Ploppy's page

Hi all,

I am uncertain how these two combine:

My questions:

1) How is the jump distance/height calculated? Is it:
(Jump x 2) + Mystic Tier Bonus or
(Jump + Mystic Tier Bonus) x 2?

2) Aerial assault adds 10ft per Tier to the height or distance. How does this interact when the Rod of Balance doubles the distance only? Normally a jump apex is 1/4 of its distance. This kind of dependent on the first question...

3) Aerial Assault gives bonus damage based on the falling damage. How is this rounded?
For example, when my jump check gives a 44 (11ft height), is the bonus damage +1D6 or +2D6?

Thanks in advance for opinions.
Greetings

So, when you wield two Shields +5 you also get the bonus from one shield only? The source of the bonus is the same spell...

Ok, so by the same logic that releasing the grip on a two-handed weapon is a non-action, you could threaten with your meteor hammer in fortress mode (gaining reach and +1 shield bonus) and in case of an attack use Deflect Arrow or Crane Wing since the hand is still free when released???

Sounds cheesy...

To gain a benefit like threatening an area, the item should be "ready to use" at the end of your turn. Without an appropiate handling, like occupying two hands, it is not. Therefore I think you either need to have the two-handed weapon "ready to use" or the spiked gauntlet. Otherwise the whole system using item slots does not function (what stops me of using a Defending-Gauntlet bonus in addition to a two-handed weapon - the hand is "free" to defend me in case of an attack). RAW may not clearly describe this explicit detail of releasing and reattaching the grip, but RAI seems clear to me that you need to decide at the end of your action, which items you want to use with your two hand-item-slots.

I raised the question some time ago HERE

Perhaps there is some new input...

I asked a similar question some time ago about Dueling on the AoMF...

Is the current discussion soley the applicablility of transformative to unarmed strikes (which I think is cool fluff and clearly not game breaking)?

Seems like adding a flat-cost ability to the AoMF is not an issue, isn´t it?

I'm not seeing how this prevents you using aid another actions since you are still in position to make a melee attack on your opponent.

Well, but not with a reach weapons in an AoO. The three squares behind an ally are in the covered area, not allowing AoOs against the enemy. No AoO, no aid another.

Example:

E=enemy, A=ally, C=cover
xxExx
xxAxx
xCCCx

My next build for PFS is exactly this. Though I would suggest forgoing saving shield and wielding a reach weapon. You Cavalier can now stand behind the ally he's turning into a tank and have extended reach. You'll be dealing excellent damage with powerattack and 18 str while also protecting your body ;)

Nope, not so easy. Sorry:

When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.

If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action.

Well, I did hit FAQ, but I also want to pose a second question: what if the monk spends ki to gain an additional attack? Does that stack with haste (armed or unarmed)? Or is it a similar ability and therefore does not stack?

If it stacks, a 5th level monk with two kamas (and I am using kamas as an example to avoid the whole haste/unarmed strike thing), could get four attacks at +4/+4/+4/+4 (including the +1 from haste, and I selected 5th level because that is when the wizard gets the spell). A 20th level monk could get nine attacks at +19/+19/+19/+19/+14/+14/+9/+9/+4 (including the +1 from haste) AND possibly two more at +19/+19 from the feat Medusa's Wrath (for a total of 11 attacks).

Anyway, that is what I am asking.

MA

I think this one is even more tricky if you use just only one kama for the flurry.

Haste would affect the weapon and Ki the unarmed strike independently.

If Haste does not affect unarmed strikes as dicussed, you could always gain +2 attacks even if the effect is similar and should not stack - since both effects would have a different target. It is even in line with the two-weapon fighting nerf for the monk....

First of all thanks for the contributions so far...

I'm wondering if a new thread should be made. Crane Wing vs Melee Touch attacks is just a smaller piece of 'is a melee touch attack a weapon'. If spells such as Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp spells are affected by things like Arcane Strike, Inspire Courage, Prayer, etc then I will certainly concede that it could be deflected by Crane Wing.

I briefly thought about putting the question on a broader basis. However all aspects you mention as mixing up two things:

The melee touch itself is the attack part. I think, all spells and effects providing a "+X" to hit work fine.

