Orc

Muzzy's page

Organized Play Member. 90 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

From the SRD:

Each round the target suffers excruciating pain and takes 2d6 points of nonlethal damage, 1 point of Dexterity damage, and 1 point of Constitution damage, and its speed is reduced by 10 feet. Once per round as a free action on its turn, the target can attempt a new Fortitude saving throw to resist the spell for 1 round.

My question is, are these effects cumulative? So round 1 the target fails to save and takes 2d6 nonlethal damage, 1pt dex damage, 1pt con damage and speed reduced by 10 feet. On round two does the target take additional nonlethal and ability damage? Is it's movement reduced by 20 feet total now?

Furthermore if the target resists for one round, what happens to the ability damage and speed reduction on the following round? Does it reset to 0, or does it pick up where it left off?


Halfling Investigator with the Helpful trait and a reach weapon. You don't need to have a big BAB, because you're only trying to hit AC10 in order to grant your allies either a +4 to hit or a +4 AC per round from the Aid Another action.

At level 3 you can get the Effortless Aid talent. Now you can drop Aid Another two or three times per round, even on the same target. Since Aid Another is an untyped bonus it is supposed to stack. So now you've got options. Give an ally +12 to hit, or give the wizard a +12 to AC to avoid being hit. Or give three allies +4 to hit, or give one ally +4 to hit and +8 to AC.


From the Advanced Class Guide Playtest 2:

ACG wrote:

Effortless Aid (Ex): The investigator can perform aid

another actions as a move action instead of a standard
action. An investigator can expend one use of inspiration
to instead perform an aid another action as a swift action.
Spending inspiration in this way is a free action.

Does this mean that an Investigator with this talent can perform multiple Aid Another actions in the same round? RAW, it seems like you could perform one as a move action, and another as a standard action. Or you could perform three aid another actions by spending inspiration.


  • Someone's breaking the law and creating intelligent undead.
  • Urgathoa worshippers are trying to locate the pieces to re-assemble a lich phylactery.
  • The Church of Pharasma is leading a campaign to eradicate the use of the undead in Kaer Maga.


Read the Jade Regent to get some ideas of why a Monk might be in Sandpoint. Not to spoil it, but he might be on a mission to protect someone.


See if you can get the Cleric's backstory to change slightly such that his mentor was Ezakien Tobyn, the cleric who died in the fire which destroyed the previous temple.

You could drop hints that the Sorceresses father and might also be the father of Tsuto Kaijitsu.

Rogue character's mentor should be a member of the Sczarni.


Awesome. Thank you.


The CRB says this about Natural Weapons:

CRB wrote:
All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons they gain from their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon.

But I am unable to find any rules regarding proficiency of natural weapons as the result of class features such as the Alchemist's Feral Mutagen, the Barbarian's Beast Totem, multiple Sorcerer's Bloodline Powers, etc.

It seems that, RAW, any character using natural weapons they receive as the result of a class feature would have to take a -4 penalty to attack rolls. The only class which is an exception to this is the Druid class which has proficiency with all natural weapons.

Is my interpretation of the rules correct?


No idea how the post got copied three times. I certainly didn't intend to do that.

My confusion stems from the apparently incorrect understanding that if you channeled negative energy, you couldn't case cure spells. If that's wrong, then yes... the question is moot.


Can a cleric of Irori or Pharasma channel negative energy, but also cast cure spells if they pick the Healing Domain? I realize that their spontaneous casting will always be for inflict instead of cure, but does this extend to the domain spells as well?


Today I Learned: You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus.

Which diminishes my plans for an Abyssal Bloodrager or a Beast Totem Barbarian, because after level 5 you won't gain any additional attacks. I'm stumped to find a feat or special ability which breaks this restriction and allows a player to gain additional attacks for a high base attack bonus. Unless Vestigial Arm somehow allows this, but it doesn't appear to.

So are natural attacks worthless after level 5 for a full-BAB class?


