Total Biscuit's page

So, going through the creature type entires, I noticed that onstructs, undead, and elementals are specifically noted to be immune to bleed - but oozes and plants aren't, and nor are inevitables, even though they're noted as having all the other immunities of a construct.

Also the Bleeding Attack rogue talent "can cause living opponents to bleed" - 'living', not just 'creatures with blood'.

Do do all living things 'bleed' regardless of physiology? I could possibly stretch to the idea that non-blood creatures are just leaking different vital fluids, like sap or something, but I really can't imagine, like, a treant gushing sap from a wound to the extent of mortal danger. And oozes are just puddles of liquid to start with, unless they've all got some kind of membrane or something. (Unrelated: they're not listed as immune to sickening or nausea, either.)

Is there any rules-block that clarifies bleed? I know of the glossary entry, but it doesn't have anything about the above.

So adamantine weapons get 1/3 more hit points than an equivalent weapon of common metal. Also, every +1 enhancement added to a weapon gives it +10 hit points, according to the footnotes on this table.

Do magical adamantine weapons get an extra +1/3 of the enhancement bonus hit points, too? My initial instinct was no, since enhancement HP is being added as a separate thing after the weapon's construction, but since the average item's HP is between 2 and 20, that would mean your incredibly expensive adamantine weapon has at most a measly 6 HP more than a common-metal weapon, so now I'm not so sure.

(Of course, it does also have hardness 20, which might rather make up for it.)

Does the opponent provoke a melee attack of opportunity from my ally, even though he's now out of my ally's threatened squares?

Yes, he gets hit before he completes the movement that takes him out of range. In the Attacks of Opportunity rules, they have a diagram showing AoO examples; if you look at example #3, the sorcerer in the bottom-right, you can see that he provokes an AoO by moving away from the ogre, even though his movement ends outside of the ogre's reach.

I can't remember where, but I recall reading once that in terms of order of events, AoOs happen before the thing that provoked them. So if someone provokes an AoO by standing from prone, for example, you can't use an AoO to re-trip him, since he's still considered prone until after the attack. For threatened squares, they're still in the square they tried to leave until after you make your strike.

Moving 5 feet isn't the same as a 5-foot step. For example, if you use a move action to move 5 feet, that can still provoke AoOs. I can't remember the specific source to hand, but under the rules for hampered movement the PRD claims:

Move 5 Feet through Difficult Terrain

In some situations, your movement may be so hampered that you don't have sufficient speed even to move 5 feet (a single square). In such a case, you may spend a full-round action to move 5 feet (1 square) in any direction, even diagonally. Even though this looks like a 5-foot step, it's not, and thus it provokes attacks of opportunity normally.

- which implies that even if you move in a way that looks like a 5-foot step, it's only AoO-free if it specifically is a 5-foot step. Since being Bull-Rushed out of a threatened square isn't a 5-foot step (or a withdraw action), then 5 feet of movement would be enough to provoke the AoO with Greater Bull Rush.

As for taking a 5-foot step off-turn... huh. I always thought 5-foot steps were swift actions, but they're listed as 'no action', apparently. Still, I don't think you can take them off-turn, since only immediate actions are listed as usable off-turn, and 'no action' still isn't an immediate action.

EDIT: Derp. I am thick. 5-foot step rules are just further down the Combat rules page. See here.

I can't find the relevant description in Paizo's rules, but D&D's description of a slam attack states here that "the creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage." I imagine it as a kind of flailing gorilla-smash type of thing.

Hi all. Is there a hard and fast rule for calculating damage to objects done by an ooze with the acid-per-full-round-of-contact thing? (It's late, can't word properly, apologies :P )

The d20PFsrd says here it's 10 + 1/2 HD + Con. But the PRD entry for oozes doesn't include that line, and it seems quite hit-and-miss for most of the oozes I checked out.

For example, a Black Pudding deals 21 points to objects per round of contact, has 10 HD and a +6 Con bonus, and so fits the rule (10 + 5 + 6 = 21). But a Gray Ooze deals only 12 points per round, despite having a +8 Con (although I note that 12 is still 10 plus half its 4 HD - did they forget / choose not to add its Con to the damage?).

Meanwhile, a Putrid Ooze has 15 HD (round down and half gets 7) and a +7 Con, so the rule gives 24. But it does 30 points per round (and also its Reflex 23 DC seems to be off, since DCs generally are supposed to follow that rule, as far as I'm aware).

So is there a solid rule on the damage, or is it more an art than a science?

There's a 3.5 monster that did this, actually: the Sunwyrm, of Fiend Folio. It's a dragon that constantly glows like the sun, and to hunt, it puts itself between its prey and the sun so they can't see it coming.

This probably isn't much help, of course, since 3.5 isn't strictly Pathfinder. (And a rogue isn't strictly a Sunwyrm, I suppose. :P )

Yeah, weirdly, Reduce Person doesn't have any rules for what happens when the spell wears off and you don't have room to return to normal size...

Would you just be considered to be squeezing? Assuming a small creature is half the size of a medium creature (I'm 99% sure it is but can't remember for certain off the top of my head) then a medium creature can still fit in the space he occupied when small, he just moves half speed and takes penalties to attack and AC.

