Cobalt Dragon

bbangerter's page

Organized Play Member. 2,546 posts (8,810 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 9 aliases.

1 to 50 of 307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VoodistMonk wrote:
deadpotent wrote:
If the PC dies from shadow's strength drain, he's dead and coming back in 1d4 rounds as a shadow. If the original shadow died, PC is still dead and coming back as shadow. Breath of Life won't help as it wasn't HP damage that killed PC
Why was it necessary to resuurect a 7yo thread just to say what has already been said?

The follow up question: did this thread come back as a shadow, or did it receive a BoL is now alive and well?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

In Pathfinder a dead body is an object, not a creature, so now you are arguing against your position, apparently, as you say that a dead body maintains the feebleminded condition while it can't be targeted by the Feeblemind spell.

A dead body is both a [dead] creature, and an object. It largely depends on context.

See Raise Dead target [dead creature touched], and Breath of Life target for examples [creature touched] vs Blindess/Deafness [one living creature]. Compared additionally with lots of spells that simply say creature or creatures in their target line. If it does not specify living or dead, than both are valid targets (though in most cases pointless against a dead creature target).

In other contexts dead bodies should be treated as objects.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the James Jacob thread you referenced:

James Jacob wrote:

But, for what it's worth: Bull Rush is a standard action or part of a charge. If you're doing it as part of a charge, your movement is part of that. If you're doing it as a standard action, then you can move with your target as part of that standard action, as long as you have the available movement to do so. A separate move aciton doesn't even enter the picture.

If you bull rush as a standard action, you only get a movement speed worth of movement to go with it. No need to use your separate move action. Why? Because a standard action bull rush gives you your movement speed as part of that standard action. Note that if you charge bull rush, you don't get a full charge of movement, end that movement with a bull rush and get an additional movement speed worth of movement on top of that. eg, the bull rush in and of itself does not grant movement speed worth of movement. The movement you can take as part of the bull rush is the movement allowed based on the action you are taking to perform the bull rush.

So how much movement does a full attack allow? Normally just a 5' step. So that is the movement you have available to you if you bull rush during a FAA.

Another way to look at the standard action bull rush is: As a standard action you can move your speed, and at the end of that movement perform a bull rush. Any movement you have not yet used can be used to follow the target.

So this could be: Bull rush an adjacent target and move up to 30' with them. Or Bull rush a target 30' away, and follow up to 0' more with them (assuming a movement speed of 30'). Or anything in between. Move 20', push and follow 10'. Move 10', push and follow 20'. etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chell is assuming the enemy is drawing a weapon while moving, gets disarmed, and then you are asking if they can draw a second weapon.

By my reading of your question, the enemy already has a weapon in hand, and you are asking if they can draw a different weapon as part of their move (after they are disarmed).

If the enemy has not completed their move action, they can draw a weapon as part of that move action. The rules do not specify that it has to happen at the beginning of the move action, so any time during the move action is allowed.

So if the disarm/sunder happens at reach, then the enemy moves an additional 5' before ending their move action, they may draw a new weapon to attack with.

If the disarm/sunder happens when they are adjacent, the GM needs to decide if the enemy move action has ended or not. Technically this would be dependent on whether the readied action was triggered off of "enemy gets next to me" vs "enemy makes an attack". Personally as a GM, I would always give the player with the readied action the benefit of the doubt. Their intent is clearly to prevent the enemy from attacking, so even if they said "enemy gets next to me", I would count that enemy move action as over. (I don't play readied actions as "wish" style gotchas).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rocket_Johnson wrote:

The number of attacks is arbitrary and fairly irrelevant to the argument at hand.

I still contend that when the rule asks if a creature left the threatened square and the creature is in fact still in the square, then the criteria for an AoO is unfulfilled.

I think it makes too many assumptions otherwise. If it were intended that an AoO be provoked if 'any part of a creature' leaves a space, the rules would have been worded so. Not vice versa.

I am, however, ruling in favor of my objectively broken party, as I always do. But I am not changing how my three other groups run, as those other 18 or so players do not believe the rules work as argued here.

I don't care about your power gamming level - no issue with that.

The rules were written from the perspective of typical medium/small size bipeds. Can a naga not cast finger of death because it does not actually have fingers to point with, even though it is on the default naga spell list? If a unicorn took paladin levels, could it use its lay on hands ability or not?

Any time you are looking at a creature that is not a medium/small biped, you have to make reasonable adjustments to accomodate. For a large (or larger) creature leaving a square, the exposed part of the creature that you could attack has moved away from you - and that presents your opportunity to attack.

Now its possible all of us are wrong, and you are right. But something you may not be aware of, is pretty much everyone who has commented on how this works has been perusing these rules forums for 5+ years, digging into the minutea of every rules aspect. Usually to some level of disagreement. But there isn't a disagreement on this one. Feel free to draw your own conclusion from that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

EDIT: The below is a reiteration of what RAWmonger posted while I was typing.

Diego Rossi wrote:

As I see it, if you take 2 separate move actions to move you provoke once for each action, if you take a full-round action to double move you provoke once.

So if my speed is 30', and I take a withdraw action, and after 25' of movement I am in a threatened area, and the next 5' of movement provokes, then I continue with my additional 30' of movement, moving out of another threatened square, but don't provoke since I've already provoke once for this action.

But if I take two move actions, I provoke twice, once for ending the last 5' of my first move action moving out of a threatened square, and then another one when I start my second move action.

I don't think that application of the rules is right.

