Xaratherus's page

Organized Play Member. 2,874 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,874 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

Actually, I just realized: You couldn't make an anti-magic field weapon.

Why? The moment you turned on the field, the weapon's magical effects would cease to function. Even if theoretically the anti-magic field couldn't cancel itself out, it would cancel out all the magical enhancement bonus on the weapon - and at that point any weapon special abilities would cease to function because the weapon no longer has the minimum base +1 enhancement required.

Moreover, it works for the same reason it works as a spell. The spell itself does not neutralize itself out, it's centered. So the item would be centered on itself. It WOULD MEAN that all your other magic items would effectively be useless. WE aren't talking about Dispel

you could say the same should happen with spell resistance items...but it doesn't. The spell resistance applies to that being cast against them, not by them.
Magic here, we are talking Anti-Magic Field (where when cast, the caster still has the spell working...the spell does NOT negate itself, just disables all OTHER spells from working).

I think you missed the point: What it's cancelling out includes the enhancement bonus to the weapon, because the weapon is within the area of the field.

It does not cancel out the anti-magic field effect on the weapon directly. It does cancel out the weapon's +1 magical enhancement. At that point, the anti-magic field effect stops working, because a weapon by the rules can't have active special abilities on it unless it has at least a +1 bonus.

Now the "throw an anti-magic pebble" item is a different matter. I don't really have a problem with that as a GM. It'd be pricey though. Antimagic Field is a 6th level spell, requiring an 11th level Wizard, and it's a slotless item. That's . . . 264,000 gold. ([6th level spell X 11th CL X 2000g] X 2 {slotless item}). You could drop that price by giving it uses per day, but even that leaves it over 100k.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's also the fact that anti-magic field means that your martial characters don't get any of the magical buffs that move them from "mediocre" to "not quite as good as a caster but still viable". It cancels all magic, not just hostile effects.

16 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I just realized: You couldn't make an anti-magic field weapon.

Why? The moment you turned on the field, the weapon's magical effects would cease to function. Even if theoretically the anti-magic field couldn't cancel itself out, it would cancel out all the magical enhancement bonus on the weapon - and at that point any weapon special abilities would cease to function because the weapon no longer has the minimum base +1 enhancement required.

For those who didn't click through to Jiggy's link: By FAQ a "spell on the Magus spell list" is a spell that exists on the Magus spell list, that is prepared in a spell slot granted by the Magus class, and that the Magus is of a sufficient level to cast.

So even if Wizard grants you Shocking Grasp, the moment you prepare it into a slot granted by the Wizard class, it's no longer a viable spell to use in conjunction with Spell Combat.

As to gaining a new spell book - by RAW I would say yes, and you'd need to pay the normal costs to transfer spells gained from your Magus class to your Wizard spellbook, and vice versa..

So then the answer to your question becomes, "Sure - if your GM allows it." The rules state that custom magic items are up to the GM - so while it may technically be possible, your GM can tell you no, and be perfectly rules-justified in doing so.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

My guess - they worded it the way they did due to space, and didn't realize it could lead to a RAW\RAI conflict. To properly write it, it would need to say something like:

"At 7th level, a kensai applies his Intelligence modifier as well as his Dexterity modifier on initiative rolls (minimum 0). A kensai may make attacks of opportunity when flat-footed, but only with his favored weapon. If his favored weapon is in his inventory, but isn't drawn, he threatens squares as though he is wielding his favored weapon. If an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity in one of these squares that he threatens, the kensai may draw his favored weapon as part of taking an attack of opportunity. The kensai must use his favored weapon to make the attack of opportunity if he chooses to draw it, or the attack of opportunity is wasted with no effect."

Fixed that for you, since you cannot take Free Actions outside your turn unless the action specifically says you can. Since your iteration did not, it still became unusable.

It does grant an exception. By saying that you can draw your weapon as a free action as part of the AoO, it's granting you the ability to take that specific free action outside of your own turn.

In fact, there's another ability that doesn't even imply it that clearly but that grants it: Snap Shot. Drawing an arrow is a free action, and the FAQ on it implies that it's granting you the ability to draw arrows as a free action to take multiple ranged AoOs.

