Revengeance's page

Having watched the video, I'm not sure what to say. I've seen some designers (I think JJ?) remarking on this very forum that Greater Grapple allows for a one-turn pin, which directly contradicts Mark.

Mark's interpretation also doesn't appear to conform with the written rules in various places. For example, he says you can't take free actions during a full attack - but that would mean that Grab wouldn't resolve (or even check) until after the full attack was finished, because Grab technically gives a free action grapple. Yet if you can take free actions during a full attack, you should be able to release, and the octopus works as I described even if it's a little hard to imagine in reality. And if "maintain" is a separate action that can only be done on a subsequent turn, it severely limits the usefulness of Greater Grapple because it gives the opponent a round to break free or full attack, while shutting down your own ability to make attacks of opportunity. Usually, the Greater Maneuver feats give you something good that makes up for the action you had to put in - Trip gives you an attack of opportunity (against a prone enemy!), so it basically makes your trip attempts free; Dirty Trick takes away their standard action, so it prevents counterattacks and sets up sneak attacks. Under Mark's interpretation, Grapple has many more checks to defeat than to succeed.

Likewise, under Mark's interpretation, a creature like the octopus is better off never grappling - it would have to choose between maintaining as a standard, for two rolls of 1d4+2, versus a full attack of 9d4 + 18 + 1d8 + 5, "maintaining" the grapple by releasing before the full attack and then maintaining it at the end again. Maybe this is just me, but when a creature's stat block is built for grapples, it should be better at grappling than the alternative.

His comments on Rake are also confusing to me - I read Rake essentially as an ability to allow a full attack while also progressing the grapple (taking a standard to maintain plus the "free" claw attacks it otherwise would've been able to take on a full attack). According to him, you could Rake, then release the grapple, and then full attack.

In sum, I am very much not persuaded. I'd want to hear from the guy who wrote the grapple rules.

This will be long, because it will include a summary of the grapple rules as best I understand them, partially to test my own knowledge and partially as a community resource. There’s a scenario/question at the end.

Terminology/Restatement of Rules:

1) “Grappled” means “having the grappled condition”. In some cases, a character may grapple (the action) without being “grappled” (the condition) – such as with the Grab universal monster ability.

2) “Initiating” a grapple means “applying the grappled condition to a target that does not have it.” Under normal circumstances, this comes with a few side effects: the newly-grappled target is moved to a square adjacent to the initiator; both characters gain the grappled condition, with one considered “dominant” and the other “subordinate.” (Without the Improved Grapple, Grab, or similar ability, initiating a grapple provokes attacks of opportunity; the damage dealt adds a penalty to the initiation check.) Under some circumstances, the dominant grappler will not actually have the grappled condition – as is the case for monsters using the Grab ability (more on Grab later).

Grappled creatures may not make attacks of opportunity, take a -4 penalty to Dex and -2 penalty to attack rolls (including combat maneuver rolls), and may not move, use stealth, or use any action that requires two hands, but may still attack (including full attacks, using light, natural, or one-handed weapons), cast spells, or even make combat maneuvers (dirty trick, disarm, grapple, steal, sunder, or trip – no bull rush, drag, reposition, or overrun, because those imply movement of one or both grapplers; While many combat maneuvers are possible, for the most part only grapple would ever be used, but one could imagine, for example, wrestling a sword out of an enemy’s hands (disarm), or smearing mud in his eyes (dirty trick) to cause him to release the hold.) If a grappled creature becomes invisible, it gains +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefits.

3) “Maintaining” a grapple means “the dominant grappler (which may not have the grappled condition) performs a successful grapple action against the subordinate grappler, on the dominant grappler’s turn”. “Maintenance” is required to preserve a grapple; if a grapple is not maintained, it ends. Per the rules: “If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.”

But “maintenance” is not special kind of action or check. Rather, it is simply a grapple check, against a grappled target, made on the dominant grappler’s turn. Failing a “maintenance” check does not release the grapple; it is for this reason that Greater Grapple notes that it “allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.” A character can fail its move-action grapple check, succeed on its standard-action check, and still maintain the hold – the only important part is that at least one check was made successfully. (This will be very important later.)

