NekoRyuuki's page

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Sorry, but nocking is not a game term. If i am putting an arrow to a bowstring i must be doing so from somewhere, either a quiver, my hand, or the ground.

So you're saying that Nocking an Arrow (Not an Action) can encompass picking up an arrow off the ground (Move Action) and nocking it to the bowstring (Not an Action) as well as drawing a piece of ammunition (Free Action) and nocking it to the bowstring (Not an Action)?

Talk about action economy.

Ah, but you're forgetting this also includes drawing it from a Bag of Holding (which could take as long as a Full-Round Action) to put it to the string. And you might even be able to stop in combat, find a suitable tree branch, and whittle an arrow to then nock.

BigNorseWolf: The verb is "to set (an arrow) into the bowstring", not "to get an arrow from somewhere and then set it into the bowstring". Similar to the verb "lay". You lay a blanket on the grass. Retrieving the blanket from somewhere and THEN laying it on the grass is not the same.
Count your verbs. You're using one too many.

This whole issue surrounding Free Actions outside of your turn or as a part of another action reminded me of another question that I've been having for some time:

If a creature with Grab gets an AoO, and successfully lands the hit, is he allowed to make the Free Action to actually start the grapple? I had assumed he would, since it's all generally one cohesive attack, but perhaps I am wrong here?
"Grab (Ex): If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity."

And the same idea follows for a Harpoon on a critical hit (the Grappling Weapon Quality). I mean, the damn thing CRIT, it's probably buried in there, and possibly poking out the other side, but if the crit happened on an AoO, does that mean that the Harpoon was suddenly less effective because you don't get that Free Action to try the Grapple?
"Grapple: On a successful critical hit with a weapon of this type, you can grapple the target of the attack. The wielder can then attempt a combat maneuver check to grapple his opponent as a free action."
Is it written differently from the text in Disarming Strike intentionally?
"Benefit: Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack, you can disarm your opponent, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. If your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent’s CMD, you may disarm your opponent as if from the disarm combat maneuver. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity."
I'm concerned that the former states "Free Action", while the latter just says "you can", as if it doesn't take an action at all. Is this bad writing, or was that on purpose? Because the two effects feel like they should react the same way once the initial hit lands.

Then we get into the madness of Swift Actions. Would Dispelling Critical, for instance, have any effect on an AoO?
"Benefit: If you have dispel magic prepared or can cast it spontaneously, when you score a critical hit against an opponent, you may use a swift action to cast dispel magic to make a targeted dispel against that opponent."
Since "You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action."

Personally, I thought it was a rather elegant solution to say that Free Actions had to be used in conjunction with another action (excluding Free Actions as the latter). I had always assumed AoOs were a very limited and specific list of Standard Actions(though I have yet to find that list) that acted like Immediate, and so stacking a Free Action on it had always made sense to me, so long as you do the Free Action DURING its conjoined action.
For instance, if the spellcaster is casting Shocking Grasp next to you (not defensively), then that provokes your AoO. I would think, sure, you can trip him and drop your weapon simultaneously, but you can't hit him with your weapon and THEN drop said weapon.
And as long as you can't stack Free Actions on other Free Actions, you won't have people trying to cheat their way into AoOs with the "Drawing!" and quickdraw example. The only way to draw the weapon out of turn order would be by gaining a normal action to stack it on, and since you don't get the AoO if you don't already threaten, there's no triggering action there.

Not that my personal opinion actually helps anyone, since it's not at all official (though in my defense, I thought it was when I played by those rules). But if any devs happen to come across this post, at least I think it makes sense this way. :P

*All quoted text was taken from d20pfsrd.com, since I don't have the books yet. Hopefully, it is all unchanged from the actual book text.

Very debatable, and, as a GM, I would not allow any feat that gives anyone two Standard actions, as it is obscenely powerful. Which is also why things like the Belt of Battle was not legal for Living Greyhawk.

Yes and no, I think. I mean, yes, two attacks is nice, and super awesome at two different places on the board, but this means the flying creature gets one attack (say, a claw...woo), draws an AoO for flying out of the threatened area and still moving (and has to roll extra fly checks if hit), flies a short distance to get another single attack (maybe a beak this time...woo), and then ends its turn flapping right next to an enemy, who will now probably hit it (making it suffer through ANOTHER extra fly check). Assuming the flying creature managed to not die or fall out of the sky, its next turn goes about the same. Attack, Draw AoO, Attack, and wait to get hit. If this creature doesn't have an amazing AC, it's going to get slaughtered mid-air.

