Specific rules overrule general rules... The general rule for overrun is a standard action, but trample (a full round action) *specifically* says it works just like overrun [other than its listed changes].
And you absolutely can overrun as a part of a charge RAW... There is no rule that says movement from your charge stops whenever you reach the opponent. TYPICALLY your movement stops because you cannot move both before and after an attack, as a general rule. Overrun is a different case. With an overrun charge, you charge the enemy, move to the closest square from which you can make your attack (in this case, your attack is an overrun combat maneuver check), and then you role your overrun check. If you fail, your movement stops right there. If you succeed or the enemy moves out of your way, you continue your charge movement (up to double your speed in a straight line as long as you encounter no obstacles).
I mean, sure. Building a cheesy Nat attacker is fun and all, but the real question is: what’s your will save? Cuz that’s make or break if you’re gonna run cheesy crap like that. You’re about to be hitting teammates 8 times buddy. Or you’re about to be staggered for 12 rounds. Or any number of other things I’d do to you to make sure you understood not to bring that BS to my table again lol.
Solid Necro, and for good reason too, since they all came to the wrong conclusion anyway. It doesn't say it works "like overrun," it says it works "JUST LIKE overrun." Which means other than the specified differences, it works exactly like overrun. Ergo, the triceratops could clearly charge with his overrun. He couldn't do any attack at the end of his charge or anything like that, but he could move up to double his distance in a straight line as part of this charge-trample.
Also, they were wrong about not being able to overrun as part of a charge w/o the feat 'charge through'.... "as a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square," << taken from the overrun entry in combat... All charge through does is allow you charge an enemy through another enemy (granting you a free overrun action against the enemy you're charging through to get to the other enemy) and then performing whatever your charge action was against the 2nd enemy (attack for damage, an applicable combat maneuver, etc..)
EDIT: The real question is why bother charging while using trample? I guess if something is really far away it's helpful.
Mysterious stranger and avr are correct. Taking greater TWF instead of improved TWF means your new attacks are at a penalty of: -2/-2/-7/-12 instead of -2/-2/-7/-7 with improved. The point of TWF/improved/greater is a chain that offers more attacks, but just because uou can take a later one, it doesn’t grant you the feats that are its prerequisites.
Don't forget you can always change up encounters and npc/monster play-styles if you have a player abusing a specific play style. If he's constantly disarming, start using enemies with good natural attacks, if he's always crowd-controlling, give a couple enemies freedom of movement items/spells. You can start using flying creatures or casters with invisibility (if they're heavily optimized for damage/attacking, I doubt they have tremorsense/blindsense/blindsight).
It never hurts to have creatures with poison or other sorts of ability damage, since eidolon's don't naturally heal, and your characters will have to burn spells to get him back up (even from ability damage, he will *not* heal it at a rate of 1 per day, since he doesn't heal naturally).
The eidolon is gone if the summoner is ever unconscious, killed, or asleep. Have more fights at night, when the summoner has to wake up to fight. If your enemies are intelligent and know what a summoner/eidolon is, have them go as hard as they can at the summoner.
Lastly, it is *not* bullying your players as a GM to target a player that is the clear threat. If your player wants to make himself the obvious threat to the enemies, then it's only rational that they treat him as such. I'm not saying kill the summoner and make him roll a new character, btw. I'm just saying they should be attempting to, and at least knocking him unconscious before changing focus.
As a general rule, if a player wants to be exceptionally deadly, have them fight exceptionally deadly enemies.
EDIT: It is also always within your prerogative to change feats that npcs/monsters have, if that helps. I don't particularly like artifically inflating numbers, but you can always do that too. However, remember this: If you try to make it harder for your most optimized player to hit, it's going to be almost impossible for your less optimized players to hit.
No, feats in pathfinder are not "Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)" by the pathfinder definition.
Seeing as they are "abilities outside of the normal scope of your character’s race and class" this would lend them to be extraordinary abilities in the standard English understanding of that term.
The real question is why do you ask? I don't think there's any harm in thinking of them as Extraordinary Abilities, but if there's some random buff you get to Extraordinary Abilities or something like that, then no it doesn't apply to your feats unless otherwise stated.
