Yorien's page

223 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

As Shiroi said, "Theoretically" it could based on wording, but I think is not intended. Note that the aqueous orb has effect targeting, so it doesn't target creatures directly... but can affect them in case it's cast in their square. This way you could consider it "affects" creatures.

Still, note that Focused spell also has a rule that makes it only work if more than one creature is affected:

When casting a spell that affects or targets more than one creature

That means, you must make it "catch" more than one creature when cast.

Unless the eidolon has somehow immunity to Nauseated condition, yes, it can be nauseated.

Also, Outsider template states that, while they do not require to eat or sleep, they can if they wish

Delenot wrote:

I'm asking this on a rules basis, not necessarily a common sense basis...as it is an Eidolon.

With a Quadruped base form, if I wanted to have 5 natural attacks, would the minimum Evos needed be Claws x2?

It starts with Bite for free, and 2 sets of legs. Would adding claws to all four legs be enough, or does it require an additional set of limbs/legs to stand upon to attack? Again, asking per rules and not necessarily structurally common sense basis.

Thanks in advance!

Also, be aware that Eidolons have a max attack cap based on the Summoner's level. An eidolon can't have more natural (chained) or total attacks (unchained) than the listed value. You won't have access to 5 attacks until summoner level 9

Once you have access to enough attacks, the "cheapest" way to get those extra two attacks would be to add a limbs (arms) evo (grows a pair) and attach a claws evo (or pincers, or a similar evo that grants two attacks) on those.

Crexis wrote:

This itemallows me to sleep only 2 hours to regain use of all my spells. Would I be able to use this ring to spend 6 hours every night crafting wondrous items?

RAW no, per magic item creation rules:

If the caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he nets only 2 hours' worth of work. This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night.

That's it. If you are out adventuring, you get four hours of work netting two of item completion. The fact that you have more time to spare doesn't nullify this rule.

Still, a GM may allow your character to use the "dedicated time rule" in some scenarios, like when you finish an adventuring day "early", if there's enough time to spare:

If time is dedicated to creation, it must be spent in uninterrupted 4-hour blocks. This work is generally done in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine. Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster).

For your character to be eligible for this, you GM must consider that you have a free 4-hour block during your adventuring day, since, unlike the "adventuring time", this block must be continuous and completely dedicated to crafting. You can't stop/pause working during this 4h period, or "share" it with other duties.

Crexis wrote:
I have a handy haversack (I got 7 str so bag of holding is kind of heavy), what would I/Do I need to throw something in there to help me craft the wondrous items? Or do I need a lab or something which won't allow me to craft mobile style.

What you need will mainly depend on the type of magic item you're creating. Check the Magic Item Creation section for the items and the most common components, but basically, for anything that's no weapon or armor (that require a potent enough heat source and some tools you won't probably find outside of a smithy), for most other items you can normally find a "portable" version of the needed tools.

Kageshira wrote:

Question. Upon reaching certain levels spontaneous caster classes can swap a spell known for a new one (losing the old one of course) can you do this with cantrips? My GM says I can't but he can't give me a straight answer of why, meanwhile nomatter where I look everything points to cantrips being spells for all intents and purposes.

Thanks in advance.

A cantrip is a 0-level spell, the only difference is that they can be reused at will, so yes, you may chose to exchange one of them for any other 0-level spell available.

Agodeshalf wrote:
The other use of protection from evil is to give a dominated person a second chance. In this case, if you cast protection from evil on a dominated person, then they can try to suppress the domination with a +2 morale bonus (not sure if you get the +2 resistance bonus as well). If successful, the domination is suppressed for the duration of the spell. Note that with this second use of protection from evil, the dominated person actually will get a will saving throw to avoid the protection from evil, as that person is no longer an ally.

That's not neccessarily true, will depend mostly on how the caster words the command given, and the exact scenario.

The fact that a creature is dominated doesn't grant the caster complete omniscience about her. In fact, once the target is out of sight caster will only receive experiences like lust, pain, hunger... unless he concentrates to gain partial (not even full) sensory information. And "receiving a spell" is not an experience the caster will normally receive.

A dominated creature that receives a command will attempt to carry out that command. But as long as receiving a spell does not prevent the target from fulfilling that command, the creature may still freely decide who she perceives as an ally unless she was explicitly commanded against it.

Dominate has a 1day/level duration, so it's not normally used for close quarters (although it certainly can), but to keep "thralls" controlled long distances away; so in most cases the target will be given a lot of free reign unless the caster stays 24x7 receiving sensory input. It's pretty much common for a long distance thrall to be checked just couple times a day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Myth Seeker wrote:

Can caster, using suggestion spell,

1) tell party member to "kill their friends, they are conspiring against you", GM said it is not harmful to himself to attack own party.

Maybe, but you should forge some proof, and the suggestion most certainly won't end in a frontline assault.

If you simply say that without proof, spell will most likely fail. But if you show the target some "proof" (or "examples") that his allies are conspiring, suggestion may work.

Still, be aware that the spell only suggests a course of action, not the way that action has to be done, and of course doesn't make the target stupid. Depending on the class, alignment, abilities... the course of action will be different for every character, and unless a character is sure that the best course of action is an "outnumbered 1 vs X frontal assault", that course of action will never be taken.

2) then he does not try to kill them directly but casts a suggestion spell of "go to sleep" to party member engaged in combat? GM said falling asleep is not harmful but then party member was hit with coup de grâce by engaged enemy.

Four words: NO WAY IN HELL.

Remember the rule: The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable..

Does "go to sleep" in the middle of a fight sound reasonable? NO.

That would automatically negate the spell.

