Lassiviren

OldSkoolRPG's page

Organized Play Member. 737 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Somewhat related question. The spell says that the upper end is fastened but nothing about the bottom being attached to anything. Is there anything preventing those within the space from pulling up the lower part of the rope to prevent anyone else from climbing up?


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. "


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

A golem is not a weapon, it is a creature. So none of your arguments there apply, Atarlost.

Creatures don't bypass DR unless it is specifically called out in their stat block. There are PLENTY of evil creatures. Not all of them bypass DR/Evil, despite being evil.

As I said...thematically, it's fine, although it makes them a castle crusher (because if you let them bypass DR because they are 'made of' adamantine, they should also bypass hardness, right?).

But, BY THE RULES, the answer is no, they do not, because it is not in their stat block as a creature. If they were meant to count as adamantine, it would be listed as such.

Soooo...just put adamantine gauntlets on your golem and solve the problem.

==Aelryinth

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?"


Rub-Eta wrote:


@OldSkoolRPG: Ponder removing the Throw Anything class feature from the Alchemist entierly, no mentioning of it what so ever. Would the Alchemist not gain Int to bombs' damage, eventhough it's mentioned in the Bomb class feature? How is it that one class feature can redefine another without explicitly stating "this ability changes X"? No other rules like this comes to mind.

I'm pretty sure that Throw Anything is only supposed to add damage to splash weapons. Coincidentally, bombs are splash weapons. But that doesn't mean that Throw Anything is the only source of Int to bomb damage within the class (just like how loosing Slashing Grace wouldn't exclude the Dex to damage gained by agile weapons).

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.

thejeff wrote:
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.


DmRrostarr wrote:

I can't find anything searching the message boards but is coup de grace a "death attack" under the glossary explanations?

Specifically from the PRD:
"In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the effect, but if the save fails, the creature takes a large amount of damage, which might cause it to die instantly.
• Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive.
• In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score.

It seems to fit the criteria, but under coup de grace it says nothing that it is.

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.


Right. Completely agree.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
OldSkoolRPG 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.
Isn't that feat for animal companions gained through a class feature? He's getting his as a cohort, so I don't think it's needed. Good source for stats though. I would use the 7th-level version from the get-go.

OP explicitly said the GM was allowing the Paladin to take the griffon as a bonded mount.

OP wrote:
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:

[PFS Legal] Griffon

Source Inner Sea Combat pg. 14 (Amazon)
Monster Entry Link

Prerequisites Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Handle Animal 5 ranks; Ride 5 ranks
Starting Statistics: Size Large; Speed 30 ft., fly 40 ft. (average; unable to carry a rider while flying); AC +4 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6); Ability Scores Str 16, Dex 15, Con 16, Int 5, Wis 13, Cha 8; Special Qualities darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, scent; Languages Common (cannot speak).

7th-Level Advancement: AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6), 2 talons (1d6); Speed 40 ft., fly 80 ft. (average; unable to carry a ride while flying); Ability Scores Str +2, Con +2; Special Attacks pounce, rake (1d6).

Mastery (7th Level) The griffon can carry a rider while flying, but reduces its fly speed by half while doing so.

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.


Snowlilly wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:

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

Per quoted rules: Constructs do not have a Con score and use a value of 10 for their constitution should a check be required.

Not having a constitution score is not equivalent to having a zero Con.

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.


Snowlilly wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

The eyes don't have a Con (0), they simply don't have a Con score.

Like undead or constructs, they would not be required to make a Con check.

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.

Construct wrote:
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).
Undead wrote:
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).

Then given the constitution rules

Quote:
A character with a Constitution score of 0 is dead.

We must do one of the following:

1. Treat the eyes as a construct

Quote:
•Constructs do not have a 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).

2. Rule that the eyes instantly die upon being summoned.

3. Hand wave the concept of constitution rules applying to spells not otherwise stated.

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


Snowlilly wrote:

The eyes don't have a Con (0), they simply don't have a Con score.

Like undead or constructs, they would not be required to make a Con check.

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.

Construct wrote:
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).
Undead wrote:
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.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Aha, the mithril golem has the Run feat, so I conclude they can. No hint as to how long; I'm going to say "forever."

That would make sense. I mean a construct isn't going to get tired right?


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:


2) Why would lack of a Con score mean a creature couldn't run? Good question. I would hope so but RAW apparently not.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yossarian wrote:
Not everything has to come down to dice rolls and explicit game mechanics.

<gasp> Shun the non-believer! Shun! Shuuuuuuuun!


A level 1 splash of Strangler Brawler lets you deal sneak attack damage on a successful grapple check to damage or pin and opponent.


No, a lance is in the Two-Handed Melee Weapon category. It just happens to have a special property that allows you to wield it single handed while mounted though you normally could not do so but it never becomes a one-handed weapon.