...would have no function if not removing the use of bardic performance.
It does have function, it saves you the 1 round of starting the performance......
And lingering performance wouldn’t have any effect on the weird words performance itself, so hopefully that’s not what you’re meaning...
The spell seems to only effect the round of bardic performance lost by starting it as a standard action, and doesn’t mention any other sort of rounds of bardic performance lost by other means (because they don’t exist outside of archetypes, and archetype-specific consequences are never thought through by devs).
In spirit, the purpose of this LEVEL 1 spell is clearly not to give you an ability that deals 4d6 through 20d6 damage and runs on “times per day” of a level 1 spell, using up 0 bardic performance rounds.
Talk to your GM, doubt there’s any other RAW on this.
I had looked a little into this once the idea was mentioned and arrived at the same conclusion. Overwatch Vortex clearly creates special, unique action economy that isn’t as simple as “these are 4 standard action attack actions.”
Not to mention it goes entirely against the spirit of vital strike paths.
zza ni wrote:
Now that’s an idea. Never considered prepping a bunch of attacks with vital haha
zza ni wrote:
I was considering something like:
Ready A: An enemy prepares to take an aggressive action (casting, attacking, etc...)
Ready B: If I shot at an enemy and he's not yet dead
Ready C: If I shot at an enemy and he's not yet dead
Ready D: Closest enemy is still alive
I'm also doing some shenanigans to get ranged attacks of opportunity, so I can get something like a max of 11 full BAB attacks a round if enough enemies provoke, but I don't care to disclose my entire build here haha
EDIT: But I see that your plan keeps me at the same initiative count. It's a little cheeky but I might do a little variation of it. Mainly this is supposed to be a caster-breaker build. They attempt to cast, they provoke my attack of opportunity, as well as 4 readied actions... enjoy making 5 concentration checks for your spell at DC 30-40+
It's still movement, so diagonals alternate between 5ft and 10ft of cost.
This is a general rule, and is overruled by the specific rules found in the Fly entry that were referenced above.
Here's where it gets *really* complicated though. You fly at half speed going diagonally *up*, but if you are also flying diagonally horizontally on the normal 2D screen, you then have to alternate 5 ft, 10 ft. See Diagram below.
THIS DIAGRAM IS A BIRD'S EYE VIEW DOWN ONTO YOUR NORMAL 2D PLAY MAT
OOO > OOO > OXO
We'll use cardinal terms to explain horizontal movement, and up/down to explain flying. Moving North 2 squares, and up vertically 2 squares, this character has used 20ft of fly speed (he moved north and up a total of 10ft).
OOO > OOO > OOX
Moving Northeast 2 squares (diagonally in a horizontal manner), and up 2 squares, this character has used a total of 30ft of fly speed. The first square used 10ft, since he moved one diagonal at half speed, the second square used 20ft, since he moved a second diagonal at half speed, for a total of using 15ft of horizontally diagonal movement at half speed, thereby he used 30ft of fly speed since he also climbed 10ft.
Essentially, you use the same amount of movement flying diagonally *and* up as you would walking diagonally through difficult terrain
Wait, so you're telling me I don't get an additional +2 for all my sneak attack dice? And I don't do double/triple power attack damage with vital strike/improved vital strike? Boy have I been playing this game wrong.
What a truly insane question, how in the world was OP drunk at 8:00 in the morning.
This particular Extraordinary Ability is most definitely a Standard Action, unfortunately for your action economy. Per the Extraordinary Abilities entry in the Combat section of the rules:
"Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually standard actions that cannot be disrupted, do not require concentration, and do not provoke attacks of opportunity."
This is an Ex that falls into "Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually standard actions." If that text alone isn't enough, look at the other "bomb" abilities that a ninja can get as ninja tricks (and given that this ability replaces your level 2 ninja trick...); they're all based off of 'smoke bomb' which is an extraordinary ability, and "Using this ability is a standard action" (smoke bomb Ex entry).
