Thunder_Child's page

I think both. If you cannot see where the spell is taking effect, it fizzles. Line of effect is a given.

So that is simply a guess then, no ruling?

I'm wondering if while concentrating on a spell do you need to have both Line of Sight and Line of Effect or just one, or neither?

I'm wondering if while concentrating on a spell do you need to have both Line of Sight and Line of Effect or just one, or neither?

General question: Since double weapons are wielded in two hands when attacking with both ends, if you Power Attack while TWF, do you get the -1/+3 benefit as if it was two handed? If so, does it apply to both ends?

Specific question: I'm in the midst of converting Curse of the Crimson Throne into Pathfinder for my home group, and I'm working on Krojun right now. Krojun has a feat called Thunder and Fang which allows him to dual wield an Earth Breaker (a normally two-handed weapon) with a Klar, treating them as a double weapon. What bonuses does he use when he Power Attacks with this combination?

"A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it."

Using both ends is equivalent to 2 one handed weapons and so no you would not get the benefit of a 2H weapon.

As for the specific question it would be the same as using a double weapon.

On the plus side, in this case, there in no penalty for failure, so you could take a 20 on the tumble check or just try repeatedlyuntil you roll well enough to suceed. Think of it this way, you are ducking and weaving until you can slip past them without bumping into them.

I would say you could not take a 20 in this situation since you are distracted and threatened. Just because they can not take an attack of opportunity does not mean they can not make attacks against you.

With enough training you can do some amazing things, and despite what you may think something is designed for time and time again people have shown that you can do the unexpected.

As a side note, there are times when you may want to stop them but not trip them, such as when you have a range heavy party.

Hey guys,

When a wizard gets a new level, how many spells he knows from this new level?

Spells Gained at a New Level: Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, he gains two spells of his choice to add to his spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels he can cast. If he has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from his specialty school.

Is it possible to make a targeted dispel magic against a held spell?

In my last game the BBEG cast and held a Bestow Curse. Then one of the players cast dispel magic on him. We rolled high enough to dispel the highest level spell on the target, in this case it was Bestow Curse. The DM ruled that this was viable as it was a 'cast spell.'

It doesn't seem right to me, but that's how it went.

I'm wondering how other people would rule it or if there is a hard and fast for it.

FAQ

while I agree with the James Jacobs quote, I love how he stated that "All bonuses are retroactive when an ability score increases, be they bonuses to damage..." I could see this in a game:

Player to GM: "You know that Orc who got away 3 levels ago? Since I gained +1 STR, does an extra 10 points of damage drop him?"

GM: "What??!?"

Player: "Well, all bonuses are retroactive. I figure that I hit that orc 10 times during that combat, at +1 damage per swing, that is an extra 10 points of damage that he should have taken!"

It works both ways.

GM: "My NPC Wizard str drains you for 9. Remember those 15 guys you killed to get the caster? well they are all alive again and standing behind you."

Int

"Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics as appropriate. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses."

As well as just underneath that is a post from James Jacobs.

You make one roll per opponent no matter whether he threatens 1 square or 10 that you are trying to tumble through.

PRD=Move through a threatened area.
Notice that it does not say square. The threatened area is the entire area he can reach. Due to the fact that an opponent may threaten multiple squares you will have to move at half speed through all of them so in the Ogre example he would need a lot of movement to pull it off.

We talking about the same place? I'm reading:

"In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics."
Acrobatics

That says square to me.

The AoO happens just before you leave the first threatened square. The opponent cannot wait till you are on another threatened square to take it.

The OP was talking about dancing around the target, each time it is provoking, however the target can only take it once. The target can choose when to take it, but you have to decide if you are going to tumble through a particular square before you move. I'm not sure but I think you have to roll for each square, you cant use one roll for all of them....but I could be wrong.

And instead of just submitting a sheet of things that might be worded badly or incorrect in someway. How awesome would it bee to have a meeting where you bring character sheets and and state your turn.

"I teleport 50ft. and burst for 15d6. That's my move action."
"Huh? oh, this character is level one."

It's listed in the ranger section.

Favored Enemy

Umm...what? Tumbling doesn't let you dodge any AoO thrown at you; it lets you not provoke the AoO to begin with. Smart or not, the enemy doesn't choose whether or not to attack because the attack never has a chance to happen.

Sorry, I should have said 'should you fail.'

Could you provide a citation for the assertion that you have to 'declare.'

I don't see a reason to force a character to reveal his exact path to an opponent before making the move. An intelligent opponent should be able to figure it out for himself.