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.


Firebug wrote:
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.


zanbato13 wrote:
Then which is it?

Either an individual type or a narrow group. It is your choice. So you can choose Tigers. Or you can choose cats, big. You can't choose felines.


Blake Duffey wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
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.

You misunderstand the situation. The session was played, the character blown to bits. I have no plans to try to 'force my GM' to do anything.

I presented what I feel is a straightforward scenario - if i put this contrived 'magical bondage device' on a PC, is there no option for removing it? Said device apparently prevents spellcasting and reflects all physical damage at the wearer.

Apparently there is a consensus about the scenario. That's fine, I simply don't agree with that consensus. I would think some use of disable device, escape artist, use magic device, or some skill I'm not not considering might be useful.

That's all.

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

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708466/

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.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
OldSkoolRPG 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.

Actually, according to the 3.5 epic level handbook, you can squeeze through a wall of force with an escape artist check of 100.

Heh.

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
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.
Now come on, that's a little uncalled for. He's still disagreeing with us but that doesn't mean he's being unreasonable or a dick. He actually just posted how he's appreciating our responses. No need for the hostilities.

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:

Thanks to everyone who replied. I appreciate your time. And while I disagree with nearly all of you, I appreciate the feedback. :)

All kinds of things in Pathfinder are 'hand-wavey'. *How* the rogue finds a gas trap or a pit trap, how she disables a magical rune trap, how he activates a magical device isn't always revealed. There isn't always a correlation between real-world logic and how it works in-game.

Just because the cell bars are only 6 inches apart doesn't mean the rogue can't make an escape artist check. We don't get out the medical dictionary to determine how much crushing force a human can actually survive - he's a character in a fantasy setting, he makes the check, and know he's stealthing to safety. That's why it's fun.

If not a DD check, maybe an escape artist check. If not an EA check, maybe a use magic device check. I find the 'completely impossible due to real world logic' response inconsistent with how most gaming works. If we fall back on that, then nothing is really possible.

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.


zanbato13 wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
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.
Exactly, a normal seamless solid metal collar. Break it. Masterwork Manacles (the closest example) have Hardness 10, 10 HP, and a Break DC of 28. Difficult but not impossible.

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.


zanbato13 wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

What does it mean by type of animal?

If I had to choose, which would be it?
Felines
Great Cats
Cat Big
Tigers

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.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
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.


Wolfsnap wrote:

If the GM says you can't remove the collar with a DD check, then you can't. You're just going to have to be really devious and come up with some other way of removing the collar.

You might be able to have it cut off if you agree that the process will damage your PC's neck, possibly with massive scars, and damage to the vocal chords reducing the character's voice to a harsh whisper, and taking 1d4 CHA damage in the process. As a GM, trust me: we love that kind of thing. :)

Or you could come up with something less drastic that still satisfies the "Rule of Cool".

Think of the collar as a challenge not for your character, but for you as a player.

Are the collars enchanted to magically resize? If not a reduce person might allow an escape.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

An oft overlooked section of wildshape

A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make, but she can communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as her new form. (The normal sound a wild parrot makes is a squawk, so changing to this form does not permit speech.)

So if a druid in the shape of a horse can speak horse, a horse thats been a horse all their life and then gotten a brain should be able to pull it off.

You are right! Had totally forgotten about that. Good catch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonVixen wrote:
I may be chaotic evil, but there are some crimes that are just too evil for me. Not sharing my lust is one of those.

That is a code of conduct I could get behind, or on top of, or under, etc...


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:
In fact there is a fey creature in the Reign of Winter that is baking cursed cookies.
So if the GM wants to create a society that has cursed collars for its prisoners again that is a reasonable GM call.


Blymurkla wrote:

It takes 1d4 hours to use Diplomacy to gather information. Craft checks are (sometimes) made by the week.

Can spells like Eagle's Splendor or Owl's Wisdom, that count their duration in minutes, be used to boost such checks?

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:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

It occurs to me after discussing this topic, I wonder if GMs would allow an animal companion to communicate with other animals of its type if instructed to do so by someone using Speak with animals?

I've never tried it with my Rangers because I've never had the opportunity.

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.
It should certainly be no more limited than what the Familiar gets with other animals "approximately" of the same kind. Clearly Paizo intends for this Familiar ability to have some substantive impact on the game. So a Ranger's companion communicating with animals of its kind should have just as much bandwidth, if not more than the Familiar with animals only related to its kind.

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.


Grey_Mage wrote:

I don't see what the issue is.

Ammunition gains all benefits of the spell . You just have to enchant the ammunition, not the weapon. Normally a bow grants it's enchantments to the ammunition. This clause is an exception to that rule.

Bless weapon enhances ammo normally.

