Seravix's page

But doesn't matter at this point because the DM said that reading 1 was OP and "too good to be true"

Well, all the more to get this one FAQ so the DM or other DM's that might rule this way on the same track.

While I don't think the ability is overpowered (either reading), it can be strong. Instead of each of your allies having to take Robust Health to do the effects, the investigator gets it rolled up into one ability. So its possible that Paizo added a small flaw that could be easily bypassed.

And as the Raven says, assurance can be a decent option with your current DM. Although it might feel sucky missing out on DC 20's before level 6 if your assuring all the time.

I'm going to go against the apparent unanimity among the regulars here.

Most abilities in PF2e first describe the base effect and then separately describe the success/failure results. If an effect is meant to apply regardless of success or failure, the wording is usually much clearer.

If the intent was for the reduced immunity duration to always apply, I would expect wording more like:

When you use Battle Medicine, the target is temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 hour instead of 1 day. On a success, the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level.

Or, if the success effect needed to appear first, because you think hp effect should be before immunity effects:

When you use Battle Medicine, on a success the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level. After, the target becomes temporarily immune for only 1 hour instead of 1 day.(similar to robust health)

There are several other effects that reduce Battle Medicine immunity to 1 hour, and they all use wording very similar to the examples above. Because of that, it seems odd to place the success-effect language directly in the middle of the sentence without a period or stronger separator. A comma or "and" reads more like a continuation of the same effect chain, which suggests that the 1-hour immunity is tied to the success condition rather than being a standalone benefit.

For comparison:
Battle Medic's Baton
"You use Battle Medicine. The target is temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 hour instead of 1 day."
Robust Health
"You gain a circumstance bonus to the number of Hit Points you regain equal to your level from a successful attempt to Treat Wounds or use Battle Medicine on you. After you or an ally use Battle Medicine on you, you become temporarily immune to that Battle Medicine for only 1 hour instead of 1 day."
Godless Healing
"After you or an ally use Battle Medicine on you, you become temporarily immune to that Battle Medicine for only 1 hour instead of 1 day."

Personally, I'd be fine with a GM ruling it either way. It's entirely possible that Paizo simply wrote this one ambiguously or even incorrectly. That wouldn't exactly be unprecedented.

But the argument that's being made is that because you use the Take Cover action while Prone, you gain soft cover in addition to the Greater Cover against Ranged attacks. Both Prone and Tower Shields use the Take Cover Action. (Just to restate my stance, as a DM I don't think you do, nor do you get any bonuses from tower shield outside of what the items says you do.)

I guess I'm not sure who(what posts) you're commenting on.

For my personal beliefs, I rule that for prone and tower shield are replacement effect. You use the action "Take cover" and gain bonus listed under prone and shield respectively. Why its listed as a take cover action instead of making a new one, is because you might have other bonuses that proc on it (leaving it open for future sources). Fake Examples: when you use the take cover action, gain 1 temp hit point OR perhaps some reaction that triggers off take cover actions.

Real example for above would be perhaps action covered reload:
"You duck into a safe position or minimize your profile while reloading to make your next attack. Either Take Cover or attempt to Hide, then Interact to reload. As normal, you must meet the requirements to Take Cover or Hide; you must be prone, benefiting from cover, or near a feature that allows you to Take Cover, and you need to be benefiting from cover or concealed to a creature to Hide from that creature."

I would say if the person had a tower shield raised, they would be allow to use the covered reload using the tower shield as the prereq. But they would only get the +4 circ bonus to ac per normal/my ruling (They may require an extra method/ability to reload weapons that require two hands while holding a shield). Alternatively, the wood elf would be able to get cover anywhere in forests and reload their weapon at the same time. But that is my 2 cents.

So would you get the +4 Stealth bonus from cover as well while holding up a quite frankly very large shield. Like, I'm just picturing that in my head where a player readies their shield and takes cover with it and makes their stealth check because of the shield in the middle of an otherwise open field.

Some metal gear solid box shenanigan's.