3) allowed to pass through friendly squares, while he is killing "Allies"? or would the parties enemies know be friendly squares and he is no longer able to pass through party squares since he is "killing" them?

Initially yes. Any creature decides whether other creatures are friends or foes, and thus allow them free pass or block them. If you somehow suggest that a former "foe" is now a friend, may change the target's way of thinking allowing the foe free pass.

But if the newly acquired "ally" starts behaving badly against other allies, then the suggestion's target may change her mind again.

4) Use suggestion on another member(summoner)to create pit under himself and Eidolon, when refused it would be hurt full then let spell caster change to "create pit under Eidolon and anther party member" Did not want to cast due to -2 penalty and likely to fall in, then told to move then cast spell.

I'd say no in both scenarios.

A suggestion is NOT a command the target is forced to follow. A suggestion is exactly that... a suggestion. It has to make some sense and be useful in the current scenario.

The first scenario will 99% of the time immediately fail because of basic self-preservation, same as a "kill yourself" suggestion. It "might" work in the rare case that where an ancient dragon is about to breathe, so it's either "hide on the pit" or get roasted... but for most other situations, it's a no-go.

The second scenatrrio is slightly more feasible, but in most situations placing a pit under two allies, probably dealing damage to them and removing them from a fight doesn't make much sense. Remember that the suggestion "must sound reasonable".

5) used suggestion spell to tell Eidolon " do not let archer attack me" went to attack and was told I could not still attack because I am not stopping anyone from attacking.

Don't quite understand the question here.

You have to cast the spell beforehand and hold the charge.

As the rules state:

Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack

An AoO is a melee attack, simple as that.

So, as an AoO you can only perform a melee attack, or an action that can be executed in place of a melee attack (like some combat maneuvers).

Driver_325yards wrote:

Just want to make sure I understand how multi-attack works on an eidolon.

Let's say an Eidolon has eight arms, two arms have claws. The Eidolon has multiattacking and unarmed strike feat.

He would get six attack with his fists with a -4 penalty to all attacks, and would get two claws at -5? He could also just take 8 attacks at -4 with unarmed strikes?

1-. Unarmed strikes are not natural attacks.

2-. To be eligible for multiattack the eidolon must have 3+ natural attacks. An eidolon with only two claws is not eligible for MA... unless he also has another natural attack like a bite or something.

If your Eidolon got the feat "for free" (Summoner lv 9), then you follow the eidolon rules:

Multiattack: An eidolon gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has 3 or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite 3 or more natural attacks (or it is reduced to less than 3 attacks), the eidolon instead gains a second attack with one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty. If the eidolon later gains 3 or more natural attacks, it loses this additional attack and instead gains Multiattack.

If you "purchased" the feat, the feat gets disabled until you met it's prerequisites again.


Multiattack (Combat)

This creature is particularly skilled at making attacks with its natural weapons.

Prerequisite: Three or more natural attacks.

Benefit: The creature's secondary attacks with natural weapons take only a –2 penalty.

Normal: Without this feat, the creature's secondary attacks with natural weapons take a –5 penalty.

3-. If you have the Improved unarmed strike feat (there's no "unarmed strike" feat), then you have no penalties when attacking unarmed. Still, if in a round you mix natural attacks and manufactured weapons OR unarmed strikes, ALL natural attacks become secondary (-5 to-hit penalty, reduced to -2 penalty if eligible to multiattack, and 1/2 STR bonus)

4-. Finally, Unarmed strikes are iterative and use your BAB to determine the number of unarmed attacks you can do (so, you check your Eidolon's BAB colum to know how many attacks you can perform and at what attack bonus each). Damage deal will be based on the Eidolon's size (1d3 for medium, etc...) with x1 STR bonus.

Agodeshalf wrote:

Thanks for the response, Blahpers. I guess this isn't nearly as controversial as I thought. Or maybe everyone is tired of arguing about it. Or couldn't be bothered :(

As far as the troll entry is concerned though it really just states that starvation, and drowning can kill a troll. It is hard to extrapolate a general rule from just that entry. Other than it seems to refute the "cannot die" text in regenerate.

About the Codex entry, you have to translate it into rules yourself.

Since starvation, drowning... are environmental effects, you can focus on the common features. The two most usted option are:

1-. Last "tick" of the effect (you drown/you starve/...) counts as a Death effect.

2-. When the effect kicks in (the CON roll is finally failed), regeneration is stopped until the effect is "fixed".

Second one seems to fit more the troll Codex... A troll who doesn't get enough to eat over the course of a few days loses its regeneration and becomes vulnerable

I see no issue on chaining or using manacles instead or ropes to tie up.

Manacles and mechanical fixations usually have a fixed DC, so you'd use those values instead of any roll.

Cyrad wrote:
The issue is that all spellcasting requires mental actions and concentration. I find it difficult to believe you can concentrate when you are incapable of thinking.

As it's name states, a spell-like ability is an ability, not a spell. A (sp) ability generates a magical effect that normally duplicates a spell, but it's clearly stated that they're not spells, and their activation may not require spellcasting or concentration.

Sure, the (Sp) rules also state that you can concentrate to Use (wording specifically says USE, not cast), a (Sp) ability defensively, something that mindless creatures will be unable to.... but mindless creatures might have access to continuous effects (like some sort of magical aura, for example) that may activate innately or based on pure instinct.

Fedor Checherov wrote:
If my Bull Rush attempt was succesful, can I choose not to push opponent from his square at all? (having Merciless Rush feat and Squash Flat feat I am totally satisfied with damage and trip attempt from Bull Rush and do not want move at all)

RAW, pushing for the first 5ft is mandatory, the rest is optional.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:

You would really beat your friend unconscious and risk their death, if you thought they were "acting weird"?

