Stephen Ede's page

"On a side note to that, only feint and flat-footed (that I am aware of) causes a loss of a dex to AC. The other mentions are all things that either trigger off that loss to AC specifically, or re-asserting rules that are already in place."

Arcane Trickster can make a target lose their Dex bonus to AC-
Beginning at 3rd level, once per day an arcane trickster can declare one melee or ranged attack she makes to be a sneak attack (the target can be no more than 30 feet distant if the impromptu sneak attack is a ranged attack). The target of an impromptu sneak attack loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, but only against that attack. The power can be used against any target, but creatures that are not subject to critical hits take no extra damage (though they still lose any Dexterity bonus to AC against the attack).

Blinded Condition -

The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength– and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

Invisible -
Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.

Just something to note to those who feel the Pinned condition isn't strong enough if the loss of dex modifier only applies to AC.

If you successfully escape Pin you become grappled.

I noted a certain degree of horror in the face of one of my players with a Ring of Freedom of movement that if a Dragon had pinned him with a Crush attack he could just walk out of it. :P

Regarding someones suggestion that if the designers had just intended to say "Pinned makes you you lose your dex bonus to AC but not to anything else" they could've said "you become flat footed".
Flatfooted is negated by Uncanny Dodge which is merely uncommon.

So no, they would have not wanted to use the term "flat footed" in regards to Pinning.
Indeed the stand terms used where they want you to lose your Dex bonus to AC even if you have Uncanny Dodge is - "You are denied your Dex bonus to AC" or "you lose your dex bonus".

While I think it's fair to say the RAW isn't 100% clear that Pinning only takes your Dex Modifer from AC, it is about 95% likely given all the wordings used in the rules.

The note in Unhindered Shield that a Monk doesn't count as using a Shield.

Given the huge range of Pathfinder options I don't think you can expect rules writers to explicitly cover every case.

Because Unhindered Shield does explicitly say that you count as not using a Shield for all cases where this would be relevant. But it doesn't say it only applies to Monks as well.
So by RAW I think you can say maybe.

I'm pretty sure if asked the Designer would probably say "yes, it does apply to similar class features as not using a Shield".

The Druid.

The 3rd Ed Druid, which is basically also the PF Druid, they took all the features that could be nice as a Druid and said "here, you can have them all".

I wish they had instead setup the Druid as three ability;/power trees.
A) Spellcasting
B) Shapeshifting
C) Animal Companions

Set each ability as having 3 levels of power i.e.
Spellcasting -
Lev 3 - Full caster (as is)
Lev 2 - Semi caster (Magus/Bard level)
Lev 1 - Dabbler (Ranger/Paladin level)

Give the starting Druid 6 "build pts" with Lev 1 costing 1, lev 2 = 2pts, lev 3 = 3pts.

So you can be Lev 2 at everything, or lev 3 at one thing, lev 2 at another and lev 3 at one thing.

Currently a Druid is lev 3 Caster - full bells and whistles.
About lev 2.75 Shapeshifter
lev 2 Animal Companions

The Hunter is is some ways almost an attempts at creating a lev 3 Animal Companion/Lev 2 Spell caster with no shapeshifting.

And it's really interesting.
But the Druid is just stonkingly powerful because it gets everything.
And is at the same time a combination of boring/confusing because it gives so much it's hard to actually track everything and trying to do so it becomes easy to drop in to a number crunching game. :-(

Hell the most enjoyable Druid I ever played I simply pretended the Wildshaping didn't exist because it let me concentrate on actually been the character and roleplaying the relationship with his "wolf brother"

One thing that wasn't directly addressed in your example.
You can cast more 1st level spells by using your 2nd level spell slots.

Forgot to mention:

A method I have used in the past when rolling is to have the group as a whole roll several arrays, then allow each player to select which array they like (dupes allowed). Most of the time there was an obvious winner that everybody used--this method allowed score assignment as well--but occasionally a player would take an array with a lot of decent scores over an array with one or two excellent scores and one or two terrible ones. I also informed the group that major NPCs would use the same arrays. : )

That's the method I use and the other GM has moved to it as well.