Escar said earlier that he wouldn't give stealth for people behind shields. Just the cover bonus. He also said that he's changing his mind on RAW on gaining cover for the tower shield. He also say that reflex wouldn't be unwarranted, per say. So I guess the question would be how would Escar DM's it and what does he think is RAI.

No benefit to stealth as the location is obvious. They're behind the big ol' shield.

One of the arguements that a non-seravix player brought up was the wood elf racial feat that allows them to take cover in the forest even if they're not adjacent to anything, and that if I wouldn't allow them to gain cover from melee attacks from that.

My answer to that is "It depends." if it's a sparse forest and there's nothing to really hide behind then I'd probably not give cover bonuses within a certain range. However if the forest was considered difficult terrain then I'd allow soft cover against melee attacks and probably greater cover against ranged attacks.

This one I would allow personally since it's a very clear and specific rule. "You can always use the Take Cover action when you are within forest terrain to gain cover, even if you're not next to an obstacle you can Take Cover behind."

- In forest, check
- Obstacles specifically called for not being needed, check
- Is not a replacement effect and uses standard take cover rules, check

This one I like to use a little more imagination with. Like the wood elf is synced magically with nature and a root pops up to deflect the blow. Or perhaps the elf, being adapted to the forest and is able to kicks stick/bark/soil/leaves into the air to try and deflect a blow. DM is also in the right to also say, you must go prone and cover yourself with leaves/material to get this cover bonus. But I'm ok with however DM wants to call/rule it. As long as the player can ask about the ruling before the campaign starts or remake parts of his character if it was a vital part that kicked in later.

I think that's a fair assessment.

With dwarven reinforcement, it allows a player to increase the hardness of thick objects/structures. In the feat, it appears to be primarily focused on building parts such as windows, doors and walls.

Under material statistics it lists wooden shields as thin wood and steel shields as thin steel, so we (under most forums I read) can't apply it to those shields. But, what would you guys consider a tower shield is? Thick/normal or thin? The hardness and hit point are the same as normal wood, which is the same as a simple door.

The question is:
1) If you are the DM, would you allow a character to increase the hardness of a tower/fortress shield?
2) Do you feel that is in the spirit of the feat.

Rules:
Dwarven Reinforcement: https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1400
Material Statistics: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=730

Thank you ahead of time for your thoughts!

Finoan wrote:

Ectar wrote:

3.) They're both circumstance bonuses to AC, so only the highest applies.

4-3.) Definitely RAW.

I would agree with that when only considering the AC bonus. I am curious how you rule considering the bonus to Reflex saves, and stealth skills.

Gains the bonus to Reflex as per normal from cover.

No benefit to stealth as the location is obvious. They're behind the big ol' shield.

Hey Ectar, since your giving him cover, what type of cover would you be giving him? What bonus to reflex would you give him for holding up his tower shield? He is gaining a +4 bonus to AC for taking cover while holding up his tower shield, would you treat the +4 as greater cover and give him +4 to reflexes as well?

"When you have a tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4."

Thanks

Circumstance Bonus doesn't stack only greater is valid. So only great cover is valid here (including the reflex bonus because Tower Shield doesn't say thats it's AC only). Forget the rest.

Hey YuriP, I did have a question on your thoughts on exactly what you ment? Are you saying when they lift the tower shield you would give the player greater cover, +4 ac reflex and stealth?

Under shield rule it says this, not sure if this affect anything for you because it doesn't technically say AC only. And I can see how a person could see +4 is the same as greater cover, so reflex could/should come along with it.

"When you have a tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4."

Thanks!

Thank you guys for the thoughts so far. If we can get a few more peoples thoughts on it, I can pass it to the group to discuss hopefully on the weekend with what is being said and your guy's beliefs. Thanks again!

Thank you in advance for looking at this post. Got a couple questions for everyone. I did browse around and found some answers, but not really a solid one that everyone will accept. This is basically about take cover action and where it gives cover. I can probably throw out more example, but don't want to take all your time.