People can die from non-lethal damage, don't forget that. But sure, if that's how you'd react to one of the PCs "acting wierd" then I see no issue responding like this to NPCs that also do that.

Though I don't know why you could conclude that the caster is one acting wierd, rather than your party acting weird (perhaps the party is acting wierd, and it's up to you and your lamia buddy to render them unconscious).

The actions a charmed creature may take would depend on the exact scenario, the charmed creature's class, her alignment, and previous caster's actions. Charm person just makes the caster your "friend", doesn't make the charmed creature stupid or amnesic. Also, she may be your "friend", but so may be the rest of the party. Finally, take into account the OP essentially pointed that the group is already in combat, probably against her.

A couple scenarios with some possible outcomes.

Scenario 1:

Combat Round #4 in the middle of some random ruins: Lamia already attacked several times, another party member is downed, two orcs are attacking your mage and suddenly she asks you to fetch some water while she's holding your party's rogue under her paws. There's no need to roll CHA here, there's clearly something wrong with her and/or your party. No chance you'll leave battle to fetch water; stop everyone before more damage is done but try not to kill anyone except those orcs.

Scenario 2:

Combat round #4 near a city: Orcs are attacking your party but she's been acting passively (although why the hell she's not helping your group?). She suddenly asks you make a run to the city and call for reinforcements while the rest of the group keeps the orcs busy because your barbarian is the fastest runner. Hey that idea is actually not half-bad - specially if you think the party will manage against "only those orcs" - and she may perfectly get that CHA roll.

Beat wrote:

Sorry if this has been answered before I'm sure it has, but I didn't see it answered in the threads I went through.

Say a Lamia charms a PC who fails her save. Maybe orders the PC "I'm so thirsty. Could you go get me water from the fountain?" to take the PC out of the battle for the moment. Something a friend might do. The PC fails the opposed charisma check. Another PC grabs the charmed PC and requests "don't do that we need you here". Would there be another opposed charisma check-maybe against the DC set by the Lamia's roll or would the PC make best efforts to fulfill the Lamia's request?

I'd say the PC directly ignores that command

First, charm does not grant direct control, merely changes the target's attitude towards the caster to "friendly". That does not even mean you will stop attacking the caster, but you may think twice because "my friend could've be controlled or something because he's acting weird. Let's go nonlethal so we can deal with his condition later"

Second, the charmed creature does not lose awareness. If you're in combat with your friends in peril, you'll not abandon combat risking defeat or even deaths to just fetch some water

Double Slice would do nothing since flurry specifically states damage becomes x1

I'd say TWR would work only if the monk is actually flurrying with weapons. When fighting unarmed, monks do not have offhand attacks:

There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed...

Since you must land an offhand attack to be eligible for TWR, would have to use actual weapons to achieve that.

cmastah wrote:
Is a quasit's cause fear ability per single target or crowd? Because in one adventure module it says a quasit uses its cause fear ability and then tangles with whoever's still standing.

Bestiary states 1/day, 30ft radius, DC11.

Edit: So, it's an AoE burst. While the ability doesn't clearly state a targets, and the spell targets "a living creature", I'd say that the burst has the quasit as the PoO.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
I don't own the Bestiarys, but I can't find any reference of drowning trolls on the SRD, and certainly not in their stat block.

As already pointed, not bestiary but Codex. You have to translate the Codex data into in-game rules.

The Codex directly states that a troll not eating over few days loses regeneration. The translation into in-game rules is left to the GM, but the accepted method, that fits the timer pointed by the codex, is to stop regeneration once the CON check is finally failed and until the troll feeds again.

For drowning, a similar issue happens but has two solutions. A creature with regen active cannot die, but the Codex and AP's states that trolls do actually die from drowning, so must again translate into ruling. First option, that fits everything is to stop regen when the environmental effect comes into effect (CON check va drowning os failed). Second is to consider the last "tick" of an environmental effect (creature drowns/suffocates/...) as a Death effect.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Then you're not going to get an unambiguous answer. Regeration's text is poorly written to the point that arguments for or against are inconclusive so the best you can do is hunt down some actual RAI examples from the devs which has been pointed out in two separate examples by TL and myself. If you find that insufficient, I'd suggest demanding FAQs.

RAW, trolls can be drowned and starved to death. Not just because it's written on an AP, but because it's written on their codex.

Sure, Regen is specially badly worded, so it's a GM's choice to decide if a regenerating creature can die from an environmental effect (as long as the creature can be affected by a particular effect), or not.

There are two points that favor environmental kills, the CON roll failure (that seems to clearly remove regen as part of its application based on how the Troll codex is worded) and the fact that the last application from an environmental effect directly "kills" the target (which pretty much resembles a "death" effect).

The main points against environmental kills is that you must "translate" wording into rules, a Troll starving loses Regen (the codex states that clearly) but doesn't say exactly when in rule terms. And same for starving or drowning. Codex states a Troll can be drowned or starved to death, but doesn't say how (Is the last "environmental tick" a death effect? Does the CON failure remove Regen?...)

Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.

As stated, single melee attack. Also, you can perform a specific set of combat maneuvers as AoO's (namely, those that have "in place of a melee attack" on their wording, like disarm)

Ryze Kuja wrote:
If it's not supposed to be used with Greater Cleave, they should put a sentence in the Mighty Cleaving enchant that it "doesn't work with Great Cleave, Cleave only" or something. That's slightly ambiguous :/

It's not ambiguous. Exact wording of Mighty Cleaving is:

"...allows a wielder using the Cleave feat..."

