Red Wullf's page

I created an animated wagon with craft construct. It can only fly, I took away its ground movement ability to give it more flying speed as per the construction rules for animated objects.

The question is, can it run? There is nothing apparently limiting the ability of flying things to run regardless of how they fly, as far as I have been able to tell, but the GM argues that most have access to wings. I argue that the fly speed is from it being a magic item and so that's irrelevant, but he wants a rules clarification.

I think the best way to deal with this would be to find a magic creature of some sort that flies but has no wings. That would settle the issue. I can't think of any off the top of my head except for the Beholder from D&D.

This is an old argument and, sadly, PFRPG has been remiss in properly addressing the different movement types, specifically "burrow" and "fly." There's some information under the Fly skill, but nothing that addresses the "run" question. Unfortunately, without a FAQ update from Paizo, you're stuck with making your own decision on this.

If it helps, 3.5 was very specific about being able to use the "run action" when flying, as long as you flew in a straight line. Whenever PFRPG comes up short, as a GM I turn to 3.5's rules in matters like this whenever they're available - but that's not RAW, just a suggestion.

If it helps your argument with the GM, the key feature that sets "run" apart from a simple double move is the requirement to move in a straight line. The idea is that by "sprinting" headlong in a straight line, you're able to do a "double-double move" if you will. There's no reason this can't be applied to flight, wings or not.

Since the spell makes no reference to any change, the hardness and the hit points of your weapon remain unchanged. Just as your own hit points don't change.

This is incorrect. The Enlarge Person spell states:

"All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell. Melee weapons affected by this spell deal more damage"

If you then reference the table "Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points" under "Breaking Items" in the "Additional Rules" chapter, you'll see that note 2 for HP reads:

"The hp value given is for Medium armor, weapons, and shields. Divide by 2 for each size category of the item smaller than Medium, or multiply it by 2 for each size category larger than Medium."

Thus, if your equipment becomes Large in size (assuming you're a medium creature before Enlarge Person is cast) then your weapon and armor's HPs will double.

...a miss chance from Blur or Mirror Image or the like, that applies to CMB checks as they are a kind of attack roll...

Correct.

...but AC bonuses from being prone, having cover or other situational modifiers would not apply. Do i still have it?

Actually, any penalties to AC also apply to CMD.

Combat Maneuver Defense: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers. A creature's CMD is determined using the following formula:

CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier

The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Defense is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers. A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.

Emphasis mine.

Was there ever a FAQ regarding whether a creature with Grab effectively gets "double damage" while maintaining the grapple though? I'd think that it doesn't, but over the years I've repeatedly seen people insist that it should. I thought that was what Constrict is for. I've been surprised by similar stuff in the past though (most recently by lances getting the benefits of being two-handed even when wielded in one hand)

@Darksol - Per your interpretation of RAW the Rock Catching ability can only be used as a readied action. While some people feel that's just fine I find it kind of silly, as do several people I game with. Anyhow, I don't see this as a RAW debate but an appeal to Paizo to FAQ some abilities which might, as you say, be poorly written (or at least unclear)

Hi there. It's off topic, and I don't recall seeing a FAQ for it, but the devil in the Grab ability is in the wording:

"If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold."

So after the initial Grab, on subsequent rounds, you first must make your Grapple check. If you succeed, then the language in the Grab ability kicks in, because you have made a "successful grapple check..during successive rounds." Which means your character now, "...automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the old."

Once that's resolved, you NOW get to take your regular grapple actions, which means you can choose to: 1) Damage your opponent, 2) Move your opponent, or 3) Pin your opponent. If you choose option #1 to Damage your opponent, you get to roll your damage again. This is where the notion of "double damage" comes from.

Again, off topic, but I thought I'd try to help since you asked.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

RAW, It's pretty straight forward that you're not allowed to do it. Sure, it's a Free Action you can take when you hit a creature with an attack; if it occurs outside your turn, you aren't given a special exception to take that Free Action outside your turn, since there is no clause explicitly stating it can be used with Attacks of Opportunity or otherwise.

Speaking sets the precedent that Free Actions are limited to be taken only during your turn, since it is the only written subject that signifies language stating you can do so outside your turn. Everything else which lacks such language would follow the same restrictions as nearly every other action type.

Please link where it says you must take a free action only on your turn. When you read the Free Action description from the PRD, it says no such thing. It seems that unless you have a link to the rulebook stating that a free action must be taken on your turn, you are assuming. Most actions occur on your turn, and free actions are done with normal actions, so obviously the vast majority of free actions occur on your turn. But, there is no stated restriction that a free action must occur on your turn. The restriction is that it accompany a normal action.

So, a normal action can be a melee attack. A melee attack is part of an Attack of Opportunity. So, please, provide your link that a free action must be done on your turn only.

Furthermore, to the post about pointing out feats that allow you to take free actions with a bow to do an AoO. The feat doesn't allow the free action, it allows the AoO. Because it allows the AoO, and the only way to attack with a bow using an AoO is to also draw the arrow, which is a free action. So, if the feat allowing an AoO from a bow required you to hit the creature with a melee attack with your bow (like swinging the actual bow), then you might imply you can't draw an arrow and shoot it in an AoO. But, that's not the case, you actually shoot the creature as an AoO,...

I think it's well-established by the rules that you can only take Free Actions on your turn.

