Gully's page

Hello,

I have recently tried to start a new subscription, but continue to received a "The payment method for this order was declined" message. I have checked with the credit card company and they have no record of declining a charge. I have double checked the information given you and nothing is wrong. I tried creating a new payment method with the same card and still get the same message. Can you check to see if there are any glitches on your end?

Richard

Quick question ...

The 'Special Thanks' in the beginning says:

"Everyone who played Rise of the Runelords the first time and offered feedback and advice on the paizo.com messageboards—your suggestions helped make this book the best it could possibly be!"

Now to be completely selfish :) Jason Bulmahn mentioned at various Con brainstorming sessions for the Advance Race Guide that those helping might get there names mentioned in the book (and were asked to sign releases, etc). Any chance that might still happen as this Special Thanks seems to be for another book?

Slightly off topic, but has it ever been explained or inferred as to what the relationship between the sinspawn and the caulborn is?

They have such strange forms, but in such similar ways, that one seems to have evolved from the other?

edit: Oh, absolutely love the set ... all about RotRL this spring.

I assume, this:

"12 gp, sp" is correct, "12.5 gp" is not, nor is "12 1/2 gp."

should read:

"12 gp, 5 sp" is correct, "12.5 gp" is not, nor is "12 1/2 gp."

Otherwise, very interesting ... I enjoy learning about the editorial choices made by Paizo.

I remember in 3.5 there was a Metamagic feat for "invisible" casting of a spell ... this implies that spells typically have a visual component that would need to be negated in order to hide the casting in addition to movements and sounds.

I wasn't quite correct (sorry for the short tangent) ...

Its the failed acrobatics roll that stops the movement, not the AoO.

Move Through Threatened Squares
page 88

... If you attempt to move through an enemy’s space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.

edit:

Core Rulebook FAQ

I think the exception to the rule is tumbling ... correct?

If you fail your tumbling role and get hit as a AoO, then you lose that movement action and stop ... with the option of using another movement action to continue if you still have your standard left.

@gbonehead ... I agree, and thats what I plan on doing in my home game. But, I was interested in using a version of this character in PFS, and I wasn't sure what the standard ruling would be.

I suspect, going by RAW, this wouldn't be useful at all ...

I was hoping to make a fun sorcerer halfling, that could enlarge and intimidate people with his sinister infernal magnetism :).

This is what I assume is attended (the following round) ...

Demoralize

You can use this skill to cause an opponent to become shaken for a number of rounds. This shaken condition doesn’t stack with other shaken conditions to make an affected creature frightened. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.

Success: If you are successful, the target is shaken for one round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only “threaten an opponent this way if it is within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you. Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.

Fail: The opponent is not shaken.

Demoralize Action

Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.

I was hoping that there was some kind of FAQ or errata that I might have missed addressing the various bloodline and domain powers that don't do anything for the caster at lower levels because the effect ends before they get a turn to act.

Some believe this is working as intended, others just house rule you get one round with them ... I was looking to see if the developers have address this issue as they have a number of other on going debates.

I was wondering if there has been any clarifications on how long a single round spell lasts ...

The standard ruling has always been "effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on." (page 178 of Core Rulebook) But how would something like the Bloodline Arcana from the Pit-Touched bloodline work?

Pit-Touched

Your diabolic corruption is from a source in the deepest parts of Hell.

Associated Bloodline: Infernal.

Bloodline Arcana

Whenever you cast a spell, you gain a bonus on Intimidate checks equal to the spell’s level for 1 round.

This effect is never longer than 1 round (some spells last longer as you get more levels),

Am I missing something?

These look great ... but just out of curiosity can someone fill me in on the role the footpads play in construction? Some of the minis have them, some don't and I'm just wondering what determines if they get them or not. Thanks!

Its mentioned in an FAQ somewhere, but its been explicitly stated that Traits never stack. The rational partly being that traits are meant to diversify your character not focus them.

I'll see if I can find the quote and post ...

Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack—they’re intended to give you a slight edge over the non-PCs of the world, not a secret backdoor way to focus all your traits on one type of bonus to gain an unseemly advantage over the rules. It’s certainly possible, for example, that some- where down the line, a “Courageous” trait might be on the list of dwarf race traits, but just because this trait’s on the dwarf race traits list and the basic combat traits list doesn’t mean you’re any more brave if you choose both than if you choose only one.

it doesnt mean crap.

Whatever, I've seen enough ... obviously:

"You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster)"

is not ... how did you so intelligently phrase it ... "crap."