Not only the description directly states "cleave feat", but also on the official SRD the Cleave feat is hyperlinked. So, RAW, it only works with the linked feat.

Ryze Kuja wrote:
So if you have Greater Cleave and Mighty Cleaving how would that work?

As Garbage-Tier Waifu stated, Mighty Cleaving directly states you have to use the Cleave feat. Greater Cleave, while having te Cleave feat requirement, is a "standalone" feat that is declared on it's own, so per pure RAW wording Mighty Cleave won't work with Greater Cleave.

Sure, It may feel weird that only works on Cleave and not on "XXXX cleave" feats, so this is essentially a RAW vs RAI scenario. In case your GM allows Mighty Cleave to work with any "XXXX cleave" feat, Mighty cleave only grants ONE attack: "...one additional attack...", not an attack for every cleave hit. The Mighty Cleave target must be adjacent to the "first" foe you hit and within reach.

Trish Megistos wrote:
First of all, does it require the Cleave Feat, because that's what it looks like to me.

The item special ability directly states: "wielder using the Cleave feat", so yes, you must declare you cleave.

Unlike the old D&D versions, Cleave is no longer an on-kill trigger. Cleave is now a feat that specifically requires a Standard Action to be performed, so it must be declared through the Use Feat (cleave) action.

Trish Megistos wrote:
So this allows the Cleave Feat to make up to 2 attacks if 2 enemies were to be in range.

As i read it, might work with two opponents, based on how feat and ability are worded:

Cleave states:

If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach

Mighty cleave states:

...wielder using the Cleave feat to make one additional attack if the first attack hits, as long as the next foe is adjacent to the first and also within reach

"First" in both scenarios seems to refer to the foe you make the standard attack on. The "next" foe must be adjacent and within reach, but seems nothing bars you from using cleave and mighty cleave on the same "next foe" (unlike Greater Cleave for example, that directly points that you must switch opponents every attack).

Trish Megistos wrote:
Cleave is only allowed once per round, but what if it's triggered by an AoO?

An AoO only allows you to perform a single attack or some combat maneuvers. You're not granted a standard action or Use Feat action, so cannot trigger cleave.

Volkard Abendroth wrote:
You do, in fact, use a weapon when using Grab. The grapple check is initiated by the eidolons bite attack. You continue using your bite in subsequent rounds to maintain the grapple.

On a grab you only attack once (the initial bite that grants you the "free" grapple check). If you later want to hold the grapple you do not attack anymore, but instead make maintain grapple checks.

Those "maintain" checks do not deal damage themselves. To deal damage with the maintain checks you must first succeed on the check and then chose to "do damage" as the bonus action.

Neither the "damage" actions or the constrict ability have attack rolls, so they don't have crit chances. They simply "activate" when the maintain maneuver succeeds (and in the "damage" case, you must select it)

William Werminster wrote:
b) Attack, if it hits do attack damage, try a free grapple check, constrict damage if succeeded. Release the victim as a free action, and repeat the process 3 more times. Ending the turn maintaining the grapple with the 4th attack.

Sure, but you'll have to tie the grab evolution to an attack you have several "copies" of, probably growing several limb (arms) and adding claws/pincers to them.

Also, the GM may perfectly limit the amount of releases you can perform since almost nobody will expect the constricts to be instantaneous.

Omagi wrote:

If I am a Lion Shaman for example and my Lion animal companion dies, can I replace the Lion with any animal I would prefer or do I need to seek out a Lion to replace the one I lost?

I'd say that if you are a Lion Shaman you must select a Lion as the animal companion, even if you're replacing a released/dead one. You're chosing a new animal companion so the bond limitation would apply again.


Nature Bond

A lion shaman who chooses an animal companion must select a lion. If choosing a domain, the lion shaman must choose from the Animal, Glory, Nobility, and Sun domains.

Doomed Hero wrote:

I just took a look at the Burning Arc spell and it occured to me that if there's only one target, the additional acs might be able to target objects.

Does that work?

Could you target a wizard, and also target their spellbook and spell component pouch? (Making new saves for each?)

Could you arc from a person to unattended objects?

The targeting descriptor states the following:

Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself..

So, you must check the spell to see what kinds of targets it allows.

The aiming descriptor only states "one primary target plus one additional target/3 levels", so based on that alone, you should be able to target objects; but, the spell description states "... burning a number of enemies nearby". That sentence would limit the target type to something you can directly consider an enemy.

I'd say that an inanimated book sitting on a table doesn't count as an enemy, so you should not be able to target that book or the wizard's component pouch (unless the pouch attacks you first).

Valandil Ancalime wrote:
Thanks for the response.

If you consider that for "moving" means any kind of movement, the spell would always do nothing unless you place the monument on a continent with perfectly still tectonic plates, on a planet that is not moving through the firmament, in a universe that is not expanding... So, your GM will have to rule at "what mobility point" the monument is considered as "still in place"

I'd say Guardian Monument would function or not based on the covered tactical area. If the battlefield area is comparatively larger (in tactical view/square terms) so the monument covers a "fixed area" of that battlefield, then the monument works.

This would mean, if you place the monument in a floating disk and move the disk, the squares the monument covers change so it would stop functioning. But if you place the monument on a large enough mobile object (like a large ship), as long as the monument keeps protecting the same fixed area of the ship, a GM might perfectly rule the monument works in that particular scenario, even if the ship is moving.

Dave Justus wrote:

The stones would actually be discharged as soon as you fired them, so even if they miss, they are done.

Although you didn't get any extra damage from them, you did in get the +1 to hit.