It has two advantages I like.
No one is disadvantaged through bad dice rolling.

You don't get cookie cutter characters because there are optimal point buys for various character types.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained to brainfart without supporting evidence.

Ultrace wrote:

Speaker for the Dead wrote:

I’m not sure where you were looking. It specifically says that it’s placed on a ranged weapon?

Yes, and a bow is classified as a ranged weapon while arrows are classified as ammunition. So, are you trying to say that, because this ability can. RAW, only be placed on a bow (and not the arrows it uses), it must definitely pass its ability to arrows fired by it?

Yes I am saying that. I don't have ultimate equipment but the core rules seems to say that you place the enhancement on the bow. In fact "this special ability can only be placed on ranged weapons."

Yes, you can place the enchantment on your Bow. But it doesn't do anything unless you throw the Bow at someone.

Ultimate Equipment - Scroll down to Ranged Weapon enhancements note that Seeking doesn't have the subscript "3" that indicates the ability is passed on to the ammunition.
Scroll down further and you see Seeking is given as an enchantment that can be placed on ammunition

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/magicArmsAndArmor/weap onSpecialAbilities.html

Core Rulebook - Scroll down to Ranged Weapon enhancements note that Seeking doesn't have the subscript "2" that indicates the ability is passed on to the ammunition.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/magicItems/weapons.html

Unless you can show a rule that clearly indicates that a Seeker Bow passes the ability on to an arrow then the RAW has to be that it doesn't.
Note: I say rule, not something in a adventure path.

(Sorry, couldn't remember how to create a link)

Omnius wrote:

I'm just confused about what sort of terrible metagaming even can happen if you say, "Make a save versus poison."

Oh, it's real. Assume for a moment that there's no established way for players to know a thing. Say... a monster with a mind-controlling supernatural aura. Nothing that Spellcraft or Perception can identify, and assume that any Knowledge check failed to inform the players that said aura is on the table.

Here's one version of metagaming...

GM: "Okay, Thog, I need a Will save against a sort of domination effect."
Player1: "Great, I get to use my bonus. I've got... 18."
GM: "You feel like something happened but you shrugged it off."
Player2: "Hey guys, better cast magic circle against evil."

"You feel like something tried to thrust itself into your mind but you resisted"

"Hey guys. Something just tried to take over my mind. Crack out the Prot form evil."

ew just saw that astonishing ray only does non lethal dmg

That's enough to activate Topple Metamagic and enough to trigger the Ace Trip feat.

Stephen Ede wrote:

Topple Spell requires a Force spell and Weapon Mastery feats require Weapon Focus which can only be used on Ray Spells.

Actually, we do have a published example of a creature taking Improved Critical (touch), so it seems like Weapon Focus (ranged touch) should be plausible as well.

"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."

This would strongly suggest that for spells you are restricted to Ray for spells as RAW.
Ranged Touch is something my GM might allow.

Admonishing Ray is still in Pathfinder but it is very short range. Even at 20th level you are only talking about a 75' range, or 100' with Enlarge metamagic

"This taut black band, clipped with a black metal skull, can be attached on the outside of a hat or other head slot item or can be worn as a normal headband. "

It specifically says it can attached to another head slot item. So yes it is possible to combine it with a Headband of Inspired Wisdom

Well I FAQed your OP.
I happen to agree with your reading of the rules but it would be nice to have a FAQ on it.

Thanks.
Some ideas for me to work with.

OK, update.
The PC's destroyed what they believed was the Phylatery.
They then went of carrying the real Phylatery.
Does the time the party spends moving count for the purpose of the Lich reforming?
Or do you start counting from when they stop moving around?

Either way one of the PCs is going to be unhappy when they work out what the Phyaltery is because they intend to use/wear it.

It should be noted that in this case the Lich has only recently woken up from a 10,000 year sleep so only one of the PC's knows anything aboutr him, and that's because he's a skin stealer and 10,000 years ago the Lich captured him and kept him as a slave for some time as a joke, and the Skin Stealer has some very patchy memories.

