Komoda's page

If I understand this correctly, a player loses "class feats" and chooses "archetype feats" that are just a regular feat tree with some linked theme.

That assumes that "class feats" are just feats that you gain when you level.

If I am correct, how is this new or different from anything?

Isn't this exactly the same as not having archetypes at all?

No.

DR #/Cold Iron means Cold Iron bypasses it.

DR #/- means nothing bypasses it.

It always means rolling damage dice more times.

Double - Roll 2 times add bonuses 2 times.
Double Double - Roll 3 times add bonuses 3 times.
Double Double Double - Roll 4 times add bonuses 4 times.

etc., etc.

Komoda wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

If its something you summoned then no, but if its an actual enemy then yes.

I get that this makes sense for game theory, but is there any rules reason that you couldn't summon it? Could your friend?

Because they won't attack you. Of course you could find a way around this, but most GM's wouldn't allow since it violates intent. As an example a caster in you party could summon CR1 monsters who pose no real threat to you. The GM could say that actual enemies were the intent, not cannon fodder provided by an ally.

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.

If its something you summoned then no, but if its an actual enemy then yes.

I get that this makes sense for game theory, but is there any rules reason that you couldn't summon it? Could your friend?

If you have 1 round of Feather Fall, you can fall 60ft. while taking no damage, not counting however far you fell before using Feather Fall, which is nullified. What are you jumping down from that you need to safely fall 540ft.?

The back of a dragon.

toastedamphibian wrote:

Bladelock wrote:

You do not need a second off hand weapon to flurry. It explicitly says it in the Flurry description.

Brawler's Flurry description does not say no off hand. It does say no second. Remove the mention of "second" from the TWF text. Apply it. It works.

Citation would be clearer if it said no off-hand. It does not. You keep saying it says no off hand, that such a thing is clearly in the text. It is not. "Does not need to use a second weapon" being equivalent to "no off hand weapon" is an extrapolation.

An extrapolation that is necessary for your argument, yes, but still something you just keep adding in there and claiming as fact.

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?

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.

Bladelock wrote:

You do not need a second off hand weapon to flurry. It explicitly says it in the Flurry description.

Brawler's Flurry description does not say no off hand. It does say no second. Remove the mention of "second" from the TWF text. Apply it. It works.

Citation would be clearer if it said no off-hand. It does not. You keep saying it says no off hand, that such a thing is clearly in the text. It is not. "Does not need to use a second weapon" being equivalent to "no off hand weapon" is an extrapolation.

An extrapolation that is necessary for your argument, yes, but still something you just keep adding in there and claiming as fact.

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?

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't know if anyone quoted this. I may have overlooked it, but this is from the ride skill section.

Quote:

Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

That means that you can make your mount attack. No handle animal check is needed in this case.

That quote doesn't mean what you think it means.

If you direct your mount to attack (using Handle Animal), then *you* can also attack.

That's what "Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount" is for.

You cannot use Ride to command your Mount to attack.

That's what Handle Animal is for.

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 While you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

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,

But Brawler's Flurry only says that you don't have to use 2 different weapons, not that there is no off-hand weapon attack. Can you find anything in Brawler's Flurry that specifically, directly says there is no off hand weapon attack?

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.

Does he have a 10 minute limit to answer questions?

Komoda wrote:

Quote:

If so, Do we add penalties, or subtract them?

They are a set value for 2 weapon fighting, which get reduced for meeting certain criteria. This is very clear and explicit in the text.

You act as if it is so cut and dry. There is no listing under TWF for fighting with two hands on a single weapon. It isn't there. You know it isn't. We all know it isn't. So we are forced to DECIDE (because it isn't there for us) what it means when you have 2 hands on one weapon.

What would the TWF penalties be if you had one hand on one dagger?
What would the TWF penalties be if you had two hands on one dagger?

What would the TWF penalties be if you had one hands on one longsword?
What would the TWF penalties be if you had two hands on one longsword?

What would the TWF penalties be if you had two hands on one polearm?

