Search Posts
In light of my obsession with magical swordsmen, I have a very simple set of criteria. step one: Am I playing a magus?
This is incorrect, both by RAW and RAI. By RAI, it's strictly wrong, as evidenced by the FAQ in question. By RAW, it's wrong because if you stack both traits to get the spell below its original level, then magical lineage would therefore be involved in getting the spell level below the original level, which is disallowed by the FAQ. Basically, don't try to get away with this in any venue.
Actually, the answer is quite simply "no". Produce flame has a range of "0 feet", whereas normal touch spells have a range of, quite literally, "touch". While produce flame may provide the option to make touch attacks, it only says "with a melee/ranged touch attack". It doesn't say as a free action or as part of the casting of the spell, therefore we must default to an action cost of "standard" (or, depending on interpretation, a full-round action, but the big man upstairs has pretty much stated this doesn't work) in order to use said melee/ranged touch attack. To make a parallel, beast shape costs an action to give you the option to use natural attacks, but does not provide a way to use those natural attacks during that turn.
Are those clothes made of wool? because clearly the lamb they came from would be the first creature struck by the beam.
Until you have a rules system that is written to support such an order of operations, an order will only break more things than it fixes. It's unfortunate, but that's what we're dealing with. I personally wish I had the time to go over the rules with a fine-tooth comb and rebuild it from the ground up, but even then I'm sure there's disagreements between myself and others to how the rules should work. And even then I'm sure there will be disagreements even after the rules are made much more clear, as I nor any of the pathfinder authors are infallible.
There has been discussion about this before, and developers weighed in that you can have both activated at the same time. The text in the flaming enchantment is stating that "another command" simply means a command to turn off the enchantment. Yes, it can be worded better.
Are you saying that Phil takes the full effect of a disintegrate that would have missed anyway only because Melkior was targeting Frank instead of Phil? So take the same exact situation, except Frank is hiding behind a wall, so Melkior just decides to target phil. Melkior rolls his one and phil rolls his twenty. So now because melkior was actually targeting phil, and even though phil flawlessly blocks the disintegrate, wherever it would have landed, with his fist, he takes no damage because he was the original target? I'm sorry, but there's RAW that says "the target takes no damage", and there is NO RAW, like there is elsewhere, that the object used takes the damage instead.
What about when using an unarmed strike?Any other effects means what it said, if this was being done barehanded , we wouldn't be arguing that it "still hit your hands so roll a fort save" now would we? Wait. So Commoner Frank is off to the left, Evil Wizard Meklior is targeting him with disintegrate because the GM has a point to prove, and monk PC character Phil has cut from the air, using unarmed strike. Meklior casts the disintegrate, and points his finger at at Frank with an evil grin on his face. Defender of Justice that he is, Phil decides to defend him with smash from the air. Opposing attack rolls are made. To his chagrin, Melkior fumbles completely (a one is rolled), and Phil's reflexive strike could not have been more on point to counter wherever it would have landed (a twenty). Are you saying that Phil takes the full effect of a disintegrate that would have missed anyway only because Melkior was targeting Frank instead of Phil? I personally don't buy into that. I'd say that because the feats lack "the object takes the damage as normal" text that the shield version of the feat has, it's completely deflected.
The feat doesn't say anything about the weapon being affected by the spell. Think of it as a kind of deflection, and the disintegrate bounces at a harmless angle. For flavor you can say that it scorches the ground, perhaps, but mechanically it will completely take out the spell. I would say that if you argue against disintegrate being deflected, you would be hard pressed to also allow other rays to be deflected normally.
80. Tripped and fell down the bottomless pit while on his way to clean the Starstone. After, of course, failing the Dc 11 jump check.
*reads the "don't worry about optimization" part and slowly puts away the eldritch archer/gunslinger/vivisectionist/arcane trickster build* It depends on what you want to do, really. For example, while its slow to pick up, if you wanted a combat buddy you could pick up a beastmaster magus. Another example and of two archetypes that stack and mesh well is an eldritch archer and hexcrafter magus. Deliver curses from afar! You could build a whip magus, who uses the maneuver arcana to get full BaB on trip attempts, and use multi-touch spells alongside combat reflexes for great battlefield control. I've been wanting to try the Puppetmaster archetype, that combines martial competence with enchantment and illusion mastery. Notably he gains access to the bard spell list, which means he gains heroism as a level two spell, which can be cast with the puppetmaster spell combat. And, of course, there's always the classic crit-fisher intensified shocking grasp magus. Can't really go wrong with what works.