If he was already squeezing as a small creature when it wore off, then he'd need Escape Artist to get free, I think. No idea what the DCs would be, though.

Ah, thanks for the clarification!

So difficult terrain only hampers movement when you move into it, and not when you move out? Hm. I may have been playing that wrong the whole time.

Hi all. Brief question about the charging rules.

So the rules on charging state:

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.

I'm wondering about the definition of "through" here.

Let's say I want to charge an opponent, and the path is otherwise clear. But he has one square of difficult terrain directly in front of him, and my charge will end in that square.

Can I charge him? My charge movement has taken me into that square, but since I haven't passed out the other side, my movement hasn't taken me through it. Is this a legit interpretation, or would an ending square of difficult terrain still invalidate a charge attack?

Cheers for the assistance.

Heh, so I can shoulder-barge someone and throw them 25 feet without moving myself? That's awesome :D

Thanks for the clarifications, everyone.

Hi all. I poked around in the search for half an hour but couldn't find an answer; apologies if I've just got the blinded condition, here.

So I play a lot of 3.5, and in 3.5's Bull Rush rules the SRD states:

If you beat the defender’s Strength check result, you push him back 5 feet. If you wish to move with the defender, you can push him back an additional 5 feet for each 5 points by which your check result is greater than the defender’s check result.

The SRD specifically notes that if you want to push someone further than 5 feet you have to move with them.

But the rules on Bull Rush in the Pathfinder PRD state:

If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back 5 feet. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD you can push the target back an additional 5 feet. You can move with the target if you wish but you must have the available movement to do so. If your attack fails, your movement ends in front of the target.

The wording here seems to be saying that in Pathfinder you can push someone to the limit of your Bull Rush check without actually moving any extra distance yourself - you can move with them 'if you wish', but it doesn't affect the distance the enemy moves.

Is this intentional? Was Bull Rush changed so you can knock your foes backwards witout needing to move yourself, or is it just a case of vagueish wording?

Cheers for any clarification.

Are all nightflowers female? Seems like they could be either, but the writeup doesn't specify. I don't see why males should be the only ones tempted by insidious cacti spirits.

I'm not fond of the assumption that being alluring and seductive means "feminine."

Not a fan of monsters that appear to only come in one gender and play on a specific negative trope associated primarily with that gender. RAW, this doesn't fly with me as a GM and would get rejected by my players.

Yeah, I wish I hadn't written it that way now. It was supposed to be a sort of desert cousin to the dryad, and I didn't spot the unfortunate implications until after submission. Might have spotted it with a second proofread, but the monster idea didn't occur to me until the morning of the final day...

Four even ability scores!

Aw, horseapples. I knew about the three even / three odd thing, but I thought they earned another point for having four hit dice.

Concentration is not a separate skill in Pathfinder any more.

Aw, double horseapples.

I get the spines ability and have used similar effects for creatures I’ve designed, but this ability is worded poorly and should have used the same language as other similar abilities.

Triple. I originally did copy it from the thorn body spell, but I ended up cutting it down to save on words.

Should the save DC for the Cactus Milk be higher when it is delivered via kiss than when it is dispersed via breath? The Living Shiver entry took this into account for its similar ability.

I figured it wouldn't - the drug it's based on, Pesh, is 'ingested or inhaled' and uses the same DC regardless. I did, however, forget to note she has to grapple to kiss unwilling victims, or that she can't kiss and feed in the same round, or kiss with her teeth out...

I agree that Petal Form does give the nightflower a means to avoid combat that is somewhat inappropriate for its CR. But I had another thought in regard to it: the nightflower could easily infiltrate a building by mixing itself into a bouquet of flowers delivered by a servant. Or children could be recruited to walk by and toss flowers about near the windows of the targeted location. Even someone casts Detect Magic would not be likely to catch all the flowers in the effect, especially if the first dozen children are found to be throwing mundane flowers.

Hah, that's originally what they did! In the first draft they were flower-spirits from Absalom's Petal District and used this form to hide amongst the flowers in the daytime.

Less ties to the name though, I know a lot of cactus bloom at night, but how does this tie into this fey?

I didn't like the name either. In the flower-spirit draft they were called 'Passionflowers', but after I gave them their cactus makeover I just brain-froze on the name. There's some very interestingly-named cacti out there, it turns out (Aaron's Beard, Rainbow Hedgehog, Big Nipple...), but nothing I could turn into a good monster handle. Eventually I found they bloomed at night, and it was two hours before the deadline, so I went with that. Then I found out that Golorian's sun-god is known as the 'Dawnflower' and panicked over the accidental association. As it turns out, that's the one thing no-one seemed to pick up on...

The Ugly: I'm so so on this being urban, feels like a monster you started before the hook was announced.

Heh. I did have a fey that got destroyed by the urban requirement, but it was nothing like this. I think most of the nightflower's problems come from being started so late after the hook was announced, in honesty ;).

