a shadow's page

I originally thought this feat gave you an +2 dodge bonus for each -1 to penalty you take. So, in other words, if you take a -5 penalty you would get a +10 dodge bonus.

But after reading the mythic combat expertise feat I'm not so sure anymore.
The mythic feat says "Whenever you use Combat Expertise, you gain an additional +2 dodge bonus".

To use mythic combat expertise, it sounds like you first apply Combat Expertise (giving you -5/+5) and then, since this is the mythic version, it gives you an additional +2 for a total of -5/+7.

Thoughts?

Yes. Specific rules trump general rules. The Step Up feat chain allows you to take 5ft steps when normally not allowed.

You don't think the rules for 5 foot step are specific?

Specifically, Step Up "borrows" five feet of movement from your next turn. Much like an immediate action uses your swift action for your next turn.

I understand it borrows 5 feet from their next movement, but should FIGHTER be allowed to take a 5 foot step THIS turn even though the rules specifically state he can't?

On Round 2, would you allow Fighter to use Step Up again even though it says he can't take a 5 foot step this turn?

Are you allowed to use the Step Up feat during the same turn that you take a move action?

The rule on 5 foot steps (emphasis mine):

The Step Up feat:

Scenario:
Round 1:
On Fighter turn, Fighter moves 25 feet and attacks BadWizard.
On BadWizard turn, BadWizard takes 5 foot step away from Fighter.

At this point can Fighter use the Step Up feat during BadWizard's turn or not (since Fighter already moved this round)?

Thanks.

You may find this very useful:
Ninja Guide

I think I'd side with the DM on these two issues.

I could see the headless undead angel being immune to feint. BUT I see the argument for the other side as well. If his rulings bother you THAT much though, my advice would be to roll with it in game but afterwards state your case and back it up with whatever evidence you have and ask him to explain why he thinks Monster X isn't affected by Ability Y. A DM isn't obligated to follow the rules and can adjudicate things as he sees fit so you're probably fighting an uphill battle.

As far as the spider swarm being immune to spells that require Will saves, I think if they're immune to the spell then the secondary effects would have no effect either. I don't think you have much of an argument there.

Also you never answered my questions about how supernatural abilities work with regard to line of affect since you claim the spell rules for aiming does not matter.

If the SU actually requires to be aimed then sure.

Smite Evil doesn't require any 'aiming' because the Paladin isn't casting a spell or attacking... Heck, he doesn't even have to point his finger to Smite at someone... He just needs to see the object of his Smite and basically say "I choose you." (i.e. target that individual)

Unfortunately, as I continue to point out, the Worm is immune from being targeted this way.

Would he stand by his ruling if your character was a Good WtW Cleric targeted by an NPC Antipaladin Smite Good ?

I'm not the OP but I would rule the same way whether it was good vs. evil or evil vs. good. There is an alignment restriction on Worms though so 'rules-wise' this would never occur.

I'm curious- since a lot of you seem to think a Worm isn't immune to Smite Evil (which I believe is an effect- and a physical one), what effects would a Worm be immune to then?
If you say 'physical effects', tell me what physical effects then.

"As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite"

The wording is only saying who will receive the extra damage, not "who the magical ability is directly affecting" ala hold person.

Regardless of the whatever we want to say the wording is trying to say, a Worm is immune to any effect that targets an individual creature.

This very sentence: "As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite" is the very definition of 'targeting an individual creature'...

I made the point above: Would you allow a Paladin to Smite Evil against an evil swarm of Fine creatures?

I would not.

If a rule said, "lightning elementals are immune to all electric spells and spell-like abilities" it would be ambiguous whether they were immune to all spell-like abilities, or just electric ones, and you would have to use common sense to guess which one they meant.

Using common sense, I wouldn't allow a Paladin to use Smite Evil against an evil swarm of Fine creatures either.

Are you interpreting that as "immune to any effect or physical spell" instead of "immune to any physical spell or physical effect"? Or saying that all effects are physical because the game doesn't specify which ones are and aren't? I think you're supposed to use common sense.
Bleed damage: physical. A curse: not physical. Petrification: physical. Misfortune: not physical.

The way it is written is "immune to any effect or physical spell which targets X number of creatures."

To me, Smite is an effect (whether it's magical, physical, spiritual, etc..., or none of the above effects) that requires a target of one creature, therefore the Worm is immune.

Are you saying that the word "target" in the paladin section refers to the use of how it is used when aiming magic or the common dictionary term?

OR

Also are you saying the smite is an effect on the WtW? If so what type of effect? Yes effects based aiming is broken down in the book.