"During one turn, there are a wide variety of actions that your character can perform, from swinging a sword to casting a spell." Just above "Action types" in the Combat section: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html

Additionally, only the Immediate action specifies that it can be taken when it's not your turn. This implies that all other actions that are not immediate actions must be taken on your turn.

You are challenging the assertion that "free actions must be taken on the character's turn" and I'm providing two sources of precedence that states this is the case. I hope this helps.

JLS1967 wrote:

Would Anarchic / Axiomatic / Holy / Unholy weapons recognize creatures without a detectable aura (per the various detect spells) as being aligned?

Creature recognition is irrelevant, the extra damage reacts to the presence of alignment. Doesn't matter if you're protected by Non-Detection or mind blank, if you get hit with a weapon that's your alignment bane, you're taking the damage.

Agreed, and these weapons can create an awkward situation for the GM, because hitting the creature may reveal the alignment to the player. I've been known to ask, "Should I roll my Holy damage?"

However, a crafty GM will always tell you to break out your holy/axiomatic/anarchic damage from the rest of your damage and then won't tell you if it's been applied or not - it's a pain to the player, but it'll keep the alignment secret.

In fact, damage-type management can become quite a pain all-around at higher levels. When your Holy Frost Flaming Bane weapon hits an outsider that has DR and Energy Resistance, and the GM wants to keep those resistances secret, you have to break out all of your damage types and provide your total damage in "chunks." It's the nature of high level play, I suppose.

If you recived all bonus and penalty when make a charge with your mount you are make a charge so no vital strike.

Not so. It's already been established that you can use vital strike as part of your MOUNT'S charge. See above for clarification.

Both you and your mount get to take the regular number of actions per round. In the case of a charge, your mount is taking a full-round action to perform the charge. You (the character) haven't taken any actions at all yet. If, for example, you draw your weapon while your mount is charging, then you have taken your move action during your mount's full-round action. At the end of the charge, your mount can make an attack (per the charge rules) and you can still take your standard (attack) action. This standard attack action allows you to add Vital Strike. Alternately, let's say you already have your weapon drawn and your mount takes a full-round action to charge. At the end of the charge, you can take your standard (attack) action and make your attack, and then dismount (move action).

The point is, your mount's full-round charge action is not your character's full-round action too. The rules specify, however, that your character still gains the benefits and drawbacks from your mount's charge. This does NOT mean that you are the one taking the full-round action to charge, however.

If you have only a single domain (Sacred Servant paladin, for example) can you take two subdomains for it?

For example, could you choose the Azata and Redemption subdomains? Each one substitutes out certain features of the Good domain, but neither one overlaps.

Essentially - do subdomains work like archetypes, where you can sub out whatever you wish as long as nothing conflicts, or is it a "pick one and only one" deal?

A subdomain replaces a granted power and the domain spells of one associated domain. If you only have one domain, then by that definition you can only have one subdomain to replace that domain's granted power and domain spells.

Are is spot on. Sadly, PFRPG seems to have neglected to include the details of creature movement modes that 3.5 had. Perhaps they'll fix this, or at least FAQ this someday. See Movement Modes under Special Abilities in 3.5. "A creature can use the run action while flying, provided it flies in a straight line."

See this from 3.5. "A creature can use the run action while flying, provided it flies in a straight line."

Fun fact: Creatures can also run when swimming, but not when climbing or burrowing.

I'm not completely sure as to the exact nature of the question, but if I had to guess, I'd answer that there is no need for an animal companion to ever take Improved Unarmed Strike, because animals attack with "natural weapons" and are therefore always considered armed when making their attacks. Even your hypothetical ape will make natural attacks with bite and claws. One could argue the real world "accuracy" of a claw attack vs. a slam attack, but either way, it would be a natural attack and, therefore, considered armed.

No IUS required for animals...they're always armed.

What an animal should really look to take is Improved Natural Attack, to boost its damage. This feat is in the Bestiaries.

There's one RAW non-'material' holy symbol of which I can think - the birthmark provided by the religious trait of the same name.

Good find! I would still require the PC to "present it" when using it. It's a birthmark, I would argue it doesn't automatically have to be in an obvious spot, or appear as an obvious symbol. An upside-down ankh on a character's butt-cheek would make for some interesting role playing, to be sure, but would still require them to "present it" when using it. ;)

In other words, I wouldn't let the birthmark provide any special privilege (like being able to channel while paralyzed) beyond what is defined in the trait.

Simple question - when paralyzed, a character can take purely mental actions. Is Channelling Positive Energy purely mental?

Does the answer change if your holy symbol is worn on an item, like a Wayfinder, or on a shield?

There are 3 things to consider:

1) Channel Energy explicitly has the following requirement:

A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.

This implies a specific action that has to be taken. This triggered the argument about what it means to "present" a holy symbol, so let's dig a bit deeper.

2) The paralyzed condition states that "mental actions" can be taken:

He may take purely mental actions, such as casting a spell with no components.

Note that under Conditions, the description does NOT mention the ability to cast spells with no components, but let's ignore that fact since both definitions can be RAW.

With these rules in mind, we must consider what a holy symbol is, what it means to "present it" and perhaps we can draw on some other context in the game...

3) The holy symbol is a "component" in any other context (as a divine focus for clerical spell casting).

Material (M): A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

Focus (F): A focus component is a prop of some sort. Unlike a material component, a focus is not consumed when the spell is cast and can be reused. As with material components, the cost for a focus is negligible unless a price is given. Assume that focus components of negligible cost are in your spell component pouch.

