Xaratherus's page

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

^This.

@MurphysParadon: It's in the Magic Item Creation section:

Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or a magic shield must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any armor or shield special abilities.

However, like most other prerequisites, I believe you can bypass this by increasing the creation DC by +5.

As far as I can tell - yes, you'd take the penalty, as a sunder is still an attempt to deal damage. Assuming you roll max damage on the attack, you could actually break the sword in one hit (one-handed weapons have hardness 10 and 5 hit points).

I'm pedantically stuck upon Prone being the definition of Trip, because that is exactly what the CRB SAYS is the definition. Does no one turn to the Trip section and read it? heh

Forget the "general" explanation of Combat Maneuvers. Look specifically at Trip. What does it say?

"If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone."

Beating the CMD on a Trip attempt means you did what? Knocked the target prone.

So how does "I have successfully Tripped my target" NOT mean Prone? The very definition of succeeding at a trip attempt is that you knock the target prone. Seems pretty straight forward. If Roll, then Prone.

I guess I have to wonder, why are you NOT pedantically stuck upon Prone being the definition of Trip? If anything I think you are stuck on confusing "Successful" with "Successfully". This seems to be a big part of the disagreement. These two key words are two different things. You can be successful in your trip attempt and then not successfully trip your target. Such a thing is possible....such as if you pulled the legs out from under a man who just hovers there because he has a Fly spell in effect. You got his legs out from under him. Had he been subject to the regular law of gravity like everyone else, he'd have fallen down. So your attempt was successful. But he didn't fall over. You cannot claim to have successfully tripped him. Difference between an Adjective and an Adverb.

Hitting a prone target with a Trip attack is another perfect example. I can succeed at the attempt. The Roll can beat the CMD and then I can do things like Drag him with a Meteor Hammer or flip him into another square with a Ki Throw. But what I can't do is knock him down (since he already is) any more than a standing man can stand up.

I'm aware of the definition. I'm also aware of the definition of "attack":

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

So by the same pedantry, a successful attack is one that hits and deals damage. Yet we have things that trigger on an attack roll that exceeds AC without dealing damage. The existence of such abilities says that sometimes you can be successful on a check in a way that does not completely deliver all the conditions that normally apply on a successful check.

Now, that doesn't mean I want the designers to rule that in order to deliver a touch spell, you have to exceed the target's AC and deal damage with the weapon. I wouldn't mind something official, though, that corrects this apparent disconnect in logic across similar cases; as I said earlier (in one of the threads, not sure which) simply adding that a prone target is immune to trip, or that trip attempts against a prone target automatically fail, would be sufficient.

Yay, more trip questions! :P

Channel Energy tends to be one of the biggest reasons I've found to track a monster's hit points below 0, especially at lower levels before the Cleric might have picked up Selective Channel.

@aboniks: The surprise round rules actually address this to an extent.

If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.

And actually, now that I re-read it, I have to withdraw something I mentioned earlier: The surprise round rules are suited to the whole 'bar brawl' scenario. I tend to think of them in terms of ambushes, but it's really any scene where there could be an attack and at least one person involved could be unaware of it.

Despite acting as spells for the purposes of meeting requirements, you cannot apply metamagic feats to spell-like abilities. There are a few monster feats that act as metamagic for SLAs, but Extend isn't one of them (although Frog God Games has it as a 3rd-party option).

I'm not trying to be snarky, but I've flagged your post to be moved to a different forum. At this point, I think we all know there's no rules question here, and so effectively what's being discussed is a house rule. Since this is (to my knowledge) how it's worked since 3.x (and how it works in 4.0, if I remember correctly) it's unlikely to change.

I don't think you guys are getting my point. If this is the way combat works in Golarion, NO ONE WOULD EVER FIGHT ANYONE. Because attacks would _always_ lose.

And it has nothing to do with movement speed either, the reaction is "when I am attacked" You only get one move, and move attack action per turn. If you are attacking your move action is ended. You cannot continue a move after the interruption.

Keep in mind that the person readying an action is effectively not doing anything because of it. It's a standard action to ready, meaning that as long as he's readying to "counterattack if I'm approached, and then 5-foot step" he can't do anything else.