Would you have different penalties if you had one hand on one longsword vs. two hands on one dagger/longsword? All the math of attacks and damage would be the same.

I would rule -2/-2 for the attacks for all sets.

PRD on Pits wrote:

Covered pits are much more dangerous. They can be detected with a DC 20 Perception check, but only if the character is taking the time to carefully examine the area before walking across it. A character who fails to detect a covered pit is still entitled to a DC 20 Reflex save to avoid falling into it. If she was running or moving recklessly at the time, however, she gets no saving throw and falls automatically.

If it's a pit covered by brush, a charging character would fall automatically.

Charging is not running or moving recklessly, IMHO.

The movement speed is roughly that of a move-move.

Hasn't it been stated before to not overreach on what FAQs apply to?

I see your issue with the rules now that you brought it up..

The problem is that you're assuming that the faq applies, which you need to show.

"Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."

So why does this / does this not apply?

I would contend that it does not apply, as the statement is not complete for the case we are discussing:
We have the logic:
"you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon"
Therefore:
"your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."

This says that because you are using both hands for the TH weapon, you do not have an available offhand to make an attack with.

Why?
Well thats because the offhand is unable to use a second weapon, so it cant make an extra attack.

But we dont care about needing a second weapon. The offhand is perfectly allowed to attack with the weapon it is wielding.

This fulfills the requirement of TWF and does not disagree with the logic of the faq.

You really need to use some explicit rules logic if you want me to believe that this is not the case.

Show that the faq applies past the standard case.
Show that the twf rules you claim for this case actually exist.
You have not yet shown any way of getting an extra attack using a two handed weapon and this brawlers flurry.
You have made claims of penalties being less due to not having a penalty reducing requirement, which is ridiculous.

Please back up your claims with actual rules text in some clear progression of logic.

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.
2) There are two hands on the weapon.
3) The same x1 str mod is added to the damage.

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!

I understand the rules for iterative attacks with 2 weapons. I understand the rules for two weapon fighting. I understand the rules for the feat two weapon fighting as well.

At no point do I "go off the tracks."

What we seem to be disagreeing on is how these things play into a brawler flurry.

Your assumption is that taking the extra attack from two weapon fighting, which can normally only be done with a second weapon, means the brawler is tossing his one handed weapon into to his off hand and designating that extra attack as an off hand attack.

My contention is that the weapon stays in the primary hand and flurry, as a specific rule that trumps the general rule of two weapon fighting, allows the additional attack to take place without the use of a second (i.e. off hand) weapon or magically converting the primary weapon into an off hand weapon. That is what the rules say. Adding this magical conversion to an off hand weapon is reading something in the rules that is not there.

Using a 2 hand weapon while gripped in 2 hands further supports my version of how flurry works. Your interpretation creates additional uncertainties and rules confusion that implies your analysis is incorrect. Using a 2 hand weapon, while gripped "2 handedly", is undefined by two weapon fighting, but it is defined with a flurry.

To be clear, since you misunderstood me before, without flurry you cannot two weapon fight with a two handed weapon while gripping it two handed. Flurry is not the same as two weapon fighting. Brawler's flurry simply allows it to work in conjunction with 2 weapon fighting feats.

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.

"She does not need to use two different weapons" not "she does not need to use her off hand". It negates the part of two weapon fighting that requires them to be separate weapons.

The only thing that makes a weapon an off-hand weapon is using it for the extra attack in two weapon fighting. That is like, literally, the definition of an off-hand weapon. Are you using a weapon to make an extra attack from two weapon fighting? Then that is your off-hand weapon.

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.

Bladelock,

LOL.. Uh, no.

A regular fighter can TWF with a quarter staff, for example.
Its one weapon. By your logic - any person using double weapons doesn't have an off hand.

Quote:

" She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability. "

This line is in brawler's fury so it is clear you can TWF with one weapon. Usually it requires two.

It allows you to make main hand and off hand attacks with any weapon.

Let me try to explain it again:

TWF says:

Quote:

Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties

Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon is light –4 –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat –4 –4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2

If you use a weapon with the "double" tag - you are using one weapon.

