Peshmonster's page

Venture-Captain, Iowa—Iowa City 34 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 15 Organized Play characters.


RSS


I also just found another section in Ultimate Intrigue. I highly suggest this book to any that have questions about specific skills. The section about social combat is amazing.

This is found under the State of Awareness section on page 188:

"Aware of Presence: The next state is when a perceiving creature is aware of the sneaking creature's presence, though not of anything beyond that. This is the state that happens when an invisible creature attacks someone and then successfully uses Stealth so the perceiving creature doesn't know where the attacker moved, or when a sniper succeeds at her Stealth check to snipe."

This specific stated example is attacking and then using stealth.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Peshmonster wrote:
A question that I will pose is: Where is the description of what type of action it is to "Create a diversion to hide."

Ultimate Intrigue page 184, Other Uses of Bluff, Creating a Diversion

"Creating a distraction is a standard action."

...amongst various less official citations over the years.

Thank you! I now have an opportunity to more clearly read UI.


Matt2VK wrote:
Peshmonster wrote:

Matt2VK wrote

The above posts is why I want a FAQ answer on this.

Topic has been argued to the death on this already.

Hopefully, we'll get a clear answer on if you can Stealth after attacking without using some special ability/rule excepting.

Matt,

I'm not sure why you need a FAQ answer on this. After the discussion (and especially the post from Ultimate Intrigue) I think this is fairly clear. It is evident that you can make a stealth check as long as you are unobserved and are stealthed at the point you are not observed.

Are you more asking the question of if you are considered to have the condition "attacking" for the entire round if you have made a single attack?

The problem is all the paragraphs in the Core Book on Stealth except one seems to say you can not stealth after a attack. If you completely chop out this single paragraph -

Core Rule Book Page 107 wrote:
Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

If you read the Stealth rules without that paragraph it seems to say you can't stealth after attacking. Even with that paragraph, it's open to interpretation.

Are you referring to the sentence that says: "It is impossible to Stealth while attacking, running, or charging." Because in this sentence it does not say "after." That's why I was asking about what you were thinking of as attacking. In this sentence it is describing the attack, run, and charge actions. I think you might be relating the word attacking to in combat.


Matt2VK wrote:

The above posts is why I want a FAQ answer on this.

Topic has been argued to the death on this already.

Hopefully, we'll get a clear answer on if you can Stealth after attacking without using some special ability/rule excepting.

Matt,

I'm not sure why you need a FAQ answer on this. After the discussion (and especially the post from Ultimate Intrigue) I think this is fairly clear. It is evident that you can make a stealth check as long as you are unobserved and are stealthed at the point you are not observed.

Are you more asking the question of if you are considered to have the condition "attacking" for the entire round if you have made a single attack?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Peshmonster wrote:
A question that I will pose is: Where is the description of what type of action it is to "Create a diversion to hide." To me it seems like people are lumping this in with Feint as a standard action. This creating a diversion to hide does not have the same results as Feint (intrinsically) and therefore I suggest it is part of the stealth action

If something doesn't have a listed action it defaults to standard. Hence the standard part :)

There is an inquisition ability to make it a move action, heavily implying that its more than a move action, which would make it standard.

That part about the inquisitor is EXACTLY what I needed. Thanks!


Hi Matt!

Thanks ShieldLawrence for posting the UI part, I recently just read that and was very excited that blur and displacement don't allow sneaky types to walk around "invisible."

The explanations from ShieldLawrence and CB Dunkerson for why Sniping is special and the difference between attacking and moving are exactly right. For sniping nobody knows where they are getting hit from. The argument I mostly hear from players on this is that they would know in which direction the attack came from. While the rules do not support them knowing or my response, I like to tell them they were hit in the side of the head. Then I remind them there is no facing. ;)

I will reiterate that "while attacking" is related to the attack action. I think everyone can agree that while taking a move action (in general) you are not attacking.

