Grick's page

the problem is that you are very lax in reading "whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list," as "whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” or has a held charge of a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list,"

I'm only reading the actual rule.

Your 2nd version of that (marked in blue) would mean it does work with wands.

in half of your interpretation and very strict in reading that same phrase as "whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” or has a held charge of a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list but that held spell has to have been cast by hand by the magus, not with a device,".

The entire thing must be read strictly. It says casts a spell, so it means casts a spell. It says range of touch, so it means range of touch.

I'll spell it out for you, again.

Spellstrike (Su): "At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack."

First three words: "At 2nd level," 2nd level is when a magus gets the ability.

Next sixteen words: "whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list," That's what has to happen in order to use the ability. If that doesn't happen, then the ability cannot be used. When a magus casts a spell, and that spell has a range of touch, and that spell is from the magus spell list.... something happens!

Next seventeen words: "he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack." That's what happens. He can deliver the spell through a weapon with a melee attack. That only happens when the first part of the sentence is true.

If you didn't cast the spell, or if the spell does not have a range of "touch", or if the spell is not from the magus spell list, then you can't deliver that spell through a weapon as part of a melee attack.

When a magus casts shocking grasp, which has a range of touch, and is from the magus spell list, he can deliver that shocking grasp through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.

When a magus casts lightning bolt, he is casting a spell, and it's from the magus spell list, but it doesn't have a range of touch, so he can not deliver that lightning bolt through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.

When a magus who has a level of cleric casts cure light wounds, he is casting a spell, and it has a range of touch, but it's not from the magus spell list, so he can not deliver that cure light wounds through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.

When a magus activates a wand of Frigid Touch, he is not casting a spell, so even though it has a range of touch, and is from the magus spell list, he can not deliver that Frigid Touch through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.

Understand?

Whenever you [do this], you can (do that).

If you don't do this, then you can't do that.

When a magus casts shocking grasp, which has a range of touch, and is from the magus spell list, he can deliver that shocking grasp through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.

If he does not deliver the spell that turn, he holds the charge. He still cast the spell, it still had a range of touch, and it was from the magus spell list, so the rules say he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.

He [did this], so he can (do that).

And then you can't use spellstrike with any held charge as you aren't casting the spell.

Spellstrike does not say "casting a spell" it says "casts a spell".

If the ability only functioned while you are casting a spell, it wouldn't ever do anything.

"At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack."

If a magus casts chill touch, which has a range of "touch" and is from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. So if he's holding the charge of that spell, he still cast it, it still had the range of touch, and it's still from the magus spell list, so he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.

Actually, it says that they do not count as 'casting a spell' for feats and abilities that modify the spell.

The question is "Does using a... wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities...?"

The answer is "No."

I would argue that spellstrike does not modify the spell in any way.

Converting the free touch attack into a melee attack is a modification. Using the critical threat range of a weapon is a modification.

Can a magus use the free basic attack from spellstrike and make a trip attempt (or any other combat maneuver that can be made in place of a basic attack) and have the spell trigger on a successful trip?

To rephrase your question:

If a magus casts a touch spell, and uses Spellstrike to replace the free touch attack granted by the spell with a melee attack with his weapon, can he then replace that melee attack with a trip, disarm, or sunder combat maneuver?

Citations:
Touch Spells in Combat: "In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action."

Spellstrike (Su): "At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell."

Trip: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack."

Disarm: "You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack."

Sunder (PRD not yet changed, but Sunder FAQ: "the text should read "in place of a melee attack"")

In this case it specifies (my bolding):

"Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as a swift action if the wearer desires."

This implies it can actually cast the spell (as it says so).

That might actually be the intent, rather than cheesemonkey action hoarding.

Duskblade wrote:

Hey James, I got a quick question for ya: I was wondering if you could help me understand how a 'spell storing' weapon actually works. My group and I have been in debate about it, and here is how we break it down...

Say for example you want to use vampiric touch in your spell storing weapon- you make your attack roll and hit, and then decide to cast the stored vampiric touch spell.

Now, here is the issue: some of my friends believe that you must now make another attack roll for the 'vampiric touch' spell to actually hit, while others contest that the spell 'automatically hits' due to the previous successful attack roll. Which is it? Thanks again for the help.

The spell storing weapon "casts" the spell when you hit.

For vampiric touch, that means you hit the target, do weapon damage, the spell goes off, then IT does the damage as well. No additional attack roll is needed. The advantage there is that it removes an attack roll from combat, which makes the combat go that much faster and more smoothly.

The analogue would be that rather than delivering vampiric touch as a touch attack, you're delivering it as a regular attack, and as such you are now rolling against the full AC, not the touch AC. The benefit being you get extra weapon damage on a hit.

Since the weapon is casting the spell, not the wielder, then if spell storing armor works in a similar manner, then that means the armor is casting the spell, not the wielder, so who is to say it doesn't use the armor's action to do so?

Does this exist?

No.

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."

While some abilities allow you to threaten with a ranged weapon, which would allow you to possibly provide the flanking bonus to someone else, you do not benefit from that bonus unless you are making a melee attack.

If they want you to hit them, you can forego the roll. Technically you also need to roll to hit someone with a melee touch attack to cast Cure Light Wounds.

Neither of those are true.

Touch Spells in Combat: "You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll."

There is no equivalent listed for ranged touch spells.

Many people will allow the target to voluntarily deny themselves their Dex bonus to (touch) AC, but again, the rules do not directly support this.