There is never a primary or off hand - until you try to get an extra attack. This is always true ANY time you fight with TWF.

You can TWF with NO weapons wielded, for example, with both hands tied behind your back. (For example, with armor spikes, unarmed strikes, etc.)

TWF entitles you to get an extra attack with your off hand.

Brawler's Fury says - you can use any close weapon, any unarmed strike, and any monk weapon for *any* of the attacks you make with TWF.

You can use it for the primary, you can use it for the offhand.

But it says nothing about lessening the penalties.

So. If you...

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.

People keep saying that... I do genuinely wish someone could explain the RAW failing here in a way I could understand. So far i've seen

1) you can't twf with a 2 handed weapon (not a rule)
2) Brawler's Flurry does not give an extra attack (working as inteded)
3) Monks do it diffrently (not relevant)
4) It's not listed in the table (and?)

Ohwell.

1) Is clearly posted in the FAQ. I will show you again.

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

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."

P.s: there is not any rule I can find that makes "off hand weapon" and "two handed weapon" mutually exclusive, or that bans two-handed weapons from TWF. The problems are:

1) Two Handed weapons take 2 "hands of effort"

2) An off hand weapon only exists while TWF

3) TWF requires 2 different weapons

An exception to any of those allows an off hand two-handed weapon, and needs to tell you how much damage it does. Brawler's have an exception to 3.

Getting additional hands of effort, reducing the number of "hands" a 2handed weapon needs (while still counting as 2 handed) or some effect other than TWF that declares a weapon to be an "off hand" weapon could all theoretically occur, with the only conflict being "How much STR mod gets added to damage?" I belive the rule in 3.5 was .5 str per hand, with an additional .5str if one of the hands is your primary.

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".

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

Just how and when can you use armor spikes? If you’re using two weapons already, can you use armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack? What if you’re using a weapon and a shield? Can you use the armor spikes for an off-hand attack and still get a shield bonus to Armor Class from the shield? What if you use a two-handed weapon?
Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an off-hand attack with the spikes? What are your options for using armor spikes in a grapple? Can you use them when pinned? If you have another light weapon, can you use that and your armor spikes when grappling?

When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as the extra weapon.

If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn (or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you’re using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. In these latter two cases, you’re assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your armor spikes.

Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see Table 8–10 in the PH). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the offhand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but
when you do so, you don’t get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand.

You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack when you’re already fighting with two weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes, you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and the armor spikes (see the description of spiked armor in Chapter 7 of the PH).

...

My take:

Power Attack when using any Flurry with any weapon:
You gain the 1 handed bonus to damage, whatever that is for you.

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.

----

Brawler's Flurry:
The penalties for all attacks are -2. There is no off hand. All damage is a normal str bonus.

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".
Fighting with the Two-Weapon Fighting option gives you x1 str bonus and x.5 str bonus for a total of x1.5 str bonus making it a complete "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.

ABILITIES refer to absolute light levels. That did not make the entire stealth rules move into absolute light levels.

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.

Okay, and how does a normal, unmodified human see the light from the lantern?

They don't.

So whats the lighting condition? Dark.

Does hellcat stealth work in the dark? No.

I agreed with you on that part. I said the the OPs plan would not work.

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.

it is about the observer most of the time. The shadow dancer is an exception because they are taking the shadow and wraping it around them. The universe being designed for and bi weak sighted humans, the definition of shadow is the ones humans would use.

Stealther under starlight? Not hidden from an elf

Stealther in a cave? The kobolds wonder why he's stumbling around in the dark hunched over all funny.

"they always refer to the state of light and darkness from the perspective of normal vision, like a human
" The lantern creates the definition of a SUBJECTIVE light level, not an objective one. The lantern light is only there for the person that holds it. Normal human vision does not detect the light.

Not according to the FAQ. It states that if there is no explicit exception, that exception does not exist.

Hellcat stealth is not hide in plain sight at 10. it is hide in plain sight at 10 with certain conditions. One of those conditions is bright or normal light.