Since they come from a spell and not from crafted ammunition, that might be true, a GM may consider that firing a stone discharges the magic; but since the spell states the stones are treated as sling bullets, I'd say they behave as generic magic ammunition.

A normal weapon firing magic projectiles gets the magic projectile enhancement bonus but characters still have a 50% recovery chance if the projectile misses. If a character rolls the recovery chance, the recovered projectile is still magical.

PneumaPilot2 wrote:
Thanks, Yorian. I also just noticed (don't know how I missed it) that the spell's duration says, "30 minutes or until discharged", so I guess if the ammunition were not destroyed (as you pointed out) then it would also not be "discharged".

Yeah, that's the idea, and works for most types of projectiles.

If you hit, then damage is done and the projectiles becomes useless.

If you miss, then there's a 50% for the projectile to be destroyed or lost; if it's not then you should be able to recover the projectile normally and use it again as long as you can find it. For normal ammo finding the projectile might be difficult and probably not worth the cost (unless ammo is scarce), but for magical, more expensive ammo (or projectiles under a spell), something like detect magic might come in handy to recover at least some missfired projectiles back.

On large battles where ammunition count may become important (sieges and such come to mind) then your GM might rule that some projectiles that hit can also be scavenged back (at least non-magical ones), but that's out of scope from the usual PC skirmishes.

Mbertorch wrote:
I have no idea what these critters should look like as far as stats and abilities are concerned.

Animal companions are basically a common animal of the chosen species, you normally check the bestiary to get the default stats. The main difference is that those companions usually "level up" along with the Druid/ranger.

You'll find a table with the changes a companion gets (over a "normal creature" of the chosen species) based on the player character's level. Some changes are fixed (the companion gets the values stated on the table instead of their normal scores, for example the saving throws) while others increase the default values of creatures from that species (for example, conmpanions "grow up in size and power", and get extra bonuses to their STR-DEX bonuses)

Animal companions normally keep "animal intelligence" so you must handle them as any other animal (Handle animal skill). Normally they're loyal to the druid/ranger, and the character usually has specific bonuses to handle them (for example, a druid can use handle animal on her companion as a free action).

If you raise an animal companion INT to 3 they get several benefits. Can put ranks in any skill, can select any feat they're physically capable to use, can understand spoken non-complicated language and depending on the animal, might even express themselves with basic wording if their vocal cords allow them to do so (for example a parrot)


Familiars behave similary to animal companions with few changes (they become magical beasts instead of animals, and become sentient with decent INT scores so they understand a languages, for example). Again, check a common member of the familiar species to get the base stats, then check the character class table to see what changes you have to apply to those values.

Brother Fen wrote:

No, let me explain it to you. PCs that have 500gp can purchase a wayfinder. There is always room for GM variation such as determining that Town A is too small to have a wayfinder in stock, while another GM may say the same Town A has a wayfinder in stock because a wayward pathfinder came through years ago and left it.

Don't lecture me. I was giving the OP the benefit of the doubt with regards to table variance without going on needlessly.

I didn't mean to lecture you, a player with around 500gp may purchase a wayfinder, but the OP asked about how "common" they are. In game terms, I'd say he meant what chances do you have to roll one when rolling on Wondrouws Items tables, or to find one on a shop.

Some GM's may have an "All Magic you can Pay for" emporium with all magical items available from the CRB and any sourcebooks they use on their campaigns as long as the players have enough cash, but others (most I'd say) will have a specific array of magical items for sale, normally based on how "common" they are (namely, the more wanted an item is, the more chances it can be purchased without the need of asking for an artisan to craft it).

A wayfinder will be more common on campaigns that contain Pathfinder Society guilds and rarer on campaigns without the society, since it's usefulness (alone) is pretty niche compared to other ~500gp cost items.

In fact, I'd even say that "used/tested", non-ioun bonus wayfinders migh have higher chances to be found in shops since these are the ones people doesn't want to keep. And they have the same price than the ones that rolled their ioun-bonus chance.

JDPhipps wrote:
Rare enough that a wayfinder is considered to basically be the badge of a member of the Pathfinders on Golarion. That's not to say non-Pathfinders don't have them, but the typically assumption is that if you have one you're a member of the Society. I don't know of any notable NPCs on Golarion who are not Pathfinders (or ex-Pathfinders, the descendants of Pathfinders, etc.) who have one.

Be aware, the OP stated it's for their inclusion on regular (non PFS) campaigns.

On PFS campaign sure, they may be considered the "Society Member Card", but on regular campaigns they're no different than a normal magic item.

In the end, Wayfinder disponibility will depend if the OP's campaign has PFS Guilds or not. If his campaign has PFS guilds, then wayfinders will be more common since most members of the society will have them and guild houses may even sell some to non-members; but if the OP's campaign doesn't have PFS guilds (because he's not playing in Golarion for example), then they'll be way more rare since they're a niche magical item with limited usefulness unless a particular need arises.

Brother Fen wrote:
They're as common as 500gp.

Let me assure you, wayfinders are far less common than 500gp. The wayfinder itself gives you the light spell, the nonmmagical compass (+2 to survival checks to avoid becoming lost only) and the indentation for the Ioun Stone. That's it.

A crafter may normaly decide to create a wayfinder for 3 reasons:

1-. Personal Use: Will a dwarven crafter, that spends all his time in a city want to craft a wayfinder? No reason, he has darkvision so the light spell is almost useless for him, and he doesn't have a need for survival checks (unless he gets drunk and ends in a bad part of the city he doesn't recognize).

2-. On-demand petition: Sure, If you got the money and the artisan has time to spare, you might get one in a couple days.

