Savage Wolf's page

Thank you for that clarification. This helps me understand and therefore clears up my confusion. I am not someone who can just take a flat "I said this so this is the way it is" ruling very easily unless I can understand the reason/rules behind it. It was a problem for me in school as well as now in life.

I am just trying to get a clarification on something for my own piece of mind. I got a VC ruling for local play, but I guess I am a glutton for punishment because I can't wrap my mind around the mechanics.

Situation: An invisible NPC is trying to get through a door blocked by a PC to escape. The other party members are near the door as well, and combat has already ensued. If the invisible NPC tries to acrobatics through the space of the PC blocking the door, and no one in the party succeeds the perception check to notice the NPC, do they increase the DC for the acrobatics check? I am granting the PC who is in the space in question will notice something and be a threat.

My train of thought is that the PC's are all considered flat footed to the invisible character, and if you are flat footed you don't get an AOO unless you have combat reflexes. So in that case they are not considered threatening the squares the invisible NPC is moving through, at least while the NPC is invisible.

The ruling by my VC was that the acrobatics is for moving through threatened squares, so the DC goes up for each PC the NPC was moving past. Invisibility didn't matter.

THanks for your input. Just trying to wrap my head around it. I was not very articulate, to the point of being brain dead, when discussing it with my VC.

thanks. fat fingered on my phone.

if you have natural fortification does it kick In vs a coup de grace? admittedly they could just try again if you are paralyzed, but if asleep and the crit fails to go off because your fortification blocks it it could save your life. it hasn't come up yet in a game... bit as I type this the chance of it happening is about 50/50. lol

The reason I am questioning is that they seem to be untyped bonuses (since they don't specify what kind of bonus they are) which DO stack, and they are both different than Bark Skin which is an enhancement bonus.

Ok, I am making a dwarven monk of the iron mountain and was wondering if the Class ability Iron Monk that grants a +1 natural armor bonus would stack with the dwarven racial feat Ironhide which also grants a +1 natural armor bonus.

I know the rule of thumb is that the same kind of bonuses don't stack, but one is a training effect while the other is a naturally thick hide. Just hoping I am missing something somewhere. Thanks in advance.

Thank you all. That is the way I Assumed it should be, but I like to clarify rules I see not being used right before I point them out to the GMs. We have a few rules lawyers who nitpick stuff like that to their advantage. And a few who argue common sense against the rules. Just wanted to clarify. And thanks again.

Kevin, Some of the situations have fit the dwarf or breastplate situation. Mostly I was clarifying for my human fighter/living monolith/Barbarian with the boots. I am by far the slowest in the group (same group each session for a module) and despite I put out more damage than anyone else It takes me twice as long as anyone else to get into combat since they all have 40+ move speeds or flight.

Do boots of striding and springing add their bonus before or after armor speed reductions? They say they add to the base speed, so my interpretation is the armor reduction applies to them, but I have seen plenty of people using them with med and heavy armor and not reducing the speed bonus (IE having 40 move speeds with barbarians in mithril plate with the boots, instead of the 35 they should have based on the carrying capacity/armor speed reduction chart here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/carrying-capacity).

I just wanted to clarify this before I finalize my character for play at my current level, and I couldn't find it buried in the forums or the FAQ Thanks in advance for the help.

Thank you, I was thinking it would go that way, but I had to ask just to make sure. I Wouldn't want to nerf myself if I can help it, and I have done that in the past.

The full build I am looking at is a Vexing Dodger rogue ratfolk with a level of Mouser swashbuckler. I climb anything larger than me as a move action, and while in their square I have flanking with them while my allies are in the next square. While I need to hold on with at least one appendage, I have plenty of other attacks for precision damage on my new ride.

I was looking through trying to find some clarification on this. I know you need to select a weapon for Weapon focus, but it also states you can select Unarmed Strike as your weapon focus. It gives unarmed strike examples as Fist, knee, foot, elbow, and head. Would this allow you to select Natural weapons as a weapon focus?

My example is a Ratfolk with the feats Sharpclaw, Sharptooth, and a tailblade (Which counts as a natural weapon when used by a ratfolk). Would I have to take weapon focus: claw, weapon focus: bite, and weapon focus: tail blade? Or by the example given with unarmed strike's variant attacks be able to select Weapon Focus: Natural attacks?

I can easily see the arguments for and against it. I ask because by the actual description of unarmed strikes you could officially take an attack with each hand, each foot, and your head in a single round if you had the Base attack bonus.

I think my lack of clarity on this comes from the description of Weapon Focus.
"Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat."

I have read all the posts I can find on the cloak, and find nothing saying that the cloak will not work for the Dhampir. It states half human and gives Half-elf and Half-orc as examples, but leaves open the possibility of other half races. As I agree that Asimar and Tieflings are native outsiders so this would not work for them, the Dhampir is a Humanoid with the Dhampir subtype. It doesn't fit the usual theme of Humanoid with dual subtypes including the Human subtype, but considering one of the ways they are created is being born from a human who had congress with a vampire, wouldn't they qualify due to that description?

Just looking for thoughts, I think I know how my local GMs would rule on this, but getting a stronger feel or actual ruling on this would make me feel more at ease.