It cannot be a standard action.

Why not? Who says she has to keep maintaining the grapple?

Unwilling target gets grappled. Unwilling target fails to break the grapple. Next turn, unwilling target is kissed. Unwilling target is subject to one negative level and a suggestion effect asking the victim to "accept another act of passion" which would make the target willing, and no longer required to be grappled. Now, since she didn't maintain the grapple, the target is no longer grappled, but that doesn't really matter any more.

Yes, this means if the target makes the save against the suggestion there's a chance to get away, which thematically makes sense if you manage to resist a succubus.

So logically that fits the rules.

Energy Drain (Su) is a Supernatural Ability.

Supernatural Abilities (Su): "Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability's description)."

The ability's description does not define the action required, therefore it is a standard action.

Grick wrote:

And, if the creature isn't moving, do you also remove the +20 modifier from the table for "Not moving"? (Functionally identical to removing the increased Stealth bonus)

Yes, that is my belief of the intent of the rules

So in what ways is this different from simply removing the bonus to stealth checks and otherwise using the rules as written?

Many people believe the intent of the developers is that invisibility should not grant a bonus to stealth checks. The purpose of this thread is to find out what the intent of the rule is (and possibly get the rule changed if it needs to be in order to reflect the intent).

Is invisibility intended to grant a bonus to stealth checks?

If you would like to see this officially addressed, please click the FAQ button on the upper right corner of this post.

Please do not use this thread to argue whether or not invisibility does grant a bonus to stealth checks. What the rules currently state is not the point. Please keep discussion as to whether, ideally, being invisible should grant a bonus to stealth checks.

Discussion on how the rules currently work (or don't work, depending on your persective) can be found here:
Invisibility fun.
Invisibility Questions
Locating an invisible creature

Relevant sections of the rules:
Stealth
The Invisible condition.
Invisibility (Glossary)
Perception
The Invisibility spell
Natural Invisibility (Ex or Su) (UMR)
Invisible Stalker (Example creature with Natural Invisibility (Ex))

Answered in FAQ

I just realized this: You guys are posting in the threads when they get answered? THAT'S FANTASTIC!

You guys rule.

This has the side benefit of also mostly being what the official ruling eventually landed on

The official 3.5 ruling, you mean?

1.) How do I start the first encounter? Since all the players are lvl 1, that would mean the CR is 1.

Step 1—Determine APL: Determine the average level of your player characters—this is their Average Party Level (APL for short).

Since you have 4-5 players, you don't need to modify this. So your APL is 1.

Step 2—Determine CR: Challenge Rating

Look at Table: Encounter Design.

If you want an Easy encounter, then Challenge Rating Equals APL –1.

If you want an Average difficulty encounter, then Challenge Rating Equals APL.

If you want a Challenging difficulty encounter, then Challenge Rating Equals APL +1.

And so on.

So lets assume you want an Average difficulty encounter for your group which is APL 1. This means you want a CR 1 encounter.

Step 3—Build the Encounter: Determine the total XP award for the encounter by looking it up by its CR on Table: Experience Point Awards. This gives you an “XP budget” for the encounter.

Check out Table: Experience Point Awards. A CR 1 encounter should grant 400 XP.

So you have a budget of 400 XP to spend on monsters.

Check out the Kobold. It's a CR 1/4 creature that has 100 XP.

So if you have four kobolds, that's 400 XP, which matches your budget for a CR 1 encounter.

what loses me is adding class levels to monsters. Ex. Does a Goblin become a CR of 1/4 if I make him a Barbarian for the PCs to fight or does he remain a 1/3?

Adding NPCs: Creatures whose Hit Dice are solely a factor of their class levels and not a feature of their race, such as all of the PC races detailed in Races, are factored into combats a little differently than normal monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2.

Note that this does not answer your question, which involved a creature with racial hit dice given PC class levels.

Check out the Monster Advancement section of the bestiary, under Adding Class Levels.

Step 3: Determine CR
Determining the final CR for a creature with class levels requires careful consideration. While adding a class level to a monster that stacks with its existing abilities and role generally adds 1 to its CR for each level taken, adding classes that do not stack is more complicated.

Adding a level of Barbarian is Key to the Combat role. Assuming that's the role your goblin is supposed to fill, that makes him CR 1 & 1/3rd. Which would be worth about 535 XP. (Adding CR 1 and CR 1/3)

2.) If wanted the PCs to fight a bigger version of a goblin, goblin boss of sorts, how do I go on about doing that? How do I "level up" a preset monster?

If you don't want to do class levels (which are kind of hard), you could do Adding Racial Hit Dice or apply a Template.

3.) Since this is very first campaign I'm doing, is it a better idea to nab one of the modules instead?

Modules are good, but they're probably more useful for you to learn the rules, rather than the design side. There's plenty of room to modify them, but they're generally just a few sessions long and kind of limited.

Another option is to run an Adventure Path. These are sets of six volumes, and generally run a party from level 1 into the teens. They follow general themes (There's a pirate one, a jungle one, a horror one, etc.) and they have plenty of room for GM creativity in modifying the plot or the encounters.

Both of them will have the encounters pretty much all planned out (or provide random encounter tables) but don't assume you won't have to do any work, there's plenty of tweaking that should happen to tailor things to your groups playstyle, including relative power level and party composition.

According to the rules, the 2nd diagonal square is 15-feet away, and thus you do not threaten that square with a 10' reach weapon.

This means a creature can approach on the diagonal without ever provoking an AoO, because it never leaves a threatened square.

In 3.5, there was a special exception for 10' reach, they allowed you to threaten that extra 2nd diagonal, even though it was actually 15' away. (d20 source)

Paizo did not copy that exception into Pathfinder.

Sean K Reynolds (Designer) posted in late 2012 about how he conferred with Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) about the ruling that, while you do not threaten the 2nd diagonal, you do threaten a 10-foot band across which a creature must pass in order to move up adjacent to you.

Thread summary:

SKR 1: Measuring distance.

SKR 2: The 10-foot-radius band.

SKR 3: It's complicated.

SKR 4: Confirmation that this post "sounds right".

SKR 5: The 3.5 rule is simpler, but that's not PFRPG.

SKR 6: The RAW is not in error.

do other opportunity attack provoking actions do so as well?

No, your PFS judge was technically in error. If it helps, the overwhelming majority of people who responded to Gauss' Poll also use the 3.5 exception. One could argue that using that exception is PFS legal due to the common sense clause, and how long it would take to explain the clarification.

So, it's a standard action and it can be a full-attack action. It sounds to me like it is something you add to the attack.

Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn."

Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: "You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn."

In that case, can you charge and fight defensively at the same time (when you get there).

Charge: "Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action."

Charge is neither a standard action, nor a full-attack action, so you cannot use it with either method of fighting defensively.

Can you ready to an action to fight defensively?

Readying an Action: "You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action."

Do you have to be attacking to gain the bonus to AC?

"You can choose to fight defensively when attacking."

Can you add it to a spell?

Is the spell using a full-attack action or a standard action to attack? If so, yes. If not, no.

For example, you could fight defensively while delivering the held charge of a touch spell with an unarmed strike or natural weapon.

But you can't fight defensively while casting haste or bless.

my view is, that both archetypes are legal together. Do you agree / disagree and why?

Alternate Class Features: "A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature."

The Sorcerer gets a class feature called Bloodline. This class feature grants you additional class skills, spells, bonus feats, arcana, and powers.

The Tattooed Sorcerer archetype modifies the Bloodline class feature by replacing her 1st-level bloodline power, the bloodline feat gained at 7th level, and the 9th-level bloodline power.

The Crossblooded archetype modifies the Bloodline class feature by granting two bloodlines worth of class skills, modifying her selection of bonus spells, modifying the list of bonus feats, granting two arcana, and modifying the bloodline powers.

Since these archetypes alternate class features alter the same class feature from the core class (Bloodline), they are not compatible.

What is a free hand?

There's a FAQ Request thread here for a similar question.

At any rate, there are a few things in that thread that imply a free hand means a hand that is not holding anything, rather than a hand that is not doing anything.

1- When casting a spell, a cleric need to hold his holy symbol in one hand, right? May he use that hand to make somatic component or must he use another hand?

Casting Spells: "To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any)."

I've never seen anyone argue that you can't use the same hand to perform the somatic components and also manipulate the material components or focus.

2- Altough the frind I am arguing with uses a buckler to protect himself (which leaves him a free hand for somatic/DF component), I have been reading that you can cast a spell using a light shield by releasing the handle (since the description says you can carry items in the shield hand, I kind of understand since the hand is more free then with the heavy shield).

Buckler: "You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn."

James Jacobs (Creative Director): "A light shield allows spellcasters to use their hand to cast, and lets you carry an object; the only thing it actually prevents is wielding a weapon."

James Jacobs (Creative Director): "Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action, so the end result is the same whether or not you use the light shield hand to lay on hands or your weapon hand after switching your weapon to the off hand, and then back to your weapon hand. The fact that allowing you to use your light shield hand to do so without so many fiddly steps is why I'd say it's fine to let it work that way."

So if he uses his buckler hand to cast, he loses the AC bonus. If he switches whatever is in his other hand to his buckler hand, he can cast with that other hand, then switch back, and keep his AC bonus.

Switching hands is officially a free action.

3 - Can a shield be a holy symbol or is it only a Holy Vindicator ability?

Divine Focus (DF): "A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character's faith. The divine focus for a druid or a ranger is a sprig of holly, or some other sacred plant."

There are ways to use other things as a divine focus for casting spells.

The Create Reliquary Arms and Shields feat allows a crafter to make a weapon, armor, or shield into a holy (or unholy) symbol divine focus of the creator's deity.

A holy symbol tattoo works as a holy symbol, as does a Cassock of the Clergy.

If a spell normally has a touch requirement, it requires a ranged touch component when it's made a Reach spell.

"Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks."

So what you meant to say was "If a spell normally has a touch attack requirement, it requires a ranged touch attack component when it's made a Reach spell."

And since casting a touch spell on an ally does not have a touch attack requirement, then that means it doesn't have a ranged touch attack requirement when it's made a Reach spell.

One of the several problems with your interpretation is the appearance of deflection bonuses, concealment, and cover.

None of which matter because no attack is being made.

If it's not a weapon, you take no -4 to hit for firing into melee to begin with and you can't get the +1 to hit and damage from Point Blank Shot.

I'm just jumping in here at the end.

But this seems completely valid.

Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: "If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll."

It says "ranged weapon", not ranged attack. If a non-ray (and non-weapon-like) spell is not a weapon, then there's no penalty for shooting into combat.

If it is a weapon, and the penalty thus applies, then it can also benefit from anything else involving ranged weapons, like inspire courage.