Once you've noticed that the enemy has used this tactic a couple of times, it's not hard to believe that your adventurer would adjust to it. So instead of moving in to attack, you pull out a crossbow or bow and shoot him, or flip a dagger at him. It may not be as effective, sure, but you'll do damage to him if you hit, and in return he . . . wasted his turn, because you didn't trigger his action. If he does it again the next round, shoot him again; even if you're not built for it, unless he does something other than ready, he'll die before you do. :P

Also, the idea that you're going to be in a lot of one-on-one fights generally isn't how the system works out. If the guy keeps readying like that, then have an ally move in and trigger first - then you move in, and he can't do anything about it at that point.

Agreed with Zwordsman. By RAW, it's one dose equals one attack.

I think part of the reason they make poisons so pricey is because they are very potent. I tinkered with a house system that lowered the price extensively but effectively made poisons much weaker for any class without Poison Use; for them, it was still a reduced price but had the original effect.

Not reacting fast enough is reflected by losing initiative. A trained fighter is just as prepared to defend himself against the first blow when the bell dings as he is the second. If anything makes it easier to hit him, it would be the accumulating disorientation of being struck several times in a row, but that would come after the combat starts, not before

The fact that there are professional matches where first-punch knock-outs occur seem to disagree. They aren't common, but they do happen.

I don't know what other explanations I can provide; I will say that since this is the rules forum, the rule on this is pretty much as clear as it can get, so whether there's a rationalization that you, or I, accept, anything else is a house rule.

If you are looking for a quote printed in the Pathfinder resource, and that is all that you accept as RAW, then no one can provide you one. That doesn't make you 'right', it just means you have an inaccurate concept of what "RAW" is.

A refusal to accept a designer quote as RAW - effectively, "the law" - is akin to a refusal to accept a decision by the Supreme Court as law: You're welcome to live that way in the privacy of your own home, and you probably won't run into any problems as long as that attitude does not bring you into conflict with the authorities, but the moment that you do come into such a conflict, an obstinate refusal to accept legal precedent as "how things work" is not a valid defense. In this case, not only do you have the ruling of the game's effective Supreme Court, you also have had references to 'common law' - D&D source material - that shows how the rules were intended to work.

What you are doing is just one step down from arguing that an official FAQ is not RAW because you happen to disagree with the decision: It doesn't alter the RAW, it simply makes you look rather silly by presenting a house rule as something official when you aren't in any position to make such a statement with any official validity.

Saving Finale can be cast as an immediate action. That means that it effectively interrupts the normal flow. So as soon as the Confusion spell was cast and your DD failed his throw, you could have ended your performance and immediately cast Saving Finale to allow a reroll.

The target of the spell is simply "one living creature". That means you can use it on any living creature. You're a living creature; therefore, you qualify as a target.

So assuming you had a performance going, and you had a slot with which you could cast Saving Finale, the round should have gone like this:

-Bad guy casts Confusion spell
-Bard fails Will save to avoid Confusion effects
-As an immediate action, before the Confusion spell takes hold, the Bard ends his performance and casts Saving Finale
-Bard gets to reroll the Will save for Confusion

Assuming that you had failed again, then Confusion would immediately take effect, and you'd be forced to roll at the start of your next turn.

If this somehow occurred in the middle of your turn, then I'm not certain that's covered by RAW, but the RAI of such an ability would lead me to think you'd immediately roll to see how you would act for the remainder of that turn, then again at the start of your next turn.

I'm curious how the conversation went.

"Hey I found this way to take precise shot at level 1 with my Half-Elf Ranger."
"Oh yeah, cool! What is it?"
"Um, The Internet -- yeah, that's the ticket."
"What/where on the internet?"
"THE INTERNET, OKAY!?!?! Stop grilling me!"

"Because Internet" is a citation that should always be questioned. ;)

Agreed with fretgod99.

A successful hit is not "an attack roll that equals or exceeds the creature's AC and does damage". It's simply "an attack roll that equals or exceeds the creature's AC". If you have an ability that simply states that it requires a successful hit to trigger, then it triggers even if you fail to deal damage; if you have an ability that states that it requires damage, then you not only have to successfully hit them, but that hit also has to deal damage to them.

Thus why a Wizard with IUS can be holding a charge of a touch spell, make a successful unarmed strike against a foe, have every bit of the damage from the strike absorbed by the target's DR - and still discharge the held touch spell. And why a Rogue with an injury poison on his punching dagger can confirm a crit on a target - and fail to apply the poison because the target is somehow immune to damage from piercing weapons.