Thanks all for your comments and criticisms, and for voting me to the top 32. I'll win next year instead. :P

Cleats of Unsubtle Entry made me grin. And the item itself wasn't shabby either.

I have to agree with RonarsCorruption - that was my first thought when I read this - Metamagic rod. I hadn't seen it during the voting, but it would have gotten my downvote almost always because I feel that this is skirting the wondrous item requirement of the rules. Just like many submissions are really magic weapons in disguise, this is really a metamagic rod in disguise.

As for the effects, I'd be far to concerned how this could break the game - spells already target certain saves for a reason - a mind affecting spell should have an easier time affecting a non-spellcaster in general, and spellcasters and high wisdom characters should have a better defense around this.

Congrats on making it in, and while I know your monster is already submitted, I'd caution against skirting requirements like this - it could negatively impact your votes going forward.

Yeah, I was worried about that when I submitted. Then I realized a couple days later it would have worked much better as, say, a material component - more wondrous, less abuse potential. Skin of the Frog Queen, maybe. But thank you for an honest appraisal!

I liked this and upvoted it during the voting. Nice mechanics that fit the flavour.

Congrats!

Thank you!

I really like this item except for one critical caevat: It's a rod of metamagic, just wrapped differently so it qualifies for the contest.

Drat, someone noticed :P I was a bit miffed I couldn't make it less rod-like - but I guess I shouldn't complain if it got me through...

I'm pretty sure this item is actually broken. The requirement of just poison is a bit weak for what this item does. Poison represents the result, but there's are elements of change and mind-affecting here, and that should be reflected.

Yeah - I thought I'd find something closer to what I wanted, but alas. I even considered a prismatic effect at one point - they're pretty much the only spells with a 'magic poison' in them. Or I'm pants at searching.

Well done Total Biscuit! Superb item name. Great flavour and well written. You can go far in this competition.

I like the 'Metamagic Rod' style pricing and power levels applied to a Wondrous Magic Item.

After reviewing above feedback the submission is almost flawless. I've managed to add two lines of clarification but this takes the item over 300 word count limit so it's understandable why such statements weren't originally included.

Protections against mind-affecting effects still apply - it affects the mind, just in a different way. I did want to add a line clarifying poison resistances etc work as normal, but yeah, word limit. Just assume anything poison-related works as normal unless otherwise stated :P And thank you for your appreciation!

Totally didn't see this during my voting, but I wish I had. This is one of my favorites of the Top 32. Flavorful and useful.

Congratulations Terry,

Though I think it could be reigned in a little, you took a provocative theme (fort saves from wil saves) and wrote tightly. It shows a designers with the catching of spells like absorb toxicity and toxic gift. I expect you will go far. :)

Good luck on R2!

This was a good item that at first made my eyes loll in my head a bit...but once I buckled down and read it through I liked it. It wasn't my favorite but it was neat and weird. So well done!

Thank you!

Oh good. I'm not the only one submitting ridiculously close to the deadline, then. Just put mine in.

No relation to the Youtube video game reviewer of the same username, I take? Did a bit of a double take when I saw the name.

No - I named myself before discovering him. He's a fan of Terry Pratchett too, it seems ;)

Evening all. I'm Terry, I'm 28, and I hail from that land of everlasting rain they call the UK. I almost studied Chemistry at university, and then decided on English. I now help carry washing machines for a living.

I found D&D at university, and I've played 3.5 rules for seven years, on and off. I've watched this contest for a while but I've never entered till now, so making the top 32 from the get-go was... surprising, heh.

Format fail.

Well, Applesauce. I presume it was the spacing? I didn't want the writing to be all bunched up, but it seems I overdid it, heh. Also I didn't italicize 'fetish' in the last lines...

The writer really thought through the consequences and interactions with other spells.

I thought this had a lot of unnecessary complication

I actually thought this item up based on the D&D rules, when I only had delay poison and neutralise poison to worry about. Then I did an idle search for poison in the PRD spells and had a mild panic attack at what it brought back. ;)

The writing is precise and finely wrought.

this was my favorite item during voting.

This is one of my favorites.

This was my favorite item mechanically. Well thought out and a great name.

All in all fabulous.

And now I'm hyperventilating. Thank you all!

Well, I'm panicking now.

Thankyou all, voters and judges!

Now I've got to go and totally respec my monster because I was just browsing through the third bestiary and found something that does EXACTLY WHAT MY MONSTER IS SUPPOSED TO DO ARGHASDLKJASLFSDFFN

"This".

I was going to submit an item, and for the life of me I couldn't get the sodding thing to work. The mechanics were clunky and stupid and overpowered and abusable and ARGHBLSAHFL. So I ditched it and made something else.

Then I'm going through the voting and damn me, someone else had the exact same idea as my first item. And it was simple and pure and did exactly what I'd spent frigging weeks trying to wrestle with.

I voted it down out of spite.

(No I didn't.)

*sigh* I wrote out a long, detailed post only to have it vanish when the site went down as I hit the submit button.

If you use Firefox, get the Lazarus Form Recovery addon. It auto-saves everything you type so you can just instantly reload forum posts if the site goes all seppuku on you.