Maintenance is associated with one or more additional effects: moving both grapplers; damaging the subordinate grappler; or pinning/tying up the subordinate grappler. But that’s not because these are special “maintenance” effects. They’re just the natural consequence of making a successful grapple maneuver against a target that already has the grappled condition. (Again, this will be important later.)

One interesting and important consequence is that “maintenance” is not done at any particular time in the dominant grappler’s turn. What this means is that a Wizard, if dominant in a grapple and with the Greater Grapple feat, can cast True Strike and then use a move action to make a grapple check to maintain the grapple (since grappling uses an attack roll). Going back, the rules state only that “you must continue to make a check each round (i.e., at some point in the round), as a [move action, thanks to Greater Grapple], to maintain the hold.”

4) “Pinning” means “applying the pinned condition to a subordinate grappler.” The pinned condition denies a target its dexterity modifier, prevents most actions, and takes an additional -4 penalty to its AC. The only allowed actions are Grapple and Escape Artist checks, or purely mental or verbal actions (such as casting a Still spell). Casting requires a concentration check, with DC equal to 10 + opponent’s CMB + the spell’s level.

A character with the pinned condition may be helpless. There is reasonable disagreement on this point, however. The case for pinned = helpess:

A) Helpless: “A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound,…”; Pinned: “A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions.”
B) Throat Slicer feat: “you can deliver a coup de grace to an unconscious, bound, or pinned target (though not other kinds of helpless targets) as a standard action. (A canon of interpretation is that the “not other kinds of X” implies that the thing preceding is a kind of X; this is bolstered since “unconscious” is also a kind of helpless).
C) Pinned and tied up both describe the target as “bound”, and also that “a creature that is tied up is ‘bound’ which means it has the Helpless condition.”)

The case against is simply that both paralyzed and unconscious explicitly specify in their descriptions that the character is “helpless,” while “pinned” does not.

4) “Tying up” means “applying the ‘bound’ condition to the subordinate grappler permanently”. Bound is a special kind of pin, that can be escaped only through an Escape Artist check with DC equal to 20 + the opponent’s CMB.

5) “Breaking” or “escaping” a grapple means using the grapple maneuver or an Escape Artist check to end a grapple. Essentially, breaking a grapple is the action of becoming dominant in the grapple, and then releasing it immediately as a free action (but can be done as a free action). Escaping a grapple is the same as escaping a pin or binding.

6) “Grab” is a special ability that allows a character or monster to initiate a grapple as a free action after hitting with a regular attack. It additionally has the option of not getting the grappled condition, by taking a -20 penalty on its grapple maneuver. (Of course, if it somehow succeeds, it will still need to make a grapple check to maintain.)

7) “Constrict” is a special ability that allows a creature to cause regular grapple damage in addition to the effects of any other grapple check. It can deal its grapple damage twice, if it acts to maintain a grapple.

EDGE CASE TIME

1) The Giant Octopus: This guy has 8 tentacles and the Grab and Constrict abilities. As part of a full attack, he can initiate a grapple. If he chooses not to become grappled himself, he takes a -20 penalty on his checks. So he can attack-grapple-constrict, then release as a free action, 8 times.

He has the option of taking that -20 penalty on his last attack to avoid the grappled condition (but will likely lose his prey if he does so), or he can retain the grappled condition on himself to keep it at full strength. If fighting multiple opponents, he can retain the grappled condition on himself, while still being the dominant grappler with respect to each opponent. However, because he does not have Greater Grapple, and Grab specifies that he can only start a grapple with a successful attack. This means that he can’t use a full attack to pin 4 enemies at once (though he could grapple 8), and on his next round he must focus on only one enemy if he wishes to pin or move them. Any creature he is grappling may either attempt to escape (via Escape Artist), or become dominant (by starting a grapple against the octopus, if necessary).