It can't be effect based aiming and target(magic aiming). Those are two different methods of aiming magic.

You keep trying to combine the two.

Target would be the common dictionary term because Smite Evil has nothing to do with 'aiming magic'...

Like I've pointed out numerous times before, for a paladin to Smite Evil he must choose a target he can see (so Line of Sight applies) and declare his smite. There's absolutely NO attack roll or spell effect roll or anything whatsoever to make at this point so the 'magic aiming' you bring up doesn't even apply since the paladin isn't 'aiming' anything...

Since the Worm is immune to targeting like this per his entry, he is not Smite-able... So the buff that is on the paladin doesn't matter because the Worm was never smited in the first place...

I'm not combining anything. I'm saying these "effect based aiming and target (magic aiming)" don't even apply since Smite Evil is not a Spell. Yes, it's a supernatural ability which is 'magical, but not spell-like' so all these 'spell' aiming rules you bring up wouldn't even apply.

a shadow wrote:

I see Smite as nearly similar to the Barbarian's rage. You wouldn't say that was a spell, would you? The difference between the two is that the paladin actually has to choose a target for his Smite (which the Worm would be immune).

The Worm is immune to physical effects that target a single creature.

There are two main aspects to the smiting.
The first is picking a target. This is an effect that targets a single creature, but it is not physical.
The second is hitting the enemy and getting bonuses. This is physical and targets a single creature, but it is not an 'effect'.

Neither aspect is blocked by the Worm's powers.

Worms That Walk are: "immune to any physical spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate)".

Your first 'aspect' of smiting is now negated by the Worm's immunity to an "effect that targets a single creature".

Unless of course you can point out a list of what exactly "physical effects" are somewhere in the rules....

You're implying that Smite Evil is a spell... It is not, so therefore magic rules and 'aiming' rules don't apply. If it is, please point me to the Smite spell's entry...

The 'aiming' rules for Smite Evil are pretty clear in the ability's text: A target the paladin can see. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the FAQ, when they say 'effect' you believe they are referring to the magic 'effect' listed in the rules. I think that is incorrect because Smite is NOT a spell. It's not even an attack (i.e. you don't make an attack roll when you declare a Smite). I believe they are just using the word 'effect' as in "this is something affecting this person (i.e. an effect)" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the magic rules.

I see Smite as nearly similar to the Barbarian's rage. You wouldn't say that was a spell, would you? The difference between the two is that the paladin actually has to choose a target for his Smite (which the Worm would be immune). The Worm wouldn't be immune to the Barbarian's rage because the Barb doesn't need to choose a target to rage against...

a shadow wrote:

Unless I'm mistaken, the 'effect' method of aiming a spell/ability can target individual creatures (i.e. rays).

Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to explain or point out but saying "the only method of aiming that allows an effect on a specific creature is 'target'" isn't true...

My longer post list several methods of aiming a spell. None of them fit with how smite would be aimed at the worm that walks.

Smite Evil is not a spell though. If anything it is a physical effect (whether it's on the Paladin's person or the Creature's person) that targets a single creature...

Cripes it's in the text of Smite Evil:
"As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite."

I don't see how anyone can argue Smite Evil doesn't target an individual... It's right there in the text...

Then you apply the Worm's ability:
"Worms that walk are immune to any physical spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of such spells and effects generated by the worm that walks itself, which treat the worm that walks as one single creature if it so chooses."

Anyway, the beauty of all this is you can interpret it your way and I can interpret it my way and each of us can be right...

Unless I'm mistaken, the 'effect' method of aiming a spell/ability can target individual creatures (i.e. rays).

Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to explain or point out but saying "the only method of aiming that allows an effect on a specific creature is 'target'" isn't true...

The worms that walks even use disintegrates as an example when it says " effect that targets a specific number of creatures". Disintegrate however being a ray would fall under the "effect" method of aiming a spell or magical ability. Smite is not an effect that is aimed at someone. It is just a buff to the paladin. If smite was it's own attack like disintegrate was then smite would not work.

I'm just going to have to disagree.

Since that is NOT the case and the paladin MUST choose a target for his Smite Evil then the Worm's 'immune to individual targeted' ability kicks in and overrides the Paladin's smite.

I picture something like this:
Paladin: "I'm going to Smite Evil"
DM: "Who are you going to Smite?"
Paladin: "Huh? But it's an effect on me so anyone that I hit that is evil will suffer."
DM: "No, the paladin must target an individual to Smite."
Paladin: "Oh, then by the power of my god, I am smiting Biff the Worm That Walks."
DM: "You attack and hit but realize the Smite has no effect since the Worm is immune to targeted effects."

