Karal mithrilaxe's page

not on Saturday when I logged in to check this. apparently someone at Paizo had made another update and reinput the old sneak attack info--it is fixed again now.

holy smokes--why ever take a rogue again. Investigator has same sneak attack. 4 better will save, extracts, alchemy, poison use and inspirations

read the new download--they get sneak attack any time a rogue would now

so I would imagine seeking arrows do the same. you paid for the magic after all. so you would not need to see the enemy. that is the definition of total concealment

hmm a zen archer can shoot a mob he cant even see--to include shooting around corners

Trick Shot (Su): At 11th level, a zen archer may hit targets that he might otherwise miss. By spending 1 point from his ki pool as a swift action, the zen archer can ignore concealment. By spending 2 points, he can ignore total concealment or cover. By spending 3 points, he can ignore total cover, even firing arrows around corners. The arrow must still be able to reach the target; a target inside a closed building with no open doors or windows cannot be attacked. These effects last for 1 round. This ability replaces diamond body.

the question may be more asked "which is heterosexual?"

If you read the comic you already know two homosexual characters--they have shown them.

They have yet to show us a heterosexual couple from the iconics

LMAO being a confirmed bachelor does not make you gay. the two are unrelated. some gays may be confirmed bachelors--but that doesnt mean some confirmed bachelors just dont enjoy the single life

tacticslion already solved my problem.

The only gunslinger I would have had is a character I have not even built yet---IE a level 5 character built with GM credit that has not even had stats assigned

Thanks Tacticslion

only 700 gp to retrain the two feats I dont want. No problems there.

how much is it to retrain feats? I would just take back any feats I put into fighting--since getting a weapon out is now harder and go to casting feats

I would use spiritual weapon instead of me attacking.

kind of like if I took blackened, I would never depend on attacking either. I only took weapon feats because I could get a weapon ready with cord

the curse still affected every other item--and was actually fun to play. It would just be nice if they would treat the weapon cord as drawing a weapon. IE if you have a +1 BAB, you could retrieve the weapon on the weapon cord AS you move. if you didn't move it would still cost a move action.

I guess I don't see how in 30 feet of movement I could not pull the weapon up by the cord.

thanks for advice honorable goblin.

actually a haunted oracle. Liked keeping the morning star on the weapon cord. shield in one hand. hand free for casting. Since any item I drop moves 10 feet away. Now when I drop the morning star to cast--the cord keeps it from going 10 feet away--still there. But now when I move up to attack--I use move to get there and move to recover my weapon so no attack. Another curse may be better were I to want to attack after moving.

Since the new weapon cord will have significant impact on the way some classes are played, will people be allowed a one time rebuild?

thank you

Does greater shield ally replace or add to shield ally for a summoner.

there is a pathfinder scenario with the same wording for altitude. It says specifically that a second failed save results in exhaustion. it does not refer to the core book--just says the same as above--ie If a character fails a second roll they are exhausted.

I would treat that the same way---IE follow what the scenario says.

xeratherus wrote:

the scenario reads---after the second failed save or if the party exerts itself, they are exhausted.

Since "immunity to fatigue" would mean you don't make the save in the first place, please explain how you make a "second failed save".

You may want to go talk to xeratherus---he is the type who refuses to make the first save---even when the rules specifically call for a second failed save to have a different result.

He still does not accept the fact that he would have to make the first save---because he is immune. SO he reads that as him being immune from the second save because "well he never rolls them" even though the second save was for exhaustion

so what do I do when I have him roll the save and say it is for exhaustion? and then he says---well that says the second failed save?

and how is that statement wrong?

I said due to RAW in APs and scenarios. IE while playing those APs and scenarios--that is RAW.

Find me one post where I said---I am taking this AP or scenario rule and transposing it to general play outside the scenario or AP.

Look through those posts carefully---you will see it was the others trying to say that the general rule overruled the specific rule in those APs and scenarios. I have said from the start--I follow what is written in a Scenario or AP.

So you and I agree---the others still have not seen the light.

read my OP very carefully.

"Because often the description of the second save is if you fail, you are exhausted. It does not say if you are fatigued and fail you are exhausted."

from the start, I was talking about specifics that are in APs or scenarios.