NUMBERS INTERLUDE

This seems overpowered and cheesy – 9 attacks, plus 8 grapples, including lots of free action grapples and releases, just seems like abuse of the rules. Consider that his strength modifier is +2, meaning he could deal 1d8 +5 (bite) plus 16d4+32 (tentacles), or about 82 damage, plus poison, on a full attack. That’s a lot. It must be that there’s some requirement, like he can’t release during a full attack, right?

No. The damage above is only if he hits with everything, which we can’t assume. If we assume that he hits only on 11+ for both his attacks and grapples, he’d actually do only an average of 5 (for the bite) plus 4 tentacles and 2 constricts – or about 32 damage. We can compare this to a CR-equivalent Deadfall Scorpion, which would hit on a 9+ against the same AC and deal 12.5 average damage on a hit – for about 32 average.

These numbers are very similar, suggesting that the octopus is intended to use the hit-grapple-release tactic in combat unless it is specifically trying to pin or move a creature.

BACK TO EDGE CASES (and where the questions begin)

2) The Maneuver Master Monk: He gets a Flurry of Maneuvers, allowing him an extra combat maneuver – even one that normally takes a standard action – during full attacks. At level 8, he gets 2 such maneuvers.

Can he choose to grapple for both of these maneuvers, taking an adjacent target from standing to pinned, while also attacking?

I tend to think yes, for a few reasons: First, the point of the archetype, as I see it, is that the monk can use a full-round action on a grappled enemy to advance the grapple, instead of specifically taking a standard and a move. Second, the effect, taking an adjacent enemy from standing to pinned, is granted at level 8 – or right around the time any other chained monk could use Greater Grapple for the same effect. Essentially, the Maneuver Master is trading some BAB on his combat maneuvers for a free attack, which seems Fair and Balanced. This interpretation would confirm my belief that “maintaining” and “progressing” a grapple are the same thing, not specific actions with specific action economy.

Which brings me to…

3) The White Haired Witch: At level 1, she gets a special hair natural attack, with an ability written very similarly to the Grab ability. However, the description notes that she is never considered grappled when using it (so there’s no need to take the -20 penalty). More importantly, the description says that “whenever the hair strikes a foe, the witch can attempt to grapple that foe with her hair as a free action”. Note that the description doesn’t say that she can start a grapple, only that she can grapple. (Otherwise, the description simply would have said “she gains the Grab ability” or something like that.)

This suggests that if she can get multiple hair attacks in one round, she could use her attacks to pin. For example, if an enemy provoked two attack of opportunity (moving inside her rather long reach, and then casting a spell, for example), and she had Combat Reflexes, she could hit (and attempt to grapple) twice, pinning the enemy. Alternatively, by using Feral Combat Training and dipping into Monk, she could make a Flurry of Hair; if she was successful at both the hits and grapples, she’d be able to pin in one round – just as if she had Greater Grapple and the target started adjacent to her. (Note that for this ability, she had to take 3 feats, put levels in a low-BAB class, give up all hexes, and dip into Monk, AND land 4 hits in a row on her target. It’s in the realm of “possible, but exceedingly unlikely.”)

THE QUESTION:

Is the White Haired Witch example above the correct reading of things? Nothing in the grapple rules says that a particular body part is occupied while grappling, and that would also mean that her reach isn’t particularly useful because it can’t make attacks of opportunity while she’s grappling someone, even though she specifically doesn’t have the grappled condition (which the designers must have done for a reason). I can maybe see that she’d need to maintain with a standard or move action if she wanted to keep a grapple or pin, except for part 3, where maintaining is simply having a successful check on your turn (and for which my interpretation is further supported by the existence of the Maneuver Master).

Thanks for reading!

I'm trying to find a way to get both Named Bullet, Stunning Critical, and Dastardly Finish, all on the same character (preferably a Cha-based caster). The general character concept is to use the Starknife Divine Fighting Technique, cast Named Bullet to guarantee a critical on a ranged attack, using the stun to set up a coup de grace. Unfortunately, the prerequisites for each are fairly deep - requiring 5d6 sneak attack, level 4 spells, and 17 BAB.