Example 1) A character is in a room with his back to the wall, surrounded by thugs. Player says, I am by a feature that can provide cover (tech he is right, it can provide cover to someone on the other side of the wall), so that allows him to take cover. And the take cover action states, if he doesn't have standard cover, then he gains it "Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead)".

Question 1) As a dm, would you allow him to have the standard cover +2 bonus to ac verse the thugs because he was "hugging" the flat wall for cover?

Example 2) A player is on the ground, surrounded by thugs. He uses the take cover action to try and get standard cover (+2) vs the thugs. Under take cover action, it does say you can take cover while prone. Under prone condition it does list you can gain greater cover vs ranged attacks, but nothing else.

Question 2) As a DM would you allow the player to gain a +4 bonus to ranged and +2 vs melee? If no to the previous, would you allow him to perhaps just gain standard cover using the take cover action because the ability lists prone as a possible requirement fulfilment?

Example 3) A player has a tower shield; it says he can use the take cover action for +4 ac. Player says he also gains the bonus to reflex saves (and other stuff) because he took the take cover action while holding the tower shield and he is also benefiting from standard cover because there is no actual cover nearby. That the +4 isn't a replacement effect, that it's an additional affect.

Question 3) As a dm would you give him the full standard cover benefit or just the +4 AC as called for under shields.

Question 4) For each of the above, do you believe how you ruled is how the rules are intended to be played or just how you would DM it. Some dm's are more generous than others while others are by the book (which is totally fine).

rules for ease
Cover:https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=459
Take Cover: https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=90
Tower shield: https://2e.aonprd.com/Shields.aspx?ID=4
Shield (says +4): https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=212
Prone: https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=31

Thanks guys for your thoughts! Sorry if its overly long winded?

Does the Paladin Temple Champion archetype domain power count for the prereq for the feat war blessing domain class feature?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/Paladin/archetypes/paizo-palad in-archetypes/temple-champion

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/war-blessing/

Thanks!

I think your magic missile damage is off somewhere unless either something else is houseruled. Magic missile at first level should only be 1d4+1

You are right, but not for being level 1. Sadly I can't do what I wanted to because my int is 11, if it was 13 I could do it. I can still get 2d4+2. I was going to go:

Lv 1 Arcanist +1 CL
Feat: Spell Specialization +2 CL
Class Feature: Arcane Reservoir +1 CL
Arcane Exploits: Potent Magic +1 CL

There are other feats/traits/items to raise caster level, but this is about as much as I wanted to go into it. Strong beginning, meh ending.

I'm confused - 11 as the highest stat has to be pre-racial, otherwise it doesn't work out with -3 point buy equivalent, so post-racial, you should have a 13. Putting the +1 ever 4th level into the casting stat, such a character would be able to cast spell until 11th level, at which point a +2 headband is needed.

So if you're truly unable to cast spells, that means you're forced to play a crappy race in addition to an abysmal roll.

This isn't a rule problem. Ask your GM what the hell was wrong with them. Seriously, what kind of jerk GM forces their players to play with what's way below even a basic NPC array?

My pre-racial base stats are... Str 9, Dex 11, Con 8, Int 9, Wis 9, Cha 11. I went human and made my int 11.

DM isn't a jerk. He would let me change my stats if I asked. I'm looking at this sorta like a challenge on my part since other players rolled 2d6+6 for their rolling method. I chose to roll 3d6 and put the stats down on paper how they rolled and made whatever I could with them (sorcerer prob would have been better for 13 cha). At level 1, I'm still doing 3d4+3 damage magic missiles 3/day...but I'm more worried about the late game. Sooo, that's why I needed to know the rules on metamagic.

Sounds fair enough to me. Got me an arcanist with some...subpar stats. 11 int being his highest stat (-3 point buy equivalent). If I was dming, I would allow it.

I understand that spells use the higher spell slot for reference of all those abilities. Was hoping someone would say, "Its still just a level 1 spell for terms of intelligence being required, to learn and cast." Think I could try and fight for it, but just not worth it enough for me.

thanks for the reply o/

Hello guys, got a spell casting question.

