I get the idea behind it and I am in the camp of not allowing it at my table. But I don't see a rule that says the creature must attack you, or be able to. If it was a tied up enemy it would still count even though it was not a threat.
You state: "Does not need to use a second weapon" being equivalent to "no off hand weapon" is an extrapolation.
I believe: "Using a one handed weapon in your off hand with the TWF feat gives a -4/-4 penalty" being equivalent to "Gaining an attack by using a one handed weapon in your main hand with the TWF feat gives a -4/-4 penalty" is also an extrapolation.
Why do you recognize that Bladlock's reasoning is an extrapolation, but not yours?
I don't care which side you choose for your game. Both sides are valid extrapolations of a murky rule. I do think it is important to realize you have chosen a side and can not prove it is correct.
Why is it not also an equal and opposite extrapolation to ADD the fact that using a single weapon in one hand applies the same penalty as using a second, twin weapon, in the off-hand?
I have to ask a few questions about your interpretation.
1) Are you suggesting that the text really means, "If you previously directed your war-trained mount to attack during a different round, with a different skill in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action?
If so, that seems like a serious stretch to me.
I believe a much simpler and less creative change to the wording would be:
If and While can be changed without changing the meaning. The only difference is in the style of the conversation. The interpretation that I believe you have requires a lot more to be read into.
I also cannot think of another skill check that requires a successful, separate skill check on a different round before this check could even be attempted.
2) What exactly is the free action that you gain by trying this usage of the skill? You are saying that you have to direct the attack in a previous round, so that isn't a free action. We all know the rider's attack isn't a free action. We all know that you wouldn't have to make a special check just to attack from horseback. And if the horse was attacking without your direction, you wouldn't need to make this check either. So what is the actual benefit of this check?
I absolutely posit that they free action gained (as in you have to succeed to gain something) is directing the mount to attack as said free action.
3) What would you say about the action economy of Cleave? "As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach."
First sentence is a standard action. Second sentence is also a standard action (as in, attacks not named otherwise are standard actions). Nothing in Cleave ever states that the "additional attack" is made in the same round, is a free attack, or is a free action. So I am assuming that the benefit would only be gained on the following round, correct?
I'm not trying to be a jerk. We all know that the Cleave rules are self-contained. I am pointing out that it is harder to believe that you get a free action attack from the absolute wording of Cleave than it is to believe that you use ride to direct a war trained mount to attack as a free action for the rider. The skill specifically states the usage (extra action economy in the form of an attack) is a free action whereas the usage of Cleave (extra action economy in the form of an attack) never states it is a free action.
Two things. First,
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
This is not true. It isn't wrong but the only isn't true either. Brawler's flurry goes on to state that all attacks made are made at x1 str bonus to damage. This is a clear indication that all the attacks are not off-hand attacks. It is [b]not proof, just support,[/] that there are no off-hand attacks.
Second, neither side can be proved. Accept that and your Pathfinder rules conversations will be so much more pleasant.
Pathfinder has been around for a while. All the obvious questions are answered. All the "cut and paste" answers to the simple questions are easily proven.
However, there are a few that cannot be proven. All one can do is present their case, listen to the opinion of others, and make a decision for their table while they await the final word from the powers that be. Sometimes they rule one way, sometimes they rule the other. It gets harder to guess every year. Again, understand that and your Pathfinder rules conversations will be so much more pleasant.
Charging is not running or moving recklessly, IMHO.
The movement speed is roughly that of a move-move.
This particular FAQ was of major contention when it was new. It applies to all things. Hands of Effort never existed before but clearly did after this FAQ. Some Devs even discussed it on the forums. It might actually be the FAQ that made it so many Devs stopped discussing rules. It most certainly applies to the basic action economy of any rules discussion.
Brawler's Flurry states that you can flurry with both hands on one weapon and tells you the bonus to damage when you do so. It does not have to be a 2H weapon for this discussion. 2H on a dagger will fit the discussion exactly the same way because:
1) There is only one weapon.
So, if you use a pole arm with versatile design or a dagger, the rules and rules questions would still be the same.
As such, we are left to guess at the RAI of the rules. Do we base our rules on TWF rules? If so, Do we add penalties, or subtract them? Do we base the rules on balance? We know the brawler does more damage with flurry than the typical TWF option so it makes sense to take the higher penalty of -4/-4. But they are also BETTER at fighting this way so maybe we should take the lower penalty of -2/-2. Or do we base the rules on other similar classes? The monk's flurry is VERY close to brawler's flurry. If we substitute the TWF penalties for the monk's flurry penalties of -2/-2 it would also work within the confines of an established rule.