3-. There's a market for them: Would the weapon users in your party immediately purchase a Wayfinder once they get 500gp over saving 2K for their first +1 weapon, or 1K for their armor, or their capes of resistance, or their...? No, right? Then a wayfinder is less common than all those items. An intelligent crafter will prefer to craft a +1 cape of resistance over a wayfinder 100% of the time, because for every wayfinder he sells he may sell 50 or 100 of those capes.

So, a wayfinder is a niche product. On a large city that holds a PFS base, then sure, the PFS will probably have a couple on sale since wayfinders are mainly meant explorers and adventurers. But on a normal town chances to find one are zero, unless the town is near to the wilderness and the ranger captain happens to have one.

GuestEleven wrote:
Actually I think if this isn't an absolute ruling (which I can't find anywhere that it is) then it should honestly be DM discretion. Attack action is a sub-type of a standard action, and Iaijutsu Strike is a standard action that a DM could easily see as an attack action because it is a combative attack type of a standard action. Anything set to a standard action could be categorized into one of the sub-type actions. Though I can definitely see why a DM might crush the marrying of this feat and ability, with all the right Vital Strike and crit feats including some mythic versions and maybe some tweaks here and there to certain things you could probably cleave a mountain in two with this combination.

Iaitsu Strike is a non-reactive (ex) ability that has an action cost of either a full-round action or a standard action (based on level), thus, you have to specifically declare the Use Extraordinaty Ability action (from the Actions in Combat table) to perform it.

Since "Use Extraordinary Ability" is not the "Attack" action, you cannot use Vital Strike.

PneumaPilot2 wrote:
If I cast Magic Stone on three sling bullets and then shoot them in three separate rounds, what happens to the bullets if one hits (and deals it's magic damage) and the other two miss and clatter to the floor? Do any of them retain the effect? In other words, could I pick one up after combat and take it with me to the next combat? If I also cast Light on it, it would be very easy to see and reclaim.

You might consider the ammunition rules:

Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

Based on that, on a miss there would be a 50% chance for the stone to discharge. If the GM considers the stone is "lost" instead of destroyed, the possibly a detect Magic might allow to reclaim the stone with some search.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bregick84 wrote:

So, I disagree with my playgroup that denies that when you reenter an ally's circle that you get to make a new save against an effect that exerts control over them.

They do, in fact, get to make a reroll on their save if I am correct.

Can anyone confirm or provide an official link to the correct answer?

Thanks ahead of time!

Circles only provide the supression roll once, as long as the creature making the roll enters the circle for the first time, or the circle is cast catching the dominated creature on it's area. A creature that started "inside" the circle, leaves the circle and enters it again no longer gains the benefits.

Also be aware, if the circle or the protection spell is cast reactively (on a currently dominated creature), the creature doesn't get a roll to terminate the domination effect; she gets a roll to supress the domination effect as long as the protection spell lasts or she stays inside the circle. If the spell ends and the domination effect is still active, the domination resumes normally.

deuxhero wrote:
An arcane lock spell cast upon a door, chest, or portal magically locks it. You can freely pass your own arcane lock without affecting it. If the locked object has a lock, the DC to open that lock increases by 10 while it remains attached to the object. If the object does not have a lock, this spell creates one that can only be opened with a DC 20 Disable Device skill check.
What does "You can freely pass your own arcane lock without affecting it." even mean exactly? The only thing I can't think of multiple readings is that you can open and shut a door/chest/portal without a physical lock that cast Arcane Lock on without any keys needed. What does it mean for something with an existing lock?

You normally cast the spell on something of your property. An arcane lock cast by a character doesn't affect him, so can open or close the object the spell is attached to as if the spell wasn't there.

Let's say you cast arcane lock on two coffers. One simply has a lid, the other has a physical lock with a key.

a) You can open the chest with the lid just by raising the lid. Other creatures attempting to raise the lid will have to deal with a DC20 magical lock.

b) You can open the chest with the normal lock if you have the key (or by rolling against the DC of the lock if you lost the key). All other creatures will have to deal with the DC of the lock +10.

Starglim wrote:
They can't ready actions until they are in combat rounds. Since readying is a standard action, doing it in the surprise round wouldn't give them any more actions, though they might choose to do so for other reasons, such as to interrupt spells that they might expect a wizard to cast.

You're right, a readied action can only happen in combat. The point is, players are aware, expect the wizard to do something pretty specific and prepare for that. Wizard is totally unaware of the situation and simply ports in, not expecting to find anyone on the destination. In that scenario I'd totally give advantage to the PC's instead of simply rolling a reactive perception check for the wizard.

Since that readied action can only be done in the surprise round and since the PC's actually guessed the condition, I'd say they can be granted the surprise round. They must "waste" the surprise round readying but still get to act before the wizard on the first combat round so he's caught flat-footed. If an archer is waiting for 5 minutes pointing at a closed door with his crossbow, ready to shoot the moment it opens, I'd say the first unexpecting orc that enters that door won't get a perception check and be able to raise his shield before the bolt buries deep in his stomach.

At least this is how I'd play it.

Boochie wrote:
how do i find my attack bounus

It's written in your class main information table, so find your character class in the books or the SRD and check the "Base attack Bonus" column.

Xexyz wrote:

Here's the setup: The PCs are preparing to ambush an individual they expect to teleport into the killzone sometime within a 15 minute window. They are concealing themselves and will attack as soon as the target appears. They have no other information regarding the teleporting individual's whereabouts or other actions.

My interpretation: When the target teleports into the killzone, the target will have the opportunity to make a perception check to spot the concealed PCs. If the target is successful both parties will roll initiative and combat will begin as normal. If the target fails its perception check, the target will be surprised and the PCs will get a surprise round.

