MacGurcules's page

That's pretty much exactly how it works. Multiple sources of DR don't stack in magnitude, you just take the highest DR. But if you've got different types, they each get an attempt to reduce damage, just so long as you use only one of them.

So if you've got DR 3/Cold Iron and DR 5/Bludgeoning, you use your DR 5 for anything that it applies to and your DR 3 for anything else. If you end up getting hit by a cold iron rod, you take the whole thing.

I've got a maneuver monk/unarmed fighter that's been kind of silly the last few sessions. On any mundane grounded mook, he'll blast across a 100-foot charge and:
1)Trip
2)Reposition from Ki Throw
3)AoO from Greater Trip
4)AoO from Vicious Stomp
5)Free grapple from Grab (via Anaconda's Coil and Final Embrace)
6)Constrict damage
7)Swift action grapple through Binding Throw to pin
8)Constrict again

So with a single charge, you've got your chump pinned, prone, and four attacks deep. Not too shabby.

This was discussed a bit in the SLA casting thread, but I think it deserves its own separate mention.

From the FAQ today:

Item Creation Feats: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat?

Yes.

This seems kind of huge to me. Basically any race or class that gives a SLA grants access to crafting feats. This opens up the trade to a lot more characters.

A quick way to make not a lot of friends around here is to go into a thread and start demanding "OFFICIAL RULINGS." The people who frequent these boards are quite knowledgeable and if you get a consensus answer, you can generally rely on it.

And that is official.

Exactly how is the PC dealing damage while grappled? Is it a monk? Usually grappled is great for basically taking an opponent out of combat, but doesn't usually kill them.

A highly dedicated grappler can do the equivalent of six attacks per round. Nine, depending on how you interpret grab. And double that, if you can get the job done with non-lethal damage.

It should be noted, though, that if you're in a situation where you can craft, you're in a situation where you can take 10 on the craft roll. So for scribing scrolls, so it's entirely likely an actual roll is unnecessary.

C) You cannot rake on a pounce. In order to rake something you have to start the round already in a grapple with it.

When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).

I'm not sure what Banecrow is talking about, but it seems like Xexyz has the right of it. You basically get a free sunder attempt on top of your critical through Sundering Strike. When doing that, if you manage to break all the way through their equipment, the extra damage spills over via Greater Sunder. As a means of clarification, it even makes a note of rolling the sunder damage separately.

Seems perfectly straightforward to me.

Sometimes I wish there was a flag for, "Replying to a two-year-dead thread and doesn't realize it."

From the equipment section:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

The lance has a special rule that says you can wield it in one hand, not that you treat it as a one-handed weapon. That would be different. There is no provision on damage for using a variable number of hands with a two-handed weapon. That exists only for the one-handed weapons. Two-handed weapons always use 1.5x Strength.

2) Per cohort level you can not first attract (recruit) a cohort more than two levels below you. Per the last paragraph concerning the cohort level in the core book and SRD - your cohort is limited to being a single level behind you after they join you. The two level limit does not infringe at any time after they've joined - one level lower is the accurate number once they've adventured with you. The difference, between 1 and 2 levels can be very drastic.

This isn't going to change your opinion or anything, but the cohort does max out at two levels below you. If they ever get to the point where they would level up to your level minus one, they just stop gaining XP and become stuck right on the cusp of that level.

If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than your level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed to attain the next level.

The dueling property and the enhancement bonus are both on the same weapon in this case: the bite natural weapon.

In response to Kimera, as a point of fact, the stat boosting items in Pathfinder are all Caster Level 8, but that doesn't mean you need to be 8th level to craft them. That's the level at which they manifest their relevant abilities for the purposes of determining duration, strength, resistance to dispel magic, etc.

You can actually craft them as soon as you can cast the necessary spell and make a item CL+5 Spellcraft check. So in the case of the various headbands and belts, that would be level 3. The real limitation, as usual for gear, is accumulated wealth. For a level 9 character using the base wealth guideline, he'd have to spend over a third of his money to get craft a +6 headband/belt. Is that unreasonable? Maybe not, but I could think of a lot more useful places to spend the 10,000 gp difference between that and a +4 headband.

I have a suspicion that the ability was written with the expectation that the succubus would be the one starting the grapple.

That said, some monsters are more dangerous than others when grappling. Seems legit to me.

Doesn't seem that tricky to me.

A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature’s description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.

The ability specifically says several things in a very small number of words:

I'm more interested in taking a dagger and having it turn into an unarmed strike. Affordable weapon enchantment for non-flurrying unarmed monks and piercing or slashing damage at the expense of dice when needed without compromising the magic item budget makes non-dip sensei, maneuver master, and many styles monks not get shafted on enhancement bonus pricing.

I'm with Atarlost. The more interesting application of this magic is to convert weapons to unarmed strikes and not the other way around. You get to enchant the underlying weapon at the regular rate (+10,000 for transformative, of course) but you still get to use your increased unarmed damage progression. It's not really cost effective over an amulet of mighty fists until you get to +3, but beyond that, it just keeps getting better.