The only method of aiming that allows for an effect on a specific creature is the "target method.

I'm not sure this is true... An "effect" as well allows this via rays (or maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here). Disintegrate is an 'effect ray' and you need to aim that at a something to hit... And that's a specific example in the Worm's entry.

Now someone is going to say that "smite" causes harm to the paladin's opponent, but that is not true. For smite to target someone and have an effect upon them they would be taking daamge upon being targeted, but they don't take damage until they are targeted and hit by an attack roll. Upon the "target of the attack roll" being hit they take extra damage.

Disintegrate doesn't cause damage to someone when they are targeted either. The caster actually has to make an attack roll to hit because, you know, the caster has to actually target something... Which is pointed out in the Worm's entry as the Worm being immune...

wraithstrike wrote:

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

If you think the FAQ I linked is incorrect about smite then I suggest pressing the FAQ button because as of now that FAQ is official and it says smite is a self buff not an affect on a single target.

It's not that it's an effect on a single target, it's that it is a self buff to the paladin versus a single target... and the WtW invalidates that since its component worms are individual creatures that can be sloughed off or incorporated as the monster desires.

Let me put this another way what Smite does in comparison to rage as an example is allow you to use your bonuses against only one creature. The smite damage is extra damage that is a part of the weapon damage. It is not extra damage that is tacked on as a rider affect. Smite is not a physicial affect on the target at all. It is an affect on the paladin that allows him to harm an opponent of his choosing. If smite just force a single creature to take more damage because he was the focus of some deity's divine energy that would be different.

You can't compare rage with smite. A Barbarian with Rage active is getting bonus damage against everything she so choose to attack; the Paladin only receives that bonus damage against the target of the smite.

That's the argument. Smite must be a targeted ability because it only works on the targeted creature, no one else.

EXACTLY! The barbarian doesn't need to pick a target to rage against. If he did, the Worm would be immune to that as well...

A shadow,

Taken from The PRD, Worm that Walks

It says NE Medium vermin (augmented human)

It also says: When a powerful spellcaster with a strong personality, a lust for life, and a remorselessly evil soul dies and is buried in a graveyard infused with eldritch magic, a strange phenomenon sometimes occurs. The flesh of the decaying body fats and instructs the very worms that gnaw, and these graveworms quicken not only on corruption but upon the spellcaster's memories and magical power. The spellcaster's very soul is consumed in this vile process, only to be split apart to inhabit each of the individual chewing worms in so many fragments. The result is a hideous hive mind of slithering life known as a worm that walks—a mass of worms that clings to the vague shape of the body that granted it this new existence, and can wield the powers and magic the spellcaster had in life. A worm that walks retains memories of its life as a spellcaster before its death, but is not undead—it is a hideous new form of undulant life.

In other words, A Worm that Walks isn't undead despite eating a dead body. It's also not an Evil Outsider or Evil Dragon.

Seamstress_Druid,

Sorry for not making it more clear but I was really trying to point out the part of "If the target of the smite evil...", not the particulars of who the target actually is.

Wraith's argument seems to boil down to the Paladin is the target of his smite evil ability:

Smite is on the paladin, and the paladin chooses who he wants to hurt with his weapon while using it.

If that were the case, the text I pointed out within Smite Evil would make zero sense since the paladin needs to actually target someone for his smite, in which case, the Worm is immune...

Ascalaphus wrote:

The thing with a Worm that Walks is that it's both a single creature in many ways (one initiative, one bunch of actions per round, one HP total) and a sort of swarm.

Saying that you can't challenge is is like saying you can't see the forest for the trees. Smite is a bit more ambiguous maybe, but I think it should still be possible. It's saying "You're naughty, I'm calling you out", and you can definitely say that to a WtW.

But it only counts as swarm-like when it is being targeted by a physical affect. Smite is not a physical effect targeting the worm. Smite itself does nothing to the worm. Smite is on the paladin, and the paladin chooses who he wants to hurt with his weapon while using it. Disintegrate however is a physical affect just like scorching ray would be. I see no resemblance between either of those and smite.

So by your logic, since smite evil is NOT a physical effect targeting the worm than how do you explain the BOLD emphasis:

Smite Evil: Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.

Smite Evil is most certainly a physical effect targeting a single creature and since the Worm is immune to that, a Smite Evil attack has no effect on a Worm That Walks...

So here's an interesting one, since we're on a rules thread and all:

My Life Oracle casts Sanctuary to prevent enemies from attacking her, then wanders over to help the fighter. Can she flank and Aid Another for the fighter without losing Sanctuary?