Lets say we have a lv 5 wizard with an INT of 11. He has been using his level 2 and 3 slots with magic missile via rule:

"Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels."

Can said wizard use empowered magic missile as a 3rd level spell slot?

Bonus rule material:
"To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a wizard’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the wizard’s Intelligence modifier."

"Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up. Metamagic feats do not affect spell-like abilities."

" In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast using a higher-level spell slot."

Thanks Guys!

Would DR or Invulnerable Rager DR against non-lethal damage stop damage from a "cord of stubborn resolve"?

I know that DR normally doesn't affect spells or abilities unless it has an obvious statement. As an example, DR would work against "3d6 points of bludgeoning damage" from the spell ice storm.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/Barbarian/archetypes/paizo-bar barian-archetypes/invulnerable-rager

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/c-d/cord- of-stubborn-resolve/

Thanks guys!

Perhaps we are lost on the fact that any character can disarm, while quick draw is a feat that must be acquired, just as well as anyone with a reach weapon or otherwise trip an opponent, while rogue talents to stand and crawl must be acquired.

Also bear in mind there are other options for the disarming player in this scenario. He can sunder the belt, he can trip the opponent, disarm the bow if it were, or simply attack for damage on however many attacks the ranged player wishes to foolishly take. All those severely limit the player to the point at which it likely isn't worth it to provoke an Aoo in the first place, in my opinion. So I feel it does not disrupt the game balance. Perhaps it feels unfair to the disarming player in this circumstance, but we certainly shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater :P

Its true that any character can disarm, but that in turn would also provoke an AoO from the opponent if the disarmer was not skilled.

I know your talking fairness and spirit, but how is quickdraw, 1 feat equal in spirit to 4 feats (combat expertise[requiring 13 int], combat reflexes, improved disarm, greater disarm) a reach weapon, a close ranged weapon (unarmed strike, armor spikes) and min 14 dex just to have a "CHANCE" to try and stop a person from throwing a dagger that "HAS" to start his/her turn adjacent to them.

There are feats and abilities like point blank master for a reason. If the dagger thrower REALLY wanted to throw in combat he should take it or any of the other class features that prevent AoO in combat.

I wish I could cast fireballs as a free action...(DM, how many free actions do I get a round again? Gwen Smith got to pull 4 weapons, can I get 4 spells =P)

No...Lady-J is saying the dagger is already in the air by the time you are taking your AoO. So it can't be disarmed. But Minski is right that it is taken before the effect.

^

Seravix wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

cant disarm a weapon that's no longer in the wielders hand

That is true, but with AoO from a thrown weapon. The weapon hasn't actually been thrown yet. So your disarmed before you can finish the throw.

if its not thrown then its not a ranged attack and thus does not provoke in the 1st place

Fair enough. Guess your just throwing out comments that wasn't pertaining to the topic.

cant disarm a weapon that's no longer in the wielders hand

That is true, but with AoO from a thrown weapon. The weapon hasn't actually been thrown yet. So your disarmed before you can finish the throw.

That's an . . . interesting party you've got there.

You have no idea... We have a murderous version of Lenny from mice and men. Hanson (Stronghand) from scary movie 2. A cleric with currently flips coins if hes healing people or doing actions and a murderer that loves sicking Lenny on the bad people (they are sometimes evil)...Campaign started a bit rough, and just went down hill from there.

BUT, we are rule abiding citizen and wish to play Pathfinder (overall) lawfully. I plan to give more neutral judges (you guys) a chance to voice your opinion before letting the others jump in.

Thanks!

Yes, throwing daggers while threatened is not a good idea. This ruling is important because we have a tripper/disarm with reach of 10 ft or more and is trying to protect innocents from his sometimes evil allies. His crazed ally pulls out a bow and goes to shoot it and gets disarmed. So he tries to pull it out another and says he doesn't get AoO and proceeds to kill villagers. The DM currently went with option C, stating that he can't attack because the weapon is missing.