Divine Focus (DF): A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character's faith. The divine focus for a druid or a ranger is a sprig of holly, or some other sacred plant.

This means, as a component, the divine focus (the holy symbol) must be handled. Though it's RAI, it's reasonable to impose this restriction on the paralyzed character. In ANY OTHER CONTEXT the character's holy symbol is a component, and the paralyzed condition specifically prohibits spells with components, thus I would disallow channeling while paralyzed.

EDIT: A little further reflection, as written, the divine focus must be a "holy symbol." The "holy symbol" is a specific piece of equipment in the Equipment section of the core rules. It is not, RAW, a painting on someone's shield or a tattoo on their forehead. Any of these "optional foci" are between the GM and the player, and not in the core rules. Thus, the "holy symbol" is a specific physical object, a component, which the cleric must be able to present (presumably "handle") when channeling. Any other version of the holy symbol is not RAW and must, therefore, be handled outside of the rules in these situations.

So, GMs, if you're going to let your players have creative holy symbols, you'll have to also be prepared to make a ruling outside of RAW when your paralyzed cleric wants to channel energy. My suggestion is to NOT allow it - apply the same limitations any other cleric would have and not allow a "special holy symbol" to grant the PC "special abilities" (such as channeling while paralyzed).

Let's say that a character is a cleric with a domain god other than Gorum. Will he be able to take the feat spiked destroyer by worshipping two gods (Gorum and his Domain God) or will he have to select Gorum for his Domain God if he wants to take Spiked Destroyer?

Though the Cleric PRD description repeatedly refers to "her deity," suggesting the cleric can have but one, the rules do not specifically say that is the case. In fact, the description does state what should be done if the cleric has no deity at all:

If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval).

So, if you're seeking a specific rule you won't find one. The only rule here is "subject to GM approval." Thus, you'll have to take or leave the recommendations others put forth.

That said, I recommend allowing it, with the following two limitations:

1) The cleric doesn't violate the alignment rule (must be within 1 step) of either deity. I would add that the deities also must be within 1 alignment step of each other. This would be to prevent, say, a Neutral cleric from worshiping a Neutral Good and a Neutral Evil deity.

2) The deities must share the domains the cleric chooses. Between this and the alignment restrictions, there might not be a lot of options for the cleric. If that turns out to be the case, I would say the player and the GM will simply need to review the options and come up with some sort of agreement/compromise.

Since there is no RAW precedence for this question, the obvious solution is for the GM to stay open minded (a good GM says "Yes" when in doubt) and to work with the player to come up with a 2-deity concept that works for the player and the campaign alike.

Sure would love to see a comprehensive review or 2 before dropping 20 bucks on the PDF. As others have said, it's a bit pricy. In fact, the actual *game* itself (the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook) is only 10 bucks...soooo...

The fact that we haven't made a decision to go or no-go with mythic rules yet is part of the reason I'm holding off on the kaiju as well—if we DO delve into post-20th-level-play, I want to stat the kaiju up as super-high CR monsters. So waiting is a good thing for that reason as well.

What are these "mythic rules" of which you speak?

Ravingdork wrote:

Stubs McKenzie wrote:

Taken as a purely literal reading, you also cannot breathe, speak, defend yourself (helpless), or do anything else till your next turn. I would rule that an immediate action would be useable, no swift, or greater actions though (that would of course be a house rule, just as allowing the character to defend ones self would technically be :P)

Breathe (autonomous, may do freely)

Speak (free action, prohibited)
Defend yourself (assumed as a function of AC, may do so freely)
Anything else (limited to non-actions only)

Attack actions, free actions, full-round actions, immediate actions, move actions, and swift actions are all right out.

is 5 also right out?

Three, sir!

Fishies and spiders can always take 10 on Swim and Climb checks, why not birdies on Fly checks? Right?

thanks,
-nuun

Fishies = Apples, Spiders = Oranges, Flyers = Bananas.

Do not compare them. The only thing they have in common is that they are "modes of movement" - but the similarity stops there.

Swimmers and Climbers can choose to take 10, even during combat, because the rules say so. Flyers cannot choose to take 10 during combat, because rules do not say that they can. That is why. I can't really speak to the reason why such a decision might have been made, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's because flight (even for natural flying creatures) is a very complex mode of movement. When you watch a bird nose dive into a moving car or a building window, you realize that even the "best" flyers sometimes suffer the consequences of a missed Fly check. ;)

Ability checks are very common used at least once per combat.

Initiative is an ability check.

Untrained skill checks are ability checks as well.

From the wording of Circlet of Persuasion all Charisma Based Checks. I am beginnning to think that all ability based checks are ability checks.

I agree on Initiative. I also agree on untrained skill checks, but only because I had to dig out the old D&D PHB to verify this. Pathfinder Core Rulebook is mum on the topic...

In fact, the Core Rulebook only mentions "ability checks" a few times. Under the Take 10 and Take 20 rules, for example. Also, under the Sickened condition, it reads:

Sickened: The character takes a –2 penalty on all attack

rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks,
and ability checks.

It specifically calls out "skill checks" and "ability checks" as two separate entities. As do the "Panicked," "Shaken," and "Frightened" conditions (as well as a number of spells and magic items).

In fact, nowhere is there a "rule" that defines "ability checks" and tells you how to make them. The book consistently implies that "ability checks" and "skill checks" are unique entities, but there's no "rule" about the former. The D&D PHB 3.5, however, does define Skill Checks and Ability Checks:

Skill Checks

To make a skill check, roll a d20 and add your character’s skill modifier. Compare the result to the Difficulty Class (DC) of the task at hand.