This is the EXACT thing I have said on every board. That specifics overrule the general rule. It has been everyone else trying to apply the general rule of fatigue not stacking to try to invalidate the AP or scenario which states "exhaustion" on the second failure specifically.

I have not been the one misapplying. On this thread and the other one I have specifically stated that there are APs and scenarios which have different results for a second failed save.

If your GM asks you to make a fort save and the other people get fatigued--and nothing happens to you even if you fail. Then you fail the second save and he says you are exhausted, there JUST might be something in that scenario or AP he is following.

MDT and the others try to argue that this is not the case. OF course MDT argues that sleeping means you are unconscious---so I guess he is at negative 1 hp every time he goes to sleep.

aye but the problem I always encounter is people say "I don't have to roll for fatigue, I am immune"

yes--yes you are---and when you fail the first save--I will do nothing to you. But you have to roll the first one before you can get to the second roll.

I try to explain to them that the second roll is for exhaustion--but all they see is the first save was for fatigue--so they assume it is the fatigue stacking rule.

there is no way to wordgame this to change fail = exhausted to fail = second fatigue

You're doing the thing where you derail the thread again.

This one was about fatigue, remember?

fine----but tell me where I am wrong. It is black and white. It is written as it is written in a scenario or AP.

you don't get to change the wording of "a second failed check results in exhaustion" to "a second failed check results in fatigue again"

IF it said the second--you would have a point about two fatigues stacking and the character never having been fatigued. BUT that is NOT what is says.

Karal mithrilaxe wrote:

my statement was---read the AP or scenario and follow what is says

And if it says to consider using a variant rule to assign effects for staying up multiple days, do you take that as instructions for reworking condition stacking in general?

nope I run the scenarios or APs as written. If the AP or scenario says "a second failed check results in exhaustion" that is what it says.

If it says "a second failed check leaves the character fatigued a second time" that is what it says.

read your AP or scenario and do what it says--don't make assumptions

Falling

Creatures that fall take 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6. Creatures that take LETHAL damage from a fall land in a prone position.

If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. Thus, a character who slips from a ledge 30 feet up takes 3d6 damage. If the same character deliberately jumps, he takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 2d6 points of lethal damage. And if the character leaps down with a successful Acrobatics check, he takes only 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 1d6 points of lethal damage from the plunge.

Falls onto yielding surfaces (soft ground, mud) also convert the first 1d6 of damage to nonlethal damage. This reduction is cumulative with reduced damage due to deliberate jumps and the Acrobatics skill.

A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall. Casting a spell while falling requires a concentration check with a DC equal to 20 + the spell's level. Casting teleport or a similar spell while falling does not end your momentum, it just changes your location, meaning that you still take falling damage, even if you arrive atop a solid surface.

my statement was---read the AP or scenario and follow what is says

that is what it says under acrobatics

read page 443 under falling. if he makes the save he avoids the first 10 feet of damage and the second 20 feet are converted to non-lethal. He has to take LETHAL damage to fall prone.

Here is another one

what happens when a character makes a 15+ acrobatic check and jumps down 20 feet?

I bet we all think we know this. But the book contradicts itself

In AP 44, page 17 have some guidelines about sleep fatigue:

AP 43, page 17 wrote:

[...]fatigue and exhaustion (Core Rulebook 567). You might also consider
using a variant rule where characters who do not get a
full night’s sleep may suffer the effects of fatigue. If a
PC does not get at least 6 hours of sleep, she must make a
DC 15 Fortitude save or be fatigued and take a –1 penalty
on all other checks and saving throws against sleep
effects. A second night without sleep requires another
DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character
becoming exhausted and the penalties increasing to –2. A
third failed save on the next night increases the penalties
to –3.

from mike brock himself here

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p3xy?Pathfinder-Has-No-Rules-For-Getting

there is no rule stating----a second failed save (WHERE THE CHARACTER IS FATIGUED) results in exhaustion

in fact read the above carefully---if you MAKE the first save and fail the second =you are exhausted

no where does it mention the character had to have the fatiqued condition when he failed the second save. We all ASSUME it is implied--but by RAW it is not there.

you have to look at the scenario or AP and see if it says

a second failure results in another fatigue---in which case no effect
or
if it says a second failure for a character already fatigued results in exhaustion--in which case no effect

or if it says a second failure results in exhaustion--(such as above.) IN the above case, being immune to fatigue will not save you as you are now trying to save against exhaustion (as it is the second day and you are even more tired if you fail)

Due to RAW in APs and scenarios, even though a character is immune to fatigue they still have to make the fort saves. Because often the description of the second save is if you fail, you are exhausted. It does not say if you are fatigued and fail you are exhausted.