So far, I'm thinking of taking the following route:
Rogue 3
Brawler 2 (Snakebite Striker)
Magus 3 (Eldritch Scion, for Cha-based casting)
Arcane Trickster 2
Eldritch Knight 10

A perk of the EK 10 is that it keeps both BAB and casting up, as well as helping with some of the necessary feats. Plus, landing a Named Bullet would trigger the Spell Critical to get another Named Bullet for use the next round.

The sneak attack die would be coming from the Accomplished Sneak Attacker feat. But I'm not sure it works without taking advantage of retraining to move a feat into Stunning Critical.

Alternatively, I'm thinking of focusing on Paladin, using Unsanctioned Knowledge for the Named Bullet. But that may run into trouble with the Code of Conduct (can Paladins sneak attack?)

Any help revising this would be appreciated.

Hi all - I'm playing a campaign that allows for DSP material, so I'm running a Thrallherd and wanted to optimize his Thrall (cohort):

Soren Koresh
Human
Paladin 15 (Oathbound; Oaths of Vengeance and Crusade)
Cleric 1 (Channeler of the Unknown; ex-Elder Mythos Cultist)
Brawler 2
Holy Vindicator 1

Feats
1 Alignment Channel
2 Quicken Spell-like Ability
3 Divine Interference
4 Unsanctioned Knowledge (Enlarge Person or Grease; Heroism or Mirror Image; Bestow Curse or Good Hope; Greater Invisibility or Air Walk)
5 Power Attack
6 Combat Expertise
7 Combat Reflexes
8 Improved Shield Bash
9 Shield Slam
10 Shield Master
11 Bashing Finish
Two-weapon Fighting (Brawler Flurry)
Improved Two-weapon Fighting (Brawler Bonus)
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (Martial Flexibility)

The Cleric level is there to provide some flavor - he was rescued from a cult, only to become a paladin (and ironically then to fall under the sway of the Thrallherd), but it also provides a few extra uses of Channel Energy (GM is allowing paladin levels to add to cleric's channel dice), as well as exotic weapon proficiency (waveblade), Channel Entropy, and the Luck domain. Holy Vindicator is there to allow him to channel into his shield for a juicy +9 AC; if he gets hit (possible essentially only on a critical hit) he can drop one of his rather useless level 1 slots (2 Domain slots are always True Strike) to force a re-roll.

The idea is that he will spend his first round moving next to the Big Bad, then Smite Evil and Channel Entropy (9d6 untyped area damage) to get everyone's attention. If anyone moves away, the extended reach from Enlarge Person will give him attacks of opportunity with his waveblade, which crits on 15+ and triggers free shield bashes when it does so. At the start of his next round, he'll use his swift to cast Bit of Luck, granting re-rolls to all d20 rolls for 1 round (2 with Headband of Fortune's Favor), and then do a full attack for 8 waveblade hits, shield bashing on every crit (which should be many, given the large threat range and rerolls to every attack).

What changes would improve this? Right now I'm considering dropping 1 level of Paladin to get a level of Fighter and Selective Channel so I can Channel Entropy near allies. Does anything about this build clearly not work like I think it does?

How does Polymorph Any Object (PAO) interact with undead?

Normally, undead have no constitution score. PAO grants a constitution score. Creatures are "living" if they have constitution scores. However, the standard list of "undead traits" includes "no constitution score".

Since PAO doesn't change types, how do these facts interact? Does an undead targeted by PAO become "living" (and targetable by spells that are restricted to "living" creatures), despite remaining of the undead type?

That's the most logical, but it's supernatural - and I was under the impression supernatural abilities move along with possession.

"All lycanthropes have three forms—a humanoid form, an animal form, and a hybrid form. Equipment does not meld with the new form between humanoid and hybrid form, but does between those forms and animal form. A natural lycanthrope can shift to any of its three alternate forms as a move-equivalent action. An afflicted lycanthrope can assume animal or hybrid form as a full-round action by making a DC 15 Constitution check, or humanoid form as a full-round action by making a DC 20 Constitution check...

