Wraithlin's page

Phew...... this is one serious headache inducing thread! A final ruling would be great.

Based on what I've read in this thread it actually seems somewhat simple: Gauntlets can be used as a weapon or as an attack modifier on unarmed strikes.

If used as a medium weapon they do d3 lethal damage and can be enchanted etc. etc. You can't apply any other unarmed feats or modifiers except where explicitly those can be used with an Unarmed Attack (e.g. stunning fist).
e.g. When using the gauntlet as a weapon, its damage dice does not grow with monk unarmed damage, the same as if wielding any other monk weapon (e.g. Kukri).

If used to modify unarmed strikes, then they are not being used as a weapon and any enchantments (+1 Enhancement, Flaming etc.) are not applied to your attacks.

The point is you are either using the gauntlet as a light weapon, or you are attacking with your unarmed strike. But you can't do both in a single attack, and hence you can't double-dip or use the gauntlets as an additional item slot. Specifically, if you aren't attacking with the gauntlets as a weapon, you couldn't activate defending or any other properties - so there is no way to cheese additional bonuses from defending gauntlets etc.

Hey look, all the other abilities under discussion are worded the same way!

Having slept on this, you are right.

It would have been helpful if they class designer had instead just said "If you have the Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, or Greater Vital Strike feats, you may apply the effect of one of those feats Skyreaver, Morghbreaker, and Redeemer of Undeath."

The rules say "To the best of their ability".
That means full attack, and using feats if appropriate. The confused character believes they are attacking a legitimate enemy and will do so to the full of their ability.

Yes, confusion is EXTREMELY dangerous at high levels. Prepare your counters and defenses accordingly.

Also: note that all of the heritor knight abilities are worded in the same way as Mighty Strike, so there is no need to come up with a creative interpretation to make them interact as intended.

Skyreaver: "At 3rd level, as a standard action, a heritor knight can make a melee attack with a longsword against a flying creature (regardless of its method of flight)."

Mohrgbreaker: "At 5th level, as a standard action, a heritor knight can make a melee attack with a longsword against an undead creature."

Redeemer of Undeath: "At 8th level, as a standard action, a heritor knight can make a melee attack with a longsword against an undead creature. "

The problem isn't the class.
The problem is you want to pick that one class ability and plug it into attack options that are not part of the class.

Wraithlin wrote:

And you didn't actually counter any of my points. Another example:

Double Strike:
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make one attack with both your primary and secondary weapons (or with both ends of a double weapon).
These are all standard actions that allow you to attack with your weapons. They are not Melee Attacks taken as a Standard Action.

This is pedantic b@~@@+~+ and you know it.

How is it any different from what you are doing with your pedantic reading of Mighty Strike?

You either read all the rules in that way, or none of them. An inconsistent reading of the rules is by far the worst.

Wraithlin wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Its because Mighty strike does not specify single attack, and cleave does not assign any action type to the additional attack beyond the standard used to perform cleave, whereas as YOU demonstrated other feats DO assign action types to things that would otherwise be similar.

First, your entire argument rests on the assumption that the ability as written isn't just poorly worded. As a GM I would rule its poorly worded and make it work like everything else, rather than try to jerry-rig the rest of the system around what is more likely to be a typo than a deeply considered balance decision.

Second your interpretation actually makes this ability two separate abilities:

Mighty Strike (Ex):
(1) At 6th level, a heritor knight gains Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike as bonus feats.
(1) Whenever the heritor knight makes a melee attack as a standard action, she can apply the effects of Improved Vital Strike to that attack. If she has Greater Vital Strike, she can apply that feat’s effects instead.

So either the ability is a bit loosely worded. Or its actually two abilities packed into one: the first gives you two bonus feats, and the second allows you to apply Vital Strike in a completely unique way.

As a GM I would rule (A) the splat book is poorly worded, and Might strike gives you two free feats, nothing more.

