The Abundant Step monk feat is listed as Feat 6. It grants a Focus Spell of level 4, which means it cannot be cast until level 7 (when half your level rounded up becomes a 4). So does that mean the only thing I can get out of this feat as a level 6 Monk is the extra focus point granted by it?
By RAW, you can open an encounter with an attack by winning initiative and using your firsts action to attack. For a volley, if everyone of the ambushers succeeded on their stealth initiative they could ready actions on their first round to all shoot at once? But I don't know if that's worth giving the ambushed party a round to Seek, take defensive action, or otherwise prepare. What I mean is, enemy attacks happening before initiative is rolled. As in, the enemy attack is what causes the initiative roll. GM: As you are walking through this corridor, arrows begin whizzing by! Sam and Garnet, what are your armor classes? Oof. Those will both hit. Sam you take 5 damage, and Garnet you take 3. Alright everyone let’s get some initiative going. Edit: ^This would all happen after rolling secret checks for those searching/investigating during Exploration.
The Moonstone Sage Name: Moon Fang of the Lyrune Quah
The sole will that animate dead gives the undead is obeying the vocal commands of the creator. The creator can make them do anything, including suicidal orders and not attacking your less-happy cleric. Mental control doesn’t matter. The undead will not do anything unless given an order. If you order them to attack obvious enemies, they may attack the cleric. If you order them to attack the goblins, they will attack the goblins only.
If we entertain the notion that not all combat maneuvers are part of the subset of “melee attacks” could someone please show me at what range I am allowed to grapple? The Combat Maneuver section doesn’t say and I can’t use the Melee Attacks section since a grapple *isn’t one of those*
I just want to bring up again how ridiculous this is. Any pleb can now use the strategy of "I run into the other room and throw a coat over my head and sit real still," and you have to have a minimum +20 Perception to find them on a natural 20. I don’t think an item in your possession like a coat really cuts it. New room behind a curtain or crate? Sure. I don’t think it’s really that ridiculous. Enter the room and start looking around the crates and throw open the curtain, thus removing their cover/concealment. That’s how hide and seek normally works.
You draw a line from one of your corners to all of their corners. Assuming this large crate has an open corner (ie doesn’t fill a 5’ cube) then none of your lines pass through cover. No cover affecting your attacks. Conversely, when the enemy draws lines to your corners, she does have that open one that you used but some of the other corners are blocked by the crate. You benefit from cover while she attacks you. Cover is not always mutual.
I mean I can see why that might drive what you rule at your own table, but the templates don’t go off biological vs. not biological. Templates state what is and isn’t changed and SLA’s aren’t listed as being changed or removed. The Magus variants don’t really do much since Skeletal Champions/Zombie Lords could already cast spells if they had spellcasting class levels. They don’t lose their class levels nor do they lose any mental stats. I guess the only actual point of the Magus variants is to grant your undead the Silent metamagic feat.
SQ usually has its own line on stat blocks, and has its own definition seperately from Su/Ex/SLA in the glossary. I think SQ=/=SA. Just as tacticslion indicated above.
A creature in dim light has 20% concealment. It has that concealment even if all of its opponents have darkvision and ignore the concealment. The concealment is something the creature has when in dim light. A Fetchling in dim light has concealment even if some or all of its opponents have darkvision. The opponents with darkvision ignore the 20% concealment but don't ignore the 50% concealment from Shadow Blending because darkvision doesn't say that it ignores supernatural abilities, just that it ignores the concealment from dim light. That's my 2cp. Darkvision ignores the concealment from lighting but not from other sources. Can definitely see how a GM could rule it the other way though.
Whoa whoa whoa, you do not temporarily lose your feat for temporary penalties or ability damage.
This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability....Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage... Your ability score is not actually reduced, you just have a matching penalty on rolls and statistics. Ability drain would make you temporarily lose your feat.
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. The answer to all of those questions is "no." You must have started your turn stealthing in order to still benefit from it when leaving the cover/concealment (pillar/barrel/whatever). If you spent your round getting to cover and stealthing, the following turn you could walk out from the pillar into an illuminated, empty hallway and benefit from the stealth check.
Have the animal companion ready for your verbal command to charge. Animal companion moves and readies, you tell them to attack X target, they attack X target. If it's a PC, best to ready for the next person's action or the next enemy's attack. Gets a little trickier as every GM has a preference for how picky a "Ready" needs to be.
I'm pretty sure the "awareness" for surprise rounds is covered by the Ultimate Intrigue rules on Skills in conflict. Since the baddie is invisible but the good guys are aware of his presence due to his voice and announcing himself, he wouldn't get a surprise round. If the baddie had attacked without announcing it, the good guys would get their perception vs. stealth for the surprise round.