Culminated in the Skin Stealer hitting him with a Smite Critical Undead-bane arrow with the words "I resign!" which left the Lich Dimension Dooring away with 3 hp.
Then coming back invisible and hitting the Skin Stealer with an Empower Vampiric Touch and the words "Resignation accepted!".

Note that a being can become a Lich at about level 10-ish, possibly lower

DC 30 for a properly trained character at that level is at least somewhat challenging, assuming they haven't put every available feat and class ability into undead-hunting
And if they have, what possible reason would they have not to know about phylacteries?

You have to be a CL 11 spell caster to become a Lich.

How can you tell if a magic item is a Lich's phylactery?
Assuming he's made some effort to disguise it as another magical item and created a fake phylactery that looks like a traditional one. How would the party know otherwise?

Especially if he made the real phylactery something the PC's might take as treasure.

LOL. Just read that one.
It read like a Political speech.
Lots of words saying almost nothing.

I know that True Seeing lets you see through Illusions but are you still aware that the Illusion spell exists?

Say you see the Assassin with Greater Invisibility walking up to your friend.
Your Friend can't see the Assassin but do you just see a man strolling up to your friend, or do you see a man with an Invisibility on him walking up to your friend?

Thanks

I had this come up and so went looking for information on it and came across this.

I'm not clear on whether Mr Pitt was agreeing with the OP or DragonhunterQ so I'm going to make my input.

The critical sentence is here -
" If the target prepares spells, it must choose one of its prepared 3rd-level spells, which is immediately lost; if the target has no 3rd-level spells prepared, it must lose a 2nd-level spell it has prepared (progressing down to 1st-level spell if it has no 2nd-level spells prepared) each round at the start of its turn."

It's one sentence broken into 2 clauses by a semicolon.
a) If the target prepares spells, it must choose one of its prepared 3rd-level spells, which is immediately lost;

b) if the target has no 3rd-level spells prepared, it must lose a 2nd-level spell it has prepared (progressing down to 1st-level spell if it has no 2nd-level spells prepared) each round at the start of its turn.

By strict RAW I think you lose a spell immediately then the English gets murkier but probably you lose a spell at the start of each subsequent turn.

The problem is that the last phrase -
"each round at the start of its turn." -
is very unclear in that location of the sentence but should be connected to what's after the semicolon rather than before.

I think it was supposed to say-
" If the target prepares spells, each round at the start of its turn it must choose one of its prepared 3rd-level spells, which is immediately lost; if the target has no 3rd-level spells prepared, it must lose a 2nd-level spell it has prepared (progressing down to 1st-level spell if it has no 2nd-level spells prepared)."

But it doesn't say that.

Without text saying that you must be able to make an AoO into a square in order to threaten it you can't simply say that the ability to AoO is required to threaten simply because the rules on Threaten come in the Section on AoO.

"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."

The 1st part of the sentence makes clear that to threaten you must be able to make a Melee attack into the square.
The 2nd part of the sentence states either that you must be able to make that attack even when it's not your turn, or that you can threaten even when it's not your turn. Those are the only 2 actions that the 2nd part of the sentence could refer to.

1) The Melee Attack when it's not your turn would indicate that any time you are forbidden from make Melee attacks out of turn (AOOs) you don't threaten.

2) Saying "you can even threaten when it's not your turn" makes no sense because threatening in the basic combat rules is something that only gets referred to when it's not your turn.

The main reason I don't consider this to be conclusive is that IIRC it is part of the stuff taken from 3.5 so it could be something they meant to tighten up to make it mean something else and they missed doing so among all the other changes they were making. It happens.