"A natural lycanthrope’s bite attack in animal or hybrid form infects a humanoid target with lycanthropy."

Suppose that a wizard contracts lycanthropy. He does not cure it, and becomes capable of changing shape at will. He then successfully casts a possession effect (Magic Jar, Parasitic Soul, etc) on a creature (let's say a dragon).

Can the dragon body change form to a humanoid? To an animal? Can it change back, so that there are now 4 forms available (for the duration of the Magic Jar)? Does the wizard lose the lycanthrope template's effects while the possession is active?

RAW suggests you'd summon/anchor the whole thing, but I'd houserule that double weapons should be enchanted symmetrically.

The Atavism spell reads:

The animal immediately gains the advanced creature simple template. It gains a +2 bonus on all rolls, including damage rolls and special ability DCs, a +4 bonus to AC and CMD, and +2 hit points per HD. The animal's primal instincts take hold for the duration of this spell—if the animal knows tricks granted by the Handle Animal skill, it loses access to all of those tricks save for "attack."

It is ambiguous to me whether the template is lost when the spell expires, or if the duration only applies the restriction on Handle Animal. I imagine it's the former, but wanted to confirm.

And this is why Rule-Zero exists ;)

While being a tree via polymorph you would have no stats. Awaken would turn those nonstats into stats. Dispelling the polymorph would remove the nonstats (altered or not) and return you to whatever stats you had before, effectively removing the awaken.

You can't find a "tree type" because trees are objects not creatures. The tree feather token creates a tree and is based on the spell major creation which can make objects from vegetable matter, but can not make creatures. Ergo, trees are objects.

I'm aware trees are objects, and indeed that was my point. As objects, they don't have types, which means you could conceivably polymorph yourself into an object to become a valid target. Unless the targeting restriction of Polymorph Any Object is implicitly "objects only" (since presumably, you'd be a humanoid-typed tree, rather than an object)?

Also, Polymorph Any Object says "If the target of the spell does not have physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution), this spell grants a base score of 10 to each missing ability score. If the target of the spell does not have mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma), this spell grants a score of 5 to such scores."

That suggests that even going from object to object, PAO will grant ability scores if any are missing. Also, going from humanoid to object will not remove ability scores. Finally, since you never had nonstats, there'd be no nonstats to remove. And it's not obvious to me that once the polymorph goes away, stats revert. The stat gain is tied to Awaken, not Polymorph, and Awaken has a duration of "instantaneous".

What I'm left with is that even though this is a very, very convoluted setup - requiring both arcane and divine spells, for a particular class at level 20, etc., I think it does kind of work out, from RAW. Of course, I'd doubt a sane GM would let it stand.

This is the second time I've seen this discussion and I've noticed something interesting about the spell.

awaken wrote:

Target animal or tree touched

It's not enough to just be a plant, you actually have to be a non-creature tree. This is enforced by the following found in the spell

awaken wrote:

An awakened tree has characteristics as if it were an animated object, except that it gains the plant type and its Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores are each 3d6.

Couldn't you remedy this by using Polymorph Any Object to become a tree? (Obviously, you wouldn't be an object, but I couldn't find any reference to "tree" as a type - since "types" are a defined term describing creatures.) It's not obvious to me that the tree needs to be a non-creature, either: you could use Animate Object and it would be considered a Construct, no?

Anyway, to all the people saying "stop trying to break things" etc, this is the "rules" forum, not the "fun", "reasonable", "non-cheesy", whatever forum. It's a game, and I want to understand the interactions between ability damage, creature types, etc., so that I can figure out how to reason about weird edge cases when simpler problems come up in games. It's not about being Pun-Pun, it's about figuring out the game mechanics.

So, on that note, it sounds like drain effects are healed, temporary and item effects are not, nor do their effects do not persist as "hidden" modifiers. In other words, situation B in the OP, which was my best guess as well. This makes sense since it's the least cheesy of the options I could think of.

