Mabven the OP healer's page

My gaming group has been ruling that you may fight defensively or take a total defense, then move, and retain the AC bonus. I have always thought this was a house rule, one which I had no problem with, so I never disputed it, but I was sure that the CRB stated that you gained the AC bonus until your next action, not your next turn. However, looking at the PRD now, I see these definitions:

Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC until the start of your next turn.

Total Defense

You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can't combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat. You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.

So, obviously the current PRD specifically states that the AC bonus lasts until the beginning of your next round, and not until you take another action.

Was this an errata, or am I remembering the entry from the original CRB incorrectly?

This is the story of the Brothers Cut, Tourne and Tranche. Although Tourne briefly led a monastic life, and Tranche is an unrepentant rake (well, Knife Master, but whatever), their brotherly love knows no bounds. They are known for overt expressions of their mutual affection, and for their peculiar song, which they sing as a duet, dedicated to the eternal Brotherly Love they epitomize.

These brothers are so entirely in tune with each other, that there is not a single legged, non-flying opponent which they can not utterly slaughter in six seconds flat. (literally)

The Brothers Cut are Pathfinder Society legal 7th level characters. Watch in astonishment as they show you just what it means when they say they "like to get it up."

Tourne's turn on round 1 of combat ends. That's right, this all took place during the first turn of one character. Tranche gave up doing damage on his turn in order to get into position.

Thus, on round one of combat, between the two brothers, they have done a potential damage of: 8d4 + 1d3 + 1d10 + 8d6 + 16d8 + 59. If every damage die roll 1's, that's 93 damage.

Note that, in the unlikely event that Tourne fails any of these trip attempts (pretty much needs to roll a 1), he gets to roll a second time and take that result instead.

While the Brothers Cut fight, they sing the following song, although most combats they don't get past the first verse before their target is dead. After killing an opponent, they kiss each other once on the cheek, and then both kiss the cheek of their slaughtered foe.

Suck on that, AM BARBARIAN, these are 7th level, PFS legal characters.

Most medium and heavy armor come with gauntlets. If your armor is adamantine or mithral, does that impart weapon qualities of adamantine and alchemical silver to the gauntlets included with the armor?

Can armor be made out of cold iron or alchemical silver? (the entries for those materials in the CRB do not mention armor) Can you wear gauntlets made of a different material with a suit of armor which normally includes gauntlets, and if so, does the armor lose the armor special quality imparted by the special material, because it is no longer a complete set?

Finally, does a combatant wearing gauntlets still provoke attacks of opportunity when making an unarmed strike if they do not have the improved unarmed strike feat? - The weapon entry for Gauntlet says "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack." This says that other than doing lethal damage, an attack with a gauntlet is considered an unarmed strike - which normally provokes attacks of opportunity.

In 3.5, there was a specific prohibition against using power attack with light weapons, but in pathfinder, that prohibition is not in the text of the feat. Is the prohibition against using power attack with light weapons simply in a different section of the rules now, or has pathfinder removed that prohibition, or is it generally accepted that RAI is that light weapons can't be used with power attacks and it simply has not made it into an errata yet?

If you had a wondrous item which has an extra-dimensional space which holds weapons, and when those weapons are drawn from the wondrous item a spell is cast on them by the item, would that more appropriately be a use-activated spell effect, or a continuous spell effect. This is assuming that more than one weapon is drawn from the wondrous item per-round, thus causing the spell to be cast more than once in a round.

I am looking for a disambiguation of the use-activated and continuous spell effect rules for wondrous item creation, and I have no stake in which is the correct answer. In fact, if you believe that RAW does not support either type of spell effect on wondrous items creation resulting in the spell being cast on multiple weapons per round, please say so.

My DM asked our party to each design a unique magic item which would be so tailored to our characters as to seem to have been made especially for them. The price limit on the item is 9000 gold. (I am assuming this is market price, and not cost to create) My character is a fighter with two-weapon fighting, and specialising in daggers. (pretty evenly balanced between melee and ranged)

The item I came up with is a bandoleer which works much like the Efficient Quiver, except that it does not have a space for arrows or bows, but has one space which holds up to 40 daggers and dagger-shaped weapons, one which holds up to 18 weapons of approximately the same shape and size as a javelin, and one space which holds up to 40 potions and similar items, such as holy water, acid flasks and alchemist fire.