The best way to get a resaponse from the PTB is to mark a relevant post with the FAQ button to get them to take a look at th e issue, and hopefully, put an entry in the FAQ and/or errata/update the item to increase the clarity of the rule.

Thank you! I'll see if I can do that.

Remember that that first line is just the fluff, not the crunch of the feat.

And, in this case, whoever wrote that fluff wasn't paying attention to the crunch as well as they should have, or ran into an inversion issue.

It should probably (RAI) have the fluff of:
"This creature can move while flying both before and after making an attack."

Then again, the crunch wasn't written that clearly, either:
Benefit: When flying, the creature can take its standard action anytime during its movement. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.

Or, more appropriate:
Benefit: As a full round action, this creature can fly up to its movement speed, and perform a standard action at any point during the move. The creature can move by flying both before and after the standard action, but the total distance moved cannot be greater than its fly speed.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature may only take a standard action either before or after its move.

Though, there is another line in the Benefit that sways the argument toward my thinking:

Now, if we assume it means what you say it means (move and use a standard action at any time during said move, while being allowed to finish the move after), then pay extra attention to that second sentence of the Benefit: "The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack". This means that you cannot choose to make a second move action instead of the one standard action. Which means that you wouldn't be able to double move. What kind of feat would restrict that? That makes no sense, and in any case, there would be no benefit using the feat to double move, so why bother disallowing it?
I believe the intent was in saying that you could use a standard action, move, and make another standard action; however, you could not choose to replace one of those standards with a second move, which would give you a double-move AND a standard (basically acting as a more maneuverable charge with no penalties or bonuses).

Also notice the Normal example: it states that without this feat, the creature takes a standard action EITHER before, or AFTER its move.
It's an either/or. That pretty well states that WITH this feat, you don't have to make a choice between the two. You get to do both options. Otherwise it would have something closer to the Spring Attack Normal text which says "You cannot move before and after an attack" (clearly stating that WITH that feat, you get to move Before AND After).

Of course, this is a debate that I could see going nowhere very quickly, since I can see how it could be interpreted the way you describe, but it still seems obvious to me that it is as I described. If this is causing so much confusion, is there a way to get an official ruling on it? Just to set our minds at ease? A creator of the game, perhaps, or some PFS official? Is there a different channel I should be going through for clarity?

PRD wrote:

Entangle

..

Saving Throw: Reflex partial; see text ..

Creatures that fail their save gain the entangled condition. Creatures that make their save can move as normal, but those that remain in the area must save again at the end of your turn.

If the spell works, the oakling is probably entitled to a Reflex save even if he is the source of the entangling plant matter. If he fails, he becomes entangled.

But that doesn't make much sense. Even though the Oakling is the source of some of the entangling, the one reflex save dodges both the undergrowth and the Oakling's own branches, but does not inhibit the movement at all if successful? I mean, I assume the branches grow, and maybe the roots, so shouldn't that do SOMETHING to the Oakling's movement or maneuverability? And shouldn't the Oakling have some kind of Fortitude Save to avoid being grown like that in the first place? This spell would basically be acting like a Transmutation spell against the Oakling, after all.

Sorry for the double post, but this just occurred to me, a bit off-topic though it may be:
Does the feat "One With Wood" apply to an Oakling's Unarmed Strike, as well?

One with Wood

You can get more damage out of wooden weapons.

Prerequisite: Oakling.

Benefit: You gain a +2 competence bonus to damage rolls when using a weapon that is made of mostly wood (club, quarterstaff, greatclub, longbow, shortbow, or weapon made of special materials, such as darkwood.)

Entangle: doesn't seem to have any rule preventing it from affecting plant creatures. If it can, the plant creature would provide a valid target for the spell but would get a save or take the normal effect only.

Sorry, what do you mean by "get a save or take the normal effect only"? I understand that the Oakling would probably take the effects of being stuck in entangling plants (unless she were the only target, somehow), but I'm not sure what save you're referring to, and if failed, what the effect would be.

Otherwise, thank you both for the input! So Defoliate would be the only really problematic spell?