Yes, it's exploitative. But this isn't a question about being reasonable or "fun". It's a question about how a set of rules applies. (If you prefer, treat it as a hypothetical to elucidate the interactions between various damage types.)

You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.

You take your readied action "just before" the action that triggers it, so it seems you would indeed be threatening the square and capable of making an AoO. Additionally, I do not think the caster can switch to defensive casting at this point, because the action and its circumstances were already declared. You wouldn't allow the target to say "instead of casting, I choose a full attack in response to the DD", so you shouldn't let it change how it performs other actions and what bonuses or penalties apply to it. I'd also restrict the use of the 5-foot step, because the readied action "just before" its trigger and the AoO interrupts the turn.

Cute trick.

Suppose you have a Nature Oracle, which can freely change its type between Plant, Animal, and Humanoid. As such, it is a legal target for the Awaken spell (provided it can get to low enough Int). The question is how ability damage should be treated. Warning: This is going to get complicated.

Example:
1) Oracle reaches level 20 and changes into a Plant.
2) Oracle sustains ability damage (not drain) down to 2 Int

QUESTION THE FIRST
Can the Oracle be the subject of an Awaken spell?

If not, assume instead the Oracle was subject to ability drain instead.

QUESTION THE SECOND
Can the Oracle be the subject of an Awaken spell?

Assuming yes, the plot thickens as follows:

3) Oracle becomes the subject of a Maximized Awaken, replacing all mental abilities with 18s. So far, so good. But then,

4) Oracle changes type to Animal
5) Oracle is subjected to 16 points of Int drain
6) Oracle is again hit with a vanilla Awaken

QUESTION THE THIRD
What are the Oracle's ability scores? I presume they're now 3d6 Int, 18 Wis, and 18 + 1d3 Cha.

Assuming the answer to Q3 is as stated (and please correct me if I'm wrong),

7) Oracle changes type to Humanoid
8) Oracle is touched by an Atavistic Splinter, gaining the Bestial type and sustaining 2 Int/Cha damage per day for n days.
9) Eventually, the Oracle's Int reaches 1-2 again (and the ability damage becomes permanent)
10) For good measure, the Oracle is hit by 2 points of Wis damage and 1 point of Cha drain as well. The Oracle also makes the foolish decision to wear a cursed ring granting -2 Wis (Overall: 3d6-2*n Int [Permanent], 18-2-2 Wis [Temporary, as well as a permanent "enhancement" type damage keyed to an item], 18 - 2*n + 1d3 Cha - 1 [Permanent, with -1 Drain])
11) Oracle again transforms into a plant, and is again hit with a Maximized Awaken.

Whew.

QUESTION THE FOURTH
What are the Oracle's ability scores?

A) 18 Int, 16 Wis, 18 Cha (i.e., the permanent damage, temporary damage, and drain are all healed fully, and accounting for the fact that the Oracle is still wearing that cursed ring)

B) 18 Int, 14 Wis, 18 Cha (i.e., the permanent damage and drain are healed fully, but the temporary damage must be healed)

C) 18 Int (carrying a hidden -2*n penalty), 16 Wis (carrying a hidden, healable -2 penalty along with the cursed ring which takes another 2 off the adjusted base score of 18), and 18 Cha (carrying a hidden -2*n - 1 penalty), and thus subject to subsequent ability restoration that can bring the scores to 18+2*n Int, 20 Wis, and 19+2*n Cha (22 Wis if the Oracle removes the ring)

D) 18 Int (carrying a hidden -2*n penalty), 18 Wis (carrying a hidden -2 penalty), and 18 Cha (carrying a hidden -2*n - 1 penalty), and thus subject to subsequent ability restoration that can bring the scores to 18+2*n, 20, and 19+2*n

E) Another possibility I haven't thought of?

As you can see, I'm having a lot of trouble tracking which kinds of damage/drain/"permanent" effects get tracked in which way, and how/when other effects overwrite them. Guidance is appreciated.

I was wondering about the interaction between natural weapons with quickdraw and throwing weapons. Here's the situation:

Bob has the quickdraw feat, 6/1 BAB, 2 claw attacks and is wearing a blinkback belt carrying 2 throwing weapons. How many (and what kinds) of attacks can he perform?