Benefit: You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty.

You're not in bright or normal light if you're standing in the dark relative to people trying to hide from you, just like you're not in the dark compared to a dwarf or you're not in the shadows compared to an elf when you're in starlight.

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...

Dim Light: When an ability requires a character to be near shadows or an area of dim light (like the shadowdancer’s shadow jump or hide in plain sight), how does that interact with low-light vision, darkvision, and the like?

While it’s true that most creatures in the game have low-light vision or darkvision, when the rules talk about being in or near an objective light level (for example “in an area of dim light”), they always refer to the state of light and darkness from the perspective of normal vision, like a human. 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.

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.

No.

You need to bend the light around yourself, predator style, to use hellcat stealth.

You can't do that when the light only exists for you and not the people who's eyes you're trying to fool.

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.

Personally, I would give you the standard +2 circumstance bonus. It is supported by the rules but not codified anywhere so expect table variance.

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.

As far as the NPC statblock I think you misundertand. I do think they can be used at times. As an example if I can show how several monsters can only use claws or weapons that can back up a point due to consistency, but at the same time one single statblock is not proof without something to back it up. It is evidence at best, and in this case the evidence is weak.

The Multiweapon Fighting feat has its own confusion. Does it mean that it replace the entire TWF tree or just the one feat. There have been debates on this alone. The writing could be a requirement or an option. There is no way to know, no matter what side of the argument someone is on.

There is no proof that double slice allows you to add 1.5 strength mod. We don't even know how TWF and two-handed weapons officially act.

Basically the rules do not say how this works, and until an FAQ covers it then it falls to "ask your GM".

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.

If you can ignore breathing and eating with special skills/abilities, why couldn't you ignore sleeping with special skills/abilities?

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.

Komoda wrote:

Problem is the rules state it happens before the trigger.

Also, spells and them being interrupted are an exception, not the norm. The quote from Mr. Buhlman above (previous page) supports this claim.

No, it happens before the trigger action resolves

No, spells are not an exception. Everything runs by exactly the same norm.

If a readied action interrupt or ruin your action, it is lost.

If a wizard drops a wall in your charge path; if a rogue trips you along your charge path; if a fight steps into your charge path..

you lose your action.

The reason this got faq'd by so many is that it is SO often handwaived away, to the detriment of the Readying player.

Suppose an animal companion is 60 feet from a wizard. He charges the wizard; Friendly fighter steps in at 20 feet. Often, GMS will let charging companion make a pounce on the intervening fighter.

No. You were charging the wizard; you moved more than half your movement, its a full round action to accomplish. A charge action commits you to moving to a specific square (the closest to the target}
It then entitles you to make your attack/pounce against your target.

Moving more than half your move doesn't entitle you to attack
why should it allow you to attack the fighter? And yes, you keep your minuses to AC for charging....

Let alone if you move less than half your move on the charge. Probably 80% of non-event refs will let you convert your action...

The reason this comes up so often is because:

1: The Devs haven't answered it.
2: There are two sides to the issue.
3: The rules don't state either way.

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.

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:

Wow, folks,

I am kinda amazed that this is still raging on. I have skimmed the posts from my ruling till now and most of them seem to be focused around a gamist argument, which I can understand. The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip.

Whether or not triplock is too powerful is mostly irrelevant. I personally believe it is too good if the "in combat" cost is an AoO, but probably ok if it burns and action to pull off. Fortunately for my opinion, the rules support this as well, and have done so since the 3.5 ruling on this same issue.
Moving along folks.. keep it civil. I'll check back in later.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

It keeps going and going and going....

Anywho,

As it concerns consistency and casting spells and AoOs: The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events. So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed (and technically before the action), the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed. No such exception exists for tripping, disarming, or moving, unless other game rules would dictate a interruption (such as going unconscious).

Moving along...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l0rq&page=8?TripLocking-Doesnt-W ork-Offici al-Ruling-or-Not#354

Most people have the attacker roll. But in truth, as SlimGauge pointed out, it is the defender that is supposed to roll.

