Well, I was actually part of the table that initiated this entire thing. I have 4 wizards who all used EFS and up until I took a good look at the rules involved, I thought that immediate actions could interrupt. Once I had analysed the rules and talked through it with the person who used EFS to interrupt a spell, we have come to the conclusion that we were using the spell incorrectly and that immediate actions do not, by default, allow you to interrupt other actions.
So we have two interpretations right now.
1: "Any Time", this interpretation says, as long as you are not flat footed, you are capable of using an immediate action. This is based on an exclusive interpretation of the PFS rules set. Unless it says you can't, you can.
2: "Can Not Interrupt", this interpretation says, you can use an immediate action during the same times you can use a swift action and on other peoples turns, as long as you are not flat footed. This is based on an inclusive interpretation of the PFS rules set. Unless it says you can, you can't.
I see both interpretations as reasonable interpretations with one primary question. Can immediate actions interrupt other actions?
Contingency is not a good example for a couple reasons. First, contingency bringing in the affect of the second spell is not an action. So we are not discussing the same thing. Second, you write the rules for when the second spell will be triggered, you are writing your own timing rules in this case.
James Risner wrote:
I don't care about EFS, that is another one that keeps bring brought up that is muddying the discussion.
I am not adding rules, I am interpreting the lack of a rule in the general and the inclusion of a rule in the specific to mean that the general is excluding the rule.
Immediate action(general): Does not say it interrupts.
My interpretation is assuming that, because abilities that can interrupt explicitly state they can interrupt, if an ability does not say it can interrupt then it can not.
The ability to interrupt is the specific exception that is being discussed. People keep quoting "any time" but the phrase is not defined by PFS and in no way states that you can interrupt an action. The spells and abilities that allow you to interrupt explicitly state that you can interrupt. There is no rule that allows immediate actions the default ability to interrupt other actions.
You have a turn based system, 1 round is 6 seconds, not 1 players turn. If you have 6 players and 5 enemies, a round is not all of a sudden 66 seconds long. Stop trying to wedge real world concepts into small portions of rules while ignoring larger portions that simple do not fit.
Immediate actions can by used at any point during the round but can not interrupt other actions because it does not explicitly state that it can.
James Risner wrote:
The opposite is the case. You have restrictive timing on immediate actions, and a bunch of abilities that are less restrictive as they are granted exceptions to the restrictions of immediate actions.
I am going to try and clarify my understanding of the immediate action limitations one more time.
I have already posted the immediate action entry from the PRD so I will not do it again.
Immediate actions can not interrupt an action in progress. If someone declares a standard action of casting a spell, an immediate action can not be taken until that standard action spell has fully resolved.
If someone declares a full round attack, you can use an immediate action. Once they start their first attack action, you can not use an immediate action until that attack action is complete. But you can take an immediate action in between each individual attack action.
*All of this has the standard disclaimer "Unless an ability says otherwise".
I think the swashbuckler deed dodging panache is important here. It is an immediate action which interrupts an attack in progress to gain a dodge bonus to ac. The attack cannot be adjusted or adjusted or retargeted, the deed happens during the attack action. Immediates are capable of interupting an attack.
Dodging Panache is very specific and designates exactly when you can use it. This actually fits with the interpretation that immediate actions do not interrupt, those that do specifically explain when they can.
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;
This is a rules question and was put here by request of John Compton to discuss the interaction of immediate affect abilities.
There is no ambiguity, and I am not making up rules, please remove the vitriol and insinuations on intention. I am looking at the rules in place. Now, the difference between readied actions, attacks of opportunity, and immediate actions. I have spoilered to make the quotes from the PRD easier to read.
Readied actions and Attacks of Opportunity explicitly state that they can interrupt actions, as you will see in these quotes from the PRD.
Readied and AoO:
Readying an Action wrote:
Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character.
Making an Attack of Opportunity wrote:
An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
Immediate action and the swift actions it is based on do not state that they can interrupt actions.
Immediate and Swift:
Immediate Actions wrote:
Swift Actions wrote:
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.
Readied actions are defined as being able to interrupt actions.Spellcraft is defined when it can be done, as not an action, when the spell is cast.
Immediate actions are as swift actions, and neither are defined as being able to interrupt. All immediate actions/spells/abilities that can interupt have explicitly defined when the immediate action can be taken. Specific > General.
As I posted above, immediate actions do not give the right to interrupt others actions. Once someone starts casting, it is too late to use your immediate action, unless the text of the spell/feat explicitly states otherwise. Emergency Force Sphere does not give you the ability to interrupt casting, only to cast it on someone else's turn.
After a discussion with another player, I am seeing a slight flaw in most peoples assumption of RAI specifically regarding immediate actions.
At no time does the definition of immediate action, or the swift action rules it references, indicate that you can use an immediate action to interrupt another characters action. You can use it at any time, even someone else's turn, but not during another players action. Searching through other feats, actions, and spells that are 'immediate', they either explicitly state they can interrupt, or they are not intended to interrupt.