An unopposed skill check’s success depends on your result compared to a DC set by the DM or the skill’s description (see Chapter 4).

An opposed skill check’s success depends on your result compared to the result of the character opposing your action. The opponent’s check might be made using the same skill or a different skill, as set forth in the skill’s description.

Ability Checks
Ability checks are used when a character doesn’t have any ranks in a skill and tries to use that skill untrained. (Some skills, however, can’t be used untrained.)

Ability checks are also used to determine success when no skill applies.

To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add your character’s modifier for the appropriate ability.

However, I would still maintain that a "concentration check" is neither. It's just a "concentration check."

Hey everyone,

The wording for concentration checks says that "when you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type." Does this count, per RAW, as an 'ability check' (and as such is able to be improved by, say, luckstones or pale green prism ioun stones)?

Thanks!

A concentration check is not an ability check. Ability checks are very specific (and rarely used) instances when no specific skill, feat, or ability quite fits the bill. However, concentration *is* modified by the caster's key ability score, which means any magical enhancement to that score would be included in the check.

An ability check is exactly that, a d20 check utilizing one of your 6 abilities for a specific task. *Most* skill checks are elaborated upon via skills, so "simple ability checks" are quite uncommon. The only consistant exception is the Strength check to break bonds or smash down doors.

Related: Is there a good example somewhere of what a combat round looks like for a monster with grab and a bunch of attacks and/or related special abilities like constrict or the giant mantis' mandibles?

I'm not super clear on how the remaining attacks are resolved and how the special abilities are resolved if the monster, for exzample, grabs successfully on its first attack, or what its options are.

If the creatures takes the -20 on the CMB roll (-16 with the +4 factored in), it can then grapple without being grappled itself. An octopus is a good example. Say the creature succeeds at the grab on the first attack. It may now proceed to wail on the grappled PC with its remaining attacks, or direct some at other party members...whatever. Treat it *just* as if it were not grappled, taking the appendage doing the grappling into account on following rounds. Don't forget that it must make its grapple check at the start of each round and, if it wishes to maintain the hold without becoming grappled, continues to apply the penalty. Success means it gets to damage its grappled opponent (as well as constricting the PC, if it has the ability) and it *also* gets to make regular attacks with its remaining appendages.

Multi-armed Grabbers with constrict are nasty business for the party. This is intentional.

Could multiple creatures time their attacks so they could all make a coup de grace on a sleeping foe?

Imagining a ring of attackers around a fallen foe, all stabbing, bashing, and stomping... It's not hard to visualize and certainly "doable" in my mind. Such an unfortunate foe would be extremely unlikely to survive the assault.

Just remember, it goes both ways. Hold Person and a ring of foes around the PC are the player's worst nightmare...

Jiggy wrote:

Son of a bugbear, so it is! I wonder what I was thinking of...?

I'd need a more old-school player to chime in on it, but I have a strong feeling that Total Defense used to be a Full Round Action. The first playgroup that I joined played TD as a FRA until I looked it up, and the DM of that group has been playing for years.

Total Defense has been a standard action since 3e. /shrug

The OD&D equivalent was to "Perry" for the round. You could take no other action, but you would subtract your To Hit bonus from your opponent's attack rolls. Perhaps that's where the notion of a "full round action" came from.

------------------------PF Grapple Flowcharts v0.96-------

PDF Version PF Grapple Flowcharts
Zipped JPG Version PF Grapple Flowcharts

----------------------------------------------------------

Another update.

- Some grammar changes
- Some minor layout changes (Defender and Controller)
- Some corrections (Thx @ Red Wullf)
- Added unconfirmed bond type "cloth"

I hope everybody like it :)

PS: Why i cant edit my previous posts?

Lookin' much better. Thanks for making those changes. :)

------------------------PF Grapple Flowcharts v0.95-------
PDF Version PF Grapple Flowcharts
Zipped JPG Version PF Grapple Flowcharts
----------------------------------------------------------

Does nobody like or want my flowcharts ?

I think the flow breaks towards the middle/end of the Grappler (Controller) chart, but I'll need you and others to weigh in.

Looking at the middle, where "Choose constrict or grab special ability" branches, followed by the Constrict/Grab branch and/or the "Controller may..." branch. If you choose to follow the "...move self and Defender up to 1/2 Controller's movement" or the "...inflict damage on the defender" path, both (if successful) ultimately end at "Does Attacker maintain a hold?" step. First, hasn't the attacker already maintained the hold at the beginning of the round, upon making their successful CMB check? I could be up in the night here, but I think that question isn't necessary at the end of the flow. It was answered "yes" at the beginning of the round. If there is an assumption that the defender has managed to get free, per the Defender flow, then that should be covered in the Defender flow exclusively, on the Defender's turn. Also, this question ends in "Defender is pinned, controller has the Grapple condition." Neither of these are necessarily true if, A) The controller chose to damage or move the defender on their turn, then the Defender would not be pinned and/or B) If the controller is a creature using the Grab special ability at -15 CMB (further up the flow chart) then the controller does NOT have the grappled condition.

I think you should break "Grab" controllers and standard controllers into two separate branches, because the Grab controller should not end in a grappled condition.

Also, I think the flow shouldn't end in a "Defender is pinned" condition from the "controller moves defender" or "controller damages defender" branches. Unless the controller specifically chooses to pin the defender, then the latter is not pinned.