There are two ways of reading Greater Trip, and both are potentially valid depending on what other areas of the rules you reference. That's why the FAQ seems necessary.

The cost for masterwork ammunition assumes that one lot of ammo equals one enhanced weapon. So +300 gold for a masterwork weapon is equivalent to +300 gold for 50 arrows, or 6 gold per unit\arrow (although I note you're a PFS player, and I believe you're required to buy your ammo in full lots).

You can find official clarification on it here.

Ah, okay. I was confused; I don't normally follow the PFS forums so I wasn't aware it had come up there. I can see the reasoning behind the restrictions for PFS, but it's also those restrictions are one of the key reasons why I don't really join society, heh.

Scroll up from here and you'll see examples of a 30-foot cone. You should be able to extrapolate from there. I believe the PFSRD site may have a page with larger templates on it.

But yes, Brf is correct - a cone is effectively a 90-degree wedge (or a quarter-circle) extending at its further point out to the range defined by the spell. A rough measurement is to choose the squares directly in front of and to the left or right of the character and count out the range distance in a line from there, then a rough diagonal between those two points.

If you're talking for PFS, then I know that it's restricted beyond the norm. Outside of PFS, the Animal Archive breaks down a full list of the magic item slots available to each creature body type (and what creatures have that body type).

Since that implies that those creatures have those particular item slots, the obvious intent of the feat is to grant them a slot to which they don't normally have access.

I did a quick sight comparison and this table on the d20 site seems to reproduce the one from Animal Archive accurately.

DrDeth wrote:

I agree with Diego and many. It depends on how you word your ready. Why not just say "I ready my spear to attack anyone that comes within reach. BTW, I also set vs charge in case he charges."

This is how I'd treat it as well. You're readying an action to attack an enemy that comes within reach. Brace is just a special rider on that action that you get for wielding a particular weapon.

Just to note, I agree with this as well, but I still stand by the idea that they can't tell you're readying an action in the first place (without a check of some sort).

At what point is a longspear no longer a longspear?

If it's of a type where the point screws into a socket on the haft (and yes, these do exist), and you remove the point, is it still a longspear? Would you still have that deal longspear damage? Let's say that it doesn't have a removable point, so instead you saw off the point. Is it still a longspear?

I'll even provide the most likely options:

1. Despite the fact that a blunt pole cannot realistically deal piercing damage, it's still a longspear and so that's what it does.

2. Since it no longer has a point and can't deal piercing damage, our modified longspear now functions more akin to a very long staff. Thus while it is being used to deal damage, it is not being used to deal damage in the manner in which it was designed as a weapon, and so we use the improvised weapon rules.

1 makes no sense. 2 makes sense.

So now let's move back a step: Let's not take the point off the spear, but let's still strike someone with the haft.

Our most likely options again:

1. Even though the rules for weapons appear to be roughly modeled after how weapons function in the real world, the improvised weapon rules don't cover weapons used in an improvised fashion, and so your character is physically incapable of hitting someone with the haft of the weapon.

2. You hit with the haft of the weapon and it deals piercing longspear damage.

3. Since functionally what we're doing here is identical to option 2 from our first example, common sense dictates that we use the same rules - and this does not violate RAW\RAI because we are using an object not designed to be a weapon (the haft, rather than the point; the haft is a part of it, but as shown from the first example, it is not the portion primarily responsible for dealing damage as a weapon) - to determine damage.

It is neither RAW nor common sense to use rules for letting objects that don't have weapon stats apply to objects that do have weapon stats

Which is why in reality when someone comes at me to pistol-whip me with a revolver, it's perfectly sensible for me to assume that they're going to do the exact same amount of damage to me as if they had shot me. Yup, totally common sense. Nope - I shouldn't assume that it'd be sort of like getting hit with a sap instead; that wouldn't be sensible at all, a gun is always going to penetrate my skin and blow my insides out my back, even when it's just the butt of the gun hitting me.

it's neither common sense nor RAW to say that the most reasonable match for a longspear is anything but a longspear.

Yup - there's definitely no rational grounds whatsoever for assuming that a polearm - a pole (staff) with a sharp bit on the end - might do damage that's more similar to that of a staff (pole) if you hit someone with the pole part of it. We should expect that when we whack someone with the pole part of a polearm that it'll stab into their flesh even though the part we hit them with is completely blunt. Or apparently it's more sensible to assume that they can't hit us with the pole part of it at all.