So I guess the only spells that actually affect Oaklings are the Speak With, Command, etc. Plants spells? Meaning that Oaklings are treated as Plant Creatures, and the description probably just accidentally omitted the word "creature" from "spells that affect plants"?

Okay, so forgive me if this is silly, but I had some questions about the Oaklings when they state in the description "They are affected by spells that affect humanoids and by spells that affect plants."
(Unfortunately, I'm working off of the D20pfsrd.com site and don't have any actual page numbers for reference, so please bear with me.)

Anyway, this brought up some interesting ideas to mind when I thought of playing an Oakling Monk (a grappling fiend). So let's continue (for space's sake, I'm not listing complete descriptions for the spells, rather, just the relevant portions):

Entangle: Effects: AREA plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread
"This spell causes tall grass, weeds, and other plants to wrap around foes in the area of effect or those that enter the area."
>Does this make the Oakling unplayable, as she is being grown against her will and can no longer move? Or would this add to Grapple checks? Would she need to make a save to resist being affected? This could either be a fantastic aid to an already formidable Grappler, or a complete debilitation.

Diminish Plants: Target or Area
"Prune Growth: This version of the spell causes normal vegetation within long range (400 feet + 40 feet per level) to shrink to about one-third normal size, becoming untangled and less bushy."
>Strangely, this one would make the most sense to be applicable to Oaklings, as it would just be a matter of "go down one size category", but the spell specifically states "has no effect on plant creatures". So why does it have "target" as an option? And does this mean every other plant-based spell DOES have an effect on plant creatures unless otherwise stated like in this one? For those keeping track, "Plant Growth" also does not affect Plant Creatures, according to the description.

Spike Growth: AREA one 20-ft. square/level
"Any ground-covering vegetation in the spell's area becomes very hard and sharply pointed without changing its appearance.
In areas of bare earth, roots and rootlets act in the same way. Typically, spike growth can be cast in any outdoor setting except open water, ice, heavy snow, sandy desert, or bare stone. Any creature moving on foot into or through the spell's area takes 1d4 points of piercing damage for each 5 feet of movement through the spiked area."
>Yes, it says "ground-covering", but it doesn't limit to "no plant creatures", and honestly, this would be awesome if it worked on an Oakling pre-Thorns. Though, come to think of it, could an Oakling be considered "ground cover"? Maybe if she's lying down?

Defoliate: Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
"You hurl a tiny ball of negative energy, destroying plant life either in a line 60 feet long or a 10-foot-radius spread. This effect removes the cover and concealment provided."
>My god, could a level 2 spell (Ranger lvl 1) KILL an Oakling?!

Wilderness Soldiers: Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
"You call on the plants nearby to aid you in combat. This spell is ineffective if no plants you can direct are within the area. You can spend a swift action and/or a standard action on each of your turns to direct one of the following attacks. The attack bonus or CMB for these attacks equals your base attack bonus + your Wisdom modifier. You grant a +1 bonus per three caster levels (maximum +5) on damage rolls due to this spell. Your wilderness soldiers never provoke attacks of opportunity, and they do not count as allies for flanking or other purposes.
Tree: A tree makes a melee attack with a 10-foot reach from its trunk. A hit deals an amount of damage equal to 1d8 points + your Wisdom modifier. The tree can instead attempt a bull rush, drag, or reposition combat maneuver with the same reach, but the tree cannot move itself."
>My instinct here is to say that it has no effect on plant creatures, but again, it doesn't say that anywhere. Though I suppose never provoking AoO might be nice...

Tree Stride:
"When you cast this spell, you gain the ability to step into a tree, magically infusing yourself with the plant. Once within a tree, you can teleport from that particular tree to another tree. The trees you enter must be of the same kind, must be living, and must have girth at least equal to yours. By moving into an oak tree (for example), you instantly know the location of all other oak trees within transport range (see below) and may choose whether you want to pass into one or simply step back out of the tree you moved into. You may choose to pass to any tree of the appropriate kind within the transport range as shown on the following table.
You may move into a tree up to one time per caster level (passing from one tree to another counts only as moving into one tree). The spell lasts until the duration expires or you exit a tree. Each transport is a full-round action.
You can, at your option, remain within a tree without transporting yourself, but you are forced out when the spell ends. If the tree in which you are concealed is chopped down or burned, you are slain if you do not exit before the process is complete."
>This feels so dirty to even ask, but really, can it affect my Oakling? I mean, if it can, then it would definitely be an incredibly intimate thing and one she wouldn't agree to lightly, but... I mean... if it's an emergency, can she be used as an escape? I mean...she is kinda Oaken... Note: "Transport via Plants" has a note that says it cannot be used to travel by way of Plant Creatures.

