Vadania

Perfect Tommy's page

800 posts. Alias of cp.


RSS

1 to 50 of 800 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Going from memory, I believe there is an option for Half elfs to have two favored classes.


Imagine a moment that Target were immune to harm.

What happens if a rogue sneak attacks with a spell touch?

I think the point is that a rogue can use precision placement to cause extra damage with whatever he is wielding.

A trickster can aim that scorching Ray precisely the right point. A regular rogue knows how to twist the knife just so.

If the victim is immune to harm I would say that he is immune to any extra harm, from placement.

So in the more usual case, where the victim is not immune to harm, I would say that the limitations of the spell apply.

If the victim saves or has hit points in excess of the damage caused, then sneak may add to it.

But the limitations of harm apply. When you are using fire you are limited by fire resistance; when you are using harm you are limited to the one hit point remaining.


Monk?

By definition Mad, which would benefit from +2 boon.
a lot of interesting monk archetypes and styles.


Xenocrat wrote:
Man, I never thought I'd see people in 2019 still arguing that Spell Perfection lets you go past 9th level spells. There are plenty of threads on this, I didn't realize there were still survivors hiding in the jungles who hadn't gotten the word.

To be fair, one could say the same if your position.


Scott, I like flame bards, although the Oracle build that does the same is probably better.

But the issue with them is that you grant your party the ability to see through smoke. But your gm is fully within his rights to apply the smoke environmental condition to your party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Scott,

1. Paizo writes game rules not legal contracts. They are often interpreted in different ways.

Nonetheless, game designers introduce these rules. Games are played. And how things work becomes canonical.

Cevah, Ferious, I telling you how things are is evidence -of what canonical play is and is reprrsentative of what the op will face if they attempt your suggestion.

2. Our previous grapple thread, where after ridiculous number of pages you finally conceded you were wrong,suggests you don't understand grapple rules.

3. I quoted the rule to you. "If you do not release the grapple" & ff.

For your understanding of the rules to be correct, you are saying the designers contradicted themselves in the same paragraph.

4. Of course one can make multiple grapple checks. No one disputes that.

The usual mechanic is this:

Grapple.
Next turn, maintain the grapple as a std action, which allows you to do various things.

Yes,feats change the type of action. No one disputes that either.

5. What is incumbent on you, is to find language that defeats the existing language:

Specifically:
*A* check to *maintain* the grapple.

Ie wording that allows you to break the standard condition on the type of action a grapple check is, says nothing about getting multiple checks in a round to maintain the grapple.

It is the second rule you must find a rule quote for, and you have not.

Another thing you must find
Is an exception for is the verbiage

"On subsequent rounds..."

So please quote the rule exception that allows you to break these two conditions.

The rule that gives you +5 to grapple in the same round, and the rule that specifically allows you to make multiple attempts to maintain.

And thirdly, mate, if you fail to maintain, the victim becomes ungrappled. You don't get another attempt to maintain the grapple.

You may, with the appropriate feats attempt to grapple again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yay. Another 40 page grapple thread with Scott.

Suffice it to say, if you plan to run with Scott's interpretation that it will not work at most tables.

Hair is a natural attack. Only one creatute may be kept in a grapple per limb.

Second: progressing a grapple (to pin etc) isnt the same as maintain.

Maintaining the grapple is done one time at the beginning of the round.

The grapple feats change what kind of action you have remaining

". If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)."

**A** check,


Vital strike.


Important to note proficiency doesmt let you necessarily use it as a monk s weapon.


Retrain into NobleScion.


MrCharisma wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Weapon like spells can crit, and deliver sneak damage.

Non weapon like spells cannot.
Flame blade, scorching ray, ray of enfeeblement are weapon like.
Harm or heal are not, and therefore don't crit.
There is a difference between delivering a spell effect with a touch (heal, harm, teleport, dim door) and attacking with spell effect.

That's not correct. zza ni already quoted the rules, and the relevant part is whether it requires an attack roll, not whether it's a "weapon-like" spell. You can even crit with energy drain/etc, so Heal/Harm are absolutely fine.

zza ni wrote:

from the critical rules :

"Spells and Critical Hits: A spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll cannot score a critical hit. If a spell causes ability damage or drain (see Appendix 1), the damage or drain is doubled on a critical hit."
(emphasis changed for clarity)

I was wrong; harm can crit. Heal cannot.

