Chained Spirit

Laflamme's page

*** Pathfinder Society GM. 2 posts (165 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 26 Organized Play characters. 7 aliases.




Hi,
If you are in the area of Quebec City, Lévis, Beauce (Ste-Marie), let me know. I am in this area and it's always nice to meet other players.
See ya

Bonjour,
Si vous êtes dans le coin, laissez-moi savoir.

Martin Laflamme
laflamme_martin_qc@hotmail.com

Dark Archive

A mimic slams an adventurer.
As per the adhesive(ex) ability, the adventurer is grappled.
The adventurer then uses universal solvent as a standard action.

Question:
Am I right to understand that the mimic is no longer adhesive-covered at this point, and further slams would not automatically give the grappled condition to the adventurer?
Or is the application of the universal solvent (or strong alcohol) local to the area previously glued, and the mimic remains adhesive-covered.

Quote:
"Strong alcohol or universal solvent dissolves the adhesive, but the mimic can still grapple normally."

References:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/mimic.html#mimic

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/wondrousItems.html#universal- solvent

Dark Archive

Could a character not proficient with tower shield use it to get total cover (as a standard action)

I don't see from the feat description or the item description that this use is restricted to those who are proficient.

I understand that the character using it this way would get a significant penalty to skill checks and to attack rolls, but I just want to know if it can be done.


Grappled condition gives a-4 to dex
Improved grappled feat has dex requirement 13
Technically, if a dex 13 character with improved grapple gets the grappled condition, he no longer qualify for the feat.
Am I missing something?

Grand Lodge

Question 1:
Can you still get a flanking bonus from your ally if you are grappled and making a melee attack?

It seems so to me:

"Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."

Question 2.
If you want to initiate a grapple, with an ally on the other side of your opponent (which I guess provides a flanking bonus on melee attacks)would you get a flanking bonus on you CMB

It doesn't seem to me like the flanking bonus could apply to the CMB.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The halt undead spell says:

"This spell renders as many as three undead creatures immobile. A nonintelligent undead creature gets no saving throw; an intelligent undead creature does. If the spell is successful, it renders the undead creature immobile for the duration of the spell (similar to the effect of hold person on a living creature). The effect is broken if the halted creatures are attacked or take damage."

Would an undead get a new save each round, like the hold person spell?

I would assume so, but I guess it could be interpreted that the target is immobile for the duration of the spell.. with no surther save.

Thoughts?

Grand Lodge

Hi,
Let's say Kyra, level 3, took "Reach spell metamagic" as a feat.
At some point, she needs to heal an ally, and is out of range (with no more channel).
Could she cast spontaneously a cure light wounds, and increase its reach to close range with the Reach spell metamagic, by sacrificing a prepared level 2 spell?

Thank you.


If Valeros and Merisiel are flanking a goblin, would Valeros get a +2 flanking bonus to his CMB if he wanted to initiate a grapple?

Considering this:
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects."

My take, is that flanking falls into "other effects".

Thanks.

Grand Lodge

Normally a goblin warrior level 1 CMD is 12.
This basic goblin has a DEX of 15 for a dex bonus of +2.
If he is pinned, my understanding is that he loose this dex bonus, and it should impact his CMD.
Also, the PINNED condition adds a -4 to AC, and my understanding is that penalties to AC also affect the CMD.
Therefore, the CMD of a pinned goblin would be 12 (base)-2(dex)-4(ac) for a result of CMD: 6.

Am I right?

Thanks

References:
"Pinned: A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus.. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack."

"CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier

The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Defense is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers. A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD."

Dark Archive

Hi guys,
Not sure I understand the roc flyby snatch mechanics.
How does it work exactly?

The roc comes in, attacks with a talon and grab, and is now grappled..
Then.. it can't really fly away isn't?

Is there something I am missing, or does this just has to be house ruled that such a big creature can actually fly while grabbing?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

It looks to me like an Hezrou Demon, for example, could use his spell-like abilities while in gaseous form.

Would that be right?

Thanks


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Test PFS pour une partie à déterminer (French)

3/5

Hi,
During Dawn of Scarlet Sun, one player left the game during the last fight. He could have completed the module with the players, but got frustrated and left. He was playing Kyra.
It is the first time this happens to me.

He did complete at least 3 encounters, and his character was still standing but .. according to him out of options, and he was frustrated.
He said "I am leaving".
So, I took control of the pregen, and had him dropped unconscious by the boss.

What is the guideline here in regards to experience, prestige and gold?

Thank you.

3/5

Hi guys,
Would you have a suggestion for a light PFS scenario for a kids table?

I usually run a home game with them, so they know the rules well enough.
But tomorrow, I don't have the full group, but would still like to run them a "small" scenario, if there is any.
I'll hand them a few pregens.

I did a few scenarios with them a while back, like the first step serie and Master of the fallen fortress, so, I would rather no go back to that if possible.

So, this would need to be a fun, and relatively quick scenario.
Would be great if it didn't require too much prep time too.
I am kinda limited on prep time today.

Thoughts?


My interpretation of protection from evil is that it provides blanket immunity over charm and compulsion effects (from evil casters) where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person.

Not that it gives a +2 to saves against that, but that it gives a blanket immunity.

I would base my understanding on this recent source from the developper John Compton:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pl9q&page=2?Prot-Evil-FAQ-ruling-and-reson ant-Clear#62

Although, this source from James Jacob in 2010 seems to say the opposite.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kl0d?Protection-from-Evil-v-Dominate-Person#6

So.. to all you experts out there, can I ask you confirm if a protection from evil potion, drank before a fight would prevent (no save required)a succubus from dominating Valeros?