But also note that the two sentenances you bolded are not in contradiction of each other. The first is the general rule - every provoking action allows an AoO. Then a specific rule about movement, you cannot provoke for movement more than once in a round.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Generally, there is no reason to use 2 separated move actions to move twice, but there is some corner case where you are forced to take two separated move actions consecutively, like crawling 10' or swimming to a cliff and then starting to climb.

That seems the better way to reconcile two conflicting pieces of the rules.

I'm not aware of any rules that state that splitting your movement between walking/swimming/climbing requires a separate move action for each movement mode. Eg, there is no rule I'm aware of that states if I move 10', then try to climb a rope I'm now standing under, that each requires a seperate move action. Splitting your movement out into percentages takes some effort, so I can see some people wanting to simplify it, but the rules don't state a "correct" way to do it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belafon wrote:

I'd go with the order in which the bonuses were added. If Bob got drunk first he would double all of the bonuses when using moment of greatness. If the spell was cast first and then he got drunk, then just add +2.

I personally would not do this, for 3 reasons.

1) If I have to track the order of application of buffs, that starts to be to much bookkeeping, and is likely not the intent.
2) If we want to be strict about tracking order of buffs, if you cast MOG before the barbarian is even raging, then you get to multiply your current morale bonus of 0, right?
3) MOG doesn't care about when it was cast. It cares about the moment in time you want to expend it. Whatever morale bonuses you have at that point in time is what gets doubled for that roll.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) General vs specific does not apply here. You can be both the owner and the wearer of the ring. Being the owner does not preclude the wearing requirement, and nothing in the text suggests it does.

On a side note, owner and wearer are plainly meant as synonmous terms here. Or would you like to suggest that if you buy the ring, and a thief steals it and activates the ring, the cloud will still form around you, the owner of the ring, and follow you around?

2) I have no idea where you are going with your ring of the ram or ring of force shield examples.

Ring of the Ram wrote:

The wearer can command the ring to give forth a ram-like force...

That sounds a lot like the ring wearer is being granted a power they would not normally have.

Ring of Force Shield wrote:

This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC).

That also sounds very much like a ability granted to the wearer they would not normally have (eg, the ability to use a force field as a heavy shield).

And of course the ring of saltspray grants a persistent cloud of mist around its wearer, which the wearer can turn on or off. So it also is a power granted to the wearer by the ring.


... it meld into my form. 1 can say it's a continues effect item that should still be active. an even if it's not, the continuous effect that is mentioned is effecting the owner not the wearer so it still shouldn't matter.

You may have an argument to make here, that it being melded into your form when you polymorph doesn't cause it to no longer be active. I'll let someone more familiar with polymorph rules argue out this one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
zza ni wrote:

hack the words say "Upon command, the ring causes a thick vapor to continuously surround its owner" not wearer nothing actually say i must keep wearing the ring, once i use it, to keep the fog up - i only need to own it. (i can just keep it in a belt pouch, that i drop before, and carry it while shape changed)

The rules on magic rings in general state:

Magic Rings wrote:

Rings bestow magical powers upon their wearers.

If you aren't wearing it, no magical powers are granted to you. Taking a ring off is the equivalent of deactivating the ring. eg, remove a ring of invisibility, invisibility ends. Remove a ring of saltspray, mist cloud ends.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
AwesomenessDog wrote:

So why not go wizard into rogue? Why do you not have the wizard knowledge at all, then suddenly you can finally cast your first spell after you've sneak attacked to death X people?

The point is that it shouldn't matter. If you go wizard into rogue, or rogue into wizard, there should be no difference between the characters.

If my backstory is I grew up on the streets (rogue) but was always fascinated by the hedge wizard, and liked to dabble with trinkets he gave me, then at level 2 I figured out how he did his tricks. Then I'm rogue wizard.

If my backstory is I got formal training in magic while young (wizard), but felt it didn't pay well enough, so I started shoplifting things at the local shop, then I'm wizard rogue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AwesomenessDog wrote:

The only thing of value in the book, to someone who has no idea what magic is, is the ink, and while the spellbook isn't explicitly magical ink, scrolls are, and it's an odd assumption to assume they are different when spoken about in the same sections of the book.

It's not (necessarily) the ink.

The value in a captured spellbook for someone who cannot cast spells, is finding the right buyer who can cast spells.

eg, we wouldn't say the value in a +1 longsword for someone who doesn't know how to use a longsword is the value in the metal that went into making the sword. The value is the market value for the right buyer (the fighter looking for a magical longsword).

Also, for scrolls the cost isn't exclusively in the ink. The rules are

Scribing Scrolls wrote:

All writing implements and materials used to scribe a scroll must be fresh and unused. A character must pay the full cost for scribing each spell scroll no matter how many times she previously has scribed the same spell.

Ink* would count as one of possibly several materials. Other materials might the sand a writer would spread over the writing surface to help the ink dry, a small sprinking of diamond dust, or other things. Ink does not count as a implement, so a special quill might be required, or a special incense burner, etc.

*ink might actually be demon blood, or some other material that we could write with that we don't normally consider as "ink".

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The rules are written with bipeds in mind. When a creature is not a bidep a GM needs to make reasonable adjustments for how casting spells and the like works.

LIKEWISE, the rules around character creation are written as though a character were created from scratch.

If I create a level 10 wizard, I get X things. If I create a level 1 wizard then spend adventuring time to level up to 10, there should be no way to distinguish it from the level 10 wizard created from scratch.

