So, what does 'Tamr at'Uwil translate to in English, anyway?
About 'Umr at-Tawil / Tawil at'Umr:
Hmm...I am hardly an expert in Arabic, but 'Tamr at'Uwil is probably not what you were looking for (depending on how you write that in Arabic...you might get something like "long/longer undertaking").
(Arabic incoming: remember to read the Arabic right-to-left.)
Regarding Tawil at'Umr...it's a bit off. Tawil (طويل) is "long", and Umr (عمر) is "life" or "age"; that's fine. The at' here is probably meant to be a definite article al (ال). Generally, you wouldn't see at'Umr, but rather al-Umr. You would pronounce ال as "at" if it prefixed a word beginning with T (e.g. Tawil), but not for a word beginning in U. I believe Chaosium reordered the transliteration of عمر الطويل (transliterated: 'Umr at-Tawil). Essentially they swapped "Umr" and "Tawil", but forgot that "at" should be "al" when used as a prefix to "Umr". More properly, Chaosium should probably have used Tawil al-Umr (طويل العمر) which is an acceptable writing of "long-lived".
However, this does not mean that 'Umr at-Tawil is actually wrong. In fact, it is a relatively common phrase for "longevity" or "long life", generally with the definite article "al" (ال) as a prefix. This means you might see العمر الطويل (al-Umr at-Tawil) used for "longevity". Removing the definite article "al" (ال) from the front of the phrase would leave you with the familiar 'Umr at-Tawil, still perfectly acceptable.
(Warning: Opinions Follow)
Grammar aside, it is a shame that Chaosium felt the need to change the name of a character created by H.P. Lovecraft and E. Hoffman Price. The original authors gave the name 'Umr at-Tawil; that should be fine for everyone.
(/End Opinion.)
I acknowledge that I may possibly be mistaken about one or two things here (as I said, I'm hardly an expert)...
Regardless, I can wholeheartedly say I am barely able to contain my excitement for this new bestiary. How can you say "no" to such lovely eldritch horrors and demigods?
attack replacements, trip, disarm and sunder, can be done as the attack action.
Standard action maneuvers, like grapple, are attacks that make attack rolls, but need their own action do perform.
The attack action is what vital strike uses. So if you can do it with a vital strike you can do it with these. thus cleave, being it's own standard action wouldn't qualify under the attack action option. So to cleave you'd need to hope that it qualifies under the extraordinary ability clause, else you can't cleave with these.
I do agree with your assessment of combat maneuvers, Chess Pwn. I noted that some other people in the forums see the differentiation between the types of maneuvers as debatable in some ways. I don't see much room for debate on that score, unless the GM feels lenient (it almost always comes down to the GM in non-PFS rules questions anyway).
The issue of feats does raise the question of whether feats are generally considered Extraordinary abilities (barring those that mention they produce spell or spell-like effects). Perhaps cleave is an extraordinary ability (as you suggested might be a possible interpretation, Chess Pwn).
I concur that, as written, the Slow Time rules do not seem to allow for a grapple combat maneuver (without an ability like grab or the Maneuver Master's Sweeping Maneuver). Unless, maneuvers are considered melee attack actions...which I could see being a possible argument. Most of them are offensive actions taken in melee that require an attack roll...and some otherthreads have debated it. I'm not saying maneuvers are attacks, just that other people have seen fit to debate it.
Regardless, there are other ways to initiate grapples as part of an attack. Also someways to pin easily.
All or most of those things listed I'm not sure work. You don't have a full standard action to work with. You have a limited standard action. So if something says, "as a standard action you can X" Then there's a good chance it wont work with this.
Slow Time (Su): At 12th level, a monk of the four winds can use his ki to slow time or quicken his movements, depending on the observer. As a swift action, the monk can expend 6 ki points to gain three standard actions during his turn instead of just one. The monk can use these actions to do the following: take a melee attack action, use a skill, use an extraordinary ability, or take a move action. The monk cannot use these actions to cast spells or use spell-like abilities, and cannot combine them to take full-attack actions. Any move actions the monk makes this turn do not provoke attacks of opportunity. This ability replaces abundant step.
(Emphasis mine)
The only troublesome restrictions are no spells, spell-like abilities, or full attack actions while using Slow Time. As we are not in the PFS forum, I'll concede that a GM might houserule the ability to tighten (or loosen) the restrictions. The other restrictions might limit maneuvers to trip, sunder, disarm (or any maneuver that can be made in place of a melee attack), unless you have an EX ability to execute combat maneuvers (e.g., be a Maneuver Master). Otherwise, anything that takes a standard action and isn't a spell, spell-like ability, or full attack is probably fine.
Also, regarding the maneuver master...
Chess Pwn wrote:
you don't have a full standard action, only the attack action option of standard action. Thus you can do specific standard action abilities unless they were EX, Then maybe you could get it to work. But the maneuver master lets it do extra maneuvers when you do a full attack.