So again, we are left to decide. I have shown 3 valid questions and possible answers that I don't think anyone can prove or disprove are the actual RAI. So pick one, explain why you picked it, understand that it is an opinion, and get back to killing bad guys and telling great stories!
It says that you don't have to use a second weapon. It never says you don't have to use your "off-hand" effort, or off-hand action economy.
Paizo included using up your "off-hand" when you attack with a Two-Handed weapon because you gain x 1.5 Str Modifier to damage. So, when you use a Two-Handed weapon with a x 1 Str Modifier to damage, do you use up your "off hand" or is it still free to make another attack?
None of you can answer definitively. That is key to the conversation. There are valid rules points to support each side. Paizo is the only one that can decide because they come down on both sides of many rules so it is impossible to tell what will happen. Until then, take people's positions in mind, go back to your table, and decide what is best for you guys and gals.
Of course, keep debating if you have something to add, but please understand it could never be proven until Paizo speaks.
Perfect Tommy wrote:
A regular fighter can TWF with a DOUBLE WEAPON in two hands. A regular fighter CANNOT TWF with a two handed weapon. They are different things.
1) Is clearly posted in the FAQ. I will show you again.
Paizo FAQ wrote:
In case you missed the super relevant part: "you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."
Paizo did in fact make it mutually exclusive to use a Two Handed Weapon and an Off Hand Attack at the same time. See below.
Hands of effort and the limits of the str mod to damage per "set" of attacks comes from Paizo and not Wizards. It is a totally new (post 3.5) concept to limit it. In 3.5 you could attack with a Two-Handed weapon and Armor Spikes with a +0 BAB using the Two-Weapon Fighting option. This is not allowed in Paizo. It would give you a x2 str mod bonus to damage for the "set".
Paizo FAQ wrote:
Final 3.5 FAQ: wrote:
Power Attack when using any Flurry with any weapon:
Reason: Fighting with a two-handed weapon is much more than having two hands on a weapon when fighting. This is similar to how fighting with two weapons is different than using the Two-Weapon Fighting option. When you fight with two short swords, there are no mechanical bonuses or penalties for doing it and you can't do it until you have a BAB of +6. Fighting with two short swords while using the Two-Weapon Fighting option give you an extra attack along with some hefty penalties.
There is no reason to think Power Attack works as if Two-Handed Fighting just because you have two hands on a weapon when you are not gaining the benefits of Two-Handed Fighting (+1/2 str bonus to damage) nor suffering the penalty of using up your off hand attack to do so.
Balance wise, you have already gamed the system as there is no other way to double your attacks and get the 1 handed power attack on all of them. Also, you gamed the system again by being able to do it with a weapon that has a larger base damage die.
Reason: The Devs have made it clear that the off hand is used, even when it is not physically used. You cannot Two-Weapon fight with a Two-Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes even though it would appear to physically fit within the rules. They do not want people to have more that x1.5 str bonus to damage for each "set" of attacks. Flurry already give you more than this by giving you x2 str bonus for each "set".
A "set" of attacks, is how many attacks you get due to your BAB. At +0 BAB you can make 1 set. At +6, you can make 2 sets, etc.
Two-Handed Fighting gives you x1.5 str bonus to damage and is a "set".
Flurry allows for the use of Two-Handed weapons and extra attacks. Flurry removes the off-hand penalties to everything. Both of those statements are true, and incompatible with the Two-Weapon Fighting option.
As others have stated, it is impossible to combine all the RAW and prove anyone's opinion. However, I believe, read that again, I believe, that we have enough precedence to understand that -2 to all attacks for the addition of one extra attack at level BAB+2, and the continuation of the TWF feat tree, fully fits within the scope, spirit, and previous examples of the game.
Agreed. We (players) Are now in the position where we have to choose when to apply the FAQ since according to said FAQ, it applies unless otherwise noted. But we all are pretty sure it does not apply to the stealth skill because that would be crazy.
But, Hellcat Stealth calls out "being in or near an objective light level" exactly as the FAQ describes.
The FAQ says no such thing.
Uh, then what does this mean:
The exceptions, effects that depend on an observing creature’s perspective, such as the heavens shaman’s enveloping darkness ability, call this out with text indicating that the ability alters or depends on that creature’s perspective, rather than the overall light level.
And to be clear, I agree with you on how it SHOULD work. But after the FAQ, it is clear that how the observer sees it does not matter. Only the light level as a human sees it.
they always refer to the state of light and darkness from the perspective of normal vision, like a human.