However the melee touch normally only carries an effect (damage spell, drain effect etc.). IMHO all effects increasing weapon damage like Arcane Strike do not work, since you do not deal any weapon damage....

I considered Crane Wing special, since it lets you deflect the attack - so the question is if the effect delivered by the touch attack triggers or not...

Hi all,

sorry to bring this up "again", but my search-Fu did not give helpful results....

Were there any conclusions on the question, if Crane Wing also works against melee touch attacks???
As far a I read the combat section, a melee touch attack is he same as a normal melee attack, except that it ignores stuff like armor bonus and that the attack is considered armed for the purpose of AoO.

So, how does Crane Wing work in the following situations (assuming that all conditions for its application like fighting defensivly, using an AoMF with ghost touch against the spectre etc. are given):

1) Crane Wing vs Spectre´s drain touch
2) Crane Wing vs Spell-Caster with e.g. Shocking Grasp charged
3) Crane Wing vs Nualia

Some reference to official ruling - if any - would be helpful....
Thanks and best greetings...

Ploppy wrote:

In my view the Scorching Ray was badly worded. In 3.5 you had ONE Range Touch attack which was applied to all targets. The change to multiple individual ranged touch attack complicated the spell.

Er yeah I don't think it worked that way in 3.5 at all.

True. Strangly I had in mind that you make one roll and add you bonus to hit only to the first ray. The other rays use the unmodified roll..perhaps in 3.0??? Or a total different game...can not remember.

Sorry...

You cast and fire the ranged touch attack at exactly the same time with the following potential consequences if you are threatened;

Cast Normally - casting normally and firing simultaneously means ONE AoO.

Cast defensively - firing the ranged touch attack STILL means ONE AoO.

Ok, so casting defensively seems totally useless. According to you interpretation spells including ranged touch attacks always provoke ONE AoO. But when?

I would expect the following:

Cast normally: one AoO provoked by casting BEFORE the spell resolves -> spell probably lost

Cast defensively: one AoO provoked by ranged attacking BEFORE the ranged touch attack resolves -> spell deals damage if caster survives the strike - often decides between win or death!

See the difference? BUT if you agree in separate points for the AoO, each additional ranged touch will also provoke its own AoO since it is an additional point for an opportunity.

In my view the Scorching Ray was badly worded. In 3.5 you had ONE Range Touch attack which was applied to all targets. The change to multiple individual ranged touch attack complicated the spell.

Hi all,

short question. The Craft-Feats are the only requirement mandatory to create a magic item. For the AoMF the requirements say:

...plus any requirements of the melee weapon special abilities..

which always include Craft Magic Arms and Armor.

Is the craft feat being mandatory for the creation of the magic item only the one relevant for the specific kind of item created (in this case craft wonderous items for a AoMF) or must all craft feats be available?

THX

ONCE per round, deflect ONE attack that would otherwise hit. Done. Proven. So to recap, any level character that fights with two weapons, or any fighter equivalent of over 7th level can at most have 1 attack blocked per round by crane style. Even in a duel, that leaves a second shot (2 more if you are a 2 weapon wielding fighter of 6+ level) with a chance of getting through to the monk. nice defensive chain. I'm not really sure yet if its actually worth it or not. Undefeatable? Only if you ignore half of the rules regarding combat, and if you're willing to do that, just about any feat is undefeatable.

I think you miss the point that the monk still has a AC to beat.

I have not done the whole math, but even an unoptimized monk has a decent AC when fighting defensively with Crane style (10 Base + 2 Wis + 2 Dex + 1 Dodge + 2 Monk + 4 Fighting Defensively = 19 AC + Items = 20+).
Do the calcuation how often both attacks of an equivalent fighter will hit to do some damage.

On the other hand the flurring monk has 3 attacks plus an AoO. He also needs a high number to hit - however the favor of landing at least one damaging strike has shifted to the monk in my view...

Hi all,

I have a question and would like to hear some opinions:

Is it possible to put the Dueling ability on an Amulet of Mighty Fists?

