This form is filled with questions on feinting, but I have one that doesn't seem to have an answer after a few hours of searching.
Feint Rules:
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
When feinting against a non-humanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a creature lacking an Intelligence score, it's impossible. Feinting in combat does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Penalty definition:
Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
My question relates to an event during a campaign where the rogue attempted to feint a Deinonychus which is not a humanoid and has animal intelligence. Due to the wording of feint and penalties after a quick research on feint, I determined that the total penalty he would take was a -12. [-4 for non-humanoid, -8 for intelligence]
Additionally, I'm having trouble finding out exactly what is considered humanoid for the purpose of feinting. Simple enough, anything with the humanoid type is obvious (including all the core races) but things such as monstrous humanoids, intelligent undead, or even Aasimars, Tieflings, and the elemental blooded races whose type is outsider(native).
Any information would be helpful, mostly on the first subject as that is RAW. However the second one I wish to know how you would all rule it with RAW and RAI in perspective.
I would actually agree with the players on this one.
The biggest issue I have is the use of metagame, How did creature intuitively know that the caster was going to immediately dispel it and, therefore, delay his turn rather than rationally attempting to break the enchantment. If it is an action/isn't an action, it really doesn't matter as bbangerter stated.
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Okay, I want to jump into this discussion even though the last post was back in May, 2012 and I have not been able to find the FAQ or Eratta regarding the subject.
Channel Energy (Su):
Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.
A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting).
Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier. Creatures healed by channel energy cannot exceed their maximum hit point total—all excess healing is lost. A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. This is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect.
A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.
Death's Embrace (Ex):
At 8th level, you heal damage instead of taking damage from channeled negative energy. If the channeled negative energy targets undead, you heal hit points just like undead in the area.
Negative Energy Affinity:
Though a living creature, a dhampir reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, while negative energy heals it.
According to the way that channel energy is written, channeling positive energy can choose to either deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures, while channeling negative energy does just the opposite. Additionally, a cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect.
When it comes to Dhampir, channeling positive energy to harm undead creatures would not effect her, due to the description of Negative Energy Affinity stating that she is indeed a living creature (additionally, her type is Humanoid[Dhampir]). The weakness is put into play due to the fact that unless a cleric were to selectively remove the Dhampir from a positive energy channel, they would damage her instead of heal her, whereas a negative energy channel to harm living creatures would instead heal the Dhampir over damage. This is due to her being targeted as a living creature.
So in all essences, they are targeted by channel energy as living creatures, only the effects it normally has on living creatures are reversed for the Dhampir.
They are not considered undead.
This leads me to the reason I included the Death's Embrace ability from the Death Domain. If using Channel to target undead (healing them), she heals as if she were an undead in the area of effect. However, she would not be effected by Negative Energy unless it specifically targets undead.
Due to this, a Dhampir who is able to channel negative energy could in fact choose for it to deal damage to living creatures and include herself in the effect. This in turn would damage all but undead in the burst, but she would be healed by it. Any other race would not be able to both damage enemies but heal themselves using channel energy.
Hope this helps but more importantly, I hope a Dev reviews this and places this in the FAQ section.
How many unarmed strike attacks does a Monk 1 / Synthesist 9, using Biped form with Limbs evolution purchased twice have (results in having 6 arms and 6 hands) when not using FoB, but taking T.W.F as a feat which then is replaced with Multiweapon Fighting?
Thanks in advance,
Dan.
I don't think that'd work. IIRC, one of the caveats for being a synthesist is that when your eidolon is active, you can either do actions as yourself (unarmed strike, cast a spell) or as the eidolon (natural attacks) but not a mix of the two.
Some fire spells do catch a player on fire - they have fairly specific wording for it, however. See Burning Gaze, for an example: "Creatures damaged by the spell must make a Reflex save or catch fire." They pretty much all specifically ask for reflex save to avoid catching fire.