The correct bit of rules is this:

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.


There are so many ways to argue this point,

a). Since the question centers on can I get an improved familiar, which may or not be tiny sized... Its not germane to the question.
b) I'm not reducing the size of my familiar. I'm getting a smaller improved familiar.
c). Swarm monger says nothing about getting a smaller familiar. It says nothing about reducing the size of your familiar.
It only says the familiar cannot be reduced in size to Diminutive or smaller when in swarm form

Casting reduce person on your familiar is legit.
Getting a smaller familiar is legit.

This isn't germane to the question I or my ref have; I've asked before can we drop it as its not helpful.

Or do you really just like arguing that replacing a 2 lb cat with a 1 lb viper is illegal?


Weapon like spells can crit, and deliver sneak damage.

Non weapon like spells cannot.

Flame blade, scorching ray, ray of enfeeblement are weapon like.

Harm or heal are not, and therefore don't crit.

There is a difference between delivering a spell effect with a touch (heal, harm, teleport, dim door) and attacking with spell effect.


Not so. I'm not reducing the size of my familiar in any fashion. So not an issue.

Again, this centers solely around the question, of improved familiers for swarm monger druids.


Isaac has it right. I believe there are a variety of mods out there that procr the point,


Dave Justus wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
If you are prepared to argue that the swarm caster druid is not allowed to take improved familiar, then you also have to be willing to support the position that the serpent bloodline sorcerer can also not take it.
Nope. That is a totally different argument.

How is it a different argument?

Serpent bloodline gives you a restricted list of familiars you can take.
ie: viper.

The FAQ says you can take Improved Familiar in general, and in specific, if you could apply improved familiar as an archetype to your familiar.

In both cases, you can apply the archetype, it is therefore legal.

In both cases, the restrictions that you had for your *familiar* do not apply to your improved familiar.

Improved familiar changes the rules and gives you access to a new list.
It specifically says: When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed here are also available to you.


I think its speculation to say the author didn't intend you to use improved familiar; speculation to say he did or didn't intend different size swarms.

I mean improved familiar is one of the most common feats for spell casters.

And how difficult would it have been to say: The swarm mongers swarms may only be of small or tiny animals?

And yes, I'm looking merely for technically correct.


Disagree.
The restriction of small animal is applied only to the beast shape I portion of the spell.

"At caster level 7, this spell functions as beast shape II." Period. No restrictions.

The spell is not overpowered. Whereas beastshape can normally be applied to familiars or casters, this spell is limited strictly to the familiars.

Shamans do not get access to beast shape; and witches involve their familiars in combat strictly at their peril; to lose their familiar is to lose spell casting.


Dave Justus wrote:

I think it is important when looking at a FAQ to pay attention to the question as well as the answer. The FAQs don't always deal with every possibility.

This FAQs main question is whether 'arcane caster level'

Isn't the question better phrased as: do variant casters qualify for improved familiar?

Quote:

is really needed, and the answer to that is that no, it isn't effective wizard level is good enough.

Then it goes on, not in a lot of detail, about variants. First we learn that temporary familiar won't work and (for no real apparent reason) a tumor familiar won't work.

Then we get the 'archetype stacking bit' which is what the poster is basing his argument on. It isn't super clear and it isn't directly an answer to any part of the question asked. I regard it as a good minimum (any familiar feature that doesn't meet these standard can't be improved, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any that does, can.)

I'm not solely basing my point on the FAQ.

I supported it with the idea that there are more than 20 variant classes that restrict a familiar choice to a single type of familiar, in addition to the swarm monger, that restricts you to a list of familiars.

The FAQ gives a rule that eliminates some of the variant classes (Fire plane druid, daivrat) but not others.

If you are prepared to argue that the swarm caster druid is not allowed to take improved familiar, then you also have to be willing to support the position that the serpent bloodline sorcerer can also not take it.

And where is your justification for that position?

The whole point of Improved Familiar was that it gives you access to new familiars, removing the previous list you were restricted to. But people weren't sure how that applied to variant familiars. They tried to say for example that a Serpent bloodline sorcerer was restricted to only a viper and hence could not take improved familiar. (celestial viper <> viper logic).

So then they released an FAQ that gives a rule that gives pretty lenient verbiage. It says In general, variant classes qualify for Improved Familiar, unless X or Y.

Neither X nor Y apply in this case. In PFS we aren't allowed to insert our judgement, nor put extraneous values its a pretty clear test. Swarm monger doesn't change the familiar type, nor remove speak with kind: so it passes.


Quote:
A fecund familiar cannot be reduced in size to Diminutive or smaller when in swarm form.

,

But that simply says it can't be reduced while in swarm form. Which, following general rules, it can't be anyway. (Nor enlarged).

But it would still be legal to cast reduce person on the familiar...

LordKailas: I am using it for an appropriately size (fine, diminutive, or tiny).


Check out the song bird of doom build. Dovetails with what avr suggested.


Dave Justus wrote:

Improved familiar specifically increased the options you can take, so having limited options itself should not be an issue...

Those things are all fairly easy to define as a swarm, a fairy dragon swarm, not so much.

So, I take your point. But

The rules for swarmmonger tell you how to make a swarm;
"While in swarm form, the familiar loses the improved evasion, share spells, deliver touch attack, and scry on familiar special abilities. It uses its normal AC, saving throws, and skill bonuses, and it gains the swarm subtype and the ability to make swarm attacks (dealing 1d6 points of damage at 1st level and using the swarm monger’s druid level as the swarm’s Hit Dice to determine damage increases as per the swarm subtype)."

So, statting out the swarm is actually not an issue. FTR I did not choose a faerie dragon, and did in fact choose a diminutive, urban improved familiar, in keeping with the fluff of the class.

The other argument

Quote:
A celestial cat is a type of cat, but it isn't a 'Cat' the two creature's are different and even have different types.

I think is addressed by the faq:

Quote:
In general, you can take Improved Familiars for class-granted variant familiars like a shaman’s spirit animal

In all, there are around two dozen classes or archetypes that give access to restricted variant lists. Things like

Cleric: vermin domain
Cleric Asmodean Advocate
Druid crocodile, eagle, frog, monkey, serpent, air, earth, fire, water
Druid, Leshy Warden
Sorcerer: Serpent Bloodline
Kineticist, Elemental Whispers
Medium Kami
Witch.
Shaman

All of them have restricted access. For example the Sorcerer with the Serpent bloodline gets a viper.

The rules (to me) seem pretty clear that they all get access to the improved familiar list, certainly none of them are called out for restriction in the faq.

Only one was: the tumor familiar.

Regarding

Quote:
In other cases, treat Improved Familiar as if it was an archetype to see if it stacks with other familiar options: since the two things it alters from a regular familiar are that it removes the ability to speak with animals of its kind and it prevents changing the creature type for non-animals, you couldn’t make a familiar that changes the creature type of non-animals or alters or removes speak with animals of its kind an Improved Familiar.

What this is saying is look at the variant familiar list.

If you could apply Improved familiar as an archetype, you can take Improved familiar as a feat.

The two things that prevent the archetype from being applied would be if the variant list changed the creature type of the familiar, or if it removed the ability to speak with others of its type.

The swarm monger druid does neither of these things and hence is eligible to take Improved familiar.

Contrast that with a Daivrat. It gets a Zhyen familiar. As a tiny outsider the familiar is no longer [animal->magical beast] and as such is not eligible for Improved familiar.


A swarm monger druid is a class with a variant familiar class feature.
Specifically:

"Fecund Familiar (Ex)
A swarm monger bonds with an urban familiar, treating her druid level as her wizard level for the purposes of determining her familiar’s abilities.

The swarm monger must select her familiar from the following options: cat, house centipede, rat, raven, or scarlet spider. The fecund familiar gains the benefits of its master’s child of pollution, shadowy opportunist, and venom immunity class abilities."

To me, it seems fairly cut and dried: The swarm monger qualifies for improved familiar.

Improved familiar says: prerequsites:Ability to acquire a new familiar, compatible alignment, sufficiently high level (see below)

Benefit: When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed here are also available to you.

My PFS ref disagrees, saying that the Swarm Monger druid must choose from cat, house centipede, rat, raven, or scarlet spider.

Yes, I believed that would be true, for a *familiar* but not for an improved familiar. There are no restrictions in the class for taking an improved familiar; nor in the faq.