A question that I will pose is: Where is the description of what type of action it is to "Create a diversion to hide." To me it seems like people are lumping this in with Feint as a standard action. This creating a diversion to hide does not have the same results as Feint (intrinsically) and therefore I suggest it is part of the stealth action. Does this mean you would get to make a bluff, stealth, and move a distance all in a move action? Yes. I looked back at the playtest rules for stealth in 2011 and noticed that it was stated this Bluff was a standard action. I then searched the blog post and didn't find much relating to the type of action it took. I believe this is because you would spend one entire round bluffing and then moving (at a -10 penalty) to cover. Notice the previous wording requiring a standard action is not present in the current rules text. Please if anyone has citations from posts from Paizo employees or a FAQ I was unable to find let me know!

Second part of this thought would be if doing the bluff, stealth, move is overpowered. I personally do not believe so. You are assuming that you are next to the target somehow when you begin your round. You then can make one attack as a standard action and you become un-stealthed. The victim sees you and is like, "why am I being attacked by a 16 year old girl with blonde hair who is muttering about taking me to a farm?!?!?", then Farm Girl makes a bluff check opposed by sense motive, IF she is successful she can then move into cover or what I will deem "large concealment" and make a stealth check (-10) opposed by perception. The victim then does not know where she went or the path she used to take it. IF she had failed her bluff check, (which she would not know) she would still be able to make her stealth check in cover on concealment (still -10) and she is hidden UNTIL the victim moves in such a way she no longer has cover or concealment. (Which is likely since the victim would know the path taken to cover/concealment.) Consequently if the victim "happened" (I feel GM metagaming here) to move in such a way to relieve her of cover or concealment when she DID make her bluff check, she still would not be in stealth. In either of these cases my Farm Girl only got to make one attack and then move AWAY from the target. That means next turn without something special I would not be able to do the same thing. Even if this attack is a Greater Vital Strike/Sneak Attack, what in comparison to the 6 arrow/round archer are we concerned about. (From a damage perspective)

I would also say that singular effects similar to blur or displacement would not allow Stealth. For example I have a character that uses Mistmail to effectively give her concealment. The concealment is only in her square. While this is certainly not Blur or Displacement I would likely say she cannot use this to Stealth.

Venture-Captain, Iowa—Iowa City aka Peshmonster

I realize this is a bit after the fact, but I have a question about the Silver Crusade journal card. Does the ability to use lay on hands qualify a character with that goal for feats like Extra Lay on Hands/Ultimate Mercy?

Thanks!


Can anyone point to where this is answered in the errata? I can't find anything. I wish they would link the errata when posting that as an answer.


Was there anything about the length of fatigue for furious finish? I'm about to make a furious finish character and the way I read furious finish it applies the "condition" fatigued, which requires 8 hrs of rest. Does anyone know if it is the actual condition fatigued or if it is the so-called rage-fatigue? It just seems so powerful if it is only a rage-fatigue amount of time.


So...does that mean that you can't take a 5-ft step if you have hampered movement, I.E. it would take you 10-ft of movement to move 5-ft?


Hello everyone,

I realize this has probably been answered before, but my searches are failing. I am looking to figure out if a character can take a 5-ft step if under an effect of hampered movement. I know the definition of 5-ft step says you cannot do it in darkness or difficult terrain, but what about other situations like under the effects of a Slow spell or in an area of poor visibility.

The slow spell looks like it reduces your actual speed to half its normal amount. I don't believe this would prevent a 5-ft step as it does not cost you 2 squares of movement for a distance of 5-ft.

The poor visibility (sidenote fog cloud? poor visibility?) says it is hampered movement and is a X2 modifier. This would mean that moving a distance of 5-ft would take 10-ft of movement. Is there a stated rule that addresses this issue either in a sourcebook or within a FAQ.

Thanks!


Firebug wrote:
This came up last night in a certain scenario... the Hellknight was no longer worthy to wear Hellknight Armor. Or power attack, two weapon fighting from ranger combat style, quick draw, favored enemy human, smite chaos, and a few other things. Considering he had prep time to find a chaotic human and start the combat adjacent it was a sizeable CC.

Oooh Oooh...pick me pick me! I was me guys, I was the one that did this. Can anyone tell me what an activated feat is? To me it is anything that a player would have to state he is using, Two-Weapon Fighting/Power Attack/Deadly Aim. It would not apply to things like Iron Will, Skill Focus, Extra Traits.

What do you all think?