As for your "if an AOO is required to threaten you wouldn't threaten if you had no AOOs"

I have repeatedly pointed out that it's a theoretical or Potential AOO. i.e. would you be able to make an AOO if you had unlimited AOOs. I did not say you have to actually have an AOO free to make. You are the one that keeps saying that and then shooting down your own argument while claiming to be shooting down someone else's argument. (The term is "a Straw man")
Indeed by your login you are shooting down your own argument since you say to threaten you merely have be able to make a Melee attack into the square and if you have made all your melee attacks then you can't make any further Melee Attacks into the adjacent square and therefore can't threaten.
An entirely stupid argument IMO but that is where you end up if we follow your logic consistently.

So basically if you have the grappled condition:

- You can't make AoO
- You threaten adjacent squares and thus you give/get the flank bonus
- You can attack with a light blade, proficient unnarmed attack, or natural weapon the squares you threaten

I am correct?

By RAW. No.

It comes down to what "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." means.
It's not clear and there is very little written elsewhere regarding what determines threatening.
Which means we are down to trying to decide RAI, and given how little is written that's very hard to say.

From what I've seen from this discussion this is what we have.

Threatening requires the ability to make attacks. Explicit.

There is a significant amount of examples implicitly linking AOOs and Threatening. Suggesting that the theoretical ability to make an AOO is required to threaten. Note a Theorectical AOO exists when something triggers the opportunity to make an AOO regardless of whether someone has used all their AOO's for the turn.
But this is implicit, not explicit statements and thus far from conclusive.

There is at least one clear example that the ability to make an attack on your turn does not automatically translate to the ability to threaten (unarmed attacks without IUS).

There is one piece of writing that talks about the ability to Threaten without been able to make an AOO but this is weak as it's a flavour text part of a secondary source, so not actually part of the rules.

Personally what I would like it a FAQ making clear what is required to Threaten an area.

1st Can a creature that is grappled "Threaten"?

2nd What are the full requirements for "Threatening" a square?
i.e. You have to Reach the target with a theorectical Melee Attack. Does it also require that the attack would not attract an AOO if you tried to do it?
Does it require that you are able to make a theorectical AOO against the target?

It depends on how you read the text.
I read the rule as saying you threaten any square you can make a melee attack into when it's not your turn. i.e. you have to be able to make theorectical AOO's into the square.
Which would mean that when grappled you don't threaten.

-----------
Threatened Squares
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.
---------------------------

Note if it only required the ability to make a melee attack in your turn then even unarmed characters without IUS would still threaten.
If you can threaten when grappled it would be the only situation I know of where you can't make AOOs but still threaten.

My players are sufficiently paranoid that they stand watches even when in a Rope Trick.
I think 2 of them have Feather fall around so they would float to the ground and one of them is a Diviner Wizard so acts in the surprise round anyway.
So while a Dispel Magic would be cute it wouldn't be likely to be a TPK.

I have sat down to make a couple of house rules to cover the incredible vagueness of Rope Trick.

Entry in and out of the space must be by climbing the rope. There is no "open door" as such. So weapons and objects can't be thrown in and out.

If the Rope is pulled loose from the space then no one can exit or enter until the spell ends.
I did consider having this end the spell but given it's a rope that several monsters can get on and group pull then it starts to become to easy to dispel it by non-caster. Albeit some might consider that a good idea and I'm not sure I would disagree. So I may revisit that.

If a magical attempt is made to hide the rope - i.e. Invisible - then it's treated a Caster level check as if you were trying to Dispel or Counter spell the Rope Trick.
If successful the Rope Trick will fail and there will be an invisible rope on the ground.

Of course that fact that these run of the mill Rope Trick features are uncovered by the RAW is more than a little depressing. :-(

Stephen Ede wrote:

I would point out that an Ioun Wyrd must have at least 1 fully functional Ioun Stone which it's master gains the benefit of so ling as it's within 30'.

Therefore as a Starting Familiar the PC has to fork out for the functional Ioun stone even if the GM agrees to write off the construction cost and say he acquirred a wild one.

I'm pretty easy going as a player but I'd feel a bit aggrieved if the GM gave the pure Spell Caster an Ioun Stone as bonus starting loot just "because".
I know pure Spell casters are weak and need a helping hand and all that but..... (tongue in cheek)

not all starting characters are level 1

True I should've quoted the post I was relying to, that talked about 1st level characters.