Speaking of the FAQ, it says:

"In general, you can take Improved Familiars for class-granted variant familiars like a shaman’s spirit animal, with a few exceptions: First, temporary familiars like the occultist’s soulbound puppet can’t become Improved Familiars from the Improved Familiar feat, and those class features don’t qualify you to take the Improved Familiar feat. Second, tumor familiars, as lumps of flesh in the shape of animals, can’t become Improved Familiars. In other cases, treat Improved Familiar as if it was an archetype to see if it stacks with other familiar options: since the two things it alters from a regular familiar are that it removes the ability to speak with animals of its kind and it prevents changing the creature type for non-animals, you couldn’t make a familiar that changes the creature type of non-animals or alters or removes speak with animals of its kind an Improved Familiar."

So to me it says, "In general you can take improved familiars for class-granted variant familiars."
This means people like Serpent Bloodline sorcerers - that can take only *1* familiar - can take any Improved familiar.

However, Ref is saying that the third case (above) applies - it doesn't stack.

To me, the third case says, see if you can apply improved familiar as an archetype to the regular familiar.

As the regular familiar does not modify speak with kind, nor change type of animal - it stacks; therefore the character is free to take Improved familiar.

Sorry for the wall of text. What I am looking for is

a). Do you have any arguments either pro or con on this discussion; is this pretty much settled PFS.

b). Are there instances in published PFS modules that support this position?

Thanks!


Daw wrote:
Um, if that vial is effectively immaterial to the creature, how is it do you think it somehow prevents its contents from contacting the creature? All it really does is keep the contents in a fixed shape, when contacting the incorporeal creature. Realistically, an unbroken vial can be used as a club as long as it doesn't hit anything solid and breaks, whether the contents degrade with doing damage is a GM call I guess.

This.


Put me firmly in the camp that a readied move is a perfectly fine counter.
With an additional caveat.

Per the rules you charge to a specific square - the nearest square.
If the character's readied action goes off, the charging character does not get to move to follow you. His action is done. He charges to the specific square. Turn over.


Might could do with Feral combat training and AoMF conductive?


Mind you, I find the quoted rule problematic, and do not like the wording.
Does the rule only apply to unranged weapons or not. Could be argued either way.

Rock thrower gives a range increment to a rock. Which is awesome. So builds using rock throwing probably cool. But most of the builds presented didnt.

Just an FYI.

And Rock Throwing is 3rd party so not pfs legal in any case??


Rules on Thrown weapons:
Thrown Weapons: The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons). It is possible to throw a weapon that isn’t designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn’t have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

How is the mighty rock hurler not falling afoul of this rule?


I'd let the enhanced shillelagh from the class add to the oaken staff.

3/5

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Absolutely love slow track. But I think generally speaking that with consumables, it ends up costing your characters a lot more cash.

It would be great if there were a champions mode that was like slow track but jiggered gold/rewards a bit.

I like the 1 xp per ar system, but I would like to suggest that experience required be varied by character class.

Wizard, arcanist 5 xp per level.
Paladins, druids 4 xp per level
Most other classes.. 3 xp per level. This would help balance the game, additionally.

I think that will run against a lot of different problems:

* Joe and Bob started playing Society tggether, but Joe's Fighter is leveling up faster than Bob's Wizard. Now they can't play together anymore because they're not close enough in level.

* So what if leveling wizards up goes slower than fighters. If a level 5 wizard is really more powerful than a level 5 fighter, then it's still not balanced for them to play in the same scenario. So what does slower advancement really solve?

* What if wizards aren't actually stronger than fighters? Maybe the newest book makes fighters a lot more powerful but wizard stayed the same. Should fighters now need more XP than rogues to level up? What about people who already had fighters? Do they go down a level? What if they didn't use anything from the new book?

* What is you multiclass? What if you have only a few levels in a fast-leveling class? What if you have only a few levels in a slow-leveling class?

This really doesn't seem that hard.

If I multiclass a fighter - with 3xp I progress to the next level. If my next level is mage - five xp later I'm ready for another level.

Honestly, I'd love to vary it by level, first level mages being vastly less out of balance than 5th level mages, but ..

As for the rest of it.. if wizards aren't more powerful how does that change the equation. Some classes are more powerful some aren't. Either way, this would let you be more granular.