Then there's this:

FAQ: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?: "Yes... For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball."

Fireball: "If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."

Fireball can use a ranged touch attack. It's explicitly mentioned in the FAQ as not being a weapon. Therefore, just because a spell involves a ranged attack does not mean the spell is a ranged weapon.

Therefore, if the spell is not a ray, and is not weapon-like, then it does not suffer by shooting into combat.

There's precedent for this in Cover: "To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square." (Applies to all ranged attacks, not just ranged weapons)

If the intent is otherwise, then the rules for shooting into combat need to be changed to say "make a ranged attack" instead of "shoot or throw a ranged weapon."

Is there any reason, other than "I've always seen it run that way" to suggest that the intent of shooting into combat is to apply to all ranged attacks, rather than just ones made with weapons?

If RAI you agree, then why would you argue against RAI to find a RAW loophole?

Many people find it helpful to understand what the rules actually say before changing them to suit their table. Without a full understanding of the rules, changes can have consequences beyond those you originally intend.

When someone who doesn't know how to paint tries to touch up a painting, the results can be unfortunate.

Here's the official word:

1. The game differentiates between permanent ability score bonuses (such as +1 every 4 character levels and wearing a +2 belt of giant strength for 24 hours) and temporary ability score bonuses (such as from barbarian rage, an alchemist mutagen, or a bull's strength spell).

2. Permanent ability score bonuses do count for the purpose of qualifying for feats.

3. If you lose a permanent ability score bonus, you still have the feat, you just can't use it until your ability score qualifies again.

4. Temporary ability score bonuses do not count for the purpose of qualifying for feats. (My earlier statement contradicting this point was my opinion of how it should work.)

5. I personally believe that differentiating between permanent and temporary scores in this fashion is needlessly complex and only hinders player choices in a metagaming way.

6. I personally believe that you could revise the feat prerequisite system so characters could select feats before they actually meet the prerequisites, but wouldn't be able to use the feat until they do, which would allow (for example) monks and rogues to take Weapon Focus at level 1 in anticipation of having the required BAB +1 at level 2.

7. Implementing points 5 and 6 as official game rules would require making revisions to language elsewhere in the game (such as qualifying for a prestige class), similar to how the discussion about revising the Stealth skill is a significant change that affects other parts of the rules (such as scent and hide in plain sight).

8. The design team hasn't discussed implementing 5 and 6 as official game rules.

Grick wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Base DC 0

Why would you base everything on the DC to "Notice a visible creature" instead of the DC to notice an invisible creature?

Because there is not a "notice an invisible creature" DC of 20 under the perception skill.

It doesn't matter if you use the "notice a visible creature" task, then add 20, or if you use the "notice the presence of an active invisible creature" DC that is listed in invisibility, they both end up at 20.

So we all agree the base DC to notice an invisible creature is 20. And as such, to pinpoint it, is a +20 modifier, resulting in a base DC to pinpoint an invisible creature of 40.

Now, if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity, there are modifiers we apply based on the table under invisibility.

I'll assume the invisible character is not in combat, but is moving (so he can use stealth), lets say he's moving at half his speed.

So our DC of 40 from earlier gets modified by whatever things in the table apply.

He's not "In combat or speaking", so strike that one.
He's "Moving at half speed" so apply a -5 modifier.
He's not "Moving at full speed" so ignore it.
He's not "Running or charging" ignore.
He's not "Not moving" because he's moving.
He is "Using Stealth" so add "Stealth check +20" to the DC.
He may be "Some distance away" so let's add "+1 per 10 feet"
He's not "Behind an obstacle (door)"
Nor is he "Behind an obstacle (stone wall)"

So Base DC 40, -5 (moving half) +SC+20 (Stealth) +Distance results in DC 55 +Stealth Check +Distance.

So let's say this invisible creature is in combat. Everything else is exactly the same, except we use the modifier from the table for "In combat or speaking" which is -20. That means the DC to pinpoint him now that he's in combat is DC 35 +Stealth Check +Distance, which is what I said in my post from the other thread.

You're hung up on the way I broke things apart, just rename "+20 Invisible" with "+20 Pinpoint" or something and it will all make sense. The reason it was labeled that way was, as I said, "The reason I'm breaking out the base 20 from the +20 from being invisible is to fit with the increase in DC listed in the Perception skill."

Lets use your example from earlier.

To pinpoint his location:

DC 35+SC+D
Base DC 0
+20 Invisible
-5 Moving Half Speed
+SC (Actual Stealth Check, not including bonus for being invisible)
+Distance
+20 to pinpoint the location of a invisible character

This is incorrect, because you did not include the proper modifier for using stealth.

As you can see from the chart, If the Invisible creature is... "Using Stealth" then the Perception modifier is "Stealth check +20"

So your calculations with my addition in blue:

Base DC 0
+20 Invisible
-5 Moving Half Speed
+SC (Actual Stealth Check, not including bonus for being invisible)
+20 (bonus from using Stealth)
+Distance
+20 to pinpoint the location of a invisible character

Results in DC 55+SC+D.

Note: It's assumed that if you're using stealth, you're moving. This is why the invisibility table says "Stealth check +20" it's including the "+20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving" which is detailed under the Stealth skill. This is not the same as the "Creature or object is invisible" modifier listed under Perception.

Were there to be a FAQening, I would suggest something like this:

Which of the following are legal options for 15-foot cone placement?
http://i.imgur.com/7FnroF7.jpg

A1 and A2 are examples from the book.