Not according to the FAQ. It states that if there is no explicit exception, that exception does not exist.
Based on the FAQ for Dim Light, it doesn't matter what the observer sees, but rather what a human sees.
As I have argued all along, you can't have it both ways just because.
If a Shadow Dancer can hide from a Dwarf in what is Dim Light to a human, but normal light to the Dwarf, then I see no difference with the opposite. While the OPs goal is a stretch, there is precedence that the light level as a human sees it is what matters, not the level in which the observer sees it.
And the FAQ is about Dim Light (a light level) not Hide in Plain Sight. As Normal Light and Bright Light are also light levels, I see no reason for the rules to be applied any differently here.
I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree with the FAQ, but them's the rules...
Hellcat Stealth does not call out the exception listed in the quote. It is based on light level. Therefore, I see no reason for the FAQ not to apply.
As such, if a person was trying to Hellcat Stealth from an Elf, they could NOT do so 25' away from a torch, but once they closed within 20', they could. They also could not use regular stealth at 25' from a torch, against an elf, because apparently the normal rules for stealth DO rely upon the observer's vision rather than the static vision of a human. And at 25' from a torch, the Elf sees the area as normal light (just not for Hellcat Stealth or the SD's Hide in Plain sight).
I know, it is crazy.
Based on how Hide in Plain Sight works, this would be incorrect. It does not matter that a dwarf sees through the shadows that give the assassin the ability to hide. I see no reason why Hellcat Stealth would be any different.
The problem with all of these skills is that the light level is dependent upon the viewer but Paizo has ruled that the skills/abilities are dependent upon the "ambient light" which is very difficult to rule what that is.
For the first part, it would be 2. The max for either is 2, so the total max is 2. Also, they do not stack with each other. So if you did 1 with the main hand and 1 with the off hand, it would still be 1.
For two different weapons, they also do not stack with each other. You would have to get 4 out of the pick axe to get Bleed 4. The dagger cannot go over 2, and they work independently as two different bleed effects.
I am amazed at how so many people do not understand the difference between evidence and proof.
Dim Light as a rule system is horrible. There is no way to adjudicate it properly. Sometimes "the base" matters (Hide in Plain Sight-Shadowdancer) (this is true even though there is no such base illumination as dim light as both a light source and something blocking it must occur for dim light to exist). Sometimes "the perceiver" matters (Stealth). And sometimes "it's magic" matters (Shadow Walk).
No, no combatant is forced to use an AoO.
No, you cannot choose to not take a class ability. However, I see no reason that you should be forced to use it. I would expect table variation on that one.
You would have a limit of attacks to as many AoOs you can make +1 for Snake Fang as you can only make 1 immediate action per round.
I'm getting alot of good stuff for question 2. I'm considering saying they can't go past 6 until level 20. But I'm not getting much feedback on question 1. If there is no precedent then I'll probably allow it. The way I see it, this gives the player options without making themselves super. If they choose to stack an element they run the risk of immunity canceling all their extra damage, but they could get past that particular resistance (though it could take alot). If they choose to spread their elements out they run the risk of losing their extra damage to creatures with small resistances for everything (they are fighting alot of demons in this campaign) but would only lose 1d6 damage to something that had limited resistances or immunity.
Yo can modify the Amulet as if it were a weapon. It follows that doing so would limit it to the same limits of creating a weapon.
A single enemy only gets one AoO per movement no matter how many of the squares you move through he threatens. I'm presuming from withdraw and a round being so short etc. it's the first threatened square you leave that gives the AoO rather than they can pick or choose which square they want to react to you leaving. Anything else would just prove unwieldy to GM.
You can pick and choose any AoO you wish to take at any legal time. You may forego an AoO against one target in hopes that another will present itself.
I used to try and force AoOs from creatures with movement so that they would not interrupt my Combat Maneuvers, like grapple, that would provoke. You might ignore someone trying to trip you in hopes that you can attack an adjacent spell caster.
Perfect Tommy wrote:
The reason this comes up so often is because:
1: The Devs haven't answered it.
Your example is a perfect illustration of why it is a problem. If the attacker cannot make changes to their action based on changes in the battlefield, then the defender is better able to react to something than the original attacker.
Nothing says you have to chose a charge target and it cannot be changed. There is no declaration of squares. It would be just as valid for a player to say, "I start a charge", and move the mini square by square until the fighter moves. Then when the fighter gets in the path, the attacker could attack him instead.