I like the idea of making a spellcraft check every time you cast a spell. If you roll low, something bad happens. Your fireball does 1/2 damage, or your alter-self spell changes gender. If you roll high, something good happens. You might be able to add a metamagic feat for free, or your enlarge person spell makes the target huge instead of large. The key is to make magic unpredictable.


I've become a tent card convert. I find them to be terribly useful around the table. Unfortunately I'm not finding designs which I like, so I've created a few of my own. I'd love to get some feedback on these designs:

Four Tent Card Designs


Cheapy wrote:
Because the Inquisitor is already filling that role...

How so? Inquisitors don't have trapfinding, or sneak damage, or anything else I associate with the rogue class. Instead it has judgements, banes and teamwork feats. That sounds like a Paladin/Cavalier hybrid to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a general feedback issue here, but I'm disappointed that the Advanced Class Guide doesn't feature a Cleric/Rogue hybrid. Using the base four classes (Fighter, Mage, Thief, Cleric) we have hybrids using all the other combinations, whether from this book or the other manuals. But nowhere do I find a class that can heal/buff and disarm traps. Why is this combination always forgotten?

Certainly the gods need followers who can spy on the other gods, or steal from them, or sabotage them... you get the point.


Without Improved Overrun, the target has the choice to let you pass or stop you. Either choice results in an AOO from the target.

Scenario 1: The target does not let the player pass. The target gets an AOO. After that resolves, the player exceededs the CMB roll by 5, so the target falls prone and the players movement can continue to it's max. Moving past the second target now requires an acrobatics roll, and triggers another AOO from both Kobolds with bonuses for flanking.

Scenario 2: The target allows the player to pass. The overrun attempt is spent. The player can continue to move past the second target, but that requires an acrobatics roll, and triggers another AOO from both Kobolds with bonuses for flanking.

Without some other kind of feat or special ability, the player can only overrun a single target. See: Charge Through for an example.

If the player can't continue past the second target, the player has to stop at the nearest safe square, which would be in front of the first target. Although a DM might see it as you pushing one of the kobolds into a safe adjacent square. See rules about Bull Rush or Tumbling/Acrobatics to see how this ought to work.


I have often wondered about this myself. If you search you'll find a number of threads on this with no clear answer to the discrepancy. My advice: house rule it however you feel makes sense.


Can't believe no one has mentioned Combat Manager yet. Free, constantly updated, and the developer is super passionate about the game.

http://combatmanager.com


Crafting. It's a total mess. It shouldn't be so complicated.


Ugh, I am trying to wrap my head around the crafting rules and having a hard time. I'm unable to find a simple FAQ. Can someone tell me if I have these calculations correct?

Assume character is a level 5 wizard, 17 INT with a Craft (Alchemy) score of 10, and a Spellcraft of 10.

If the Character were to try to craft a flask of Acid (1d6 damage, 1 use, 10gp list price).

First they would need to acquire 1/3rd the list price for raw materials. In this case, 34 sp. The DC to complete this task is 15. d20 + craft vs DC 15. Lets assume the player rolls a 5, just matching the DC and succeeding.

Now I have to multiply that result and the DC of the craft (15 x 15 = 225)and then divide that answer by the list price of the good in silver pieces (10gp = 100sp, 225 / 100sp = 2.25). Then divide 7 by that value to determine how many days it took to complete (7 / 2.25 = 3.11 days).

So lots of arithmetic to determine that it took the character 3.11 days to turn 3.4 gp worth of raw materials into a single flask of acid worth 10gp on the open market.

Conversely, if the Wizard was going to craft a wand of acid splash (1d3+1, 50 uses, 375gp list price), that would require the Craft Wand feat, and either spellcraft or some applicable craft skill.

The DC would be 5 + the caster level (1), for a DC of 6. With a spellcraft of 10, it's impossible to fail the DC check. So lets move on to costs.