Morrigan wrote:

Apologies if this has been answered somewhere else, but I sure as heck can't find it anywhere...

If a value would be multiplied by one modifier, and increased by another, what order do you do it in?

The case in point - Fighter weapon training. My level 7 Weapon Master has a +2 to damage from his weapon training class feature. He takes Advanced Weapon Training (Trained Throw), which allows him to double this value on damage rolls. He also lucks out and gets some sweet Gloves of Dueling, which increased his weapon training bonus by +2.

Because the gloves specifically add to the training bonus at all times, and the AWT only kicks in for damage rolls, I'd be inclined to do them in the same order; so base +2, then AWT +2, then double for a net +8.

Anyone got any clarity?

You add all the static bonuses together and then multiply.

Yes, Glove of Dueling have a really nice synergy with several AWT feats.

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)
3 x 2 = 6 (correct)

However, doubling twice would be:

3 + 3 + 3 = 9 (correct)
3 x 2 x 2 = 12 (incorrect)

And doubling three times would be:

3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12 (correct)
3 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 24 (incorrect)

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!

Apologies if this has been answered somewhere else, but I sure as heck can't find it anywhere...

If a value would be multiplied by one modifier, and increased by another, what order do you do it in?

The case in point - Fighter weapon training. My level 7 Weapon Master has a +2 to damage from his weapon training class feature. He takes Advanced Weapon Training (Trained Throw), which allows him to double this value on damage rolls. He also lucks out and gets some sweet Gloves of Dueling, which increased his weapon training bonus by +2.

Because the gloves specifically add to the training bonus at all times, and the AWT only kicks in for damage rolls, I'd be inclined to do them in the same order; so base +2, then AWT +2, then double for a net +8.

Anyone got any clarity?

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
First Double +2 +2 = +4
Second Double +2 +2 = +4

Total +4 +4 +4 = +12

Happy gaming!

Couple of things are in play.

First, all static +'s are multiplied.
Second, all bonus dice are not.
Third, a doubling multiple time is really just adding the original damage again, not multiplying it.

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)
Mounted Charge (with a lance) damage is 1d8 + 2
Spirited Charge damage is 1d8 + 2
Critical damage is 1d8 + 2

Add all those together for 4d8 + 8 + 1d6 (fire) + 1d6 (precision).

Hope this helps.

You can do a game of bids.

You write where the invisible will move.

The reactive say where he step up, trying to adivinate to follow the invisible.

If the step up would be adyacent to the invisible then both move. If not only invisible move.

Step up feat reading and not stealth/Perception check (nice option also. Im just consider another chance with creativity)

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.

EDIT:

Man, when I started this, no one had answered yet!

But I'm needlessly wordy, so I was ninja'd hard!

Oof!

Anyway...

There is no easy-to-use template, and, unfortunately it does tend to vary a bit, even in published stuff.

Nonetheless, what I'd recommend is either making it up yourself, or looking at various published examples and extrapolating from there.

You can also get the vague gist based off of the knowledge skill itself.

In your specific case, of a DC 10

- K (engineering): Identify dangerous construction
- K (geography): Identify a creature’s ethnicity or accent
- K (history): Know recent or historically significant event
- K (local): Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations
- K (nature): Identify a common plant or animal
- K (nobility): Know current rulers and their symbols
- K (religion): Recognize a common deity’s symbol or clergy

These are the things that people who aren't really trained in can generally tell you.

You can also adapt things by using the "Monster Lore" section as a template of your own:

Quote:

In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

... so depending on how common the information is, you may adjust the DCs up or down by 5 to 10 points.

So, if, for example, someone has lived in an area their whole life, you might presume they've just picked up more about it (or, at least, their hometown).

In your specific case, of a DC 10 (really DC 15 for most) that'll net you:

- K (engineering): Determine a structure’s style or age
-...

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.

Komoda wrote:

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?

Guiding it to move, namely to move where you want it to go.

commanding it to attack is different than steering it places while you fight.

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.

Komoda wrote:

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.

