Roaming Shadow's page

Frightful Gaze from the Advanced Race guide states that an opponent who fails a Will Save against the gaze wil "stand paralyzed in fear for 1 round". When you are paralyzed, you are helpless. If you are helpless, someone can perform a Coup de Grace against you. Does that mean that a creature that fails its Will Save against Frightful Gaze is susceptible to a Coup de Grace?

I'm pretty sure this was discussed at length shortly after Ultimate Combat came out, but I don't have the inclination to sift through all the threads and all the replys to figure out what the consensus was, and it doesn't seem to be in the product FAQ, so here goes.

The Cavalier archetype Beast Rider from Ultimate Combat allows a Cavalier to select as a mount any creature a Druid could select as an animal companion to be their mount, so long as the creature is capable of supporting them. At 4th level, the list of available mounts expands.

Here's the issue I see: the vast majority of animal companions available from levels 1-6 are size Medium or smaller, meaning they can't support a Medium sized Cavalier, which includes most/all the expanded selections at level 4; they don't reach Large size per companion rules until 7th level. Is this an oversight, or is the Beast Rider archetype essentially identical for Medium size Cavaliers without the archetype until 7th level+?

Also, for the 7th level ability that stats you can make any mount size large so long as it's natural size is large or huge, and it's selectable as an animal companion, isn't this ability superfluous? By the animal companion rules, any normally large, huge, or larger animal reaches large size at level 7 as far as I'm aware.

So is it just me, or could the entire archetype have been summed up rules wise by saying, "The Beast Rider may select any animal available as an animal companion as a mount", and then the arbitrary "wait until level 4" selections?

The Savage Warrior archetype for the Fighter from the Advanced Players Guide alters how a charge works, as stated below:

Savage Charge (Ex): At 9th level, when a savage warrior
attacks with a natural weapon at the end of a charge, he
gains a bonus on his natural weapon attack rolls equal to
half his fighter level, while suffering a penalty to his AC
equal to half his fighter level. These replace the normal
attack roll bonus and AC penalty for charging. This bonus
also applies to his CMB for a bull rush or overrun combat
maneuvers made when charging. This ability replaces
weapon training 2.

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

Greater Savage Charge (Ex): At 17th level, when using
savage charge, the AC penalty is reduced to 1/4 his fighter
level instead of 1/2 his fighter level. In addition, a savage
warrior can charge through friendly creatures and difficult
terrain. This ability replaces weapon training 4.

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

The first question comes with the interaction of the Claw Pounce feat from the Advanced Race Guide below:

Claw Pounce (Combat)
You can charge and make an attack with your paws.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Dex 15, Nimble Striker, base attack bonus +10, catfolk, cat’s claws racial trait or Aspect of the Beast (claws of the beast manifestation).
Benefit: When you make a charge, you can make a full attack with your claws.
Normal: Charging is a special full-round action that limits you to a single attack.

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

Does the charge bonus to attack (in the case of Savage Charge at the minimum level for Claw Pounce, +5) apply to all attacks on the Full Attack granted by Claw Pounce, or just the first? The feat supersedes the charge rule of “only one attack on a charge”, but isn’t clear on how the attack bonus would apply in such a permutation.

Next is the interaction of the charge abilities with the Nimble Striker feat below:

Nimble Striker (Combat)
You were born to charge your enemies and nobody does it better.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +1, catfolk, sprinter racial trait.
Benefit: You do not take a –2 penalty to AC when you use the Cleave feat, Lunge feat, or when you charge

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

The Savage Charge and Greater Savage Charge class features alter the penalty amount incurred during a charge, instead of it being a static -2 AC. Would the feat simply subtract two from the AC penalty, or is the feat intended to eliminate the penalties from charge, Lunge, and Cleave altogether?

Also, please don't comment on whether you think it's optimized or not. I'm not looking to make the most mathematically efficient character, I'm just wondering how the rules interact, because I like the aesthetics of a claw fighter. Besides, I think Pathfinder is more fun with interesting RP characters rather than the mathematically optimized ones.