It doesn't really matter whether you're saying you're drawing it as part of the attack or as a free action, though - mechanically, the class ability already grants the necessary exception by saying, "You can do this as a free action as part of the AoO."

As worded, it should remove the over-sized weapon penalties from wielding any Large weapon - ranged, light, one-, or two-handed.

I would say yes - but the Shaman would need to make the required caster level check each time Life Link would trigger, IMO.

If you read the stickied thread at the top of the forum, you'll note that post headers shouldn't include text like "FAQ request" or "Errata needed". You will probably want to edit the post title.

My guess - they worded it the way they did due to space, and didn't realize it could lead to a RAW\RAI conflict. To properly write it, it would need to say something like:

"At 7th level, a kensai applies his Intelligence modifier as well as his Dexterity modifier on initiative rolls (minimum 0). A kensai may make attacks of opportunity when flat-footed, is considered to threaten as long as his favored weapon is available and he is not otherwise barred from making attacks, and may draw his favored weapon as a free action as part of taking an attack of opportunity."

To me, the intent seems to be that as long as the kensai has his favored weapon available and is otherwise not impaired from being able to make AoOs (like a condition that bars him from threatening), he is considered to be 'armed' for the purposes of threatening.

If your GM goes by strict RAW, just have your kensai wear a cestus. Instant threat even without his weapon out.

Kwauss is correct: You use Smite on a target and you gain the benefits of it against that target until the target dies or combat ends.

Either you are able to move quickly enough to defend yourself, or you're not. If you lose initiative, you're not moving quickly enough to defend yourself until your first action comes up.

From a standpoint of reality, it might not always make sense, but the fact is that the combat system is already rough simulation that sacrifices a lot of realism for the sake of simpler functionality. I'm fine with that, so no - it wouldn't matter if I sat at a hundred games really, because I don't see that it's a massive problem in the rules system. If I did, I would have already house-ruled it and moved on.

If you're arguing that what you're presenting is RAW, you're wrong, indisputably. If you're arguing that the RAW should be changed, to be honest I don't see that the system is really that problematic, especially when applied properly (which again is not "roll initiative after people have already all drawn their weapons and are obvoiusly going to attack each other".)

blue_the_wolf wrote:
if that were the case then does that mean the rogue can sneak attack any one who has a dex bonus of 0 or less?

No, because someone with a DEX of 10 or 11 is not being denied their DEX to AC. They're simply adding +0; if someone casts Cat's Grace on them, then that person is now adding +2.

There's a fundamental mechanical difference between having a +0 bonus from DEX and being denied your DEX bonus to AC (which in turn is actually a component of, but not the same condition as, flat-footed).

I see the reason for your complaint, Blue, but I believe that what Ryric and Majuba meant is what I've said.


BornofHate wrote:

I'm gonna have the IT community banging my door down. In my defense I never said the IT guy wasn't the goalie in the pickup game.


As an overweight member of the IT community, I forgive you. ;)

Hmm, I could actually see this being used in an assassination. It would be a little convoluted though: You secretly build one of these at head-height into a throne or chair which the target will sit in; an 'assassin' appears over the target's shoulder; one of the target's 'loyal guards' fires a crossbow bolt at the assassin; the arrow magnet tries to draw the bolt in, but the target's head is between the shooter and the cube...

blue_the_wolf wrote:

I'm not sure what point Xara and Bbang are making.

It sounds like they are saying that in game your essentially ALWAYS in combat when combat is a possibility and thus have essentially always acted, and thus the flat footed in the first round rule is meaningless except in those specific situations where one side was completely unaware that any form of combat was about to beggin, aka a suprise round.

Thank you for your excelent explanation of the OP position.

Any time that an NPC or a PC would reasonably believe that they might need to fight, you'd roll initiative. It doesn't mean that you are going to take a hostile act - only that you feel like active combat might break out.

