True Strike's page

Well if i'm stepping on any toes here, then i'm truly sorry..

I am listening to what people are saying.. but when 1 says i might be right, and another says i am wrong.. then it's considered shouting on my part, for trying to get my point across ?

Found my reference text. It's from 3.0 and states:

For purposes of harming other creatures with damage reduction, a creature's natural weapons count as weapons of the type that can ignore its own innate damage reduction. The amount of damage reduction is irrelevant.

So it's older then i thought. But i still think it's noteworthy..

Well peace out.

Creatures with DR/silver do NOT hit as if their natural weapons are silver. (unless otherwise stated on a specific creature)

Creatures with DR/adamantine do NOT hit as if their natural weapons are adamantine. (unless otherwise stated on a specific creature)
Creatures with DR/cold iron do NOT hit as if their natural weapons are cold iron. (unless otherwise stated on a specific creature)

Source ?!? your are interpertating lack of content/text one way, I am another. I refer to other rules mentioned as RAW, and the fact that if you want to hit a 400 pound guy, you should expect the 400 pounds to hit you back.(well i know it's not gonna be a 400 pound hit.. metaphor)

You refer to the material being absent in the race decription and hence not possible to hit as that type.

But what is true in the absense of content/text? I'd like to hear what other people think.. as we apparently agree to disagree

I wrote TWICE that alignment hits as alignment.. if your alignment is lawfull, you hit as lawfull.

I never wrote that if your alignment is lawfull, and have x/chaotic that you hit as chaotic. I know you hit as lawfull.

Hence my statement that:

(as RAW)
Lawfull hits as lawfull
Chaotic hits as chaotic
Evil hits as evil
Good hits as good
Magic hits as magic
Epic magic hits as epic magic

(following same train of thought)
Silver hits as silver
adamantine hits as adamantine
Cold iron hits as cold iron

And epic weapon (+6) negates all above

And yes chaotic evil deamon hits as chaotic evil, and can't overcome another deamons DR as it's x/good..

My point is that it should read x/good or another deamon

Ok Quatar.. here's one last try..

I GET that you have the opinion, that damage reduction is an added toughness, that works agains everything BUT the written damagetype.

WHY can't you see, that my point is, that they HAVE TO HIT with exactly that kind of damage, when EVERY other example in RAW says the same?

No race in the recorded history, is unable to hurt a creature of the same type with a bite, slam og stinger. Imagine a lion not able to hurt another lion for the alpha spot.

Vulnerable in Pathfinder means DOUBLE damage.. so vampires are not vulnerable vs silver, as silver does not double damage. Silver just negates the damage reduction like "Light" negates "Darkness" and virsa versa.

If I still can't get my point across..then i give up trying to get through.

Sigh..

The +4 was a in regarding to the adamantine quality, not the magic.

The converted to pluses is in regarding to RAW, converted might be the wrong word, but english is not my main language.. so give me a brake.. you know what i mean.

Again.. as a GM i COULD give the stone golem some adamantine knuckles, problem solved. but I shouldent HAVE to.. again:

why does adamantine not hit as adamantine ?

All you guys are saying, is that they just have to gear up so solve the problem. I'm saying if 2 alike, pur as hell, creatures stuble upon eachother in a dark ally and get into a fight, it's not making any sense in my book, that they can't/have truble, hurting eachother.

As Eridan wrote:

For DR/special materials there is no rule but i would rule it in the same way... I think i was intended in this way by the developers.

And I think that the:

x/magic (+1 or +2) hits as magic (+1 or +2)
x/epic magic (+6) hits as epic magic (+6)(hence everything)
x/alignment hits as own allignemt

confirmes it. Well that's my 2 cents worth.. seems I'm almost alone on thes one.

EDIT:

Sorry Eridan diden't read your post correct. I agree with your:

Vice versa a golem breaks DR/adamantine but DR/silver and magic are still effective because is counts as adamantine weapon and not as a +4 weapon who breaks DR/adamantine.

Ok..

As i said, i SEEMED to recall a rule/faq/statement regarding overcoming your own damage reduction, can't remember where or when.