You don't have to declare your whole turn, but you do have to declare if you are going to tumble through a square before the opponent decides to take an AoO.

Note: you have to declare the tumble before the AoO takes place. So if it is a smart enemy it may not take the attack on the first tumble, thereby denying you more movement.

Also note that even a monster/creature with Combat reflexes could not attack you more than once for this triggered action.

Thunder_Child wrote:

It's my understanding that the PrC's spell out what you get.

You'll note that the wording does not reference a table, but rather says that in this case (spells known) you gain everything as if you had advanced in sorcerer.

-James

It doesn't reference a table, that's kinda my point. If you notice cleric goes out of it's way to specify that it does continue. I would like this to be true (since it would help me) but the rules don't really support it.

You have to think of this as leveling in a completely different class, with some exceptions. And when multi-classing you would never get abilities of the other class, and in this case the bloodline spells are specifically spelled out in the abilities sections.

It's my understanding that the PrC's spell out what you get. And nowhere does it say you get abilities of that class (items in the special column of the class table.) Since this is the case, and the bloodline spells are listed there, it would seem to me that you do not in fact get them when leveling up in another class, which is what this is really.

No, it`s not like saying that because the PrC text explicity excludes benefits such as Feats.

As mentioned, it also explicitly allows `additional spells/day` gained from ADVANCING IN THE CLASS,
which is applicable to Cleric Domain Slots and Specialist Wizards.
Why should Sorcerors not gain Bloodline Spells Known when those Classes gain those Class benefits?

If I encounter any mechanic in the game that depends on whether you know a spell or not, and I know that spell via Bloodline, I am going to say that indeed that is a known spell for me. Just because the Spells Class Feature has it`s own sub-section dedicated to Spontaneous Spells Known doesn`t mean other Class Abilities also don`t give you bonus Spells Known... Again, the PrC wording says you gain spells/day, spells known, etc, AS FROM ADVANCING IN THE BASE CLASS, not just specifically from the Spells ability. Likewise, PrCs can themselves grant Spells Known, like the Rage Prophet does.

MAGIC CHAPTER: Casting Spells: Choosing a Spell wrote:

First you must choose which spell to cast.

If you're a bard or sorcerer, you can select any spell you know, provided you are capable of casting spells of that level or higher.

So, if Bloodline Spells are not known spells, it looks like you can`t cast them.

Sorceror Class: Bloodline wrote:

At 3rd level, and every two levels thereafter, a sorcerer learns an additional spell, derived from her bloodline. These spells are in addition to the number of spells given on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known. These spells cannot be exchanged for different spells at higher levels.

As I said before, it uses the exact same phraseology that you `learn` these spells, and it further clarifies that these are `in addition to... Table: Sorceror Spells Known`, but that you can`t exchange them. That it say `in addition` and then clarifies AN EXCEPTION to the Spells Known rules is a clear indication that these Bloodline Spells in fact ARE Spells Known, because otherwise why would we need to be given an exception (re:...

Clerics get it because the book goes out of it's way to specify it.

Automatic failure and automatic success only applies to saving throws and attack rolls.

Is this spelled out in black and white ANYWERE in the rules or can someone Ref a rule that is related in someway?

It's said under each section.

For example under saving throws:

"Automatic Failures and Successes

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success."

Saving Throws

Are wrote:

When using skills, 1 is not an automatic failure, and 20 is not an automatic success.

Automatic failure and automatic success only applies to saving throws and attack rolls.

Thats what i thought but i had to ask. Anyone know where this is in the rule book?

There is nowhere that says that, it's only specific when auto success/failures are the case. However you can look at the take 20 section which in no way ever suggests that taking a 20 is an auto success.

Well then yes -- you probably are an evil person. As evil (in system) is defined by enjoy causing others pain and anguish.

So you have that going for you ;)

Oh good, I would hate to think I have wasted my time for nothing.

Thunder_Child wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Thunder_Child wrote:

I would specifically get some play-testers that are very good about finding loopholes and other ways to break the game. Hell, you could make a contest out of it.

I volunteer. I will do it completely for free. I'm good at doing the rules lawyer thing.

So am I, and my GM's hate me for it.....does this make us bad people?

I do it for my GM's. Everyone in the area knows they can call me to get help with rules, and I can help the GM's remember the NPC abilities so they don't get screwed because they forgot something has evasion, or see in darkness or whatever.

So no -- it's a tool, just like any other it's in how you use it.