Burning Hands gives the character a reflex save for half damage from the spell. It does not say anything about a character catching fire. It does say, unrelated to the character taking damage, that "Flammable materials burn if the flames touch them." While virtually anything will burn, given a sufficiently hot fire, the Energy Attacks subsection under Damaging Objects says "...fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily" - I take this to be the intended definition of "flammable materials." Which means that, unless you roll a natural 1 on your save for half damage, such things as leather or metal armor, leather backpacks, and other gear other than things like paper and flasks of oil, would not have to worry about catching fire.
I agree with Astellus on this one. Although I believe they put in the flavor of burning combustibles for more cinematic situations. A sorcerer wanting to start a campfire without flint and tinder or a wizard having to debate whether or not he wants to blast off a fireball in a room filled with barrels of black powder.
Here is the link as requested. But, the buckler also states that if you "made" an attack with the off-hand, you do not gain the shield bonus to AC until your next turn. Additionally, I would rule out the musket because that is considered a "two-handed firearm," thus you would have used your offhand to fire it, bows and crossbows could have that same argument but they were somewhat separated in the description of the buckler.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I think the idea with buckler and bow, is that you hold the bow with the same hand as the buckler, and pull the string with the other hand. To get the AC bonus, you have to not use the bow, although you can still hold it.
I can see where you are coming at. My reasoning is the fact that they separated bows and crossbows in the description that leads me to think they are omitted from the latter penalties. There are a lot of things that cause confusion because of this, like sorcerer's drawing spells "primarily" from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. I believe that in these kinds of situation, it's completely up to the GM until devs step in.
Oh, and to the topic of the wielding a two handed weapon in one hand. Tieflings have an alternative racial trait that allows them to replace their spell-like ability with "oversized limbs: you can wield large weapons at no penalty."
With that, utilize two "large" longswords. Boosts the damage from 1d8 to 2d6, 19-20/x2 crit. Congrats, you're effectively holding two greatswords in each hand, each with a -4 to attack if you have two-weapon fighting.
Hm... The way it's worded is interesting. "You can use a bow or crossbow at no penalty while carrying it." I'm reading the "it" as being the buckler, meaning You can use a bow or crossbow at no penalty while carrying a buckler.
Because of that wording, I'm inclined to allow it. Also, when it comes to arrows, you require two hands to fire a longbow/shortbow not because of its size or heavy nature, but to draw ammunition and utilize the bowstring. Once a shot is fired, your hand is no longer on said bowstring, Unlike a greatsword which would need both hands to retain stabilization.
Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
With the bow/crossbow, I am inclined to allow it because of how the buckler specifically includes using it with no penalty, and the offhand is not "wielding" the weapon, which I'm assuming is up to GM discretion.
the definition of a full round is from one point in initiative to that same point one round later. so the question has been raised that spells that take a full round, like summon monster, are you continuously casting them during other players turns? The concern is that if so, then enemies can disrupt you while you are casting it during other people's turns.
Just remember, there is a difference between "Full-round casting" and "1 round casting."
Your example is 1 round casting and yes, it can be interrupted. Full round casting is a sorcerer using a metamagic spell. It is cast as his turn ends.
spells published in another source, like campaign setting material,
or spells made up by the GM for their own setting (or on top of Paizo's)
or spells 'researched' by some players with the GM's interaction/approval...
the sorceror casts spells from the wizard/sorceror list, so if the spell isn't classed as a wiz/sorc spell, no-can-cast-ee...
I'm actually inclined to disagree with Quandary on this one. The Rulebook states drawn "primarily" from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, whereas every other casting character specifically state "drawn from."
Additionally, in the Magic chapter it states "With permission from the GM, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they come across while adventuring."
With this, I am inclined to believe that they can learn the spell using the system for Wizard's copying spells into their spellbook or even independent research. As a GM I have, on occasion, allowed elemental sorcerers to learn Produce Flames, from a scroll using the methods that the wizard would.
The text states it is in the hands of the GM, but I believe this is actually in need of clarification from the higher ups.