Third and finally if you REALLY, REALLY insist on a literal interpretation, the ability says :
"Whenever the heritor knight makes a melee attack as a standard action"

it does NOT say:
"Whenever the heritor knight makes a melee attack as PART OF a standard action"

A partial charge is not a Melee Attack, a cleave attack is not a melee attack, a [XYZ ability] is not a melee attack. A melee attack is listed under standard combat actions:
"Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as

...

And you didn't actually counter any of my points. Another example:

These are all standard actions that allow you to attack with your weapons. They are not Melee Attacks taken as a Standard Action.

Its because Mighty strike does not specify single attack, and cleave does not assign any action type to the additional attack beyond the standard used to perform cleave, whereas as YOU demonstrated other feats DO assign action types to things that would otherwise be similar.

First, your entire argument rests on the assumption that the ability as written isn't just poorly worded. As a GM I would rule its poorly worded and make it work like everything else, rather than try to jerry-rig the rest of the system around what is more likely to be a typo than a deeply considered balance decision.

Second your interpretation actually makes this ability two separate abilities:

Mighty Strike (Ex):
(1) At 6th level, a heritor knight gains Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike as bonus feats.
(1) Whenever the heritor knight makes a melee attack as a standard action, she can apply the effects of Improved Vital Strike to that attack. If she has Greater Vital Strike, she can apply that feat’s effects instead.

So either the ability is a bit loosely worded. Or its actually two abilities packed into one: the first gives you two bonus feats, and the second allows you to apply Vital Strike in a completely unique way. As a GM I would rule (A) the splat book is poorly worded, and Might strike gives you two free feats, nothing more.

Third and finally if you REALLY, REALLY insist on a literal interpretation, the ability says :
"Whenever the heritor knight makes a melee attack as a standard action"

It does NOT say:
"Whenever the heritor knight makes a melee attack as PART OF a standard action"

A partial charge is not a Melee Attack, a cleave attack is not a Melee Attack, a [XYZ ability] is not a Melee Attack. A Melee Attack is listed under standard combat actions:
"Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet)."

Compare that with:
Cleave: Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach.

i.e. Cleave never states that you are taking a Melee Attack.

Actually the spell does state when damage is dealt: either when you cast the spell or when a creature enters the cloud. Since it only last 1 round (NOT 1 round/level) it only deals 1 set of damage, hence there is nothing in the spell as written about what happens on later rounds: the spell will have expired by then. If the spell lasted 1 round/level then the general rule is that it ticks at the start of the casters turn.

It doesn't state that it works like solid fog or obscuring fog, so I would rule it doesn't have any "fog" effects.

Paired Opportunist doesn't provoke an AoO, the goblin's attack does. The language here is 100% clear:

Paired Opportunists:
"Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity)."

The goblin attacks the Hunter.
Because of Broken Wing Gambit, the Goblin's attack provokes an AoO from the companion.
Because of Paired Opportunist, when the Goblin provokes an AoO from the Companion, he is also considered to have provoked an AoO from the hunter.

Hence the goblin provokes an AoO from both the companion and the hunter. They can take only one AoO against the goblin because the goblin has only made one action that provokes.

It is the goblin that provokes an AoO, not the companion or the Hunter.

The only thing that is a little unclear to me is whether a full-attack action from the goblin would provoke once (one attack action) or once per attack (assuming the goblin has iterative attacks).

In your example:
The Hunter hits the Goblin with BWG.
The Goblins attack the Hunter, this triggers an AoO from the Companion as it is an ally with the BWG feat.
Because of Paired Opportunists, the companion gets +4 to hit on this AoO.
Because of Paired Opportunist, the Hunter gains an AoO with +4 to hit.

So the resolution would be:
Companion takes AoO, Hunter takes AoO, Goblin (if alive) completes attack on Hunter.

Note that:
You can only trigger one AoO per creature, per trigger action.
Paired Opportunist reminds you of this rule with the text:
"This does not allow you to take more than one attack of opportunity against a creature for a given action."

i sense a strong necromantic aura here

What is going on with all these thread necros?

This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC).