If you take a one-level dip of Tattooed Sorcerer, and buy a Ioun Wyrd familiar (or talk your GM into letting you start with one), do the Ioun Stones orbiting the Ioun Wyrd also merge into your tattoos when the familiar is in tattoo form? If so, do they still grant the normal effects? That would seem to be a really secure way to store your Ioun Stones.

Iouin Stones don't orbit an Ioun Wyrd. They merge with it and become part of it's body (and deliver the bonus to you if it's within 30').

But I'm fairly certain the answer tou your question is "No".

In tattoo form it continues to grant its special familiar ability, but otherwise has no abilities

The special familiar ability for an Ioun Wyrd is +1 NAC.

Daedalus the Dungeon Builder wrote:

So, while it's possible the Ioun Wyrd is an improved familiar, it would be highly unusual in multiple ways.

As I stated above, I was mistaken. When I double-checked, I found it is an unusual familiar but does not require the Improved Familiar feat.

To be fair, no 1st level character is going to have a Ioun Wyrd as a familiar unless the GM has been extraordinarily kind with starting cash.

Familiar Folio has the Ioun Wyrd as an Improved Familiar.

Where does it say you need Improved Familiar to have this as a Familiar?

Note: It is in the list for standard familiars

Oh. I didn't know about that.
They fixed the broken Staff at last.
One of my players is going to be very unhappy.

It seems to be more of a knee-jerk reaction to "ZOMG double stat dipping oh-noes" than anything else.

Having Inquisitions that no longer function correctly, feats that need to be re-written due to a FAQ changing the printed rules, as well as admitting that a CRB class ability gets away with double dipping because the text was written slightly differently grammatically, means that this FAQ is about as good an idea as the Hands of Effort clarification, the original FOB ruling, and the magus haste examples.

I appreciate that there are FAQs coming, and that Paizo takes the time to respond to fans.

However, if a FAQ means that at least 5 sources of printed material need to be entirely re-written to function based on the new ruling, then perhaps it should still be on the table and not posted.

I disagree.

Saying that they shouldn't have done a FAQ until they could do one that resolved the situation without requiring rewriting other places in the rules is just saying they should do a FAQ and just leave the situation unresolved.

Benefit: Whenever a creature targeted by a persistent spell or within its area succeeds on its saving throw against the spell, it must make another saving throw against the effect. If a creature fails this second saving throw, it suffers the full effects of the spell, as if it had failed its first saving throw.

Level Increase: +2 (a persistent spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.)

Spells that do not require a saving throw to resist or lessen the spell’s effect do not benefit from this feat.

It doesn't restrict the 2 saves required to the initial saving throw. It's any time you save against the spell.

Dude, if you seriously don't understand the difference between "it takes 3 hours to drive to Denver," and "you must always take exactly 3 hours to drive to Denver," then you shouldn't have conversations in the rules forum.

The rules are not written in legalese, they are written by reasonable people for use of reasonable people.

Ha, Haha, Hahahehehe ROTFLMAO

Did you get that from a fortune cookie or something? Because I can't see how that statement bears any relationship to either Pathfinder or the 3.5 and 3rd Ed that came before it.

Indeed this very thread is one of many that put the lie to that statement.

Personally I think Invisibility Stealth would've worked better if they had just said something like "you make take a 15 (20?) on your stealth check when invisible and can hide in plain sight unless the invisibility is nulified by some effect.
All the concealment works as per standard.

After all when hiding been invisble is really nice but in truth you can still be heard, things you touch still move and are affected by you. It shouldn't be the all powering stealth art relatively close quarters that it is without magic. But it does make stealth a lot easier if you only have to worry about sound and things you touch moving/been affected. You don't have to worry about your actual line of sight.

Personal;ly as a GM having read some of the earlier threads I told my players that you can get the 1st 2 rounds of effects from Detect abilities on Invisble creatures, but you don't get the 3rd round. Because that requires seeing the aura clearly , which you can't because it's invisible. You are only detecting the side effects.