Actually, one of the better ways to handle it IMO is to let your players call out when they want an initiative check. I'll do it if I feel one of the NPCs would suspect that the situation is getting hostile, but if one of the players says, "Y'know what, my character probably feels like things are getting a little tense and someone might draw a knife; can we roll initiative?" then it's initiative time. Someone might talk the situation down, at which point we drop out of initiative rounds.

Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:

So what your saying, is without specific stimuli, it won't work. Such as training your monkey to kick the head of someone when you say head kick. So part of IUS it will work when you give it a command to perform a certain action.

so your stimuli that you need is... "monkey head kick". I think that covers it.

Sure, I don't have a problem with that. By RAW, that's a trick, and it's a Handle Animal check to direct the animal to do it. That's a move action, which means that you give the command on your turn, and now you don't get a full attack action.

The 'attack' trick is non-specific and doesn't require constant direction, because the creature can operate its natural attacks on instinct. I'd even go so far as to say that you could probably even teach it to include things like paw bashes (unarmed strikes) into the 'attack' command.

However, a good number of combat style feats are used in reaction to an opponent's maneuver - Crane Wing, Crane Riposte, Snake Fang, Turtle Clutch. Since it's at minimum a move action to use Handle Animal, and it's not your turn, how are you giving the command for the animal to use that particular ability? At that point, you're relying on the animal to use a martial art on its own, without your direction and in response to unscripted stimuli; to me, that would require sentience.

thomas gock wrote:
The book doesn't need to define it. English defines what combat is.

Yes it does. And one of those definitions is:

"Combat: a fight, struggle, or controversy, as between two persons, teams, or ideas"

It comes from the Latin combattere, com- ("come together") and -battere ("to fight"). The idea that the word indicates only physical alteractions, even in standard English, is incorrect.

Driver 325 yards wrote:

Can I improve my companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats?

No. An Intelligence of 3 does not grant animals sentience, the ability to use weapons or tools, speak a language (though they may understand one with a rank in Linguistics; this does not grant literacy), or activate magic devices. Also note that raising an animal companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher does not eliminate the need to make Handle Animal checks to direct its actions; even semi-intelligent animals still act like animals unless trained not to. An animal with Intelligence of 3 or higher remains a creature of the animal type unless its type is specifically changed by another ability. An animal may learn 3 additional tricks per point of Intelligence above 2.

Now short of reading an incredible amount into the above, there is nothing that says or that suggests that style feats are not appropriate for animals. Does the style feat require you to use a tool, speak a language or activate a magic device. If not, then how in the world is this FAQ relevant?

It's not.

Now, if the point is that there should be an errata then okay. However, as it currently stands, yes an animal can use a style feat that it is physically capable of using and that does not require langauge, tools or the activation of magical devices.

Did you see the Karate Chimp. He was doing kung fu with an intelligence of 2. Further, I think the guy who's snake started all this had a snake that did snake style. That just seems to make all kinds of sense. You have a problem with a snake learning to move like a snake to avoid attacks?

I saw a video of a chimp reacting with martial arts-style movements to very situation-specific prompting, which (while impressive) was most likely scripted. According to the chimp's official website, I don't see anything about the chimp ever competing in any tournaments or any actual unscripted bouts; the chimp's behavior indicates that a chimp could be trained to perform katas, but that's quite a long ways from posessing the necessary intelligence to translate that into a useful fighting form.

You leave out the fact that the FAQ also states that an INT 3 does not grant the animal sentience; everything mentioned refers back to the idea that an INT of 3 does not suddenly give the animal the capacity for complex thought. The example of Karate Chimp is an example of an animal performing a trick in response to a very particular stimuli; that's far different from learning a martial art which, while perhaps based on fixed forms, requires higher thought (i.e., sentience) to effectively apply it in a non-scripted combat situation.

Note again that I'm not arguing against the animal learning IUS. Frankly, I think they should be able to also learn most of the Improved and Greater maneuver feats (despite the fact that they lack an INT of 13). But there's a marked difference between teaching an animal that it can slap with its paw rather than clawing, and teaching it a formal, complex fighting art.

I could see that as precedent to restrict formal combat style feats. I don't see it as valid reasoning to restrict some of the more basic maneuver feats assuming the creature can otherwise meet the requirements.