Is B1 legal, by placing the 'hot spot' on the top left corner?

Is B2 legal, by placing one corner of the 'hot spot' on the top left corner?

C1 and C2 are the same examples as A, only rotated 90-degrees.

The answers for D1 and D2 should match B, unless I've screwed up my picture somehow.

These were quoted in the thread mentioned above, but I think they're worth reading. Particularly the first one.

Cones can't be perfect on a square grid. Just pick one, drop it on the map so its origin point is the corner of one of the caster's squares, and that's what area the spell effects.

My suggestion:

Take a deep breath, calm down, and use the diagrams, they're clearer than the text, and better show the intent of how they're supposed to work.

"Just pick one, drop it on the map so its origin point is the corner of one of the caster's squares, and that's what area the spell effects."

That does mean you can use goofy angling, like using the 'straight' cone from a side corner, or using the 'angle' cone across the front of your square, but it's easy, and giving a little slack in targeting cones I think is useful since we have no other good way of portraying the ability to aim up or otherwise finesse the area.

-edit-
I should have read the rest of my citation!

To use computer terminology, the "hot spot" of the left cone template is the lower left corner of the gray shape, near the red dot that represents the caster. The "hot spot" of the right cone is the middle of the bottom of the gray shape, which is the upper right corner of the caster/red dot square.

Cast a cone spell, pick the cone shape you want, and put the "hot spot" of the cone on one of the corners of the caster's square, and that's where the cone effect is.

Note: "The "hot spot" of the right cone is the middle of the bottom of the gray shape"

This means, to me, that the center (not corner) of that bottom square must share a side with one of your squares.

So offsetting the 'straight' cone is no good, but flopping over the diagonal cone is still OK.

Doesn't spell combat specifically say it functions like two-weapon fighting?

"This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

Ergo, it IS a full attack action as well as a full round action (just like any other full attack).

That would mean improved two-weapon fighting lets you cast two spells. And greater two-weapon fighting means three spells!

Or, instead, it's to get across the idea that you're attacking with a weapon in one hand, and casting a spell with the other hand.

I find myself perplexed ;-) by the action economy (as measured in time, energy, or some surrogate).

Perhaps stop thinking of it as time/energy but instead actions which are available to you.

Or consider a machine that accepts coins. Each day you are given a quarter, a nickel, a few pennies, and a dime. (If you're unfamiliar with US currency, those are coins of decreasing size)

You can put a quarter in the quarter slot and get a plastic egg.
You can put a nickel in the nickel slot and get some chewing gum. (This nickel slot also accepts quarters, but doesn't give change)
You can put a penny in the penny slot and get a rubber band.
You can put a dime in the dime slot and get candy.

Or, you can put a quarter and a nickel in the big weirdly-shaped slot to get a toy.

Those coins are actions.
Quarter = standard action
Nickel = move action
Penny = free action
Dime = swift action

and the big weird one that uses a quarter and nickel (standard and move) is a full-round action.

I guess an immediate action would be a guy walking around who will give you a piece of candy after you've left the machine with the agreement that you'll give him your dime tomorrow. This metaphor isn't working so well.

For example, there seems to be no debate that an AoO allows one to perform a melee attack. Somehow, this attack is deemed different as a melee attack conducted elsewhere in the round. How? Why?

Because the rules say so. When someone provokes, you can make an attack of opportunity, etc.

It doesn't use one of those action types, so anything that requires that you use one of those action types doesn't apply.

Back to my terrible metaphor, imagine some guy who owns the machine will give you a hearty pat on the back each time you spend a quarter to get a plastic egg. If someone else gives you a plastic egg, you didn't spend a quarter, so the guy doesn't pat you on the back.

So if you have a feat (Vital Strike) that only works when you use the attack action, it's not going to work if you don't use the attack action. And since an AoO doesn't use the attack action, that AoO can't benefit from Vital Strike.

Also, I'm not quite sure if the RAW (I'm trying to say rules as written here) is saying that to perform a Combat Maneuver (say Grapple) means that you exchange all of your attacks in place of this, as opposed to just one melee attack.

Grapple: "As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options."

It's a standard action. This means you must use your quarter in the quarter slot. If you use your quarter and your nickel together in the weird slot, it doesn't count.

Note the difference in wording between grapple and trip:

Trip: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack."

While grapple requires a standard action, trip only requires a melee attack. Since an attack of opportunity is a melee attack, you can attempt to trip your opponent in place of it. But because the AoO is not a standard action, you can't use it to grapple (or to cast fireball, or to drink a potion, or to light a torch with a tindertwig, etc.)

If it's the former, that seems broken to me. A fighter electing the standard action + 5' step option might be able to perform 3 attacks in that round...

Full Attack: "If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

If you use a standard action, you only get one attack, regardless of how many weapons you have, what your BAB is, etc. (Barring certain abilities such as cleave)

Both could only Grapple once?

You can generally only perform a grapple once per turn.

Abilities can change this. The Greater Grapple feat allows you to maintaining the grapple is a move action.

It doesn't match intuition imhe (in my humble experience)... college wrestlers can grapple more than once per second I assure you.

They must have taken the feat, then. =)

-edit-
I got distracted and forgot to mention an important point to my coin metaphor: The machine doesn't know or care what the value of each coin is, only the size. A dime is legally worth two nickels or ten pennies, but the only way the machine will give you candy is if you put in a dime, rather than any sort of currency worth ten cents.