Here's how i see it:

The only thing that can cut a diamond, is another diamond

Hence:

If it requires a adamantine (+4) weapon to hurt a stone golem, when the golem strikes back, you would be hit with same the force/power (+4)

Everything is converted to the magic "pluses" now, a +5 pretty much takes care of everything, even alignment.

The bestiary says:

x/magic (+1 or +2) hits as magic (+1 or +2)
x/epic magic (+6) hits as epic magic (+6)(that's +1 to +6 hence everything)
x/alignment hits as own allignemt (still think it's stupid in a deamon vs devil war, that they have truble hurting each other)

so why does (+4) not hit as (+4)?

EVERY other creature aspect counts in DR. The x/material is the only circumstance not mentioned in the text, regarding to the "hits as".

I'm sorry.. i'm not trying to be stubborn or anything.

I get you don't think it does by RAW. My point is that, there's nothing written about subtype (material), everything else is stated perfectly, so I have to fall back to previous rules (3.5) and realism.

I'd just like to see what the consensus was on the subject.

A vampire that wants to hurt another vampire will not use its natural weapons, period.

Sorry mate.. that makes absolutely no sense.. in a werewolf tribe throwdown, the werewolfs doesn't pause the fight, to go fetch their silver swords..

For DR/special materials there is no rule but i would rule it in the same way... I think i was intended in this way by the developers.

Agree

Well they could.. but then they won't have the stats from the bestiary, but be GM improved.. and then anything is possible..

As far as I recall.. in 3.5, there was a rule, that states that a creature can overcome it's own damage reduction. I can't really tell, if it's still the case in Pathfinder.

I get that a creature with x/magic has natual attacks that can overcome x/magic (according to the bestiary)

But what about subtypes ?!?

Example:

2 vampires going at it. They both have 10/silver and magic. Do their natural attacks overcome the others vampires damage reduction ?!? they both hit for 1d4+4 + energy drain, but are immune to energy drain.

If they do not.. they can bash at each other until the world ends..

War/fights between one's own species for power/wealth/food/mates are rather common.. seems kinda stupid if you can't hurt your opponent..

I get that one of the vampires can get more crits, but they have fast healing soooo -> until the world ends :S

The first paragraph defines what drawing a weapon is, if that definition doesn't apply to the second paragraph, one must devise a wholly new definition.

It doesn't...

If the definition does apply, then, since drawing weapon-like objects are included in the definition of drawing a weapon, then, by the 2nd paragraph, one could draw a weapon-like object as part of a move.

You can't..

People keep refering to "might", "should", "could", "common sense" and "realism"..

The text is right there.. you just have to read it. ---> IF <--- the devs. intended the rule to apply to wands, rods ect. they would have written so. They would have stated that the rules from paragraph 1 would apply here too. They SPECIFICALLY state weapons only and not "weapons and weapon-like items" it's only 4 more words.. come on..

If that is not enough, try to put it in context people. There's a feat called "Quick Draw" why the hell would there be a feat that dosen't allow a wand, rod, ect. to be drawn as a free action, but a rule that allows you to do it for free ?!? Where's your "common sense" here ?!?. Why even take this feat if you can pull out all weapon-like-items (aka everything.. said perfectly by wraithstrike) for free ?!?

If that's still not enough. Then resite these words again and again:

"IT'S ALL ABOUT BALLANCE NOT REALISM AND COMMON SENSE, THIS IS FICTION"

Well I for one, am moving on to other threads. If i'm proven wrong by an official faq, fine by me.. but this is a closed case in my book :)

If anything can be considered a weapon then anything can be used with quickdraw or drawn while moving no matter what it actually is.

couldn't say it better myself..

+1

What the person winds up doing with whatever they pull out should be immaterial. The question should be, "Is the act of retrieving one three-foot long iron spindle any different than the act of drawing another?"

Arguing about whats realistic and whats not, is rather pointless in a game of d&d where monsters and magic are more commen than not. It's about game balance, nothing more. All the rules are there to make sure everything is balanced. Thats why they wrote that it's up to the DM to manage the rules, but that he should consider the ramifications of changing them.