A - 3 throws, 2 secondary natural attacks
B - 3 throws OR 2 primary natural attacks
C - 3 throws, 2 primary natural attacks

From RAW:

"Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type."

What's throwing me off is the "often" and "clutched". Here's what happens if Situation A is the case:

At the start of the round, Bob isn't holding anything. He draws a dagger in each hand (as a free action) and throws them, then draws another and throws it as well. He now has nothing in his hands, suggesting they're available for natural attacks - which he makes as secondary attacks, since he used manufactured weapons, too.

Is the above correct? Does Bob not get both the throws and his natural attacks (situation B)? What if he uses natural attacks and then draws (situation C) - do the natural attacks count as primary attacks (since he hasn't yet drawn any weapons)?

I'm leaning toward A, since the ordering of attacks shouldn't matter and the round begins and ends with Bob holding nothing. But I could also see B being the case.

I am assuming that the book is full because that's how you maximize profit on it. The problem is once you fill the book it is now no better or worse than just purchasing a normal spellbook. So you spend the money to create the book, fill the book and then sell it as a normal spellbook. The advantage of the blessed book is that it costs nothing to put spells in it and the cost to make it is less per page than the cost to put 2nd level and higher spells in a spellbook.

As for leaving it partially blank, there's no reason to do that. The blank pages result in zero profit, whereas even just putting a 2nd level spell results in profit.

I think the profitability will depend on the GM - does it get sold as a normal spellbook (50% of spell value) or as a Blessed Book Plus Spells (50% of Book plus 50% of spell value). I assumed the latter, which would be more profitable. Your mileage may vary. I suppose a third option is to pro-rate the pages, assuming that every unfilled page is worth ~6 gp.

As for timing: I wasn't tracking the simulacrum's skill level and so didn't realize they can be produced in half the time. And yeah, the gp/min is a measurement of how much profit you're making given you have a book to write in.

The problem with any cute trick to make money is that Pathfinder is not an economic simulation game. The market is handwaved so that the players don't have to deal with realistic mechanics of a market. But if a player starts playing with economics, then I am willing to start houseruling the game to make the markets more realistic. The local market for those particular spells would quickly become flooded and no-one would buy the Blessed Books anymore. So the wizard would have to start shipping the books to foreign countries, etc. increasing the costs.

Ah, but the local market wouldn't get flooded because the simulacra only produce one book every 2 weeks. This isn't on the same level as producing 1 million iron daggers and dumping them on the market all at once. Any town is already going to have a robust supply of books and scrolls, and adding a few per year won't muck with the supply enough to change the equilibrium price. Moreover, the "shipment" isn't a problem at all - you can order a simulacrum to travel to any known town. Imagine a franchise, with a small number of local simulacra shopkeepers!

Inventing a money-making scheme for the sake of theorycrafting with the system without actually exploiting it is good, clean fun. However, I am curious about a few details. First, would the wizard and his simulacrum know enough spells to fill a 1000-page Blessed Book without repeating spells? Each spell takes up a number of pages equal to its level, so if the simulacrum uses 3rd-level spells for maximum profit, that would be 333 spells. Second, does the cost of the simulacrum matter? Creating a simulacrum costs 100 gp per hit point. For a 6th-level simulacrum with Con 10 would have around 24 hit points, so that is 2400 gp. Okay, that is minor compared to the cost to make a Blessed Book. Third, why bother with the simulacrum? The wizard could make and fill Blessed Books himself.

The books probably wouldn't be completely filled, at least not to start, but you can recover the price of the books 100% even if they're blank, since they both cost and sell for 50% of their market value. Every spell you add means increasing the rate of money creation, and that means every gp you get should be funneled into buying more scrolls or renting other wizards' books, if possible.