Is my interpretation correct by the rules?

If the characters "know" the enemy wizard is going to TP into a killzone, they may probably ensure they get the wizard flat-footed at least by readying a "when the enemy teleports in" action. Readying an action "interrupts" the target's action (in this case somewhat difficult, PC's cannot interrupt the teleport since the wizard is somewhere else until he actually finishes teleporting to the killzone), but in all other scenarios works similar to an AoO, it's triggered and executed before the action that provoked it. So they're essentially waiting to drop the hammer the moment the wizard's ugly face pops in.

If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character.

I'd allow that readied action to trigger the moment he ports in but before he can take any other action (not even the perception check).

Also, while it might count as houseruling, readying works for standard, move, swift or free actions and the surprise round allows up to a standard action, so you might consider that those readied actions happen in the surprise round.

Finally, the following turns all PC's will act right before the wizard, at the same initiative value, so you would only have to roll initiative for the wizard.

Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.

Ferious Thune wrote:
I posted a lengthy breakdown in the thread I linked. Short version: All of those bonuses are coming from the same source (invisibility), and all of them are modifying the same thing (DC to perceive). They don't stack. I'd appreciate it if you respond over in the other thread if you would like to continue the discussion.

A modifier is not a bonus. There's only one "bonus", the +20/+40 to a stealth check. The rest are modifiers to a DC roll.

And, even if you consider them all bonus and penalties... bonuses of the same type do not stack. Penalties do stack.

Perfect Tommy wrote:
No. You get one reactive perception check per round, always excepting of course that gms's can give you more.

As many others, I also disagree here. Yu get a reactive check everytime you're eligible to one.

In game terms, let's say an enemy wizard casts Mass Invisibility, affecting the entire enemy party. Once initiative is rolled enemy rogue gets to act first at initiative 23. He closes in preparing for a sneak attack and you get a reactive roll to notice that he's in a 30ft radius. Later on, at initiative 9 the enemy cleric also closes in. You do get another reactive roll to notice the cleric.

Cevah wrote:
Yorien wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
Those are all the same +20 just listed in different abilities so they don't get missed. It's a single +20 for being invisible while moving. Not multiple +20s.
There are "not the same +20's", and If someone thinks they are, please tell me whose.

Great post.

And then I ask again: What +20 stealth bonus from being invisible and moving I've added twice? Please, do not mix it with any of the multiple +20 perception DC modifiers you should add, because that's what I think is happening.

Ferious Thune wrote:
In addition to the link cevah posted, I linked you three threads exploring the issue. One of them is even from May and still currently active. This thread isn't really about what the DC is, and no matter how high the DC is or isn't, it doesn't affect the central question here. So if you want a discussion on the DC, it's best to take it over to that thread. [...]

I agree about that, but the discussion about how high the check is has happened in this post, and keeps getting replies.

My point about the OP's question has already been stated: The player's character (the barbarian, bard, fighter, cleric, whatever...) is the one that must know when the Step Up feat's conditions are met in order to use Step Up.

Against an invisible foe, the character never khows how the foe moves (did he took a 5-foot step, a 5ft. normal move, or something else?), when the foe moves (the initiative turn may be known by the player, not by the character, against a visible oponent character simply "sees" when the foe acts), and where the foe moves (the moment foe leaves the square, character loses track, so he doesn't know if the for moved away, closer, or to the sides). So, character is ineligible to use the feat as long as he does not accurately recognize the conditions.

Ferious Thune wrote:
Those are all the same +20 just listed in different abilities so they don't get missed. It's a single +20 for being invisible while moving. Not multiple +20s.

There are "not the same +20's", and If someone thinks they are, please tell me whose. Stealth and invisibility spell have the same wording, as several people stated. They're listed in separate locations since you normally make opposed checks and the opposed check is stealth based, so you may re-read the stealth skill to refresh your info and forget the bonus granted by the spell. That's totally correct, but I've only applied the bonus once.

But, the specific rules to detect invisible creatures and the bonus granted by the invisible spell/stealth abilities have not the same wording:

The table under invisibility (glossary) states directly they are Perception DC Modifier(s). They add to the DC of the Perception roll that has to be made by a creature attempting to notice or pinpoint. And since these are not bonuses, but modifiers, you add all modifiers that apply in a particular scenario.

The bonus written under both the invisibility spell and the stealth skill states directly it's a bonus to Stealth checks. It adds to any stealth roll the invisible creature has to make.

As far as i'm concerned about english wording, Perception DC Modifierbonus to Stealth checks. I never double-dipped into the same bonus; they are different, but in the end the stealth roll (and the spell bonus) is added to the Perception DC as yet another modifier.

Ferious Thune wrote:

It sounds like you're adding some of the same modifiers multiple times. An invisible creature, using stealth, and moving rolls their stealth and adds +20. For a wizard with no ranks in stealth, and maybe a +1 from DEX, they are going to max out at 41 on that roll. My Investigator's take 10 will spot them.

The Wizard could just as easily roll a 1 + 1 DEX +20 Invisibility = DC22. There are first level characters that can make that.

From both your scenarios, it's you who's missing several modifiers.

First of all, you're not applying the most critical modifier you should always have in mind, since is the most used. A perception-based pinpoint attempt immediately adds +20 the the check DC. Since you're rolling an opposed perception vs stealth check, this modifier applies

It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check

Second, expecting that the wizard uses the invisibility spell and considering the wizard is moving, he gets a +20 bonus to his stealth roll.