The cost is listed as 375gp * spell level * caster level. (375gp * 0.5 * 1 = 187.5gp) And the list price is double that.

The time to craft is 8 hours per 1000gp in the list price. 375gp/1000gp * 8 hours = 3 hours.

Do I have this right? This seems really off. Why does it only take 3 hours to make a wand, vs. 3 days to make a flask of acid? Why do non-magic items have a cost of 1/3, while magic items have a cost of 1/2?

I can't help but wonder if I don't "get it" or if this system is just broken (for Alchemical creations at least). The DC to create a sunrod is 25, but a wand of light is 6? When a caster reaches level 5 they're pretty much assured to pass the DC on a wand of light... but they'd have to roll a 15 to pass the DC check to create a sunrod.


Assuming you are a cleric of the fire domain, some of your domain spells are arcane (i.e. Fireball). Do you have to roll for arcane spell failure when wearing armor? Or are these spells considered to be divine even though they are normally arcane?


From the rules on Panther Parry:

"...If your retaliatory unarmed strike deals damage to an opponent, that opponent takes a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls with the triggering attack of opportunity."

Panther Claw, a pre-req for Panther Parry, allows you multiple retaliatory strikes. Does the -2 penalty on attack and damage rolls stack? i.e. If a player manages to deal damage to an opponent twice with retaliatory strikes, does the opponent take a -4 penalty on attack and damage rolls for the AOO?


skuro wrote:


Am I correct?

I believe so, except that the +9/+4/-1's are melee attacks or Disarm/Sunder/Trip maneuvers only.


Normally a Monk can spend 1 point from his ki pool to make one additional attack at their highest attack bonus when making a flurry of blows attack. Does this apply to Flurry of Maneuvers for the Maneuver Master Monk subclass as well? RAW indicates that it does not - but I'm hoping that there might be some errata on this.


Jiggy wrote:


Doesn't really help if he wants to do the tripping on his own turn.

Not on the first turn, no. On the subsequent turns, yes.


If you're looking to avoid being knocked prone by failing a trip attempt, consider the "Monk of the Sacred Mountain" subclass. At 4th level they get this:

Bastion Stance (Ex)

At 4th level, a monk of the sacred mountain becomes like stone, nearly impossible to move when he stands his ground. If the monk starts and ends his turn in the same space, he cannot be knocked prone or forcibly moved until the start of his next turn, except by mind-affecting or teleportation effects. At 16th level, he is immune to any attempts to force him to move, even mind-affecting and teleportation effects.

This ability replaces slow fall.

Monk's make better trippers than Fighters. Every flurry attack can be a trip attempt. They can get Ki Throw at level 10 for free. You'll definitely want Earth Child Style feat tree so that you can trip Huge and Giant sized opponents.

Nothing like watching a little Gnome Monk topple and ki-throw a giant into another space.


So I can assume similar rulings with regards to Clay Golems and Disintigrate, Glass Golems and Shatter or Keen Edge, Wood Golems and Wood Shape... etc, etc.

Does this exception also apply to spells like "Apparent Master" or "Control Construct"? Both of which can be resisted, yet specifically mention Golems in their description?


The Stone Golem description has the following text:

Quote:


A stone to flesh spell does not actually change the golem's structure but negates its damage reduction and immunity to magic for 1 full round.

However, the spell "Stone to Flesh" can be resisted. Golems are immune to any magic spell which can be resisted. Furthermore the Stone to Flesh spell has a fortitude saving throw to negate. All Golems have the construct trait which makes them immune to anything which requires a fortitude save.

It seems to me that the Stone Golem is doubly protected against the Stone to Flesh spell. So what's the deal? Is Stone to Flesh an exception to the Golem & Construct immunities? Are there any other spells which get an exception against Golems and Constructs?


WYRDMYND wrote:
Can a monk with medium armor preficiency get his flurry of blows while wearing armor?