As for billy and bob not being able to play together - that would require a conscioius effort on their part, wouldn't it....

3/5

Absolutely love slow track. But I think generally speaking that with consumables, it ends up costing your characters a lot more cash.

It would be great if there were a champions mode that was like slow track but jiggered gold/rewards a bit.

I like the 1 xp per ar system, but I would like to suggest that experience required be varied by character class.

Wizard, arcanist 5 xp per level.
Paladins, druids 4 xp per level
Most other classes.. 3 xp per level. This would help balance the game, additionally.


What type of damage is non-lethal damage?


Syries wrote:

Im not so sure. The ability itself isnt what take the full action, casting the spell is the full action. As far as I can tell, using Spell Kenning isnt an action at all, it is simply an ability that enables you to cast certain spells, and the casting of the spell is a full action.

Quicken spell can always reduce the time of any spell that has a 1 round casting or less.

Can you think of other spells that say they *always* take one full round?


If your going barbarian Savage trick is a must include. So what would that build look like?


Hey bird. I appreciate The comments.
I've played a fair bit of optimized characters.

I agree with you about the trick ponies. But of all the tricks, dirty tricks is the most versatile.

The best optimization is dueling. Especially with sacred weapon. +15, I've already used all the tricks mentioned to boost. Gauntlets. Burglar shield. Divine favor.

I do agree that The twf feats are probably suboptimal. But... It does give some measure of combat ability.

Thought about dazzling display linr instead of twf line


Agile maneuvers let's you use Dex for cmb.

Super high dex in order to be able to land the cmb. Iirc, monster cmds are 48ish at 11.

Conceptually a- 10 attack when the victim is blinded and pinned would work out okay.


Hypnotic pattern, Rainbow pattern.
Summon a monster with a gaze attack.
Theoretically you could also make an illusion...


Undine WarPriest
S 7 -2 5
D 18 +2 20 Level Adjustments here
C 14
I 7
W 16 +2
C 7

1: Blessing - Replace with Cayden's Divine Fighting Technique.
1: Dirty Fighting, Weapon Focus (mug of ale)
3: Improved Dirty Trick, TWF
5: Weapon Finess
6: FC WP Bonus: Improved TWF
7: Agile Maneuvers
WPB:Quick Dirty Trick
9: Greater Dirty Trick
10: Major Blessing: Cayden's DFT
11: Quick Dirty Trick
12: Greater TWF
FCWPB: Dirty Trick Master

Traits: Fates Favored
Adopted: Gnome Prankster (+1 CMB / CMD)

So at 11:

+ to hit
Dexterity +8
WF +1
+2 Sacred Weapon, +2 mug
Divine Favor +5
Bab +9

======
+27

CMB

Dexterity +8
Gnome Prank +1
Dueling +15
Gauntlets +2
Burglar Buckler +2
Improved DTrick +2
Greater D T +2
WF +1
AS +1
Sacred +3
Divine Favor +5
Bab +9
=====================
+51

Plan: Fight with either Tankard & Shield, or Tankard and Tankard (since tankard's are light weapons, as are bucklers).

So, using a tankard, and Divine Fighting techique I can toss a drink in place of an attack.

Improved dirty trick means lasts d4 rounds

Greater means it takes a standard action to clear. So in theory, I could blind him, shake him, entangle him. Alternately, I could whack him for mediocre damage.

Now, by my reading I don't really need Quick Dirty Trick. Do you agree? What would you suggest as an alternate? Weapon Versatility? Improved Shield Bash? Dual Enhancement?

At 12th level (sadly, out of PFS play) I could take him straight to pinned by Dirty trick master.

Pro's: Fun roleplaying.
Con's: Mediocre damage. Capstone out of PFS play.
Not fun till level 5.


Must Haves:

4.
Emergency Force Shield
Black Tentacles
Dim Door

3. Ablative Sphere
Haste
Fly

2. Defending Bone, Glitterdust/SeeInvisible

1
Mage Armor
Liberating Command
Sure Casting
Snowballs
MonkeyFish
Also - you should have one or two of the pit spells.

Nice to have, depending on build
4
Skin Project, Greater False Life

3
ClairVoyance - I guess. Divination sucks unless you're playing a diviner.

TinyHut (Give your party concealment...)