So while making a single melee attack as an attack of opportunity might be, in your mind, equivalent (in time/energy) to making a single melee attack as a standard action, the machine doesn't care. It wants a quarter, or you're not getting an egg.

If a character with active Detect Magic focuses on a magic scroll (say, scroll of flaming sphere CL5th), what information should they be able to get with the spell?

Using Detect Magic:

Round 1: Presence of magical auras.
Round 2: One aura, the most potent of which is Faint.
Round 3: One Faint aura, emanating from that rolled up paper.
Round 3 (optional): Knowledge (arcana) skill check to determine the school of magic, DC 17. Success: The school is evocation.

If the character wants to spend three (more) rounds concentrating while thoroughly examining the object, he can make a Spellcraft check to Identify the properties of a magic item using detect magic. The DC is 20 (15 + item's caster level). Success: It's a scroll of flaming sphere.

If the character wants to activate the scroll, he must first Decipher the Writing either by casting a read magic spell or making a successful DC 22 Spellcraft check as a full-round action (DC 20 + spell level).

Ally: Do you count as your own ally?

You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."

—Sean K Reynolds, 10/12/10

I don't see any reason it would make no sense or be impossible to apply Discordant Voice to yourself.

Is it legal RAW next round, using spell combat, to deliver shocking grasp via spellstrike through my scimitar

Spellstrike (Su): "At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack."

FAQ - "Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities..." - "No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting."

Spellstrike works when you cast a spell. Activating a wand is not casting a spell, so it does not work with Spellstrike.

I assume that if it is indeed legal RAW then this would also stack with haste

Spell Combat (Ex): "As a full-round action, he can..."

Haste: "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack..."

Spell Combat is not a full attack action, so it does not work with the extra attack granted by haste.

This is RAW, but may not be as intended. If you would like an official response to this issue, there's a FAQ Request Thread here.

and with buffing the scimitar with keen for one arcane point as a swift action?

If you're 5th level, then yes, you can add Keen with your arcane pool. (If the scimitar is not yet +1, you'll have to use your other point of enhancement to make it +1 before adding keen)

And followup question, since shocking grasp requires a touch attack roll and the scimitar is keened, would each of these spells use the extended crit range of the enhanced scimitar

Spellstrike (Su): "This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier."

The prerequisite is Arcane Spellcaster Level 7th. Assuming "+1 level of spellcasting class" results in an effective arcane spellcaster level, then you would qualify at M5/TM3.

The prerequsite does not require that your Arcane Spellcaster Level has anything to do with whatever class or ability that granted you the familiar.

A wizard 1/bard 7 would qualify, even though his bard levels have nothing to do with his familiar. (Though his familiar would still be based on the level 1 wizard, the bard levels wouldn't advance it other than qualifying for the feat)

All the feat requires is a high-enough arcane caster level. Your character's rogue and cleric levels won't help, but his wizard and mystic theurge levels do; caster level is precisely what those mystic theurge levels increase, after all.

Your PC has a caster level of 6th for wizard, and thus qualifies for anything on the Improved Familiar list but the caster level 7th critters. And if you gain another level of MT, you'll qualify even for those!

The person he was replying to was a Rog2/Wiz3/Clr3/MT3.

Your implication to use the DC normally used to resist a spell would mean that quite a lot of spells, especially all personal spells, could not be dispelled at all, since they do not allow a saving throw and thus do not have this kind of DC.

The spell always has a DC, it's just not generally used if the spell doesn't allow a save.

"The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a wizard's spell is 10 + the spell level + the wizard's Intelligence modifier."

So the 22-int wizard (barring relevant feats/abilities) would have a DC of 17 for all 1st-level spells, including shield and magic missile.

You won't always be able to name a specific spell effect. Being able to name a specific spell effect (in theory because you made your Knowledge (arcana) check to identify a spell effect) requires more skill, and therefore you get rewarded by being more skilled by being able to use your dispel magic against what's probably a lower DC.

Think of the targeting a specific spell effect as "taking careful aim" with dispel magic, I guess.

The definition of a ray appears to be 'A spell that requires an attack roll and does damage', nothing else.

A ray is a spell where the Effect line says "ray".

If the Effect is not Ray, then it's not a ray.

A scorching ray, fiery shuriken, acid splash, or acid arrow is literally flung by the mage, relying on their dexterity, not their mind powers, to land accurately, and can score a hit on a better or worse part of the target. This is why you can crit with them, why they can be deflected or dodged, even by non rogues, and why it makes perfect sense that it would count.

You could argue that those are weapon-like spells (like flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon) and thus they count as weapons, but they are not rays, and Weapon Specialization (ray) would not apply to them.

Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?

Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)

For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.

The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.

—Sean K Reynolds, 07/29/11

It specifically notes that fireball does not count.

Fireball: "If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."

So a fireball can require a ranged touch attack, but it's specifically called out as not a weapon. Since rays are weapons, that means fireball is not a ray. That also means a ray cannot be defined as 'A spell that requires an attack roll and does damage'.

Just to be clear, the only thing 'being a class skill' does is grant a +3 bonus if you have any ranks in that skill.

It seems like when people get upset over class skills, they are often under the impression it costs double ranks, or it's not considered trained if you have a rank in it, or something like that.

You are saying that you threaten the squares, but just because you threaten the squares doesn't mean you can take attacks of opportunity or provide a flanking bonus because "Threatening the Square" is not the same as "Threatening the creature".

No, but you're close.