Ginglebrix wrote:

I believe some people in the "we can break your blade side" of this argument would find less resistance from the "my blade is unbreakable side" if they stopped portraying us as being less intelligent or abnormally stubborn.

It wasn't directed at you. There was another post who would make up things, ignore anyone else's posts he didn't agree with, and basically act like a troll. That tends to bring out the irritation in people.

Also, as others have pointed out, it's not 'we can break your stuff' it's 'This is the rules'.

Ginglebrix wrote:

My entire post is written under the assumption that the oracle on the mountain entries were never submitted, lol.

That would be the portion of the thread that got a lot of people annoyed due to people making up rules to use as strawmen.

there was another poster who brought up RAW where it said on a second failed fort save--the result was exhaustion--rather than a second fatigue. WHich means that being immune to fatigue does not save you. Some people which like to go by RAW sometimes---choose to ignore this raw.

if the rule or scenario said--on a second fail you are fatigued again, than immunity to fatigue saves you. IF it says on a second fail, you are exhausted?---you are exhausted. I don't see how that is difficult to understand.

some people can stay awake for 2 days cramming for an exam and not suffer fatigue. it does not protect them from suffering from exhaustion on the third day and collapsing into slumber.

so the funny part is when we talk of making up rules--it is MDT that does it. I have RAW proof. Just like MDT would house rule that sleeping equals the unconscious condition even though unconscious condition is defined in the core rule book.

Karal mithrilaxe wrote:

nothing phantom about mine---unless you consider a statement by Michael Brock to be phantom

Cool, so I'll ask again. We all agree now that black blades can be destroyed?

so long as we agree that "by using that arguement---lame oracles can be exhausted after failing second fort save also"

if that reasoning is what the community wants to use--fine

if it applies to one--it would to both

I already showed the RAW verbage where it would apply to the oracle

there is no RAW verbage about sleep affecting barbarians rage now though

so that would be houserule

nothing phantom about mine---unless you consider a statement by Michael Brock to be phantom

Karal mithrilaxe wrote:

wow--now you are really splitting hairs. IT is explicit that the barbarian has to be unconscious--which is a specific condition.

Actually, no. What it says is that if the Barbarian does fall unconscious, the rage ends automatically. I'm not splitting any hairs; I'm just aware of the fact that stating that something ends under a certain condition doesn't imply that's the only condition under which it ends.

wow using that arguement---I can argue my fatigue rule anytime. Just because it says fatigue stacks to make exhaustion does not mean I can't automatically rule that the second check is exhaustion anyhow even if the scenario doesnt say so.

after all--I am not contesting that condition--just adding my own on top

because under your rules--since fatigue would never apply, your oracle could go 100 years without ever sleeping with no harm.

least my arguements are consistent.

Not quoting RAW when it suits me and then ignoring it when it doesn't

sleeping may be open to GM interpretation.

Unconscious is not---there is an explicit condition detailed about how to get there. Going to sleep is not one of them

prince imrahil wrote:

I'm curious, though: what do you think about the argument that I presented above about rage/unconsciousness/sleep? Do you think that a barbarian should not fall out of rage while he's asleep? I ask because the specific style of argument (x rule is contingent upon y condition, and z effect does not specifically spell out y condition, merely something related to it) seems very similar to the one you're making here.