I would normally agree with ShadowcatX's stance, but the Qingong monk argument uses very similar (or identical) language and seems to function very much like the Hexcrafter. I'm not certain if it's clear RAW, but based on that comparison I'd say it's probably RAI that it's allowed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, for identifying a disease, you'd need something on which to base an identification. Under mundane circumstances, they couldn't just walk up to the edge of the area, make a check, nd then go, "Yup, Demon Fever." Are there infected creatures or corpses within sight from outside the area? If so, then they could make a Heal check to identify the disease based on visible symptoms (if any).

Agreed with CrystalSpellblade - it's perfectly legal as long as you picked up the exotic proficiency for the bastard sword, and the boss you were describing was either undead or from the plane of negative energy.

Actually, unless I'm reading wrong you get bonus feats at 8 and 17. Gendarme says that the replacement bonus feats at 1st, then at 5th level and every 3 levels thereafter - so at 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20. Since the only thing you get at 9 is Master Tactician, that makes it a 'dead level' as well.

Or was it errata'd somewhere to be to at 1st, 5th, and then every 4 thereafter?

Regardless, yes - dead levels happen. Personally, I think they shouldn't but... ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For any spell that requires an attack roll, it adds +1 to the attack. It definitely adds +1 to the damage of rays, because of this FAQ - but not to the damage from any non-ray spell (even if that spell has an attack roll). House rule-wise, I allow it to add +1 to the damage to any spell that requires an attack roll as well.

I could see it being used to cover an escape through narrow tunnels or hallways; the Rogue gets caught by the city guard in the bowels of the palace so he takes to his heels and tosses a couple of these behind him to nullify the guards' crossbows as he makes his escape...

Remy Balster wrote:
A side note: From hence forth, if someone ever says something you disagree with, simply say that their argument is the same as growing a rat's tail and making tail attacks. Then talk about how silly growing tails is and walk away triumphant! No longer must you actually argue the points the person made, or make a case against their ideas... never more will a tough argument plague you! Simply compare their post to the tail of terror, and ye shall be victorious! Amen.

I know, right? It's like dismissing someone's comparison as being invalid just by saying, "No, it's not the same at all"! Obviously that never happens.

As for not "walking away triumphant": First, I'm at work for another 3 minutes, and was actually busy - sorry to inconvenience you by not immediately responding to your posts. Second, you've had numerous people address the 'arguments' that you've made, and you've disagreed that they did so, so I don't really see a point in rehashing them because of that. You believe it's clear how this functions; numerous people disagree and have given very valid points why they disagree; I don't see a reason to continue this particular exercise in futility.

From what I can tell, you are correct. In order to hurt the cube at all, you'd need to deal a minimum of 18 points of damage; it would be halved to 9 points, 8 of which would be absorbed by hardness and the other 1 would be dealt as hit point damage.

Given that it only lasts 5 rounds, requires that the arrow fly directly through a square adjacent to the cube, affects your own ranged weapons, and can be effectively defeated just by touching it? It's powerful, but not that powerful.

blahpers wrote:
This is as bad as the Shield Master "You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon." business. NOTHING CAN STOP THE SHIELD MASTER ACROBAT

>.> Make him a human with Racial Heritage: Kobold, and then he'll grow a tail... And then he can start tripping prone things.

@ubiquitous: Never mind, you fixed it. :)

It does not say "applies to all armor check penalties". It says that it reduces the armor check penalty while (meaning "from" in this case) wearing light armor.

Arguing that it affects a hypothetical magic item that imposes an ACP as long as you're wearing light armor is like claiming you could wear leather armor under full plate and take no armor check penalty because you're "wearing light armor".

The intent is pretty unambiguous here: It reduces armor check penalties from things that are specifically classified as light armor, and nothing else. So a shield? Not light armor - therefore, not affected by RAW.

Now, as a GM I might allow it, because I don't see it as game-breaking, but it'd be a house rule.

