Only an Alchemist with the Grenadier archetype can do this:
"Alchemical Weapon (Su): At 2nd level, a grenadier can infuse a weapon or piece of ammunition with a single harmful alchemical liquid or powder, such as alchemist’s fire or sneezing powder, as a move action. This action consumes the alchemical item, but transfers its effect to the weapon in question. The alchemical item takes full effect on the next creature struck by the weapon, but does not splash, spread, or otherwise affect additional targets. Any extra damage added is treated like bonus dice of damage, and is not doubled on a critical hit. The alchemical treatment causes no harm to the weapon treated, and wears off 1 minute after application if no blow is struck. At 6th level, a grenadier can use her alchemical weapon ability as a swift action. At 15th level, this ability becomes a free action. This ability replaces poison resistance. "
You keep using the example of creatures with the evil subtype not counting their natural attacks as evil unless it says it does. But that is comparing apples and oranges. Adamantine is not a type or subtype of the golem. It is the physical stuff that the golem is made of. Things are not made out of evil. Evil doesn't exist on the list of special materials. So in order to tell when something qualifies for the evil quality it has to be called out.
Adamantine is a special material. Unlike intangible qualities like evil and good where you must possess an unobservable aura or essence of some kind to bypass DR, special materials grant the ability to bypass DR to whatever is made from them.
Chess Pwn wrote:
you know, if we're talking about removing things. If we took out the bomb class feature then why is Throw Anything referencing something that isn't there to say that THAT ability already include this one?
In most rules arguments here you have two sides trying to argue that logic dictates a specific interpretation of the text. I've never before seen a discussion where the text explicitly said something and the entire opposing argument is "Well what if the text didn't explicitly say that?"
Ok, so you want me to pretend like the text that explicitly says my argument is correct doesn't exist and then see if my argument holds up? "Your honor, yes there is a clause that explicitly states that if my client does not finish the work in the agreed time he will pay damages to the plaintiffs but we would like you to ponder if that clause didn't exist in the contract whatsoever would my client really have to pay them?"
The fact is that Throw Anything IS in the text and it DOES explicitly state, as ChessPwn has pointed out, that "This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature." Not just any bonus damage but THIS bonus damage, i.e. the bonus damage just mentioned.
So click the FAQ button. It's clearly ambiguous.
It isn't at all ambiguous unless you erase an entire portion of text from the book.
Ian Bell wrote:
I'm about 99% sure that line in the Throw Anything feature is just there to stop you from adding the bonus twice.
But you would be 100% wrong. It doesn't just say "this doesn't stack with the Bomb feature's bonus damage from Int". Instead it says explicitly in the Throw Anything (Ex) class feature that the feature's bonus, not a similar or separate bonus but the actual Throw Anything class feature's bonus, is included in the Bombs feature.
The mention of Int to damage in the Bombs feature, per the author's explicit explanation, is NOT some independent feature that Bombs have. The authors outright state they were applying Throw Anything when they mention it.
It is just mind boggling how people will try to ignore rules text and twist logic trying to get the rules to say what they want rather than what they actually say.
No, it is not. First, as you point out coup de grace does not say it is a death attack. Second, a coup de grace deals a large amount of damage and then a Fortitude save not to die even if you survive the damage not the other way around like a death attack.
1) No, cannot target specific points on a creature. The cutting free can only be done from the inside unless the creature is dead.
2) There are no rules for how long it takes to free a swallowed creature from a dead creature's stomach but it shouldn't take more than a coup de grace so a full round action. So at most they should suffer one final rounds worth of damage if any.
OP explicitly said the GM was allowing the Paladin to take the griffon as a bonded mount.
He recently took the leadership feat and the DM allowed him to have a Griffon as his cohort and is willing to let him use it as his bonded mount.
Getting it as a cohort is one thing but getting it as a bonded mount has other requirements. If it is just a cohort than it just gets the stats of the griffon in the bestiary. If he wants it to be a bonded mount then uses the rules for such.
Use the stats for the Griffon monstrous mount.
Griffon Monstrous Companion wrote:
You first need the Monstrous Companion feat to even qualify for a griffon. Then you need the Monstrous Mount Mastery feat for said griffon to be able to fly while you are mounted.
That is correct. If you were thinking I was arguing that point because in my earlier post I had stated their con would be 0 I'm not. I was wrong and now understand how constructs Con works.
They eyes are a construct. The spell specifically states that they are.
Prying Eyes wrote:
Each eye is a Fine construct, about the size of a small apple
I was just looking that up and apparently that isn't how it works for undead and constructs. Undead use their charisma score in place of Con and constructs are treated as having a 10 Con for purpose of Con based effects.
