Pavsdotexe's page

All examples have stat blocks detailing what they can do and abilities such as multiweapon mastery or multiweapon fighting. All examples are monsters designed for specific purposes and work by their exceptional design above and beyond what the rules dictate for the PCs. All examples aren't PC options for play except in the most wild games. Each one of them is an exception to the normal rules of the game, and you are trying to prove the exception is the rule by positing the exception. It can't prove itself as the rule.

Each of these NPC creatures has a write up and ability to justify the additional attacks. As a human who shape changes into these shapes, you wouldn't get that unless you managed to have it prior to changing shape.

The rules are written with some basic assumptions, as evidenced by various FAQs (most notably the hands of "effort"), for PCs. When something diverges from that, there is an ability or stat block to explain as much.

Unfortunately you cannot use creatures from the bestiary to prove a point about PCs when they aren't meant to be used in the same way. Monsters break the rules constantly. If a PC option is meant to have fully functional limbs, it will most definitely be written up as such. Because that isn't the "normal" assumption for the rules the PCs run by.

Okay. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think you were the one trying to use NPC statblocks to prove your point?

That Guy With A Face asked about his Eidolon, which is intended by design to have multiple arms (and use them to make attacks).

Again, the point was there are explicit rules when it is an option.

I don't think it's explicit at all. What you've noted is that this Marilith stat block has an ability that very clearly only reduces penalties. To blindly assume it means more than that is making a leap of logic that I find untenable.

Extra limbs = more attacks only when using associated natural attacks; a feat is needed to actually use those extra limbs to make attacks with weapons (or unarmed strikes). Just having more limbs does nothing to increase the number of attacks possible (see also the FAQ regarding "off-hand" attacks with armor spikes when using a two-handed weapon*).

*- Personally, I would allow TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes... but the two-handed weapon is treated as a one-handed weapon for applying Str bonus (and Power Attack) to damage.

Source? I see the FAQ on armor spikes, but I want to confirm the rest of your post.

It's on the Summoner List at 3rd level - perfect for a Lesser Rod of Extend. Which was my plan originally. But when nobody wanted to open-that-door and fight-that-thing, 7 cubic feet of opium happened.

Sadly, that's all I know. The last time I was allowed to play Summoner I broke the campaign by casting Minor Creation to create enough Opium to drown our enemies with.

If I understand the question, Augment Summoning works.

I think it allows the Shaman to activate the Hex, then the Spirit Animal only does the touch. So it does not allow the Spirit Animal to activate any Hex.

Since there is no where for the target of the engulf to go after a successful save, he likely ends up in an illegal square and thus gets shunted (that, or the ooze gets shunted) as per the following rule from the Core Rulebook's Combat chapter.

Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space: Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it's not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there's a legal position that's closer.

I can agree with this. The difference between our interpretations is I read it as performing the attack before the ooze moved into the square, while you read it as performing the attack after. Can't really say which one is right.

Engulf (Ex) The creature can engulf creatures in its path as part of a standard action. It cannot make other attacks during a round in which it engulfs. The creature merely has to move over its opponents, affecting as many as it can cover. Targeted creatures can make attacks of opportunity against the creature, but if they do so, they are not entitled to a saving throw against the engulf attack. Those who do not attempt attacks of opportunity can attempt a Reflex save to avoid being engulfed—on a success, they are pushed back or aside (target's choice) as the creature moves forward. Engulfed opponents gain the pinned condition, are in danger of suffocating, are trapped within the creature's body until they are no longer pinned, and may be subject to other special attacks from the creature. The save DC is Strength-based.

• Under normal rules a large ooze cannot occupy the same square as a medium creature.
  
• Since the Engulf special monster ability specifically says to put the engulfed creatures inside of the ooze, it trumps that general rule.
  
• If the engulf attack fails, then the creature is pushed backwards or aside - pushing them against a wall causes them to not leave their square.
  
• The ooze is now trying to perform a move into a square that is occupied - something ordinarily impossible.
  
• With a failed engulf, the exception doesn't apply and the ooze cannot perform that movement.
  

I'd house-rule differently of course.

Standard Multiweapon Fighting response: There is zero rules correlation between number of arms and number of available attacks. The TWF rule in the combat section grants a single attack with a second weapon, and the TWF feat line grants additional attacks. This is independent of the number of limbs a PC has. A PC with zero arms makes the same number of attacks as a PC with 20 arms by the rules of the game. Pathfinder was designed around the assumption of humanoid PCs, and if you vary from this things get weird. So talk to your GM about how they want to run it.