Like I'd agree if it was a projectile weapon, if you had a way to melee with said projectile weapon maybe the bonus damage doesn't apply. But thrown weapons do both melee and ranged for sure, the feat doesn't say when thrown it only requires its in that group is all.
@BNW Why are you claiming that everyone views C/C and Observation as the SAME THING?? We all know it's not the same thing, but you're conflating our arguments by wrapping it up like that. Observation is one thing, C/C is another thing. You can't stealth while observed, but C/C allows you to make Stealth checks. The idea that C/C breaks observation doesn't mean it's the "one thing" interpretation or they're the "same thing."
But why are the 3rd 4th and 5th sentences not doing the same thing, in the same paragraph? They work together. They contradict each other apart. Being Observed 1. So you can't Stealth when people are observing you2. Here is one way to get that stealth check in 3-5. Here is another way to get that stealth check in Of course the sentences work together. They are discussing how to stealth when "being observed."
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
Of course there are situations that prevent stealth and abilities that enhance stealth, but the general rule is finding cover/concealment allows the stealth check. There's no additional observation check.
As long as your opponent only has normal vision that should work, yeah. Darkvision prevents that for sure and it depends on distance for low-light.
Cover and Concealment for Stealth: The reason a character usually needs cover or concealment to use Stealth is tied to the fact that characters can't use Stealth while being observed. A sneaking character needs to avoid all of an opponent's precise senses in order to use Stealth, and for most creatures, that means vision. Effects such as blur and displacement, which leave a clear visual of the character within the perceiving character's vision, aren't sufficient to use Stealth, but a shadowy area or a curtain work nicely, for example. The hide in plain sight class ability allows a creature to use Stealth while being observed and thus avoids this whole situation. A sneaking character can come out of cover or concealment during her turn, as long as she doesn't end her turn where other characters are directly observing her. You don't need to break observation AND find cover/concealment. The cover/concealment is your way of breaking the observation. Edit: I don't have the physical copy in front of me, or I'd give you the page number sorry!
Yes, cover and concealment break observation. Ultimate Intrigue cleared that up. Benefit: A rogue with this talent can select a single terrain from the ranger’s favored terrain list. She is a master at hiding in that terrain, and while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed. The Rogue can officially hide in her favored terrains no matter what (barring bright light and special senses). That's the point. You don't need to break observation anymore, so you don't need cover or concealment.
Neither Ultimate Campaign nor Occult Adventures have released a FAQ/errata concerning how the Occult Classes can retrain class abilities. In a home game, a GM can use the lists available to determine what abilities make sense to retrain, but in PFS it seems our hands are tied. Is there something I've missed? Our cool occult characters need these options!
@Scott Wilhelmina: There is a colon. It links the moving and other actions phrases to the "two kinds of actions" phrase. It also uses the number "two" because "moving out of a threatened square" and "performing certain actions" make up the two necessary for the statement to be true. I don't see another way to read that. Two kinds of ice cream can be purchased: chocolate and vanilla. What are the "two kinds of ice cream?" (1)Chocolate and (2)vanilla. Does this phrase allow me to purchase types of chocolate that are not ice cream? No.Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square. What are the "two kinds of actions?" (1)Moving out of a threatened square and (2)performing certain actions within a threatened square. Does this phrase state that moving out of a threatened square provokes when it isn't an action? No.
That's kind of a terrible definition. By that definition, a spear, dagger, throwing shield, or sword with the returning property wouldn't be ranged weapons, because all of them are effective in melee. Eh, it's poorly written. I've always interpreted it as... Ranged weapons are:
Its describing only the projectile weapons as being ineffective in melee, not both.
Where in the rules does it explicitly state that a ninja is an archetype of rogue? I'd love to have that for PFS to be able to support the view that ninja's can take rogue stuff. This is the closest I get to an explicit statement. Alternate Classes: Sometimes an archetype exchanges so many class features that it almost becomes a new class itself. In such cases, the class might warrant a representation of all of the class features, even those that it shares with its base class. While still technically an archetype, characters who play this class have all the tools they need to advance their character in one convenient location. The antipaladin, ninja, and samurai are all examples of an alternate class. Edit: After reading some other threads I get the impression this may have been taken out of the ACG or something to that effect.
Ultimate Intrigue did a lot to clear up some of this stealth stuff. Cover and Concealment are what's necessary to break observation enough to hide. Effects like Blur and Displacement leave a clear outline of the person, so they don't allow stealth. Invisibility and it's bonuses are limited to specific things that function as invisibility.