Either you are wielding it as a heavy shield, gaining +2AC and taking all the accompanying disadvantages (not using a 2h weapon etc. etc.) or you are not wielding it as a shield and you don't get the +2AC.

You can't gain the +2AC without wielding it as a shield, hence it can't stack with the monk AC bonus.

When you could do would be:
Hit someone with a bastard sword wielded two-handed
Shift the sword-grip to one handed
Activate the ring as a free action for +2AC until your next turn when you deactivate the ring as a free action and attack someone with your bastard sword two-handed... etc .etc.

Note that this is different from the shield spell which does not require you to wield it in order to gain the shield bonus.
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC.

Just remember, you can't stack multiple enervations on a single target as it would fall under the "same effect from multiple spells rule".

Interesting though I think I wouldn't play it that way. The RAW seem pretty clear:

• Is the character invisible?
  
• If yes, then: invisible characters can't be detected or scryed by any other means (e.g. Blindsense, Tremor Sense, Scrying).

If you walk into an Invisibility Purge, you aren't invisible, ergo the other factors don't kick in. Or put another way, the Undetectable ability has a prerequisite of being Invisible. It wouldn't make sense if the ability, once engaged, can fulfill it's own prerequisite (I'm undetectable therefore I must be invisible, therefore I'm undetectable, therefore I'm invisible,...).

Note that Invisible is a condition:
"Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability."

Further, under special abilities it says this in the entry of Invisible:
"The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can’t be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt."

So, the rules-lawyer reading would be:
"While the character has the Invisible condition, other non-vision forms of detection do not function and the creature has unbeatable SR versus scrying and other forms of magical detection."

Given that Invisibility Purge doesn't allow of SR, they would not be invisible when they step within its range. As soon as they lost the invisible condition, they would also loose the other perks. See Invisibility would also beat non-mythic invisibility, as could a lucky area Dispel Magic.

Out of interest:

Wouldn't that be countered by Glitterdust, Invisibility purge and other similar effects? These spells don't require a target, and if you are in their area of effect your invisibility is negated.

See Invisibility should also defeat this as if the creature can see you, you aren't invisible to that creature and hence the other factors wouldn't kick in.

Based on the text you posted the Anti-XXXX shells are 10-ft.-radius emanations, with a volume that is hemispherical in shape.

Wall of Ice is not an emanation, but a conjuration that creates a hemispherical wall (i.e. a shell not volume) of ice.

That seems very powerful, particularly if combined with Mythic vital strike (bordering on broken if you add in Amazing Initiative, which would essentially allow you to score damage equal to 4x full attacks for 3MP).

Why is undetectable viewed as stronger?

Under the RAW it appears using these abilities is a "free option", that costs no action and can be activated multiple times per round. Am I missing any errata or rules clarifications that limit the use of these (beyond your pool of Mythic Points)?

Compare:
1. “When a critical hit or sneak attack is scored against a creature wearing an item with this ability, the wearer can expend one use of legendary power to negate the critical hit or sneak attack and instead take normal damage.”
2. “When this item deals damage, its user can use mythic power to double the total amount of damage it deals.”

With the text for Absorb Blow
“As an immediate action, whenever you take hit point damage from a single source (such as a dragon's breath, a spell, or a weapon), you can expend one use of mythic power to reduce the damage you take from that source by 5 per tier”

The bolded part above is taken to mean that the armor enhancement bonuses and special abilities is separate from the weapon enhancement bonuses and special abilities.

Edit: The bolded part would suggest that the cost of enchanting a shield as armor is entirely separate from the cost of enchanting the shield as a weapon.

This is about as far as I got with my previous effort - it seems there is nothing more explicit in determining whether the shield is capped at +10 (split across weapon/armour enchants) or +10/+10.

Is there an explicit FAQ/comment in the rules on double wepaons?
Again the only text I could find was under magic item creation where it says the cost for a double weapon is as if there were two distinct weapons. I couldn't find explicit confirmation that a double weapon has a cap of +10/+10.

