Combat is simultaneous. Even though we take turns in real life, the characters are not taking turns so you should be flat-footed until the beginning of your next turn if grease can make you flat-footed at all.
That's not necessarily true. Say you win initiative, and move and attack your foe. On his turn, he tumbles away from you and moves to threaten the path you just took to attack him. He does not get to take an attack of opportunity. Combat is sequential in many ways, and concurrent in others.
I see a lot of people comparing the wakizashi to the rapier and scimitar. Aside from the advantages it has over both that have already been mentioned (deadly, piercing or slashing, weapon finesse), it also has one distinct advantage: it is a light weapon, and not just treated as one for weapon finesse. Sure, you can use a rapier with weapon finesse, and there are class archetypes and feats that can allow you to use a scimitar with weapon finesse, but neither are actually light weapons, and thus they give penalties if wielded in your off-hand. A twf fighter could focus on wakizashi and wield two of them, saving up to 4 feats for other purposes, and additionally have the highest weapon training bonus for both their weapons (otherwise impossible if you choose two dissimilar weapons).
If the wakizashi were a martial weapon, would any martial class ever wield a short sword, or any other light piercing or slashing weapon for that matter? Would any martial class ever wield a rapier or scimitar?
There are things which are "against the rules" which a GM rules for you, and there are similar things which a GM rules against you. A player needs to accept these things and continue playing smoothly, because sometimes a GM wants to tell a good story more than he wants to follow "the rules." I like your GM's call, but if I were him, I would not let it work all the time, only when it enhances the story.
Dragon's Dogma has a similar combat tactic.
The Fremen used specialised equipment (maker hooks) to anchor them to the outer shell of Shai'Hulud and to pry open the leading edge of a segment to expose the more vulnerable flesh beneath to abrading sand. Shai'Hulud would roll away from the irritation, bringing the exposed segment up away from the sand, and lifting the hookman (the first Fremen up) with it. Shai'Hulud is unique in the known universe, and I doubt this would work on dragons. Although - Worm / Wyrm - hmm...
This is an interesting question, which I do not see the answer to in either the grease spell's description, or the acrobatics skill description. Forget crawling, just moving. Is the acrobatics check required by the grease spell to move at half speed a species of balancing, or is its own type of acrobatics check. Being a slippery surface adds a penalty to balancing on a narrow ledge or through uneven ground, but the skill does not mention whether moving on a slippery surface that is not narrow or uneven falls under the category of balancing, and thus causes you to lose your dexterity bonus to AC. Perhaps RAW can't answer this, and a GM needs to make his own call.
Wasn't there a rule that you can occupy the same space as a creature 2 categories larger than you? I think it is restricted to allies though. Or maybe I'm remembering something from 3.5 which has since been omitted. Or maybe I only dreamed it.
Edit: Ok, I am wrong in two ways, but I'm still proud that I remembered the gist of it. These old synapses got some life in them yet.
There's nary an animal alive that can outrun a greased Scotsman.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Many of us are this guy on one thread or another, myself included. See how Wraithstrike thought I was being serious? This whole thing wouldn't have made me laugh half as hard if he had not. It's not truly comedy if you don't take a little dig at yourself.
lol, I was being sarcastic, but my sarcasm was directed at an imaginary person who had not yet posted, one who would go so far as to delve into middle-english usage to support his desire to be able to add all of his party-members' modifiers to his stealth roll. We all know this guy - he will twist any passage in the rules to fit his desires, and insist that his interpretation of RAW is the only possible reading, despite other, more obvious interpretations being available, interpretations which make more sense and seem to represent developer intentions much better.
Strangely enough, I was actually supporting your position by showing how the use of "you" as the plural of "thee" is archaic.
As far as JJ disagreeing with me (about a long-dead and unrelated thread), his statement does not disagree with me at all. I never felt that a full-attack should only provoke once, although I did concede that such might be a literal reading of RAW. My objection was to obviously abusive things like trip-chaining, or getting two aoo's on a single spell-cast.
Thou art incorrect. Forsooth, "your" is the possessive form of the second person plural pronoun "you." Thou shouldst take more heed when proclaiming on the pronunciation of the puissant tongue of the Plantagenet patriarch, may He perambulate in Paradise perpetually.
Quantum Steve wrote:
Wile E. Coyote would be proud.
We generally allow this at our table, although the example of fly/walk is pretty moot, because you can just fly an inch off the ground, and get more movement out of it. But often we do things like walk 10 feet, then climb 5 feet (you can climb at a quarter of your ground speed, so that 5 feet is equivalent to 20 feet walking.) Or walk 10 feet and earth glide 10 feet.
Garden Tool wrote:
Is this spelled out in RAW anywhere?