I wouldn't allow a sleeping Barbarian to keep his rage active. I think that might be a key point here: "Broken" is a condition that's specifically defined; "sleeping" is not. So "sleeping" is open to GM interpretation, and to me, it implies a lack of mental activity - and I consider most 'active' abilities (extraordinary or otherwise) to require a higher level of mental activity than sleep allows.

wow--now you are really splitting hairs. IT is explicit that the barbarian has to be unconscious--which is a specific condition.

if you put someone to sleep--I can kick them and wake them up.
If you knock someone unconscious--they require healing of lethal or at least non-lethal---ie NEGATIVE hit points

So you are picking and choosing when to apply RAW?
should the barbarian be slept using your analogy--and I kick him and wake him up--his rage is still going and he is not fatigued. THAT IS RAW

now if we want to start applying common sense--come back and redo all your above arguements

scenarios I have played have the same info

IE fort saves for high altitude start at 20+ one made every hour on each successive one the save gets one harder

on the first fail you are fatigued
on the second fail you are exhausted (nowhere does it say--if you are fatigued-you become exhausted)

so a party of

wizard
cleric
rogue
fighter
lame oracle
lame oracle

wizard, cleric, rogue and one oracle fail their first save

wizard, cleric and rogue are fatigued---oracles is not because they are immune

second hour

wizard, cleric, rogue, and both oracles fail their save

wizard, cleric, rogue and oracle which failed first save are now exhausted.

second oracle since it is his first fail has no effect

now should the scenario say instead "on a second fail you are fatigued again"--that would be different

So is Karal disproving his own position on the black blade with his fatigued corner case? Yes, yes I believe he is. So we all agree now that the black blade can be sundered?

and if we accept that---that lame oracles can be exhausted with the second failed fort save even though they were never fatigued.

if the scenario says on a second failed save the character is fatigued again--the oracle would not be affected

BUT if the scenario says "on a second failed save the character is exhausted" then the oracle is affected

In AP 44, page 17 have some guidelines about sleep fatigue:

AP 43, page 17 wrote:

[...]fatigue and exhaustion (Core Rulebook 567). You might also consider
using a variant rule where characters who do not get a
full night’s sleep may suffer the effects of fatigue. If a
PC does not get at least 6 hours of sleep, she must make a
DC 15 Fortitude save or be fatigued and take a –1 penalty
on all other checks and saving throws against sleep
effects. A second night without sleep requires another
DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character
becoming exhausted and the penalties increasing to –2. A
third failed save on the next night increases the penalties
to –3.
Hope that helps.

assume all you want---by RAW nowhere in there does it say fatigue immunity protect you from becoming exhausted. You wanted rules and RAW--there it is. now you prove otherwise or you are the one houseruling it.

people are too quick to assume that because they have immunity to fatigue and a fort save is required with the effect of fatigue they don't have to roll it. WRONG. by RAW the second fail may cause exhaustion even if you never were fatigued.

Karal mithrilaxe wrote:

and then mike addressed that rule from the AP. That is why you must still make the con rolls even though you are immune to fatigue.

if the scenario or AP says. you fail your first roll and you are fatigued-----when you fail your second roll you are fatigued again---THEN you can say "I wasn't fatigued so it does not come into play)

but if the scenario or AP says You fail your first roll and you are fatigued, when you fail again you are exhausted------THEN the exhausted comes into play even if you were never fatigued. It does not say "If you fail your second roll (and you were fatigued) you are not exhausted.

so even if you are immune to fatigue--you have to make the con checks because the wording by RAW could make you exhausted after the second failure even if you were never fatigued

Karal, I just went back through the thread. I admit I missed a post the first time. It still doesn't say what you're claiming.

Here is the other post Mike made (the first time I searched for Mike; his forum name is actually Michael):

Michael Brock wrote:

Darklord Morius wrote:

In AP 44, page 17 have some guidelines about sleep fatigue:

AP 43, page 17 wrote:

[...]fatigue and exhaustion (Core Rulebook 567). You might also consider
using a variant rule where characters who do not get a
full night’s sleep may suffer the effects of fatigue. If a
PC does not get at least 6 hours of sleep, she must make a
DC 15 Fortitude save or be fatigued and take a –1 penalty
on all other checks and saving throws against sleep
effects. A second night without sleep requires another
DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character
becoming exhausted and the penalties increasing to –2. A
third failed save on the next night increases the penalties
to –3.
Hope that helps.

Thanks for pointing that out Darklord. I thought I had seen that somewhere and was checking the APG and Gamemaster Guide with no luck.