Though, really, the most obvious weapon to do this with is the brass knuckles, isn't it?

"Yo dawg, we put transformative on your brass knuckles. Now you've got a fist on your fist so you can punch while you punch."

Seems like the section on Spell-Like Effects should really read, "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell, except for all of these other ways that aren't mentioned."

Errata on the way, maybe?

Check the Combat chapter. Under move actions it outlines that you can crawl five feet as a move action while prone and doing so provokes an AoO.

You're right. This would be the first time a mechanic doesn't make sense.

Yep. TWF doesn't make a distinction between light, one-handed, and two-handed. It just has light and not-light. Bows are clearly not light weapons, so with the feat, it should be -4/-4.

...If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text)...

On a successful maintain, Grab deals damage automatically based on attack that landed the grapple. This is in addition to the options allowed from succeeding the check.

So if a tiger landed the Grab with its bite, on the next round it would spend its standard action to roll one grapple attempt to maintain at an additional +5. If that check succeeds, it automatically does bite damage and then can choose to move, pin, or deal damage again. There isn't any restriction that the Grab-ing attack can't also be used to deal this optional damage. Then it rolls two claw attacks for Rake as free actions.

Since it spent its standard action on maintaining the grapple, it wouldn't be able to make any regular attacks beyond those allowed in the grapple.

There's no rules that I know of that would restrict your mount from grappling a creature while you ride it. It'd look odd, but it seems legit through the rules.

Serpentine eidolons get 10ft reach on their bite automatically, so that part shouldn't really be a problem. Though, when your serpent grapples the opponent, it gets moved adjacent, so you won't be able to hit it with your lance, anymore. So you'll have to have an alternate weapon or dismount.

Look at Musket Training in Musket Master. It's worded almost identically and it does replace gun training. That Pistol Training doesn't is a pretty clear oversight. Besides, it sounds like you're the GM. You can make whatever ruling you want.

The only restrictions that I know of due to impaired vision are from being blinded. Vision in fog is impaired but substantially less so than being blinded, so I don't believe a movement penalty on that order applies.

I don't think it'd be completely uncalled for to require an acrobatics check for characters that attempt to run or charge through a fog.

Certainly that is very tidy, but to me, the rules clearly do not support restricting it to only AoO per action. By my reading they clearly allow multiple and the easiest way of determining how many AoOs an action draws, as outlined by the rules, is to count how many times it provokes.

Now, I know you do not agree with that reading (and by now I'm sure I don't have to direct you on how I get there) but you can at least see how it makes more sense than allowing multiple attacks on an action by breaking down when certain provoking parts might happen.

Thanks for posting this. And to expand upon this, the casting of a spell requiring a ranged touch attack is one opportunity, not two (to reiterate, the casting of the spell and the rolling of the ranged touch attack are a singular event). If the caster then decided to move after casting the spell, THAT would provoke a second opportunity.

It appears that you still don't understand the core of the disagreement here. Even if that clause actually limits you to two attacks of opportunity per round on the same opponent rather than providing an example of multiple provocations, there is nothing that explicitly limits you to only one attack of opportunity per action. The only limiting factor is one attack per opportunity. It says that if an opponent provokes twice, each time is a different opportunity. So if an opponent provokes twice in the same action (such as by casting a spell and making a ranged attack) that counts as two opportunities and invites two attacks of opportunity.

You may disagree with this and that's fine. There is room for interpretation. But do at least understand the position of the people you're arguing against.

I think slavishly adhering to the WBL guidelines to the point that you're subverting your players' actions is really depowering from a player-involvement standpoint. Why should your players go out of their way to be creative about obtaining loot if they're just going to end up with the same thing either way?

Sure, you have to be careful to keep everyone at the right strength for the campaign but try not to be so baldfaced about it. If the players don't feel like they can influence the outcome of their characters it becomes very discouraging.

James makes a good point here in insisting on the distinction between provocation and opportunity because I believe it is important.

However, I must disagree that the rules are devoid of guidance on what constitutes an opportunity. The rules section on Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity says that each time an opponent provokes it represents a separate opportunity. So a separate opportunity is generated for every provocation regardless of how many actions are taken.

Using movement as an example of an action that can provoke multiple times is good because movement is specifically called out as only providing one opportunity despite provoking multiple times. That suggests that provoking multiple times otherwise would present multiple opportunities.

We're going in circles.

He does one thing.
Doing that thing, he provokes from condition 1.
Doing that thing, he provokes from condition 2.
Each time he provokes is a separate opportunity.

I don't think matching the alignment of the spell still enables a summoned creature to bypass a Protection from Evil spell.

...Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by evil summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Summoned creatures that are not evil are immune to this effect...

The most important thing I can stress is that you, as the GM, are no less a player than the rest of your group. You're in it to have fun too and you're not beholden to entertain your players at the expense of your own enjoyment. So don't stress out about it too much. You're all working together so everyone can have a good time.