Fair enough. I do it to make my GM's pull out their hair and nerf my abilities. Still, I enjoy myself.

Thunder_Child wrote:

I would specifically get some play-testers that are very good about finding loopholes and other ways to break the game. Hell, you could make a contest out of it.

I volunteer. I will do it completely for free. I'm good at doing the rules lawyer thing.

So am I, and my GM's hate me for it.....does this make us bad people?

Varthanna wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Thoughts?

More playtesting next time. :)

Yeah, playtesting every portion of a book of this size would mean that we would not get much else done that year. It takes long enough to playtest the key sections.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I would specifically get some play-testers that are very good about finding loopholes and other ways to break the game. Hell, you could make a contest out of it.

Thunder_Child wrote:

A full round action means you use all of the actions you have in a round, whether it be one action (move) or multiple actions (a standard turn).

What?

It's a type of action. A full-round action requires an entire round to complete.

If you move 20' then cast a spell, that's not a full-round action, that's a move action and a standard action. If you move 30', then again move 30', that's also not a full-round action, it's two move actions (or, more accurately, a move action and a standard action used to move).

And it doesn't use all your actions, just the equivalent of move and standard. You can perform a full attack (Full-round action) as well as a swift action and free actions.

As for charging, "Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions" could be read either way, meaning Charge is still a full-round action, thus can't be Readied in a surprise round, or that since it's taken as a standard, that it could. I think it's DMs call, barring an unexpected input from the Devs Above.

Correct, poor choice of words on my part.

Looking under charge I see where it states that you can charge when you only have a standard action, but nowhere does it say that it is a standard action. "Taken as a standard action" is not the same as "is a standard action."

Thunder_Child wrote:

You can not ready a full round action.

We are talking about a partial charge, which is what you use when you are limited to a standard action each round, like when you are slowed. The rules are less clear on this point. We allow you to ready a partial charge if you have made no other movement.

A full round action means you use all of the actions you have in a round, whether it be one action (move) or multiple actions (a standard turn).

I don't even see why this is a question. Charging is a full round action. You can not ready a full round action. Even when you are limited to a standard action, charging is still a full round action.

mdt:

I never said anything about options. I was just pointing out that the house rule gives you the best of both worlds and seems to be counter to what was envisioned.

Unfortunatley that does not define "Deady Wounds" just how to treat them. I assume that they are hp damage taken from physical attacks, not lost due to poison, drain, etc.

Hitpoint damage is hitpoint damage. Con damage/drain is something else, but treating deadly wounds should cover all things that affect current hp as opposed to your hp cap.

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Are wrote:

Kain Darkwind wrote:

The houserule essentially means that there is no reason, ever, to not cast defensively. The core rule forces a choice.

That's a very good point. Choice is good :)

Right. Now, if you wanted to trim the fat out of your houserule, it would go like this.

"When casting a spell, you first make a concentration check. Failure means you provoke an attack of opportunity from any foes who threaten you."

I still feel it is lacking compared to the Core, but at least it does not present a false sense of option.

I don't see your argument as lack of choice.

Yes, you should always cast defensively with this house rule.

You then have the option to either continue casting if you fail, and take the AoO, or lose the spell and provoke no attack.

It's still a decision. If the caster has a high AC (Cleric in Full Plate for example), then maybe he wants to take that chance on the hit missing. If it's a sorcerer with a 13 AC, maybe he'd rather lose the spell.

The point is with this ruling, why would you ever not want to cast defensively? There is no downside.

On the "I chop him if he moves or casts".... What's the limit on things you can assign on a readied action? I was under the impression that I could only assign a single "thing" to a readied action?

I don't know that you would want to assigned a whole list of things to a readied action. I have rad it a few times but I am not clear on the limits of a readied action and how many different criteria you can assign.

Readying an action

3) Scroll, yes, he's casting a spell from a spell completion item. Wand is up to your GM. Potion I'd say no, he's not doing what you said you were looking for. As a GM, I'd let you attack on a scroll or wand (those can be offensive) but not the potion (that's defensive).

"In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract."

Grated you said potion vs. extract, however this is something to keep in mind.

Thunder_Child wrote:

Though as a free action your opponent can drop prone, denying you your AoO....sadly.

How? You can only take immediate action when it's not your turn. Dropping prone is a free action that you can only perform on your turn. Unless I'm missing something.

You are correct. I have always played that you can take a free action when it is not your turn as it specifically says it is less than an immediate action, however it does not state you can, with the exception of speaking.