You threaten the square, thus you threaten everything in that square, thus you threaten the creature, thus you can provide flanking.

That doesn't mean you can make an attack of opportunity if the creature in that square provokes.

It also doesn't depend on whether you can make an attack of opportunity if the creature in that square provokes.

Or you genuinely don't see how this all goes together and you genuinely don't understand how Thrikreed's logical argument proves Blindness and Sanctuary prevent flanking

His argument hinges on Total Concealment saying you can't attack the creature.

That doesn't change the definition of threatening. You still threaten because, by definition, you can attack into that square.

So any conclusion based on Total Concealment changing what threatening means is invalid, because Total Concealment doesn't change what threatening means.

Example time.
Bob is fighting orcs with his longsword. An enemy orc wizard walks up adjacent to Bob, and begins casting fireball, and chooses not to cast defensively. How do you determine if the orc wizard provokes?

Using my interpretation:
1) Bob can make a melee attack into that adjacent square, because he's armed, and he's a medium creature, and he's not stunned or flat-footed or anything.
2) Given the definition of threatening in the rules, we know that because Bob can make a melee attack into that square, he threatens that square.
3) Since the orc wizard performed a distracting act (casting a spell) in a threatened square, he provokes.
4) Bob is allowed to take an attack of opportunity on the orc wizard.

Using your interpretation:
1) Bob can make a melee attack into that adjacent square, because he's armed, and he's a medium creature, and he's not stunned or flat-footed or anything.
2) Everything breaks. Because you've decided that Bob doesn't threaten unless he can make an attack of opportunity, we can never know if bob threatens, because we can't determine if the orc wizard provoked, because we don't know if the orc wizard is in a threatened square or not.

Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).

Yes, generally that's true. But sometimes you threaten squares that are not adjacent to you (reach 10'+) and sometimes you don't threaten adjacent squares (reach 0').

in general terms you threaten a square if when a person does an action, then that will provoke an attack of opportunity.

You're trying to say that threatening is defined by being able to take an attack of opportunity, but you can only take an attack of opportunity if you threaten, which you can only do if you can take an attack of opportunity, which you can only do if you threaten, and so on.

Threatening is if you can make a melee attack into that square. Not a melee attack of opportunity, just an attack.

If someone has sanctuary up, then you threaten them until you attack and fail the save, then you no longer threaten them.

Wrong, you can make a melee attack into that square, so you threaten that square, including everything in that square.

Unless there is a FAQ, then you are arguing over language that thrikreed already explained to you in length.

thrikreed was wrong. He was trying to use the Total Concealment rules to redefine what threatening is. Those rules don't do that.

In order to make an attack of opportunity, the opponent must first provoke. The opponent only provokes by taking a provoking action in a threatened square. You must be able to determine if the square is threatened before you can determine if the foe provokes. And the foe must provoke before you are able to take an attack of opportunity. Therefore, you cannot base whether or not you threaten on whether or not you can take an AoO.

Dispel Magic wrote:

You can use dispel magic to end one ongoing spell that has been cast on a creature or object...

Targeted Dispel, paragraph 3: "You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire)."

I point-blank asked Sean about this a few months ago after one of these debates, and it's already been established that he worked on this section of the book before it was published.

As he told me, the reference to Protection from Evil is a reference to the mechanic.

I wonder what made him change his mind.

the stone-wayfinder resonant power only works on said effects from an evil source, because the resonant power specifically cites protection from evil.

The wording may not be perfect, but 'can execute an attack of opportunity' means the same as 'threaten'.

Not really.

Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."

You must threaten in order to make an attack of opportunity. If you can make a melee attack into that square, you still threaten, even if you can't make an AoO.

Blind people can threaten.

Invisible people can threaten.

People in dark rooms can threaten.

Confused people can threaten.

Flat-footed people can threaten.

Grappled people can threaten.

None of those people (except the invisible ones) can make attacks of opportunity, yet all of them can threaten if they're armed, and thus all of them can provide a flanking bonus if positioned properly.

"If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."

Being able to make an AoO is dependent on threatening, it's not the other way around.

I appreciate the link, but that statblock also mentions applying poison to javelins, which aren't listed at all under melee, so it may not be the most trustworthy source.

There's all sorts of errors in the NPC listings, it's more that someone at some point thought full-attacking with a blowgun was at least possible.

Are we even sure that you can draw the darts as a free action?

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon: "Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action."

They're not explicitly listed, but "such as" generally doesn't mean an exhaustive list.

The CRB lists "darts" and "blowgun darts" as two separate weapons, and has no weapon description for either (even though arrows and crossbow bolts get separate descriptions from bows and crossbows).

Blowgun Darts Price 5 sp (10). Type ammunition. "The thin, light darts used in a blowgun are usually made of hardwood with a stabilizing fletching of down or fur. A dart is usually loaded from the back end just before firing."

Dart: Price 5 sp. Type simple. "This thrown weapon is larger than an arrow and shorter than a javelin, with a weighted tip and a shorter range than a javelin. Most darts are wooden shafts with a thick metal point."

If you're using a shield (as opposed to carrying it), you're *wearing* it, you're not simply carrying it in your hand.

Disarm text: "If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice..."

Thus, you can't disarm someone of a shield they're wearing.

1) Does the frog get a -20 cmd if the creature he grabbed is not adjacent to him?

No. I assume you're thinking of the 'hold' option, which imposes a -20 penalty on the CMB check to make and maintain a grapple. Tongue (Ex) does not cause the giant frog to gain the grappled condition, so you don't really have any reason to use the 'hold' option.