</sarcasm>

Just some friendly advice: Stick to trying to argue from a perspective of RAW, because attempting to claim that there's no rationale for using weapons in a fashion other than how they were designed - like, say, pistol-whipping someone with a gun, or hitting someone with a pole - undermines any credibility you could give to your argument, simply because we can prove to ourselves in reality without any doubt that such weapons could be used in such a way. Which, in extension, would indicate that some people would find it sensible for the rules to offer up a way to reflect that. I'm done saying that they do work that way, but to argue that it's nonsensical to claim that someone wouldn't expect them to be usable in such a fashion - that just makes you look foolish.

Let's go ahead and apply the reasonable ruling you favor, be it right or wrong. Using a longbow? No problem. You now can make attacks around you with it as an improvised weapon. It's clear that the developers intend that users of ranged weapons can't do that, but no worries.

Actually, the developers stated that you could use weapons while wearing a cestus doesn't imply that at all. Without certain feats, an archer is best served by dropping one hand from his bow at the end of his turn so that he then threatens with the cestus on that hand, and can thereby take AoOs versus adjacent foes. Boot blades, gauntlets, barbazu beards - there are numerous options that blatantly allow ranged combatants to make melee attacks.

Even if you had the Snap Shot chain and could make AoOs using your bow, you couldn't threaten in the same manner at once, because in order to effectively attack with the bow as an improvised melee weapon you would have to wield it in a fashion that would not make it a useful ranged weapon.

In regards to the crossbow, the same thing applies: You fire your last bolt, and as a free action you drop the supporting hand away so that you can defend and attack with your equipped cestus or gauntlet.

So the idea that this somehow unbalances the game because it maneuvers around an absolute restriction just doesn't pan out.

The rules are describing two separate scenarios in which a mutagen becomes inert.

Scenario 1
The Alchemist has a STR mutagen in existence, but he has not imbibed it. He creates a DEX mutagen. The STR mutagen immediately (and [implied] permanently) becomes inert.

Scenario 2
The Alchemist has a STR mutagen in existence. He hands it to his friend to hold it while he takes his pants off (too many torn trousers from the bulk-up effect of his Mr. Hyde Special). The moment it leaves his possession, it becomes inert. However, as he hasn't yet created a new mutagen, when he takes it back it immediately becomes active again.

The loophole that you're proposing assumes that the inert state in both scenarios is temporary - for example, if you have a STR mutagen, brew a DEX mutagen, and then imbibe the DEX mutagen that the STR mutagen becomes active again (either as soon as the STR mutagen wears off, or as soon as you imbibe the STR mutagen, one of the two). The implication in stating that the mutagen goes inert upon making a second one indicates to me that the intention is that the moment you make a new active mutagen, all other mutagens you've made become permanently inert.

Common sense was specifically requested to not play into any answers given.

Actually, that's not what Malachi said. I quote: "Just to be clear, I'm only interested in whether this is allowed in the rules, not whether we think it should be." Common sense indicates that this is allowed by the rules, because arguing otherwise is wholly unrealistic.

Sean K. has a personal blog post wherein he discusses whether Invisibility is a mind-affecting spell; one of the reasons he dismisses the concept is, in fact, common sense.

He also says here, rather clearly, that the idea of reading the rules without common sense is, in fact, nonsense. He even goes on to say this:

So, yes, it's perfectly valid for the game rules to assume that the GM understands how the real world works and can make rulings based on that knowledge. Otherwise you're asking for a game book that has to spell out every single thing so that the most thick-witted person in the world never has to think at all when running or playing--at which point you're in a world where we need instructions for toothpicks, warnings on chainsaws that say "do not attempt to stop the chain with your hands," and instructions on peanut packages that say "open package and eat contents."

Are you really arguing that we shouldn't assume that the reader is a person of at least average intelligence with at least an average awareness of how the world works?

To argue that because the rules for improvised weapons state that they apply to non-weapon objects, and that because of that you can't ever, under any circumstances, use a weapon in an improvised, non-standard manner to do damage, is seemingly putting yourself into the group that needs "instructions for toothpicks". Common sense indicates that you can bash someone in the face with the pole of a polearm (I actually just demonstrated it [gently] on a roommate just to make sure I wasn't hallucinating :P) - maybe not effectively, and definitely not for damage equivalent to using it as a polearm, but it is possible.