And in that spirit, a suggestion: My own regular GM is pretty great but he can sometimes have a tendency to gloss over the details of certain things or needs prompting to really lay out a scene. So one thing that happens in my group that I think really enhances everyone's experience is that a couple of us will make up little details of our own that our characters observe. Nothing major. We'll invent a name for the apothecary's shop if one isn't mentioned or give an otherwise unremarkable NPC a distinguishing characteristic.

It's nice when not all of the exposition comes straight from the GM alone. It lightens his workload a little and it lets the players really own the experience. So maybe talk with your players and invite them to inject a little of their own imagination into the world.

It seems silly to me that the monk isn't just a full BAB class from the start. There are all of these patches and fills around it. Flurry works at full BAB, Monks do maneuvers at full BAB, a bunch of combat feats that are attractive to monks have a "BAB +X or Monk level X" requirement.

Just make them full BAB and that solves a lot of weirdness to start.

You can look at things like enhancement bonuses and try to price the thing out accordingly. But the way I see it, there are guidelines for designing an item that casts a spell and that's the simplest way to do it.

Take the venerable Hat of Disguise, for instance. It casts a specific first level spell at will. If we tried to break it down, like trying to equate the effect of True Strike to enhancement bonus, we'd be looking at a +10 skill bonus. With that kind of reasoning, the Hat of Disguise should cost 10,000 gold. Maybe more, since Disguise Self provides an untyped bonus.

But it doesn't cost 10,000 gold. It costs 1800. And it does that while closely following the item creation guidelines. Since it's basically just casting the spell, you still need to expend a standard action to activate it and you're still limited to a 10 minute duration as per the CL1 of the item.

A proposed Ring of True Strike ought to follow a similar pattern. It's a specific first level spell castable at will. Now you can argue that True Strike is a much more powerful or useful spell than Disguise Self and that may be true for a lot of campaigns. There's a reason the item creation guidelines aren't called item creation rules. You're free to limit it to a handful of uses per day or bump the price up to compensate. But if you start proposing that an item like this should cost tens of thousands of gold, you might as well just be saying that True Strike should be a 4th level spell or higher.

A standard action True Strike at will is not all that devastating. For most characters, it means one boosted attack roll every other round. And half of that character's rounds are spent not doing anything otherwise useful.

Now if you start speculating on what it would take to make it a swift action or faster, you're sailing off into uncharted territory. A use-action or continuous True Strike doesn't make sense by nature of the way the spell operates, that's pretty clear. And command word items are specifically activated as a standard action, not at the speed of whatever spell effect they emulate. There are no guidelines for making command word items that operate on a swift action. That's by design. Once you start handing out swift actions, things start getting way less predictable and way more abusable. Any speculation of what's balanced or fair is beyond the purview of the rules and relegated to homebrew.

My group has always used Summon Minor Monster/Nature's Ally for decoys, diversions, and tossing into suspected trapped areas. Not really all that useful for combat.

We also cut out the specific spell and just stuck the minor creatures into the a "level-0" tier on the summon list. So a Summon Monster I could get you 1d3 and a Summon Monster II could get you 1d4+1. Not needing to dedicate a whole spell slot to just minor creatures increases the frequency that they get summoned when a fun opportunity presents itself.

Lee and Karkon have the right of it. Command word activated items operate as if they cast a spell at their listed CL and they aren't subject to the price multiplier for continuous items. In exchange for them being cheaper, you have to expend a standard action every time you activate it.

The whole "how much damage do you inflict in a grapple" section of the rules is unclear on a few questions. I'd like some advice what the correct interpretation is.

First off, the relevant sections:

Grapple: Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).

and

Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.

( both CRB p. 200 )

and

Grab (Ex): A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).

( Bestiary 3, p. 295-296 )

---

Now, the section about the monster ability Grab would imply that after making a successful grapple check, you automatically inflict damage and then get to choose what else you want to do that round ( like moving, pinning, etc. ). However, one sentence before the phrase in question, it also says that a successful hold does not deal any extra damage.

What exactly would you think is the correct interpretation? Automatic damage or no damage after the successful grapple check?

It's referring to the initial attempt to establish the grapple. The initial grapple attempt that is triggered from Grab, if successful, doesn't deal any additional damage beyond the attack that triggered it. On subsequent rounds, if the grapple holds, you automatically deal the damage for that attack. If the creature also has Constrict, it does Constrict damage upon initially securing the hold as well as on subsequent rounds.

So if you've got a creature with Grab and Constrict, it would go something like this:
Creature rolls to attack with natural weapon with the Grab feature.
Creature hits --> deal damage for the attack as normal then roll for grapple attempt
Grapple succeeds --> creature automatically deals Constrict damage.

On subsequent rounds, the creature would spend a standard action to maintain the grapple at +5. If successful, it would automatically deal the damage of the attack with the Grab feature and the damage listed for the Constrict ability. Then, as part of the successful grapple maintenance action, it could additionally conduct any of the standard grapple events: deal additional damage with a light or natural weapon, reposition the enemy, pin, etc.