Looking over the Advanced Race Guide, I found myself taking a hard look at the Frightful Gaze feature, and considering that if an opponent is "paralyzed in fear", then they're vulnerable to a coup de grace (being "paralyzed"). So I thought a useful tactic would be for the member of the race to regularly wear some sort of mask (or similar facial covering), get next to their intended victim, and remove the mask. Being a gaze, the opponent won't make a saving roll until the start of it's turn, but then it's potentially "paralyzed in fear" next to me, allowing a coup de grace as a full round action.

However, when I looked over the rules, I'm not sure what sort of action removing a mask would be. It's not really retrieving a stowed item (you're just removing it from your face, not taking it out of a sack/backpack), and you wouldn't likely be dropping it either (the act of removal is more than just releasing a grip). Even more confusing is if a visor is involved; it largely blocks the face until slid back, and doesn't even need to be fully "removed" from the head.

This might fall under houserule I suppose since it doesn't neatly fall into the rules, but I thought I'd ask here first. What sort of action would it be to remove a mask or move a visor?

Not entirely sure if this is precisely a rules question, but since it's a matter of magical item interaction, this seemed the most appropriate place to ask.

As the title implies, I'm wondering about the interaction between Sniper Goggles (Advanced Players Guide) and Far-Reaching Sight (Ultimate Combat). Sniper Goggles are equiped to the eye slot (logically), and the Sight is attached to a weapon, and therefore not an item slot on the body. Can the two therefore be used in conjunction with one another?

RAW seems to be yes as far as I've read, but I've also heard no because they both utilize the eye (looking through the lens and looking down the sight). While that makes sense for a scope, a sight I believe is a different matter. Neither even say they technically magnify vision, so it's not even that they're doing the same thing. So far I've only heard "real world logic" answers for why "no" that aren't very strong (someone with night vision goggles can aim down a sight as far as I know), and I was hoping the community might have a more definitive and convincing answer one way or the other.

Now, I know called shots are a varient rule, but it's one I like. However, I was wondering how firearms would be used with them. One of the stipulations of called shots is:

Touch Attacks: Touch attacks and ranged touch attacks made as called shots must target AC rather than touch AC. This represents the care it takes to target such strikes.

Now, firearms can be resolved against touch AC within the first range increment (or 5 for advanced firearms), or more with a Deed ability. The trick is, while the shots are resolved against Touch AC, they are not actualy touch attacks. That would mean to me that fireams, RAW, would resolve called shots against Touch AC within the appropriate range increment. Is that right?

Personally I would rule against that, seeing as how the touch attack stipulation is about precision rather than penetration, which is what firearm Touch AC goes off of, but I just want to know if that's what the RAW says.

Okay, so I've seen it here and there with either feats or monsters that have combat effects that can lead to suffocation. However, things can hold their breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. That means that so long as something can hold it's breath, even at a baseline Constitution of 10, it's 20 rounds before they're is even in danger of suffocation. With that even being the case, what's the point of even considering it for combat mechanics?

This is mostly prompted by the new Taotieth creature from Bestiary 3, which utilizes a dimenstional pocket in it's swallow whole. In it's case, it's 23 rounds before anyone is in danger of suffocating, and how many combats last 23 rounds. Sure, the suffocating in an extradimentional stone box sounds evocative, but it's not going to happen unless it, say, swallows the party wizard or rouge and then runs off.

If a creature possess the Swallow Whole special attack and DR, is the DR applied to attacks made against the gullet or not?

This is something I've always gotten a little tripped up on, and never quite explored to getting a definitive answer. To put it simply, if a creature has multiple set forms that it can change into at will (such as lycanthropes), with different abilities depending on form, can it qualify for feast whose prerequisites include abilities only found in certain forms?

What spurred me to finally ask this question was the curiosity if a were-constrictor snake could take the Final Embrace line of feats, which requires the Constrict special attack, which it possess in animal and hybrid forms, but not base creautre form.

P.S. On a related note regarding the use of Constrict, if you can make a grapple check to maintain a grapple multiple times a turn via Greater Grapple and Rapid Grappler, would Constrict activate on each successful grapple check, potentially allowing for three constrict attacks a turn, in addition to the the effects of the grapple check?