The same holds for multiclassing. If I create a level 5 wizard, level 5 rogue from scratch, there should be nothing that distinguishes it from a level 1 rogue, who then gained 4 more levels of rogue and 5 levels of wizard (assuming very strict WBL rules are being followed). eg, there should be no difference in how much gold these two characters have, and no difference in how many spells are in the spellbook (assuming same choices in additional spells purchased) etc. If there is a difference, you've done something wrong.

This is similar to like when a character gains 2 additional points of intelligence. They also gain the skill points associated with their current character level, an additional language if appropriate, etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unbegreiflich wrote:
on its face this just won't die

2012. I remember it like it was 10 years ago.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pizza Lord wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Side issue: What creature with an int of 1 will know how to use its SLA's effectively?

A creature with an ability will use it as it evolved to use it. Wolves will attack in packs and move to flank or trip or other maneuvers that some people would say are 'intelligent' maneuvers. However, those 'wolf-pack tactics' are just a natural instinct, evolved over centuries because they were effective. They will likely use those same tactics against most prey of similar size (obviously not against a chipmunk or bunny). They aren't going to suddenly alter tactics against different opponents.

Some creatures, like lone wolves, or incredibly experienced creatures might have different tactics than the norm, but they will be learned tactics and will be used naturally and instinctually. Almost like training. You could train an attack dog to attack using a headbutt instead of a bite, but it's going to do that when you tell it to, because that's what it learned to do, not because it's concerned about injuring a suspect or attacker. It knows that it gets rewarded with treats and attention when it does that action.

A creature with a SLA of obscuring mist will use it to obscure itself (and possibly flee), but unless that creature is noted as using a different tactic (like multiple ones purposefully stringing out their SLA into a long line or wall), that would likely be too intelligent a tactic to have them spontaneously come up with during an encounter purposefully (rather than just coincidentally). Over time, if those coincidental encounters continue to work (ie. the species survives while the others, using a different tactic die), then that might become a default trait or action of the creature, that still isn't using it intelligently.

Similarly, it's intelligent to take notice of moths whose wing-pattern resemble eyes and cause other predators to avoid them, and extrapolate that you could use that tactic to scare off predators, but that doesn't make the moths or their reliance on...

None of those things are SLAs (except obscuring mist)

Let's take a look at a pit fiend, just by way of example:

At will—blasphemy (DC 25), create undead, fireball (DC 21), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 lbs. of objects only), greater scrying (DC 25), invisibility, magic circle against good, mass hold monster (DC 27), persistent image (DC 23), power word stun, scorching ray, trap the soul (DC 26), unholy aura (DC 26), wall of fire
3/day—quickened fireball (DC 21)
1/day—meteor swarm, summon (level 9, any 1 CR 19 or lower devil, 100%)

I think some things on this list it might use if it feels threatened or attacked, and others on this list it simply would not use at all.

Direct damage spells? Probably. But it probably would not maximize the number of targets. Placing them either haphazardly, or centered on the focus of its wrath.
Create undead? I think this one would be questionable. With a high int it would create such creatures with a specific task in mind. Without the matching int there isn't really any reason to create them.
Teleport and invis? Probably, to allow it to escape, or stalk prey.
Scrying? Not likely. Again it needs a reason to do so, and lacks and reason to do so without the int.
Magic circle and hold monster? Probably use these.
Summon? Probably.
Wish? If it uses this it is sure to make a mess of it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:

There are monsters that have mental ability scores that are under 10 but still have SLA's. There are even monsters that have SLA's that aren't even spells to begin with, and the SLA's spell level is merely based the highest level spell they can cast (i.e. not tied to an ability score).

I think this should be treated as an "it does what it says and it says what it does" moment, and conclude that SLA's are not affected by Feeblemind. Feeblemind is powerful enough already.

Depending on how you understand how alike SLAs and spells are, you could conclude that spell casting being stopped doesn't stop SLAs from being used.

And really I like that even better.

Side issue: What creature with an int of 1 will know how to use its SLA's effectively?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh, reading the full description of the spell, this thing is a hot mess. The description seems to be confused about whether a 5' section can only carry one passenger or two.

" passenger/2 levels" and "...increasing by an additional 5 feet square for every 2 caster levels you possess" seem to imply each 5' section is one passenger. Then the description states 2 passengers per 5' section.

Does the caster get a whole 5' section to themselves? Or does the caster with no bonus levels allow for two passengers? Or does the caster with no bonus levels only make a 3'x3' raft?

You're going to have to make a GM call on this one.

Personally, I would ignore the "Each 5-foot section of the raft can carry two Medium passengers..." as it appears to be at odds with effect line of the spell and the rest of the description. AND, who wants to sit on a raft like you are packed into a car on a family trip for 6 hours - only everyone in the family is an adult sized person, wearing bulky armor and backpacks to boot. An hour or two you might suffer it, but much longer than that and dad is going to have to pull the car over and leave someone at the side of the road. Probably the one that didn't bother to shower that morning.

To me its clear the ranger would create 3 sections. So the question comes down to, how many people do you want to allow on each section?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the rules reference. I learned something new today.

One part in particular in the rules tands out to me

Quote: tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows

That's going to be very dependent on the exact nature of the instructions given. If a suggestion is "kill X however you like" vs another suggestion of "don't kill X", then you get the cha face off.

But if the instructions are suggestion "kill X however you like" vs dominate "kill Y right now", the x however you like doesn't really conflict. Once you are done killing Y you could get around to killing X, you know, when its conveniant.