No. Get some Monk's Robes, Bracers of Armor, Amulet of Natural Armor and Rings of Protection. A Belt of Dexterity wouldn't hurt either. A headband of Wisdom would work too, since Monk's get to add their Wisdom bonus to their AC.


This came up in our game session this past weekend. A mid-level Cleric attempted to use his Artificer's Touch domain ability on a Flesh Golem. The DM ruled that since the Golem is immune to magic, and the Artificer's Touch is a spell-like ability, that the Golem must be immune to Artificer's Touch.

I don't disagree with the logic, but I'm wondering if there is a FAQ which covers this. Artificer's Touch seems designed specifically for use against constructs such as Golems. Is this supposed to be a supernatural ability instead of a spell-like ability? There are very few constructs which aren't Golems. Denying this ability for use against Golems seems like a mistake to me.


This is one downside of the Master of Many Styles archetype. Pretty much any other Monk variant can get Medusa's Wrath as a bonus feat at level 10.


Seraphimpunk wrote:
i house rule monk weapons to always use monk unarmed strike damage as they progress. otherwise there's not much point of a high level monk touching a weapon.

Sai, Nunchauku, etc get a nice +2 bonus to disarm attempts.

Kusarigama gets reach... Mmm... Flurry with Reach.

There are always reasons to have a monk weapon even when your unarmed strike damage is bigger.


nosig wrote:
Will Truestrike work with a Disarming attack with a whip?

Yes, it will work with a whip or any other weapon you attempt a disarm with... including an untrained unarmed strike.

However it is a +20, not a natural 20. So you're not getting an automatic success. And a natural 1 will still automatically fail, even with the +20 insight bonus.


SPCDRI wrote:

It is strong, and there are ways around it though. One of the easiest would I think be things that are immune to fear and mind effecting abilities, if the Dazzling Display/Thug and all that stuff comes into play.

Advanced Ghouls and Ghasts won't be too terribly frightened. Nor would constructs, plants, thing explicitly immune to fear, etc.

Might be fun to scare the guy who is scaring everybody!

You know what's really great about this idea? Undead are immune to non-lethal damage too.

I think it's time for your players to battle a necromancer or nest of vampires.


Those frightened opponents should be running into the next room and alerting re-enforcements. Heck, they ought to be running around the entire building/dungeon alerting re-enforcements.


Darksmokepuncher wrote:
Let me ask you this: Why would the line about disarming without a weapon be in the book if it wasn't supposed to have a different outcome from a standard disarm?

I can't speak for Riggler, but I have have asked myself this same question about unarmed disarm attempts.

As for your question, I would answer that with a "standard" disarm, the player already has their hands full with their own weapon, so of course they couldn't pick up the disarmed weapon for free.

Your interpretation of the rules, and honestly I can understand your interpretation, works if you assume that a disarm attempt is just grabbing the weapon. How is that supposed to work with a dagger exactly? How do you grab a wielded dagger with your bare hands and not injure yourself? A spear, an axe, a club... sure, I can see you grabbing the weapon there. But a double-edged dagger? No, in this case a disarm attempt is done some other way. Such as striking the hand or wrist that holds the dagger. In that situation the weapon would fall to the ground. That's why I've wondered about this rule. Again, I can't speak for Riggler (even though we look alike).


Jiggy wrote:
It's pretty obvious that no one is picturing the item flying from one set of hands from the other - we're talking about someone grabbing the item and pulling it out of the other person's grip. If you can't consider the topic without trying to present your opposition's view in the most ridiculous light possible, then there's not much point in discussing it with you.

On the contrary, I can think of situations where the disarm isn't grabbing the item at all. You could be kicking the weapon out of the hand. You could be hitting a pressure point which makes them open their hand and drop the weapon. You could, as is often seen in many films & television shows, grabbing your opponents arm and smashing their hand into a wall and making them drop their weapon.