Given all the new fancy grapple related feats, the Tetori monk archetype caught my eye, and I had a look over its additional bonus feats:

Bonus Feat: A tetori gains the following bonus feats: 1st
level—Improved Grapple, 2nd level—Crushing Embrace,
6th level—Greater Grapple, 10th level—Twin Lock, 14th
level—Choke Hold, 18th level—Backbreaker. These feats
replace a monk’s normal bonus feats.

I looked, and I could not find the bolded feats. Am I missing something, or were these feats removed during editing and not taken out of the archetype? Given the gaffe of Prone Shooter (a feat that "negates" a nonexistant penalty), and the fact that none of them are in the Pathfinder SRD despite all the UC stuff now being in there, I have a feeling it's the latter, but thought I'd ask.

When making use of the Rapid Shot feat, what attack bonus do you use for the additional attack? Your highest? Lowest? It doesn't specify, which seems odd.

The scout archetype for the rogue gets an ability called skirmish, which states the following:

"Skirmisher (Ex): At 8th level, whenever a scout moves
more than 10 feet in a round and makes an attack action,
the attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target was
flat-footed. If the scout makes more than one attack this
turn, this ability only applies to the first attack. Foes with
uncanny dodge are immune to this ability. This ability
replaces improved uncanny dodge."

Then there is the feat Sap Master from Ultimate combat, which states:

"Whenever you use a bludgeoning weapon to deal
nonlethal sneak attack damage to a flat-footed opponent,
roll your sneak attack dice twice, totaling the results as
your nonlethal sneak attack damage for that attack."

And the feat Bludeoner which states:

"Benefit: You take no penalty on attack rolls for using a
lethal bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal damage."

"Special: A rogue with this feat can use a lethal bludgeoning
weapon to deal nonlethal damage with a sneak attack."

So if I move ten feet and make a ranged attack withint the appropriate range to deal nonlethal damage, do I get to roll my sneak attack damage twice? Had it simply said "as though denied thier Dexterity to AC" I would instantly say no, but it says "as if the target was
flat-footed".

If a feat requires a weapon to deal bludeoning damage to work, and a weapon deals bludgeoning and piercing damage (namely firearms), does it still qualify (as it deals bludeoning damage) or does the dual damage supercede that? As screwball as it may seem, I'm wondering if RAW I can use Sap Adept and Sap Master with a firearm if it is a merciful weapon or if I have the Bludgeoner feat.

The wording of the scatter weapon quality is increadibly vague. All it says is that the weapon can fire in a cone. What is the size of the cone? Is it the range increment of the weapon (AKA a shotgun firing a 20 ft cone), or something else? The blunderbuss specifies the range because it's different for pellets and bullets, and seems to indicate that the cone is the first range increment, but again, it's not very clear.

First, some clarification. In the entry for the double barrel shotgun, it says you can fire both barrels as one attack, then proceeds to say that a double shot with bullets takes a -4 penalty "on both attacks". So is it one attack or two? The rest of the wording seems to imply one attack to me, though it's not really clear. Would it be a single attack roll with 4d8 + modifiers damage, or two seperate attack rolls as one attack action of 2d8 + modifiers damage?

Next, Vital Strike. Vital Strike says when I use the attack action, I double the dice rolled. As I can fire both barrels of a double barrel shotgun as an attack action, and it says it's "one attack" in the wording, for a total dice count of 4d8 according to the book, would Vital Strike double that to 8d8, and so on with the Improved and Greater Vital Strike

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?

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?

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?

This is likely to sound rather munchkin of me, but I thought I'd ask the community to see if this really works the way a friend of mine thinks it does. Can you add magical properties to a weapon, other than the specific weapon abilities, and in doing so essentially create your own "specific weapons"? After all, the listed "specific weapons" have abilities that don't fall under the general weapon abilities, some of which sound like spells, so I'd assume with the money and materials you could create similar weapons yourself, custom built.

Based on that, could I craft a weapon with a use-activated True Strike spell? Do the rules allow that, and would it work the way it seems to? Whether or not a DM would allow it is another matter altogether (and I wouldn't argue if one shot it down on the spot), but technically speaking, is it legal within the magic item creation rules? I've tried to research it myself, and I can't say I've found anything that says I can't.