At Character level 5 -
You are a Flind were - Hyaenodon.

6th lev - gain 1 Class level
7th lev - gain 1 class level (2 Class levels total)
7.5 level - gain 1 Bonus Class level (3 Class levels total)
8th lev - gain 1 class level (4 Class levels total)
9th lev - gain 1 class level (5 Class levels total)
10th lev - gain 1 class level (6 Class levels total)
10.5 level - gain 1 Bonus Class level (7 Class levels total)
11th lev gain 1 bonus Class level (8 Class levels total)
from then on there are no more bonus levels. Just gain a Class level every level (unless your GM allows to take Templates instead of class levels).

I'm running 2 campaigns with monster PCs using this basic technique (with variations based on if the monster has spellcasting or significant spell-like abilities or is a Dragon).

Basically a Monster Martial Character is Stronger than a Standard race Character, but a Pure Spell Caster Standard Race is still more than able to hold there own in comparison. Oddly enough Monster Spell Caster builds are good buffers but as compared to the glass jawed cannon of the standard Wizard they are a nice mix of useful but not overpowering magic but also don't fall down if someone gets to them and hits them.

While I think the argument on RAW is pretty throughly on the side of "You get 1 Swift a turn and you can't use a Standard action to do a 2nd Swift" I do think there is one thing that I would like to see the Pathfinder team do as a result of this thread.

I would like to see them put together a clear definition of what Swift actions are in Pathfinder and how they are intended to be used in concept. For their own people as much as us.

While the RAW is fairly clear the RAI over the entire design team is a complete mystery which contributes to argument (and is the reverse situation of most arguments).

So, no trying to take two swift actions, just trying to use LOH, activate bane, whatever actual action that usually requires a swift action to perform to instead use your standard.

The required action type that a kind of action requires is surely a minimum. Are we saying that because you can move 30-feet as a move action that your not allowed to take two rounds to move 30-feet? That you're not allowed to take a single attack as a full attack just because you could do it as a standard?

This is where I and many others disagree with yoou.

The game designers clearly intend certain actionbs to be a Swift action because they want it restricted in ability to use, not simply because that's the minimum time it takes to do it.

While this is undounbtedly not always true, probably not even the majority of the time, it is clearly true some of the time.

So saying that you can just transform any swift action into a standard action is not a good idea and is also clearly against the rules.

There is confusion to the extent that a lot of people just assume that you can trade a Standard (or sometimes a Move) for a Swift on the grounds that it sounds obvious to them, and are surprised to be told that it isn't possible. I'm not sure FAQing it would help though, since finding out that there's no such rule by searching the FAQs isn't much easier than doing the same thing using the messageboards.

I've also repeatedly found people that think you can move and make 2 attacks using 2 Weapon fighting.

The tendency for people to think you can trade down and turn a Swift into a Standard or even a move isn't a problem with the rules, it's a problem with people (myself included) not finding in a casual scan and making up their own rule. Errata won't change how people behave.

And to be fair even that isn't to much of a problem. The real problem is when the rule is pointed out they've become attached to their house rule and insist that it's the real rule.

The rule is clear that you can only do 1 swift action a turn.
You can't convert Swift actions into other actions (this is separate in that you don't have to use abilities that convert other actions into Swift).
While in the majority of cases converting a swift action into a Standard would not cause a problem there is Power game jank that can be done with this due to the game designers using the "1 Swift Action per Turn" rules to control ability use frequency.

Point-buy, but for the next campaign I run everyone will roll and have the option of taking the rolls of the player that rolled the best. If more than one rolled well they can choose which set to take.

I really don't like rolling, but one of the players wanted to roll, and I was only going to do it if everyone had the same access to good rolls.

The 2 current Campaigns I'm running the players all rolled 4d6 - take best 3 for 6 rolls. Do that twice and put the results on the table.