Your RAW interpretations are mostly correct, AoMF wouldn’t work for it, but handwraps would (so would a cestus). Just because something is wrapped around your hand, that doesn’t mean it can’t also be “in hand”, and per the handwraps entry they “can be enchanted as weapons.” *However* you cannot do handwraps and AoMF, per “a character can not benefit from both... on the same attack,” (see handwraps entry) *and* handwraps only modify your unarmed attacks made with hands. So if you’re a monk with style strikes that don’t use your hands... you’re out of luck.
And you can certainly “draw” your unarmed strike. Drawing a thing in this context is simply pulling or moving in a desired direction (per the standard English definition in this context). It never specifies drawing out of a sheath, or a loop, or your boot knife. The catch to this is that your character *must have his hands “drawn”*... meaning sitting at your side not at the ready? Not drawn. Free action to lift your hands up in a “ready” stance? Drawn. It’s essentially “were you Flat-Footed for the initiative check?” If you were, you don’t get the +4, because you haven’t “drawn up” your hands yet.
To answer your 2nd question... Yes, , so long as you start combat with the weapon drawn and in hand, it doesn’t matter what happens to it after (you could throw it, be disarmed, have the weapon be disintegrated, your initiative order stays the same).
Edit: the spirit of “drawn and in hand” is essentially “are you ready to make an attack with it”
Like the title says, how do multiple instances of damage while a caster is trying to cast effect his concentration check dc(s)?
For instance, if two players readied an action to attack him if he started casting, they both hit, they both did 10 damage. Is the dc of the concentration check at 30 + spell level, or does the caster make 2 separate checks at 20 + spell level (Is the damage from all sources added, or is one concentration check per instance of damage?)?
Looking for RAW hopefully on this.
The combat feat Overwatch Vortex states: "as a full-round action you can ready up to four ranged attacks, each with its own triggering event. You take a –2 penalty on attack rolls made with these readied actions."
I just wanted to double check that all of these attacks are made at Full BAB?
I assume it is since readied actions don't grant iterative attacks and most bonus attacks you can get are typically taken at full BAB (outside of outliers such as fortuitous weapon enchantment).
Just wanting to make sure I'm not missing anything on this.
To answer OP, yes. You can keep using keep watch every night with no negative effects. Why you would want/need to though I don't know, since "vigorous activity" is actually a pretty broad spectrum. It's not just physically vigorous activity, but all vigorous activity. The only clarification it gives is "including fighting," but for a magic user, "fighting" can include simply casting spells.
The inference drawn from this is that casting spells is considered vigorous activity, so you can't cast any spells during the duration without breaching keep watch. Most GM's also rule that you can't craft during this time either, since it takes both physical and mental strain and serious attention.
Personally I think the thing it is best used for is to keep your darkvision/high perception party member up as your lookout all night. It's also helpful if you're pressed for time in a situation and need to decipher unknown texts, read through texts, take the time to read and understand a wisdom text or riddle/question, if you wanted to transcribe new spells into your spellbook from a different source, etc...
However, any and all of theses things (except being a lookout), can be ruled as "vigorous activity" by your GM. An exceptionally hard linguistics check might be too much of a mental strain for your character and breach the spell, and so on. This is one of those areas that's really left up to GM discretion for the purpose of game balance.
EDIT: It's also incredibly useful if you have a character being effected by nightmares or other sleep-related curses/problems.
Note: This spell does not *prevent* a creature from sleeping (magically keeping them awake). They can still choose to sleep at will, they just don't need to.
D20pfsrd entry shows it as rounds/level duration... It seems like that’s a pretty ridiculously strong spell if it’s for rounds/level. Do affected enemies get new saves every round? Or is it essentially just game over if they fail once? Maybe it just got copied wrong and isn’t supposed to be rounds/level?
Neither creature can take a 5-foot step during a grapple. Both gain the “grappled” condition, and “ Grappled creatures cannot move...”. Quote taken from the “grappled” conditions entry. The exception is the creature in control of a grapple can move both of the creatures up to half his speed after a successful grapple maintain check.