The RAI of the ability seems pretty clear: It refers to 'wearing' armor, and specifically to light armor, which is a class of armor that does not include shields (which are their own class). Thus, it seems pretty obvious to me that it was intended to reduce ACP from any armor listed on the Light Armor tables in the various books (including magical variants).

Remy Balster wrote:
There is no connection to that thread whatsoever.

You're claiming that a magic item effectively grants a non-Sorcerer a Sorcerer level, just like that other discussion claimed that a feat caused a human to suddenly grow a tail in order to make an attack (and I disagree that was RAI either; just like this, it assumes you have a tail to begin with).

So while you state there's no connection, I disagree. A Robe of Arcane Heritage no more grants you effective levels in a class that you don't have than a feat causes a tail to rip from your butt because the feat says you can make a tail attack. Just like in that other thread, you might as well claim that taking the Extend Spell metamagic feat grants your Fighter the ability to cast spells since it says "Your spells last longer..."

There's also the fact that in order for RoAH to work for someone other than a Sorcerer, you have to pretzel-bend your logic around the fact that the mechanical section even specifically begins with, "When a Sorcerer dons..." Oh - that just applies to the decorative weave changing? No.

Remy Balster wrote:
This says you have a sorcerer level.

Not to bring up a different thread, but this is the same mindset behind the whole 'tail attack' debacle from a couple of months ago.

I see the RAI as pretty clear here: This is an item meant for characters who are cross-classed, with at least one class being Sorcerer. In that instance, instead of a Fighter 8\Sorcerer 2 being considered a 2nd level Sorcerer for using his bloodline ability, he's instead treated as an 8th level Sorcerer. If instead he's Fighter 10, he has no Sorcerer level, and the robe does nothing - just like taking a feat that says it grants you a tail attack does nothing if you don't actually have a tail to attack with.

Not to speak for Lazar, but I do know what "treated as" means, and it is not "You are a Sorcerer"; it means that in certain specific circumstances you behave as a Sorcerer, and otherwise you do not.

Real-life analogy: I worked for Company A for 7 years; it was bought out two years ago by Company B. For the purposes of calculating my available vacation time, I'm treated as having worked for Company B for 9 years now. At the company Christmas party this past year, they had a drawing for a flat-screen television, and you got one entry ticket for each year you had been employed by Company B. How many tickets did I get? Two. Despite the fact that I was treated as an employee of Company B for 9 years for one specific purpose does not mean that I actually was an employee of Company B for 9 years.

Well, to start I find it rather rude that I answered your question - and fairly clearly, I thought - and asked one in return, but then you refuse to answer unless I answer another question. But regardless...

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
If they are 2 separate abilities, why does the listing for Greater Bane call out that you are using your Bane ability? Answer that question, and I will answer yours.

Among other possible reasons: To indicate that they are using the same resource. It's similar to how the Paladin's Mercy refers back to Lay on Hands - it lets the player know that despite being a separate class feature, it doesn't have its own pool of "Mercy uses per day" but instead draws from the "Lay on Hands" resource.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
There are feats whose exact text is "grants you X extra rounds of XXX ability per day", so I don't see why they couldn't use that text for a magical item.

They could have. They didn't. So, irrelevant, and my point stands - it's using the common language structure for magic items.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I choose to believe it is because the Bane Baldric does more than just grant you 5 more rounds of Bane per day. I choose to believe it is more like the Bracers of the Merciful Knight, which not only grant you more uses of Lay on Hands, but also increase your effectiveness with each Lay on hands.

And I wouldn't argue with you on that. Want to know why? Because those Bracers explicitly call out the fact that they increase the healing done by the Paladin's Lay on Hands. The equivalent here would be that the baldric explicitly called out that it granted you the Greater Bane class feature upon reaching 7th level Inquisitor.

Now, I'll re-ask my question: If they are intended to be the same ability as far as this specific item is concerned, please explain why they refer to the Bane and Greater Bane abilities.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
The Bane Baldric raises your effective level for Bane by 5 levels. It doesn't say it gives you 5 extra rounds, it says "you are treated as 5 levels higher when using your Bane and Greater Bane abilities". Now, if all it does is give you 5 extra rounds of Bane, why doesn't it just say that?