Caryth,

I really like the idea of you playing the iconic for a few sessions. And when you do this, pick the bloodrager. That guys does more dmg then 75% of the characters I play/play with. Then you have the whole argument of...yeah I didn't make this.


Stealth

(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)

You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.

Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Medium +0, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.

Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.

If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a bonus on Stealth checks (see Feats).


I've been successfully using this feat on a character. The issue is that a creature is only flat-footed in the first round of combat if it has not acted. (And of course surprise rounds) The unaware part is not a problem as using stealth specifically says that if you succeed your stealth versus the opponents perception they are unaware of you. I use Mistmail for this part and a high stealth check. Usually I ask my party if I can go in first and scout out the situation to see if I can start combat with my grapple or at least so I have a chance of acting before someone within the first round of combat that is within half my movement speed (to reduce penalties for the stealth check).

Venture-Captain, Iowa—Iowa City aka Peshmonster

So the former, thank you!

Venture-Captain, Iowa—Iowa City aka Peshmonster

1 person marked this as a favorite.

John or Mark,

I'm having a discussion with my group about the meaning of the unchained summoner being qualified for all summoner archetypes. In PFS archetypes like synthesis are not legal for play. Does this blog post mean that unchained summoner in PFS can use all already legal archetypes or that it can use any summoner archetypes, like Synthesist?

(Been wanting to do synthesist for a while :) )

Thanks!


I'm fairly new to PFS, why were SLA's allowed to count as spells in the first FAQ. From what I see they are specifically described as "not spells."


Hello,

First of all does anyone remember a thread/post/faq/rulebook reading somewhere that talks about becoming dazed during your full attack? I seem to remember something about if you were dazed in some way during your full attack you could not continue it.

The main part of of this post is in regards to my fighter who can bull rush with attacks of opportunity. I receive an attack of opportunity versus an enemy who misses me. I was under the impression that all attack of any kind (iterative or natural attacks) are resolved on a per attack basis. Last night my game master stated that he has always run natural attacks as happening simultaneously. I was wondering if there was anything to describe the process for natural attacks. I have always thought about attacks being resolved one at a time.

Thanks!


VampByDay wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Elemental (electric) bloodrager wasn't a consideration?
I thought that the warpriest made a better Thor, but I am open to new ideas. Stat him up, give me your pitch, and see what you can make.

Avengers are literally happening at my local PFS. My friend and I are currently running Thor and Captain America. For Captain the obvious choice is the brawler that is meant for him. That being said that class came out after my concept and I am currently Fighter 3/Monk 2/Ranger 1. (and planning on going ranger after this) The results are surprisingly stellar.

My friend is playing Thor as mainly a Magus. He has one level of Sorcerer elemental bloodline (air). This allows him to change whatever spell to the electric type. The magus hits HARD. He also has good knowledge skills and is playing as an aasimar. Spell combat + spellstrike and burning hands or frostbite is converted to electric damage and it is real. We've yet to find an adequate Hulk but Black Widow is being played as a maneuver master Monk and Iron Man as a Kineticist.

Thor has a high charisma (because magus' can do that) and took battle cry (war cry, can't remember) as a feat. He uses bladed dash and a warhammer. I don't have specific stats but the concept is fitting.

Venture-Captain, Iowa—Iowa City aka Peshmonster

Kevin Ingle wrote:
Peshmonster wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Peshmonster wrote:


So you just need fox's cunning then.

That doesn't help. You're now an especially smart cat that KNOWS its better than anything else. Nor is giving you an int score of 6 going to let you suddenly speak taldan and let the party explain the complex predicament you're now in.

You don't need Taldan, you still can understand common. Then someone just tells you that you are not a cat. You don't lose your ability to understand a language when you are polymorphed, you do lose the ability to read and speak it though. Once the stat is bumped back up you are just fine.
Umm...Taldane IS common...

For now, I was just making my post correct for all possible futures...yeah

Venture-Captain, Iowa—Iowa City aka Peshmonster

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Peshmonster wrote:


So you just need fox's cunning then.

That doesn't help. You're now an especially smart cat that KNOWS its better than anything else. Nor is giving you an int score of 6 going to let you suddenly speak taldan and let the party explain the complex predicament you're now in.