Use the apostrophe to show ownership. Example on the Controller flow chart:

"-4 on Attackers CMB" _should read_ "-4 on Attacker's CMB"
"...move self and Defender up to 1/2 Controllers movement" _should read_ "...move self and Defender up to 1/2 Controller's movement"

Moving up to the Defender flow chart (pg. 2), "Pinned" is spelled wrong at the top of the chart.

Also, on the Defender flow, the hops to "A" and "B" are confusing. Is it possible to re-order the flows so that this isn't necessary?

I couldn't find any other errors in the flows themselves (though, like I said, I'm no expert and others will probably want to have a look). However, I recommend going over spelling and grammar from top to bottom.

Keep up the great work!

My Goblin Rogue has a crazy high intelligence, 30+.. I roleplay him with the caviat that he is so smart, that new words flow in so fast if he doesn't regularly read/write to have the words stolen from his head.. his head would explode killing him in a gooey mess.. possibly taking out nearby goblins. :D

30+? How?

Yeah, you might be thinking of something like the Deinonychus, that has the "foreclaws" entry (sounds like two claws, but it's one attack).

The horse has a number in front of it's hoof attack entry, so you actually roll 2 attacks.

If it just said "Melee hooves -2 (1d4+1)", then it would be only one attack.

The problem with hoof attacks is that there are 4 feet, but only two attacks (due to needing to rear to make those attacks).
However, the game is fairly loose on these terms... just like how you can technically face every direction in combat, the horse can technically favour two hooves when attacking.

It does allow 4 individual horseshoes to be magiked, and thus gives 4 different options when making those two attacks.

Ah, fond memories of "facing" in the old school days, were flanking and rear attacks were exactly that. Now, PCs and monsters face every direction at exactly the same time... the quantum physics of combat rules.

EDIT: I guess if it was the quantum physics of combat rules, characters would actually face every direction (an infinite number) and no direction, all at the same time. I should house-rule that...

The flurry-of-blows attack bonus listed in the Monk table already includes your base attack bonus (or BAB). So, for a 12th-level Monk, the bonus added when flurring is +10/+10/+5/+5/+0.

You add your Strength modifier (and/or anything else that modifies your attack bonus) to those five numbers, plus the 1d20 roll.

Now that we've cleared that up, I'll just say that this: +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3 ...is insane! ;)

Unlike claws or bites, hooves are treated as one attack, even though the animal is usually hitting with two hooves at a time (mule kick with rear or rearing up and hitting with both from hooves), so I would not make them be enchanted individually.

- Do you have some citation for the hooves being treated as one attack? Its listed as 2 attacks.

Melee 2 hooves –2 (1d4+1)

Yep, even the pony is listed has having 2 hooves as its attack: Melee 2 hooves –3 (1d3)

If you are trying to make weapons out of then then enchant as weapons. You could argue that horseshoes are like brass knuckles for the horses feet. But then you would get into whether you have to enchant them as a set or individually.

I think going the woundrous item and mighty fists route is the way to go. Heck it does not even need to be horse shoes, bridle of mighty fists, saddle of protection +1, saddle bags of holding, etc.

Just re-skin an existing item.

Certainly reasonable, and a good suggestion.

I just think, per my post above, if you can enchant horseshoes with Speed or Zephyr, it's just not that much of a stretch in my mind to optionally enchant them as weapons. If the character has the thousands to blow on that sort of thing, I don't think it's going to break the game.

You brought up a good point, though, about enchanting them as a set. I'm tempted to say I'd require them to be enchanted individually. Also, it could create some interesting effects if you had, say, 1 horseshoe of Thundering and another of Frost. Could be fun and would garner the simple horse some newfound respect. ;)

harmor wrote:

Want to add a +1 to hit with Horseshoes. How?

Horseshoes themselves would be an improvised weapon. You don't want to do that.

For a custom magic item you're supposed to go with the closest equivalent. In this case its an amulet of mighty fists... which would work perfectly fine on a horse.

I'll state up-front that I haven't checked the core rulebook to determine the precedence for considering horseshoes to be improvised weapons. I DO see where you're coming from, but as a GM, unless there was a clear rule to the contrary, I'd simply allow someone with Craft Magic Arms and Armor to imbue horseshoes as any other weapon. A horse trained in combat doesn't need to be proficient with horseshoes to use its natural weapons, IMO. With that established, it might even be reasonable to allow Masterwork Horseshoes which grant +1 hit, without enchanting them at all. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch to allow either.

But, then again, there's probably some obscure rule contradicting this opinion. Even if that is the case, I'd still allow the reasonable assumption that a horse neither "wields" nor must be "proficient" with horseshoes to clobber someone over the head with its hooves.

Only in the courtroom.

-Kle.

And, by extension, if a corporation is found guilty of a crime, how do you put it in prison? Does everyone have to go - from CEO to the janitor and every executive, exempt, hourly, and temporary employee in between? What about share holders? Do they also have to go to prison? They, after all, "own" the corporation. Often, share holders are, in fact, another corporation. Would all of the corporations involved, from the guilty corporation to the owning corporations all have to go to prison?

Oh, I remember now, corporations are "fined" at worst. In most cases, their crimes are simply ignored, so this isn't a scenario we'll ever have to concern ourselves with. We'll keep our focus on imprisoning poverty-stricken individuals who are arrested with an ounce of pot, instead.