The trouble is that pathfinder doesn't use that definition for attack, or even the same definition for attack within its own set of rules. You can't just bring real-world definitions into this game, or you start breaking everything very quickly. For example, invisibility breaks whenever you "take aggressive action" as per the English definition, and it also breaks if you attack an ally with something harmful, even if he's willing, so that breaks that definition a little bit. However, it's helpful that this particular definition is found in the core rulebook under magic. Not referenced to a dictionary. In contrast, a rogue's sneak attack also says "attack" in its conditions, yet supporting rules and FAQs suggest that it only works on something that requires an attack roll, and not something as straightforward as magic missile. In pathfinder, "attack" is a well-documented yet not technically written outright term which is defined as "to roll a d20 to hit". And when someone tries to touch you and you decide you're unwilling, it requires an attack roll for them to hit you. For example, if you fail your spellcraft check and think that they're lying about the spell being cure light wounds, they'd have to hit an attack roll to get you with it. So I go back again to this: If the logical function of the armor is to channel magic into someone that touches it, and there's mechanical evidence that it's possible for an ally to require an attack roll to hit you AND there's buff and beneficial spells that use the exact same touch rules, what reason is there that this should not work that actually makes sense in world?
You most certainly CAN attack yourself. See the Confusion spell, result 51-75. However, doing so is at least a standard action or part of a full attack action. IMHO, YMMV. Given that Fly is a spell with a range of touch, it is most certainly a touch attack for your friend to attempt to cast it on you, therefore you should 100% be able to then use a swift action to release the stored "touch" range spell on him. It can even just so happen to be "fly", because it is a spell with the range of "touch". I think I'm entirely with DarkLightHitomi here. The armor obviously is designed as "someone is touching it, channel the magic", so how does the armor know whether the "touch" style spell is an offensive one? Likewise, how does the magic and the armor know that you view the person touching you as an "opponent". Furthermore, aren't YOU the one commanding the armor to release the magic, as a swift action? So what's the difference between a lion hitting you with his claws and you release a shocking grasp and your friend hitting you with a hi-five and you release invisibility? There's only the mechanical definitions of the terms "attack" and "opponent" governing this interaction. And, given that there exists a "creative alternative definition" that supports this dairy product of an interaction, and given how it's not overpowered in the slightest, I say why not? The mechanics of it have been explained to work just fine, and it thematically works just fine as well.
Small nitpick: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. The casting of the spell is a standard action, and then the deliver of it, should it also happen that round, is always a free action no matter how it happens. Whether you touch yourself, an ally, or attempt to touch an unwilling target thus requiring an attack roll, it is a free action that round. Indeed, if you were to use shocking grasp, the attack made against the enemy as the delivery is a free action attack, and the magus even turns this free action attack into another weapon attack via spellstrike. So there's pretty much nothing on the action economy side of things preventing this interaction.
I would disagree. A touch range spell is a touch attack even if used on an ally.an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. What is an "opponent" mechanically? This game is very ambiguous with the term. Really, a spell at touch range is only an automatic hit against a willing target. So, if someone were to target you with a cure light wounds and you decided you were unwilling, it would require a touch attack. Why can't you then decide to target yourself, and declare yourself unwilling? And if you won't allow that, why can't someone in your party target you with invisibility, and you declare yourself unwilling and make them roll an attack roll? I personally think it works just fine, mechanically. Not all "touch" range spells are offensive, and not all attack rolls are offensive either. Is this intended? Probably not. However, even if it's unintended, I wouldn't even view it as cheese. You're spending enhancement bonus and prep time in exchange for action economy, and thematically it still works. If you can store a harmful spell to zap someone when they touch it, why can't you store a helpful spell to zap someone when they touch it?
