InsaneMuadib's page

Alright thats what I thought. Although I am now going to expect my players to come up with this.
Players running from large squad of orcs round a courner. Suddenly they all stop and reach into a quiver each pulling out a rifle.
Orcs round the corner shouting "quickly men after them" and the like. Suddenly a crack of thunder and poof there comes a suprise the orcs didnt expect as they possibly take a d10 per PC.

Lol Fantastic.

I have a question that one of my players brought to me.
He is drawing up a gunslinger as a alternate character, and he sent me a message that asked "Can a Rifle fit in a Efficient quiver?"

I am inclined to say yes, is there anything that I am missing that will declare this to be impossible?

Thanks in advance

InsaneMuadib make a good argument but the rules for hampered movement say: "If more than one hampering condition applies, multiply all additional costs that apply. This is a specific exception to the normal rule for doubling."

Well thank you for the insight into the mechanics of this I haven't had much experience running through these mechanics so this was a stab in the dark for me. I expecially thank you for the text out of Hampered Movement as I didn't see that while reading and that changes everything.

Saving throws and spell resistance are against spells. AC and DR are the equivalent for attacks.

I understand AC and DR are for attacks, but there is no AC listed for an item so I listed what I would do if a player asked me what they needed to roll to hit a necklace on someone's neck. Alternatively you could completely ignore my house rule and go with the mechanics for called shot that came out in UC.

Burko the saves are listed as 2+1/2 CL for items the CL is listed in the items stat block and for a necklace of strangulation the CL is 18 making that save throw = +11.

I am also picturing the CMD less as a hit his throat so much as a "I want to hit the necklace and not his throat" however with healing allowed go right ahead and ignore the roll to hit the necklace providing the player wearing it will allow the attack without dodging.

But a lot of the hitting a item a person is wearing rules are not specifically covered in RAW and are house rules so it is up to you as DM

Arg! He stabbed through my friend to get to me! I so totally did not see that coming! Glarrrr (gratuitous shower of blood).

Really, really weird... but if it qualifies... yes. That is to say, cleave doesn't prevent you from sneak attacking. Technically you could hit one guy and cleave and only get the SA on the second guy (hence my rather humorous interpretation).

I haven't lol'ed so hard at a mental image in awhile. Thanks

Recently we encountered a strangling necklace. My character has a +1 corrosive adamantine nacklace. I decided to risk my fellow player life and sunder the necklace. i hit repeatedly and shattered the necklace. (and the player's neck, but he was able to get healing)

the question that came up is this: is there a saving throw the necklace gets? there is a long passage on page 459 about damaging magical items that suggests no, because this is not a spell which is what the passage talks about. on the other hand, shouldn't such a powerful cursed item get an added resistance? I don't think so but other players did.

So my question: Should there be a save, and at what DC?

The DC is listed for you in RAW under "Damaging Magic Items" I would assume the CMD for sundser would be equivilant to it's saving throw bonus + 10 cause of the "even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save" line that is listed. and as far as HP and DR use the standard item's harness and HP/in listed in the Core Book

DR only reduces damage from attacks. Falling damage is not damage from an attack (no attack roll is ever made). Ergo, DR does not reduce falling damage.

I do have to point out Fozbek that RAW says under Glossary; Damage Reduction:

"Creatures that are resistant to harm typically have damage reduction. This amount is subtracted from any damage dealt to them from a physical source."

The generality of "source" allows it to apply to any damage not just attacks. However there are other areas in RAW that do contradict this (such as DR in definition in the Beastiary) so I suppose it's a opinion matter.

Sorry I didn't go into RAW to pull this up earlier, could have saved us some time.

How about this:

"At 7th level, a barbarian gains damage reduction. Subtract 1 from the damage the barbarian takes each time she is dealt damage from a weapon or a natural attack." - From Pathfinder SRD, Barbarian Damage Reduction section, emphasis mine.

So I would say that DR wouldn't apply to falling damage.

Though I could see how a GM would think that's silly and allow it to apply anyway.

Well Wolverstone this may seem silly, I believe the ground might count as a natural attack (in my opinion not according to RAW). The only thing that negates my thinking is that according to RAW falling damage is not mentioned as a "attack" it is just they take x damage for x distance and a natural attack is "attacks made with natural weapons".

Without a full text for this spell I cannot say for sure, but...

I would personally have the two cancel each other out unless one of their spells hits the range of the other caster first (i.e. a higher caster level grants them 5ft more range or something)

Then when they leave the spells effect it would depend on the RAW. If it says something like "Cancels the effect of named spell" then the spell should come back once they have left.

On the other hand if the RAW says "dispels named spell" or "cancels named spell" then I would say the person loses the spell.

If you could link or give use the written text then I think we could be more help.

Personally I agree with you, but only due to a implication that I feel is made in the two different effects

Part 2:
Then in the Solid Fog spell description it states: "the Solid Fog is so thick that it impedes movement. Creatures moving through Solid Fog move at half their normal speed.."

This seems in my mind to imply almost a cartoon-ish thickness where the air itself impedes the movement, like walking through quicksand. Where the other reference you made:

Part 1:
Under "PRD: Additional Rules: Movement: Tactical Movement: Table - Hampered Movement" we see that "Poor Visibility" requires a character to move at half speed.

Seems to be made more as a reference to actual sight in the fog. So if I had a character who's senses didn't rely on sight I would allow them to negate the "poor visibility" rules.

However as a GM I wouldn't stack the effects of the two because I would declare that since the player is already moving so slowly from solid fog they have enough time to look around and orient themselves for the poor visibility.

Personally I couldn't find anything in looking either, and I have never heard of any such oddities, but personally I agree with person above except only Dr/Bludgeoning would makes sense.