In addition, when a weapon is drawn from the bandoleer, it immediately has the spell Magic Weapon cast on it with a caster-level of 1. This is the part I need help with - The rules say that a spell effect which is use-activated and unlimited-use costs caster-level x spell level x 2000, but one which is constant, and based on a spell whose effect is minutes-per-level, costs double that much. The item will have other similar spell effects, depending on how expensive this effect is, so as not to exceed the 9000 gold price limit.

My question is: is drawing a weapon from a wondrous item designed to hold weapons like a scabbard or quiver a valid way to use-activate the item? It seems to me that such an activation may break the RAW, as a character with the quick-draw feat and/or two-weapon-fighting could draw more than one weapon per round, (and of course this is the intended use of the item) and I seem to remember that the rules say an item with spell-like abilities can not reduce the casting time of the effect below the casting time listed in the equivalent spell description.

If this is a violation of the rules for use-activated spell-like abilities on wondrous items, would making it a constant effect, and doubling the price of the effect, solve the problem of being able to activate a spell-like ability, which would normally take a standard action, as a free-action?

My DM asked our party to each design a unique magic item which would be so tailored to our characters as to seem to have been made especially for them. The price limit on the item is 9000 gold. (I am assuming this is market price, and not cost to create) My character is a fighter with two-weapon fighting, and specialising in daggers. (pretty evenly balanced between melee and ranged)

The item I came up with is a bandoleer which works much like the Efficient Quiver, except that it does not have a space for arrows or bows, but has one space which holds up to 40 daggers and dagger-shaped weapons, one which holds up to 18 weapons of approximately the same shape and size as a javelin, and one space which holds up to 40 potions and similar items, such as holy water, acid flasks and alchemist fire.

In addition, when a weapon is drawn from the bandoleer, it immediately has the spell Magic Weapon cast on it with a caster-level of 1. This is the part I need help with - The rules say that a spell effect which is use-activated and unlimited-use costs caster-level x spell level x 2000, but one which is constant, and based on a spell whose effect is minutes-per-level, costs double that much. The item will have other similar spell effects, depending on how expensive this effect is, so as not to exceed the 9000 gold price limit.

My question is: is drawing a weapon from a wondrous item designed to hold weapons like a scabbard or quiver a valid way to use-activate the item? It seems to me that such an activation may break the RAW, as a character with the quick-draw feat and/or two-weapon-fighting could draw more than one weapon per round, (and of course this is the intended use of the item) and I seem to remember that the rules say an item with spell-like abilities can not reduce the casting time of the effect below the casting time listed in the equivalent spell description.

If this is a violation of the rules for use-activated spell-like abilities on wondrous items, would making it a constant effect, and doubling the price of the effect, solve the problem of being able to activate a spell-like ability, which would normally take a standard action, as a free-action?

I'm looking for some advice on reasonable ways to resolve uses of Gust of Wind, as suggested at the end of the text for the spell:

In addition to the effects noted, a gust of wind can do anything that a sudden blast of wind would be expected to do. It can create a stinging spray of sand or dust, fan a large fire, overturn delicate awnings or hangings, heel over a small boat, and blow gases or vapors to the edge of its range.

So, taking the examples in the text for the spell itself, would there be a save for blindness if you created a stinging spray of sand or dust? If so, how long would the blindness last? Would there be no blindness, but a save for dazed? What if you used something much nastier than sand, like finely ground glass or a contact poison? Would a similar use with flour make invisible targets visible, and if so, would there be a save to avoid being coated in the flour?

How about fanning large flames? If you use it to fan a large flame, and an enemy is in an adjacent square to the fire, and standing on material that could reasonably be considered fuel for the fire, would it cause the fire to spread into the enemy's square? If so, would the enemy take fire damage, and how much? Would the enemy get a save for half damage or to negate the damage?

What would the effect of the spell be when used against a medium or larger creature that is currently using the acrobatics skill to maintain its balance because it is in the area of a grease spell or is balancing on a narrow ledge?

Could the spell be used to extinguish an ally who is currently taking damage from a burn effect, such as caused by failing his save against the attack of a fire elemental or being hit by an alchemists fire?

Finally, can anyone suggest other creative uses for the spell which are reasonably resolved in combat?

This may have been covered in the message boards before, but if it has been since beta, I am unable to find it.

Back in Alpha, Combat Feats were specifically designed so that only one could be used in any particular round. In Beta and Release, it seems that language has been entirely removed from the Feats section, most likely intentionally.