The simulacra are reusable and relatively low cost, so no problems there. The reason you bother with the simulacrum isn't that you can't do it yourself (indeed, doing it yourself is probably how you get the scheme off the ground without setting back your adventuring too much) - the advantage is that you can run this economic activity on autopilot while you do the adventuring. Even at low rates, passive income is passive income. That means more focus on roleplay (and less time spent roping clerics into your blood money scheme), and you can afford to give the more item-dependent characters priority on loot.

Out of curiosity I was trying to determine your math and I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from.

If I assume 10 normal spellbooks and assume that they contain nothing but 4th level spells. Each spellbook is worth 4,000gp. ((4^2)x10)x(100/4).

Following this same approach
10x level 4 only = 40,000gp
10x level 3 only = 30,000gp
10x level 2 only = 20,000gp
10x level 1 only = 10,000gp

However, we can only sell it for half this and a blessed book costs 6250 to create. So profits are as follows:

10x level 4 only = 20,000gp - 6,250 = 13,750
10x level 3 only = 15,000gp - 6,250 = 8,750
10x level 2 only = 10,000gp - 6,250 = 3,750
10x level 1 only = 5,000gp - 6,250 = -1,250

If you sell books that are a mix of 1st - 4th then each one will on average make a profit of 6,250.

If you sell books that are a mix of 2nd - 4th (since 1st makes you lose money) then each will on average make a profit of 8,750.

Since it takes you 7 days to create a blessed book. Then you will make 1,250gp per day.

So, first, you don't need to lose the cost of the Book when you sell it. Think of it this way: an empty Book will sell for 50% of its book value (heh, puns). If you add 1 cantrip to it, you haven't reduced its value at all - it's still got 999 perfectly usable pages! If you sold 10x level 1 only books, you'd have 5000 gp, which is exactly the lower bound I cited in the original post.

Moreover, you're not producing a Book every week. It takes 2 weeks, since item creation takes time equal to market value divided by 1000. MV is 12500, not 6250.

The real limiting factor is the number of spells you know. And that is a real limitation: 20 level 5 spells is still only 100 pages worth of material! But every spell in a book also represents pure profit, so the trick relies heavily on re-investing those profits toward building out the book you're actually using for adventuring. But as a wizard, you should probably be learning new spells as you can afford anyway, because you're supposed to be a bit of a swiss army knife. Either way, what's wrong with producing a profit of 1k gp per day? Free is free, and passive is passive.

WIZARD: You killed my shopkeeper and robbed my store!

PC #1: Wait, I recognize you. You are the shopkeeper. Someone resurrected you.
PC #2: We killed you once, we can kill you again.
WIZARD: That was my 8th-level simulacrum. Guess how powerful I am!

Feel free to use this in one of your games. It would be a memorable encounter, to be sure.

I'm sure everyone knows the cheesy Blood Money and Wall of Iron/Fabricate exploits. Unfortunately, these require some measure of cooperation from other characters and the GM. Here's another trick I came up with which seems a bit...less cheesy.

The only things you need are 1) the Simulacrum spell, and 2) the ability to create Blessed Books.

1) Create a Simulacrum, imitating yourself. It will be at half your level, and will have half your skills and feats. Endow it with Create Wondrous Item and Spellcraft.
2) Order the simulacrum to create a Blessed Book, which takes 13 days at 1000 gp/day.
3) Order the simulacrum to copy your spellbook into the Blessed Book, using Scrivener's Chant (a cantrip) as necessary to speed up the process. This will create a reference Book.
4) Order the Simulacrum to loop steps 2-3, thereby generating half the value of your known spells.

This generates between 5 and 405 gp profit per spell, or 5-45 gp/min. Since the Book can hold 1000 pages (= 1000 minutes of writing), this produces a profit between 5000 and 45000 gp per full book, limited by the number and power of spells you know. This can be scaled up to any number of simulacra. The downside, of course, is that a 7th-level spell is required, but it's a perfectly passive income once you get it started, and requires only the initial capital outlay of a single Book and simulacrum.

I assumed as much. Thanks!

If a set of full plate is made of mithral (thus lowering its effective type to Medium), can it be donned without assistance like other medium armors?

Thanks!