AoMF may grant melee weapon special abilities if they can be applied to unarmed strikes. Dueling must be applied to melee weapons that can be used with weapon finess - so unarmed strikes would qualify. Seems too good to be true for a Monk: +14K GM instead of a valuable +1 bonus as cost for AoMF giving an ongoing +4 to initiative and +2 to feint/disarm....mhhh.

Thanks and best regards

Hi all,

Question is the subject - can extraplanar Outsider be raised with Breath of Life or not???

Greetings

Breath of Life DOES work on outsiders.

Supporting evidence:
- Breath of Life is not on the list of spells which cannot bring back outsiders to life (outsider creature type)
- Each of canonical "resurrect" spells contains an entry specifically disallowing raising of outsiders, while Breath of Life lists only undead (breath of life, raise dead resurrection, reincarnate)

Interpretation:
Breath of Life does not actually restore life. It is more like magical CPR performed on a comatose patient.

Yes, I admit that it is the idea of the spell. Although when reading the entry for the outsider, I am more in favor of interpreting it as superseeding the Breath of Life description:

Outsider:

...
Unlike most living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don't work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.

It is definitly debatable. I will make a threat in the rules forum.

First - YD - great playtests! Always nice to read...

Question:

...

3x CR9 Jyoti

*SNIP*

Jyoti 2 takes a 5’ step and casts Breath of Life because he’s a total dick. He heals 31...

Short question: does Breath of Life work since a Jyoti is an extraplanar outsider?

I am not sure on this, since it clearly involves a Raise Dead effect (including the negative level). Perhaps that would turn the favor the Gunslinger, wouldn´t it?

Instead, my vision of the character is that she is using the glaive as more of a "twirling blade of death"...more like the Asian style wherein the glaive is usually about four or five feet long, rather than seven feet long per the core rules description.

2 level dip of Monk (if you don´t want to focus on the Inquisitor)? Your WIS should give good synergies for AC and your unarmed strikes would be stronger than armor spikes.

Otherwise in most cases you may just take a 5ft step back and continue with a full attack without further feats.

Hi all,

Short question: how far can a Lvl 20 Monk move with these feats within 1 round?

Slow Fall (Ex): At 4th level or higher, a monk within arm's reach of a wall can use it to slow his descent. When first gaining this ability, he takes damage as if the fall were 20 feet shorter than it actually is. The monk's ability to slow his fall (that is, to reduce the effective distance of the fall when next to a wall) improves with his monk level until at 20th level he can use a nearby wall to slow his descent and fall any distance without harm.

Gettings

I agree with Tanis.

FoB is a full attack action that consists of several attacks. The Monk BAB is equal to its levels, but the attack roll is modified "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat".

Your BAB allows several attacks, so you use the BAB fitting your attack sequence to your CMB. It is nowhere stated CMB uses the "highest BAB".

Since you "add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects" in combat maneuvers, the -2 also apply when performing a combat maneuver within a FoB (as well as the -5 and -10 from the later additional attacks as if using improved and greater TWF).

So the CMB in a FoB for a 20th level Monk with Imp. Trip and Gtr Trip would look like:

BAB: +20/+15/+10/+5
CMB after appling FoB: +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3
CMB after appling FoB, Imp. Trip and Gtr Trip: +22/+22/+17/+17/+12/+12/+7

...For instance, at 6th level a monk could have a wraps +2 and an amulet of mighty fists with holy and shocking enhancements, the monk would effectivly be wielding a +4 weapon at 6th level...

Although "wraps" are not really defined as weapons e.g. Brass Knuckles are in the Armory.

First question - can brass knuckles be enchanted like normal weapons, since they are listed under "unarmed attacks" instead of "simple weapons" for example?

Second: does everybody think the combination of brass knuckles with an Amulet of mighty fists would work? What would be the damage for a monk - 1D3 or the monk unarmed damage? And why should effects from the Amulet stack with the knuckles - you could effectively come up with a total bonus equivalent of +15 (+5 for the amulet and +10 of the knuckles). Sounds cheesy....

Ninja´d...Short version: what Magicdealer said!!!!

To my understanding:

Does a Monk wearing a Helm of Telepathy or other armor-like wondrous item lose his ac bonus, fast movement, and FoB due to wearing armor?