Thank you for the confirmation everyone, it's much appreciated.

Oh, and Red Wullf, that's why I was asking for opinions. The magic item creation costs are indeed guidelines, and the final cost should be adjusted based on the true potency of the item (which is why I'm a little confused as to why the Ring of Blinking is so much cheaper than the guideline price (Spell level 3 X Caster Level 7 X 1800 = 37800)). I'm just a player in the game, and of course the GM has the final say, but I was curious as to the opinions of other GMs should they face such a price question from one of their own players. Certainly I can't go to my GM and say "the Paizo boards said X", but the opinions of experienced players and DMs is still useful to me in personally evaluating future magic item creation endeavors.

Indeed. Perhaps the best thing to do is to make the item "by the rules" as closely as you can approximate and then confer with the GM until a final price is reached. Seems the most reasonable way.

I've tended to avoid magic users, mostly due to all the paperwork and extra rules involved. Unfortunately, now that I'm beginning to delve into creating magic items (as I'm now in a group of powergamers), there are certain terms and such I can no longer avoid. For example, for creating magic items with spells in them, it mentions that you can cast the spell at a lower caster level than your own when creating the item, but not lower than the minimum caster level needed to cast the spell. How do I determine the minimum caster level? Would it be the caster level at which the class gains access to that spell (for example, a thrid level spell having a minimum caster level of 7) or is it something else entirely?

That's exactly right. A good example is a Wand of Cure Light Wounds. At level 1 Caster Level, the wand would heal 1d8+1 HP. A cleric could create the wand with the spell at, say, Caster Level 5 however, assuming the Cleric is level 5 or higher, and create a wand that cures 1d8+5. The same is true in reverse: A 10th level Wizard could create a wand of lightning bolts at 10th level, causing 10d6 damage, or down to caster level 5, causing 5d6 damage (but no lower, since a Wizard would have to be a minimum of 5th level to get the 3rd level spell).

Granted, for making new magic items the guidelines given are kind of loose, such as a Ring of Blinking being 10,000 gold cheaper than the calculation. Given that there seem to be a lot of command word rings with spells in them, I was looking to make a Ring of Hand of the Marksman (third party thrid level bard spell). Given the potency of the spell, it would most likely cost more than the guidline, but for a guidline price would the caster level be minimum 7 (being a third level spell), or could I cast it at caster level 1?

Again, you're correct: 7th level would be the minimum Caster Level you can use, since that is the minimum caster level for a Bard to cast 3rd level spells.

If you are unfamiliar with the spell in question, it is a third party spell published in "101 3rd level spells" that I found it on the Pathfinder SRD. Personally, I think it's a rather potent spell even in the hands of a bard. Also, for curiosities sake, what you you, as a GM, price such a ring at?

On a final note, keep in mind that the pricing for magic items in Pathfinder is a guideline. Potions, wands, and scrolls are pretty cut and dry, but "custom" weapons and especially wondrous items and staves are more of an "art" than a science. Check with the GM (if you are not it) for final ruling on design and pricing for such items.

LeleyX wrote:

The noobie GM thanks you kindly for all the great advice, Phasics, I'll probably block that idea, and just offer him the boots of striding, maybe make it a little more powerful for some more gp...

I'd also compare the effect to boots of speed which increase speed as per haste, but also grant the other bonuses of haste. The boots run 12000, and only work 10 rounds a day (which is often enough to use in most rounds of most combats in one day, at least in the games I play).

What your rogue player likely wants them for: flanking. He wants to be able to run all the way around an encounter to get behind the bad guys without needing acrobatics. This is not terribly powerful, it might save the rogue some skill points, but he'll still want acrobatics against things with reach.

I'd be likely to cost boots of +30 speed at about 11000 myself, but I always tend towards the more expensive end when pricing custom items - in game, I think of them as a prototype. Also, I tend to look at any custom item design with a wary eye - it's very easy to make an abusable item. If you are a new GM my suggestion would be to restrict your players to book items only until you feel more comfortable with things like assessing balance issues etc.

+1. A per-day limit, or rounds-per-day limit are what really should be applied to such boots, rather than an always-on effect. This would also bring the price out of the clouds.

Not a bad analysis. A quick glance reveals that the lowest CR 10 CMD I was able to find was 27 (Kalavakus, Demon) and the highest a 40 (brachiosaurus). Indeed, even in a best case scenario, using your numbers, the PC only has a ~25% chance to move through an occupied square.

My guess is this is either planned (moving through an occupied space is supposed to be really difficult and unlikely to succeed), or unplanned, and there exists a genuine imbalance.

EDIT: At 10 ranks, with the Acrobatic Feat, you can add another +4, bringing the base modifier to +20, and increasing the "best-case-scenario" change to about 40%. Helpful, but still one hell of a challenge, which will be reduced quickly vs. tougher opponents. One option, perhaps, is to reduce the +5 DC penalty for moving through an occupied space to +2.

In my humble opinion, the real issue with CMD and CMB is that CMD is 10+BaB+Str+Dex+Size while CMB is BaB+Str+Size (where Tiny or smaller creatures replace Str with Dex). An acrobatics skill check aside, it seems the fact that a defender gets to add Str AND Dex while the attacker only gets to add Str is unbalancing, especially at higher levels where creatures tend to have fantastic strengths. I don't doubt that this mechanic was extensively play tested, but I suddenly feel inspired to put some hypotheticals together to see what this means to the PCs. I can't help but think that many Combat Maneuvers are more likely to fail than succeed, especially as levels increase. Taking away all modifiers, there's a base 50% chance of success. Since creatures of a comparable CR are likely to have higher physical attributes than a PC, their CMD will jump disproportionately to the PCs CMB - or so it seems.