The group had a pretty good debate on these options and a few others. So I decided to see what the Pathfinder Rules Lawyers can dig up and if they had any sources.

Thanks guys!

Hey guys, have a quick question on quickdraw and being disarmed with a thrown/ranged weapon.

Player 1 known as #1 is a dagger thrower with quickdraw and can throw 3 daggers a round.
Player 2 known as #2 is a pro disarmer that can take 6 AoO a round and has improved disarm and can threaten 10 ft.

Issue: Its #1 turn and he is standing adjacent to #2. He pulls out a dagger and throws it at #2. #2 takes his AoO and successfully disarmed #2.

Which of the following can #1 and #2 do next by the rules:
A) #1 uses quickdraw to pulls another dagger as a free action and continues to follow through with his first attack. #2 "cannot" take another AoO because he already took it for his thrown action. This repeats for throw 2 and 3.
B) #1 uses quickdraw to pulls another dagger as a free action and continues to follow through with his first attack. #2 "can" take another AoO because hes trying to throw. Player 1 keeps getting disarmed, but keeps pulling daggers until player #2 runs out of disarms. Then #1 throws without issue with all of his attacks.
C) Because #1 was disarmed during the throw and “cannot” quickdraw during an attack, his attack is forfeit. So, he goes to his second ranged attack, which is disarmed by an AoO, also his 3rd attack is disarmed.

Thanks for your help Guys!

Sooo, my DM made some interesting rulings today...and I wanted to get what your thoughts were.

He read the Warpriest Travel Blessing off d20pfsrd and followed the highlighted "teleport" to the teleport spell. Soooo, he treating the ability as the spell.

#1) Hes applying a mishap chance to my ability...so I might end up who knows where sometimes.
#2) Hes interpreting the words "All creatures to be transported must be in contact with one another" that every person teleported must touch each other person teleported. So if I teleported 10 people, each person much touch each other person being teleported.

I already said I'll go by however he wants to interpret them...but I just want to hear how others would rule this ability if they were DMing.

Sounds fair to me, ty for the response.

If a Sacred Fist with Blessed Fortitude fails its first say on a poison with 6 rounds. How would it work with a successful save after? If on the second round he makes his save would he/she fully shrug the effect?

Blessed Fortitude (Su)

At 3rd level, a sacred fist can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with help from his deity. If he succeeds at a Fortitude saving throw against an attack that has a reduced effect on a successful save, he instead avoids the effect entirely. A helpless sacred fist does not gain the benefit of the blessed fortitude ability.

This ability replaces the bonus feat gained at 3rd level.

I'm just looking under symbol of death and under permanency on the side box doesn't say anything about 10 minutes a level anymore. It only says if its disabled or affected its maximum. I'm assuming that duration would be changed to permanent like other spells unless the its disabled or hit it max. I really don't have a problem with 10/level and actually prefer that, but not sure if that's how it should be or not as rules stated.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/symbol-of-death

Thanks for the comments slimgauge btw.

So your counting the 10 minute rule as a form of disable. I was thinking disable more as a character using disable device on the symbol. But that is why I'm asking the question to get feed back on it.

If zombie ran into 2 active symbols of healing, would it be affected by both. The spell says:

"A creature can only be healed or harmed by the symbol once in any 24-hour period."

I read that as being affected once by each individual symbol as it says "THE symbol once".

Does that sound right to you?

Lets say we have a 10th level Symbol of healing made permanent. Just to verify, once it triggers, it remains on forever right? Unless dispelled or other dismissing powers. I'm looking under symbol of death and it read:

"Symbol of death can be made permanent with a permanency spell. A permanent symbol of death that is disabled or has affected its maximum number of hit points becomes inactive for 10 minutes, but then can be triggered again as normal."

Here is another question for those that say no to all forms of raise dead, stating that the body is no longer a legal target.

As you are ruling that the body is no longer a legal target, does that mean you agree that curse would fall off the body once it dies and the character is resurrected? Such curses as bestow curse, baneful polymorph or maybe even lycanthropy?