Dominate vs dominate becomes more interesting, because dominate contains the phrase "to the exclusion of all else". So two different dominate commands are likely to always conflict, as you can't do one (excluding the other) without a conflict. But if one is "kill X", and the other is "cast all your spells", then they don't conflict (unless you only have healing spells). Casting all your buff spells on yourself is a part of getting to kill X.

I would not conider your very open ended suggestion of "Do whatever you want" binding/conflicting in any way (so a useless suggestion in that regard). "Kill Qlippoths in whatever way he deems appropriate" isn't much better in terms of how binding I personally would find it. But again I would need to know what the other command was to determine if an actual conflict existed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chell Raighn wrote:

1) unless stated otherwise in the specific application of the check ALL acrobatics checks are free actions made as a part of any action to move. This means that your acrobatics check to move through a threatened space is simply a free action, it is NOT a move action made to acrobatically move through a threatened space without provoking. You spend a normal move action to move and then a free action to attempt to make the movement without provoking, if you fail you lose the action.

It's not a free action.

Acrobatics wrote:

Action: None. An Acrobatics check is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.

It is just something you can do as part of movement (or as a reaction - you take damage while balancing on a tight rope for example). So while acrobatics itself is not a move action, you are taking a move/standard action if you are using an active acrobatics check.

Chell Raighn wrote:

2) as long as you don’t fail, you can continue to make acrobatics checks against different targets that threaten you over the course of your movement. If you fail a check, your movement ends in the space you were in when you made that failed check.

You only lose the move action if you fail an acrobatics check to move through an opponent. Moving past them and provking does not end movement (or have I forgotten a rule somewhere on this one?)

Chell Raighn wrote:

3) the prior FAQ listed makes it very clear that your movement is only halved for the threatened spaces you move through with acrobatics. It operates the same as difficult terrain in that respect. As soon as you leave the threatened space you may continue your movement at normal speed.

I can see where that argument comes from based on the FAQ wording. Contextually though I don't believe that narrow interpetation is warranted - that is of course my opinion on it though, so take that for what it is worth.

eg, the context is the words being quoted to delcare you only move at half speed while in a threatened squares is an example to help explain the FAQ answer - it's not really the answer itself. So I give more weight to the rules on acrobatics then I do the example explanation. (Not that the acrobatics rules are clear cut either though...)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

I could be wrong and that's fine; many folks on these boards have pointed out to me that I'm wrong on rulings I should've had down 10 years ago! So far though I'm not seeing anything as definitive as would prove that to me. This is a rules thread though so I'll take my anecdotal interpretations and go home.

I don't know about any other rulings you may have been right or wrong on, but I think you have this one right.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryze Kuja wrote:

Negative gents, casting the spell and making a ranged touch attack both provoke two attacks of opportunity because they're considered two separate events but for the same provoking action (casting scorching ray), and both AoO's are made DURING the casting of Scorching Ray. You would add up the damage of both for the Conc check to keep the spell.

There's an FAQ about this.

Um, that FAQ very specifically says

"Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity: one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events."

It does not say you provoke twice for casting scorching ray. It says you provoke once for casting a spell (scorching ray) and you provoke once for making a ranged attack.

It does not discuss what happens if the caster fails the concentration check to finish casting.

Rules regarding concentration then include the following


If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell.



If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you’re casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

So here is the question. If I don't complete a spell because I'm either dead/unconscious/failed a concentration check, do I still get to make a ranged attack with the spell? If I don't get to make a ranged attack, what is provoking the second AoO? The FAQ says you get to make the second AoO because the caster is making a ranged attack.

Further, regarding

Ryze Kuja wrote:

and both AoO's are made DURING the casting of Scorching Ray

No. Any damage taken DURING casting of a spell requires a concentration check, or you lose the spell. The AoO for making a ranged attack cannot cancel the spell. The spell casting is completed at that point, and all that is left is to pick a target, roll an attack roll, and deal damage. Both AoOs are triggered during the action used to cast the spell, pick targets, and apply the spells consequences. But they do not both occur DURING the casting of the spell. The first AoO event occurs at the start of the action (during the spell casting), the second AoO event occurs at the end of the action (after spell casting is completed, but before targeting and damage are resolved).

There is almost always some kind of action involved with provoking an AoO, but a single action can sometimes provoke more than one AoO during the course of the action. Each of these is a single event. An event which never happens never provokes. See my example above of an archer at BAB 6+ using a full round action to make multiple attacks in a round. If an AoO after any of those attacks renders the archer unable to continue attacking, then no more attacks are made by the archer, and no more AoOs are provoked either. Casting a ranged attack spell is EXACTLY the same.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Algarik wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Algarik wrote:

I guess it all depends on if AoO are some kinds of action or not. If they are, then the Ranger would be able to shoot after the first attack of opportunity is resolved. If they are not, then i believe that RAW you can't ready yourself against a non-action.

You can ready an action against something that is not an action (always subject to GM discretion of course).

eg, I could ready an action if someone is tripped. In this case an action took place to trip them, but them being tripped isn't an action in and of itself.

Or like Ryze scenario, ready an action when someone takes damage. If we are all standing in lava, at the start of someones turn they take fire damage, triggering my ready while no actions have been taken.

Yeah that's definitely how i play readied action. Is just that one line i bolded that seems to define how readed action proceed: Which is right after the action that triggered it. Taking damage from lava isn't an action thus i'm not sure the readied action would proceed.