Related: Does anyone else feel like as you advance in levels, using Acrobatics to avoid AoOs gradually stops working?

Example: Let's take a level 10 character trying to tumble past a CR 10 monster. This isn't a very difficult opponent in the grand scheme of things.

A CR 10 monster straight out of the Bestiary with no prep spells, class levels, or anything special in play will average CMD about 32. So, DC 32 to tumble past it and DC 37 to tumble through it. This is a pretty basic case and I'd expect the level 10 character who's cranked out acrobatics to have a pretty easy time of it.

So let's see. We'll give our tumbler an 18 DEX and only a 1 armor check penalty -- I think that's a pretty reasonable baseline.

So Acrobatics check of 10 (max ranks) + 3 (class skill) + 4 (dex) - 1 (ACP) = +16.

So he needs to roll (32 - 16) = a 16 on the D20 to tumble past the simple creature, and he can't tumble through it at all. That's not great -- a reasonably high dex, a reasonably low ACP, and a pile of skill points gets us a 1 in 4 chance to succeed at the simpler of two tasks and no chance to succeed at the harder.

If he wears Boots of Elvenkind (a pretty big sacrifice at level 10, IMHO -- to keep just to the core book, Boots of Striding and Springing or Boots of Speed are both probably much better uses for that slot for every other purpose) or picks Skill Focus: Acrobatics or the Acrobatic feat he can get it to about a 50/50 chance; he'd have to do all three (which seems unreasonable) to auto-tumble.

Put him up against an actually challenging monster for his level and it gets really ugly fast.

Overall this doesn't seem like it balances well -- either you're going all-in on Acrobatics, or you might as well just skip it entirely.

Not a bad analysis. A quick glance reveals that the lowest CR 10 CMD I was able to find was 27 (Kalavakus, Demon) and the highest a 40 (brachiosaurus). Indeed, even in a best case scenario, using your numbers, the PC only has a ~25% chance to move through an occupied square.

My guess is this is either planned (moving through an occupied space is supposed to be really difficult and unlikely to succeed), or unplanned, and there exists a genuine imbalance.

EDIT: At 10 ranks, with the Acrobatic Feat, you can add another +4, bringing the base modifier to +20, and increasing the "best-case-scenario" change to about 40%. Helpful, but still one hell of a challenge, which will be reduced quickly vs. tougher opponents. One option, perhaps, is to reduce the +5 DC penalty for moving through an occupied space to +2.

Paizo, your thoughts?

I've tried to present these things to him, but he's kind of a stubborn old guy. He automatically assumes multi-classing or prestige classing is a lame excuse for more "power" or to get features he doesn't feel fit a character.

Let's take the Arcane Trickster for example. He looks at that build and immediately assumes you just want to play a rogue that can toss out fireballs. He doesn't take into account how freaking AWESOME it would be to play a rogue who enhances his rogue skills and does rogue stuff with magic. He feels if you want to sneak around just be a rogue, if you want to cast magic play a wizard. Stop mixing the 2. Same with the skills. If you want to pick locks, be a rogue. If you want to fight, be a fighter. NO MIXING!!! :)

I'm a huge fan of archetypes, but my main goal is getting multi-classing and prestige classing accepted. I have lots of character ideas that I would love to play in our game but my DM won't let go of his old ways. I need to show him these kind of builds can be fun and full of flavor.

Edit: I should also add that my DM doesn't allow archetypes either. We're only allowed the Core Rulebook when he DMs, even though he gifts us books like the APG, just to turn around tell us it's not allowed.

Some "old school" DMs still play under the very restrictive (player-limiting) philosophy of 1st and 2nd ed AD&D. In those days, the DM held all the reins (generally). The "modern" mode of thinking is to allow characters to play what they want, and what they envision, and multi-classing, prestige-classing, skill/feat-taking, trait choices all lend to more unique character builds. In this age, "is it fun for the players" is Rule #1. In the old days, "challenge (or defeat) the players" was often Rule #1.

In terms of everyone having a good time, there's little for the GM to gain by imposing hefty restrictions on character flexibility. Certainly, it is up to the GM to only allow options which he or she feels fit into the game world, and this can vary widely from one campaign to another. However, in the interest of everyone's fun, the GM is obligated (IMO) to be flexible, and to even consider modifying aspects of the game world to accomodate player desires.

The point is, a GREAT campaign is built organically, with GMs and players working together for the highest degree of fun, developing the story collaboratively. Unfortunately, some old school GMs simply don't see it that way. It's their game world, and they control all the pieces - if you don't like it, find another group.

If it helps, ask him why he's concerned about the "power" some combinations may create, and ask him to demonstrate how these combinations may be "over-powered." Ask him why his adventures and campaign objectives can't be tailored to accomodate differences in power levels. After all, more powerful characters just means more powerful opponents.. As long as everyone's having fun, what difference does it make?