For me it's a balance issue. "insert former example about maximize rod here"

I'm pretty confident that you can draw a wand during a move if you have +1 BAB. They don't repeat the "weapon-like objects" clause in the following sentence because it would be redundant and a waste of space. Seriously, I can't think of a way to word it in without it looking silly.

Weapon-like is not the same as a weapon, there's been a ruling on this one.. can't remember the thread name :(

It is not that much space and treating something like a weapon in once instance does not mean it is treated like a weapon in all instances. If so a clause saying weapon-like objects are always treated like weapons would have handled the issue.

Your right on the money about this one. The following is from a thread regarding skillpoints.

James Jacobs (Creative Director) Apr 14, 2010, 12:23

All bonuses are retroactive when an ability score increases, be they bonuses to damage, to skill ranks, to hit points, to saves, to skill checks... all of them. Skill ranks not being retroactive are a 3.5 convention we specifically removed from the game because it was a weird exception to the rule, and since now there are no exceptions to this rule, there´s no need to specifically state that skill ranks are retroactively granted if your Intelligence goes up.

If you compare that to the text in Draw a weapon or Sheathe a weapon which states the precise requirements rather thoroughly, there's not much room for interpretation. Now i know a counter argument could be made that there´s no need to specifically state as it is implied in the first paragraph. My point here is, why devide the paragraphs (paragraphs indicate you start on a new subject) and not just add everything under the same paragraph, saving the precious text space. Why not just write wands again in the second paragraph (it's 2 or 3 words.. come on people space issues?!?). Why is it not possible to do it with feats (Quick Draw).

Depends on the Rod a good number of them funtion as weapons and therefore can be drawn under those circumstances anyways.

This one i'm pretty sure of. "Functions as a weapon" is NOT the same "as" a weapon. There's been a dev ruling on this one.. regarding a empthy hand adept monk and using "functions as a quarter staff" and a standard quarter staff..

But anyways.. as i said.. the rules are pretty clear. What people do is up to them :)

2.If that was the correct 3.5 way then it should work in PF, assuming the words did not change. You can't have the same words in both games with different meanings barring PF dev intervention. In short the 3.5 isn't PF is not an argument since the game is backwards compatible.

There are gazillion books for 3.5.. books that let's you do pretty much anything. Pathfinder is a back to basics book. Yes it stats that it's backwards compatible but if you go that way, why not just stay with 3.5? In my party (as DM and player) we exclusive use pathfinder materials. To each their own.

PS:In 3.5 you could draw wands that way according to the Rules of the game articles and the 3.5 FAQ since they count as light weapons for the purpose of drawing them.

3.5 FAQ wrote:
Does drawing a wand from a wand sheath provoke attacks of opportunity or can I draw it as if it were a weapon? If I have Quick Draw, can I draw a wand as a free action?

As described on page 142 of the Player’s Handbook, the “draw a weapon” action also applies to weaponlike objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. (The Sage would suggest that magic rods and staffs also fall into this category.) Thus, drawing a wand doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, and a character with Quick Draw could draw one as a free action.
Wands and rods (but not staffs) also fall into the category of “light or one-handed weapons” for the purpose of drawing them in conjunction with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (see page 142 of the Player’s Handbook).

The Sage would suggest

emphasis on "suggest".

Now if people wanna go house rule it.. be my guest, but as a DM i would never allow it.. there's a big difference on drawing a weapon and hitting ->1<- mob once over the head, then let's say a sorcerer with a bloodline and trait that enhances lightningbolts or fireballs and a lesser maximize rod, who can pull the rod out doing a move.. go into position and dish out 60+ sure damage.

I don't see the fuss on this one.. rules are quite clear.

1) "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon" is divided into 2 paragraphs, first one tells us that handling anything is a move action. Second one gives us an exception aka the +1 rule.. but this one mentions weapons, and weapons only.

2) "Manipulate an Item" again tells us that it's a move action.

3) "Quick draw" feat doesn't even allow it. (And we're even talking about using a feat here)

4) "Gloves of storing" is made for this exact purpose.