I think the clarification that is needed, that would leave the spell legal and quell most or all of the dislike, emergency force shield can not be cast after an enemy has declared it's action. Are you targeted with a spell or full round attack? Too late to use EFS. Did an enemy just move up to you and looks really mad? You can EFS before they start their attack.
Subscription order still pending.
My card was declined because the bank issued a new one with a new expiration date. I unfortunately failed to update the card information in time. It was updated immediately after I received the notification on 4/07/2016, however the entire subscription order is still in a pending state. Can this be nudged along?
Jack Brown wrote:
Greater Possession is definitely an option. I was liking the Apostate devil for the CL 18 blasphemy which, if everyone makes their save, will do 2d6/2 strength damage for 2d4 rounds, and paralyze everyone for one round. The 1d6 wisdom drain on a +28 with a 19-20 crit and boundless reach is pretty nasty as well. Though 1d6 ice wall creatures would be fun to split the group up.
Auke Teeninga wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
It does not, the casting time for wish is one standard action no matter what spell effects you wish to duplicate.
Steven G. wrote:
Spoiler conversations. YAY!
That is still only 25,000gp in diamonds when hard mode gives him 75k. Resurrection hits right at the limit for wish to not require extra materials. I have been trying to figure out what the other 50k in diamonds could be intended for.
I have been prepping it for a couple weeks now. I have some surprises in store for them I think should be entertaining if they work.
Once the fight turns bad for Kurshu, she is going to use a limited with to cast unconscious agenda on a low will target. They will be instructed to help Krune when he awakens.
His wish will be used to cast greater planar ally to summon an apostate devil, the extra diamonds he is given in hardmode should cover the cost. I could not think of another good way to use the excess diamonds.
I have spent the last month GMing the series leading up to waking rune. I have been prepping for the finale since the start. I will be running hard mode 10-11 on Saturday and have come across some discrepancies that have not been called out elsewhere.
Hard mode has you replace a quickened summon monster five for a summoned monster nine. This would lead to a break in the Thessalonian specialist and where I noticed the discrepency. Rune lord krune follows the archetype except for spell level 7 and eight. And spell level 9 on hard mode.
I know I should play as written, but this scenario is hard enough without the discrepancies. It's also why I am limiting myself to hard covers and rune lord specific material for the npc tactics.
Any thoughts beyond the three year old GM prep post?
The rules may not be as clear as some would prefer. But given what we have available to us and the general intent of rules to not allow loopholes for free resources, I would rule it as a shield with shield spikes. The shield rules being the closest comparison.
MW Heavy Steal Shield: 170gp
MW Full plate: 1650gp
If you do not pay 320gp, the gauntlets come with the armor and bestow upon you no more benefit then explicitly stated, your unarmed attacks now count as lethal damage and do not provoke attacks of opportunity. The gauntlets that come with your armor are made in the same style/material as the rest of your armor, but gains no additional benefits beyond what is listed as the benefits with the armor as a material.
My reasoning for the limitation of armor gauntlets vs weapon gauntlets (I understand there is no explicitly difference, I am using the terms for ease of my own description.) is that in the absence of explicit rules, the general rules apply. The general rules are that you have to expend resources, money, in order to receive benefits, a weapon in this case.
edit: correct the price of the gauntlets so you are not paying for the base twice.
"All who are willing combatants against me do so at a forfeiture of their life."
Most of my characters have a stance that if you are willing to use lethal force, then you have given up your right to blind mercy. If you are forced against your will or do your best effort not to cause undo harm, then the same respect will be shown to you.
I say most because I also have a rogue that does not kill anyone that he does not have to. Devout follower of Serenrae and a firm believer in redemption. I also have a character who will likely be draining the life force of any living yet unconscious enemy he can find. One who probably forgets about the enemies as soon as they are no longer a threat and thus cares little for them or the morality of her party members.
Fair enough, make the rewards a bit more accessible so it does not seem 5 months away so why bother. If it is 2 gm credits for the reward, but it's on 5 characters, that is 10 tables GMed. While 5 tables for 5 characters seems insurmountable.
I could agree with these points, as long as I understand them correctly.
I did a check at my local game store for GMs over the past 6 months.
Given that, is your desire to split this because you want the rewards for GMing without having to GM as much? Or is it simply because your characters and GMed tables tend to not match up thus spreading the GM credit too thin across all of your characters?
My response would be dependent on your response. If it's the first, then simply GM more and help take the pressure off your fellow GMs.
If it's the second, would this benefit the goal of the GM faction goals as a whole by getting more people to GM? Or is this simply a corner case that you unfortunately fit into?
You are not required to carry a physical character sheet. And the reason was, if the GM needs to see your character sheet, they did not want the responsibility of your tablet in someone else's hands.
New ruling is available here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t9az&page=11?Will-I-be-allowed-to-use-a-di gital-character#531
Natural 1s wrote:
I am looking for examples ofRing of protection combined with Cloak of Resistance uses rules for
Multiple Different Abilities wrote:Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.