No Constitution score. Any DCs or other statistics that rely on a Constitution score treat a construct as having a score of 10 (no bonus or penalty).
No Constitution score. Undead use their Charisma score in place of their Constitution score when calculating hit points, Fortitude saves, and any special ability that relies on Constitution (such as when calculating a breath weapon's DC).
Edit: The spell says each eye is a "fine construct" so they would use the construct rules for running. So they are treated as having a 10 con meaning they can run for 10 rounds and then must make a con check using 10 as their con to continue running.
Because a creature without a Con score can run their Con score(0) rounds and then must make a Con check (which they don't have) to keep running.
PRD - Run wrote:
You can run for a number of rounds equal to your Constitution score, but after that you must make a DC 10 Constitution check to continue running.
Edit: Not saying they can't just that rule is the reason some think they can't.
I don't think that a haunt gets one, only incorporeal creatures do, because haunts don't have saves.
The text is clear about haunts not getting will saves vs channeled energy. I think they should have written that as haunts just don't get saves period but they didn't really anticipate a lot of spells that could target a haunt directly.
PRD - Dragon wrote:
Immunity to magic sleep effects and paralysis effects.
Note that it does not say immune to Paralysis. It says it is immune to paralysis effects plural.
Also if your reading were correct then Remove Paralysis would only work against the Paralysis(Ex or Su).
Immunity to paralysis prevents the paralyzed condition from any source. That is perfectly clear and requires no clarification as TriOmegaZero points out.
Items that require no action are those that just the normal use of the item results in the effect. Like drinking a potion or putting on a ring of protection. Normal use of a robe is wearing it. Just putting on the robe does not automatically launch needles. It requires more effort than just using the robe as a robe to do so. Therefore, it is a standard action.
The reason I am questioning it is because of "The needle counts as a thrown weapon with a range increment of 10 feet."
Yes, so any feats that apply to thrown weapons, such as distance thrower, apply to the attack made with the needle.
It is still a standard action to activate the robe and activating the robe still launches one needle and that one needle counts as a thrown weapon with a 10' range increment.
Blake Duffey wrote:
Well then the straightforward answer is that. Yeah a GM can make such a plot device and it is reasonable to do so depending on the scenario.
The new information that said plot device somehow resulted in at least one character being blown to bits while unable to use magic having all physical damage being redirected sounds like it may not have been so reasonable but that would require further information.
Also tell your GM to stop ripping off his ideas from old Star Trek episodes! LoL
Edit: Actually it sounds more like the A'dam from the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan.
Activating a magic item is a standard action that does not provoke AoOs unless specified otherwise. So it is a standard action to make the robe do whatever effect it says, in this case launch one needle.
I would, though, as a GM be inclined to houserule it so that you can throw multiple needles with the understanding that if any unintended consequences resulted, which I can't foresee happening with such a minor effect, then it would go back to the standard action for one needle.
Edit: Short answer is, normally a standard for one needle but ask your GM.
I did not say he was being a dick at all, or call him any names at all for that matter. I do believe he is being unreasonable and simply stated my opinion to that fact.
I believe that not because he simply disagrees but because his argument for his disagreement contains such an obvious logical absurdity that it cannot have been presented in good faith. Pointing that out isn't "being hostile".
So I stand by my position that he is coming here not looking for honest answers but to validate his position to try and force his GM to rule in his favor.
Blake Duffey wrote:
Everything in PF works as it does in the real world unless the rules specify or the GM decides otherwise. Sorry but the, "Yes I can squeeze through the keyhole of my cell with an escape artist check because this isn't the real world" answer is absurd.
You came here asking if your GM was justified in his ruling and just about everyone has given you the same answer, yes he is being reasonable. I know you are not satisfied with that answer because it does not get you what you want which you have now made obvious was your agenda for asking the question in the first place. You didn't accept your GMs reasoning and despite the fact that nearly everyone here has given you the same response you still refuse to accept that your position may be the wrong one.
That would still require having a tool to break it. As a GM I would not let a character just grab a steel collar and tear it in two with their bare hands. If they are being forced to do some kind of labor, like mining, such tools, like picks and hammers, might be readily available so that might not be an issue.
I wouldn't let them work on their own collar either, or at least would give a major penalty to do so because they can't see it adequately.
Your quote gives you the answer. It says to choose a type and gives the examples of wolves, not canines, or apes, not primates. So apparently you have to pick a specific type of animal like wolves, tigers, etc... or a very narrow group like apes, big cats, etc... but can't choose broad groups like felines or canines.