This is also inaccurate. The restrictions on standard actions during Slow Time were addressed in the first SRD quote in my post here. For the maneuver master, consider the following:
Sweeping Maneuver (Ex): At 11th level, a maneuver master can make two combat maneuvers as a standard action, as long as neither maneuver requires the maneuver master to move. He may perform two identical maneuvers against two adjacent enemies, or he may perform two different combat maneuvers against the same target. This ability replaces diamond body.
So, the Maneuver Master can make two combat maneuvers as a standard action (it's also an EX ability, so it does not violate other restrictions of Slow Time).
Do non-physical int, Wis or Cha damage spells. Those should transfer back to the original body upon death/dispel of the Astral projection spell.
So, something like Feeblemind or Primal Regression? (The latter being less permanent...and I guess those two spells are more like penalties than damage per se)
Does anyone recall more examples of such spells?
I think the Bestow Curse spells were alluded to earlier as well.
I guess Polymorph Any Object could be pretty annoying, too (for different reasons mostly).
I've been trying to put together a list of spells that could ruin someone's day if they are using Astral Projection. Specifically, I'm looking at spells that do not kill the target, but rather render them unable to act or might cause other non-death inconveniences (e.g., body swapping). So far I've come up with the following:
Flesh to Stone Imprisonment Temporal Stasis Trap the Soul Major Mind Swap
Trap the Soul: No
Imprisonment: Signs point to yes
Temporal Statis: Yes
Thank you for the succinct answer.
Of course, it would be nice to have some security against soul trapping...so I found this: Iron Circlet of Guarded Souls
Suppose, you've got one of these fancy circlets. If you cast Astral Projection (say with the circlet in your bag of holding/handy haversack), then manifest a physical body on some non-Astral plane, you'll have a copy of the circlet with you (just like all your other gear, per astral projection).
Now, if you put on the circlet after you're using a new body from Astral Projection...what do you suppose happens?
To me it seems like you might be fine (if you can Trap the Soul on people under the effect of Astral Projection, surely their souls are present in the copied body). But, say your copy is killed while wearing the circlet...well, it disappears like your other gear (and your body) per Astral Projection and you wake up in your real body. Does that sound about right?
Some nice discussion of these interactions can be found here and here.
One suggestion I noted in the first discussion was:
Artanthos wrote:
You could dispel magic the caster's real body to end the spell. Consider it as part of your comprehensive backup plan.
I do assume you have a couple of simulacrum and possibly a golem or two guarding your body with instructions on how to react in various situations.
So, say you've gone adventuring after using astral projection and made your physical copy on some non-Astral plane. Now some sorry mage manages to hit your with one of the annoying spells previously mentioned and it takes affect (you failed the saving throw and your SR was beat). If you could get someone to successfully dispel your astral projection on your original body, would that save you from Flesh to Stone/Trap the Soul/Imprisonment/Temporal Stasis?
Wasn't aware of the FAQ. I stand corrected, and with that FAQ, then yes: Living Paradox should cancel the additional effects of critical hits and sneak attacks. My mistake.
Yeah, I had forgotten all about that FAQ until about an hour after starting the thread.
I'm glad to see someone else is interpreting it (with regards to this silly Living Paradox thing) the same way I am. It means I'm not entirely crazy...I think...
But what might happen with a Coup de Grace against a character with Living Paradox? Should the target be considered immune to crits, since all potential crits seem to act like normal hits against them (have no effects that trigger on a crit)?
Nope. As in, it says you take no additional damage, but it doesn't grant immunity.
That would also hold true for Sneak Attacks, I believe.
Thus, if the rogue catches you flat-footed with a critical from his bow, you take normal damage for a normal hit, but would still be subjected to both the reduced speed from Crippling Critical and the Dispelling from Dispelling Attack sneak attack.
First: Thanks, Anonymous Warrior.
The choice of wording for Living Paradox is such a sore disappointment...
You would think it would be like the Aberrant and Boreal capstones, that just simply say you get immunity to things (e.g., critical hits). Why mess with saying "you take no additional damage" from something? That could be misconstrued to mean you take no damage beyond what anyone else normally would, rendering the ability absolutely useless.
I must also question the argument that effects requiring successful sneak attacks would still function on a character with Living Paradox. I seem to recall that effects contingent on a specific damage (say sneak attack) do not trigger if that target does not take the required damage (e.g., no damage from sneak attack means no Dispelling Attack).
The general assumption for effects is if the creature negates the damage from the effect, the creature isn't subject to additional effects from that attack (such as DR negating the damage from a poisoned weapon, which means the creature isn't subject to the poison).
With this in mind, does Living Paradox negating the critical damage and/or sneak attack damage (but not the regular weapon damage) change the effects that occur?
Found here or here, the Impossible Bloodline lists its capstone ability (i.e., level 20 bloodline power) as follows:
Living Paradox:
Living Paradox (Ex): At 20th level, your outward appearance remains the same, but beneath your skin lies not flesh and blood but clockwork gears, miniature galaxies, or something equally uncanny. You gain immunity to disease and poison. You take no additional damage from bleed effects, critical hits, and sneak attacks.
The wording regarding bleed effects, critical hits, and sneak attacks is peculiar. For bleed effects and sneak attack damage, I would infer that "no additional damage" would mean taking no damage from such effects (immunity to them, in other words).