I don´t see a difference between a Helm of Telepathy or a Headband of whatever. By RAW both occupy the head-slot and do not provide any "armor" effects. The only reason I see is that a monk with a Helmet looks dumb.

Since a monk can't FoB with guantlets because guantlets are a simple weapon and not a monk weapon, can he enchant boots and FoB with kicks? boots certainly aren't simple weapons, and unless all monks are barefoot they can certainly FoB with them on.

Sure. But if you want to enchant your boots (or trouser, robe or whatever), it has to be a masterwork weapon before (add some razor egdes...). You will face the following consequences: 1) Your damage is based on the weapon, not your unarmed strikes and 2) they won´t be monk weapons anymore, so no flurry and 3) you don´t have a proficy with these weapons.

Since a monk can't MacFlurry with his fists while wearing guantlets, can he use FoB to throw throw shuriken while wearing a glove of storing, gloves of arrow snaring or a guantlet of rust?

These are activated items. I don´t see any interference.

It seems a monk can use FoB with one hand, can he use FoB to throw shuriken with one hand?

yes. But he needs at least one hand to wield the weapon.

Greetings

According to Nethys Archives you lose reach as a Double Weapon. This is also true for the LoF-Version.

According to D20pfsrd - since Adv. Arm. - nothing is written about losing reach.

I don´t have Adv. Arm., so can some please clarify what the written version is.

Mhhh, don´t know.

You are correct that the Double Weapon trait is not listed for the Meteor Hammer. On the other hand it is the only weapon that can be used as a Double Weapon under special circumstances only and not all the time, while reach and trip always apply. I would rule that the special condition in the text overrides the missing trait.

All double weapons are created in a similar way:

Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, XP, and special abilities.

EDIT 1: so yes, everything x2

EDIT 2: But when I think of the way how a meteor hammer is wieled the big question is if it seems reasonable to just use one end of the weapon. For a quarterstaff e.g. it seems easy by holding it at one end and striking with the other. But a meteor hammer always swings around your body probably hitting enemies with both ends (search youtube). Nevertheless by RAW it is clearly defined as a "Double weapon".

Well, I don´t have the original Adv. Arm., but here it is clearly states that the Meteor Hammer has the reach and trip property.

So my interpretation is that you can use it as single or double weapon with reach, pull the opponent 5 feet into your direction at a successful trip attempt but you are not allowed to attack him anymore if he end up in an adjected square.

The smart action by the player would be to ready action total defense if he was personally attacked.

That way, he would get his attacks of opportunity *which is the only thing he loses between fighting defensively and total defense* up and until he personally was attacked, at which point he would enjoy his +4 to defense.

By RAW it sounds ok, but to me it looks cheesy...

Would everyone allow total defense used in this manor??? Especially with a ranged melee weapon you would nearly have no drawback against non-reach combatants: AoO, +4 AC and next round you can make a 5ft step and full attack before your opponents second turn - ouch.

Hi all,

I have a question concerning the use of Medusa´s Wrath against multiple opponents:

Medusa's Wrath (Combat)

Benefit: Whenever you use the full-attack action and make at least one unarmed strike, you can make two additional unarmed strikes at your highest base attack bonus. These bonus attacks must be made against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe.

According to my reading you ALWAYS get the opportunity of two additional unarmed attacks during a full-attack action with this feat (when using at least one uarmed strike), but you are only allowed to use these attacks against foes meeting the listed conditions.

My question now is if I fight 2 foes and one of them meets the requirements, can I use all "normal" attacks on the other foe and only make the 2 bonus attacks against the dazed, flat.footed etc. enemy? Or does the feat require at least one "normal" unarmed attack against this enemy, before the 2 bonus attacks trigger?

BTW, maybe I haven´t looked close enough - is there any limitation on the type of creatures you can grapple? (apart from high CMDs).

I can not see any size restriction in the grapple description, no "immune to grapple" at the incorporal subtype and so on. I only thing I found was the freedom of movement effect. Anything else???

Looks strange to me that you could grapple e.g. incorporal undead but I can not find a reference...

EDIT: ok, found it - always looked at the creature type instead of the Universal Monster rules...