Then again, it might only mean that the readied action will always trigger before ''an action'' that triggers it, instead of ''the action''. The way it's written seem to imply that an action is necessary.

Although, it's not how i want the rule to be played out and i think most would agree that this interpretation would lead to silly results. So i'm not willing to die on that hill.

That is more of a result of action based rules. Devs have commented that "before the triggering action" is there because there isn't any "in the middle of an action" type mechanic. But obviously we do that sort of thing to make some readied actions actually work.

e.g, I ready an action to make a melee attack against someone who walks through a door. Someone starts their turn, moves 20', then walks through the door. Obviously I cannot actually attack them when they are 20' away, and behind a wall where I can't see them. Clearly here my readied action goes in the "middle of someone elses action". But ultimately my init is shifted to just before that characters turn. My init definately cannot be moved to "the middle of someone elses action".

Edit: for non-action triggers, I would move the readied players init to just before whatever characters turn it currently is. eg, the lava example, if the orc is the one taking fire damage at the start of its turn, I move my init to just before the orc.

A more complicated example would be I ready based on the orc attacking. My wizard friend foolish casts in the orcs threatened area. Orc starts an AoO, triggers my readied, and my init moves to just before my wizard friend (the character whose turn it actually is).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryze Kuja wrote:

No, the AoO rules explicitly call out that AoO's are resolved immediately the exact second they are provoked, that they are not considered an action type, and they interrupt all other actions, including in the middle of a player's turn.

So, Order Precedence is: AoO >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Immediate Actions > Readied Actions > PC/NPC's Turns

And readied actions are resolved when?

Oh, immediately upon the triggering condition being met.

Variation in language is just that, variation in language. Devs have stated they vary the language so it does not get dull and repetitive to read. eg, "interrupt" and "immediately" are equivalent in these contexts. Both could be further interrupted if they likewise trigger a readied action or provoke an AoO, which in turn could be further interrupted, ad naseum.

Both AoO's and readied actions happen based on a trigger condition being met. Both are resolved before the triggering condition is resolved. In both cases, you resolve the AoO or readied action before continuing any other actions (except additional things you trigger as a result of them).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

1) They are, in fact an action. It's even called out in the Readying an Action text. "Readying an Action - You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action." If you look at the combat options overview table from that same page I linked, you'll note it lists attacks of opportunity as a free action (as published and clarified in Melee Tactics Toolbox), which is defined as an action within the Readying an Action text.

You are correct.

Ssalarn wrote:

2) It's not debatable, rules do what they say. They don't say "before the start of your next turn" they say "before your next action". That means you absolutely do lose your readied action if you take an immediate action or choose to speak (though I'd expect most GMs to be more lenient on the speech part depending on how stringently they enforce IC/OoC speech at the table.)

Sorry, I meant my view of it could certainly be debated. I offered it as what I think is RAI.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Pizza Lord wrote:

It's also entirely possible that the two events trigger separately. For instance, if the giant's action was to move 5 or more feet north (not using a 5 foot step), possibly because he was moving to attack one of the rogue's allies, then as he moved he'd provoke for leaving a threatened square. The rogue would become visible. At that point, maybe the giant decides that instead of using his remaining movement to continue where he was going, he opts to use it to move back south next to the rogue or beyond him. At that point, since he's moved south, that triggers the rogue's stated Readied action and the rogue may attack (assuming the target can be reached).
Not quite. As soon as the rogue takes his attack of opportunity before the readied action triggers, he loses the readied action. When you ready an action, it can only be taken any time before your next action. As soon as you make an attack of opportunity, that is your next action and you can no longer use a readied action. The only way to use a readied action and an attack of opportunity during the same round is if the readied action is taken first.

1) Attacks of opportunity are not an action, and thus do not cancel a readied action. They are just a thing you get to do when a certain condition is met.

2) This is debatable, but I take that text to mean before your next turn. eg, if I ready an action, I don't lose it if I choose to speak, or take an immediate action. My readied action is only lost if my turn comes up again and it has not triggered.

1 person marked this as a favorite.



Any penalties to a creature’s AC also apply to its CMD.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Warped Savant wrote:

My table all seem to really like the spell manifestations. Likely because they enjoy the challenge of coming up against charmed enemies and trying to either convince them that they're being used or, at the very least, not kill them because they realize the NPCs are being manipulated.

Heck, one of my players took constant detect magic because they wanted their character to have glowing eyes.

That's... not how spell manifestations work. They are there when casting the spell. They do not persist for the duration of the spell. (Course your game, play how you want, and all that).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dronqq wrote:

Hello all,

Is there any official clarification for the rules on Attacks of Opportunity on a charging opponent?

E.g. guard with longsword charges a PC who has a reach weapon.

My playgroup can't reach a consensus and won't take forum advise unless it's "official Paizo" thus currently playing without AOO if there is a charge.

There's arguments for and against e.g. Shining Knight example or the fact that charging from vines explicitly says that it triggers attacks of opportunity but is otherwise treated as a charge, implying that the charge doesn't.

Same with the table where it says that the charging action does not trigger, the argument is that "charging is a full-round action that includes movement" and the table says that this action does not provoke.

Again, they won't take forum discussions as an argument, looking for any official FAQ or answer?

I am aware of the table that has an annotation that says that movement provokes, but that same table says that charging does not.

The shining knight example shows that charge normally provokes:


At 11th level, whenever a mounted shining knight charges a foe, her movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, for either her or her mount.

else the above is useless text.