However, how Living Paradox is meant to interact with critical hits seems slightly less clear. Of course, it seems plenty clear to me that a character with Living Paradox would still take damage from a critical hit, albeit only the damage that would be dealt by a non-critical hit.
Now, the question: Since Living Paradox seems to effectively grant immunity to sneak attack and bleed, as well as ignore extra damage from critical hits, does it (or should it) confer immunity to critical hits?
(Other input regarding the "no additional damage" clause of Living Paradox in regards to sneak attacks and bleed effects is, of course, welcome.)
Or, for the low, low cost of being a Witch, with the Coven hex, this thingy and Leadership (and the ship smelling like a great deal of cheese):
Get 12 low level witch followers with the coven hex within 30 feet of you (net +12 to CL).
Then animate your ship...or something bigger with a few more minions I guess.
EDIT: spelling and such
Flying Witch borg cube it is
There's a few other ways to qualify as a witch for the witch coven bit. I know there's a sorcerer bloodline, and I think the changling race has some racial options there.
Depending on your reading of the coven hex it could mean witch only spells.
Also, some issue with qualifying for coven formation without the collar thingy, which explicitly removes the need for an actual hag (which might be hard to come by).
I'm unsure if other methods can work around requirement of having an actual hag quite so...easily?
Spell perfection doubles set numerical bonuses (from feats) to any aspect of the spell. It should apply to Varisian Tattoo and Allied Spellcaster. That should get you to CL 29...
Spell Perfection:
Spell Perfection wrote:
Benefit: Pick one spell which you have the ability to cast. Whenever you cast that spell you may apply any one metamagic feat you have to that spell without affecting its level or casting time, as long as the total modified level of the spell does not use a spell slot above 9th level. In addition, if you have other feats which allow you to apply a set numerical bonus to any aspect of this spell (such as Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Weapon Focus [ray], and so on), double the bonus granted by that feat when applied to this spell.
If they are both 'Faith' traits, you cannot have them at the same time.
This would indeed be problematic if they were both faith traits...but they're not. It's still a bit iffy, with sort of double-dipping charisma there. There's something of an issue with applying an ability score bonus to a roll twice...
Of course James Jacobs has said he's not a rules guy exactly, but the precedent of his statements probably applies to Society play. If it's not Society play, ask your GM.
I do not think this is how this works. I think James Jacobs is neglecting to acknowledge where these ability modifiers are coming from and where they function. For instance, Fury's Fall is a typeless bonus from Dexterity that is added onto the result. Weapon Finesse suppliments Strength for the normal ability score of an attack roll and a CMB check with a finesse trip weapon. Same for Agile Maneuvers, which does the same thing to all CMB checks. You could not stack Weapon Finesse and Agile Manuevers, but you can stack either of those two with Fury's Fall.
Otherwise, you would have a hard time explaining a Scaled Fist/Paladin using Smite Evil to get a deflection bonus, as by his argument, they are derived from the same stat and therefore are not stackable, despite being completely different bonuses.
First, I'd like to say I thought your first post was well worded and clarified the issue quite well, Garbage-Tier Waifu. I was and am wholly in agreement with your initial explanation.
That said, I can also see your point regarding Weapon Finesse, Agile Maneuvers, and Fury's Fall. My initial post was just to provide the developer comment, previously alluded to by Issac Daneil, on the double ability score issue. I also sought to clarify, as I suspect OP already knew, that the abilities reference by OP were not both traits.
Regarding the Oradin question, I am well aware of it as well as why it is a thing. It functions well because, as you point out, the bonuses to AC are not of the same type (Type might be moot anyway if they were dodge bonuses...but that's just a bit of an off-topic thought from yours truly).
The issue with the DEX bonuses in James Jacob's posts is not entirely dissimilar to the topic at hand though. With say Agile Maneuvers, one replaces the STR bonus used for CMB with DEX bonus (much like how Irrepressible replaces WIS for Will saves with CHA, for the appropriate situation described in the trait). Fury's Fall adds DEX to CMB, much like how Towering Ego adds CHA to Will saves. Anyway, that's how I see similarity between the cases.
I'm not disagreeing with you, Garbage-Tier Waifu; I'm just presenting what I thought might be a relevant developer comment that had been alluded to earlier in the thread.
EDIT: I think from James Jacob's argument, his view might be that the STR (or DEX for Agile Maneuvers/Weapon Finesse) used in a CMB roll is already an untyped bonus with the ability score as the source (in a fashion). That would sort of explain why why he states that another untyped DEX bonus (in the case of Agile Maneuvers + Fury's Fall) might not stack. But again, this is all inference.
If they are both 'Faith' traits, you cannot have them at the same time.
This would indeed be problematic if they were both faith traits...but they're not. It's still a bit iffy, with sort of double-dipping charisma there. There's something of an issue with applying an ability score bonus to a roll twice...
Of course James Jacobs has said he's not a rules guy exactly, but the precedent of his statements probably applies to Society play. If it's not Society play, ask your GM.