So to sum up.. retrieving from a easy-reach-container (aka scroll case, potion belt (something we kept from d&d 3.0 FR campaign setting), tuck into belt ect. ect.) IS A MOVE ACTION. Only a weapon (on the weapon list, again see quick draw regarding alchemical weapons, wands ect.) can be drawn doing a -> regular <- move.

As i said.. seems quite straight foward :)

Hey guys.. thanks for the responses :)

First off, I am aware the most of it is the DM's call. The thing is, the DM and I have played together for more then 20 years.. so he knows how I like to make power builds and find loopholes (as he LLOOVVEESSS to make really tough encounters, so it's kinda needed to survive in his campaigns).

So the reason I ask here, is because I don't have the time (due to work, RL issues etc. to go through the rule set with tweesers and a magnifying glass) anymore, and to be frank, people are rather good at reaching a consensus here, so we often refer to the ruling most people can agree on.

And in this case, I justet wanted to "do my homework" before making the character. Because I know that the minute he gets my 3d6+gazillion damage to his main boss.. he'll spend every waking minute trying to neutralize that threat (It's kinda the dance we do he he). I make a paladin to smite his evil bosses, and he makes a antapaladin to smite me.. oh well.

Just wanted to know if I missed anything, as i stated, if a Cavalier can't get to charge the class is broken.

Hmm.. well that kinda sucks. Why make a class that's unplayable :( I get that the mobs can't do s##! but wait for me to attack, if they ready, which is nice for the rest of my party.. but that stale mate for me and the boss fight is unbearable as the main damage dealer.

Guess I have to grab "Lunge" too.. then problem should be solved

:)

I charge towards the orc, when I am 10 ft. away from him I can hit him with my lance since it has reach. BUT the GM has readied for me to get into that 10 feet reach and takes a 5 foot step towards me. Now i'm 5 ft. from the orc and can't attack him since it's a reach weapon. The ready action from GM does not provoke AoO since it's only a 5 foot step.

When I move on with my Ride-By-Attack I will eventually reach the 10 ft. required for the lance to reach, but the orc will now be behind me. So this is where I reach the closest space from which I can attack the opponent.

Ride-By-Attack does not provoke AoO either. So do I get to hit him or not? :)

Hey guys..

I'm planing on trying out the Cavalier, and I have some difficulties sorting out the math on the stated subject.

Example:

I am a halfling Cavalier on a riding dog. My char is a 1-hit-trick-pony.. meaning maximized for damage on a charge with a lance. I have mounted combat and Ride-By-Attack.

Scenario: 1

Me and my group faces 6 orcs who are 30 feet away. They are clustered but there's a nothing between us, aka free line of sight, and no difficult terrain. I lose the initiative rool, and the GM (knowing that I always charge - as this is my build) readies an action to move a 5 ft. step and hit me when i am 10 ft. from the orc, thereby closing the distance before i can finish my charge. Now when he's done with that, do I get to finish my charge if I move on with the Ride-By-Attack? Charge quote: You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent doesn't state the space has to be in front of me, and the closest space is now when he is behind me. There is no Facing rule in pathfinder as I recall.

Scenario: 2

Same as before, but GM moves his orc out of my reach away from his fellow orcs. Do I get to follow him when my turn continues, as Charge no longer states that the charge has to be in a straight line (see quote from scenario 1) but only Charge quote: Directly toward the designated opponent.

Scenario: 3

Same as before, but GM moves his orc out of my reach and in between his fellow orcs with his ready action. When I reach the square where I was planning to hit him and he evades, his comrade is reachable. Do I get to name the new orc as my target when my turn continues?

Finally:

As stated, charge doesn't have to be in a straight line, but Ride-By-Attack does Feat quote: continuing the straight line of the charge. So following example 2, can I follow the orc with the charge and continue onwards in a straight line from there?

If none of the above is possible, the class is utterly broken, as a simple ready action can circumvent everything :(

I's welcome advice, or ideas on the matter :)

Hey.. if I choose to have an animal companion too at lvl 4 with my Sacred Servant, is my effective companion lvl -6 ?

pala -3 for cleric -3 for druid ?