Also, you don't have to pick a square to attack from before moving, and you don't have to attack from the closest possible square. In practice, you are normally limited to this, but it is not the rule. Say you have a lance (reach) and you charge someone on the same grid plane as you. You can break off of that plane as long as you are only going in a straight line. You have to attack from the first square you enter that threatens the target. But this could be another 5' or 10' of movement if you have taken a sharp enough angle during the movement. Sorry, I know without pictures it is kind of hard to visualize.
CRB p206 wrote:
The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
If all AoOs happened after the triggering item, the CRB would not have to point it out as a SEPARATE reason as to why spells are interrupted.
And here is some evidence from the Devs:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l0rq&page=8?TripLocking-Doesnt-W ork-Offici al-Ruling-or-Not#354http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l0rq&page=6?TripLocking-Doesnt-Work-Offici al-Ruling-or-Not#293
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Multiplying is a misnomer. You don't really do that and should not think of it that way.
Doubling with addition or multiplication:
3 + 3 = 6 (correct)
However, doubling twice would be:
3 + 3 + 3 = 9 (correct)
And doubling three times would be:
3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12 (correct)
Think of it as adding in the original again rather than multiplying it. It will make your life a lot easier.
I don't know if the above answers your question. You don't put any points into it during creation. The bonus to the skill is based on the wearer's level. A 10th level character would gain 10 Ranks in that skill. As stated above, ranks don't stack.
From the FAQ:
Headband of Vast Intelligence: If I wear this item, do I get retroactive skill ranks for my Int increase in addition to the skill ranks associated with the item?
No. The skill associated with the magic item represents the "retroactive" skill ranks you'd get from the item increasing your Intelligence. You don't get the item's built-in skill ranks and another set to assign however you want.
You may take a swift action any time you could take a free action. No specific order is imposed.
While mostly true, it is important to note that you cannot take swift actions when it is not your turn, even though you can take some free actions off turn.
Almost no rule is absolute. Welcome to Pathfinder!
So in your case, they are static bonuses. So, +2 +2 doubled would be 8. But if it were doubled again it would be 12, not 16.
This is because they are all added together, not multiplied:
Base +2 +2 = +4
Total +4 +4 +4 = +12
Couple of things are in play.
First, all static +'s are multiplied.
So, a sneak attack (lvl 1), critical (double damage) mounted attack (double damage) using Spirited Charge (double damage) with a +2 flaming lance would be:
1d8 + 2 + 1d6 and be double 3 times.
In total, it would be 4d8 + 8 + 1d6 (fire) + 1d6 (precision)
Base damage is 1d8 + 2 + 1d6 (fire) + 1d6 (precision)
Add all those together for 4d8 + 8 + 1d6 (fire) + 1d6 (precision).
Hope this helps.
While on the surface this seems like a good idea, the PC would always choose the square that the NPC was in, that way the new square would always be adjacent to the square where the NPC ended up.
I'm pretty sure a young girl scout could have beaten you to post with that lengthy missive. You can't really claim ninja on that.
Chess Pwn wrote:
But aren't you saying that guiding it to move is not a valid action since guiding it to move would be a move action under handle animal?
Why doesn't guiding mean controlling? Guiding doesn't just have to do with movement. I can guide you to the correct answer without any sort of physical movement.
It doesn't say it allows you to hold on with your legs so you can fight with your hands. It says you can GUIDE your mount. What exactly are you GUIDING your mount to do if you can't even GUIDE your mount to fight?
It is my belief that Ride is for mounts you are, riding, and Handle Animal is for creatures you are directing. So if you are on a mount, it would be ride. If you are on the ground point at the mount, it would be Handle Animal.
CRB p202 wrote:
Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
What does that do if not give you the ability to make your mount do something as a free action?
CRB p104 wrote:
Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.
What does having a war trained mount do if it is a move action to control one and a move action to control one that is not war trained? I do believe "attack with" means to use the mount to attack, whether it be the mount's attacks or just by the mount moving you into place. I liken it to "attack with a sword". Attacking with a sword does not mean to attack next to the sword that is also attacking.
You are not "Batmanning" away. When Batman does it, he is gone. No one has ANY idea where he is. Many of the things we are talking about can be countered just by the observer moving. If they move to look around the wall, then stealth is lost because cover is lost. In the case of the brush, you would have a very good idea of where they went. Dropping a fireball on them would be a valid option. It just means you don't know EXACTLY where they are.
Right. Like I said, "Against equally trained combatants"