UMD already calls out that you can use it to emulate an alignment and avoid the negative effects\gain the positive effects inflicted\granted by a magic item. So yes, you could use it to avoid the negative level - just note that it's a DC 30 check to emulate an alignment, so it isn't all that easy.

In the case of a Holy Avenger, you'd have to be at least Lawful or Good to even try it, because you can only emulate one alignment at a time. So assuming you were Lawful or Good, you'd need a DC 25 check to emulate the class (more difficult than emulating a single class feature, roughly on par with emulating race) and then assuming you were only Lawful or Good (not Lawful Good) already, you'd need a DC 30 check to emulate the Paladin's required alignment.

(Actually, I'd probably assume that to emulate a class that has an alignment requirement would require 2 checks unless you met the requirement normally - one to emulate the class, and a second to emulate the required alignment).

[edit]
And again, this is all GM judgement\house rule territory - although I think since you can emulate class features and even race, the RAI would allow you to emulate classes.

This isn't speaking from RAW necessarily, but personally I would allow it. After all, UMD allows you to emulate a race; that's something effectively fixed, whereas class is something you can choose.

In other words, because pretending to be a different race would be more difficult than pretending to be a class that you could actually potentially retrain to be, I see no reason why you couldn't emulate a class also.

Improvised weapons cannot have any properties, including reach. You cannot strike adjacent targets with a longspear, but you can strike adjacent targets with an improvised weapon, any improvised weapon

The question is not, an never has been, can you strike adjacent opponents with a long spear, the question is: Could an 8ft stick with a oddly shaped bit on one end be used as a makeshift bludgeon? ex a longspear or a lampstand

Correct.

For the purposes of keeping the thread bumped, I'll mention that my stance is that reading RAW without common sense engaged is no longer discussing RAW; comments by designers have indicated they agree with that basic concept. And common sense indicates that, although it may be unwieldy and ineffective, you can use an 8-foot stick as an improvised weapon, even if that 8-foot stick happens to have a pointy bit on the end that qualifies it as a longspear.

This isn't a question for a specific character or scenario. It is a generalized question concerning the use of weapons in alternative ways, different from how they are intended to be used.

A longspear is effectively a very long stick with a point on one end. While it might not be balanced for it, realistically you can take the spear with one hand toward each end (like a staff) and bash someone in the face with the middle of the haft.

However, using it in this manner is effectively using it as an improvised weapon, and because that text states it applies to objects that were not designed to be weapons, there's an argument that RAW does not allow you to do what I've described - bash someone with the haft.

As to why you might consider it, here's one possible scenario: You're 40 feet from a foe; you have a longspear, granting you 10' of reach. You move your full 30 feet of movement - but as it turns out the enemy was smart and had readied a 5' step and moves adjacent to you as you approach. You no longer can attack with your weapon normally because it is a reach weapon - but as a free action, you could switch your grip on it and use the haft for an improvised bashing attack.

Effectiveness isn't really being questioned here - I think everyone understands that it would not be all that effective (and that's reflected in a lower damage [since you'd be doing staff or club damage] and a -4 penalty for improvising). It's more a question of, can you do it\are you intended to be able to do it without specific class features?

(Personal Opinion)

"How does the Holy Gun work, anyway?"

Not very well*. Usually if I'm going to play a Roland of Gilead-esque church gunslinger, I just go cross-class into Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger archetype) from Paladin or Cleric.

One of my gaming group and I created a Gunsmoke domain for Clerics; if this is for a game where the GM will allow custom content you might take a look.

*To clarify: The biggest problem I have with Holy Gun is the fact that you lose Smite Evil in exchange for a deed that grants you the benefit of Smite Evil with your gun - for one grit point, for one shot only. This is compared to the standard ability which is limited in uses per day but at least lasts the entire combat (or until the smited creature is dead).

That makes sense and it's what I always assumed was the case, but thanks for the official clarification, PDT! :)

But do Alchemist bombs work with Conductive? ;)

Pish. Only three classes? My first PC had five. And I know a guy who built a level 20 PC with 20 different base classes (no prestige classes).

That was back in the 3.5 era, though, when multi-classing was pretty much the order of the day. I'm not sure there are enough distinct base classes to do that in PF, at least not without adding 3rd party books.