This is not fluff, hence its a rule and hence your obviously ignoring the rule. Do as you like.

where are you getting Proficient in all types of that weapon? you are adding words that arent there.

again

weapon focus
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

no "all weapons of that type" clause.

You didn't show the whole entry:

So if your proficient with Long Swords, you can can take Weapon Focus (Long Sword) and get +1att with any long sword (as I said).

There is no feat that says if your proficient with one particular unique weapon, you can gain Weapon Focus bonus for that one unique weapon.

So your left with saying that proficiency with one unique weapon, is enough to gain a bonus in all weapons of that TYPE (see feat).

-------------------------------------

As far as the designers, I couldn't find the quote in question ... it was part of a weapon focus thread somewhere ... so YMMV. I wouldn't allow Heirloom weapons to qualify for the feats, and in PFS definitely not, just because I don't see how its even close according to core or intention. What other trait replaces a feat as a prerequisite?

To elaborate for a sec ...

The current feat, Weapon Focus, requires you to be proficient in all types of weapon A to get a bonus to all types of weapon A. Being proficient in a single unique weapon A in order to gain bonus to all types of weapon A wouldn't seem correct.

Now, a feat that required to be proficient in a unique singular weapon in order to get a Weapon Focus bonus in that singular unique weapon might be great, but it doesn't exist.

I'm looking for the quote ... but Paizo said it doesn't count for any feats. I'll post when I find it but I have to run in a sec.

Probably the key thing for high level play is a way for other high level forces to shut down high level tactics.

This is only reasonable. Nobody of any accomplishment should be vulnerable to Scry and Fry.

First is, Interdiction is a VERY common effect in my game world. It raises the Spell level required to use any dimensional type spell by the level you cast the INterdiction at, it's easily made permanent, and it covers a huge area. Most major cities, and ALL important places, are covered with these things cast at from a slot 6 or higher. Unless you are Epic, you can't get in with dimension bending, and time stop don't work in that area. Likewise, monsters can't be summoned inside such areas.

It adds a whole lot of realism when populations don't have to worry about baddies popping out of nowhere.

Two, the threat of flying creatures is unreal. You have to shut them down.
Earthbind does that. It's a level 3 spell, the area increases drastically if you cast it from a higher slot, and it can be made permanent. Nothing above the area affected can use any form of unnatural flight. Basically, only bugs, bats and birds of natural origins can fly...everything else, from dragons to elementals, loses all lift and is forced to the ground. No flying over cities from a mile up and dropping shrunken boulders for hilarity...

Thanks for taking the time to post ... lots of good ideas here. Much appreciated.

Just a point of clarification.

This is incorrect ...

Additionally, you need not make multiple Acrobatics checks for multiple opponents:

Core Rulebook, pg. 88 wrote:
This DC increases by 2 for each additional opponent avoided in 1 round.

So, it's one acrobatic check for the movement, with the DC increased by 2 for each additional opponent avoided beyond the first, and each opponent only gets 1 attack of opportunity for you leaving one of their threatened squares, each round.

When compared with this ...

Acrobatics allows you to make checks to move through the threatened area of foes without provoking attacks of opportunity. You must make a check the moment you attempt to leave a square threatened by an enemy, but only once per foe. The DC (which is based of the Combat Maneuver Defense of each foe), increases by +2 for each foe after the first in one round. The DC also increases by +5 if you attempt to move through a foe. In the case of moving out of the threatened square of two foes at the same time, the moving character decides which check to make first.

For example, a rogue is flanked by a meek goblin and a terrifying antipaladin. The rogue move away from both of them, provoking an attack of opportunity from both, but uses Acrobatics to attempt to negate them. She must move at half speed while threatened by these foes and can choose which to check against first. If she fails a check, she provokes an attack of opportunity from that foe. If she makes it, she does not provoke from moving through that foe's threatened space this turn.

INSTEAD:

I think that the problem lies with desing of vital strike and not spring attack.

When the FAQ has a paragraph on just Vital Strike question, I think your probably correct.

For convenience here it is:

This is pulled from another thread, but might help here too ...

I realize some of this has been covered, but it might help illustrate the point. (or it might just make it more confusing :) )

-------------------------------------------
Lets say player A grapples player B with player C nearby.

PLAYER A gets -4 Dex, -2 to attacks other than grapple/escape, and loses his dex to AC against player C, but not B. Can damage player B but cannot attack player C because of controlling grapple.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -2, Escape Skill -2 —due to lost dex)

PLAYER B gets -4 Dex, -2 to attacks other than grapple/escape, and loses his dex to AC against player C, but not A. Can still attack player A or C (with the -2), but neither is open to sneak attack.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -2, Escape Skill -2 —due to lost dex)

PLAYER C can attack A or B with both losing their dex to AC, both open to sneak attack.