As it happened both times 1 set of 6 rolled was better than the others and all players took it, but this gave them stats that could and was used to make a variety of characters well with everyone distributing their stats differently and no one could complain that someone had better rolls.

At the same time it avoided the min-max allocating of point buy.

Only one player didn't like it. The player tends to roll better stats dice than others and as it happened the group he was in all used a stat set he rolled. :-)

Raised in a game tonight. Can you have multiple Resist Energy spells cast on you giving you protection against multiple forms of energy.

A player raised the following rule from Stacking Effects.

"Same Effect with Differing Results

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

I've always played that you can use multiple castings to protect youself against a range of energies but this was a new interpretation for me.

Any comments would be welcome. I ruled that effectively they were different variations on "Resist Energy" and that your could use multiples so long as they were different energy types but couldn't find anything to clarify it.

Ouch, you are right. If the caster can stay alive long enough.
Every 1d4 damage would be 1 pt of bleed.
So lets take CL14 = 7d4 damage.

You start your turn adjacent next to caster you take 7d4 +1 damage and gain 7 bleed.
Start of next turn you take 7d4 +1 +7 blleding and gain another 7 Bleed damage.
3rd turn you take 7d4 +1 +14 bleed damage and gain aniother 7 Bleed damage (total 21).
Slow but funny.

Stephen Ede wrote:

They had dropped out of inititive.

Re: other posters comments on other PC's not caring - As for the other players trying to stop him. He attacked, then did a Coup de Grace. The others players didn't notice the initiial attack until just before the blow was landed and had 6 secs to try and persuade him to stop.
Short of attacking the Paladin physically or with spells how exactly were they supposed to stop the Paladin doing a Coup de Grace? And if the Sphinx had let the Wyvern go it would've fallen to it's death anyway.

If people think what the Paladin was OK that's fine. But justifying it on the basis of "the other PS's didn't really try and stop him, is ridiculous.

Oh cool you're back. Can you get the player on here so we can have the complete story?

I could possibly do so but I'm not sure that would help me manage the situation within the game. Indeed since the thread has significantly devolved into highly aggressive "sides" discussion I strongly suspect it could make the situation harder to bring to a mutually satisfactory resolution. And my game is more important to me than your desire to try and "win" a internet thread.

And by the way I completely disagree with your concept of the position of the GM in a game. The GM is not 1 person with an equal place on deciding how things go/operate.

IMO The GM, as the person that conceives and operates the world the PC play in, has significantly more authority on the rules of the game and what happens. They have to because if they aren't comfortable mentally with the world they are operating in their head then the campaign will rapidly come to an end.

This doesn't mean they have absolute authority and don't need to take player views into account. They most definitely do have to have to give weight to player views. But the GM has more authority than any other player, or couple of players, at the table so long as it's a game issue. And when I'm a player the same is true that the GM overrules me as man individual. The game is a cooperative endevour, but that's not the same as saying all people are equal.

Davick wrote:

Now you're just moving goal posts. Let me check my copy of Rivers Run Red for how large the dungeon cells are. Hmmmmmm, It's not saying. Let me ask my GM if a wyvern could fit in one BEFORE. I. KILL. IT. He said yes it could. Problem solved. You wouldn't have to worry about all that trekking to and fro and slinking if they had negotiated its surrender peacefully first. Something that in the 2 KM campaigns I've played was common with the more intelligent creatures. I inevitably ended up with a council that had kobolds, fey, and such on it. Running the damn country! And one of those games had a paladin in it.

I'll note that I had much the same experience with Kingmaker. It's a very good AP.

However I find it unlikey that the Brutish and naturally violent Wyvern is going to submit meekly and just follow along for you to imprison it.

Actually the PC's talking to it were in the process of explaining the idea that there are general classes of "not acceptable prey" rather than just individuals that weren't acceptable prey (which he had already indicated he understood) and had beaten the crap out of it relatively easily. They were going to try and convince it to become a member of their Kingdom with a significant chance of success. Where it would either purchase it's food or hunt creatures not on the "not acceptable prey" list.