2. False Life, Mirror Image,
1.
Shield
Grease
Charm Person


willuwontu wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Regarding weapon specialization sap.

Not my position at all. My position is that dazing metamagic feat is sufficiently imprecisely worded that I am free to impose a strict interpretation which may or may not be necessary on other sections of the game.

Actually per the faq for damage bonuses

FAQ wrote:
When it comes to modifiers that affect weapon damage rolls, or simply “damage rolls” (such as the bonus on damage rolls from Point-Blank Shot, inspire courage, and smite evil), special abilities that deal damage on a successful attack roll, apply them on hit point damage only

And given what you said earlier

Quote:
Neither nonlethal nor ability damage reduce hit points. They are not damage. They do not qualify for dazing.

I perfectly represented your position on the matter, given how you've stated it, if that wasn't what you meant and you'd like to clear it up, that's fine.

There are exactly 2 stances for this argument that maintain a continuous application of the rules in the same way:

A) Non-lethal damage doesn't damage hp, and thereby doesn't qualify for dazing and weapon specialization.

Or

B) Non-lethal doesn't reduce hit points, but is considered hit point damage and thus qualifies for dazing and weapon specialization.

Still nope. But I appreciate the quote. My position is not what you infer. I'll try again.

1. Damage is a vague term. If someone is using a sap and hits for 30 points of damage, and the player says "I hit for 30 damage" - most people with a rules understanding will understand he means 30 non lethal.

If he hits with sword - he's not going to say "I hit for 30 points of "lethal" damage. How damage is used and understood depends on context.

2. In the case of weapons, there is a related inference. I can poke you with the sword, or hit you with the flat to do non-lethal.

Because the weapon can do both lethal and non lethal - there is an association. They are similar.

The same is not true with spells. You have to use a feat (merciful). If you are a prepared caster you cannot change your merciful spell to do lethal, or your lethal spell to do merciful.

If you are spontaneous, applying merciful can be done on the fly, but it boosts the casting time of the spell (and you still need the feat).

So the distinction with spells is harder and more important.

3. While you could in principal argue that one must rigorously only allow references to damage only apply to lethal damage, I hold
a) That contention is not supported by the rules. Ie Paizo is inconsistent; there is no reason to apply consistency which doesn't exist.

But, b) more importantly. High level iterative attacks by fighters are already math intensive. Power attack or no power attack. Combat expertise or no. TWF or no. Conditions applied. Two hand strength adustments.

On melee combat, the difference between applying feats to non-lethal damage or not, doesn't make a significant important difference. In the grand scheme of life, the difference is't worth imposing.

Such is not true with Dazing. A wizard can lockdown a lot of encounters with dazying magic missiles or dazing flurry of snowballs.
So, in the interests of "more fun" for the table, I think using the stricter definition is called for.


cuatroespada wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Speaking of ignoring arguments:

Still no answer from you on whether you think dazing calcific touch is AOk...

my bad that was unintentional though it hardly seems necessary for me to have to actually type it. yeah, dazing calcific touch is fine. that spell deals damage. i'm not sure what else you thought i would say...

So in your world dazing works on ability damage; it works on summoned creatures, it works on pit spells. And in your world, dazing is likely to be viewed as extremely OP.

In mine in works on none of them. And dazing is strong, but not nearly as insane.


LordKailas wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
So per Tommy's replies, weapon specialization doesn't apply to nonlethal attacks.

So, weapon specialization (Sap) literally does nothing. That's good to know.

edit: on a side note, I want to say this discussion of "Spells that do damage" has been discussed when talking about the arcane trickster and what spells allow them to apply sneak attack via surprise spells. The wording on the ability is pretty much the same as the wording on dazing spell so if it works for one it works for the other. From what I've found the general consensus was that both non-lethal damage and ability damage are treated as damage, for purposes of spells and abilities. But the sneak attack damage on something like Enervation would just be hitpoint damage instead of negative levels.

On a side note the question of weapon-like spells (or non-weapon like spells) isn't really anything like the discussion about dazing.

After all, poking one with a finger might well deliver a spell (such as calcific touch). But it won't do damage. Sneak attacks work when you do hp damage and roll an attack roll.

Dazing doesn't require an attack roll; it works fine on spells that give reflex saves. So in short, not much like weaponlike spells discussion at all.