You don't need Taldan, you still can understand common. Then someone just tells you that you are not a cat. You don't lose your ability to understand a language when you are polymorphed (from polymorph itself, you do because of having an int less than 3), you do lose the ability to read and speak it though. Once the stat is bumped back up you are just fine.

Venture-Captain, Iowa—Iowa City aka Peshmonster

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Peshmonster wrote:
What if his ally pathfinder uses speak with animals to tell him he's a fox-person? Does his cat brain explode and get super smart as he changes back to a kitsune? Maybe if fox's (haha) cunning cast first?

Baleful polymorph doesn't change the type, so he's still technically not a an animal you can talk to with speak with animals.

As a cat, he probably considers the talky party members beneath his notice. He's DEFINITELY going to consider turning into anything thats notacat as a downgrade. His people are gods you know.

So you just need fox's cunning then. Either way I like this thread, because now I can use baleful polymorph to change anything with the shapechanger subtype into a kitten and if they fail the will save I can show my GM that they cannot do anything about it.

Venture-Captain, Iowa—Iowa City aka Peshmonster

What if his ally pathfinder uses speak with animals to tell him he's a fox-person? Does his cat brain explode and get super smart as he changes back to a kitsune? Maybe if fox's (haha) cunning cast first?

Venture-Captain, Iowa—Iowa City aka Peshmonster

Mark Stratton wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:

People, you're missing the "spirit" of this (and many other) discussions. Stop trying to one-up each other. There is nothing wrong with electronic devices, nor is there anything wrong with strictly paper. The issue is having some consideration for the other person, be it the GM or player, and having a solution that works for both without burdening either or the other players at the table. When you force a discussion like this to Brock's level, he has to make a ruling that becomes binding. Remember that in the future before you escalate an issue. You may not like the ruling he makes.

Table variation certainly spurs the largest amount of discussion, and often the most passionate, but its also one of the strengths or our campaign in that it allows a tiny bit of freedom to customize the gaming experience to suit your individual eccentricities. Embrace it before its gone. :-D
Honestly, folks, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting pretty darn tired of Bob's nearly-infallible common sense and reason. :D

His post should be removed for being anti-inflammatory.

#medicine pun

Venture-Captain, Iowa—Iowa City aka Peshmonster

Jiggy wrote:
Peshmonster wrote:
I don't not understand why some in this thread wish for a ruling to reverse a decision that makes things easier for all of the gamers. (regarding additional resources)
Nobody's wanting the Additional Resources ruling reversed. Rather, they/we are wanting the rule for character sheets to match it.

I understand your plight, and I acknowledge that getting legal isn't going to be easy for you. (and do you give out your spreadsheet? it sounds cool) I just believe that the difference between additional resources that "don't change" and a character sheet lends more merit to Mike's response. I believe a character sheet has a much higher chance of being wrong then a resources (from the perspective of math, etc.) That being said I create my character sheets twice, once digitally and then port them over to paper.

Venture-Captain, Iowa—Iowa City aka Peshmonster

Michael Brock wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Kovok wrote:
Chrons I can see. Character sheets? Not really. I'll echo Jiggy's sentiments. If I'm using my tablet for my books, then I'm using my tablet for my character also. If I'm using my hardcopy books, then I'm probably using a paper sheet.
And when the GM asks to take a look at your character sheet, you hand him your tablet, and as he is looking over it, he accidentally drops it, and spider web cracks cover the screen. Are you ok with the GM not paying for repairs?

If we replace character sheet with additional resource, why does it make a difference?

Should I disallow electronic versions of Paizo books?

I don't want GMs placed in a position to have to handle anyone's several hundred dollar electronic device.

The GM can get up and walk around the table to the Player's seat and look it over. The player can get up with their device and bring it to the GM's chair. In either case the device can sit on the table. The player can even scroll/touch it so the GM doesn't have to.

Your reasoning here, to me, is just strange.

-Skeld

My last reply on this subject. A clarification was requested and given.

People always talk about games taking too long. Does this add time to the game being played? What if a person is disabled? We can go back and forth with what could and couldn't happen. If an electronic device is broken by someone not the owner (tablet, laptop, etc...), the owner is going to expect the other person to repair or replace it. I'm not going to support a ruling where that could happen.

