I know it does not clearly state if the move action to clear the condition of a Dirty Trick provokes an attack of opportunity. Many move actions do provoke. Within the text of the feat it does not clarify either for or against. I am not seeking a "its overpowered" or "its a waste of pre-req feat for Greater Improved Dirty Trick". Is this then a home rules condition I need to cover with my GM?
My example: I "Improved Dirty Trick:Blind" my opponent. I get a 3 extra successes over his CMD, so he is blind for 4 rounds in theory. He attempts to clear the blindness on his action with a move action. He does(with no saving throw, provocation, or other hindrance) OR He provokes again, and I again apply Dirty Trick as my AOO, and re-blind him/stack another Dirty Trick/normal attack, etc...
This appears broken. Why have the additional rounds apply to the CMD check at all if a simple move action clears it with no consequences? I can see it being overpowered as well for obvious reasons, as chaining blindness is as debilitating as the spell. I also could with the provocation apply a different trick, and this would require a single move action to clear all Tricks, or each one in turn?
I know it exists, but we didnt rules lawyer it mid-game this evening.
Our situation: My initiative 15, bad guys initiative 18. The rest of the party is scattered higher, between, and lower on the initiative track. I cast a spell (Chains of Light) that paralyzes the bad guy that allows a save every round to become un-paralyzed, which he fails on Round 1 after my standard action to cast it. We run through the initiative into the next round and the GM announces the bad guy is making his save check on initiative 18. I said, he cant, he has to make that save on my 15 initiative for a full round effect, the three PCs who go between 15 & 18 agree, and we have a minor issue.
My problem is that I cant find this anywhere stated directly in the combat/spell rules for when the NPC makes the save within the sequence.
My GMs point is that regardless, his guy acts on 18 (even though he has a dex of 0/paralyzed condition/helpless) and that's when he "acts" to make his save. The bad guy has no other way to create an immediate action to make the save or remove the magic. It became moot when the bad guy failed his save again and got coupe de grace'd.
Even if you can't take actions, you retain your initiative score for the duration of the encounter."
Any reference within the Core? In this case the stat change because of dex loss would have immediately dropped his initiative by 5 but next time we might have a wider spread. My only thought is that Hold Person/Monster, which states the victim makes its save on ITS turn, wasnt translated to Chains of Light. Otherwise, it isnt fair to the people who act within the spread on initiative, as they can never react to the spells benefit.
Just to get some attention in the FAQ on Shaman rules:
Extra/Split/Etc hexes used by Shamans?
Yes or No on Improved Familiar?
Unsworn shaman lack Hex as a class ability yet can take hexes from the witch and various spirits as they level, per the RAW. Do they ever get to select Shaman hexes?
Unsworn can technically take new spirits of the same type but of different variables every day. On Day one I can summon my Lore Armidillo with (CHA bonus wizard/sorceror) spells and the next day my Lore Hawk with a different inventory of spells. Great variety but extended bookkeeping. I can also summon as level allows multiple of the same spirit type, Minor Battle, Wandering Battle, etc.
5th level Shaman spell "Imbue Hex" allows a hex to be transferred to the touched party. If I cast Secret or Fetish Hex upon myself, is the duration forever since its technically a feat or is it a one shot nelly?
If I use this with Secret, cast Imbue Hex:Secret/Toppling on myself with an intention of someday having a need for Toppling, I could have one shot of every metamagic ability, with the only restriction being the level of spell slot used.
Within the same vein, with my Unsworn having multiple familiars I could put Imbue on them with my underused witch/shaman/spirit-wandering hexes and have them available as well.
I have a Chaotic Neutral Goblin Druid-Dervish of Dawn Bard-Magus. If I take Infernal Healing as a Magus spell, is it disallowed by Sarenae even though I am not technically a cleric of that pantheon? I am already disallowed Lawful and Good descriptors. It seems within my goblin nature to make someone feel icky when I heal them.
So, if, for example, you were to accidentally swap places via a planar accident with your eidolon, what would it gain as a PC, and what would happen to the summoner when the eidolon summons him? Not that this happened or anything...
An oft asked but never FAQ'd question relates to Trample, its function, movement allowed, etc relating to other threads. Trample refers to Overrun but has a different action type, Trample is full round, Overrun is standard. Trample involves no success check to knock prone, other than for the defender to avoid via a reflex save or make an AOO. So here is my story:
Summoner casting SMIV for 1d3+1 Aurochs each round. Round 1-3: net total 7 aurochs summoned, one is slain by AOOs. Combat is aboard a ship with 15' wide access to enemies standing in a line along the rail of the ship in a 60' path. The Aurochs move at 40 feet as its not straight line. 9 bad guys are lined up, and I move the cows through them the full 40'. Trample means they move through, but dont otherwise knock prone, displace or knock overboard, doing damage to the first 6 enemies in round one. The enemies respond by making futile AOOs and reflex saves for half damage. The cows do roughly 60 points per enemy in damage PER ROUND, and I lose one cow to AOOs. That's 12d6 + 66 base damage. I achieved a new all time high damage total for damage done of 484 damage dealt. I felt embarrassed and immediately asked the GM to forgive me as I was trashing his encounter. By simple use of 3 SMIV spells, I had created a Monstrous Herd, and cleared the table. I suppose the GM could have moved or ran away from his positions, jumped overboard, or simply killed cows, but it was if I cast a 7 minute cowstorm, and I could still cast SMIV 8 times more for the day.
This created a whole game slowing discussion on Trample, Overrun, model positioning during and after the trample, etc. And this all got started because I promised I would summon something other than Hound Archons this time.