If you don´t want to cast spells I would also say go for the Rogue. The Rogue talents have nice synergies with the monk, lots of skills and sneak attack (which you will use quite often thanks to the mobility of the monk).

On the other hand if you want to have a character with some spell casting think about the Inquisitor (if it is allowed, since not final yet):
- Wis-based casting + one domain power
- detect alignments
- nice skill boosts
- initiative improving feats
- judgements
and
- later the bane ability (+2 attack and +2D6 damage), which makes your unarmed attacks very nasty!

Also Monk/Inquisitor gives some nice hooks for background aspects...

Improved Natural Attack was discussed according to RAW...

I would also suggest to skip the Scorpion Strike and Gorgon's Fist, since you can get Medusa´s as a bonus feat without requirements.

Think about Power Attack, helps getting up your damage.

You could also think about getting a weapon proficy with a melee range weapon and make better use of your combat reflexes in combination with improved trip or disarm or just damage in an AoO. In close combat you can use your unarmed attacks without the usual drawback of melee range weapons concerning adjected foes.

Thanks for the clarification.

So it ends in the question what the "source" of the bonus is. Is it the items (=two different sources) or the effect (=two times same source) that counts?

Looks like a Rule 0 decission.

meabolex wrote:

The set "all other bonuses" includes all enhancement bonuses to AC and all bonuses from the same source.

By definition, "the same source" is not an "other bonus". It is the same bonus. For a bonus to stack with itself, it must say something to the effect of, "This bonus stacks even with itself" (see the Blood in the Water stance from Book of 9 Swords for an example). Very, very few things in the game stack with themselves.

I can not find a reference about "same source":

Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.

Stacking strictly speaks of "bonuses of the same type". Normally identical sources produce bonuses of the same type, but this is not the basis of stacking.

Dodge Bonuses: Dodge bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.

Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.

Ok, dodge bonuses stack "with each other" while defending bonuses stack "with all others". My English is not good enough to see the semantic difference...perhaps a native speaker, please.

I'm inclined to agree. Having a weapon drawn and ready is "using" it, even if you don't attack anyone with it. You're prepared to use it for an AoO, or in the event an enemy pops up right next to you. YMMV.

Now were moving in circles back to my first question:

Do you have to attack with the defening weapon to gain the AC benefit?

Typical scenarios:
- using a total defense action
- wield two weapons, but you only choose to attack with your primary hand while the defending weapon is in you offhand
- only one side of a double weapon is defending. but not used for an attack

In my view perhaps the wording of the defending ability should be reworded:

"Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as an untyped bonus that stacks with all others (still open). As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus {at the start of his turn} (delete) before using the weapon in an attack or full defence action, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn."

But this would rule out the use in a passive way without really attacking with the weapon.

...Great characters are not created from minutiae or by attempting to exploit perceived loopholes. If you think you've found a way to create an exceptionally powerful character by relying on some previously overlooked technicality, then the answer is simple. "No, you can't do that."

I totally agree with your interpretation of the rules. The questions asked are already the worst-case RAW scenario I could think of after looking at the defending description (although it seems that Takamonk raises an new very wierd aspect...).

Nevertheless I think for a monk it is a viable option to blow his flurry attack(s) with the lowest BAB on defending weapons and take the better unarmed attacks for damage dealing. As a monk you normally don´t hit anything with them at higher levels (except at a natural 20), so you gain at least some AC buff.

First thanks Princess for the reply.

Although I´m not sure if I can see a conclusion in your post...

I´ll try a direct question:

"Can my monk wield two defending monk weapons (Sai e.g.), transfer all of the bonus into AC and make a flurry with unarmed attacks a full bonus?"

Yes or no? (and why)

Greetings

Hi all,

I am a little confused how an when Defending Weapons can be used (and to which effect...).

Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.

Ok, RAI are in my view: wield a weapon - either attack better or defend yourself by transfering the bonus to AC.

Now my questions:

1) Do you have to attack with the defening weapon to gain the AC benefit?
Typical scenarios:
- using a total defense action
- wield two weapons, but you only choose to attack with your primary hand while the defending weapon is in you offhand
- only one side of a double weapon is defending. but not used for an attack

2) How is "wielder" defined. Do you just have to "wear" or "carry" the weapon in your hands or do you actively have to make an action with the weapon? What about an Defending Gauntlet you wear but in this hand you carry a sword for attacking? Do you "wield" the gauntlet or only the sword?