Because that's not generally the language that they use on magic items? Do a quick search on the PFSRD and you'll find that "treated as X levels higher" is the standard language used to describe a magic item that increases the benefits of a class feature. Do the same thing with the phrase "extra rounds"; you'll see that there's no magic items that use that text (there may be variations, but again, the standard language is "X levels higher").

A counter-question: If they are not separate abilities, then why does the Bane Baldric phrase them as separate abilities? "...when using your Bane and Greater Bane abilities"? Why not just say, "...when using your Bane ability"?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Silbeg wrote:

Dudes, here's the answer

UE P220 wrote:
If the wearer is an inquisitor, she is treated as five levels higher when using her bane and greater bane abilities

Pretty clear to me that it affects both.

Now, it looks like my inquisitor characters are gonna need this. Munny will love doing an additional 2d6 per shot.

That isn't really at question, Silbeg. What is at question is whether or not a 7th level Inquisitor gains access to Greater Bane while wearing the item.

I've chimed in on this when it came up before, and my opinion is you don't get early access to Greater Bane. It is a separate class feature that enhances Bane. If it were written into the Bane class feature itself, as, "At 12th level, the amount of bonus damage dealt by the weapon against creatures of the selected type increases to 4d6," then you'd get it - but they separated it out into a second 'tier' of the feature, and just like qualifying for feats with class features, you don't have that feature until you reach the level where you get it.

ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
What happens if I cast create pit on a rug, put a large-size creature/object in it, then roll up the rug into a tight cylinder and wait for the spell to end? Does it make a difference whether the spell area is "facing" inward or outward when I roll it up?

A chain of events sparks the end of the universe.

First, the warped space-time continuum can no longer take the stress of converting the large creature from one dimension to the other. So instead, the creature ceases to exist.

That large-creature happens to be the BBEG, and thus a plot hole is created where the BBEG lies at the end of the campaign, slowly eating at the fabric of reality.

Then, when the PCs pursue the campaign to the end, the Wizard spontaneously invents the spell "Time Travel", and goes back in time to try and keep himself from creating the pit in the past.

When he gets there, he cannot reason with his younger self because he can't roll a high enough diplomacy. He curses himself for dumping Charisma, and decides to put a final end to this, hoping it will set things right.

He casts Summon Big Party Killing Rock IX on the party, killing his younger self.

This sparks a time paradox that ultimately ends the universe your campaign is set in, but it gets worse.

The Plot Hole survives the end of the universe, and then moves on to every other universe, trying to devour all life in the multiverse.

So, not only has the GM said that the rock falls and everyone dies, he also tells you that you were responsible for the party dying personally, and then blames you for the creation of Rovagug and the eventual destruction of the Universe.

You win the Pathfinder forums.

To sort of restate what Remy is saying: LazarX is arguing that there is a purpose for a spellbook - singular, no other uses.

There are obviously other uses, therefore a spellbook has multiple potential purposes. Now, one can argue that what LazarX is quoting is the primary purpose of a spellbook, but that in no way invalidates the other purposes\reasons for spellbooks to exist. You could play in a custom setting where there are only spontaneous spellcasting classes, and spellbooks would still serve the purposes mentioned in the first post.

LazarX wrote:
Rapid Shot is a Full round action. It leaves no room for anything other than a 5 foot adjustment.
Rapid Shot wrote:
When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon...

Like many other abilities, it is not any action type in and of itself; it's a modifier to a full-attack action. Thus you can combine Rapid Shot with anything else that is also used as part of full attack action, and with one ability that is a full attack action.

Now, the question is whether or not Spell Combat qualifies.

To the original questions:

1. Well, according to the combat section, "Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well," so I don't see why you couldn't throw a weapon. The question becomes whether or not you could throw more than one. The FAQ says that when you use Spell Combat, you must make all your attacks with the light or one-handed weapon in your other hand - does that mean if you're holding a dagger, you must make it with that dagger, or can you make the attacks with any dagger? I don't think the RAW answers that; as a GM, I might allow it but restrict it to Myrmidarch, since the overall 'flavor' of the base Magus seems to be a melee combatant rather than a ranged one.