There could be several reasons, all of them RP related, so given the fact that you can voluntarily fail saves, I'd say you should be able to voluntarily fail attack rolls. For example, if some of the players are wanted and one of the group is listed by that government as known to travel with them but unknown if he works with the group, they can cook up a plan to chase him visibly, tossing out attacks that purposefully miss as a show for the guards, who now believe he has escaped. another example, a group of peons engages the party, and is convincingly routed. The last one decides to warn the others, and appears manic in his attempts to escape. The party, for whatever reason, decides they want a panicked account of today's deeds to reach their enemies, and they want it to be convincing. They shoot arrows that purposefully miss at the fleeing enemy.
Yes. Essentially, your "normal" speed is your final modified speed after mundane influence, and is the "base" speed of a character. A creature's "modified base speed" is what happens after magical influence, such as haste. Pretty much anything that relies on movement (A move action, acrobatics, a charge, etc) looks only at the modified base speed for how it functions. I can respect that stance, however I wonder why they wouldn't just say current speed - or speed - why the extra words. Because pathfinder is infamous for unnecessary verbosity and casually presented rules. Stack that on top of the fact that it's a collection of many documents written by many different authors, who have different casual styles of writing and different levels of understanding of the rules system they're writing for. It frustrates me endlessly. I'm not saying there's an easy solution, just that the issue exists that basically every "game term" is used in 4-5 different ways.
Consider this: A character without any sort of armor training, just proficiency, wears medium armor and thus has a base speed of 20. Haste is an enhancement bonus equal to your base speed, to a maximum of 30. Remember that our proposition is that "base speed" simply means "how much a base move will move you". Call base + haste a "modified base speed" for how it works mechanically. So because the medium armor character has a base of 20, haste's doubling up to a maximum of +30 results in a total speed of 40. This character's racial bonus to jumps will increase from -4 to +4. Now assume that, while under haste, the character becomes encumbered. A character with a movement speed of 20 goes down to 15, which thus also affects the enhancement bonus to that movement speed, which is equal to double his base speed. Your earlier example works the same way. Naked combatant has 30 feet speed, and has haste cast on him, bringing his speed up to 60. he has a +12 racial bonus to jump checks. Robed wizard decides his exposure is distasteful, and uses magic to dress him in his medium armor, thus reducing his base base speed to 20, and the "double your speed up to 30" enhancement bonus likewise gets reduced to 20, for a total speed of 40, and a +4 racial bonus to jump checks. Basically, what I'm personally claiming is that movement speed rules is one of those odd things that is not well defined, so to me this is the best and most logical way to explain it.
8 - Tried to initiate a grapple on a succubus.
Human Fighter A is nude. Explain further.
Maybe the puppetmaster archetype might be more what you're looking for? It gives up some combat ability in exchange for much higher enchantment/illusion DCs, and it also gains access to the bard spell list.
Well, you obviously know better than everyone else in this topic does. May as well just ban the feat.
So I just read though this whole thread, and I really have to say... OP, why do you make a post asking for advice and then challenge everyone who offers it? Especially when the ones offering it are pretty much in unanimous agreement?
Samsaran Mystic Past Life alternate racial trait should land you both, I believe.
So a Wizard/sorcerer/barbarian?
That's an avalanche though. Does an avalanche allow you to roll a reflex save for half damage? If something allows a reflex save for half, then evasion and improved evasion should, by all means, work just fine.
Given that it's an iffy rules interaction... I'd rule in the rogue's favor. Let's not be unkind to the rogue.
There's a little confusion I'm seeing. A creature's base [type] speed is how much they can move in a single move action. A charge is double base. A withdraw is double base. A run is quadruple base. The maximum movement for the round is equal to the final modified number, based upon the type of action you're taking. Therefore, anything that increases how far you can move in a single move action, increases the base movement speed of that type. So someone with stacked penalties have a base speed of 10 and thus can't move more than 10 feet in a single move action. They can take a run action, and be able to move 40 feet, and they'd take a -8 on their jump check, but that jump also cannot exceed that 40 feet of maximum movement.
A series of dexterity checks, maybe?