Would it have made a sterling member of their Kingdom? Probably not. Would it have made an acceptable citizen that roughly followed the rules of their society. Probably. If you haven't noticed that your society has people who are inclined to be a bit brutish and physical bullies when they think they can get away with it, and yet still be functional members of society then I would respectfully suggest you haven't been observing your fellow citizens very closely.

To top it all of claims of land is silly at best and to flat out attack someone without warning is an incredibly evil act.

The Paladin attacked the Wyvern without warning.

So you are saying that Paladin did a evil act?

Or was it only evil when the Wyvern did it?

Just a note on attacking with surprise. Wyverns are Carnivore Predators. They attack/kill or starve.
As a general guideline I use (others may disagree)

Evil Sentient Carnivore Predators eat and kill other high order sentients and often do so from preference.

Neutral Sentient Carnivore Predators eat and kill other high order sentients but not by preference.

Good Sentient Carnivore Predators don't kill high order sentients for the purpose of eating them, but will eat them if they kill them for some other reason. Yes, that Gold Dragon will eat you if you are stupid enough to pick a fight with it that ends up with it killing you.

My definition - High order Sentience is a species that generally has Int 5+ (that is even the individuals of that species that have lower INT can be considered to have high order sentience) and individual creatures that have Int 5+ are high order sentients, even if their general species are normally high order Sentients.

Predators (using a non coloquial usage) are creatures that feed themselves through hunting other creatures. If they don't hunt, kill and eat other creatures they starve. Note: Hunting from ambush is a standard hunting technique and isn't generally seen as cowardly by most people.

In communities most people can keep themselves fed without relying on hunting even if they are large carnivores. In the wild large carnivores can not afford to be to picky or they starve.

Nice try but no. There is a huge difference between one creature and a group of creatures. There is a huge difference between the chase in the air through the woods and the aftermath of a group battle in a field near a hall. In your changed example you have created a gap of more than 12 seconds between when the gnome and sphinx start the parlay and when the paladin catches up. The characters never left combat rounds in the original example.

They had dropped out of inititive.

Re: other posters comments on other PC's not caring - As for the other players trying to stop him. He attacked, then did a Coup de Grace. The others players didn't notice the initiial attack until just before the blow was landed and had 6 secs to try and persuade him to stop.
Short of attacking the Paladin physically or with spells how exactly were they supposed to stop the Paladin doing a Coup de Grace? And if the Sphinx had let the Wyvern go it would've fallen to it's death anyway.

If people think what the Paladin was OK that's fine. But justifying it on the basis of "the other PS's didn't really try and stop him, is ridiculous.

It has just occurred to me that part of the problem may have been that the player considers death in Pathfinder to be a non-career ending injury. When the other players tried to convince him not to kill it he did respond "you can raise dead it afterwards if you like but I'm killing it".

I had mentioned to them that the other party I'm running through the campaign has as part of there health care system a Speak with dead and free Reincarnation offer to any citizen that is murdered. So this may've contributed to a feeling that death isn't serious. Although I have stressed that I have house ruled that there is a finite limit to the amount of times you can be brought back based on your Con score.

Did you warn him that he would be crossing the line BEFORE he did so?

Paladins (of any kind) are not meant to be a "Gotcha!" class. As a GM you should be working with the player to make sure a paladin never falls due to ooc misunderstanding or suchlike. If a player is about to do something you consider to be a Falling offense, ask him "Doing that will cause you to Fall. Do you really want to do that?"

It gets awkward if you forgot to do so, in the heat of the moment. But afterwards you start thinking about it and realize that you let it happen, without warning. At that point it's not fair to come back and make him Fall. But you do have to send a Message of some kind.

Plagueing the PC with god-sent nightmares for a while [preventing normal rest and recovering daily abilities], in which his deity is basically yelling at him and telling him to Make Things Right, Or Else, seem to be the way to go.

I had made previous warnings that when your party makes a deal with someone then you are included in that deal unless you have clearly stated you will not be part of the deal beforehand. And that Parlys are a "deal".