I'd like to mention that I don't consider the Pathfinder rule set "complete" in the sense that you have to utilize nuances of the English language to follow the rules, even RAW. Per your example, if you are missing an arm, you would not be wielding a weapon in that hand. I was requesting a specific section because Dragonchess Player said that MWF doesn't work a certain way RAW, and I wanted to know what section that meant we were reading.

From a balance perspective, consider it against using Rapid Shot, Quick Draw, and Two-Weapon Fighting to throw multiple light weapons. Also, unlike Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, the additional attacks from Multi-Weapon Fighting are not limited to certain BAB and Dex values, nor are they reduced as if they were iteratives.

To address your edit, I have never considered having extra arms in the same league as taking a feat. Extra arms are significantly superior to those you mentioned, with a change of 2 in the attack rolls not impacting that outcome. If there's no -2 in MWF, That Guy With A Face could still easily give his eidolon 4 Falcatas at -4 penalty, or do two weapon fighting with a -2 penalty Greatsword in the main hand and one offhand, a -2 penalty shortsword in the second offhand, and a shield in the last offhand. All while only requiring 13 Dex, instead of the usual 15 for TWF. I think balance was left at the door, this is a largely unintuitive ruling that favors cheese over flavor.

Pavsdotexe wrote:

What this looks like is then:

Main hand I: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Main hand II: 1+4+1-4 = +2 to hit
Off hand A: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand B: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand C: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit

This is using the reading that the reducing the penalty by an additional 2 for having an offhand light weapon doesn't apply for Multi Weapon Fighting, since it isn't explicitly mentioned in the feat. I am against that reading

You may be against it, but it is followed in every official stat-block using Multi-Weapon Fighting with light weapons. As this is a rules forum, the RAW is that Multi-Weapon fighting does not gain that additional reduction to the penalty.

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't sure myself, so perhaps you can tell me: where in the rules does it say one gets extra attacks for fighting with multiple weapons? I was gonna try and base my decision off that, but the only clue I had was the MWF feat which only affects the penalties, and tells the reader to check out Two-Weapon Fighting (which I assume to mean the section in Chapter 8: Combat).

Hello Dr Styx,

I would first like to point out that the Natural Attacks section is not applicable to this situation, because the creature in question will not be making any natural attacks. Since a short sword is a manufactured weapon, it will be granted an additional attack from high BAB as usual.

Here's the relevant text in the PRD:

Base Attack Bonus (BAB): Each creature has a base attack bonus and it represents its skill in combat. As a character gains levels or Hit Dice, his base attack bonus improves. When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action—see Combat).

To reiterate: the natural weapon rules are an exception to this rule, and will only apply in situations where a natural weapon is being used.

Secondly, I don't believe your math is correct: Multiweapon Fighting states that a creature normally takes a -6 penalty on main hand attacks, and a -10 penalty on off hand attacks. What the feat does is reduce these penalties by -2 for main hand attacks and -6 for off hand attacks. This results in -4 penalty on both main and off hand attacks.

What this looks like is then:
Main hand I: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Main hand II: 1+4+1-4 = +2 to hit
Off hand A: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand B: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand C: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit

This is using the reading that the reducing the penalty by an additional 2 for having an offhand light weapon doesn't apply for Multi Weapon Fighting, since it isn't explicitly mentioned in the feat. I am against that reading, as the Multiweapon Fighting feat never granted the attack (it only reduced the penalty). Additionally, it tells the reader to look at Two-Weapon Fighting in the CRB, which says to reduce by 2 if the offhand weapon is light. So I read there's only a -2 penalty on both main and off hand attacks.

What I would conclude is:
Main hand I: 6+4+1-2 = +9 to hit
Main hand II: 1+4+1-2 = +4 to hit
Off hand A: 6+4+1-2 = +9 to hit
Off hand B: 6+4+1-2 = +9 to hit
Off hand C: 6+4+1-2 = +9 to hit

Except if the morale bonus is not a morale effect ;-)

For example, both Inspire Courage and Bless are mind-affecting abilities (and would not work on a plant). But Rage is not.

Thus I would say that Rage is not a morale effect (since it is not mind-affecting) and neither are the bonuses it provides, even if some are of the morale type (and thus do not stack with other morale bonuses).

Huh, they claimed it to be in this thread, now I have to find the source.

The Treesinger (Druid) Archetype allows the player to choose from some plant companions.

Plant Bond (Ex): At 1st level, a treesinger forms a mystic bond with plant life. This bond can take one of two forms. [...]