I would like to see some kind of monk/wizard hybrid. Combining the disciplines of both body and mind in the pursuit of a perfected soul. Could possibly have something similar to magus spell combat, but a flurry of blows + self buff, maybe?
Spontaneous Cha Psychic 9th level caster: Sorcerer with Psychic Bloodline If you consider arcanist both prepared and spontaneous, a "blood arcanist" archetype arcanist with the psychic bloodline could technically count as an intelligence based prepared psychic caster. Prepared Int Arcane 4th level: Fighter with the "Child of acavna and Amaznen" archetype. The Eldritch Scion magus archetype is a spontaneous spellcaster. Other than that, the list seems fine. I can't think of any other odd exceptions.
Then the jump he wants to clear (whether it be a pit, a section of difficult terrain, or whatever) becomes a DC of 15 with a pass/fail treatment.
11:59:59:59 on july 14th is before midnight. 12:00:00:00 on july 15th is midnight. 12:00:00:01 on july 15th is after midnight. If a school says an assignment is due on the 14th by midnight, it means that when you've hit midnight july 15th, it is too late. Just because someone can be easily confused by something doesn't mean that there isn't a single correct way to interpret it. EDIT: To make it even more correct: 23:59:59:59, 00:00:00:00, 00:00:00:01.
You can, in fact, use that line to make the interpretation that every person ever is only ever capable of jumping forward, then landing in a random spot on a 20 foot long line. That an extremely dextrous(20 dex) person at level 5 is incapable of jumping less than 10 feet, nor is he capable of controlling where he lands in a range of 11-30 feet away. Or you can treat the result like you treat the rest of the game: in an abstracted manner. Even if the wording could be better, which I agree with, I do not agree that the wording is so broken that you can't even play it out as written. One real easy way to say it is the result of your jump equals the maximum distance traveled in the jump. Now characters have better control of their jumps, it works as intended, and the DC of everything as well as the FAQ presented are consistent. Is it written this way? no. Does it need to be written this way to be understood as working this way? no. Is it, therefore, worth the time and effort on the side of the development team to make so trivial a change? no.
They move 15 feet... in the jump. If you had a movement speed of 5000 and you wanted to clear a 10 foot gap that was 2500 feet away then travel another 2000 beyond that, the dc is still 10 to clear it, And the distance travelled in the jump is 10. A safe landing area is not part of the jump, it is the landing, and is not part of the DC nor the distance travelled in the jump. Remember that in pathfinder, d20 rolls follow a binary "pass or fail" paradigm. You either succeed at jumping 10 feet, or you fail. Then it lets you divine more information: If you failed, how far did you jump? But like attack rolls, exceeding the DC by 10 doesn't mean you overshoot the jump by 10. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the person making the jump has zero control of how far they jump, and will land, every time, in a random location on a line that measures 20 feet long. So if you're looking for a DC, the answer is "the amount to be cleared". If you're looking for "as far as I can jump", then the result is your roll. There's really no longer any reason to obfuscate this further, now that there's a FAQ on how to handle it.
I'm not using the grid either. I really don't see what the problem is.
I don't have any idea how why you think I would be advocating anything like that. I am only saying that according to the second form of measurement listed in acrobatics "The result equals the distance traveled in the jump..." (paraphrased) jumping 10' = 10' of movement. This does not work with the DC equals the distance cleared, which is the... I think the dissonance here is that the jump does not equal the move action. For example, if you were two squares away from a 3 square wide pit, then the total movement cost to enter the square on the opposite side of the pit would be 25. 7.5 to get to the edge of the pit, 15 to jump it with a DC of 15, 2.5 to get to the center of the square on the opposite side. The distance travelled in the jump is 15. The dc for the jump is 15. The distance travelled total is 25, and total is not equal to the jump.
edit.. I believe you meant Melee touch spells. Ranged goes off as a part of the casting, while the melee uses the touch to effect the charge. I have already addressed that exact point "My whole point is that a touch rage spell..." I think you meant a Melee touch spell, the range spells are used as a part of the casting
Then our disagreement comes down to a fundamental difference in how we understand touch range spells. I don't see any way to convince you other than what I've already shown you, and that the rules and examples maintain. And again, you talk as if I haven't just quoted the same thing you're quoting ad nauseum and shown how that very passage you believe to support your argument actually supports my argument. I no longer see any reason to engage with you if you're going to continue to outright dismiss any and every thing I can possibly say with a repeated "no. [original argument as if it had never been countered]". I will no longer repeat myself, and will instead only say "I have already addressed that exact point, please address my rebuttal."