3)The defending ability states that the bonus stacks with all others. Does that mean that multiple defending weapons "wielded" all add up to AC or does this effect exclude same sources?

Perhaps someone has a good advice...

Greetings
Ploppy

No, you can not treat your body parts like crafting magic weapons. Magic items are created - not enchanted or subject to effects. Normally it is unlikely that you can "create" your hands, feets or what ever to make them magical (except perhaps artifical limps..)

For an improvement of magic weapons the PRD says:

Adding New Abilities

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item...

Since the requirement of an existing magic item is missing you can not add abilities.

Nevertheless you can always cast Magic Weapon (+greater) as a short time buff or Magic Fang (+greater) with Permanency for a longer effect.

As it specifically states "ranged attacks" in the soft cover listing, I would still have ruled an AoO against the caster. The ogre's attack is not ranged, but is a melee attack with reach. The caster is in a threatened square, after all as far as reach goes, and the caster's "cover" is not a static item, but is moving in reaction to the combat.

Now, had it been a wall or other solid object, yes, there would ave been cover, but with soft cover, I have always run with it simply applying to ranged attacks, not melee.

I understood the rule that you always perform the reach melee attack in a direct line between the attacker and the target (e.g. thrust a spear, swing a sword etc.). Except some very few flexible weapons (chains, whips etc.) you can not effectively make an attack AROUND an obstacle - thus a creature between attacker and target provides cover. With a non felxible weapon you will nearly always hit the adjected foe before you have any chance to reach the target behind it.

Soft cover is just less valuable, since you can not effectively hide behind a creature in combat (no stealth checks) and therefore you still provide a line of sight for spelles (no +2 reflex).

Sound ok to me...

I don't think you are correct James:

Cover

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

The first part describes how to check if a creature is in cover when attacked with a ranged weapon - so far no problems. It does NOT deal with the type of cover!!!

The second paragraph starts with how to decide if cover in melee is provided when fighting adjected squares. The method is a little different to ranged attacks in the first paragraph, but in the end the answer is still cover or no cover.
The next sentence deals with cover in melee to non-adjected squares. In this case use the method described in paragraph one. Again, the result is cover vs. non-cover. The whole stuff only deals with how to determine if cover is provided or not (classic boolean question).

When you have determined, that the creature is in cover, it gains the following benefits:
- +4 AC
- not subject to AoO
- +2 Reflex
- Concealment for stealth checks

Now the tricky part - special conditions like soft cover. When you come to this point, the question if a creature has cover is already answered by drawing lines betweens the square corners.
The only thing soft cover changes is that it removes the +2 to reflex and possibility for stealth checks. The ranged and melee part you are always up to, James, is inevitable, since you always need a creature between the attacker and the defender per definition. Therefore you must attack non-adjected squares and also must determine if cover is provided according to a ranged attack (see first paragraph).
It is nowhere stated that soft cover does not work in melee. It just can not occur between adjected foes.

Hope it is understandable what I am up to...perhaps a native speaker can help a little.

Greetings

Cover: When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.

Looks fine to me. No AoO and +4 AC vs. normal attack against the Wiz.

I would say the do not stack.

Mage Armor provides a +4 AC Bonus.

Magic Vestment adds a +X encnhancement bonus to AC - so your enchanted piece of cloths at the end provides a AC bonus of (0 + X) to AC.
It is like Barkskin enhancing natual armor, but at the end you add the natural armor bonus to AC and not the enhancement bonus from barkskin.

In summary you would add up AC bonus from different sources. So you have to pick the higher one.

The answer to 6 is pretty simply a yes. Your monk could hold a longsword and flurry away with unarmed strikes if it wanted too. You just couldn't include the longsword (dancing or not) in the flurry.

But this is the key part of the question. If the longsword is dancing (=not directly part of the monks unarmed flurry attacks), why can it not additionally attack on its own???

Hi all,

sorry to hijack the topic a little, but my questions still fit.