If a character has magic fang with permanency dies. Do you think the spell would still be working if he was raised dead? What if the body had been destroyed and had to be reconstructed using resurrection or true resurrection.

thanks guys in advance!

Edit: If you said no to all of the above, what about Breath of life?

So you guys are saying because combat maneuvers have an attack roll to treat it as a "melee attack" for purposes of panache.

If your saying this is true...then your also saying that a player could use this on crane wing to deflect combat maneuvers.

"Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate a single opponent you can see. You receive a +2 dodge bonus to AC against that opponent for one round. If you using the total defense action instead, you can deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed."

Hello pathfinder peoples, we have a rule that needs some outsider rules lawyering. Even if you don't have a rule finding, maybe you can list how you would play it.

The question is over a swashbuckler and if it can use Dodging Panache and/or Opportune Parry and Riposte vs a combat maneuver (example: Player A tries to Grapple player B and Player B tries to uses Dodging Panache to get out of reach). If you believe he can us it these abilities vs combat maneuvers, how would grapple and dodging panache work if the grappler won the attempt?

One person believes that the combat maneuver is treated as an attack and believes the player should be able to dodge the grappler and be 5 ft away.

Another player believe that Dodging Panache and Opportune Parry can only be used against a melee attack. That players says the rules state that combat maneuvers can substitute for a melee attack, if its substituting for it, that it can't still be a melee attack.

Here are the abilities in question and some rules that they found. You might not even need to read them if you already know all the rules.

Thank you for your time and thoughts.

"Dodging Panache (Ex) : At 1st level, when an opponent attempts a melee attack against the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action spend 1 panache point to move 5 feet; doing so grants the swashbuckler a dodge bonus to AC equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 0) against the triggering attack. This movement doesn't negate the attack, which is still resolved as if the swashbuckler had not moved from the original square. This movement is not a 5-foot step; it provokes attacks of opportunity from creatures other than the one who triggered this deed. The swashbuckler can only perform this deed while wearing light or no armor, and while carrying no heavier than a light load."

"Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex) : At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity; for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2 penalty on this roll. If her result is greater than the attacking creature's result, the creature's attack automatically misses. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature's attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made. Upon performing a successful parry and if she has at least 1 panache point, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action make an attack against the creature whose attack she parried, provided that creature is within her reach."

"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."

"An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage."

"While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack)"

"Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action"

If the player that chose Ultimate Warrior as their pic base doesn't ramble like a maniac, I riot.

Yeah...the Ultimate Warrior player is taking vow of silence....seriously.

Ah, thanks guys. These posts are great, got me laughing.

Idk, for the monk and martial artist, I see them knowing how to use their bodies and primarily using their "Training/skills" as the way of doing damage. I easily imagine monks with strength of 12/14 dealing so much damage not from their mere +1/+2 str bonus, but from the 2d8 damage dice they are throwing out with it.

Rynjin- This isn't the artist, this is they player stealing the picture from the artist, the artist looks like he drew an angel or some sort, angels being outsiders can have whatever str, I don't really care on that point.

I guess my main goal would be to try and point out to player that realistically a normal human on earth that looked like that (minus wings and stuff) wouldn't have a strength of 19...So I was just trying to see where people on the board would go with that.

Eventually I would like to find a character picture for him as examples of female monks that might have a strength of 19, its hard to do.

Here the thing...he's defending his picture because he thinks that people on "real" earth that look like this can have a str of 19...and can lift 350 lbs over their head...I'm not saying in fantasy land, you can't have someone that looks that, but I'm going to have to laugh at the 5'4" thin as a rail girl as I'm imaging her lifting up that weight. There is another player that is playing 18 str and chose the "Warrior" from wresting from the 80/90's. Putting those guys side buy side and thinking that little girl can out strength him is hilarious.