@Ssalarn Well, that's an interestingly narrow way of trying to determine source. Without Lethal Grace, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without a Vigilante level, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without an attack roll with a light weapon, Lethal Grace does nothing. Without a character, Lethal Grace does nothing. All of these things must be sources since Lethal Grace depends on them.
Of course I picked the one example that doesn't work with BNW's interpretation, I'm trying to show that it is incorrect. I'm not asserting that caster level = class level in all cases, just that it does in this case. And since it does in this case, they must not stack in this case. But rather than accepting this as an outcome of BNW's view, you claim it must not be so? Why? Perhaps you think the Evoker should be able to use his class abilities with those evocation spells. Similar to how many of us think that the Vigilante should be able to use his class abilities on his gauntlet and fist attacks.
Ssalarn, I remained specific to our example of an evoked wizard. You've done a fine job of showing examples where a caster level is the last source in the chain-line-whatever. For our evoker wizard, his wizard class level is a source for his class abilities and his caster level. Using BNW's interpretation, the evoker wizard can't add a fraction of his caster level (which is sourced by his wizard level) and a fraction of his wizard level. They stem from the same source, the wizard level. This is an outcome of BNW's interpretation. I would think that the writers and developers, if this outcome were intended, would have written it into the Core Rulebook.
Things that affect your effective wizard class level will always affect caster level for wizard spells. They are linked in a chain of sources that leads to the untyped bonus. That is how BNW is asking us to look at sources, as a line of sources back as far as you can go, a chain of numbers that effect each other as you go down it. Caster level and class level are two sources, but the source of caster level is class level so untyped bonuses derived from either come from the same source somewhere on the line, in this case it is class level. No, but if you assume the design team is comprised of logical and sane people, it shows a logical and consistent chain of thought. Given the nearly identical wording at play, that means it would still be logical and sane to apply the same reasoning. And those logical and sane people told us not to do what you're doing, which is extending a ruling outside the scope of the FAQ.
But the source of your caster level is your wizard level so it's the same source in the end, under your interpretation.
Your character level is not some lake of untyped bonus waiting to be tapped. It isn't a source. The source is what generates the bonus. The vigilante talents generate the bonus, not your level. Weapon Focus generates the bonus, not the number 1 or the number system. Even when you try to do your tracing method back as far is it can go, finding all of the sources, you end up matching sources on class abilities and the class itself and your level and even your experience pool. That creates a result where no untyped bonus derived from class related anything can stack. @BNW: You can argue that your interpretation matches the RAI and RAW for the FAQ, but the rest of us aren't considering that to be a valid way of deciding because we've been told the FAQ only relates to the contents of the FAQ. You using it as an extrapolation for something separate and non-ability modifier related is not RAW or RAI. The developers explicitly do not intend for us to use FAQ's for subjects they don't cover. Adding a level as a bonus is not covered by the FAQ.
My interpretation: Untyped bonuses stack, unless they are from the same source. "Source" is the means that gives you the bonus, such as a feat, class ability, trait, etc. Additionally, an ability modifier counts as a source of related to an untyped bonus. A class level is not the means that gives you the bonus in this case, but rather Lethal Grace. The stalker talent is the source of the extra damage, it grants you untyped bonus damage. /interpretation @BNW What are your thoughts on this rules interpretation?
A character’s class is one of his most defining features. It’s the source of most of his abilities, and gives him a specific role in any adventuring party. So by tracing everything back to THE source... bonus damage->Lethal Grace->Vigilante Talents class feature->Vigilante Class ...I end up with an interpretation where all untyped bonuses given to me by anything related to my class shouldn't stack, right? Doesn't matter if it's calculated using half my level or my charisma mod, if it's an untyped bonus from something class related, it doesn't stack with things from the same source, the same class in this example. This is a nonsensical outcome.
Both talents give you a fraction of your vigilante level to damage. My vigilante level IS my vigilante level. Its the law of identity with or without the FAQ. The faq just ramps the evidence for it up to 11. The FAQ tells us about ability modifiers being added as bonuses, nothing else. Why is it that using the faq as additional evidence is WORSE than just arbitrarily making up a rule that the source is the feat or feature UNLESS its an ability score? Or that this logic, which existed before the faq, is completely wrong but just HAPPENED to fit nearly perfectly with the faq anyway? The FAQ tells us about what the FAQ tells us about, which isn't adding fractions of levels to anything. So how do you determine sourcyness? Look on your character sheet. Try to trace a number back as far as you can. Everything along that line is A source. When you can't track it back anymore, thats THE source. That's a way of looking at it, sure. The rules don't tell us to trace things like that. Seems like a complicated way of deciding something, why is it unwritten in the rules?