Not looking for house rules, just a justification and order of logic on how the existing ones work.
Re-reading Superior Summoning today, and it struck me that I can get more bang for my buck. As written:
Common sense says this only applies to the variable side of the SM spells, however, the rules lawyer side of me reads the entirety of the spell as including "more than one" in its options.
Nowhere in Superior Summoning does it say I lose variety in selection (other than alignment based or condition based), unless I opt to de-power my spell and Summon 1d3 (+1 via SS) "of the same kind" or 1d4+1(+2 via SS) "of the same kind" of lesser creatures.
In theory this should also apply if I want to summon lower multiples of variation by using a lower level Summon Monster(" ") with the same spell.
My next combo is going to be a Dire Ape mounted on a Pteranodon.
I play in a regular group in RoTRL. I am one of the senior (by RL age) members of our group playing a support character (Bard/Paladin/Magus), LG, Paladin of Iomedae. Very devoted, but not a typical pain the rear Paladin, more of an adventuring researcher on how to close the WorldWound. I won't stand by and let bad things happen, but I'm not the Overseer either, unless forced into that role. Typically I share leadership with other PCs. Our most junior member (twentysomething) has a recurring issue, and I'm not sure if its something I can work around.
In the 3rd part of series, we find the Dam at Skulls Crossing is powered by a Pit Fiend. In the course of dealing with it, the Fiend expresses remorse as to his actions, but still offers to trade information for his freedom. I say, too bad, sucks to be you, and offer to see him redeemed in the eyes of Iomedae, ie DEAD. He incidentally ends up dead, and turns into dust within the magic circle hes trapped within. I actually didnt do the dirty work, but was happy with the result. The other cleric (of Iomedae)in the party and I are discussing the best way to secure the room full of evil devil dust. The junior member is playing a cleric of Torag, LG aligned, and attempts to steal 2 bags of the devils essense (Which still radiates a LOT of evil)in bags as well as apparently consumed some, in front of us. I warned him as he was doing it, " Ok, you are attempting to steal Pure Evil in front of two of the highest perception players who are involved in a discussion on how to remove that very substance from the Earth safely." I also explain that he should consider his dieties outlook on devils and perhaps he can offer a way to dispose of or lock away the Poison. He continues with his theft, justifying it with, "well, the Devil said it felt all sad about 10000 years of Evilness". We end up confronting him about what he is doing, forcing us into a give it up or else squabble, and we win this fight, verbally. The GM has hinted at punishment from Torag but as I pointed out, the Player is ignorant of his classes requirements not the character.
He has made up several characters in a row that all suffer from a severe case of stupid. He picks a fight with another PC, does something in-game that's detrimental to the entire party, has pulled stunts that result in his character dying each and every time. It is almost as if he is bored and does it to be spanked like a small child. His last character was a rogue, who I took under my wing, gave him guidance as if he were a player (student) who truly needed help. I asked him to do tasks like check for traps politely, saying it was to everyone's benefit he help us, unlock but not open doors, hang on the flanks and use his sneakiness, etc, dont risk your own life as a tank, that's what other characters are for. He went on a tirade saying "You guys are trying to boss me around", and committed character suicide. The GM punished him with a level loss on his next character, but he continues. The GM has put his "supervision" onto various party members, but no one can succeed here. Its entirely disruptive to the game to have infighting when its completely unnecessary relating to any kind of normal logic. I am trying to avoid giving up the game as the other 7 people are fine. There is a certain sad comedic justice to the drama, but I don't want to be in the wagon going off the cliff with this guy anymore. Talking to him is like talking to my dog, he just doesn't get it. Suggestions?
If I summon an elemental, for example, Earth, can they manufacture tunnels through their element, and at their Burrow speed? Burrow in RAW does not clarify, but PFSFD20 "clarifies" unofficially that they do not make tunnels. If as a summoner I can direct my elemental to a task other than combat, could they do this effectively as a "stoneshape". Or is the concept that Burrow to an earth elemental is like Flight is to an air elemental? They are in complete lack of control of their element? Does that give them immunity to the element as well?
As another part of this, if the elemental is large enough, could it encapsulate someone in their element, such as a water elemental surrounding me in a bubble of air so I could survive underwater? How much control does an elemental have over its shape and the element? Or is this beyond the powers of these extraplanar critters without a feat or power to describe the effect? Backing up the amorphous theory is the fact that they have no given shape other than size and mass, so could be organized physically any way they like.
OK, even though temporarily resolved in game, we had this situation come up during our last session. One of the PCs has a Crafting character, with wonderous item feat, and is a 5th level oracle. The discussion became violent. It revolves around rules interpretation, the "unofficial" FAQ response, and how things are made. The rules seem to suggest that to create a wonderous item (within the parameters, including non-charged spells, etc) you can bypass the base requirements for creating the item other than the feat by simply adding the +5 modifier for each thing you lack. On one hand, it specifically calls for the spells to be present at the time of creation, yet the FAQ says this isnt so.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 02/22/13
The players take on it is that he can make any item, without the requisite spell, as long as he adds the +5 modifier for its lack. So, he could theoretically create an item with a Bard spell requirement, with no bard spell present or cast into the item. Thus, the FAQ covers "specific spell requirements" under that proviso. The players take on it is, he provides the mojo via his spellcraft and innate magical prowess. The rest of the room thought this was a lot munchkin.
My question is, is this working as intended? Does Paizo intend free creation and proliferation of items, and how does this affect the use of the item afterwards as far as activation? Do you go to the root spell or the creator's class as far as use?