The request for clarification has been made.

I believe that additional resources were made to be watermarked pdf because people were unhappy with the amount of books they were required to have. It was a decision made to protect the players and aid with the playability of the game. Similarly Mike's post is aiming to protect all GM's no matter what the case. Whether or not the frequency of the occurrence is minute or whether it occurs at every game does not make a difference. The aim of the decision is to create less pressure on GM's. I don't not understand why some in this thread wish for a ruling to reverse a decision that makes things easier for all of the gamers. (regarding additional resources)


ryukadsgc wrote:
Quote:
A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.

So you wouldn't be able to resummon that particular creature for 24 hours if you wanted intel from that creature, but in the meantime you could use spells like shield other or status to monitor the summon as it goes ahead, if it takes damage, you can have readied a action to dismiss the summon and then resummon it if it didn't go poof from that single hit.

Of course considering the short range of summon monster 25ft+ 5ft/cl its an expensive use of spells to enable this just to look into the next room.

Arcane eye might be more up your alley since it last 10mins/cl and can move around at 30 ft and is naturally stealthy as well. Or other divination spells.

Thank you for the reply ryukadsgc! I am specifically interested in the abilities of a summon while it is "reforming" however. I want to pursue this avenue directly.


Ragoz wrote:

Probably none? It isn't alive (despite not being 'truly' dead) at the very least and is returned to its home in the mean time.

Are you trying to use divination magic of some kind to hear how they died or something?

Yes essentially. I am gearing up to play through Eyes of the Ten with my character and I find summon scouting very lucrative. Being able to tell how they perished would be invaluable in some situations. It's certainly not something I would wastes the groups time with at every turn, but an option. I just noticed there wasn't much on this topic and what "reforming" actually meant so I was curious.


From the magic section of the CRB it says that when summoned creatures die they "reform" for 24 hours. My question is what type of actions can they take while they are reforming? Are they conscious? Can they be communicated with?


Hello!

During a session the other night I ended up using a dazing metamagic rod to cast wall of fire. It went off and the necessary creatures made their will saves as appropriate, most of them were dazed. The next round is where the issue arose. My wall of fire damaged them again and I asked for will saves. My GM informed me that in PFS it has been gone over time and time again that metamagic feats (or in this case rods) only apply to the first damaging instance of the spell. I since have done some looking around here on the forums and cannot find anything. I was wondering if anyone would happen to remember a forum or link or something that would apply to metamagic feats (or rods) only applying their effect on the first damaging instance of the spell.

Thanks ahead of time!


SCPRedMage wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Unless you have the Multiattack feat, and I'm not really sure how that plays into it, but it's not legal for PCs in PFS.

Multiattack only reduces the penalty for secondary attacks from -5 to -2, but does not effect the Strength bonus to damage.

Multiattack is available to PFS players via the 10th level combat style feat for rangers with the Natural Weapon combat style, and an eidolon gains it when the summoner hits ninth level (so do animal companions, but they don't get to wield swords), but yeah, this doesn't really sound like a PFS question.

I forgot to add that in. It applies to PFS for any character that can get a 1 1/2 str bonus to a natural attack and wishes to wield a weapon.


Thank you both for responding. The dragon's bite is special. In the description of dragons you can see that they get 1 1/2 strength bonus even through they have additional attacks. This is what I am questioning. Since this "special feature" overrides the normal rules for 1X strength. The dragon's bite states:

"Bite: This is a primary attack that deals the indicated damage plus 1-1/2 times the dragon's Strength bonus (even though it has more than one attack). A dragon's bite attack has reach as if the creature were one size category larger (+10 feet for Colossal dragons)."

Which is against the normal rules for natural attacks. My question is defining how it plays into the rules for attacks with melee weapons.


I apologize if this has been addressed in another post but I have a question: If you give a dragon a sword and it makes a full attack, is its bite still at 1 1/2 strength?

Rules for natural attacks state that when making attacks with a melee weapon, additional natural attacks are treated as secondary attacks. Normally this would mean that all natural attacks would be 1/2 strength bonus to damage....however the dragon specifically states that it gets 1 1/2 strength to its bite. Hence my confusion.

Thank you!