The second option is to form a close bond with a plant companion. A treesinger may begin play with any of the plants listed in Plant Companions. This plant is a loyal companion that accompanies the treesinger on her adventures. Except for the companion being a creature of the plant type, drawn from the list of plant companions, this ability otherwise works like the standard druid's animal companion ability.

(Emphasis mine)

A plant creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

Low-light vision.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
[...]

This is all fine and dandy but the Carnivorous Flower Companion has the rage ability:

Special Attacks rage (1/day, as the barbarian class feature for 6 rounds).

Which provides a morale bonus to Strength and Constitution. So am I right in reading that RAW, when the Carnivorous Flower rages, it only gets the -2 penalty to AC? Should this receive errata?

This thread would have been a much better read without the personal attacks.

When a weapon is inappropriately sized, it changes the amount of effort required to wield it.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Lances are two-handed weapons, and have a specific rule that overrides the general rule:

While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.

This exceptional rule does not change the classification of what the lance actually is; for a lance appropriately sized for a medium creature, it would still be a two-handed weapon but it would be wielded in one hand. In other cases, it would follow that the character can still wield the lance in one hand, even if not in two.

With other similar abilities, the text usually qualifies that the weapon must be appropriately sized for you. I assume that should be inputted here? Are there rules or an FAQ somewhere my search didn't catch?

Last I looked at mounted combat, one could fight from horseback. Using a two-handed weapon. I am unaware of anything to the contrary.

A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.

I do believe one can still make off-hand attacks with Flurry of Blows, so two weapon rend should function normally.

EDIT: Except for when a monk strikes unarmed, then it is not off-hand, so two weapon rend will require a different weapon to hit.

Alright, just making sure I am understanding this correctly: approaching a creature with 10 foot reach diagonally, the squares you are moving through go from 15' to 5'. So there is no square you are moving through that is 10' away from them. James Jacobs asserts that the gamespace has an area 10 feet away that you are in fact passing though, though it is not displayed on the grid. So my question is... where is that? During the AoO, the approaching creature is somewhere, not on the grid. We know that that somewhere is 10 feet away, so sure, the AoO can be made. But what about readied actions and other actors? The rules don't seem to provide a sufficiently defined space for the approaching creature.

RAW, it would give you nothing, as far as I can see. Talk with your GM.

Alright I am going to stop refreshing the page to see if someone else more familiar with Alchemists responds.

EDIT: I just read more about alchemists. The following statement is now false, as I learned about the wonders of greater mutagens. Spoiler-blocking.

Using a mutagen as an alchemist gives oneself a +2 natural armor bonus to AC. The old text said a rage chemist using a mutagen to modify Strength gives himself a +2 natural armor bonus to AC. This is the same as the bonus the mutagen normally gives, so the new text does not mention any change to natural armor.

The thing with Sturdy Rage is that it gives a +4 bonus to natural armor bonus to AC. So, no matter what natural armor one had before, it is now 4 higher. This works identically under the new and old text for Rage Mutagen.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p6nt?Pure-Strain

I think you're confusing drop (into your hand from the sheathe) with drop (to the ground, after losing your grip).

These are two entirely different things, Diego.

He prefaced it with "If your GM rule[s]", in a thread where the asker's GM made some uncomfortable rulings that sparked the conversation. I don't think it was confusion.

My reading of the rules does not suggest that this exception applies. This is neither precision damage or a special weapon quality. Thus it would follow the general rule of rolling damage twice and adding together. I don't see any turn limitations; rather, I believe it to be implied that it is the attack that is multiplied. For your corrosive consumption example, all 3 rounds of damage would be rolled twice.

Nope both are a size modifier

Edit : where exactly did you find the penalty to attack rolls ?(some spells have it ,Esp. Enlarge person which has its own rules of you get what is written but i could not find it in the prd (I only have a tablet at hand))

You seem to be right, the size bonus and size penalty to attack rolls apply only for specific things, such as being a gnome, halfling, goblin, kobold, ratfolk, grippli, svirfneblin, or wayang; or spells such as enlarge person or reduce person. Are these only applicable then for these specific circumstances? So a Goblin PC would get a size modifier and size bonus on attack rolls?

EDIT: Veldebrand that establishes size modifier to attack bonus, not size bonus/penalty to attack rolls.

You cannot include a modifier twice

One is a modifier to attack bonus. Another is a penalty to attack rolls. They are distinct.

Pavsdotexe wrote:

As I said above, I want to see this "leap." I only have access to the rules, not implied logic.

There is no leap.

The size modifier to attacks is part of the attack bonus . (combat chapter core rulebook)

The CMB includes the size modifier to combat maneuver rolls.