2) Does the frog have the option to pull the creature straight to him (as per grab) or does he have to pull him 5 ft at a time with pull?

It's not an option, it just happens as part of a grapple.

Grapple: "If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails)."

3) Can he use the tounge as an aoo to grapple?

Giant Frog: "Reach 5 ft. (15 ft. with tongue)"

"Tongue (Ex) A giant frog's tongue is a primary attack with reach equal to three times the frog's normal reach (15 feet for a Medium giant frog). A giant frog's tongue deals no damage on a hit, but can be used to grab. A giant frog does not gain the grappled condition while using its tongue in this manner."

It's a primary attack (natural weapon) with 15' reach. It does threaten that space, since it can make a melee attack into that space. If he hits with the AoO, Grab will trigger.

However, the Grab ability allows you to start a grapple as a free action, and since you cannot normally take free actions outside your turn, some GMs may rule that you cannot Grab as part of an AoO taken outside your turn. (Others may rule that since the Grab is granted from making the attack, that it specifically grants you the free action, regardless of when the attack is made)

4) If the crature is more then 5 ft from the frog can the grappled creature attack the tongue, if so would it have the same ac?

You cannot target the limbs or weapons of a creature unless you are able to reach the creature itself. (Barring a few rare feats/abilities) That said, if the creature is grappled, it's automatically moved to an adjacent space, so it's unlikely to come up.

Now while you CAN charge as a standard action with limited movement, you're still not allowed a full attack action.

This doesn't make any sense.

For a tiger, on a non-surprise round, it could:

Charge, which is a full-round action.
Pounce allows it to make a full-attack at the end of the charge.

The only way pounce does anything is if the pounce ability removes the action type requirement of the full-attack, otherwise the Tiger would need to perform two full-round actions in one turn, which it can't do.

So look at the Eidolon pounce. It either does the exact same thing, or it does nothing.

If it works like the Tiger's pounce, then it removes the action type requirement of the full-attack, meaning if the Eidolon performs a full-round action to Charge, it gets to make a full-attack without spending another full-round action (which it cannot do).

If not, then the ability does nothing. Because you can't take two full-round actions in the same turn.

Since the ability clearly is supposed to do something, we have to realize that it removes the action type requirement of the full-attack.

Thus, whenever the pouncing creature charges, it can make a full-attack, regardless of what actions it has used and/or has remaining in it's turn. Which means if it uses a standard action to pounce, for whatever reason, it can still full-attack.

unsure wither it can use its full attack pounce during a suprise round

Pounce (Ex): "An eidolon gains quick reflexes, allowing it to make a full attack after a charge. This evolution is only available to eidolons of the quadruped base form."

Charge: "If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn."

The Surprise Round: "If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs."

Interpretation 1: You are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn during the surprise round, being able to take free actions doesn't count, and the option to take a move action is just another use of the standard action.

Interpretation 2: You are able to take other actions during a surprise round (free and/or move), so you are not restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn, so you cannot make a 'partial charge'.

The problem with Interpretation 2 is there aren't really any other situations in which you're specifically restricted to taking only a standard action and no other actions. The Staggered condition permits free actions and lets you choose standard or move. Disabled is the same way. So given the fact that you can almost always take free actions, and that you can always take a move action in place of a standard action, it's reasonable to assume Interpretation 1 is correct.

Otherwise Tigers wouldn't work right. They stalk their prey, and use stealth in tall grass, but in order to pounce they would have to alert their prey in order to make sure there's not a surprise round so it can actually charge.

Can someone tell me where this rule can be found?

Core Rulebook, Magic Chapter, Arcane Magical Writings: "To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in another's spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell's level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day."

TetsujinOni wrote:

Proof of ownership is not the point. providing the rule to the GM at the table so they can adjudicate the crazy thing you're using is the point.

Please do not continue to spread this fallacy.

Additional Resources: "we cannot assume that every Game Master will have the products listed below. As such, it's up to players to bring these items in order to familiarize their Game Masters with the rules."

Is there a process for changing her alignment to Chaotic Good?

Act in a good manner. The GM will warn you that your character is deviating from her chosen alignment. The warning will be clear, and you will be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. If these infractions continue in the course of the scenario, an alignment change may be in order. If the GM deems continued actions warrant the alignment change, the GM should note it on the character's Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the "Conditions Gained" box.

The post I'm paraphrasing here, by Michael Brock (Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator), was in response to people asking about evil alignment shifts, but I don't see why it's not equally applicable for every alignment.

If you make it clear to your GM that you're looking to make this alignment change, then it really shouldn't be a problem.

The bastard sword is either a one-handed exotic weapon or a two-handed martial weapon, depending on whether or not you have the EWP feat.

This is not true.

Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

Look at the italics. Use it two-handed, AS a martial weapon. That's not the same as using it AS a two-handed martial weapon.

Falling: "A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall. Casting a spell while falling requires a concentration check with a DC equal to 20 + the spell's level."

Feather fall does not require a concentration check to cast if cast while falling.

The "purchasing" is in reference to the cost to acquire the spellbook (usually 15 gp).

That makes vastly more sense. It should be worth the actual materials used to create the item, not an approximation of what the cost might have been to acquire it.

(we are running...

Mind the spoilers, please. It's not relevant to your question.

DO ALL DODGE BONUS ALLWAYS STACK? or is there some kind of limit?

Dodge Bonuses: "Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other."