Regarding weapon specialization sap.
Not my position at all. My position is that dazing metamagic feat is sufficiently imprecisely worded that I am free to impose a strict interpretation which may or may not be necessary on other sections of the game.


Speaking of ignoring arguments:

Still no answer from you on whether you think dazing calcific touch is AOk...

As for quotes: mate, I don't know why you can't see them. I see them just fine. Do you really want to argue about quote marks? Really?

As for Perfect Tommy. Not my name; perfection is not my claim. Its a character in a movie. Not my fault if you don't get the allusion.

Damage is listed on page 179...
Yes. Which means its a discussion of ways in which things may damage you. It is not a listing of all things that are types of damage. If it were meant to be a list, its not a very good one. It left out "Non-lethal damage"

A previous heading was "Attacks of Opportunity".
In that section there is a heading: Threatened squares. Does that mean threatened squares are a type of Attack of Opportunity?

No. It means hey.. If we are going to talk about attacks of opportunity, we need to talk about threatening squares.

Alchemists formula's are listed under spells. Does that make them spells. Nope. Still extracts. Just a convenient way to organize information.

So we have clearly established here that the fact that ability damage is listed means precisely... Nothing.

Damage: reduces hit points. Does ability damage reduce hitpoints? No.
Ergo: Its not damage.

Tanks. I am claiming that other than sharing a word (tank) water tanks and battle tanks are not elements of any set in the usual sense of the word.

Peanut butter is in fact, not butter.
Peanut butter cups are in fact not cups.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cuatroespada wrote:

no, the spoiler you quoted (and that was quoted and discussed literally two posts before yours which makes me wonder if you actually read the things other people type) reads

Quote:
It is not “real” damage.

note the quotation marks you omitted. are you saying they mean nothing?

I didn't omit quotes. So I am left wondering what the hell you are talking about.

Regarding the rest of it. You are truly amazing. Somehow you can read my mind, what I understand about your argument.

And you can interpret my reticence to want to get involved in a long rules discussion with someone who posts condescending and snide posts as not understanding.

Bully for you.

Quote:


the (apparently obvious to everyone else)

Wow, so now you're an expert on what everyone else thinks, as well.

Truly wow. Pleased to meet you God.

Quote:


rectangles and rhombi are parallelograms. that is a fact.

Yay!

Quote:

nonlethal damage and normal damage are both types of damage. also a fact.

And here you demonstrate the inability to separate fact from your legendary (in your own mind) opinion.

Quote:


touch of gracelessness and ray of exhaustion
... blah blah blah

No it suggests I was careless in the former case and subject to automatic word completion in the second.

I understand that *you, oh god" believe that non-lethal damage as well as ability damage - are all types of damage. Yay!

I would however point out the text of chill touch:

Spoiler:

A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creatures. Each touch channels negative energy that deals 1d6 points of damage. The touched creature also takes 1 point of Strength damage unless it makes a successful Fortitude saving throw. You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level.

An undead creature you touch takes no damage of either sort, but it must make a successful Will saving throw or flee as if panicked for 1d4 rounds + 1 round per caster level.

Here's the money line: "An undead creature you touch takes no damage of either sort."

Categorically saying that there are more than one kinds of damage, and that the undead will take no damage of either kind.

Now, getting back to the crux of the argument. Pathfinder uses short hands and colloquialisms all the time. It is not a "rigorous" definition.

Almost every single time that pathfinder refers to "damage" it is referring to damage that gets subtracted from your hitpoints. (Lethal damage). However, since that is the kind of damage more than 95% of the time - the lethal gets dropped and is understood.

According to your argument - ability damage is a type of damage.
But the definition of damage (Core Rule book) "Damage reduces a target’s current hit points." Does ability damage reduce a targets hit points?

No so it clearly isn't "damage". Thus blowing a whole in your rhomboid argument. Ability damage - doesn't reduce hit points - it therefore cannot be a subclass - it is, indeed a parallel class. A different type of damage.

{Watertank, Battle Tank} ∉ Tank.
{Ability Damage, Nonlethal Damage, Lethal Damage} ∉ Damage

No one I know allows dazing to work on calcific touch. If you wish to allow dazing calcific touch at your tables: Go right ahead. Its insane, but hey, its your game.

