Imagine two identical rogues standing side by side. The rogues have the Opportunist rogue talent, Combat Reflexes, the Paired Opportunists teamwork feat, and Fortuitous weapon enchants on their longspears.
Now a lion charges the rogues head-on such that it ends up adjacent to both of the rogues. Assuming all attacks hit, how many attacks of opportunity are possible?
Here's what I have:
Each of the rogues gets two attacks from the lion's movement due to their Fortuitous weapons. Rogue A can use his Opportunist talent to get an additional attack because rogue B hit the lion. Similarly, rogue B gets his own additional attack through his Opportunist talent. Do any of these attacks allow further bonus attacks through the Paired Opportunists feat?
Paired Opportunists wrote:
What constitutes a "given action"? Does it have to be an action undertaken by the target? Consider that the Opportunist rogue talent fires off of your ally's action, not the opponent's. What about Fortuitous - does that also activate Paired Opportunists?
Suppose A1 and A2 refer to rogue A's first two attacks, with B1, B2, etc. being analogous for rogue B.
The most liberal interpretation I have is:
Lion moves, provoking A1, A2, B1, and B2 due to Fortuitous. A2 and B2 cause B3 and A3 respectively due to Paired Opportunists. Rogue B's hit permits A4 through A's Opportunist talent, which in turn allows B4 due to Paired Opportunists. Then Rogue A's hit permits B5 through B's Opportunist talent, which causes A5 due to Paired Opportunists.
So, 10 attacks at the most... but it could be as few as 6 if Paired Opportunists is interpreted to not allow any additional attacks in this scenario.
What sayeth thee, Rules forum? How many attacks, and why?
By RAW it seems that taking it off will bring you back to square one as far as having to then wait 24 hours.
Losing your permanent stat bonuses is a real pain. As a Wizard with a Headband you're changing DC's, spells per day, and skills. Then when you get it back you get it to some things but not others until your 24 hours have passed.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Value of time = value of scroll of mirror polish - value of polishing materials
The value of a person's time varies from person to person, and in this case it depends on the situation you're in.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
A wizard I played with once used prestidigitation to produce a shower of chalk that let us see an invisible familiar. We ended up crippling the quest's boss at the end from having eliminated the one ally the GM thought he was absolutely certain they'd have at the end even if we did everything else right (which we did).
I would expect it to work just like powder.
Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals whether an invisible creature is there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.
Morgan Champion wrote:
Hence the Thanatopic metamagic.
This is actually a bad strategy since the player can then charge them and attack them from an adjacent square. They'll still provoke if they five-step to shoot and if they try to switch weapons... they provoke.
In most situations it also doesn't make sense for real foes to target your items since the effects are long-term and in the short-term they're getting killed because they didn't do HP damage. You might try reasoning along those lines if your GM insists that he's trying to play your opponents 'optimally'.
Poison is not supposed to be used in pitched battle. That's never what it's been for. Poison is supposed to be administered in secret, by stealth or by guile. Sneaking into an enemy camp and poisoning their stew or wine, for instance. Or firing that one poison-dipped arrow from the shadows. If you're trying to use poison AFTER rolling initiative, you've messed up.
But the poisons aren't deadly enough for that to be effective.
I'm partial to the Mind Blank + Greater Invisibility combo, depending on your buff guidelines. There are plenty of ways to get around it (not True Sight or See Invisibility, though), but it's one more thing your opponent has to know how to counter.
Staff of the Master (Necromancy) is a handy item.
Definitely take Craft Wondrous Items if you can use it to double your WBL.
Feebelemind is a handy spell.
You could also be a Thanatopic Enervation/Energy Drain-mancer.
The Human Diversion wrote:
a 2nd level wand is 4500, not 1500
Wand price is Spell Level x Caster Level x 750.
As for the OP's contention, yeah it's true that if you're taking the Healing Hex anyways you're better served by a Wand of Hex Vulnerability than CLW. That is, assuming the target has lost above a certain threshold of hp and you're not topping off.
I just watched our 14 con witch have to burn 3 hero points and 2 combat-healing "rescues" from the party healer (me) to avoid dying (not just going into the negatives, 'cuz she did that) from "incidental" damage. She wasn't even being attacked, she just rolled crap for saves and happened to be within AoE while the villain was trying to stop the rest of the party.
It's stories like this that pushed me to spec Slumber Hex/Save-or-Die. It's not my fault!
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
My understanding is that it makes a difference, just not the one you were hoping for.
Awaken is also a great tool. Especially if the GM rules a mated pair of awakened Deinonychus produce awakened children. Allows you to have handlers in the exhibits without them being obvious to the guests.
Nature always finds a way. In this case, the way is somebody who thought Awakening the raptors would be a good idea.
If the box is full at 4 and then gets multiplied, then being told that I get a full box does not preclude me from multiplying.
If I say that a glass is full, you wouldn't assume it was overflowing ;-)
Any overflowing cup is also full.
More to the point, your physical analogy has no representation for the increase in damage from using a two-handed weapon.
Edit: Since we're using analogies, it's like... one car goes 20 miles on a gallon of gas and the other goes 30. Same full gallon, different consequences.