--------------------------------------------
Now player A has player B pinned

PLAYER A same as above but loses his dex to AC to player B too. Can still damage player B, but can now add "sneak attack" to player B.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -2, Escape Skill -2)

PLAYER B is flat-footed to everyone, so loses his dex to AC to player A, and also has -4 to AC, and can no longer do anything other than grapple. No attacks directed towards B or C.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -4 and loses all positive dex mod*, -0 to Escape Skill**)

PLAYER C can attack A or B with both losing their dex to AC, both open to sneak attack. Player B has an additional -4 AC.

--------------------------------------------
The table on page 195 is for a defender who is grappling (players A or B) versus someone who is not (player C). Granted this needs to be errata'd if its not the intention.

*The big difference between being flat-footed v. losing dex to AC is that the CMD specifically says "A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to CMD". So players B's CMD can go down a lot once he is pinned (if he has a high dex) ... more than Player A doing the pinning. This is why they don't always say flat-footed.

** This is the one strange part, pinned condition allows for a better Escape check than grappling. This is because it is no longer -4 to dex. But remember that the Escape Skill turns a pin into a grapple (p96). A successful combat maneuver breaks the pin and the grapple at the same time (FAQ).

Grapple is still impossible to play without house ruling something. They say the grappler (and the grapplee) takes a -4 penalty to AC. Went to great pains, it seems, to remove the fact that grappling gives you an automatic sneak attack target. However, the Armor Class Modifiers table on page 195 of the Core Rulebook has a footnote on Grappling. That says that you lose your Dex bonus to AC. Which in fact means that you are still vulnerable to sneak attack.

So... which is it? According to the rulebook I have, if I use every rule in it as faithfully as possible, grappled, and grappling characters both still lose their Dex bonus to AC (and are sneak-attackable). However, the only place I can still find this information is in a footnote in a table I never would have thought to look at after reading all the grapple information. It is not listed in the 2 pages on grapple (except for pinning a target, which, stupidly, makes the PINNER lose his dex bonus). It is not listed in the "grappled" condition in the condition summaries at the end of the book.

Further complicating matters, the table on page 195 again states for pinned targets that they are flat-footed (which is a different footnote than simply losing their Dex bonus to AC) WRT melee and ranged attacks, which also isn't mentioned in the text. Pinned in the text is doubly broken, because it says it's a more severe form of grapple, then it says the pinned target suffers an additional -4 penalty to Dex, then it says that grappled and pinned condition modifiers don't stack. Wait... what?

Summary? This needs errata. Either remove those footnotes from the grappled and pinned entries on the...

Some of what is written above is incorrect (grappler and grapply take a -4 to dex, not AC/ pinned condition does not say target suffers -4 to dex). I don't see any problem with the grapple rules as is. Though they are complicated.

-------------------------------------------
Lets say player A grapples player B with player C nearby.

PLAYER A gets -4 Dex, -2 to attacks other than grapple/escape, and loses his dex to AC against player C, but not B. Can still attack player B or C (with the -2), but neither is open to sneak attack.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -2, Escape Skill -2 —due to lost dex)

PLAYER B gets -4 Dex, -2 to attacks other than grapple/escape, and loses his dex to AC against player C, but not A. Can still attack player A or C (with the -2), but neither is open to sneak attack.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -2, Escape Skill -2 —due to lost dex)

PLAYER C can attack A or B with both losing their dex to AC, both open to sneak attack.

--------------------------------------------
Now player A has player B pinned

PLAYER A same as above but loses his dex to AC to player B too. Can still attack player B or C (with the -2), but can now "sneak attack" player B.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -2, Escape Skill -2)

PLAYER B is flat-footed to everyone, so loses his dex to AC to player A, and also has -4 to AC, and can no longer do anything other than grapple. No attacks directed towards B or C.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -4+ loses all +dex mod*, -0 to Escape Skill**)

PLAYER C can attack A or B with both losing their dex to AC, both open to sneak attack. Player B has an additional -4 AC.

--------------------------------------------
The table on page 195 is for a defender who is grappling (players A or B) versus someone who is not (player C).

*The big difference between being flat-footed v. losing dex to AC is that the CMD specifically says "A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to CMD". So players B's CMD can go down a lot once he is pinned (if he has a high dex) ... more than Player A doing the pinning. This is why they don't always say flat-footed.

** This is the one strange part, pinned condition allows for a better Escape check than grappling. This is because it is no longer -4 to dex. But remember that the Escape Skill turns a pin into a grapple. A successful combat maneuver breaks the pin and the grapple at the same time.

I need to cancel my ongoing Pathfinder Adventure Path subscription. Thanks for your help, love your work.

Richard Pratt aka gully

Hi

I need to cancel my subscription for the Pathfinder Adventure Path. With some luck I'll be able to renew soon. Keep up the great work.

Thanks

Richard Pratt
AKA Gully

I never said the heavy flail was usable with weapon finesse. Compare, for example, the rapier with the longsword. It als deals less damage, but usable with weapon finesse, has a greater threat range and is also a martial weapon.
If you are arguing that the spiked chain should be an exotic weapon because it's usable with weapon finesse, shouldn't the same apply to the rapier?
I agree that double weapon have their merits. But on the other hand, a fighter could easily use a light weapon like a shortsword in both hands with the same effect. Double weapons are about as good as a bastard sword, with the additional advantage of being able to use them as a twohanded weapon for additional strength bonus and power attack.

Sorry, thought you where comparing the heavy flail and the chain in that they both had such and such properties ... I get you now.

Than compare it to the heavy flail (a martial weapon). It deals less damage, is usable with weapon finesse and is an exotic weapon.

It was never broken, just the only exotic weapon worth taking.

I think I'm missing something ... how can a heavy flail be used with weapon finesse?

Also I find the exotic double weapons can be useful ... allowing 2-weapon fighters to specialize/focus in a weapon used in both hands ... but YMMV.

If anyone is interested I compiled a word document with all of the traits available to PFS characters.

I would love to get a copy ....

As far as the city map, it really doesn't have less detail. I could run a roof top fight from one building to the next just fine. The streets are all there you just have to pay attention to when they run behind a building and out side of your site line.

I suspect its comes down to the style. I don't mind the 3-d view, but the style is a little cartoony for the devilish city of Westcrown. I would have preferred something more dark/foreboding/gothic even if it was the same perspective.

That being said I can use the map as is, no problem.

"Switching grips" is silly and un-necessary.
If you are wielding a (non-Light) weapon in 2 Hands, you increase your STR damage bonus.
For off-hand attacks, you reduce it by 50%, which should result in 75%, but main-hand damage is normal 150%.

IMO you have a strong case but it depends on understanding the main-hand STR damage bonus of x1 as not literally meaning x1 but as "normal attack bonus from STR for weapon" and the off-hand meaning "half normal bonus from STR for weapon" and not x1/2.

There is a nice simplicity to this reading ... but of course others are going to understand it differently. Maybe its clearer in the new book, but I'm not holding my breath.

Note that dropping extra money for faster shipment would only mean your shipment gets bumped and shipped later.

I agree

I suspect those who have their books went with normal shipping ... Their books shipped early because it can take much longer to arrive ... but its a crap shoot, and they just happened to sail through the mail.

Those that spent more money on higher end shipping are much more likely to get it EXACTLY on Aug. 13th (in the USA).

This is a case where it probably would have been better to save the money.

[

Lets KISS this and use the TWF Ranger, who only needs strength. Every Ranger who used a double weapon should have, by your ruling, been making Two-Weapon attacks at 1.5/.5, not 1/.5 back in 3.5.

I'm catching up on the thread but to give more context, The idea was to make a Thief Catcher concept (TWF Ranger) that used strength as his main stat (taking advantage that we wont need the dex to get most of the TWF feats). I like the idea of him looking underwhelming by wielding a "simple weapon" like a the quarterstaff but getting a lot of versatility from it.

Was looking at a number of feats like Overhand Chop that a normal strength PC would grab and how these would interact with TWF.

What I'm finding interesting is how many people previously gave TWF double Weapons:

A) Primary: dam +1 1/2 STR
Secondary: dam +1/2 STR

vs

B) Primary: dam +1 STR
Secondary: dam +1/2 STR

I think if you use A) then it would be consistent to allow the use of Backswing otherwise not.

I'm wondering if similar issues will arise with the revised Vital Strike line, but I haven't seen the text.

Final Rules Spoiler ...

If Vital Strike was only intended to be used as part of a Standard Action, I imagine it would have said "as a standard action" instead of "as an attack action". I would argue that anytime you were able to take a single attack you could use Vital Strike instead.

I will agree the text is a bit unclear, since there does not appear to be any such thing as an "Attack Action". There are "Standard Actions" and "Full Round Actions", etc.

Up to the DM in this case I suppose.

Just an FYI here is a snippet from the Iconic Preview #2

All of this assumes that Valeros begins his turn adjacent to an enemy. If not, he can charge up and make a single attack with his longsword using both Power Attack and Improved Vital Strike.