Just wanna hear your thoughts on this one.. I am planning to make a Pala with a single Holy Vindicator level, takeing damage away from the main damage dealer on my self and heal it as a swift action with Lay on Hands..

But..

Do I loose my Vindicator's Shield bonus if I do? As technally there's no To Hit vs my AC but only transfer damage and effects..

I suppose you could use deadly aim on a ranged touch attack by RAW. But you don't get the bonus damage so what would be the benefit.

Damnit.. your right.. missed the "The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage" part :(

Just have to go hunt for other feats, items or spells that adds to the bombs damage then :)

I don't see it. What lets you bypass the you can't use deadly aim on touch attack rule in that?

I'm not sure I understand your question. "Deadly aim" states ANY ranged attack can make use of this feat (a ranged touch attack is still a ranged attack). My point was, that people argumenting that the "Deadly aim" text states the damage is precision and hence can't be used according to Thrown splash weapon page 202, are wrong as bombs can crit (hit a vital spot). There's a difference in "have to be precision" (that's what the "based" means) and "able to be precision"

ANY D20 attack roll can crit, that goes for bombs too.

You don't roll for the splash damage, and hence don't crit on the splash as stated earlier in this thread. >>BUT<< as the splash damage is a byproduct of the direct damage, you get the bonus from crit anyways (the higher the main damage, the higher the secondary damage APG page 19). This is only the case for alchemist bombs. Other thrown splash weapons don't get this bonus as their splash damage are fixed at 1

Here's an example:

I roll a natural 20 and confirm my crit. I'm lvl 7 so my bombs do 4D6. I have an Int of 20, and the Point blank + Deadly Aim feats. I'm within the 30 feet range, and a Half-Orc with 7 damage bonus favored lvls.

The math will be as follows:
Direct: 2x 1D6 +3D6 +2x (+5 (int) +1 (PB) +4 (DA) +3 (half-orc))
Total = 5D6+26 making the minimum damage 5+26=31 and as mentioned ealier: splash damage = minimum damage.

My group and I made a lvl 10 one-shot adventure where I tried out the melee version of the Alchemist (7 lvl alchemist and 3 lvl Master chymist) diden't really pan out, as he took a few rounds to get into high gear. So for the actual campaign i plan to go ranged insted, focusing on bombs and AOE damage. I've read and re-read the rules, forum and official FAQ's and the following is the RAW data.

(GM has the final say ofc. but tweeking a character is not against the rules, and possible with all classes and races)

RAW

"Splash damage from an alchemist bomb is ALWAYS >>EQUAL<< to the bomb's minimum damage" (page 28)

My alchemist bomber is build around an Half-Orc with maximum int and the "Deadly Aim" and "Point Blank" feat.

SO:

Direct damage:
XD6 + Int + Point blank + Deadly Aim + Half Orc bonus damage (APG page 19)

Splash damage:
XD1 + Int + Point blank + Deadly Aim + Half Orc bonus damage (see RAW)

AND

Crit direct damage:
XD6 + 1D6 + 2*(Int + Point blank + Deadly Aim + Half Orc bonus damage)

Crit splash damage:
XD1 + 1D1 + 2*(Int + Point blank + Deadly Aim + Half Orc bonus damage)

Thrown splash weapon page 202 in the core rulebook stats that bombs can't be used on precision BASED damage. So damage that is dependant on precision like sneak attack and skirmish is out of the question. BUT IT CAN DO precision damage like crit and "Vital Strike" (on first D6) so "Deadly Aim" is viable.

SO
what i've made is a high end AOE damager. With sticky bombs for extra splash damage the round after on the direct target.. he's in for a lot of hurt. Combine that with Force bombs, and there's no longer any saves or damage reduction from ur direct target, force resistance only, and splash victims can REF for half

Heya all..

The Advanced Player's Guide page states on page 27 that the Alchemist Mutagen is a transformative elixir.

So my question is.. is it possible to use "Amplify Elixer" to enhance the duration of the Mutagen by 50%

And/or

Use "Alchemical allocation" to "drink" the Mutagen without drinking it.. thereby making it possible to keep the Mutagen for as long as one has a Alchemical allocation to use instead.

Both spell states that they effect potion and elixirs.