When you roll an combat maneuver you replace the attack bonus with your CMB. The size modifier to attacks is part of the attack bonus and therefore no longer part of the combat maneuver roll.

Just look at the exact formulas and what replaces what. Its all in the core rules.

I see exactly what you are saying. That is how I want it to work. However, there is additionally a size penalty/bonus to attack rolls, which would apply after the calculations you pointed out. Yes, the size penalty to attack rolls is a penalty to attack rolls, and as such would be treated as a penalty to attack rolls.

Saying I know how something is supposed to work is RAI. I was asking for how it works RAW.

I would obviously not do this, but wouldn't this allow someone to show up to PFS with a small character and claim that they actually get both a size modifier to attack bonus AND a size bonus to attack rolls? Because the rules I am reading say they can.

When figuring your CMB, you ignore the penalty to hit due to size and include the size bonus instead.

It takes a bit of a minor leap to come to this conclusion and it's easy to see how people could figure them as just cancelling one another out. However, if you look at the stat blocks for monsters of various sizes and reverse engineer the bonuses, you'll see how it was intended.

As I said above, I want to see this "leap." I only have access to the rules, not implied logic.

I still need clarification on one point: it is specifically stated as a size penalty to attack rolls, not a modifier to the attack bonus. Being a penalty to attack rolls, and the rules specifically saying all penalties to attack rolls apply to the combat maneuver (which is an attack roll), this should apply RAW. I can't find any errata or rules otherwise. Please note I am not asking for your opinion on what makes sense to apply; I already know the answer to that. I am asking for rules citation to make this not... silly.

I hadn't considered that the -10 was intended to be skipping the pin step. This passage now has an ambiguous reading to me, I can't really say what the rules as written mean anymore in this case.

As far as the party composition went, there were two main damage dealers at level 3: composite longbow fighter with rapid shot, and two-handed barbarian with power attack. Our cleric, sorcerer, and rogue did stuff normal people do like missing on attack rolls. A few levels later everyone contributes to combat, except the rogue.

I really just don't remember hardly any enemies at those levels taking too much effort to go down. Is this a question of other people doing less? Our cleric didn't realize she had the Murderous Command spell; that could have stolen some of the show.

I was just reading the first chapter, it seems our group accidentally missed the optional boss, Malfeshnekor (who they would fight at level 3 or 4). He looks the monk would be completely useless against him, since he would be under the effect of Blink, and going incorporeal makes any kind of grabbing/pinning/tying ineffective. Against earlier level 3 baddies such as Lyrie, I (personal taste) would be fine letting a grappling monk that has grabbed a wizard be effective against her. Reading into the next chapter as well, the only boss with low CMD is a spellcaster as well. It just appears to me that fighting types have low CMB in the first book.

Hey, I just made a grappling monk for RotRL! Here's what I experienced:

Firstly, as far as I am aware the grappling Monk is not overpowered, so you should not need to nerf him beyond the extent of the rules. The other members of the party, for the first ~two books, were 1-shotting most enemies, 2-shotting mini-bosses, and 3/4-shotting the big bad bosses. This sort of stopped happening when the DM would double enemy HP and buff their AC, but not entirely. So: enemies die. Quickly. A character has the ability to interact with them a little before that happens? Good.

It should be important to note that enemies do not need to spend their standard struggling against the grapple check. They can full attack while grappled. Every time I grapple I hope the DM doesn't have them do this, because as a Monk I have... AC problems. The random henchmen now hits me on most any die roll, and take out 1/4 of my health. I tried to get near a boss once. I was unconscious before I could get him grappled.

I mostly read this: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Grapple It says -10 on check to tie up. WIth the +5 circumstance, that nets -5. Yes at this level the monk has a fairly good chance to succeed. But if 2 other party members were attacking the guy, he would already be dead about this time.

There is a spell of the same level, Symbol of Healing, that works exactly as you want this Glyph to work. Perhaps you meant that one?

There is a 500g material cost for each symbol, which can be activated only once, and only seems to be useful when fighting undead; I don't think this would be a universal fix to your problem.

There is a spell Sacred Bond that can make your touch healing spells used with a range of close. I don't know if close range is too close for your character, but often being with the party is safer than trailing behind.

There is always the option of summoned spellcasters: Summon Monster 5 will get you a Bralani azata who can cast Cure Serious Wounds twice, and Summon Monster 4 or Lesser Planar Ally can get you a Hound archon, who can cast aid at-will (in addition to being a badass).

The cleric in my current group tried to do the "I'm here for the heals" role, now she uses spells like Murderous Command and Forbid Action during combat, then afterwards she would channel to bring everyone back to full.