Cast it on a bow? You get nothing unless you use it as an improvised weapon.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

It occurs to me after discussing this topic, I wonder if GMs would allow an animal companion to communicate with other animals of its type if instructed to do so by someone using Speak with animals?

I've never tried it with my Rangers because I've never had the opportunity.

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.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

And as you point out, this statement,

PRD on Familiar's speak with animals ability wrote:
a familiar can communicate with animals of approximately the same kind as itself..

Reads as if this is granting communication to animals that a specifically not of its exact type (because we should presume that this ability already exists.)

I considered making that argument, but the CRB specifies that bat familiars learn to talk to bats only, so it's not always an expansion beyond one's species. Errr, one's order (Chiroptera in this case).

I suppose one could argue that bats normally can talk to bats but only of their own exact species, and now they can talk to any darn bat they please, but I find that weak.

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:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
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.

That is not in the rules, nor is it implied by the rules. A familiar starts out as a normal animal but then immediate gets a 6 INT and is now classified as a "Familiar" and any effects treat it as a magical beast. What is true for a Familiar has zero impact on what is true for a normal animal. At best you can argue that it might apply to an awakened animal.

It is entirely consisted with the game rules to have the leader of a wolf pack communicate with the other wolves on who to attack or whether the pack should retreat, or hide, etc.

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:

I don't think the Darkvision spell lets you see in supernatural darkness, like that created by Deeper Darkness. The See in Darkness ability does.

I don't know if there's a spell that lets you, but the Elixir of Darksight does.

Edited to add: The Rod of Shadows also lets you see in supernatural darkness, and it uses True Seeing in its construction. The True Seeing spell doesn't specifically call out supernatural darkness, but I think you can make a strong case that it's intended to work in supernatural darkness.

True seeing does specifically call out supernatural darkness.

PRD - True Seeing wrote:
The subject sees through normal and magical darkness


N N 959 wrote:
Aziraya Zhwan wrote:
Keep in mind that even among the same species of non-awakened animal (in your specific case, a horse) the only communication that happens basically boils down to "I'm hurt", "There's a predator", "Let's mate" and "Oh look, food!". Anything much past those things is just completely lost to the non-awakened horse no matter what the intelligence of the awakened horse would be.

That's a gross oversimplification. Many animals and even insects have complex communication or rather can communicated very complex and specific information. There's even evidence that says bacteria colonies use "quorum sensing" to communicate. Scientist don't know the full extent of what animals can communicate with each other. No one has translated whale songs or dolphin echos.

What is probably true is that animal language is more robust for communicating things that affect their survival and wholly inadequate in areas that are unrelated. For example, wolves probably don't have any vocabulary for describing books or kitchen utensils. But they might be very good at communicating tactical positioning and singling out potential targets amongst themselves. It's probably a safe assumption that solitary animals probably have very limited "language" when compared with animals that live in groups...but we really don't know. We also know that animals can communicate or rather understand the signals of other animals. Many forms of prey are adept at understanding the warning signals of other animals.

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.


kurohyou wrote:

The rules on drawing or sheathing a weapon on the PRD state that drawing ammunition is a free action.

** spoiler omitted **

This would seem to indicate that you can already throw weapons at your full BAB. Why does quick draw say that it gives you the ability to do that then?

** spoiler omitted **

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.


Yep, as written the only benefit to a projectile weapon is the critical confirmation and only one arrow could be buffed at a time.

Edit: Upon rereading it I don't think even the critical confirmation would be conferred to a projectile.


Yes, you are correct.


JamesTheDonkey wrote:
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.


Natural 1s wrote:

Wow, do you mean, that there will be only one save per Orb for whole duration?

No, because each round as a move action it can be directed on a new path. Is someone in that path? If yes they get a save.


JamesTheDonkey wrote:
PRD wrote:

KLAR

Price 12 gp
Shield Bonus +1
The traditional form of this tribal weapon is a short blade bound to the skull of a large horned lizard, but a skilled smith can craft one entirely out of metal. A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes; a metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.
PRD wrote:

ARMOR SPIKES

Price +50 gp
Armor Bonus —
You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage on a successful grapple attack (see "spiked armor" in the Martial Weapons Table). The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
It doesn't say curved, but it does reference armor spikes that deal piercing damage. So could I attack with the Klar, or serparately, attack with the armor spikes?

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:

As for "in the path" argument: lets imagine hallway wide 10 feet which is turning right. Creature is standing in the corner. Aqueous orb is adjacent with the creature. Caster then moves the orb around the corner: it is over the creature after 1st 5 feet, creature is succesfull with reflex save, orb then continues turning right and is adjacent to creature after 5 feet of movement.

Then it can go back 2 more times.
I do not see difference in effect of the spell for going forward and then backward.

Getting out of the orb should be free action on creatures turn (in my opinion).

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.

1 to 50 of 737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>