity to all the wrong doers, followed by destroying of the evidence BY THE FBI is beyond staggering. Comey should have been fired. Kudos for Trump employing him as long as he did (or maybe it was because of the quasi-investigation into Russian ties that prevented Trump from firing him).
Sadly yes, there is no coherent policy on the Right, there is nothing but hating liberals. Anything they are for must be fought, and anything they are against must be supported at all costs.
Spoiler Alert! I'm a conservative.
I bear no hatred for liberals because I used to be one. I casually engage them in conversation when and where I can. If two people have two different answers to something they should compare notes and learn from the other to find the source of divergence.
I firmly believe the healthy relationship I have with my spouse isn't based on our agreeing 90% of the time, it's about how we tolerate our disagreements by respecting the others point of view. Unfortunately, due to the polarization in our country any disagreement is bad and the other side evil or stupid and the other side must be mocked or silenced.
I honestly think there is nothing to see here. Its a non-issue. Drop it or keep talking about it for the next two weeks in "outrage".
-Trump asking him do something is not illegal (perhaps unethical).
I can't see the party abandoning him until and unless there are electoral consequences. Which means not until the 2018 midterm elections at best. Polls I think won't be enough to change their minds.
I agree. Consider his base though... the polls didn't underestimate them, they ignored them or stifled them into silence or lying because arguing wasn't worth the inevitable response of being called racist, privileged, ignorant, or deplorable.
There is to much outrage among the left. No one cares because they hear leftist hatred every single day. It simply ceases to have any impact on the average Trump supporter. My point being if there ever is something legitimate no one will care because Democrats have been calling for his impeachment since the day he assumed office.
The readied action prevails. Provoking an AOO is a separate issue from the readied action.
Yes the trigger action may be a Swift action, but the readied action still occurs before it by RAW and the initiative is modified accordingly.
Swift actions may take very little time but you had someone waiting for exactly that triggering event.
Seems a reasonable way to screw with players, but understand its only a dc 20 perception to realize an invisible creature is nearby (not pinpointing the square, just realizing trickery is afoot).
Even if the PCs lack see invisibilty there are situations that the devil wouldnt be able to continue his verbal assault undetected.
Jeff Morse wrote:
Although reduce person is a transmutation effect, it is not a polymorph effect.
Lord Lupus the Grey wrote:
Looks legit, but not well optimized since:
-you have to remove your gear prior to wild shape
Seems alot of work for marginal gains since both spells confer size bonues so like-ability scores wont stack.
The panache pool isnt much of a limitation past lvl 5 when they all get improved critical. At this point thier damageis really coming on line as well so they will be dropping foes pretty handily.
Also allowing them to dump all thier panache at once means they will expect a 15 min workday if they are unlucky nd manage not to get a killing blow or crit in a combat.
Disclaimer: this is from memory so...
Generally you can't re-skin to something else with different stats (like calling a dog a wolf).
Also, anyone who looks at it must know what it is. Your fox can be albino or a white artic fox, but no one thinks its a white wolf even if it gets enlarged.
Lastly, there can be no mechanical change like a improved steath score in snow conditions or such in my fox example.
Basically, flavor only. You have an ape, and you can call him an orangutang (if an orangutang doesnt have a dedicated bestiary entry).
He targets the square (AC 5).
It has cover so +4. If he misses use splash rules and apply damage accordingly. Even if he hits an occupied square the occupant only takes splash.
I would avoid using the trajectory distance as the rules arent well scripted for 3 dimensions. A 50' long throw would likely use a 45 degree angle so it would normally go up 25'... This leads to issues if the ceiling is only 20'...
Fallen Paladin: Does attacking a possessed party member qualify as an Evil Act and Violation of the Paladin Code?
Technically the magus was acting with evil intent and would have pinged as positive on the Detect Evil radar... So...
Serously, no. Evil is always selfish, either directly or indirectly. I seeno selfish actions here.
Were the Palidans behavior lawful? Less clear depending on the scenario but lethal damage in and of itself is not evil.
I am of the opinion a save is allowed. Let heroes do heroic things like resisting hold person enough they make it to an adjacent square in extremis. Hold person allows a person to attempt to end it every round so they are effectively fighting the paralysis. This means small movements may still happen as they are held. Since there is nothing that dictates what part of the 5' square you are held in, a simple lean forward and a move of a foot could allow movement into an adjacent square. Guess the rogue was lucky that his positioning allowed this tiny victory... Understand this is descriptive text to visualize how a reflex save could be made in this scenario. On the other hand if you wish to stick with rules specific there is nothing that disallows a save. The rules are the rules, its up to to the imagination of the gm to state how it occurs, like how I can hit the touch ac of a bat swarm flying in open air with an alchemist flask and have it break open. This also is allowed and forces the gm into heroic story telling mode.