Hey everyone. I'd like an answer to this. I made a lvl 3 Dwarven Soul Forger (Magus) with a two-handed weapon (a longhammer). Now, the Spell Combat feat of the Magus says I must have one hand free to be able to cast spells. Also, Spellstrike says I can cast touch spells as part of a melee attack. Does that mean that I have to use Spell Combat first to deliver a touch spell with my longhammer, or not? How does this work?
For spell combat, it states you use it with a light or one-handed weapon and that it is treated much like two-weapon fighting. Essentially, your off-hand "weapon" is you casting a spell. So at level 1, one could use a melee attack and shocking grasp (both at a -2 penalty to attack).
For spellstrike, you are using your standard action to cast the spell. The ability replaces the free melee touch attack with free melee attack with your weapon.
You do not have to use spell combat to utilize spellstrike, only the latter.
Now what I believe has you confused is doing a more "complex" maneuver, utilizing both of those abilities, which I see no problem with. It's essentially two-weapon fighting with a spell attached to one of the attacks.
For the Arcane Strike, they do not stack as the feat applies an enhancement bonus to the damage, which does not stack with the enhancement bonus from the weapon, as usual, you take the higher of the two.
From the PRD:
Quote:
Arcane Strike (Combat)
You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your weapons with magical energy.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
It should stack as nowhere in the feat does it state "enhancement bonus".
Ah, my bad, I saw enhanced and got jumbled I guess. In that case the damage is untyped and would stack.
I was reviewing the possibility of making an Oathbound Paladin (of loyalty as the subject denotes,) and have run into a particular issue.
Oath of Loyalty:
Loyal Oath: Starting at 1st level, once per day as a swift action, an oathbound paladin can choose a willing creature within line of sight as the target of her loyal oath. When the paladin is adjacent to the target of her loyal oath, she grants the target a sacred bonus on saving throws and to Armor Class equal to the paladin’s Charisma bonus. The loyal oath lasts 1 minute, or until the paladin dismisses it (a free action) or discharges it (see below), whichever comes first.
If the target is struck by an enemy and the paladin is adjacent to that enemy, as an immediate action she may make a single melee attack against that enemy; making this attack ends the loyal oath. At 4th level and every three levels thereafter, the paladin may use her loyal oath one additional time per day.
This ability replaces smite evil.
They lose smite evil and replace it with their loyal oath power. It works fine and well up until the character hits 11th level and gains Aura of Justice, which uses two smite attempts and allows all allies in a 10ft radius to smite one target before the start of the paladin's next turn.
So, two questions.
1. Does the Oathbound Paladin expend uses of his "Loyal Oath" in place of smite evil for aura of justice or does aura of justice just no longer apply?
2. One of my players has argued that Aura of Justice allows his horse to smite as well. The animal is smarter than most animals but am unsure of how to rule it. Opinions?
The wording for Endless Ammunition states it creates a single nonmagical arrow or bolt. Does this mean the arrow does NOT take on the magic bonus of the crossbow in question? For instance, if used in a +2 Light Repeating Crossbow (for instance), would it only fire bolts that do 1d8 damage and are unable to affect critters requiring magical weapons to hit?
Does the Feat of Arcane Strike fail to influence these bolts or arrows as well?
(And on a side note, if someone is using magical ammo or a magical bow, does Arcane Strike increase the damage of ammo fired from the weapon? Thus would a 5th level wizard using a +1 light crossbow with Arcane Strike do 1d8+1 damage, or 1d8+3?)
The bolts fired from the +2 Light Repeating Crossbow would be considered magical, as CRB states that ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Additionally, it states that the enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with an enhancement bonus from ammunition, you take the higher of the two.
All in all, you don't need magical bolts to use your crossbow.
For the Arcane Strike, they do not stack as the feat applies an enhancement bonus to the damage, which does not stack with the enhancement bonus from the weapon, as usual, you take the higher of the two.