Thanks all in advance for your input.

A tricky question. While the idea of being able to make your claws burn in flames is pretty cool indeed, I don't think this should be allowed.

Natural weapons are not manufactured weapons, and they come with innate (or... should I say inborn?) pros and cons.

Now, if you and your GM feel that your character is falling behind in terms of power compared to the rest of the party, then yes. A little houserule and go for it, but as Gallant Armor said, it should stack with the amulet bonus.

And that is one reason I brought up the Amulet in the first place. Also to point out that the Amulet can be used to enchant fists with the burning/freezing/acid/whatever enchants just like a weapon, not even needing the initial +1 enhancement that full weapon enchants do. But with the way rules in PFS tend to go I can easily see a ruling against natural weapons being enchantable that way. I site the discrepancy in Reduce person and Enlarge person and their effects on ranged weapons as my example for PFS rules that are "for balance... REALLY." lol

RAW, I'm going to have to say no, because:

Arcane Pool wrote:

At 1st level, a magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute.

Unless you can make a case that you can "hold" your claw, RAW would indicate "no". Note that it specifically says "hold" and not "wield", which would then work.

My argument there would be the exact wording that makes natural attacks usable with spell combat.

From the FAQ linked above by Gisher: "For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand..."

This states they are actual light melee weapons, though it doesn't bypass the word "Holding", even though previously they state that the ability enhances he characters weapon, and omit the word "Holding"

The weapon is attacking the target you designate. If that target goes invisible, the spiritual weapon will still attack the last known position of the target designated, with the same miss chance as any other targeted attack.

I would rule myself as a GM that if they went invisible but stayed in the same place the SW would keep attacking with the same 50% miss chance for attacking an invisible target, but if they moved it would be unable to follow because it uses your knowledge of the target to keep locked on. You designate the target, but if you can't find the target, it can't either. As a courtesy I would then have it return to the caster rather than keep attacking the same place assuming the invisible target had stayed in the same place.

I would be interested in what the official ruling would be on this, but that is how I interpret it.

Also, when you GM and your players argue with you on something like that, just say "I am ruling it works this way for now, until I find or am presented with evidence otherwise. Get to researching when we are done!" lol

So what I have gathered is that the only way to get my claw attack damage with my spell damage in the same action is use spell combat, or cast then hold the charge till next round to attack or I just touch them with the spell.
I have figured out that Natural spell combat arcana is needed to use any other natural attacks to deliver the spell (like a bite or tail attack) and must be taken for each other type of natural attack I want available.

The Arcane pool is really what I am trying to figure out a solid ruling for... Since I can't really specify if natural weapons are affected by that enchantment or not. I believe most of the GMs around here would probably say it is cool, but if I end up running into any conflicts over it at Convention or something, I just want to get it cleared up or have strong evidence to support my case.

I have seen several answers to this first part saying both ways, but never in comparison to just using a regular arcane caster. And yes, this is PFS.

Trying to make a ratfolk (just got the boon) caster/rogue and am not sure if I should try magus or just go with a regular caster as I am using natural attacks to deliver my touch spells. I have found plenty of evidence that I can use my natural attacks with Spell combat and Arcane Pool (even to enchant them, though that one is still questionable. I have seen posts saying final word both ways. But more on that later.)
So the first part boils down to this:
If I cast a touch spell (say shocking hands) as a regular wizard/sorcerer/whatnot then can I deal my claw damage (admittedly only a d4 damage) with the "touch" part of the attack? or must I be a magus to do this? since I won't actually be channeling it into a weapon and using my normal method of delivery (ie my hand/claw)?

Secondly: I can see the argument against Arcane Pool working for natural attacks as it adds a +1 WEAPON enhancement, BUT an Amulet of Mighty Fists can be used to grant many if not all of the same enchantments to unarmed/natural attacks, even without the base +1 enchantment required for weapon enchants. As natural attacks (and the Amulet of Mighty Fists) use Magic Fang to get the enhancements, would a legal work around be requiring the amulet of magic fists with a +1 enchantment bonus (or equivalent effect) before I could use the arcane pool to grant other bonuses?

I know, when I ask questions, I ask them in deep detail. lol

Ok, I thought that was the case. ahh well. Thanks you very much for the quick response.

I scanned through the forums, and searched every thread I could while taking care of a 4 year old and I couldn't find an answer. I know it is probably there, but RL restrictions preclude me from taking the time to find it.

I found a discrepancy in how enlarge person works in comparison to reduce person. I can understand why it might be left this way to minimize power-gaming.

Enlarge person states "Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature’s possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage."

This is contradictory compared to reduce person which states "Any reduced item that leaves the reduced creature’s possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage (projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them)."

To me by common sense the enlarged bow should deal more damage than the normal bow if the reduced bow deals less damage. It takes more force to launch an enlarged arrow, even if it shrinks after it leaves the bow.

The rule of "(projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them)" from reduce person SHOULD hold true both ways for consistency.

And yes, I DO understand consistency is not always consistent in PFS. I just wanted to get some clarification as I both use Enlarged Titan Fighters and Reduced small casters.