Ride is for things you do, Handle Animal is for telling creatures to do something. Anything else is house-ruling. Well, spur kind of treads the line, but that's it.

Komoda 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?

Assuming words still mean what I think they do, that frees your hands up so you don't need to have one on the reins. It does not in any way allow you to command the mount beyond the ways the rules already allow. It's a "you" thing, not a "mount" thing.

Komoda 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?

It means that you can't do much in combat other than move and make one attack, either yourself or the mount, with a non-combat trained mount. That's why it's good to have a combat trained mount. Essentially order of capabilities-

1) Non-combat trained, non-animal companion mount. It's a move action just to control the mount in combat, so mounted charges are out the door. But since you've succeeded at your check and the mounted combat rules say the mount moves as you direct it, you can still move using the mount's action and attack with your standard action at the end of the movement, or use your second move action...

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?

Ssalarn wrote:

blahpers wrote:

Driver_325yards wrote:

blahpers wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

RAW it is impossible to perform a mounted charge on anything other than an animal companion

???

He is saying that a person with a animal companion can make a handle animal check as a free action allowing the mount to charge as a full round action. However, a person without an animal companion has to spend a move action to perform a handle animal check, thus eliminating the ability for the mount to charge.

"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount" is covered by the Ride skill and is a free action.

Doesn't say what you think it does.

"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount
If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action."

If You direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle you may attack normally. This check is necessary for you to make an attack if your mount also makes an attack, and is contingent on you directing the mount to attack, which is a function of the Handle Animal skill. That's what the rules actually say.

Directing a mount to attack is usually a move action with Handle Animal, or a free action for an animal companion.

Brilliant. The rules worked better before the FAQ. Now they've literally broken charge (though still not in the bizarre way Chess seems to think).

Well, unless Paizo design decides to own up, screw the rules, I'm trying to run a game here.

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.

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?

And this:

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.

I am in the camp that it is a 5' step out of difficult terrain. If there is a 5' square of difficult terrain, you pay the penalty once, not twice. That one time is upon entering.

1) My group ruled anytime Charisma is involved.

2) You can not cut across a hard corner. You would have to move A-C-B.

Komada wrote:

Without the bluff check and a successful stealth check, they have an idea where you went. The know you dropped behind the wall or into a pile of brush, they just can't see you now. They can drop a stinking cloud on your butt, run away from you, or burn down the bushes. They can even fire an arrow into a square that they think you are in with a 50% miss chance.

Okay, and if you went into the brush or behind that wall why would you stay there? There's other brush or cover to move into. If there isn't, then "look a monkey" won't help you, because they WILL know where you went if you're hiding behind the only tree in the savanah.

The "Look a monkey" option takes up your standard action and is made at a -10 penalty. It requires 2 skills based off of two different ability scores. Batmanning away from someone is supposed to be hard, not something you can do with a 50 50 miss chance.

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.

Komoda wrote:

OK, so? Using one's environment for a tactical advantage is a huge part of fighting in small groups. It is not like it is going to work all the time. Against equally trained combatants you only have a 50/50 chance.

Thats the problem. Characters are specialized. At higher levels the difference between tiers of unskilled, skilled, and monkey becomes more than the die. So yes,

Quote:

If you can't jump into the brush or some other cover/concealment during a fight

You can. There's a system for that. You make a bluff check so they're not looking at you and THEN you hide. Why do you think that option is there? You cannot tell me with a straight face that an ambush is the only way to hide when that option is in the rules, being discussed, and being pointed to as the mechanic for doing exactly what you want to do without using that mechanic. You might think the mechanic sucks, isn't fair, takes too long, or isn't worth it but you can't say it's not there.

Alternately, get total cover or total concealment and then hide.

Quote:

At work I can walk right at someone that is actively watching me, even talking to me, and duck behind a low wall (office) or between pallet racks and still surprise them seconds later with a shot from a Nerf gun. This stuff is not that hard to do.

To office workers. In an office. Not semi professional quasi trained adventurers.

Right. Like I said, "Against equally trained combatants"