CMB checks have a specific rule that replaces the general critical hit rule, that a 20 always succeeds (unless trying to escape ropes or something?) and a one always fails.

Don't have CRB with me, but it's right there in the Combat Maneuvre section.

So, despite the CMB check being an attack roll, it has a specific rule that replaces the general crit rule, and thus doesn't score crits.

No dice for your Holy Vindicator.

It says:

Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.

This appears to be consistent with the attack roll rules (except for the bonds), not an exception. Besides, it was stated previously in this thread that there are no exceptions to the attack roll mechanic; that was how it was decided 20 auto-succeeds.

Sorry, bad wording. Yes, you multiply the number of dice you roll and static bonuses.

As in 1d8+1 becomes 2d8+2 with x2 weapons.

It's still irrelevant because a grapple check never causes damage. It allows you to perform another action, inflict damage, but that is as a result of maintaining the grapple, and specifically noted as a separate action.

Repeat: a grapple check never deals damage.

Okay, but the Holy Vindicator's class feature:

Divine Wrath (Sp): At 4th level, when a vindicator confirms a critical hit, he may sacrifice a prepared 1st-level spell or available 1st-level spell slot to invoke doom upon the target as an immediate action (using the vindicator’s caster level). The save DC is increased by +2 if his weapon has a ×3 damage multiplier, or by +4 if it is ×4.

What is the damage multiplier for a grapple?

A crit means you get to multiply damage.

Where I'm looking they say critically striking involves rolling the damage dice multiple times, adding the results; nothing regarding multiplication. Source?

As far as the positive/negative bonuses are concerned, it says that penalties apply normally, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I am not sure exactly how to proceed with the secondary attack's -5. My reading is that the attack bonus uses the BAB - 5; since the Combat maneuver bonus replaces this attack bonus, that doesn't really come into play. The minus 5 is not applied as a penalty or bonus, so it is not added in.

So this would come out to be +6 [+3 Base attack bonus, +7 Strength Mod, -2 Size attack modifier, -4 Squeezing, +2 Size CMB modifier].

Lastly, looking at the size attack mod stuff I think it might not apply, depending on ones rules interpretation. Although it says size penalty to attack rolls, I'm reading this to intend to mean size penalty to Attack bonus. The Attack bonus is described as Base attack bonus + Strength modifier (or Dexterity) + size modifier. So, when the Combat maneuver bonus replaces the Attack bonus, it would replace that and it would not factor into the calculation.

This makes sense to me because otherwise size bonuses/penalties would always cancel when calculating CMB, and I thought the intent of the CMB alterations was to grant large creature bonuses to CMB (yeah, they still get Strength bonuses), and a reverse effect for smaller creatures. Obviously, this would be houserule territory.

Using that interpretation, you end up with +8 [+12 CMB, -4 Squeezing].

You guys make very valid points: the rules clearly state a natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical threat and a confirmation roll is then made. So if I am a large creature, and on my grapple combat maneuver check (an attack roll, CRB 199) I roll a natural 20, I would get to roll to confirm with the same bonuses (presumably better, since I am large). Say I confirm with this. What is my weapon multiplier? I thought it might be using the unarmed strike multiplier, but http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom&page=4 says that grapple doesn't use a weapon, not even unarmed strikes. Additionally, reading the SRD, I am unable to pinpoint text that says we use the multiplier on our weapon to determine how many times to roll the critical damage dice. So, does the previous question even matter?

Drakkiel wrote:

and the fact that the archetype you mentioned eventually get a +100% bonus on his Power Attacks instead of the +50% thanks to Greater Power Attack and gets a full double strength bonus on his iterative attacks thanks to Backswing

Actually thats a common misconception. It's either one with full double strength, or all following ones with full double strength. If you look, Overhand chop only gives it to you if you make a single attack and backswing only gets it for you for all attacks following on a full attack. aka you never get the full 2.0 on every attack.

He said iterative.

EDIT: It appears there is no official definition of iterative; I had always seen it used to discuss the attacks at lower base attack bonus. I should not have supposed you used the terminology identically.

[...] Squeezing doesn't seem to affect maneuvers, or at least I can't find anything that states otherwise

Page 199 Core Rulebook:

Page 193 Core Rulebook:
"[...] while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC."

So the combat maneuver check, which is an attack roll, specifically says incurs the penalties made on attack rolls. So, to the best of my knowledge, the squeezing would give a -4 penalty to the maneuver.

Also: I would love for someone to tell me whether the -2 size penalty to attack rolls applies.