Thanks for your time and consideration in your answers.

I appreciate the advice, and if I was building just for power play I would probably single class. 90% of what I build is RP/character progression first, Power second so I tend to have at least a little multiclass in my characters.

The one in the enlarge person spell doesn't give me what I am looking for, it is mostly for common one step progressions. The one in the FAQ is the one I was looking for, Thank you.

I know the list is out here, I have seen it, But I just spent 2 hours searching everything I could think of and scanning every thread that might have it and I can't find the official list of damage dice progression. If someone who knows where it is could link it for me I would truly appreciate it. The small list in the CRB doesn't quite have what I need. I understand the math, but the list I was shown didn't match quite up with what I had generally used. I know a 2d6 weapon moves up to 3d6, then to 4d6, then 6d6, but I was wondering about other dice sets like the 1d12 or 2d4 past one or two size category increases. Thanks much.

Oh, Do Paladins gain the weapon Proficiency of their Deity's favored weapon? I didn't think so, but I was hoping.

Thank you, I thought so, And I did remember the alignment restrictions, But that clears up half my conundrum.

Edit: AHH! I didn't see the first line.. So my entire question answered in two lines. And I felt so good writing such a complete and filled out example. Such a let down. :)

Two quick questions that I can't find specific answers to despite several hours of looking around.

#1
Paladins, they are allowed to multiclass right? My brain keeps going back to 3.5 where they weren't without specific feats, but I find nothing telling me they can't specifically, so this is just a verification.

Which leads into Question 2...

#2
Do elemental resistances from different races/classes/archetypes stack if they don't say they don't? Or do they specifically have to say they stack with resistances from other sources?

Example: (links for ease of reference)
Ifrit Paladin (Empyreal Knight Archtype)/Bloodrager with the Elemental (or Celestial) Bloodlines

Ifrit gives fire resist 5;
Empyreal Knight gives Resist 5 cold/acid/electricity at L3;
Elemental Bloodline gives resist 10 for chosen element at L4
(Celestial Bloodline gives resist 5 acid and cold at L4)

Giving either a resistance of 15 fire, 5 cold/acid/electricity,
OR a 5 fire/electricity, 10 cold/acid

Because of my caution I feel that they won't stack due to the worry of exploiting, But I have erred on the side of caution wrongly before.

This is mostly a flavor build that started stacking in ways I didn't forsee when I was looking at the cross classing as I wasn't interested in the mount feature of the Empyreal Knight. For extra info on the character, I decided to make a character that is my version of Vin Diesel's "Kaulder" from "The Last Witch Hunter," which I recently watched again.

Thanks in advance for all your help. I hope to one day be

Thank you much. I really appreciate it.

As a newer player I just wanted to verify what races were available to play without boons as of the current time frame. I had heard someone say a list of races recently added and I haven't been able to find it myself. I just want to try to expand my repertoire and stop playing humans and elves all the time. ;)

Either a list posted here or a link to the list would be great. Thanks all.

Start small...or is that tiny?

Get a squirrel familiar and take Share Shape as a spell.

In order to be able to speak in that shape you would need to be a druid with the proper feats, an arcanist with the proper exploits, or have a Ring of Eloquence.

Actually a squirrel is diminutive.

And there is also the Circlet of Speaking that allows an animal to speak as well, if you get stuck in that shape. Which isn't gonna happen, but I had to point that out.

yeah, I once saw a party almost wiped out in a home brew by a force of enlightened squirrel sorcerers in a forest. They only survived by burning down the forest. I think that in itself killed a member or two.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I appreciate it.

I was just imagining my bookworm archivist Running around his library as a squirrel using mage hand and prestidigitation to do what he normally would have done with his hands. Ahh well, Maybe in a home brew. :)

As for allies being able to cast it as well, That is true, but I doubt the society would stand for that and the parties in question would be punished, both in an out of character possibly.

For the too long didn't read short version just jump to the bottom.

I am relatively new to PFS (less than 6 months playing) and just got hit with a Baleful Polymorph on my 4 wizard/1 rogue while playing up and was squirreled by random choice of the GM. I failed my Fort save and made my Will save. When we went over the effects it actually ended up with my character being better overall since I was able to get a ring of eloquence that allowed me to communicate with people. Most of the GMs in our area were actually playing at that table with us and they all agreed that they saw no reason why I shouldn't be able to continue in that form since I kept all my abilities with the will save. I was just wondering if the ruling on this had been changed at all in the 3 years since this question was first raised. For the role my character played the change in physical form didn't really change anything other than making him harder to actually hit when actually targeted.
Isn't part of the point of this to be able to roll with the punches and make the best of the hand you are dealt? Use our unique talents in character to their fullest advantage? If a player/character is willing to take something bad like that and turn it into an advantage, I say let them try. Especially when they are like me and will probably never get the chance to play at an official PFS event (other than the occasional weekly meetings) or play their characters past L10.

I can also see the side of people trying to take advantage or something , but since we can't play the same scenario more than once for credit there is little to no chance of those people just making all their characters run through that adventure just to get polymorphed.

Just my point of view.

But back to my initial point. Has the ruling on this changed or been relaxed due to common sense?