2. Spell Combat is a full-round action that is (now) treated as a full attack action for the purposes of Haste. It's not considered a full attack action for all purposes yet, such as fighting defensively. So again, no official answer on this yet. Again as a GM, I'd allow it for the Myrmidarch for sure.

3. As someone who feels that the improvised weapon rules can apply to weapons used an improvised fashion, I'd say it's a -4 improvised weapon penalty.

4. As written, the Arcane Pool class feature simply refers to the Magus's weapon. I would allow him to enhance unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and improvised weapons, since they are all weapons (even if they are not manufactured weapons). You'd still be restricted to only having one weapon enhanced at a time, and since using this ability is a swift action you'd only be able to enhance one dagger or improvised weapon - so it'd better have returning on it.

5. Yes, and yes.

6. Yes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuttler wrote:

I totally support FiddlersGreen here.

The Heritage Feat allows a non sorcerer to use a bloodline power. Since that power is based on sorcerer level to determine its effect, the feat says that you treat your sorcerer level equal to character level -2. It doens't give you sorcerer level in any way....

Now, the robe starts by saying: " when a sorcerer....", the fighter donning a robe is not a sorcerer, and therefore cannot benefit from it...the fact that they both mention sorcerer level does not establish per say a direct link between the two of them... The first condition of the Robe is whether or not you have a actual class level as a sorcerer.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

So whose common sense should we use? Yours? Mine? Elbedors? Sub_Zeros?

Shimesens? Xaratherus's? fretgod99s? etcs?

See my common sense doesnt agree with your interpretation of trip.

Humorously (or not) my common sense says a prone target is immune to trip, and a trip attack automatically fails against it. But unfortunately I also see precedent in the rules, and confusion introduced by various FAQs, that makes me question whether the 'common sense' rule ultimately plays out in this case. There are times when common sense hasn't won out in a ruling, after all.

Well, now my soapbox looks sort of empty. :P

Derp. Done for the day, work has fried my brain and drained me of any and all reading comprehension.

At least until I get home, heh.

Well, #2 doesn't wholly prevent the "Gatling-gun trip" either, if that's a concern. It just prevents it from being used against a target who is already prone.

The FAQ on tripping using an AoO says that your AoO triggers before the target starts to stand, therefore not knocking him prone. By that same logic, if you have Greater Trip, and trip a standing target, then he provokes before he finishes falling - so 6 of the other guys without Greater trip who standing around the target one AoO each; the 7th guy also gets an AoO, and has Greater Trip - so now he trips, triggering another round of AoOs - which cycles back to the first guy again.

Now it's possible they could reverse the behavior on an target who was just tripped and say the AoO doesn't trigger until he falls prone, but if so it would purely be for the purposes of stopping that tactic.

Okay, I see the reason for confusion. Effectively, it's giving you a single telekinetic combat maneuver for 1\round level (or until you cease concentration), which indicates that the spell has some sort of persistent effect on you that allows you to make those attacks.

So for that particular use, I suppose it would have a target of 'you'. It's akin to the Elemental Touch spell - it's a self-buff that lets you make an elemental touch attack each round for the duration of the spell.

That said, I don't see any indication in the spell that you could cast it on an ally and let them use the maneuver effects for you.

Jiggy wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Jiggy, are you saying "Nope, it's not ambiguous," and implying that it does not grant you infinite uses of the domain power?

That's what I figured\thought.

Agreed with Slimgauge. The section of text is describing how you (caster) cast Telekinesis on a creature or object (target) to effectively perform a combat maneuver.

Imagine the Force push effects from Star Wars; that's using Telekinesis to perform a bull rush against a target.

Jiggy, are you saying "Nope, it's not ambiguous," and implying that it does not grant you infinite uses of the domain power?

I can see that the wording is a little odd, but the idea that it grants you unlimited uses of a domain power (even if it requires the use of a swift action and a successful unarmed attack) also seems . . . sketchy.

1 to 50 of 2,874 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>