Having said all of this, as a GM who comes from the 1st Ed AD&D days himself, I can definitely see how the power shift from GM to player in 3rd Edition/Pathfinder can be frustrating. In some ways, I DO think that power (in the guise of "preference") has over-shifted in the players' favor. The complexity and depth of the rules and player options have tied the GMs hands in a lot of circumstances where, "back in the day," hand-waving results was more common. I recently had an argument with a meta-gaming player regarding the DC of a saving throw he should have made. I had adjusted DCs due to party strength "on the fly," and this did NOT sit well with the player who had been able to draw some very accurate conclusions from "the numbers" in the encounter. This sort of "loss of control" for the GM can be frustrating for all concerned, and is (IMO) a limitation of a rules-heavy system like Pathfinder. Don't be surprised if your DM resists based on this reason alone...

Summary? Changing his mind could be a lost cause. Not to say you shouldn't try, but the type of mentality and gaming-style you're describing tends to resist harder the more you push. You may simply find yourself having to play within the GMs limitations, or finding another group.

Good luck to you.

ps, re ballroom dancing: Ballroom dancers typically show way more skin than Seoni. Safe For Work example

Well, she's in great shape...

I think Chuck Norris is a monk.

Problem, haters? Take it up with Chuck.

Gailbraithe wrote:

But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just doesn't know enough about the publishing world to realize how completely ludicrous the question is.

Before you attack his intelligence and/or accuse him of trolling, I'll point out that there is precident in the music marketplace for selling censored versions of CDs alongside the uncensored version. Given that precident, Loboluk's question is entirely fair.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of the cheesecake art either, and would happily buy an "alternative alt" book if such a thing existed. And I felt that way even before my wife complained.

Just a thought, but maybe the problem isn't the art...but wives?

And children.

Red Wullf wrote:

Gary Teter wrote:

I'm not really qualified to comment on what products we do or do not publish, but I would like to request that this thread not turn into one of those several-hundred-post pile-on/flamewars about sexuality, modesty, morality or the way people choose to raise their own children.

/sigh

But those are the BEST threads...

/mutter

again, I didn't this was "monk sucks" level posts. my bad i have the prd and srd documents. thanks all for your suggestions. feel free to add an more you suck posts below this one as i wont be responding anymore as my questions was so tacticfully and nicely answered by reckless. lol keep on living the dream people!

I was just making light of the situation as a whole. It's how I deal with drama and confrontation...

;)

P.S. Who said monks suck? Monks are delicious awesomesauce!

I'm not really qualified to comment on what products we do or do not publish, but I would like to request that this thread not turn into one of those several-hundred-post pile-on/flamewars about sexuality, modesty, morality or the way people choose to raise their own children.

/sigh

But those are the BEST threads...

/mutter

Since we're (roughly) on the topic of Pathfinder art, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that Ezren, the iconic wizard, looks like John McVie from Fleetwood Mac (pictured on the left in the banner).

That is all.

i don't feel like pathfinder is overly violent or even overtly sexual has a game system. just the books have a bunch of scantily clad ladies in them. plain and simple. i don't want pathfinder to change there book cover at all and i am not holding a sign,saying paizo is evil or am i demanding they change anything just asking if they have a different cover. if yes than great if no than also great. i think folks are getting all hot and bothered for no good reason really. i don't think just because i don't want to see some other women goodies except my wifes. i should be relegated to playing 6 year old fairy nonsense dnd. but once my daughter grows up i may start her on it. better than fake tea parties.

I hear you, brother. Though I don't agree with your point of view, personally, I support your right to have it. And, even though the thought of you taking a magic marker to the stunning art in the Pathfinder core rulebook makes me dizzy and feel like crying, I MOSTLY support the fact that you want to share in the table-top fantasy role playing experience with your family.

As others have pointed out, the Official PRD and the PFSRD are probably your best bet. You won't have access to *all* of the Paizo IP content, but you'll have access to everything you need to play the game by the rules (and some extra, especially at the PFSRD). You'll have to do some world-building to compensate for the lack of access to the IP content, but hey, that's part of the fun of the game.

More importantly, I don't think all of the material has pictures which you may find to be inappropriate for your family. Off the top of my head, I don't recall any "racy" images in the Inner Sea World Guide, for example. I recommend a trip to the hobby/game store, flip through the books, and determine if you think it's OK or not.

Good luck to you.

DELETED

Just remembered that these forums can't handle serious discussion without people losing their ****.

I'm offended by your deleted post, because I'm sure it was offensive before you deleted it.

;P

I have a question regarding AoOs. If someone moves through the threatened area of a character using a ranged weapon (a bow) and who has spiked gauntlet/cestus/armor spikes, or tries to grapple him, or does something else that would provoke an attack of opportunity, can the archer attack him? I am not sure whether you can attack with a melee weapon in the round in which you attacked with a ranged weapon, so I'd be grateful if someone could offer some insight into this problem.

With the spiked gauntlet/cestus/armor spikes, sure. Those weapons are "ready" pretty much at all times. However, there's some room to argue whether or not the character can fire a bow while wearing cestus (cesti?).

Cestus Image

Even gauntlets are iffy. I'd like to see someone effectively draw an arrow, knock it, and fire it while wearing these.

Of course, those are all matters of opinion. RAW says nothing, to my knowledge, about wearing these items and using a bow, so they can be used for the AoO.

As for ending in B's square while squeezing, there is no option to squeeze with another creature voluntarily, although it is something that is often either homeruled in or allowed via lack of knowledge.

Yeah...it doesn't seem totally unreasonable. However, I just peeked at pg. 193 and saw this:

A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving but it can’t end its movement in an occupied square.

So, homerules aside, squeezing with an ally in a single square is "illegal."

/shrug