So, my question is this: Since the Power Attack feat says specifically that it is used as part of an Attack or Full Attack action, and not that it is any type of action in and of itself, does that mean that it can be used with other Combat Feats, such as Overhand Chop, Cleave, Vital Strike and Deadly Stroke? Does the wording "As a Standard Action", or "As a Full-Round Action" preclude the use of Power Attack, because even though you are attacking, you are not exactly using a specific "Attack Action" or "Full-Attack Action?" If not, are there some Combat Feats that you can use Power Attack with, and some that you can not?

If it turns out that Power Attack can be used with other Combat Feats, are there other feats Similar to Power Attack that can be used in this way? (aside from Deadly Aim and Combat Expertise)

All of the discussions on the healing classes are missing the main change to healing that PathfinderRPG has introduced. Clerics and Paladins have been given an innate ability heretofore unheard of: the ability to heal allies AT RANGE. This is such a drastic change that it completely alters the balance of damage and healing in the game. I like this change, and think it is indispensable in achieving one of the main goals of PathfinderRPG: the elimination of the 15 minute adventuring day. However, the class which in 3.5 was the undisputed second-best healer in the game has been left in the dark - the druid.

I feel that in order to bring balance back to the system, the druid needs to be allowed a means by which he can also heal at range. As it stands now, a player who decides to play the druid as the party healer is severely penalized for his choice, so much so that he risks the wrath of the other players for his choice. I am involved in 2 play test campaigns at the moment, and using those campaigns I will illustrate the problem below.

In campaign 1 I play a Sun/Fire cleric with Extra Turning. The other players are: a rogue specialized in Bladed Scarf (a pathfinder specific weapon similar to the spiked chain, but slashing damage), a Conjuration specialist wizard and a great sword specialist fighter. The fighter often misses sessions due to family responsibilities. In this campaign we are often able to take on 5-7 encounters, 2-3 of which are 3 or more levels above us, and finish up with a fair fraction of our resources still available to us. We feel like super-heroes.

In campaign 2 I play a defensive fighter with full plate, tower shield, toughness, endurance, die hard, max intimidate, dazzling display, etc. The other players are a druid healer, a 2-weapon fighting barbarian and a melee fighting cleric (cleric often misses sessions, same player as the fighter in the first campaign). In this campaign we are barely able to handle 2-3 level-appropriate encounters before we are forced to flee for our lives. The druid is absolutely not shirking his healing duties or being lax, he spends almost every round of combat casting healing spells. The 15 minute adventuring day is in full effect in this campaign.

Isn't it obvious that there is a severe imbalance here? Are we abandoning every class but the cleric (or paladin at very high levels) as the party healer? If not, the druid needs the ability to heal at range, and possibly a boost to the amount of healing available to him.

I have a couple ideas about addressing this imbalance:

1) Give the druid a choice at character creation to focus on healing. Such a druid would give up his animal companion and any domain, and instead choose a 'healing companion.' Said companion would be some sort of tiny fey, or perhaps an incorporeal 'spirit animal' which would have no combat abilities beyond the ability to deliver Cure spells cast by the druid. Such a mechanic already exists in the wizard/sorcerer familiar ability 'deliver touch spells', except that the druid's ability would be limited to Cure spells in the same way that the cleric's spontaneous casting ability is limited.

2) Give the druid an ability similar to channel energy, except that it would be a single-target ability, and not area of effect in the way that the cleric/paladin channel energy is. The druid would get this ability once per day plus his wisdom modifier.

3) Give the druid the ability to 'burn' a use of his wildshape ability to express one Cure spell as an area of effect heal with the same range and restrictions as the cleric channel energy ability.

All of the above suggestions would help to close the healing gap for the druid, while at the same time not put the druid past or even very near the cleric in volume nor versatility of healing.

I really think this is flaw in the current system that needs to be addressed, and I am sure there are many solutions other than the 3 I have outlined above that would fix this flaw, and I am sure I would be happy with any one of the as long as the result is that the druid is not completely left out in the dark as far as the new mechanic of healing at range is concerned.

If the druid is not caught up in this regard, then what we are left with is a single class (the cleric) that MUST be in every party, which I don't think is anyone's wish. As it stands now any party without a cleric is doomed to the 15 minute adventuring day, which I think we all agree is the dragon we have all sworn to slay.