That aside, the end result is likely the same as they will still be frozen on the lip of the pit and have to re-save at the end of thier round anyway.
Yep. Mages still win but not automatically.
If we are going to treat painful stare equivilent to sneak attack because the damage is both precision damage...
-an effect like blur will inhibit painful stare.
-invisibility will prevent it even though mesmerists have a built in mechanic to maintain hypnotic stare against targets they can't actually see.
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.
So, it depends on the type of bonus each grants to AC to determine if it applies to cmd.
Anything that increases attack rolls relevant to the combat maneuver generally applies.
Note: blindness requires fort save, not will save. If he's using glitterdust to blind then will (and hypnotic stare helps) then he's okay but the bad guy gets to resave every round.
Spell casting, even psychic spell casting is visible and should notify others in the area something is foul. Charm Person doesn't work if there are multiple guards and the skinny guy casts a spell then one of them changes behavior. The other guard will react accordingly.
As it's a world of your creation you have to decide how common is magic knowledge among the populace and the countermeasures that need to be in place. Charm person is a 1st level spell so guards should at a minimum have ranks in sense motive and spell craft to ID spells due to training set up by the court wizard.
Small magic items can help as well. An amulet that glows in the presence to find altering magics for example would be a wise investment for anyone suspecting mental infiltration.
Generally mesmerists work well as 1 opponent. Bold stares can mitigate some immune opponents 50% of the time, but multiple opponents with immune types like golem, swarm , or undead is really the bane of a mesmerist.
Yes. Your example is fine. Masterwork means high quality of a level suitable to receive enchantments and is often purchased separately from enchanting especially at low levels.
The biggest restrictions that affect people in PFS in this regard...
-a non masterwork weapon can't becomes masterwork later on (barring a masterwork transformation spell). This primarily affects heirloom weapons in a characters backstory.
-a weapon can't change materials. Your masterwork long sword can't become mithril or adamantine. (It's a new sword rather than an upgrade on the old).
There are posts that explain dev team intent to keep the ruleset manageable by keeping similar things similar. The provided example is all improved combat feats provide +2 to CMB and prevent an AOOs.
I doubt the difference between a positive modifier versus a bonus is significant enough to warrant all players and GMs to remember "critical confirmations use the same bonuses as the original attack, except for Investigators."
So Mr Charisma, I agree with you. As for your second question, I treat the bonus as a variable one and force the confirmation roll to reroll the inspiration die, but wouldn't argue if a GM ruled it is static one for both.
Eliandra, since the damage from an inspired weapon is from a special weapon quality, it is not multiplied on a critical hit.
"Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon qualities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit."
Invisibility masks the kineticist, not the nimbus and gather power. For the most part this is an insignificant difference but situations exist that may affect the OP in how they interact like in a surprise round. You couldn't GP a full round and them unleash from invisible without the enemy knowing something was up.
The once a round standard action kinetic blast attack seems to work well with stealth sniping rules. Ranged sneak attacks are usually difficult to pull off and GP only makes it worse as expect GM frowning if you GP before sneak attacking in many situations.
As I said previously, it works but bear some things in mind if you use this combo.
The error was for an evergreen scenario? Don't give him credit. Player seems to agree with this.
Nothing else matters since its repeatable on other characters.
If it was for a normal scenario, I'd issue a chronicle with 0 xp, fame, and gold just to annotate consumables used and lock out the scenario in the future.
1 seems unlikely and would create hurt feelings for a broke ability a mouser gave up opportune Parry and riposte to get.
3 is how I initially interpreted it, but over time I have come to the belief option 2 is the correct one as mobs will just provoke with a move rather than 5' step or withdraw basically granting no benefit if the GM metagames that all mobs know what underfoot assault is and leaving provokes.
FAQ worthy IMHO
I'm having trouble understanding the other interpretation.
A merciful weapon is still a lethal weapon that converts all damage +1d6 to non lethal. Sneak attack should work fine. There is no penalty for using it as the welder still attacks with it the same way as any other weapon. The typical non lethal penalty is from using the weapon in an improvised manner (flat of the blade or less important body attacks). For this reason sneak attack (hitting someone where it hurts more) typically doesn't work with non lethal strikes unless the weapon was explicit for that purpose (like a sap).
The Merciful enchantment converts it to non lethal so the weapon is welded the same way as lethally. Factor in the fact any sneak attack damage is converted to the same type as the original damage (in this case, non lethal) and sneak attacking with a merciful weapon makes perfect sense.