There is a part you missed:
3 An item that does not take up one of the spaces on a body costs double.
So a single slotless item with 5 magical affects each costing as you described would be
(1×(9000) + 0,75×(4000) + 0,5×(4000+1000+1000) ) x2 = 30 000 gp
EDIT: Best example I can see would be the "two spells of different levels 6th or below" pearl of power.
Then rounded up to 70,000 for simplicity.
metamagic: persistent, quicken, extend
If you want a new body, use polymorph any object on a Diplodocus to turn it into... anything you want really. Then use extended greater possession and enjoy your 200+ hitpoints and 40 strength. Just refresh the greater possession every morning.
Ethereal Gears wrote:
The initial Will save to disbelieve a (shadow) effect is not a mind-affecting effect, though, right? I mean, I get that, for example, an undead creature would be immune to any spell you could mimic via Shadow Enchantment, since all enchantment effects are mind-affecting by definition, but the same undead wouldn't automatically succeed on its Will save to disbelieve a shadow-conjured Create Pit, I assume?
Shadow Evocation wrote:
Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell.
Only objects automatically succeed, undead are creatures. Yet objects can still be affected by shadow spells, percentage of the damage or percentage chance of being affected.
Edit: Let me fix my reasoning a bit. Shadow spells are not mind affecting thus are not by default stopped by immunity to mind affecting. Shadow Enchantment specifically states that
Objects, mindless creatures, and creatures immune to mind-affecting effects automatically succeed at their Will saves against this spell.
Undead have no special immunity to shadow evocation, conjuration, or transmutation.
The spell DC for all saves on all of the shadow spells are equal to the save DC of the shadow spell, if you raise the DC of shadow evocation, you are raising the will save to disbelieve as well as the reflex save to resist fireball. Persistent, greater spell focus illusion, even overpowering mind, affects all aspects of the spell. Greater spell focus evocation as the spell is not an evocation spell.
Simple reasoning for this, the spell descriptions specifically say the emulated spell uses the shadow spell level for its DCs and no where specifies that other modifications to the shadow spell do not.
So the guide says, 'If the player is playing a non-1st-level pregenerated character, he may choose instead to apply this Chronicle sheet to a 1st-level character by reducing this value to 500 gp (or 250 gp for the slow advancement track). "
I am in the process of GMing all 5 of the waking rune arc, can I apply them, all slow tracked, to a first level character? I understand the unique boons would not be available until 7. I would rather bypass 1st level than 7th.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Not really a fan of Cons, just don't like the large crowds. Why exactly does PFS only seem to enable the other races for the Convention players?
I am also not a fan of cons, but if I were to guess at the reasons that the race boons are only available at cons, there would be a few.
1: Control the release of special con boons to maintain their value. If you are a slot 1 GM giving up your soul for 4 days and your reward was a race boon you could get for showing up at your local we be goblins game, there would be little value to it. Which leads to...
2: Get people to volunteer to GM at cons. There are many more only players than there are GMs, this problem is multiplied at cons. They give out boons for GMing to tempt more people into GMing.
3: To tempt new players into the game. The large cons of more non-PFS players that can be tempted and swayed by special unique to this con rewards for trying out a new game they may get hooked on.
As I said, I always roll it out. Yes I can see arguments where either way will work, and probably would hand waive it depending on the specific circumstances.
But as a counter argument to your pay twice...
Besides, if he gives his services away for free then the Aspis win.
I agree completely, that's what I was saying. If a scenario breaks the rules by explicitly saying so, then it is allowed. If the scenario does not say you can do it, then you can't.
I have already said it twice...
You can only use the core rule book for summon monsters unless explicitly stated elsewhere. Stat blocks in scenarios that EXPLICITLY say you can summon gibbering mouthers, allow you to summon gibbering mouthers.
If the stat block does not EXPLICITLY say you can summon gibbering mouthers, then you can not summon them. GM status means nothing here.
As of now, no. Note the "unless explicitly said otherwise" part.
This happens fairly frequently, pathfinder scenarios do not have their stat blocks or tactics restricted by Pathfinder Society legality. Whether or not the GM was right summoning gibberish mouthers, I have no way to tell without knowing the scenario and the specifics about that encounters stats. But it does not bypass what I said, only explicit;y said otherwise, you are limited to the core rule book for summons. That encounter may have said otherwise.
I think I tend away from multiclassing, though I do occasionally dip.
-1 fighter 10, cleric 1. Pure thematic choice, the dwarven fighter got drunk and became an accidental cleric of an accidental God.
So looking at my builds, knowing the 11 level limit has led me to the opposite outcome the op has observed.
Effective Druid level 15 would give you a 12 HD animal companion, that is within the level +1 limit stated by Mr. Compton. The feat states that your effective druid level = character level -1. Not class levels that do not grant an animal companion.
Yes, this would work. Just like it does for the diabolist's imp companion.
Human Animal Speaker Bard
Full bonus only apply's to training the kind of animal chosen with Animal Speaker.
I would say it is more along the lines of, if you do not have enough anatomy to be sneak attacked, why should you have enough anatomy to do fine manipulation of spell components.