Riggler wrote:
Yes, Jiggy. I was being a bit smug. I thought it appropriate given your first response, which came off as sounding pointless and non-helpful.

+1, and not just because we share an avatar. I find Jiggy's comment about "being smug" ironic given the smugness of his first answer.


Is there an off-hand penalty for making an unarmed strike as a standard action / single melee attack while the monk has a weapon in their primary hand?


I think I'm being overly dense on the subject of Flurry of Blows, and I'm unable to find a FAQ which answers my questions.

If you are a medium sized level 1 monk with a Sai...

A: When flurrying does your first attack have to use the Sai? Or can you use Unarmed Strike for all attacks?

B: When making a standard attack or a single melee attack (i.e. Attack of Opportunity) do you have to use the Sai, or can you opt to use your unarmed strike instead?

C: If your primary weapon was a quarterstaff instead of a Sai, would you get twice as many flurry attacks because it is a double weapon?


SKR's latest blog post answers this subject.

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom

Quote:


Update: On page 106 of the Advanced Player’s Guide, Polearm Master, Sweeping Fend ability, delete the second sentence. Replace the first sentence with “At 13th level, a polearm master can use any spear or polearm to make bull rush maneuvers, though he takes a –4 penalty on combat maneuver checks when making such attempts. When using a spear or polearm to make a trip maneuver, he treats these weapons as if they had the trip weapon feature.”

Although, if you can trip with a spear - I'm not sure why you couldn't bull rush with a spear.

What I absolutely love about the new ruling is this:

Quote:


If you’re using a weapon with the trip special feature, and you’re attempting a drag or reposition combat maneuver (Advanced Player’s Guide 321–322), you may apply the weapon’s bonuses to the roll because trip weapons are also suitable for dragging and repositioning.


SKR's latest blog post answers this subject.

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trikk wrote:


Please read your links before throwing them up in the thread.

Using any non-trip weapon is the same as tripping without a weapon, as the updated FAQ clearly states.

Oh jeez, not this again. Read the thread, and you'll see that SKR says that you can trip with a spear even though it is not a trip weapon. I'm not talking out of my back pocket here, I'm quoting one of the designers of the game.

From the FAQ:

Quote:


If you want to make a trip combat maneuver, do you have to use a weapon with the trip special feature?

No. When making a trip combat maneuver, you don't have to use a weapon with the trip special feature. For example, you can trip with a longsword or an unarmed strike, even though those weapons don't have the trip special feature...

You can trip with a longsword or an unarmed strike. It's not tripping as an unarmed strike, it's tripping with the longsword.

From the Thread:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


..."You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks" does not mean "You can't use a non-trip weapon to make trip attacks." There's nothing in the Trip combat maneuver description that says you have to use a weapon with the trip special ability...

...Why is tripping with a longspear a broken combo? If you fail by 10, you're tripped, and on his turn your enemy can step up and full attack your unarmed prone dirt-biting regretful self...

You can trip with any weapon, including a spear. Tripping with a reach weapon can be done at reach, otherwise SKR wouldn't have said that the enemy could step up after a failed trip attempt.


Trikk wrote:


Unarmed trip = longsword (or insert any weapon here) trip

Unarmed trip = ranged weapon trip

Therefore you cannot trip at range. You can only trip as far as your unarmed reach goes or as long as your trip quality weapon can reach.

The weapon does not help you make the trip unless it has the trip property, i.e. none of the enhancements, abilities or effects of the weapon applies on trip attempts.

No. The corrected FAQ by SKR demonstrates that you can trip with any weapon.

Updated FAQ

You can read more about it in this thread


The rulebooks say this about Spell Resistance:

Quote:


Spell resistance does not stack, but rather overlaps.

Which is great, because stacking Spell Resistance would be very powerful. However the rulebook doesn't spell out how that overlap works exactly. Lets assume you have a Dwarf Monk, level 13. Lets also assume that this Dwarf has the alternate racial trait of Magic Resistance.