I do not know what you mean by "charging from vines explicitly says that it triggers attacks of opportunity but is otherwise treated as a charge". What ability or feat is this referencing, from what class/archetype?

Regarding the (1) footnote, can they provide any examples where an action includes movement where the action itself says no, but this footnote for movement should apply? Because if they believe everything associated with charge means no AoO, why would that same logic not apply to all other actions that say "no" on the AoO for the action as well? Which would make this footnote quite useless. Or do they believe that the "Run" action provokes twice? Once because you used a run action, and again because you moved during the run action?

Dronqq wrote:

...won't take forum advise unless it's "official Paizo"...

Honestly? If you have the option, dump this group. That's like saying "I won't take any advice from a 40 years practicing electrician because he is not Nikola Tesla". Or, "I don't care if you have a PhD in physics, you can't tell me how gravity works because you're not Isaac Newton."

If there is a evenly divided opinion on how a rule works in the rules forum, that is one thing. There won't be on this issue though. You'll get consensus (or near consensus) from a lot of regulars on this forum who enjoy studying and hashing out the rules and how they work in the minutest of details. eg, they are experts in the rules.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Ede wrote:
HighLordNiteshade wrote:
Shooting is a ranged attach, not a melee attack. Even if you are right next to a target, you are making a ranged attack, not a melee attack. Therefore, if there are no other friendlies engaged with the enemy you are next to and shooting at, there is no -4 penalty because there are no friendlies engaged in melee with the target.

But the Enemy is engaged with you.

So he counts as been in combat with someone friendly to you.
Namely yourself.

The rules have stated in a number of places that you are considered friendly to yourself and an ally of yourself.

Thus spells and effects that affect those friendly to you or allied to you affect you as well.

As always with that FAQ regarding being your own ally, please be sure to include the full details. eg. "...when it makes sense." The reason for the penalty for shooting into melee is to be sure you don't hit an ally by mistake. There is no chance you are going to shoot yourself (outside of possibly crit fumble rules and a nat 1). I would not apply the -4 penalty in this case.

Your penalty in this scenario is taking the AoO. No other penalty needs to be applied.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Senko wrote:
Either you have all active magic emanating or the rule is annoying and largely useless in stopping actual abuses.

Understand that I'm actually with you in that I think that entire FAQ entry should be tossed. But that isn't a reason to try and create problems as a result of the FAQ that are actually beyond the scope of the FAQ.

But for example, I really dislike that every time this FAQ comes up someone almost immediately jumps in and says "So invisible casters reveal their location whenever they cast a spell". And I always feel obligated to point out that the FAQ doesn't actually make that a rule. GMs are certainly free to rule it that way at their tables, but it is really an unanswered question that the FAQ leaves us hanging to make our own judgement calls. Hence my first post in this thread was my tongue-in-cheek comment of a my spells cause a tatoo on my body to show up of me but taller. If that were indeed the manifestation, I'd like to see the GM argue that invisible does not hide it. Or any of hundreds of other possible interpetations of a manifestation that are different than the giant arrow over my head saying "Spellcaster is standing here" interpetation that, IMO, to many immediately jump to.

I mean, if I'm a caster, and I'm standing in the middle of a crowd, and decide to cast fireball, well its going to be quite obvious I did it. But if its dark outside, and no one has dark vision, I don't feel that glowing lights outlining me in the dark is the appropriate "needed nerf to prevent casters from running amok in the game". I mean do we nerf darkness so that drow assassins "cannot run amok in the game"? Do we nerf fire spells because they are to powerful in campaigns that take place in icy regions that are likely to contain many creatures that have fire vulnerability?

If the GM wants to pit the party against invisible spell casters, knowing full well the party has no means of revealing said casters, that is on the GM to make a fun and approriately challenging encounter. If the players regularly use such tactis it is on the GM to have some encounters where the NPCs/monsters have appropriate counters.

TLDR. The FAQ, IMO, tries to solve a "problem" that should be left up to individual GMs to solve based on the theme and feel for the type of campaign they want to run.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
yukongil wrote:

such manifestation would also only occur at the time of casting the spell correct?

There aren't glowing magical sparks popping off the invisible guy for several minutes for instance, only that there is some sort of visible effect when the spell if first cast

I have always applied it that way, but the FAQ isn't really clear about that.
Surely the obvious emanation for invisibility would be a person disappears. Similarly, for any illusion, the emanation would be the illusion. For evocation, conjuration and transformation it would be the thing being evoked, conjured or transformed. The enchantment school appears to be the main issue. A suggestion, charm, domination etc cannot be performed without there being an obvious giveaway, which renders the school all but useless in a roleplay scenario, where it should excel.

Nope. Senko already covered it, but the emanations are those magical signals that occur while you are in the middle of casting the spell (when you could use your readied counterspell, or take an AoO, etc), and an onlooker can use their spellcraft to determine what spell is being cast.

Once the spell is cast those emanations go away, and then the spell itself may have visual effects - this disappearing due to invisibility, the illusion being created, etc.

On a side note, I'm not sure where people get the idea that emanations continue on a spell during the spells duration. I think that is reading way more into the FAQ than it was obviously intended to cover.

The FAQ questions is


What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?

Note that you wouldn't be able to interrupt a casting, or take an AoO, etc after the spell had already been cast but still had duration remaining on it. Clearly the answer to the question is focused around the "at time of casting" a spell, and not around the use of spellcraft in conjunction with a detect magic to identify a magical aura.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Arguing about the intent of the rules is problematic,...