I have no problem...

if you read Michaels post--he was looking for the rule--then thanks darklord for finding it. The rule points out that even being immune to fatigue does not protect you from making those fort saves. You CAN go from fine to exhaustion.

you miss the first one-you WOULD be fatigued but since you are immune you are not. But when you miss the second one-you are exhausted. It does not matter that you were not fatigued. It does not say 'if you miss the second save (AND ARE FATIGUED) then you are exhausted.

heck according to RAW you could MAKE the first save and by missing the second still be exhausted.

That is my point-----don't ever claim---I don't have to roll because I am immune to fatigue. By RAW that may not matter, you could go from fine to exhausted while the rest of the party went through fatigue first.

so don't assume just because you are immune to fatigue that you don't have to still roll those con checks---failing the second one can send you to exhausted even if you were never fatigued

heck in the above case--if you MAKE the first one in that AP and fail the second you are STILL exhausted by RAW.

[edit]
Here is Mike's only post in that thread:

Mike Brock wrote:

It needs to be addressed in the PFRPG overall, not just PFS. It is why it was moved here so it could be flagged for a design team member's input.

survey says BZZZZZZZT

Darklord Morius wrote:
Mike Brock wrote

In AP 44, page 17 have some guidelines about sleep fatigue:

AP 43, page 17 wrote:

[...]fatigue and exhaustion (Core Rulebook 567). You might also consider
using a variant rule where characters who do not get a
full night’s sleep may suffer the effects of fatigue. If a
PC does not get at least 6 hours of sleep, she must make a
DC 15 Fortitude save or be fatigued and take a –1 penalty
on all other checks and saving throws against sleep
effects. A second night without sleep requires another
DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character
becoming exhausted and the penalties increasing to –2. A
third failed save on the next night increases the penalties
to –3.
Hope that helps.

Thanks for pointing that out Darklord. I thought I had seen that somewhere and was checking the APG and Gamemaster Guide with no luck.

and then mike addressed that rule from the AP. That is why you must still make the con rolls even though you are immune to fatigue.

if the scenario or AP says. you fail your first roll and you are fatigued-----when you fail your second roll you are fatigued again---THEN you can say "I wasn't fatigued so it does not come into play)

but if the scenario or AP says You fail your first roll and you are fatigued, when you fail again you are exhausted------THEN the exhausted comes into play even if you were never fatigued. It does not say "If you fail your second roll (and you were fatigued) you are now exhausted.

so even if you are immune to fatigue--you have to make the con checks because the wording by RAW could make you exhausted after the second failure even if you were never fatigued

so my source--by RAW---where you can go from fine to exhaustion is backed by Mike Brock currently.

Karal mithrilaxe wrote:

the scenario reads---after the second failed save or if the party exerts itself, they are exhausted.

Since "immunity to fatigue" would mean you don't make the save in the first place, please explain how you make a "second failed save".

In AP 44, page 17 have some guidelines about sleep fatigue:

AP 43, page 17 wrote:

[...]fatigue and exhaustion (Core Rulebook 567). You might also consider
using a variant rule where characters who do not get a
full night’s sleep may suffer the effects of fatigue. If a
PC does not get at least 6 hours of sleep, she must make a
DC 15 Fortitude save or be fatigued and take a –1 penalty
on all other checks and saving throws against sleep
effects. A second night without sleep requires another
DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character
becoming exhausted and the penalties increasing to –2. A
third failed save on the next night increases the penalties
to –3.

from mike brock himself here

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p3xy?Pathfinder-Has-No-Rules-For-Getting

there is no rule stating----a second failed save (WHERE THE CHARACTER IS FATIGUED) results in exhaustion

no where does it mention the character had to have the fatiqued condition when he failed the second save. We all ASSUME it is implied--but by RAW it is not there.

the scenario reads---after the second failed save or if the party exerts itself, they are exhausted.

fine--then lets rule our own tables our own way and await a FAQ response

I have seen zero rules from you that would say an oracle in high altitude would not still be subject to the thin air. She still rolls the con check--and can fail.

does she ignore the fatigued "condition" and not suffer the effects?--yes

but she still has the same lack of oxygen and upon a "second failed check--when players are considered exhausted due to exhertion" ==she would also be exhausted.

she just got to skip the fatigued part

right back at ya MDT

the magus has to keep one point of his arcane pool in reserve to protect his blade--that alone should tell you it is more powerful than just protecting from the effects.