Pretty clear they mean it to be used with a charge action.

Well if you have multiple attacks I could see you taking a big swing with it as a 2-H weapon on your fist attack, then shifting your grip and using both ends to gain an extra attack. However you would suffer the -2 penalty on that initial 2-H attack.

Would you then allow the Backswing Feat on the first attack ... or not allow it because your not using it 2-handed for the full action?

I'll have to clarify with any DM but I'm interested in all thoughts.

Backswing (Combat)
You are skilled at using your return swing to deal additional damage your foes.

Prerequisites: Overhand Chop, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a two-handed melee weapon, add double your Strength bonus to the damage roll of your first attack. If your base attack bonus is +11 or higher, add triple your Strength bonus to the damage roll of your first attack.

Normal: You normally add 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier to damage rolls with a two-handed weapon.

If you use if as a two-handed weapon, you get the +1.5*Strength bonus.

If you use it as two weapons, it functions as two attacks with one at +1 Str and one at +0.5 Str.

You get either an extra attack or one attack at higher modifier. It interacts with feats depending on how you use it. Use it as a two-handed weapon and it functions as one, use it as two one handed weapons and it functions as them.

You can swap uses between rounds but each round you have to either swing it like a massive baseball bat, or jab with both ends.

Excellent ... so the main point is, it is one way or another for the full round. If you have multiple attacks (due to BAB) then one can't be 2-handed and another be 2-weapon.

Thanks!

I'm sure this must have been addressed somewhere, but I've had no luck finding it ...

I'm looking at someone welding a quarterstaff...

Using a two handed weapon (Quarterstaff) with 2 hands:
+1-1/2 STR mod damage

Fighting with Quarterstaff as two weapons (still using 2 hands):
primary attack: +STR mod damage
off hand attack:+1/2 STR mod damage

How do the above interact with each other?

How do they interact with feats:
Double Slice (offhand full strength bonus)
Backswing (Take full-attack action with 2-handed weapon add 2xSTR mod to damage to first attack).

Thanks for any clarification ...

Gully

A quick alignment questions this discussion has brought up ... (sorry for yet another thread jacking) ...

I assume that alignment is always judged from the point of the campaign society or the DM's moral code. If there is a mad man that thinks he is saving children by chopping them up he is still obviously evil regardless of what he thinks right?

My question comes with the idea of lawfulness ... does lawfulness mean following the given societies law or does it mean following more abstract "laws" like the idea of justice?

Could a paladin be a vigilante? In the sense that he always follows the greater morale law of "Justice" even if its breaking the lesser law of that societies legal system.

I assume nothing can always be completely lawful because too many laws contradict or supersede each other.

As an observation, it seems a little strange for him to not have his Arcane Bond on his sword but on a familiar (bat). At 5th level he would have been able to enchant his sword as he saw fit. But as mentioned above these character aren't optimized, etc.

I'm not sure if this is the case, but Lisa mentioned in another thread that those with quicker shipping would have their packages shipped later in order to have all packages arrive ~Aug 13th.

If the PDFs come online as packages ship then those with quick shipping might have to wait more?

Just a thought ...

Well, if Arcane Strike isn't for a gish, then who is it for?

I think the assumption that Arcane Armor and Arcane Strike are for fighter/magic-users is erroneous.

They have already shown the wizard iconic using Arcane Strike ... and I've had non optimized wizards use Arcane Armor at low levels in order to not scream "look here I'm a wizard ... see no armor".

Gully wrote:

Quote:

He can also enchant his cane as if he had the feats required, so long as he is of the minimum level to get the feat (such as 11th level for a staff using Craft Staff, or 7th level using Forge Ring).

Is it safe to assume that in Ezren's case its Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 5th level since his "cane" is treated as a club?

I also assume this means weapons can still be Arcane Objects ...

The Arcane Bond allows you to enchant the item as if you had the feat required, you don't actually need to take the feat you only have to be high enough level to be able to take the feat.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I know the feat isn't required, but the text seems to imply that Ezren's arcane object would require either Craft Staff or Forge Ring, when it only requires Craft Magic Arms and Armor and thus is able to be modified at 5th level. Which it isn't, which seems strange.

He can also enchant his cane as if he had the feats required, so long as he is of the minimum level to get the feat (such as 11th level for a staff using Craft Staff, or 7th level using Forge Ring).

Is it safe to assume that in Ezren's case its Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 5th level since his "cane" is treated as a club?

I also assume this means weapons can still be Arcane Objects ...

Interesting to note that the Barbarian now gets Acrobatics as a class skill ... (which is OK with me).