That depends.

See "Dead characters can take no actions"
See "What's the DC to jump a 10' pit"
See "What does a metamagic wand of magic missiles cost to create (pre-metamagic FAQ on taking the worst case for the caster)"
See "Combat manuevers where they all say beat or exceed CMD (except one that says exceed CMD, I can't remember which one)"

No doubt there are hundreds of other examples that could be pulled from these forums - places in the rules where it is possible to come to different conclusions based the actual wording of the rules. Somtimes its really clear what was intended like in the above examples. Sometimes it is not. But we use RAI all the time when we read the rules to draw meaning from them.

In other cases arguing RAI can be problematic, but its not a blanket coverage. It again, as almost always, comes back to context.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I also think the best context to look at the rules is that the writers and editors are professionals who know what they are doing, that they said what they meant, and they meant what they said. And you need very compelling evidence to break what the rules say in the name of intent.

This makes an assumption that those changes were edited into the rulebook by a Sr Editor, and not (as is more likely for minor changes like this) by a Jr Editor/Intern. That doesn't necessarily excuse the mishap. But there is a lot of context surrounding this issue from original wording, to FAQ, to new wording, etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

That's actually not true.

Nothing in that link says dead characters can't take actions. So it actually is true.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

The rules say that when a character takes massive negative damage or total Constitution loss, he's dead. "Dead" is an English language word that has an understood meaning that includes an inability to take actions.

Eg you've extrapolated (speculated) on their intent. It's an accurate assessment of their intent. But it's still not codified RAW.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Further it states that a character with negative hit points that have not been stabilized have the Dying Condition, and it does state that Dying characters can take no actions. That does unambiguously imply that a character that died through hit point loss cannot take any actions.

Just like pinned is a more severe form of grappled, so all the grappled conditions also carry over to pinned? Except that they don't. We can reasonably (with a high degree of certainly) infer that dead, like dying, can take no actions. But again, we are getting into RAI here, not RAW. The very fact you had to use the word "imply" to describe it tells us that is the case.

Seems you've just proven my point for me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Even if the available-space argument were a good argument, intention can only be a matter of speculation. Meanwhile, remember that you and I are paid customers. We are not responsible for what Paizo meant to say. Paizo is responsible for what they did say.

Sure. And the rules don't tell us that dead characters can take no actions. Just because something isn't written in the rules does not mean we cannot extrapolate (ie, speculate) with a very high degree of accuracy. In fact most of the text of the rules requires some degree of interpetation (ie, speculation). The fact that there are thousands of threads in the rules forum with no concrete answer available is an indication of that.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Meanwhile, remember that Paizo has no moral standing of authorship and no right to dictate RAI. Paizo ripped the Core Rulebook whole-cloth from the Dungeons and Dragons Players' Handbook. The intent of the author of the Core Rulebook is that they be used for Dungeons and Dragons, not for Pathfinder. When Pathfinder player uses the rules in the way that was not intended, they doing what Paizo themselves did and are therefor playing the game in the highest and oldest tradition

I disagree with this. Just because PF was based on 3.5, does not mean it has not evolved, or that rules haven't been adjusted from the 3.5 rules. They have absolute right to dictate RAI for their game - especially when they have specifically changed rules from what the original 3.5 rules were.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see the problem. I had missed this post here. Given the FAQ and change in wording, then yes, pinned is dex to AC loss.

Derklord wrote:

The phrase appears in the CRB nine times. Eight of these are absolutely clearly only about AC. Saying that the ninth occurence is not just about AC when the concept isn't adressed anywhere else (not in the skill rules, for instance), is, in my opinion, disingenuity.

Also note that originally (up to the 4th printing of the CRB), Pinned made the target flat-footed, they changed that to the "denied dexterity bonus" in the 5th printing (after this FAQ, which talks about "dexterity bonus" while the actual erratum also added "to AC"). Since such changes mustn't break the formatting, adding "to its armor class" was simply not possible with the limited aviable space.

The CRB isn't written to be the most precise rule document. The devs have said so, and there are plenty examples of where one cannot play the game as strictly written without it breaking down (that the polymorph rules RAW don't apply to Wild Shape even though they reference that ability being a perfect example).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:

Since the writer of a new book or an erratum writes the new rules in the context of the existing rules, I think looking beyond just the condition is a mandatory thing to do to understand the erratum writer's intend. I mean, if a new class's spellcasting ability would omit the usual sentence that "In addition, (s)he receives bonus spells per day if (s)he has a high <whatever> score (see Table 1–3 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).", we would still presume that to be the case based on the fact that every other spellcasting class works like that. I simply do the same here.

I'd give the spell casters the bonus spells, because there is a general rule under the abilities section which states:


The table also shows bonus spells, which you’ll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.

This applies to all spellcasters, and is not specific only to some casters.

Derklord wrote:

@bbangerter: You're grossly misinterpreting the evidence, and I think you do that deliberately because you don't want to accept the truth. All your picking-the-bones is just trying to hide the truth, which is that 8 out of 9 occurences of the prase in the CRB are explicitly about AC. The contexts that the phrase is used in don't matter, because I'm comparing the phrases and not the context. You're trying to focus on the contexts because you know you can't beat my actual argument.

Let's assume for the moment, that the only place the rules talked about loss to dex was the pinned condition (written as it currently is) and the sneak attack ability, written as it currently is?

Should we assume that pinned only applies to loss of dex to AC in that scenario? Or would we read it as pinned causes a general loss. And sneak attack would apply to both a general loss AND any future specific loss to AC? I'd expect most people would say pinned is a general loss.