If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving

Suddenly, your character's perception checks to pinpoint the wizard have become +40 DC harder, and still there are more modifiers you should apply (in fact, while the spell grants him a +20 to stealth, since the wizard is moving he also gets a penalty to the perception DC based on the speed he moves - and the opposite, if the wizard stands still he'd get +20 bonus to the perception DC -)

Perfect Tommy wrote:
Cevah wrote:

It appears we agree that a separate check could detect the movement.


Sure. But Jacobs made reactive checks limited to one per round at the time most advantageous to the player.

But I like the comment by the guy that solves this debate entirely.

Absent metagaming - how is a player going to know an invisible player took a 5 foot step. He isn't.

You have no way to know as a player, no way to know as a character either.

That reactive check is normally the following one, unless the GM agrees to grant extra information at the cost of a higher DC check.

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check.

This is basically a "sixth sense" all creatures get when a nearby invisible creature gets close. This normally means, if a pinpointed creature moves, you usually get at least this check for free to notice is the creature is still in your vicinity, but not where. This check is normally "flat" (DC20, that's it), unless the creature moves around stealthily. In that scenario an opposed check is required.

Still, your GM may perfectly declare your reactive roll may be a better one, although normally pinpointing requires some concentration (and thus, a move action that must be done in your turn).

Trish Megistos wrote:

Unconscious > Fail Fly Check > Fall

Fail Fly Check > Fall

I suppose using wings is more "secure" than flying magically.

Actually using wings is more insecure

The FAQ isn't complete and doesn't explain everything, buit clearly states that if you end up unconscious you automatically attempt to hover, and you automatically fail the check.

What happens then? If you have wings, you plummet as rules state. But if you have magical flight there's no direct ruling about that, so I'd say it would depend on the spell.

For example, Fly has a contingency measure if the spell ends mid flight. instead of plummeting, you get a temporary feather fall for several rounds, and I'd say this measure could also work for an unconscious creature (the spell is still active, it's just that the measure activates). For other spells you might consider they also plummet, although if they recover in time (for very large falls), magical flight would allow them to regain control.

Still, you're entering the Land of Homerulia there, so better as your GM what does she want to do in her table.

Dahawi wrote:

Thanks guys! Yes I am referring to the Unchained version of the monk, which doesn't seem to prohibit then. I'm not sure there are many situations you'd need to attack with multiple ends of a monks spade in the same attack, but hypotheticals like this help me get me head around new rules.

Just re-reading double weapons and the rules state you can only wield one end of a double weapon two handed (The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it) but does the FoB ability, allowing a monk to attack with multiple weapons without penalty override this?

My thinking is could you interpret using each end of a double weapon as being a separate weapon and therefore choose to use each end 2 hands, or do the double weapon rules still apply and you can only use one ed regardless if you are wielding it 2 handed?

Good catch, completely missed the unchained part (not acustomed to play with those)

As for the weapon, RAW doesn't say anything so you could possibly switch around how you wield the weapon during the flurry, although I'd say that the spirit under that is that you pick a variation (two-handed, one-handed or two weapons) and stick to it for the entire round

DrDeth wrote:
Yorien wrote:

Against magical invisibility, it usually doesn't matter how much perception a creature has; the penalties to pinpointing are usually too high if the invisible creature actively stealths, so chances are 99% of the time the creature attempting the pinpoint will fail miserably. Against other means of invisibility pinpoint chances are better, but still dificult.

Well, I have had PC's spot invisible characters and in the case of the original thread the PC spotted the Invisible character.

Quite often spellcasters have no ranks in stealth.

Pinpointing an actively stealthing invisible creature is nigh impossible because modifiers alone. Remember that skills don't auto succeed with a 20. If you're using the invisibility spell, static modifiers andd specially the spell bonus to stealth usually skyrocket the pinpoint check to DC100+. For creatures granted invisibility through other means, DC may be a DC50+ or so...

The best moment to catch an invisible foe is when it's busy doing other actions so can't afford a stealth check and thus, the dificulty drops somewhere around a flat DC30+, depending on the particular action.

I'd say yes and no.

You can use the monk's blade two handed, but in that scenario you must pick one end and stick to it for the entire Flurry, AND you only as x1 STR bonus. so, in essence, it's better to just use as a doble weapon, since you also get full bonus with the "offhand"

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it.
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.

Full STR bonus is x1.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Well, I dunno about Common sense there. Magic already trumps skills too much. If we have a PC who has invested in a great deal of Perception and the Step up Feat, I think it simply makes sense to allow him this.

Invisibility doesn't have to involve spells or magic. There are ways for a creature to become invisible through other means, and even creatures that are constantly invisible per-se.

Against magical invisibility, it usually doesn't matter how much perception a creature has; the penalties to pinpointing are usually too high if the invisible creature actively stealths, so chances are 99% of the time the creature attempting the pinpoint will fail miserably. Against other means of invisibility pinpoint chances are better, but still dificult.

Usually, the most common action of getting a pinpoint is when the invisible creature makes an actions that forces her to give away her possition, at least to some of the creatures involved (for example, attacking others)

You can't just "allow" a player to use a feat because of a high stat or skill unless you houserule that. Many feats have requirements (as Matthew Downie stated, probably prerequisites is not the word to use) that must be fulfilled for the feat to "activate"

The Step Up feat requires for an opponent to behave in a very specific way (be adjacent to the feat user, take 5-foot step, move directly away); this behavior is done on the opponent's turn (not the character's) and, since the foe is invisible, his actions are hidden so the character does not know if the requirements are fulfilled or not.

The player may know the creature's actions (because the GM mistakenly plays the invisible monster actions "in the open", for example), but the character does not know that info. If the player then translates the info he got to his character then that player is metagaming.

1 to 50 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>