I'm building towards a Paladin Sword/Board in my current game which will include Mythic elements at higher levels. The plan is to go deep into two-weapon fighting so that the Paladin can maximize his use of smite, up-to an including a Legendary Item Shield that will be "weaponized".

This has created lots of rules analysis which I've summarized at the bottom of my post. However there are two rules questions where we are looking for primary sources specifically:
Can anyone point to a primary source that indicates the +10 cap for armour enchantments is separate to the +10 cap for weapon enchantments (i.e a shield can be +10/+10)?
Can anyone point to the same/similar for double-weapons (i.e. Each head can be +10 independently)

PRIOR ANALYSIS:
What I have found mostly consists of rules discussions on the Paizo boards, which generally conclude that:
• Shields are weapons and can be used/enchanted as such at no penalty relative to other weapons
o This includes the fact that they can be main-handed (if declared) and are eligible for relevant feats such as Weapon Focus and Weapon expertise.
o Also a general agreement that when using Shield master you use the higher of either the Weapon Enhancement or the Shield Enhancement as your Attack Enhancement bonus when attacking (i.e. a +5/+1 shield would be a +5 weapon, NOT a +6 weapon).
• Double weapons appear to already allow for +10/+10 as each head is enchanted separately.
o RAW: “Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, and special abilities.”
o RAW: "you can build a double weapon with each head made of a different special material."
o RAW: "The celestial spirit imparts no bonuses if the weapon is held by anyone other than the paladin but resumes giving bonuses if returned to the paladin. These bonuses apply to only one end of a double weapon."
o http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p6xy?Double-Weapon-Enchantment
o http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kovt?Quarterstaff-weapon-enchantment
o https://www.epicpath.org/index.php?title=Magic_Item_Crafting_Rules&mobi leaction=toggle_view_mobile

• The Weapon Enchanting is separate from the Shield Enchanting for a shield, they don’t overlap and each has its own +10 cap analogous to double weapons.
o This point seems to come from reference to the 3.5 FAQs and there is an unwritten assumption that those rules clarifications carry-forward into Pathfinder unless they have been re-ruled or changed.
o RAW: “If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.” (emphasis mine).
o “it states that shields are enchanted separately for weapon and armor properties. Same as a double weapon pays separate costs for each end, not total for the same item with multiple properties.”

Discussion threads on enchanting shields as weapons:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q9im?Can-a-shield-qualify-for-weapon-focus
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oup8?Shields-as-magic-WEAPONS
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2th8d?Magic-shield-enchanting-as-a-weapon
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r9v4?Enchanted-Shield-Enchanted-Shield-Spikes

Pathfinder FAQ
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9vdp

DnD 3.5 FAQ:
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20070731a
Note: I cant’ find anything on the +10/+10 can in this errata, and have a feeling this is something that was clarified in a Q&A separately.

Overall, the argument that two separate pools for enchanting are allows is based on:
• 3.5 Errata and historical understanding that seems to err on this side, based on rules discussions on the boards
• Interpretation of the “shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right” being analogous to double weapons and hence a separate “item” that can be full enchanted.
• Pricing/cost rules. Using a combined cap leads to pricing ambiguity, as a +1/+1 shield could arguably cost:
o 4k (2^2*1000 under armour enchanting rules)
o 8k (2^2*2000 under weapon enchanting rules)
o 3k (1^1*1000 + 1^1*2000 under mixed enchanting rules)
• The rules state “A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.”
o This wording implies that the price formula would be as per Example 3, and the +1/+1 shield costs 3k
o http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/magicArmsAndArmor/armo rSpecialAbilities.html
• Double weapons already break the +10 cap by enchanting each end independently.

The arguments against are:
• Rules ambiguity: there is a lot of interpreting disparate sentences spread across the RAW, while its never fully clarified that this is how the rules work (nor that this is NOT how the rules work)
• Potential balance issues.
• Cost

A middle-ground would be to use the combined-items rules that allow for stacking abilities on single slot, at +50% cost. In that case the +1/+1 shield would cost 4k (1^1*1000+ 1^1*2000*1.5). This looks like it would be more clearly within the rules.