So, we've established:
A) That the game does differentiate between different kinds of damage.
B). That the game uses the term damage non rigorously. Damage (with no other qualifiers) refers to that which reduces Hitpoints.
C). Thats what the dazing metamagic feat refers to when it says. "When a creature takes damage from this spell".
D). Neither nonlethal nor ability damage reduce hit points. They are not damage. They do not qualify for dazing.

And finally:

No amounts of insults or condescension on your part is going to persuade me; and I doubt I will persuade you. So instead of making character attacks or whatever - why not just state your case and leave it there. Do we really have to argue about it for 22 pages?


cuatroespada wrote:
no, we're saying that a rectangle and a rhombus are both types of parallelograms. similarly, nonlethal damage and "damage" (and ability damage) are types of damage (no quotation marks). you are arguing that nonlethal damage isn't a type of damage because it isn't normal damage or you're arguing that the dazing spell feat specifically refers to normal damage. the former is nonsense and you have yet to submit convincing evidence of the latter. i don't believe any of the RAW say that anytime you see the word "damage" alone it means normal damage and not damage in the general sense.

I understand your argument. I don't agree with it.

Ability drain is not ability damage despite the fact that they both share the word ability.

Nor are they abilities. The spoiler I quoted says that non lethal damage isn't real damage.

Whereas you have nothing on your side saying it is.

Further more - according to your interpretation Dazing touch of gracelessness, dazing ray of exhaustion ought to be legal.

I disagree.

I think my definition of what is a legal dazing spell better balances the game than yours.

Doubt either one of us are going to convince the other, but I think its useful to make people aware of how things may go at table.


willuwontu wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

just like non lethal dmg is not damage.

Not this crap again.

Not this crap again.

But just because I'm not a big fan of contentless snark:

Take nonlethal dmg > hp + con: you're unconscious.
Take lethal dmg > hp + con: you're dead.

Healing spells heal lethal damage and non lethal damage at the same time.
You heal non lethal damage at a rate per hour.
You heal lethal damage at a rate per day.

The scarify spell converts lethal damage to nonlethal damage.

Creatures can be immune to non-lethal damage; they still usually take damage.

With usual weapons, it is more difficult to incapacity a creature without causing permanent damage. This is why you are assessed a -4 penalty.

Likewise, if a Paladin attacks someone to do nonlethal the alignment repercussions are likely different than if they attack to kill.

Argue as you like, but it reasonable that inorder to "daze" someone that you have to do "real" damage.

Your argument is akin to saying water tank and battle tank are the same thing because they both have the word "tank". Other than they both share the same word, they are different in numerous and sundry ways. Why would you try to insist they were the same?

Dazing requires a spell do "damage". "non-lethal damage" <> "damage".

Spoiler:
Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you've accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not "real" damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you're staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious.


The point is that craft wand lets you create a wand of any 4th level or lower spell you know.

Alchemical Allocation is not a spell - its an extract. As the FAQ states, alchemists are not spellcasters. The elixirs they make are not spells.

"Although the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells.. he does have a formulae list...."

Craft wand lets you creat a wand of any 4th level *spell* you know.


cuatroespada wrote:
as long as you're consistent. though this makes me wonder which spells can even be said to do damage themselves at all...

The text of the spell is a fluff description which does not alter the mechanical construction.

All these are legal for dazing (generally speaking)

Spells which do damage with a save.
Spells which do damage with a to hit rolls incorporated as part of the spell (scorching ray).

It includes spells such as shocking grasp which entitle you to multiple attempts to hit to land the spell, but not spells like icicle dagger where the effect has a life outside the attack roll.

Re: ray of frost.
Cantrips are a separate class feature from spells. Infinite uses per day; no bonuses due to intelligence. dazing meta applies to spells, cantrips while similar to spells are not spells.


Would dazing touch of gracelessness work?

Of course not. Ability damage is not damage, just like non lethal dmg is not damage.

Additionally, as you noted, dazing requires the spell to do damage. Aqueous orb doesn't damage, it creates an effect that damages.

Dazing is such a powerful feat that I hue to the narrowest definition construeable.

Dazing fireball, snowball, legal.

Dazing produce flame, fire wall : not legal.

Dazing ray of frost: not legal. (It's a cantrip.)


Put me in the camp that says dazing aqueous orb is not legal.

1 to 50 of 800 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>