I think this fits in the “if doing so would make no sense...” clause as well as the (paraphrased) “let’s be reasonable with how many free actions we allow” clause. Especially if you’re only using a single firearm... you’re supposed to be able to shoot, reload as a free, and then shoot *again* to hit your previously shot projectile (as an untyped action performed like a free action taken at any point during your or an ally’s turn)... I could *potentially* see using two pistols to make this work, but even then you’d have to drop one to reload the other, and then if you have QuickDraw you draw another one to keep shooting and continue to flirt with abusing free actions. I think this is an obvious no lol
Here’s how I see it. Let’s say player B has 11 initiative. It is *already* at the 11 initiative count, so enemy 2 or player A can’t join at 11 initiative. Enemy 2 decides “I want to go directly after Player B” and sets his initiative count to 10. Player A says “I want to go directly after Player B,” and sets his initiative count to 10. Both characters have an initiative count of 10, so the player with the higher modifier goes first.
Edit: like LordKailas said, delaying does not interrupt, like a readied action does. You simply choose a new initiative count. If two initiative counts are the same (such as this situation) you use the rules for initiative:
“If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll to determine which one of them goes before the other.“
Counterpoint: I don't believe the intention is to only allow it with dazzling display & feats with it as prereq, to quote yourself: "Else the feat text would have stopped there." The feat would have simply started and ended with:
"You can attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intimidate check when using the Dazzling Display feat and feats that list Dazzling Display as a prerequisite. If you use the Bluff skill to demoralize, you cannot use it to feint until the beginning of your next turn, and vice versa."
The very existence of the sentence "You can use the Bluff skill to demoralize opponents in combat instead of Intimidate," implies there is more you can do with the feat than just "attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intimidate check when using the Dazzling Display feat and feats that list Dazzling Display as a prerequisite."
It definitely isn't as simple as "use bluff for intimidate."
However, as long as it is being used in combat, you are allowed to use bluff for intimidate. I would definitely allow him to use it with his swashbuckler "Menacing Swordplay," because it uses up his swift action so he can't riposte on a successful parry (but that's just my character-balance input).
You guys are really just different in how you read feat benefits. You read the extra line, "You can attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intimidate check when using the Dazzling Display feat and feats that list Dazzling Display as a prerequisite," as a restriction of when it can be used, opposed to a clarification (for people who may have otherwise asked the question "can you replace intimidate with bluff in instances where you're modifying your intimidate check").
However, the feat *also* says "You can use the Bluff skill to demoralize opponents in combat instead of Intimidate." You cannot ignore this line. If it was *only* for dazzling display feats, they would have only had the line about dazzling display, because that's all that they would have needed to say. The benefits section would have entirely left out the first line, because it's not necessary for clarification of the feat.
So RAW, any time in combat he is attempting to use the "demoralize opponent" aspect of intimidate, he may instead use his bluff skill (but not at all out of combat to coerce an opponent).
As a general rule though, if a feat is being restrictive, it will say so and use specific words like "this must," "this only functions when," or "this is limited to." Any time restrictive words or clauses are not included, additional information given in the feat should be understood to be an additional benefit or clarifying, not restrictive
this is in regards to the Leadership Roles subsection of the Kingdom Building section of the rules. I'll post a link to the d20pfsrd below. These were the rules made for Kingmaker, but they apply to any other kingdom building setting as well. This specific instance is Kingmaker though.
It's more a question of how do you reconcile the concept that 'the party members should have equal say and everyone should be having fun' with 'here is a party member who has a dictatorial leadership role (whether he chooses to be benevolent or not, still the exclusive "executive decision maker" role)'
So yes it's the "leader of a state," as a PC, and the other PCs are also "leaders of the state." It's just that *one* of those leaders is the "Ruler"
The Swashbuckler Charmed Life Ability states:
"... Three times per day as an immediate action before attempting a saving throw, she can add her Charisma modifier to the result of the save. She must choose to do this before the roll is made..."
Does the Swashbuckler have to be aware of the source of the saving throw to use this? IE, walking into an area with an aura that requires a save vs watching a dragon about to use its breath attack. Obviously one of those is easier to tell is about to happen, but can a Swashbuckler *always* use this ability as long as he has hit swift/immediate action available still, or is there any other restriction on this?