6) When non-monk weapon is enchanted with dancing and loosed, can the monk continue with unarmed flurry next round?

7) Can you enchant double weapons with dancing on one side only? And what happens if you enchant it both sides?

Greeting
Ploppy

There are two theories I am aware of:

1) Deniz Ertas postulated that your foot needs at least the kinetic energy of your body weight to walk over water. He estimated an approx. speed of 72 km/h (=20m per sec or 400' per round)

2) Second idea is that you have to be faster that the reaction time of water molecules (160 km/h = 44.4 m/s = 888' per round)

Obviously it was not tested by humans. But I would not count on the idea, that a monk will be fast enough to run across water without magic...

made him human, took run feat and then 10 fleet. boots of striding and springing were my choice for sustained outcome. so it was a base speed of 150.

Nope. In PF the land speed bonus by fast movement is an enchantment bonus not stacking with boots of springing and striding.

my question is should i be using run speed of 525 or just base of 105 movement when calculating a running jump?

Acrobatics...Creatures with a base land speed above 30 feet receive a +4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump for every 10 feet of their speed above 30 feet.

Your jump check is not influenced with running except for a +4 bonus granted by the feat itself. Keep in mind that you can not jump farther than your normal movement. I would base this on the type of movement (so x5 while running). But since you jump bonus is much less than your base speed you will not come into this position...

this brings me to another question, while wearing it treats AC and unarmed dmg as a monk 5 lvls higher...

The Table ends at LVL 20. Either you wait for an Epic Handbook or make a deal with your DM. I do not think that there is a RAW answer to this question yet.

Good luck
Ploppy

Hi Louis IX,

we faced to similar questions and houserouled the following:

Is the 10' reach including the adjacent square (like the spiked chain used to be), or not?

- Reach: only 10', no attack on adjected squares (like normal reach weopons like a spear). Mainly due to the historic usage of the weapon. Since you swing it around your body, you need some acceleration and swing radius for an effect.

Is this reach available in the two styles? I would have thought, like the spiked chain (again), that using a double-weapon style would split your reach in two. Or the other way around: if you have a given reach with the double-weapon style, it stands to reason that you could use only one end to have a doubled reach. Thoughts?

- Double weapon: our interpretation is that the style affects your way to swing the weapon around your body before striking. You always attack at 10', but by swinging differently you either bring both ends on striking speed and distance (double weapon) or decrease the hit rate for more flexible defending option (fortress style).

It is categorized as a two-handed weapon. Does that mean that you get 1.5x Str when using only one end?

- St-Bonus: 1.5 Str as single weapon (=two-handed weapon)and 1x + 0.5x Str as double weapon (primary and off hand).

What happens when the rope between the heads is broken? Can you use the two halves as one-handed weapons? (a while ago, a sister of mine showed me something resembling the Battle Poi -see link in OP- and it was made of two parts, each used with one hand)

- Hardness: The rope or chain of the weapon is the critical point. It defines its Hardness and Hitpoints for sundering. We have not thought about using each part as separate weapon - I would say not possible since you can not accelerate them to an effective speed.

Coming back to my original questions I think magicdealer is correct that the fortress style does not turn the weapon into armor ready to be enchanted with AC-Bonus.

But concerning the defending ability it comes up to the question if you have to make a melee attack to transfer enchanment bonus to AC or if you just have to "wield" the weapon.
Would be similar to a quarterstaff with two different enchantments on each side.

Greeting Ploppy

First thanks for the reply.

Meteor Hammer is from the Legacy of Fire Player Guide. The OGL is linked in the first post...

Hi all,

in our new PF campaign my DM allowed my Monk to use a Meteor Hammer:

- it can be used as a double weapon, requiring seperate enchantments of each side of the weapon.
- The Fortress style allows using one side of the weapon for attacking and the other side defensively providing a shield bonus.

My question is can the offensive side of the weapon be enchanted with a weapon bonus for attacking and the defensive side with an AC bonus giving a higher shield bonus in fortess style???

or

If the defensive side is enchanted with a weapon bonus and the defendig ability, may I transfer this bonus into AC when using Fortress style or do I have to attack with this part of the weapon to gain this benefit?

Greetings Ploppy