Ignipotens's page

Just to confirm what some of you are saying about what a successful trip is according to Greater Trip.

I have a CMD of 20.
You roll a 25 and beat my CMD.

Many of you say that you succeeded and AOOs will follow.

However:
I have an ability that says I cannot be tripped. Following the logic above, even though I was not tripped you still beat my CMD and take your AOOs. However the trip actually failed and you wouldn't take AOOs. The only thing that fails in this example is that I didn't fall prone.

That example makes me think that there is more to a 'successful' trip than just beating CMD. I would consider falling prone is what determines if you were successful. If you are already prone and cannot fall prone again any additional trip attempts will fail.

No one is complaining just curious. We actually went up against some nessian hell hounds and a red dragon recently. With the help of the witch in our party I successfully turned them to rabbits :) No need for fireballs. They also failed their will saves unfortunately, a rabbit with a breath weapon would have been awesome!

So your argument is that the dust is immune to invisibility?

Read it again. His/her argument is that this is magical and not regular dust.

If I go with your interpretation of how invisibility works, anything that is touching me at the time I cast the spell turns invisible. So I am laying on the ground when I cast, now myself and the ground are invisible. I jump in to the bushes and cast, now the myself and the bushes are invisible. I go hug a tree and cast, now myself and the tree are invisible.

No need for a FAQ. Sequence A is the correct answer. The post by James Jacobs was FAQ'd and the developers said: "No reply required" meaning what James said is correct.

So if you take a standard action to grapple a foe, and still have a move action in the round because you haven't moved or taken out a potion or opened a door or something like that, you can indeed make an attempt to pin the foe as that move action.

FAQ wrote:

Witch, Cackle Hex: Does my character literally have to cackle madly when I use this hex, or is that just flavor text?

Your character actually has to cackle—probably in a strong voice, akin to the volume and clarity necessary for verbal spell components.

Does anybody who disagrees with the "Strong = Volume" camp have a response to this? The Cackle FAQ was issued pretty much in response to an identical question - Does a Witch actually have to cackle audibly to make use of Cackle - and the response was "Yes, generally with the same volume used when casting a spell with verbal spell components."

I honestly can't see there still being a question to answer. But if someone can present a strong argument otherwise, I'm all ears.

The FAQ kind of put the nail in the coffin for me. So a whispered cackle? Just doesn't make sense to me. Do you have to scream? No. But can you whisper? I don't think so.

I tend to allow what I perceive to be a cool effect and one that will be enjoyable to the party. Most of the time they can get away with "whispering" a spell if they are in a bar goofing around and they want to play tricks on people or something of that nature.

But trying to cheese their way to casting secretly in combat or as part of the main story line, forget it. That is was a rod or feat is for.

Edit for clarity for possible FAQ
In the most recent bestiary the whirlwind ability states:

Creatures one or more size categories smaller than the whirlwind might take damage when caught in the whirlwind and may be lifted into the air.

What is the size category of a whirlwind? If we are supposed to use the size of the elemental, the text should read smaller than the elemental.

Logically a whirlwind, created by a small elemental, that can hold over 100 tiny animals and keep them suspended should be strong enough to lift a medium or smaller creature.

Furthermore:
In Bestiary 1 the ability has the size restriction
In Bestiary 2 and 3 the ability does not have the size restriction
In Bestiary 4 the ability has the size restriction

No errata exists for 2 and 3 saying it was a mistake. It was recently changed back but instead of referencing the size of the monster they continue to reference the size of the whirlwind.

Some gaming groups go off the rules of the most recent books they have. With two versions of the rule it can cause confusion, not counting the confusion of the statement "the size of the whirlwind".

Lemonfresh wrote:

Do all of my three natural attacks auto succeed, or only one? Would have breaking the grapple as a free action, then full attacking be better in terms of damage output? At level eight, when I get rake, give me auto damage for rake in the same situation?

Also, if I had chosen to move my for action instead, would moving my foe through an ally's threatened area provide an attack of opportunity for my ally?

Only one attack deals damage. Dropping the grapple and attacking again is an option to potentially deal more damage.

Rake are attacks, not automatic damage.

Yes, AoO's for moving your opponent.

And you are correct, you get three grab attempts for your bite/claw/claw. I believe Lord Malkov is thinking of a tiger animal companion, which only gets it on the bite.

This is correct. Bite and claws have the grab. Plus if you are pouncing don't forget to use your rake attack giving you a total of 5 attacks and a possible grapple.

Here is an example I posted today about this:

Turn 1: Pounce - Bite (grapple chance), Claw (grapple chance), Claw (grapple chance), Rake, Rake.
Turn 2: (Assuming you got a grapple in turn 1 with the bite)Check to maintain grapple if yes bite, Rake, Rake
Turn 3-x: Repeat 2 until baddy is dead.