Thank you! I now have an opportunity to more clearly read UI.
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.
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?
That part about the inquisitor is EXACTLY what I needed. Thanks!
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.
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.
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.
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?
(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).
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 :) )
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.
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.
Kevin Ingle wrote:
For now, I was just making my post correct for all possible futures...yeah
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.
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.
Mark Stratton wrote:
His post should be removed for being anti-inflammatory.
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.
Michael Brock wrote:
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)
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.
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.
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!
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.