I realize this won't help your current predicament (unless you somehow level up and gain a feat while wearing the collar), but for future reference I believe Disable Dweomer is what you want.
Except then it might just become a normal seamless solid metal collar. There is no way to really slip out of that. So you are still stuck with the collar. If they are something like a shock collar that won't let you leave the area that only gives you 2d4 rounds to escape before they reactivate. If they are just trackers well 2d4 rounds won't get you very far ahead.
Are the collars enchanted to magically resize? If not a reduce person might allow an escape.
You are right! Had totally forgotten about that. Good catch.
A magical collar is not a trap and trapfinding only allows the disabling of magical traps not all magical devices of any kind. If the GM creates a door that is magically sealed and can't be opened without magic that is his call.
Also while PCs cannot create cursed items there is no rule against NPCs doing so.
Spoiler:So if the GM wants to create a society that has cursed collars for its prisoners again that is a reasonable GM call.
In fact there is a fey creature in the Reign of Winter that is baking cursed cookies.
I don't believe the rules specifically address it. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.
As a GM I would not allow such a temporary boost to apply to checks for skills that take significantly longer than the duration to perform.
N N 959 wrote:
Why should an animal companion get for free what it takes a familiar until level 7 to receive? Why should it get that ability at all since Paizo deliberately left that ability out for animal companions? Yes the familiar ability does have an impact but animal companions never get that ability. Allowing them to have any ability to communicate is beyond RAW but it seems to me giving them an ability on par with familiars would be wildly generous and unfair to those with familiars.
Also they don't get an upgrade to intelligence and they aren't magical beasts. They are still just animals.
I've accepted that it is reasonable for normal animals to be able to have some rudimentary communication but can't see any reason that communication should be anywhere nearly as useful as what a level 7 familiar can accomplish.
The issue is that the spell explicitly says it can be cast on "individual arrows and bolts", i.e. ammunition, meaning each casting only affects a single piece of ammunition. That is not enhancing ammo normally.
N N 959 wrote:
After this discussion I think I would allow very limited communication. For example, your bear companion could tell you that the bear confronting you is a mother warning you to stay away from her cubs but could not question said mother bear to find out if any "two-legs" had passed by recently.
At the time that was printed bats and dire bats, which the text specifically states all of them can speak to dire versions of their kind, were the only type of winged rodents. If in the future more types of winged rodents were added then the bat familiar would be able to speak to them as well.
I'm with N N 959 there are a couple of different ways that an individual GM could reasonably adjudicate this one.
N N 959 wrote:
Their intelligence doesn't matter. Type does though and you are right. They are magical beasts. Also I notice that the ability doesn't just allow them to speak with other animals of their exact type but with animals that are similar. So a fox familiar would be able to speak with wolves, coyotes, dogs, etc... So now I am on the fence about this one.
Gwen Smith wrote:
True seeing does specifically call out supernatural darkness.
PRD - True Seeing wrote:
The subject sees through normal and magical darkness
N N 959 wrote:
That is all genuinely interesting. However, none of that means anything in the game. In the game the fact that familiars need a special ability to communicate with others of their kind means that animals generally are unable to do so for game purposes.
You can draw ammunition as a free action. Thrown weapons are not ammunition.
I think your confusion is due to Shurikens being on the list. In Pathfinder they are treated as ammunition not thrown weapons, a fact which I really hate but that is RAW.
Both of you put forth exactly the points of view I had originally when I was looking at it. I was just trying to play devil's advocate to get extra value. Thank you both for concisely answering my question.
Gotta be careful advocating with them devils! They are sneaky bastards! Especially those Erinyes. Don't believe them at all when they try and get you to let them tie you up with their ropes. It never ends up being as fun as it sounds.
The weapons table tells you exactly what damage it is. Light shields with armor spikes generally do piercing damage but specific trumps general and the table specifically says it does slashing. So it does slashing and, because it counts as a light shield with armor spikes (notice it doesn't say it IS a light shield with armor spikes), you can use any feats that normally apply to light shields with armor spikes.
Natural 1s wrote:
Doesn't matter how many times the path intersects a creatures square that creature just counts as "in the path" and saves the one time.
So Wally the Wizard casts Aqueous Orb. As his move action he wills it to travel a 30' path in a straight line. After that path has been determined by Wally you ask, "Is anyone in that path?" Oh, Fred the Fighter is in that path so Fred gets a save not to be taken for a water ride.
Next Suzy the Sorcerer casts Aqueous Orb as well. As her move action she wills the orb to move back and forth between two squares. After that path has been determined by Suzy you ask, "Is anyone in that path?" Oh, Barry the Bard is in that path so Barry gets a save not to be taken for a water ride.