There's a total of 11 core classes and 8 base classes, so you'd fall 1 shy of 20th*. There are the 3 alternate classes but you can't combine those with their base class counterparts, and there are 10 advanced classes (and again you can't combine them with their base counterparts). You'd need to pick up a level in at least 1 PrC to round yourself out.

(This is assuming you could figure out how to work around all the alignment restrictions. Monk can get away from their Lawful restriction with the right race, but Paladins are stuck with Lawful Good and Barbarians can't be Lawful. So at some point you'd wind up either being an ex-Barbarian or an ex-Paladin. Or you could ignore Paladin and go Antipaladin, if evil alignments are allowed)

Having followed the thread, I did not really find Claxon's response to be arrogant. In fact, in his original post he went out of his way to clarify that he was talking about his opinion and his house rules.

He even made a post stating flat-out that the continued discussion wasn't really constructive because he realized that they were his house rules and not RAW\RAI.

As to the word 'amicably' somehow being undignified - huh? He asked DrDeth if they could agree to disagree on friendly terms. Heck, it was so clearly a sincere attempt to agree to disagree that someone made the obligatory "Wait, you can't part ways on a friendly note on the INTERNET!" joke.

(And just to point out, DrDeth favorited that post. I'd have to take that to mean that he agreed to disagree amicably...)

Xaratherus wrote:

After activation, it allows you to move through threatened areas without provoking. In other words, it does exactly what it's supposed to do - it allows you to teleport around the battlefield without provoking from your [b]movement[/i].

Just like the Cleric spell Grace, its effect is that it stops you from provoking when moving - but it says\does nothing for actually casting the spell\using the Sp.

You are not explaining, teleport movement don't provoke normally. What would change in the power if you just cut the bolded sentence?

I already explained it in earlier posts, but I'll restate it here:

By RAW, activating a spell-like ability provokes attacks of opportunity (it uses the Use Special Ability action, and using that with an Sp provokes).

In order to start teleporting around the battlefield, you must first activate the ability. Once its active you can teleport around the battlefield without provoking.

The ability does not state that you are activating it as a move action; it says that you can teleport using a move action.

Total defense does not say that you do not threaten. It only says that you can not make Attacks of Opportunity.

These are not the same thing.

You are correct that it does not explicitly say that you do not threaten. But following what it does through to the end shows that you don't threaten.

The definition of threaten is effectively "to be able to make a melee attack into an adjacent square". I quoted the rules that define the term above.

Now, when you make a melee attack, you normally do so in one of three ways: Either by taking a full-round action and make a full attack; taking a standard action and making a single melee attack (or two melee attacks if you are two-weapon fighting); or making an AoO, which is not an action.

Let's start at the end of the line and work backward:

Total defense already says you can't make AoOs, so that's out.

Total defense already takes a standard action, so you can't use your standard action to make a melee attack. You have a move action, a swift action, and one or more free actions left, but without specific class abilities you cannot use those to make a melee attack.

Total defense takes a standard action, so you can't use a full-round action (since it takes both your standard and your movement to do so) to make a full attack, and thereby make one or more melee attacks.

So total defense is making it so that, unless you have specific abilities that state otherwise, you cannot make a melee attack during your turn.

That means when using total defense you cannot make a melee attack into an adjacent square. And that means you don't threaten.

1. Your enemy does not know you are going total defense.

Over in another thread (discussing flanking while invisible), one of the designers was quoted that your opponent's perception of you is irrelevant. An invisible character still grants a flank bonus to allies opposite him, even if the enemy isn't aware that he's there.

So what you've said makes some sense as a house rule, but by RAW, it's not relevant to flanking whether your opponent is aware of you or not.

The difference between rounds has always been considered fluid. Just because your initiative roll total is 5 doesn't mean that everyone "resets" between your turn and the next character to act who had the highest initiative total. To illustrate, if you make an attack with your Defending weapon using the current explanation in the FAQ, it doesn't imply that you only get the AC bonus until the last person for the current round acts but then you lose it once init order "loops around"; it presumes that it lasts until the beginning of your next turn. Rounds and turns are constructs that we use to better understand what's happening but the time itself is fluid and seamless.

I understand that. By the FAQ, Defending lasts from the time that you took an attack with the weapon until the initiative 'tick' immediately before your next turn starts.