The source for damage is not your level, it is the ability or talent or [whatever]. The FAQ adds that ability modifiers count as the same source if the bonuses are untyped. This only extends to ability modifiers. The reason we are even worried about this:
Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source. So we have to determine whether two different talents are the same source... Are they the same talent? No. Are they the same numerical increase to damage? Yes. What's more important to determining "source"ness? The amount or the talent? I'm inclined to say the talent, since we don't discriminate between untyped numerical increases in other cases such as whether the +1 of Weapon Focus stacks with the +1 of Weapon Training.
During the playtest for the Vigilante class, I recall a developer stating that Up Close and Personal would count toward activating the Stalker Talents that rely on d8 Hidden Strike. The current wording doesn't explicitly allow it, and it hasn't made it to the FAQ so... Does a successful acrobatics check using Up Close and Personal count as qualifying for the stalker talents marked with an asterisk (*)? A stalker vigilante can apply only one talent marked with an asterisk (*) to a given hidden strike, and only when that hidden strike is dealt against a foe that is unaware of the stalker vigilante's presence (or who considers him an ally), unless otherwise noted. When the vigilante attempts an Acrobatics check to move through an opponent's space during a move action, he can attempt a single melee attack against that opponent as a swift action. If the Acrobatics check succeeds, this attack applies the vigilante's hidden strike damage as if the foe were unaware of the vigilante. Otherwise, the vigilante applies the hidden strike damage he would deal if the target were denied its Dexterity bonus to AC. Only a stalker vigilante of at least 4th level can select this talent. "Applies the vigilante's hidden strike damage as if" doesn't necessarily mean that it's a "hidden strike dealt against a foe that is unaware of the vigilante's presence (or considers him an ally)." You deal damage to them as if they had the conditions, but it doesn't say you can use other abilities that require the conditions. With a FAQ/errata, it would become explicitly "otherwise noted."
Ranger Camoflauge allows you to maintain your stealth when not in cover or concealment. As Wonderstell stated above, Camoflage doesn't give the ranger cover or concealment, he just doesn't need it to make a stealth check. Since he doesn't have C/C, he needs to begin his stealthy approach unobserved. After he has begun, he can now continue to stealth out in the open because he doesn't need C/C and is currently unobserved. HiPS trumps this because you can stealth when observed.
Ranger Camoflauge allows you to maintain your stealth when not in cover or concealment. You need to begin unobserved, but can then remain hidden even out in the open. Once you break stealth, you're gonna have to break observation to stealth again by likely finding cover or concealment. Ranger HiPS allows you to stealth right in front of the very eyes of your opponent. This ability is great! Too bad it comes online so late, but at least you have a bunch of Favored Terrains by then. @BNW we have literally argued the same things before with one another. In the meantime, Ultimate Intrigue came out and it's clear that cover/concealment breaks observation. It even gives the example of Blur (partial concealment) not allowing stealth for the reason that it "leaves a clear visual", but not because it's partial instead of total. The rules don't require total cover/concealment, just cover/concealment.
Here is what Ultimate Intrigue has to clarify:
If the rules meant to prevent you from stealthing using a 5' step or after you attack in a round, they would tell you such. If the rules meant to define your turn using your full round action, they would tell you such. "A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step." Awesome. The rules tell me exactly what they mean, that a full round action takes up my move and standard actions for a round. The rules don't expand to say that your turn is defined by your full round action, so it isn't. They don't say you're considered attacking after the attack rolls complete, so you aren't. The rules state what they mean to state. By expanding the meaning of that first sentence into a context that is never discussed within the rules, you are constructing new rules.
The rules don't define "attacking" as a condition. I don't gain the "attacking" condition when I opt for a full attack. @Akkurscid You've made your interpretation easy to follow, but I'm unconvinced that it is correct. Let's say I used my full round action to charge an opponent, you would say I'm considered "charging" until my next initiative count. Could a character come up and ready an attack with a brace weapon and then immediately use that attack for extra damage? It fulfills the requirements if I'm still considered "charging" and they readied their attack with a brace weapon. I doubt this is the intent. Actions in combat happen linearly for the most part. I'm moving when I move, I'm attacking when I attack, and I'm casting when I cast a spell. When my action completes, I am no longer considered to be doing that action. My full attack may take the duration of one round, but I'm not still "attacking" after my final iterative is resolved.
|