Or.. the spell hits (Valeros rolls a save and fail), but the succubus can't actually order Valeros to do anything during the potion of protection from evil duration.

Thanks

EDIT: Not sure why my links don't work

Grand Lodge

13 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I am looking to get an improved familiar at level 7.
My wizard is neutral.
I want the CG Lyrakien Azata.

The feat says:
You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).

So, as a neutral wizard, my understanding is that I can get the Azata, because that is one step toward chaotic, and one step toward good and I am allowed one step of each types.

Am I getting this right?

Or is it a problem that it says I should be chaotic good to get this familiar?

Thanks

Grand Lodge 3/5

Hi

I am considering GMing Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition Chapter Two: The Skinsaw Murders PFS Sanctioned Module as a gaming day event.

We would start at 9am and end at 5pm (game store open hours).
I am wondering if this is a realistic expection timewise.
I will likely not have new players at the table.

Thoughts?

Thanks

Grand Lodge

What qualifies as a "small" item to be retrieved by a prehensile tail?

Shortsword (light melee, 2 lbs.)?
Longsword (One-handed, 4 lbs.)?

Thanks

Grand Lodge

Yesterday, one of my fellow Pathfinder was thrown a bomb at, by an alchemist.
If my wizard would have readied a mage hand spell to deflect the bomb thrown at the dwarf... would you have allowed it?

(given that the bomb trajectory would be within spell range of course)

Thanks!

Grand Lodge

Hi guys,
I would like to be sure I am reading Low-Light vision properly.
My understanding is that it extends the area we can see in DIM LIGHT, but it does not extend the area of NORMAL LIGHT.

So, normally, a torch shines NORMAL LIGHT at 20' and increase the area after that to DIM LIGHT for the next 20'.

With Low Light Vision, the NORMAL LIGHT area would remain the same, and the area of DIM LIGHT would be doubled for 40'. So an elf could see up to 60' from the torch. (20 in normal, 40 in dim)

My reasoning is based on this text:
"they can see twice as far as normal in dim light"

I have heard interpretation that it doubles the area of NORMAL LIGHT as well, and I want to make sure.

Thanks

Grand Lodge

Male Elf Wizard(Diviner) level 12 / 33 xp (as of April 24th 2016)

This is a test.

Merci!

Grand Lodge

Scenario 1
Patient Rogue is successfully stealthed behind a cover, 30ft from the shopkeeper and is observing the shopkeeper
Patient Rogue readies a stealth move on the criteria of the shopkeeper being distracted (by outside stimulus)
Moves toward his next cover as a standard readied action (move done from cover to cover, with no concealment in between)
rolls a 10+7(stealth)+5(creature making the perception check is distracted) {22} vs rolls a 10+1(perception)-3(distance) {8} = Shopkeer's reactive perception fails by 14

Note: The Patient rogue is not creating a diversion (bluff) to go from being observed to being unobserved and thus (in my opinion) would not
take the -10 penalty for needing to move quickly in this circumstance (but I humbly could be wrong here).
He is also not moving his full speed of 30ft to go to his next cover (15ft away) and does not take the -5 penalty for that either.

But he is moving though an area with no concealment or cover, where he could potentially be observed by the distracted shopkeeper.

Would he need to take the -10 anyway, because he crosses an area of normal light with no concealment, even though he
was initially unobserved? (the spirit of this -10 applies if "your observers" are momentarily distracted, which I believe is not the case here because the patient rogue is initially not observed, unless we consider that at the point between the 2 covers, the rogue IS observed)

Note:
I could see the -10 apply if the rogue were observed in front of the shopkeeper, and wanted to flee to the shadows after a successful diversion.
This -10 seems harsh when initially unobserved (behind cover) and my understanding is that it does not apply if the shopkeeper is distracted and the rogue is unobserved.

In the case where he needs to take the -10 on that, here is the result:

Scenario 2
Patient Rogue is successfully stealthed behind a cover, 30ft from the shopkeeper and is observing the shopkeeper
Patient Rogue readies a stealth move on the criteria of the shopkeeper being distracted (by outside stimulus)
Moves toward his next cover as a standard readied action (move done from cover to cover, with no concealment in between)
rolls a 10+7(stealth)+5(creature making the perception check is distracted)-10(observer momentarily distracted, moving quickly) {12} vs rolls a 10+1(perception)-3(distance) {8} = Shopkeeper's reactive perception fails by 4

What scenario here do you think I need to use?
Thanks

Grand Lodge 3/5

My understanding of hand of the apprentice, is that you use INT instead of DEX to strike within 30ft.

---------------------------
"Hand of the Apprentice (Su): You cause your melee weapon to fly from your grasp and strike a foe before instantly returning to you. As a standard action, you can make a single attack using a melee weapon at a range of 30 feet. This attack is treated as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, except that you add your Intelligence modifier on the attack roll instead of your Dexterity modifier (damage still relies on Strength). This ability cannot be used to perform a combat maneuver. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier."
----------------------------

So, at level one, with 18 INT, he gains a +4, and his cane is masterwork (because of arcane bond) which gives him a +1 for a total of +5.

The only way to get to +7, the way I understand it.. is if you also added his DEX to get him there.

Is there a chance this is a mistake?

Thanks