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I intentionally avoided the leadership position, because I knew there would be problems with it. We're just too extremely different. We played a wrath of the righteous campaign and had a captive soldier of the demon army. After hours of interrogation he gave us some information finally, although it was information we already knew. The other pc argued that since he gave us information he should be freed, I argued that he's literally one of the worst people on the planet since he voluntarily was serving a demon army and attempting to destroy all life on this plane, so we should give him a summary trial and execution. He was let go, with his weapons, *and* the other guy gave him 50gp so that he "wouldn't need to rob anyone to survive." It's moral insanity in this group
Any overall caster level bonuses would apply, but specific (spell school, type, or specific spell) would not, since Arcane Strike does not belong to any of those. Believe the Orange Prism Ioun Stone is the only one you listed that would work, though also the Magical Knack trait (+2 to caster level in a class, up to your HD). Although magical knack obviously still has it's "up to current HD" restriction.
I was hoping to get some insight on how people have handled leadership roles in their campaigns... Obviously it's still a party-related thing, but have most groups allowed the ruler to have actual, absolute decision making on all regards (like an actual leader of a kingdom would), or have you done more delegation? It makes sense to me to have it be that each leadership position *should* have exclusive control of how they handle their role, and the ruler handles any unfilled roles (by ordering NPC decisions) and obviously his own ruler decisions, as well as veto any *really* extreme measures taken by other leadership roles.
However, our group started out kind of humoring the ruler to do whatever, just because it was good fun... But it has more turned into a railroading of whatever his decision is goes, and disagreeing with him means he'll just fire you and have someone else fill the role (which is how it would go IRL, but obviously isn't fun for any person disagreeing with the ruler). He also exclusively decides what to do with the money, since an NPC is the treasurer. He's stepped into *every* sentencing/punishment scenario (since obviously only the high-profile cases are ever going to be RP'd), but this essentially makes the royal enforcer, marshall, or warden a non-role outside of the numbers it adds. We haven't gone to war yet, but he and the general have disagreed in every other council vote we've had, so I'm sure there will be overruling on army/war decisions. We've had a character who's made a couple bad rolls on things get removed from his role twice and put into a new role. And because the ruler has a different outlook and alignment than the other characters, there is always at least some disagreement on how to handle scenarios, but obviously he's overruled any decision that isn't his own. We also allow him to keep all the good items, because the ruler *should* be getting the most expensive items (although obviously he should be being gracious in the gifting of items to subordinates)... But so far he has maintained the 4? maybe 5 most expensive magic items received so far outside of a spellbook he couldn't use, and we've gone along with it because I mean, yeah, we need to keep him alive as our #1 priority and these will all help... There hasn't been any outward contention to this point yet, because he really isn't doing it maliciously, we're all just still on board with the humoring him aspect of it, but it is starting to get a little old now that we're getting later in the campaign and leadership roles and decisions are actually starting to have some impact...
Again, i'm just trying to get an idea of how you guys have handled leadership roles, and if anyone has been able to turn around the railroad-y aspect of any ruler characters if it's gotten that far, whether that player was tyrannical or whether it was more accidental.
EDIT: And yes, he and I are the two who disagree the most, simply because we're quite different people and both hold to our opinions pretty unwaveringly. But in a group function we've often found compromises or taken turns backing off and letting the other do their thing. However, now that we've established the kingdom and he's the "ruler," it's essentially impossible to disagree with him or even compromise on disagreements.
Also, you should know that your bonus from "Strong Swing" gained from the Buckler Duelist archetype does *not* qualify as your weapon training bonus. Meaning this Advanced Weapon Training Option really wouldn't apply to you unless you *also* find a way to gain "Weapon Training, Heavy Blades"
Your Bonus from Strong Swing also would not be increased by items such as "Gloves of Dueling."
this is per this FAQ: https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qto
Strong Swing never references granting a "weapon training" bonus, the way that the Dragoon "spear training" does. So your character would only start to benefit from this if you take Weapon Training, Heavy Blades at 9, then get Advanced Weapon training option some other way (feat, waiting until level 13, etc..)