A magical curse that only targets one person and isn't contagious doesn't strike me as any better or worse than stabbing people.
You don't think torturing somebody to death is worse than killing them cleanly? That is, assuming this is a curse that does something nasty and gradual like make them starve to death.
Full means that it is not reduced, not that it is set to a specific amount. Nobody in the real world uses the word "full" to imply a restriction or diminish something.
Even if a monk were wielding a temple sword two handed she would deal 1.0 strength damage.
Do you have a source for that?
Flurry of Blows wrote:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
full =/= 1.0
Only some supernatural abilities are dependent on the body, others are granted by class (such as in the case of Witch hexes). Consider the following text on Polymorph spells:
Magic Section wrote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.
Shane LeRose wrote:
???? Reflex negates means that when you make the reflex save it'll negate the spell. It doesn't mean you get a save when it's cast. The description in the spell clearly states when the save takes place, and yes the spell is negated once the save is made. No where does it state what you're saying. I actually can't even guess why you'd think this.
Saves in that part of the block are normally assumed to occur when the spell affects a target. Compare it to Hold Person, which has a a similar entry but implies in the description that there is an initial save.
Because there's lots of ways for a caster to cast spells in such a scenario. And it only takes one spell to instantly disappear and come back mad as all hell.
Maybe I'm ignorant, but it seems to me that there aren't all that many, especially at lower levels. Few people prepare Burst Bonds on a typical day and Dimension Door isn't going to guarantee a successful escape.
She has played thé part of major source of info. As thé bbeg just looks at thé party as a minor annonce right more them thé real threat to his power they will one day become. She is lawful evil to à tee so she shouldbt be hacking innocent people, but an disagreement on what to do with à child pickpocket could be fun. The beat part is there hasnt been à physical side to their little love story, à couple (dates or interactions) but she always leaves him hanging. She does understand hé is à paladin of Srenea, and like to point out that their vids have even worked together before.Thanks for thé opinions and advice keep them coming .
You can hand-wave it if you like, but Antipaladins are chaotic evil.
I won't claim to be an expert, but examining the problem it seems like your best bet is to run a simulation to approximate the answer. I threw together a spreadsheet with 50 trials and all of them managed to get to 12 before 1000 rolls.
edit 2: justaworm, obviously you did way more trials so your results are more probable, but I'm surprised that your averages for 11 were so close to the ones for 12.
His stance on sale price is RAW iirc, the appraise bit is an optional rule.
The only things I really disagree with from that list are loot/CR, material components, and blank rooms. I guess the role playing part, too, but I do think that you should emphasize roleplaying between characters rather than talking about your interaction with the barmaid.
As for your question, I certainly disagree with my GM at times. He often takes a non-RAW approach when I think RAW is fine, then takes the RAW approach in situations where I think the rules aren't well-designed. I think it's just a matter of accepting that you won't always get your way (but speaking up if a particular issue is a big deal to you).
Whoops, the 20-point stat block I have above should have 14 Wis.
Hayato Ken wrote:
Dex builds do very low damage on a non-sneak attack. They also tend to get combined with Two-Weapon Fighting which puts you behind when doing anything other than a full attack (and sometimes even then). As a Ninja, one of your main features is being able to vanish and then sneak attack, but that only applies to your first attack. The fixation on dex-based TWF rogues (or ninjas) is one of the reasons they are seen as a poor class.
Hayato Ken wrote:
This can work with 3-4 levels monk and rest ninja.
Yeah, you'd want to get to 4 so you can get the Monk's ki pool and +3 BAB. Sacrificing BAB on a sneak attack character is a bad idea.
Arthur C. Clarke didn't write Pathfinder and his opinion has no logical basis (because magic doesn't exist).
Also, I definitely wasn't clear enough with my prior comment. I meant that you are already suspending disbelief because magic exists in this fictional world. Not to mention a bunch of other animals that would be physically impossible (yet continue to function in an AMF, if we go that route).
And let's not get started on the whole magic thing.
Edit: Looking at it from another angle, would you argue that a squirrel-polymorphed character should have his mental stats adjusted?
Edit 2: That kind of reminds me of Animorphs.
Yeah, this isn't a situation that has actually arisen, just a thought that occurred to me. It's interesting how complicated everything seems all of a sudden, even though objectively we kill evil NPCs all the time who might have families. Not that I'm saying the game has to reflect that kind of conundrum, it's just food for thought.
The hovering force is just flavor for the +4 Armor bonus, except where the rules specifically state otherwise. It's not sensible in a simulation sense, but then neither is the idea that it doesn't stack with a physical shield.
It should be apparent how relative matters become when discussing alignment, especially at the societal level. I'm sure those who actively pursued the witch trials felt they were doing God's work and following the mandates of the Church; hence, it could be argued they were behaving in a Lawful Good manner (from a gaming perspective). However, living under those conditions must have been tyrannical and brutal; hence, more of a Lawful Evil environment (from a gaming perspective).
Insofar as they were deluded and not actively lying/exploiting the situation, they could still be LG.
@blackblooktroll, Hmm: It seems like the tone isn't as oppositional as you're suggesting.
Prevention is good: