As the title - does the Ki Mystic ki pool add ki points that the monk can use for his other abilities?
It doesn't say whether the pools mix, it never forbids their use for each others' abilities, it seems implied that they can be used interchangeably, but I wanted something official.
Venomous snakes do poison damage. Are you all going to argue that poison effects disappear after the snake poofs?
Equally, I liked this counterpoint from Google, "So can I research a Conjuration [Summoning] Conjure Mead spell and get drunk with no hangover side effects then?"
You have to actually *block* with a buckler for it to be useful in real life. You may not need proficiency but the animal needs to be awakened at least or otherwise intelligent (INT>2) or he's just flinging it around like a plate, it would have more chance of being used in an accidental shield bash.
Chess is a game of memorization (read:knowledge) and (in pathfinder) Wisdom. Intelligence used to be used to model Search in 3.5 but since they changed that in PF, it would effect you here.
Since Knowledge is an Int based skill, your issues of "what you know" are handled by that, so raw Int checks are not needed.
EDIT: I would actually do it like this, roll a Knowledge: Chess first to see if you see a move. Let your GM modify the DC based on how difficult a situation you've gotten into and the style of your opponent versus the styles you are used to. Then, if you can't figure anything out, do a Search to find something on the fly.
It remains annoying that whole point of multiclassing is to not get locked into a class for a large number of levels, and that by design, this feat whose best (and only) use is relevant only to multiclassed characters requires that you get locked into a class for a large number of levels.
As a suggestion to all who read this from Google, I'll talk to my GM about creating a worse version of it (2 levels or something) that reduces the burden of specializing in a class to take a class feature so that you can take a feat that alleviates the burden of specializing in a class so that you can take a class feature.
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.
Explosive Runes (SRD) wrote:
You and any characters you specifically instruct can read the protected writing without triggering the explosive runes. Likewise, you can remove the explosive runes whenever desired. Another creature can remove them with a successful dispel magic or erase spell, but attempting to dispel or erase the explosive runes and failing to do so triggers the explosion.
C++ wrote:
for (int i=0;i<sizeof(namedObject.activeSpells);i++) coughAndPretendToCare(namedObject.activeSpells[i]);
@Are, I looked up Extra Lay on Hands and I think I understand where you're coming from, "A feat with '* class feature' as a prerequisite can be taken but its effects are inert because the class feature which it modifies does not yet exist."
^ Sorry if put words in your mouth, but your a dragon and your mouth is big so I figured you would be k.
So my counterpoint is that yes, you're right - extra lay on hands gives "additional" lay on hands. Since you don't possess the ability yet, it is rendered inert even if you take it.
However, the druid still has levels and the druid still possesses the class feature named by the feat taken so by taking Shaping Focus, it is reasonable to say that it is still "checked" for its own level adjustment before its effect is "applied" (making mtg gating arguments hear sorry gaiz).
Does that make any sense, albeit in my otherworldly optimizer1337speek?
@Pupsocket, The point of perfection fallacy is reasonable. +1
@Both of u dawgs, how do you know that these two are synonymous? You've impugned the evidence behind my argument using reasonable points, but you've also failed to provide any evidence that "Wild Shape Class Feature" does not function as I've suggested, in other words, my assertion now stands on the same ground as your assertion, "Because this is how I read it."
Is there nothing conclusive about this? And further, if there is, and if it does not lend itself to my perspective, the conclusion which I draw is very dangerous for the general consensus of the way rulings are handled in Pathfinder, in general.
Hi and happy Thanksgiving fellow witches and wizards. Please enjoy barbecuing your turduckens with burning hands responsibly.
Here's a thought...
I was looking at this thread (-such link-) and didn't see anything but a bunch of scared carebears qqing about how awful it would be if a highly-subjective rules question were interpreted in favor of the player.
Here's the basic TL;DR:
1. In Underdark pp. 25 and similar books, feats such as Extra Wild Shape specifically list, "Ability to use Wild Shape" as a prerequisite. This is a completely different prerequisite wording from "Wild Shape class feature" - it's like saying "wizards have the class feature ability to cast arcane spells" or "rogues have the evasion ability as a function of their class."