It specifically says, "The subject cannot attack without breaking the spell but may use nonattack spells or otherwise act."

Since she's not attacking, just distracting, seems legitimate to me.

Arguments against this tactic?

I'd say she is considered attacking since she has to make an attack roll to hit AC 10.

At what point does the exponential power growth start?

My players (I have 3 at them moment) and they are 8th level/Tier 2 and I haven't seen it yet. I would say my players are between average and above average with their optimizations and definitely very good players overall.

They are about to enter the Drezen Citadel and so far Soltengrebbe completely kicked their ass, the vampire has one of them dominated, their army is just about to run out of food, the 'saboteur' has run amok and my players have no clue who it is.

I have yet to use Scorpion's updated document and I haven't overhauled any encounters. I might change a spell or feat on a monster but that's pretty few and far in between. Wait- I lied- I did change the zombies in the Grey Garrison to be Gillamoor plague zombies from Classic Horrors Revisited (that was a fun little surprise for them).

In other words, this AP has been pretty challenging to my players so far but I'm worried I haven't hit this power curve everyone is complaining about yet...

Experiment 626:
My Strength Score is still 14 though because that HASN'T changed even though I took 14 points of Strength damage...

Curious:
If I have a 14 Strength and take 14 points of Strength damage, can I still move?

According to the rules, I believe I can since my Strength has never actually changed.

I'm definitely interested in how this turns out.
How and where do FAQs get answered? And is Paizo pretty good with clarifying questions?

Is Smite Good a spell or an effect that behaves differently according to alignment?

To me, it looks like Smite Good is a Supernatural Ability that ONLY affects good alignments and doesn't say anything about behaving differently according to alignment.

What would happen if a paladin Smited Evil on a neutral or good character? Absolutely nothing (i.e. there's no difference in behavior).

Smite Good (Su): Once per day, an antipaladin can call out to the dark powers to crush the forces of good. As a swift action, the antipaladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is good, the antipaladin adds his Charisma bonus (if any) on his attack rolls and adds his antipaladin level on all damage rolls made against the target of his smite. If the target of smite good is an outsider with the good subtype, a good-aligned dragon, or a good creature with levels of cleric or paladin, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the antipaladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite good attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.

In addition, while smite good is in effect, the antipaladin gains a deflection bonus equal to his Charisma modifier (if any) to his AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the antipaladin targets a creature that is not good, the smite is wasted with no effect.

The smite good effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the antipaladin rests and regains his uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the antipaladin may smite good one additional time per day, as indicated on Table 2–13, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.

@Matrix
Actually it does say 'spell effects'.

You can alter the essence of your being to lessen the effects of spells designed to harm good creatures.

Seriously? I think I've been running this whole crafting thing all wrong...

Craft Magic Arms and Armor should probably be renamed to Enchant Arms and Armor...

Thanks for all your replies.

Wouldn't it make more sense to craft a magical +1 adamantine full-plate then?
The base cost is 17,500 gold pieces.
So to craft that it would take 17 days but a non-magical version is approximately 300 weeks... Perfectly logical...

I have a player who wants to craft adamantine full-plate and below is what I've gathered from the Crafting rules. Are my calculations correct?

We have 4 steps:
1) Find the item's price in silver.
16,500gp = 165,000sp

2) Find the items DC from the table.
The Craft DC is 10+armor bonus = DC 19.

3) Pay 1/3 of the item's price in raw materials.
16,500 * .33 = 5,445 gp

4) Make a Craft check. Ok- this is where I'm lost...
According to the rule, you make a Craft(armor) check against DC 19.
If the player Takes 10, they get a 27.
This check result succeeds so multiply it by the DC (27 * 19 = 513).
513 represents a single WEEK worth of work.
If 513 exceeds the price of the item in sp (165,000) then the item is completed. It doesn't.
So after one week of work, there is still 164,487 worth of work to go.

So with a weekly Craft (armor) check of 27, it will take my player 321 WEEKS worth of work to complete this single item.

Does that sound right? Am I missing something?

I've looked through most of the threads concerning the Master Craftsman feat but none of them answered my question.

The feat says:

Master Craftsman

Your superior crafting skills allow you to create simple magic items.
Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.

Benefit: Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks. You receive a +2 bonus on your chosen Craft or Profession skill. Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats. You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.

Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.

I have a player in my campaign and he has the feats Master Craftsman, Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Items.

For Master Craftsman, he chose Craft (Weapons) as his "Choose one Craft/Possession".