His racial trait gives him spell resistance of 5 + Level (Total: 18). At level 13 he gains the Monk ability of Diamond Soul, which gives him 10 + Level (Total: 23) spell resistance.

Mr. Evil Wizard decides to cast Magic Missile on our Dwarf friend. Now what happens? As I can see it, there are two possibilities:

1: Mr. Evil Wizard makes a roll to overcome the SR of 23. If successful the Dwarf takes some 1d4+1 damage. Otherwise the Dwarf has resisted and no damage is dealt.

2: Mr. Evil Wizard makes a roll to overcome the SR of 18. If successful, Mr. Evil Wizard has to make another roll to overcome the SR of 23. If successful the Dwarf takes some 1d4+1 damage. Otherwise the Dwarf has resisted and no damage is dealt.

Which is it?


Seraphimpunk wrote:
fozbek wrote:


No.
yes

Actually, no. As Gilfalas explained, a Human doesn't have a defensive training ability, and therefore can't have it boosted. It's not just a +0, it doesn't exist.

Lets say there's an ability or feat which allows arcane spell casters to add a +1d6 to their fireball damage, and some loophole or archtype allowed you to take it without any prerequisites. Would you expect a barbarian or cleric with that feat to be able to cast a 1d6 fireball now? Of course not. It's the same thing.

Lets say there's an ability or feat which grants you +2 damage when using a dagger. Should you be able to deal 2 pts of damage when unarmed and not holding a dagger? No. Because the damage boost only works when you have a dagger. Again, it's the same thing as the defensive training. You don't have it, therefore it can't be boosted.

You asked a question and got an answer you didn't want. If you don't like the answer, have a house rule for your own games. But don't be a jerk just because people aren't telling you what you want to hear.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Any FAQ issue that results in a change in the rules is updated in the next printing of the book. That's why we've started using the "Update: blah blah blah" note on some of the FAQ entries.

Will there be an update to the level 13 ability of a Polearm Master too?


Nimon wrote:


You can still use it though, and since a range weapon can only be used at range, it is the only option. You can not trip somone adjacent to you, but you can at range of the weapon. Now if they are considering the range to be to much of a benefit, are they then saying you can trip someone adjacent to you when holding a polearm? In which case that means I threaten adjacent squares which is more of a game breaker in my opinion, but i'll take it.

Polearm Masters, which are the subject of this thread, can attack adjacent squares with their polearm.

Pole Fighting (Ex)

At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets. This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd.

This ability replaces Bravery.


A super-big "Thank You" to Sean for clarifying this issue and the intent of the FAQ.

Now, while we have your ear, can you tell us how that affects the Polearm Master Fighter Archtype's ability at level 13:

PRD wrote:


Sweeping Fend (Ex): At 13th level, a polearm master can use any spear or pole arm to make a bull rush or trip maneuver, though he takes a –4 penalty to his CMB when making such attempts. Weapons with the trip property do not incur this penalty on trip maneuvers. This ability replaces weapon training 3.

If any spear/polearm can be used for tripping at reach, then the level 12 fighter has no penalty, but at level 13 she gets a -4 penalty.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'm considering dipping 1 level of Druid (Frog Domain) to get the Sticky Strike ability. Being able to cast Magic Fang on myself would be a nice bonus, but what about Stone Fist?

PRD wrote:


DESCRIPTION

This spell transforms your hands into living stone. While this spell is in effect, your unarmed strikes do not provoke attacks of opportunity and deal 1d6 points of lethal bludgeoning damage (1d4 if you are Small). In addition, your unarmed strikes ignore the hardness of any object with a hardness less than 8.

Does the 1st level Druid Spell "Stone Fist" stack with a Monk's Unarmed Damage? Would I retain my Monk Unarmed Damage, or would my unarmed damage now be 1d6?

Being able to ignore hardness would be a nice addition to sunder attempts.

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>