This shouldn't be in the Rules Questions forums. You won't find the help you're looking for here, since most of the people on this forum are looking to help with knowledge of the objective rules for rules-related questions. You should post this in the "Advice" forum for Pathfinder First Edition.
That being said, your best bet is just to hit up the Combat Feat section of "the dreaded d20pfsrd site"
Most higher level prereq combat feats will require weapon focus as a prereq. But asking us to help you make your character is a bit weird, as we don't know anything about him. If you're asking for a min-max'd build, I'm certain someone in the advice forum will be willing to show off and help you mix-max it, other than that people will need to know more about your character.
Personally, I'd build into combat maneuvers that are able to be performed with your weapon (so that you keep your bonuses with the weapon). Getting greater trip isn't too shabby for a TWF, since it maintains your amount of "damaging" attacks, and increases your likelihood of hitting those attacks (enemy becomes AC -4 after being tripped). I know these don't quality for weapon specialist, just as a general rule it's where I typically take my martial fighters. Also look into Called Shots.
EDIT: Here is the "weapon specialist" he was talking about, it's an Advanced Weapon Training option
"The fighter selects a number of combat feats that he knows equal to his weapon training bonus with the associated weapon group. The selected feats must be ones that require the fighter to choose a type of weapon (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization), and the fighter must have chosen weapons that belong to the associated fighter weapon group. The fighter is treated as having the selected feats for all the weapons in the associated weapon group that are legal choices for those feats. The fighter is also considered to have those feats with these weapons for the purpose of meeting prerequisites."
It's at level 9 that he plans to acquire this rather than gaining the benefit of "weapon training 2", since Buckler Duelist archetype only replaces "weapon training 1".
That's just to clarify, this should still be going into the Advice Forum... You may want to clarify in your question that you're talking about the Advanced Weapon Training ability
As long as all of your off-hand attacks are with a light weapon you would avoid the penalty, yes. Though bring it up with your GM for using exclusively the long sword. You definitely can make every attack with the longsword during the brawler's flurry, but you might take that additional -2 for it not being light if you do. It's a sort of corner case, and your GM might be nice!
I’ve seen it posted that the offhand flurry attacks still must be light weapons to avoid the extra -2 penalty.
As written that appears to be correct. I'd never rule it that way, but it appears that the writing works out that way.
EDIT: Although that may be intended for Brawler's Flurry, since most (maybe every, i'm not going to check) of the close weapons are light weapons. And light weapons generally have lower dice than one-handed or two-handed, as a way to lessen the potential impact of using Brawler's Flurry with larger weapons... something to think about.
I try to stop myself from 4 level dipping into Weapon Master, taking AWT Warrior Spirit and getting Gloves of Dueling with every martial build... but alas, I fail.
Both TWF "off-hand" attacks (TWF and Improved TWF) can be with either weapon. Even though you didn't get Improved TWF via Brawler's Flurry, you are still using Improved TWF *during* the Brawler's Flurry Full-Attack Action. And when you use the Brawler's Flurry Full-Attack Action... "She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability."
So taking Improved TWF is modifying the Brawler's Flurry Full-Attack Action, it is not a separate off-hand attack outside of the scope of Brawler's Flurry.
Okay so this has become clear what this is... You guys are just going to continue to have a personal argument over the rules forums, so my advice is to drop it here and settle your dispute like adults... You guys clearly play a heavily homebrewed game, and so trying to cherry pick *one* aspect of your game or a character and being like "here's the RAW because I don't like what you're choosing to play" is a little bit ridiculous.
To answer your question Anvil, yes. A GM can rule however he wants, even in blatant contradiction to the RAW. However, a GM who consistently does this or personally targets individuals because they don't like a certain playstyle (even if it no less balanced or broken than any other playstyle) is going to have a lot of contention in their group.
ALSO, a player who consistently throws the RAW or his interpretation of rules in the GMs face after the GM has already decided something is not going to find himself playing with that GM for very long.
Quit being children, and get this crap out of the rules forum. It's clear both of you know the RAW, so take your pissing contest somewhere else
What do you mean by "all NPCs Max is equal to the Player Character -1 level."