Once again you dismiss my argument and evidence out of hand without backing up your claims with evidence of your own, and without providing examples that refute my evidence.
The touch is done as a part of the spell's completion, as a free action. Given that a spell's effects take place after the full-round action casting time, is this not taking a free action after a full-round action? As I have mentioned before, the Touch as a Free Action is confusing some, thinking that it is the only way it can be used instead of having Melee Touch Spells have some leeway to enable the character to move and get to the target without having to roll concentration all the time. (something that is a bear at low levels) The attack can be made as a part of the spell, just as it would be for a Ranged Touch Attack, or Burning Hands. According to what? I see no language that allows this. Even the second sentence in the passage you quoted follows an "event then event" format, showing that one thing happens AFTER the other. Then the third sentence says "in the same round that you cast", not "as part of the completion of" the spell. The text of allowing the move even separates the acts of "casting the spell" and "touching the target" into two distinct events. The only touch attacks that are ever made as part of the spell are ranged touch attacks.
I'm actually in agreement with the DM and the player. There's a FAQ that might be of interest to you, but the basic point that you can also find is that someone who fails their check to hover in place will fall. Therefore, as per the rules of any checks at all, it's entirely reasonable that you can fail the check on purpose. Fail on purpose, be in free fall, then simply stop failing the check on purpose when you finish catching up.
Yeah that's mostly fine... for a spell that is not a touch spell. Remember that a sorcerer's metamagic spell has a casting time of one full-round action. Not any less. Therefore, for the entirity of that full-round action, you're casting the spell. Full stop. Expand upon that; The targets of a spell are chosen at the end of the casting time for a spell. Therefore, the targets and effects and results all happen at the end, not before. If the duration of the casting of the spell is equivalent of the duration of a full-round action, then we know that the effects of said spell happen at the end of the full-round action. not before. And, again, going back to touch spells; this means that the only time you can possibly deliver a spell with a range of touch is AFTER the completion of the full-round action, because that is the only point in time when you have the option to do so by the rules of touch spells. Ergo, in order for a sorcerer to properly utilize touch spells, there must exist a point in time between the completion of a full-round action and the end of your turn in which you can take other actions, should you have the action economy available to do it.
The Full Round Casting of a spell is able to fire off the effects because the quote from the Core Rulebook says that it does, right there, in print, in the same round. Yeah, and what I'm saying is that "firing the effects", for the case of touch spells, is different from actually delivering the touch spell. In the general rules of targeting for spells, we can see: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell. Therefore, the logical conclusion we can draw is that a spell does not come into effect until after you finish casting it, no? Therefore the flow of casting a spell is:
A touch spell's effects are nothing more than gaining a charge of magical energy, and gaining the option to use an action during that turn to deliver said charge of magical energy. This is a documented and spelled out mechanical separation of effect and delivery in the rules. Therefore, this delivery can only ever happen after the spell itself is completely resolved. Which brings me back to the argument that therefore, the assertion that the end of a full-round action marks the end of your turn is demonstrably false. The sorcerer's turn HAS to become this in order to work: ===Begin Turn===
You are taking legitimate logic and reasoning for a point I put thorough and structured thought into and dismissing it as a "strawman" argument. In fact for this particular argument, you have done nothing but dismiss it out of hand and call it a strawman. I know what a strawman is, I took a whole course on the philosophy of logic, and let me tell you, the constant declaration of logical fallacies is in itself a common logical fallacy. A strawman is when I address an argument that was not presented by you, claiming it as the argument you presented, and refuting that. I am not doing that. I am taking your argument that the full-round action takes your entire turn and taking logical conclusions based upon that information. Please put the same effort into addressing my arguments as I have been towards your arguments. I'm quickly growing tired of your outright thoughtless dismissal of my side of the discussion. I respect your point of view enough to apply it and extrapolate, test it, and ask questions where something doesn't add up to me. I have been doing so for the duration of this conversation. Please show me the same respect. Is it easier to parse it out to the end of the Full Round Action, doing the free actions afterward? Knock yourself out, it is how most of us do it anyways. The point has been that the cheese from the other thread doesn't work in that manner, that is why I have been so adamant about this issue. The Free Action happens during the full round action anyways, no matter how the player parses it out. Any self respecting GM will look at the Whirlwind Attack/Spell Combat combo, and tell the player immediately that the two abilities do not work together, and the spell counts as an extra attack that is nixed by Whirlwind attack. It's easier for me to parse it out that way because it is only when I parse it out that way that the ability even works in my mind. I come to this conclusion when taking every rule of handedness, actions, action interaction, et cetera into account.