After looking over Overrun and Charge Through, this would not be possible as Charge Through specifies 'one' creature. So you could do
'Brb A Z'
but that would be all.

The barbarian ability Overbearing Onslaught allows you to make multiple overrun's but it does not say 'during a charge'.

So as far as I can tell RAW says no.

It seems to me like so much of the character is invested in building off a move that as far as I can tell, can be bested simply by not resisting the overrun. Am I missing something?

From improved overrun "Targets of your overrun attempt may not chose to avoid you."

Klebert L. Hall wrote:

(3)No, you can't disarm-loop, or trip-loop.

Could you perhaps elaborate/be more explicit on that one? From your answer (especially the "no", as I didn't ask a yes-or-no question exactly), I don't feel like I really understand the AoO timing that I was unsure about in the first place.

As far as I understand it they are triggered before the action completes. EG. if someone triggers an AoO by standing up from prone you attack them while they are still prone (you get the +4 to hit).

I would drop this whole thing on top of a level one cleric with the travel domain for the extra +10 move. So as a base move you would have 50 move speed. Then if you really want to have fun get the Exploration sub-domain and now you can have 80 ft. of single action movement for 1 min per day via expeditious retreat.

Though as a free action your opponent can drop prone, denying you your AoO....sadly.

Thunder_Child wrote:

In this situation you actually would not lose your initiative position since interrupting a creature with a readied action puts your initiative before the creature you interrupted.

In this example that is true. In general, your initiative does drop. If there was someone in the initiative order between when you readied and when you acted you would go after them.

For example:
Merisiel
Orc A
Valeros
Orc B

Merisiel readies to attack when Valeros flanks. So, Valeros triggers Merisiel's readied action but for the next round the order looks like"

Orc A
Merisiel
Valeros
Orc B

In this situation

since BigJohn42 was referring to a specific instance.

DGRM44 wrote:

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

I would like to ask for more clarification. Could she move into position next to the Orc and then as a standard action ready her attack for the trigger of when Valeros moves forward and attacks...I should say the trigger is right after Valeros attacks. She could then do her ready action of attack?

As I understand it, there would be nothing wrong with moving into melee combat, then readying an action to attack when you are flanking.

The only problem I see with this is what if Valeros doesn't/can't move into the flanking position? She's not only used her move action, but is also tied into a specific readied action ("If this happens, then I get to do that").

**EDIT**

Readying an Action wrote:

Initiative Consequences of Readying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don't get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again). If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.

You still lose your spot in the Initiative order if you Ready an action. Considering this, there's really no good reason I can think of to not just Delay.

In this situation you actually would not lose your initiative position since interrupting a creature with a readied action puts your initiative before the creature you interrupted.

Smaller doesn't necessarily mean shorter, it could simply have a smaller diameter as compared to a medium but with the same length. Think needle vs. toothpick, more or less the same length but the toothpick will do more damage.

I could certainly see an easier sunder attempt made against a small weapon vs. a medium in this situation.

Ranged attacks are great if you don't use lots of foes with good AC, or good DR, or make them keep track of their ammo, or let them get away with shooting into soft cover, concealment, and poor illumination without penalty. So yeah, if you give them encounters tailor made for them and disregard the rules they are better than melee fighters.

"AC" well my + to attack is about as good as a fighters. You may say "Well when you do your multi-shot or rapidshot or both with deadly aim your attack goes down" This is correct, however A. I don't HAVE to do it. B. I can use it once i have made a few ranging shots to figure out it's AC i can adjust based on my dificulty, a melee character can not suddenly make multiple attacks with their sword for less attack.

"DR" Yes, this does hurt my dmg on multiple attacks, on the other hand i don't have to get up close and personal with the target to do my dmg....fair trade off imo.

"Ammo" yea, i keep track of my ammo, I have a decent str though so it's not a huge issue, + we have mounts.

"Cover, Concealment, Illumination" We most definitely play with all of those, and players will point out when the DM messed up, even if it hurts themselves. Again the trade off is not having to go into melee combat, which i find acceptable.

As a note I seem to do just fine, however the guy up there complaining about "Ranged" Rangers is my DM, and he has nerfed some of the abilities mostly because there is no way for him to "tailor" the encounters to counter that since this is a module.

It depends how you build your ranger. There are ways to E&E via spells and ways via the ranger variants in the advanced players guide, as well as potions. But the whole idea is tactics, make sure not to get into those situations in the first place.

Though I do think that rangers should get acrobatics as a class skill.