2. The feat "Shaping Focus" (-so connect-) specifically states "Wild Shape class feature" on a feat specifically designed for multiclassed druids who in all likelihood will not have it. This does not seem like intended behavior, since the whole point of multiclassing is to not get locked into a class for a predetermined number of levels just so you can take a feat to avoid being locked into a class for a predetermined number of levels.
3. Is this intended behavior? Please don't flame or make emotional arguments. This is about important things like my imaginary shapeshifting wizard and his quest for the holy grail, so we need real logic to answer this very serious question.
Why can't I be loyal to others by tanking like a boss to protect them?
It's the same argument you get in video games where you are a bad team player if you run into the enemy base and spawncamp instead of walking like a drone with the back of the class.
It doesn't actually say, "Adjacent to square" but "Adjacent to target.":
Oath of Loyalty:
To most paladins, their word is everything. When they say something, it will be done. Those who take this oath put that ideal to the test every day. The oathbound paladin's word is a promise, a sacred bond, and also greater power in the cause of law and good. She is careful with her words, lest she agree to something she cannot fully support.
Loyal Oath (Su): Starting at 1st level, once per day as a swift action, an oathbound paladin can choose a willing creature within line of sight as the target of her loyal oath. When the paladin is adjacent to the target of her loyal oath, she grants the target a sacred bonus on saving throws and to Armor Class equal to the paladin's Charisma bonus. The loyal oath lasts 1 minute, or until the paladin dismisses it (a free action) or discharges it (see below), whichever comes first.
If the target is struck by an enemy and the paladin is adjacent to that enemy, as an immediate action she may make a single melee attack against that enemy; making this attack ends the loyal oath. At 4th level and every three levels thereafter, the paladin may use her loyal oath one additional time per day. This ability replaces smite evil.
Loyal Guardian (Su): At 8th level, whenever the target of the paladin's loyal oath is hit with a melee or ranged attack, if the paladin is adjacent to the target, she can spend an immediate action to have the attack automatically hit her instead of the intended target. This ends the loyal oath.
Code of Conduct: Keep all promises. Never make an oath or promise lightly. Never go back on an oath.
How much more "adjacent" can you be than being the thing itself?
EDIT:
Also:
How Combat Works wrote:
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
So.... I'll declare myself an opponent of myself (maybe im a schizo, who the f!@& knows). There. Now I qualify?
I usually don't force my players together with backstory. I narrate so that they meet, and then imply by my lack of pushing the story forward, that the current encounter is for their characters to interact in.
To me, this starts the game out on the right foot and gets them past the awkward "Oh well I don't know if I should talk IC cuz itll be weird!eleven"
Yes, this is a thread about multi-racing. GTFO if you don't like half-dragon half-pit-fiends. They're adorable and they need love too ok? OK.
If I have a creature that has a +4 perception bonus (racial) and add a template that gives another +2 (also racial, but this time from the template) I would argue that they stack, because even though both are typed the same "racial" type, the indirect reference that's being made is that they are two completely different races, so even though semantically the bonuses won't stack, mechanically and logically they should.
What are your thoughts?
PS: Don't ask me where these babies come from. You won't like the answer. We shall never speak of this again.
Look, I never post on any of these forums unless I'm begging Treantmonk for advice on Sublime Chord builds, but this thread is really ridiculous. It sounds like an angry alpha nerd wanting to totally dominate and communize his players at the expense of the happiness of the group.
Listen, my DM and I have a very simple armistice - he gives me complete creative freedom to build whatever RAW ungodly OP son of a b+&%~ I want, and I use that power to make his campaign better.
The issue you're wanting to solve is not the one you've posted about - you can have Superman, Batman and Jesus in your party along with the cast of Gilligan's Island and it won't matter if the first 3 play in such a way not as to hog the spotlight and miserablize the rest of the party.