Warrior
http://wrestlingnewscenter.blogspot.com/2011/12/wwe-legend-ultimate-warrior -could-be.html

My Pathfinder group loves to find pictures for character. But sometimes I feel they are out of whack with art and reality. What do you think the strength of this character would be assuming she was NORMAL human monk without any enhancements to strength? what would be the max strength you think would fit in that form assuming no augmentations.

http://mariowibisono.deviantart.com/art/Salvation-104167819

Thanks for your time guys!

Interesting, thanks guys!

What would a half-fiend treant attacks look like? Could it do...
2 slams + 1 bite; or
2 claws + 1 bite; or
2 slams + 2 claws + 1 bite.

What about a half-fiend heavy horse, the same?
2 hooves + 1 bite; or
2 claws + 1 bite; or
2 hooves + 2 claws + 1 bite; or
2 hooves + 2 claws + 2 bites (pretty sure this one is off the list, since I believe bites overlap and take higher damage..but I'll list it as well)

the bestiary says "A half-fiend gains two claw attacks and a bite
attack. Damage depends on its size (see pages 301–302)."

Are we talking about the creature growing arms if it doesn't have it? example half-fiend snake.

Just some random thoughts.

Thanks guys!

Good to see a response, lets me know the worlds not all zombies yet. Thanks Archaeik, lets see if anyone else wants to throw on a guess.

For my first line, I could see it go a few ways like many movies: "bad guy is thrown off of random person X" but...I could also see "bad guy is thrown off of random person X but has a hold of victim and drags them with him" later being less seen usually.

bump bump

Some more questions=)

If an enemy with 5 ft reach is grappling your ally. And you bull rush/drag him 15 feet away from your ally. I'm assuming that he is forced to let go of your ally, I don't believe he gets to bring your ally along for the ride if its not his turn.

second; If an enemy with 5 ft reach is pinning an ally, could you start a grapple on that opponent and pin him? Now lets say he pins your ally and you pin him. Now its your allies turn, is he still pinned?

Thanks guys!!!

Seravix wrote:

Hmm, thanks for the info. Sad to see a perm enlarge dispelled by a level 1 wizard and shrink.

What?

A level 1 caster is never going to Dispel a level 12 casters spells because he can't beat the DC needed:
DC=23 (11+12) vs d20+1

Or did you mean something else?

It'd be rather hard to do since it takes a minimum of level 5 for a wizard to cast such a spell. If said wizard uses a high level scroll, the level of that scroll sets the DC for the caster level check.

A level 1 wizard can cast reduce person, and that automatically succeeds are dispelling enlarge person (Reduce person counters and dispels enlarge person) without need to save or make caster level checks via the fax.

(Dispel Example: You are a 5th-level wizard, your opponent is a 6th-level sorcerer. On her turn, the sorcerer casts slow and targets 6 of your allies; all 6 of them fail their saves and are slowed. On your turn, you cast haste and target 5 of your allies; this automatically dispels (no caster level check needed) the slow spell on those allies, leaving them without the effect of slow or haste (your 6th ally is still affected by slow). Note that this does not merely suppress the slow effect for the duration of your haste—the effect is completely dispelled on those 5 allies. Note that it doesn't matter if the target would normally get a saving throw or spell resistance to negate or avoid the spell used to dispel (such as casting slow to dispel an already-caste haste); to speed up gameplay and prevent lopsided applications of this sort of dispelling, the "diametrically opposed" spell automatically dispels its opposite, regardless of the desires of the creature affected by the opposite.)

Sooo, reduce kills enlarge...looking like it kills maybe perm enlarge as well? =(

As for this,

CRB wrote:

You first cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell

I asked how a wizard could cast Greater Magic Fang (given it isn't on his list) in another thread and the only response was "Scrolls". An answer that I find lacking a bit given the scrolls creator does most of the actual "casting" leaving "All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on)" but then again *shrug* don't know of any other method either.

You could cast limited wish or use magic device. But my guess is that "you practically" don't need to cast the spell. I really don't see an issue with a druid coming along and casting magic fang on you and you perm your self.

Hmm, thanks for the info. Sad to see a perm enlarge dispelled by a level 1 wizard and shrink.