I've never played it that way for class abilities that are related to weapons. The tables at which I've played have always assumed that a class ability that requires you to wield a weapon means that the class ability provides its benefit as long as you have the weapon ready to make an attack with it - effectively, that you threaten with the weapon.

I grasp the logic behind the Defending weapon ruling: It's a magic item, and you gain the benefit of a magic item by actively using it.

I've never assumed that rationale applied to class abilities. I wouldn't grant a Quarterstaff Magus his AC bonus from Quarterstaff Defense if he had it slung on his back - but I've always granted it as long as he had the staff out and ready to attack, even if he hadn't attacked with it yet.

For all those arguing that the fact that the Bomb (Su) creates a physical object or weapon, I want to point out that at best you're arguing RAI, not RAW. Why? RAW, conductive doesn't say anything about being unable to work with a physical object. It has two requirements: First, that it be a supernatural or spell-like ability; and second, that it use a touch or ranged touch attack. Nowhere in the property does it say, "Conductive can't be used with a supernatural or spell-like ability that creates a weapon or object, even if the attack is still a touch or ranged attack."

As Rynjin points out, there are lots of examples in fantasy and elsewhere that bear out the idea of infusing energy normally meant for a physical object into another physical object. So for everyone who seems so sure that it would be RAI to disqualify supernatural or spell-likes that create physical objects from functioning with Conductive - well, it's disputable.

Let me ask this: If the Alchemist's Bomb ability didn't mention catalysts at all, but instead just said that the Bomb worked similarly to Gambit's explosive card ability (I doubt anyone is unfamiliar with him, but just in case), would anyone argue against it working with Conductive? I doubt it.

Then I'd argue that because of the line that says that the Alchemist infuses the bomb's components with his magical energy, it is in fact the energy that is the primary factor here. The 'catalysts' are just a focus (to use a term from White Wolf's Mage) for his magical energy. If a non-Alchemist went over to his body and grabbed up the exact same vials that the Alchemist used, mixed them together, and tossed them, nothing would happen. So yes, they're a physical item just like a component and they're normally required to use the ability, but as shown with the Explosive Missile property it's the Alchemist's energy that is really resulting in the damage.

Technically, you can't 'wield' 1 million unarmed strike. You have 1 unarmed strike, because you only have one body. Since unarmed strike refers to any attack* made with your body, you don't have two punches, two kicks, a headbutt, and a body slam - you have 1 unarmed strike.

You can use your 1 unarmed strike to make a number of attacks per turn, based primarily on your BAB, and possibly augmented by some extra attacks from feats, class abilities, and spells (like Haste).

*Any attack not defined as a natural attack

The particular incident that led to this question is a bad ruling by a GM; leveling as a Bard grants you the option of starting your performances using shorter actions but it doesn't remove your ability to still use a different action type to do so.

As to allowing action swaps (standard or move for swift): The limitation on swift actions appears to be a balancing mechanism; numerous powerful class abilities are tied to swift actions so that you have to strategize during combat and make choices on what you need to activate, and when.

Paizo's losing a great resource. I've only been around the forums for a short while but Sean's was "the presence of Paizo" here, at least on the rules forums. I've found numerous answers from him (and I even agreed with a lot of them!), and I've also been (rightfully) put in my place a few times by Sean in discussions. I think I'm better for it.

So the best of luck in all of your future endeavors, Mr. Reynolds; you'll be missed!

If the restaurant is offering a Surf and Turf special where you can get a combo of beef and fish... why even mention chicken at all?

I'll repeat my question: Would you assume that in the scenario I presented, you can get* beef and chicken?

I agree that the repetition of chicken in the scenario is redundant. Where I disagree is that the redundancy would cause most people in that scenario to assume that you could get beef and chicken.

*Or are intended to be able to choose.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

The feat does exactly what it says it does (grammatically). If you have this feat you can either choose +1 hit point and +1 skill rank, or you can choose the alternate class reward.

You do not get your choice of two of the three, but it does not preclude you from taking an alternate class reward if you choose to do that instead.

Then alternate FCBs should never have been mentioned in the feat, as it has no interaction with them whatsoever.

Except in that case you'd have had some people arguing that when you took Fast Learner you no longer got a choice at all: "It says once you take it you get a hit point and a skill point at level. That means when you take the feat you forfeit the ability to take FCBs!"

Darned if they did, darned if they didn't.