Wood Shape: TARGET one touched piece of wood no larger than 10 cu. ft. + 1 cu. ft./level; SAVING THROW Will negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)
"Wood shape enables you to form one existing piece of wood into any shape that suits your purpose. While it is possible to make crude coffers, doors, and so forth, fine detail isn't possible. There is a 30% chance that any shape that includes moving parts simply doesn't work."
>According to the Oakling description, they are made of wood: "The oakling’s grayish-brown, bark-covered torso is much like a tree trunk; round and uniform. From their backs and shoulders sprout branches that meander off several feet above their total height (making them appear even taller). The heads of the oaklings are simple wooden orbs." So according to this spell, she gets a Will Save to negate, but if she fails, can be made into something else entirely?

Ironwood:
>Okay, this has no actual effect unless you're crafting with wood already, but if Wood Shape works on Oaklings, it would fit that Ironwood could, as well. Thus, you could, theoretically, remake an Oakling into an Ironwood Oakling. I mean, neat concept, but I'm probably wrong here, aren't I? (assuming you had a level 40 Druid...)

Okay, those are all the spells I can think of. If nothing else, this thread may just spark some interesting conversations. Anyways, any help anyone can give me would be appreciated, and again, sorry if I'm missing something really obvious (like if there's actually a group of spells somewhere with the header: "Will Affect Plant Creatures").
And I know Oaklings aren't PFS accepted yet, but I'm about to take this character into a campaign with a DM who likes to break things...and abusing an obscure Plant spell is something I wouldn't put past him. As is, he's already punishing my character by making her take her first level as "Oakling", so no class for a level. Woo.

NekoRyuuki wrote:

"This creature can make an attack before and after it moves while flying.

Prerequisite: Fly speed.
Benefit: When flying, the creature can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature takes a standard action either before or after its move."

I think you misunderstood the feat. From the feat text you quoted, it explicitly says you may take your attack anytime DURING your move.

So, as an example, say the flyer has a fly speed of 60'

Yes: Move 30', attack, move the other 30' of its move

No: Move 60', attack, move 60'

Yes: Move 20', attack, move 40'

I think the problem is that the word "another" is used, and should have been "uses its" instead. So, like Spring Attack and Ride-By Attack, it allows the attack in the middle of the single Move action, but does NOT grant another Standard action above and beyond the normal one.

Yes, that does sound like what the move portion of it is saying, but look at the first line: "This creature can make an attack before and after it moves while flying."

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Karui and james,

I was just looking at the descriptions of those feats and Fly-by is sort of the opposite of both Ride-by and Spring Attack. Ride-by and Spring Attack both say you can move, then attack, then move again. Fly-by says that you attack, then move, then attack again. So Fly-by allows two attacks with a move in between, while the others let you move to a target, attack, and then move away. Fly-by is also not a charge movement the way Ride-by is.

I think that's just poor wording. The "Normal" text is that you have to take a standard action before or after your move. The Benefit text is... a bit strange, for sure, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow two standard actions during a move. Otherwise you'd have flying casters with that feat casting two spells per move. :S

Are you sure about that? The text I'm looking at makes it seem pretty clear that it's a regular turn with an extra Standard Action in there.

"This creature can make an attack before and after it moves while flying.
Prerequisite: Fly speed.
Benefit: When flying, the creature can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature takes a standard action either before or after its move."

I mean, the feat description says it right there: extra attack. Granted, the wording of the Benefit is a little off (it makes it sound like you get to attack, then move, pause and attack, and finish the move, which I doubt was the intent), but the last line of the same blurb also states that you CANNOT use this feat as a Move-Attack-Move kind of ability (so it would not work like Spring Attack).
And I don't think we're in danger of having spellcasters taking the feat to cast two spells per turn, since it's a monster-only feat.

Though I would like to get an official ruling on this and Spring Attack for flying animal companions for my PFS character. Especially since Spring Attack seems to refer to all movement, and not just land speed.

Also, sorry for posting on what appears to be a dead post, but this was the only Roc discussion I could find that had pertinent information to what I needed. :/