The number of NPCs? The total HD of NPCs?
And to the point of his eidolon and construct blocking the hallway, I'm assuming this was in combat? Why don't any people have ranged weapons? Also, you can move through allies, why not try to move through the ally and make an acrobatics check to move through the enemy and then flank them? If all of your players are melee and get stuck in a small hallway to fight, there's always going to be someone or a couple people left out. That seems more like a party composition problem than a one-player problem.
The Haft Bash weapon trick from the Polearm Tricks section of the feat Weapon Tricks specifies that:
"Any qualities such as trip) or special abilities such as keen) of the weapon that a club could not have, and any feats or abilities you can’t apply to a club, don’t apply to attacks with the weapon during this time."
Does this mean any feats that *I* personally can't apply to a club, or any feats that *cannot* be applied to a club universally? For instance, does weapon focus/weapon specialization for my polearm still apply to attacks made this way even though I don't personally have "weapon focus: club"?
When you use a combat maneuver check to escape a grapple you make a grapple combat maneuver check, so any bonus against grapple to your opponents CMD applies. However if you use the Escape Artist skill to escape a grapple, it is against the opponents base CMD.
If your opponent uses the combat maneuver to try and escape/reverse your grapple your bonus vs CMD applies.
You ask your GM and he tells you. You’re not going to find a rule on this. Paizo declined to address what happens with spells that are normally a swift action that you apply metamagic to, so there’s definitely no official ruling on this.
Thread that Paizo declined to address:
I had always assumed it required seeing the hand motions for the spell, but thinking about it, that makes no sense... given that there are a multitude of spells that don’t require somatic components, and thus would be impossible to identify with the way I assumed... huh. Never given it much thought cuz it hasn’t been a problem yet in my experience.
Now that I’m thinking about it like that I’d say that your spell manifestations are almost definitely visible... if invisibility can’t even snuff out light sources you’re carrying, which aren’t even magical in nature, then I can’t imagine it’s capable of snuffing our magical spell manifestations, which I assume are the stereotypical altering of “energies” like doctor strange stuff.
A sentence taken from the spell:
“Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).”
EDIT: although, are the spell manifestations a *source* of light? Are they the light itself? If I wave a torch around while invisible, is the fire of the torch invisible, or just the wood/metal/fuel? Is fire the source of the light? Or is it light? Is the chemical reaction taking place the “source” or is it the fire that’s the source
What have you guys done to me
"Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."
As written you have to be able to see the spell as it is being cast. Not the effects of the spell, but *as it is being cast.* Given that the person casting it is invisible, that's a definite no RAW (unless you can see invisibility...)
However, if it were my call I would let someone try to identify a spell based on solely its verbal component (if it has one), since the caster still has to speak at an audible volume to cast any spell with a verbal component. This check would be made a large penalty though. If you're using Perception rules, noticing someone invisible incurs a +20 to the DC of the check. So if you translate that standard over to Spellcraft like it says to do for sight-based spellcraft checks, the new DC to identify the spell based on verbal components alone would be 15 + spell level + 20, or 35 + spell level (which means the total DC would be between 35 and 44). For high-level magic users that's certainly attainable, and to me it makes sense that only people incredibly well trained in magic would be able to identify a spell with very limited knowledge as it's being cast.
From the Weapons 'Weapon Size' entry:
"A weapon’s size category isn’t the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder."
As a medium character, you could use it to retrieve any one-handed or smaller medium sized weapon (since those would be small or smaller objects). The heaviest medium one-handed weapon (a small object) i could find is the Dwarven Double Waraxe, at 12lbs, and as written you could retrieve it.
EDIT: To take note, retrieving a weapon is not "wielding" the weapon. The line there is to stop you from being able to use the tail to attack with a weapon in combat, thus keeping your hand(s) free for silly reasons.
EDIT: Visit the "Animated Objects" entry. A 'small' animated object is a chair, a 'tiny' animated object is a candelabra. I'm pretty sure this is talking about "creature size" for the objects, but they are called animated "objects" and I'm not seeing much other item size descriptions anywhere.