RAWmonger's page

4 levels weapon master fighter, some gloves of dueling, and Advanced Weapon Training (choosing Warrior Spirit) is a go-to for me on most 3/4 martials.

What weapon(s) you utilizing?

Edit: prestige classes are mostly overrated, that’s why I offered a simple multi-class instead

Like the others have stated, the language "moves out of a threatened square" does not mean "the entire creature has left that particular square." It's differentiating as a point of clarity that that moving *into* a threatened square does not immediately provoke.

"Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square." One of those actions is moving.

Further in the rules, in the AoO chart it lists "move" as provoking an AoO in the move action section. If you are in a threatened square and you take the "move" move action, you provoke an AoO (unless you're moving in a way that specifically does not provoke).

Is there a good reason outside of loose semantics why the large creature *wouldn't* provoke an AoO?

If you're worried or getting caught up on the "order of events" or continuity idea of it (like stopping to attack mid-overrun), remember that rules used to *play* pathfinder are just our best effort at what is, in the theater of the mind, a continuous, fluid fight. Feats and abilities are distinct, unique ways to improve your character and what they're able to do, not lock you into a box of the only three things your character can do in combat and what order they can be sequentially accomplished in.

Yes, per the feat you did not trigger the AoO until the creature was knocked prone, but all that is is our best effort to build your character's unique ability to have the chance to *both* be able to combat maneuver *and* do damage. There is absolutely no requirement that logic-wise or story/theater-wise that's how that action went. Maybe your "overrun" of the creature was smacking it upside the skull with a mace, which resulted in the creature both being knocked prone and taking damage, and you're on your merry way. And maybe if you miss the AoO, instead of you hitting the target, it tried to dodge your mace swing and tripped and fell over, or even willingly dove itself to the ground. Combat in pathfinder does not have to be A > B > C > D > E and so on. The rules and logic of feats/abilities are just there to set a standard and maintain consistency/fairness, not to tell the sequence of events for you.

This is coming from your friendly neighborhood Slashing Grace, Greater Trip Hamstring-severing Swashbuckler

Creatures do not take up the entirety of the square(s) they are in. It is considered "their square", but no enemies fully fill the area of their 2D or volume of their 3D square/cube. They are moving/acting *within* that square and it is their space, but it's not equivalent to a literal wall along the lines of the square.

There is 0 rule and 0 logical reason the player cannot maneuver "diagonally." You're too cluttered by the squares aspect of it, remove the squares and set miniatures in that general area they would be if there were squares.. There is 0 reason he couldn't 5 foot step (careful, defended movement that takes the entire round to do) diagonally than there is that the character could move to any other unoccupied square by 5 ft stepping.

No one is arguing that accuracy is less important than time per post. But when 1000 posts are accurate, and 1 is inaccurate, I’ll take my chances with the quicker option... I assume you follow all speed limit laws perfectly? Since you’d obviously prefer getting to your destiny safely than dying in a horrific car accident. False dichotomy, hyperbolic speech and straw-manning my guy.

The *actual dilemma is more like: right and quicker 99% of the time vs right and slower 100% of the time.”

You guys won't believe this but they actually just officially errata'd Bladed Dash and have assured us "Bladed Dash is no longer a source of contention at tables."

But that wouldn't belong in the rules question forum. You should always assume OP is asking for RAW or other official rulings unless they directly say otherwise, and if you're giving your opinion in the rules forum, you should try to make that clear as well... would be easy for newer players to assume you're telling them an actual rule for their question, since it's the Rules Questions forum...

This

“ If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature.”

Y’all have been going for several days now and have gotten to the point of bashing each other’s grammar and sentence structure even, so I’d suggest wrapping it up. I’d be surprised if I’m the only person to have flagged multiple posts in this thread.

Have a Happy New Year!

Ahhh I see, it doesn’t say you double the damage dice, it says you roll the damage dice twice. What a horrible waste of 4.5 damage from poor dev/editing

So where did we land on this? I mean, for the one attack, the crossbows damage dice is doubled. The crossbows damage dice is now 2d8. I make a single attack with this, and two bolts hit. The damage dice is just the default value role per hit. I just happen to hit *twice* in this one attack (a unique combination with vital strike).

The only comparison I could bring it to is Startoss Comet, which specifies that it only effects the first target hit, but even then you’re making additional attack rolls. This is a single standard action attack action, with unique weapon damage rules (a successful hit means you roll damage for 2 bolts).

I’m less worried about the semantics side of it, and more wondering if I’ve missed some ruling states “single damage dice” or something from vital strike

Pretty straightforward, since a double-crossbow shoots 2 bolts as an attack, when I use Vital Strike to attack with it, does the weapon double the damage of *both* bolts, or only one? Vital strike is not precision damage, so I'm not seeing anything within Double-Crossbow entry or Vital Strike entry that would prohibit this, just wondering if there is something else out there?

Double Crossbow: "Due to its size and weight, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll if you’re proficient with it, or –8 if you’re not. If the attack hits, the target takes damage from both bolts. Critical hits, sneak attack damage, and other precision-based damage apply to only the first bolt.

Reloading one bolt is a standard action; the Rapid Reload feat reduces this to a move action. Crossbow Mastery allows you to reload both bolts as a move action.

A double crossbow fires crossbow bolts."

Vital Strike: "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total."

Still, this is a funny idea: one head of the Dire Flail is Throwing, one end is Returning. This magic item should totes be an Intelligent magic item. The 2 heads of the 'Flail should be a bickering, old married couple constantly arguing about directions.

"Let's look at the map."
"For Grummsh's sake, woman, we don't need to look at the Map!"
"Here's a nice-looking family, let's ask them for directions."
"If you roll that window down, I will smash their heads in!"
"You never take me anywhere nice."
"You'd never find your way home without me."

And obviously the name of the weapon would be an ancient-tongue transliteration of “Ball-and-Chain”

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.“

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

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