For this player to create magical armor, does he now need to take Master Craftsman a second time and choose Craft (armor) in order to craft magic armor? Or does Master Craftsman (weapons) cover everything now?
How about crafting wondrous items?

I think I'm going to houserule that smite evil from a non-mythic source doesn't bypass DR/Epic... That makes the most sense.

On another note, I was thinking of having Staunton cast bull's strength and protection from good on Soltengrebbe before he sends the creature out.

It should definitely be an interesting fight when it occurs.

I start GM'ing this on Friday night and can't wait.

The 3-person party will consist of:
Human Rogue/Inquisitor/Paladin of Iomedae (Chance Encounter)
Tiefling Magus (Riftwarden Orphan)
Dwarf Fighter/Barbarian of Torag (Touched by Divinity)

The evidence was thrown out because they lied about how they obtained it. It brought into question the witness's credibility (i.e. if the witness could lie about breaking into Lazne's what's to say he's not lying to the court about any of this evidence they found).

I'm running Trial of the Beast as a one-shot (and probably just the trial part).

Some interesting things have happened thus far (we're on the eve of Day #2 and the party is currently in Hergstag). This is probably going to be kinda long...

The party met the Crooked Kin and went into the forest to rescue Aleece. They met the Phase Spider and had a b*tch of a time. They did defeat it and to show proof that a Phase Spider killed Aleece they cut off the spider's head to show the Kin. So they went back to the Kin and one of them mentioned that the spider's head could be quite valuable in Lepidstadt.

They travel on to Lepidstadt with the Kin but a mile away or so, the party tells the Kin "Go on without us, we'll catch up" (they didn't want to be seen entering the city with a bunch of freaks...).

In Lepidstadt, they go to the University and drop off some books and meet Judge Daramid. The judge asks them to meet her later that night because she might have need for some assistance.

The PCs had a few hours to kill so they decided to "let's sell this head". So a couple of them split up and the cleric (who possessed the head) was offered 10,000gp by an alchemist shopowner. SOLD! Meanwhile, in another part of town, the rogue was offered 15,000gp by a retired wizard. Well, when the rogue learned of this, he was not happy... He (with the druid as his hapless accomplice) devised a plan to steal the head from the shopowner. I won't get into the details of his plan or what happened but it basically involved the druid shapechanging into a dog and the rogue setting up some sort of 'playdate' with the shopowner's dog... Eventually, the rogue stole the head but was caught exiting out of the shopowner's back window. The druid (who's shapeshift ran out as the guards were questioning the rogue and shopowner) and rogue eventually got hauled to jail...

End Session 1...

Session 2 picks up with Daramid pulling a favor and getting the druid and rogue released from jail. The party meets with Daramid and are now embroiled in the trial.

The next day, the party meets Kaple and the Beast. The Beast is uncooperative and Kaple suggests they meet with Elder Lazne in Morast before the trial starts tomorrow.

The PCs travel to Morast and try to talk to Lazne. Unfortunately, they completely botch their Diplomacy roll and he's now hostile and slams his curtain on them. The barbarian decides to force his way into his hovel and intimidate him. Only the paladin had an issue with this. The party got the info they needed and headed to the the abandoned boneyard. There they found all the clues they needed and travelled back to Lepidstadt.

End Session 2...

Session 3 starts the morning of the trial day #1. The PCs are super excited to present the evidence they found and show the beast is innocent. The prosecution presented his case. Enter Elder Lazne who now sported a neck brace, a black eye, and his arm in a sling. The collective WTF from my players was music to my ears :). Anyway, the rogue (who had the best diplomacy) presented everything for the defense and did an excellent job (I think he missed only one check). Unfortunately, the prosecution, on cross-examination, questioned the rogue:
"Did the party break into Lazne's house"
"No."
"The party didn't unlawfully enter his home and physically intimidate him?"
"No."
The prosecution then asked for all evidence (since it was gotten by ill-means and the credibility of the defense witness was suspect) to be thrown out and for a 1,000gp fine levied against the rogue for lying.

Needless to say, the rogue player pouted the rest of the session and never understood that Lazne was a vindictive d*ck.

The party then travelled to Hergstag where they fought one of the wraithspawn and Brother Swarm. At the end of the session, they were still there.

So that's where we're at currently...

We play on Friday nights (6:30-~11pm) in Winslow Township/Sicklerville. We have room for one player, maybe two. Although I'd prefer an experienced Pathfinder player, our group is open and friendly to new players and has taught quite a few.

If you're interested, please reply.
Thanks,
Steve