It is spelled out in the stealth skill description:
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
So, you are hidden, then you do a full attack. The first attack hits, and you are revealed. You could hide immediately using a move action at a -20 to your check, as per the sniping rules, but since you are full-attacking, you do not have a move action to expend to make the stealth check, and as the skill says "It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking." Not using stealth, dexterity bonus is not denied. Since you have no action to use between attacks to maintain your concealment, you can not continue to attack the opponent with his dexterity bonus denied.
Sean answered you in his first post, the one directly after your original post:
Sean K. Reynolds wrote:
Odd-bonus ability score items are deliberately not in the game.
I don't know how he could have said any more specifically "no." He said the items were deliberately not in the game. Any magic item a crafter creates which is not listed in source material, but custom made, is a house-rule item. So, unless you house-rule that the item can exist, it is illegal.
Now you are getting it. Increasing caster level is most useful with spells which gain a significant increase at specific levels. Scorching ray is a great example - Mirror Image, Divine Favor, Magic Missile, and Acid Arrow also come to mind.
Irontruth, that is quite a useful house-rule. I like the idea, I don't believe it should become RAW, but I would definitely use it at my table. I like characters which are not just focused on a single stat, and your house-rule is a great way to enforce that. I myself have been known to build wisdom-heavy fighters.
Just because you do not need to sleep does not mean that you can prepare an unlimited number of spells per day. Spell slots are still going to be a once-per-day resource. You are still going to be required to do nothing for 8 hours before your initial preparation, no matter how long that takes, you just don't have to sleep during those 8 hours if you don't want. There is precedent for this - in 3.5 elves did not need to sleep, instead they meditated for 4 hours per night, which gave them the benefit other races get from 8 hours sleep. However, elven wizards were still required to do nothing for 4 more hours in order to be able to prepare their spells.
Wizards need their rest, no matter their race.
Edit: Grick was kind enough to actually find the rules I was too lazy to look up, and which I was only obliquely referring to. Thank you, Grick.
I read it a little differently than tels and hogarth. To me, it seems to say that if you have the opponent pinned, tying him up is automatic, as long as you have rope. If you are merely grappling, you must make a difficult check (-10 penalty) to get him tied up, but once he is tied up, the ropes are no less secure (the -10 penalty is not applied to the dc to escape the rope, only applied to your attempt to tie up your opponent in the first place.)
That is my reading, but the wording has enough vagueness that I will not swear I am right.
Spell-like abilities do not have verbal, somatic, focus or material components. Link
Please be respectful of paizo employees who post in these forums. They publish the game we are discussing, and participating in these forums to help us understand the reason why they make the rules decisions they make seems to be a generous act to me. I do not think that generosity should be rewarded with disrespect. I know that if I ran a web site with a message board, and people used that message board to disrespect me, I would have very little interest in participating on that message board, and would even feel justified in not providing the message board service at all.
Please be respectful.
I think there is one way you can mix unarmed strike and natural attack without the feat, but not FoB. You would make a single unarmed attack at your normal base attack, then use your natural weapons as secondary attacks, at a -5 to attack for all. This is similar to using a manufactured weapon and natural weapons in the same full-attack action.
Yeah, well the character I made the item for actually fights melee with daggers just as often as he uses them as thrown weapons, so an item that would only enchant them if they were immediately thrown is sub-optimal for him, even if the item was also able to be enchanted beyond +1 and give the "ammunition" other weapon special abilities.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I worked up such an item and posted it on the messageboard a few months ago. It is entirely legal by the custom magic item creation rules, as far as any custom magic item is (the whole section of the CRB states that it is an alternate rule to make custom magic items.).
It is called the Bladestorm Bandoleer, it is similar to an efficient quiver (has extra-dimensional spaces for specific weapon types), but it also casts a CL 1 Magic Weapon spell on any weapon drawn from it, can also cast Light on said weapon if the owner desires, and once-per-day the wearer can choose, as a standard action, to cast a CL 4 Bless Weapon spell on one weapon drawn from it. Item price (not creation cost) worked out to around 8500 GP.
Yes, but for every scabbard you have without a matching blade, you would require a move action to sheathe your currently held blade into the scabbard before you could do your swift-action extra ranged attack with it.
I have a switch hitter ranger and though how awesome would it be to just throw my earth breaker rather than swap my hammer and bow all the time.
This would not work, even if you could throw the same weapon more than once in a round. The returning quality can only be added to a thrown weapon. So, even if you have the Trow Anything feat, and can throw your earthbreaker as if it were a thrown weapon, it does not change the actual properties of the weapon. Thus it is still not a thrown weapon, even though your character is quite able to throw it without penalty. Perhaps if the earthbreaker was first enchanted with the throwing quality you could after enchant it with the returning quality, but I would not fault a GM for ruling either way on that.