If you can violate the handedness of casting a spell "as it completes", why can't you do so for the handedness of spell combat as it completes? Remember that the casting time of the metamagic spell is a full-round action, so the entire time you're taking that full-round action, you're casting the spell and thus subject to the requirement of needing one hand free for somatic components. This is not strawman, this is logical progression. The other combo in the first thread is an obvious try to loophole the rules into gaining an extra attack (from the spell) that would otherwise be prevented by the other ability. Other things prevent it than this simple issue, but this was factored to be the one obvious stopping block to using it. Again, the discussion on the whirlwind attack thread should have no bearing on this discussion. Cast that from your mind, and remember that we're trying to establish with what timing you can use free and swift actions in relation to your other actions. And, again, who cares about cheese in a cooperative game?
It is used in the same turn as the spell is cast, nothing is preventing the character from using that free action. Note that the rules on casting spontaneous metamagic only says "Spells that take a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that you begin casting". The actual effects of a touch range spell are that you are now holding a charge and you have gained a free action that you can use this round to attempt to deliver the spell. These are events that happen after the spell is cast, but if the casting of the spell is a full-round action, then you're now holding a charge and you gain a free action, then your turn immediately ends. If you want to actually use that spell on the same round, then there must therefore exist a period of time between the end of a full-round action (the point when the spell has finished casting and the effects have resolved) and when the turn ends. A touch range spell can only ever be delivered after the spell is cast, because the free action is only ever granted after the resolution of the spell. That's my point for the mechanical necessity of an existence of a time between the end of a full-round action and the end of your turn.
Let me point you to the entry on somatic components: A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component. Does this intensified shocking grasp not mimic spell combat in that it's a full-round action which requires one hand to be free? How, then, is the sorcerer gripping the quarterstaff again if the hand must be free for the entirety of the full-round action? Unless, of course, there exists a time between the end of a full-round action and the end of your turn where you're no longer subject to the full-round action's limitations of "must have one hand free"? EDIT: P.S.: What you call "cheese", I call "an intelligent use of resources". If precedents within the mechanics allow something that lets you eke out a little more damage, I say "why not". Especially in a game where the ultimate goal is for everyone to have fun. At my home table, my GM and I have this understanding; I'll do whatever I want so long as we can come to an agreement on the rules of it, and then if I'm too powerful compared to my party, I'll tone it down myself or even volunteer to make a new character. This interaction is far less powerful than other builds I've come up with that aren't even of questionable legality.
I'll repeat myself, then:
Do you have a reason not to like it other than lactose intolerance?
I've mentioned slashing grace and fencing grace at least 3 previous times now. The commonly accepted interpretation pretty much anywhere on the forums is that the differences in the wordings of dervish dance and slashing grace means that dervish dance DOES work because spell combat does not count as having a weapon in your off-hand, and slashing grace does not work because spell combat occupies the hand that it needs to work.
I sprung that trap on purpose because you sure was going to mention it otherwise. A glaring inconsistency between your reading of the rules and the rules as generally understood by the community does not constitute a trap. You haven't even addressed my last big post, either, you've just dismissed it with a wave of your hand. That hardly convinces anyone of your position. --- So it is your contention, then, that the hand does not count as occupied, in any way, during spell combat? Which would mean that spell combat, does, in fact, work with slashing grace? You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.
|