So now we add a second ability, the mentions specific dex to AC loss. Does that change what pinned does? Should it? We can continue adding more and more. Is there some specific number where specific rules about specific things in specific contexts suddenly change what the pinned condition actually does? If there is, you aren't applying rules logic consistantly. If there are 1000 specific rules that talk about loss of dex to AC, does that mean that is the only kind there is? Does that mean a future ability could not cause a loss of dex to skills? Or a loss of dex to saves? Or a loss of dex to initiative rolls? If it does changed based on a number of mentions, does it suddenly change back if a new ability that causes loss of dex bonus to something other than AC?

On a side note to that, only feint and flat-footed (that I am aware of) causes a loss of a dex to AC. The other mentions are all things that either trigger off that loss to AC specifically, or re-asserting rules that are already in place.

And more specifically this portion

Derklord wrote:

You're trying to focus on the contexts because you know you can't beat my actual argument.

No, because context is extremely important. Which is interesting because you took something out of context above to try and prove your point. Here is the complete context of the duelist Canny Defense

Canny Defense wrote:

When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level as a dodge bonus to her Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.

It already mentions it is a dodge bonus to AC. So when it mentions "this bonus" the context already tells us to AC, because it was a dodge to AC bonus. Adding "to AC" again in the paragraph is superflous.

Finally, if the best you can do to counter my argument is make veiled insults about my intellectual honesty.... well, I think you should depart from the discussion if you can't show why context doesn't matter, or can't show why loss to AC is a general rule (all the specific rules that mention loss to AC doesn't make that the general rule).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You add the full +6 to the trip attempt. Max number of missiles based on caster level is irrelevent to other rider effects based on caster level.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) The spell is expended to no effect.
2) The spell is expended. Effect is determined by the type of spell. Spells that do damage will damage the Wall of Force as normal. Most spells will simply fizzle.

As for the caster knowing why, that's going to be more a GM call. For 1) I'd only tell the caster the spell doesn't take hold (they can assume a save was made).
For 2) I'd probably tell them something blocked the spell at point X. For damaging spells it would be visually obvious they were blocked.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:

"The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target." pg. 68, Sneak Attack
"She must be aware of the attack and able to react to it in order to execute her defensive roll—if she is denied her Dexterity bonus to AC, she can’t use this ability." pg. 69, Defensive Roll rogue talent
"Feint: You can use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack." pg. 90, Bluff
"The defender is denied his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class." pg. 195, armor class modifier table, footprint for helpless and pinned
"The death attack fails if the target detects the assassin or recognizes the assassin as an enemy (although the attack might still be a sneak attack if the target is denied his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class or is flanked)." pg. 378, Assassin's Death Attack
"A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see." pg. 382, Dragon Disciples's Blindsense
"A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see." pg. 561, Blindsight and Blindsense
The only one occurance of the word "denied" in relation to rules (there's one that is about the GM not allowing a deus-ex-machina) lacking the "to AC" or "to armor class", appart from the later-edited-in pinned condition, is this:
"Canny Defense (Ex): When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level as a dodge bonus to her Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus." Not only is the ability solely about an AC bonus, this FAQ says "She loses that Int-based AC bonus under any situation where she's denied her Dex bonus to AC."

Thanks. After reading these in context, I draw the opposite conclusion you do. We can't extrapolate the specific rules in each of these instances to be the general rule.

Sneak Attack: Loss of dex to ac is one of several possible conditions to trigger sneak attack. This could be either the specific loss of dex to ac, or a general loss of dex bonus (which would include AC, ref save, dex based skills, dex check, etc). Nothing about this implies that loss of dex bonus to ac is the only type of loss of dex bonus that could be applied.

Defensive Roll talent: Againt the loss of a dex to ac is just a qualifier on whether the ability can be used or not. Loss of dex to saves wouldn't matter. But loss of dex to ac or loss of dex bonus altogether prevents using it.

Death Attack: Just a rewording of sneak attack conditions.

Feint: Tells what happens when you successfully use feint. There isn't a "feint to remove dex bonus to reflex, or all dex bonus" because feint is a combat thing, not a general cripple the enemy thing.

The AC table footnote: See my dicussion of it upthread. Of all of these examples, this, IMO, is actually the strongest argument for the case. And I don't find it a particularly strong argument.

Blindsense: The rules already tell us that being unable to see your opponent removes your dex bonus to ac. (See invisibility, blinded condition, etc). The text here is just telling us that blindsense doesn't change that. This text on these pages is unnecessary, but helpful in clarifying what blindsense does and does not change.

Canny Defense: Despite developer claims about limited book space, they included the text that a flat-footed or dex denied character also loses this bonus. This is simply reminder text, because there is already a rule that dodge bonuses (which this is called out as) are lost when a character loses its dex bonus to ac.

None of these indicate that the only type of loss that can be taken to dex bonus is an AC one. It just so happens that all the cases (excpet pinned) where it comes up is within a context of some effect triggering of this condition, or correctly determing AC because of other conditions.

RAW, pinned definately removes the dex bonus to everything dex related. RAI, I'm not convinved by these examples is any different. I'd need an example of something that could result in a AC target OR a reflex save required (or a skill being used) that states that only the dex to ac bonus is lost. e.g, some example that includes a context of more than just a triggering condition for an attack against AC (sneak attack) or reitarates rules that are already in place (being unable to see an attacker or canny defense).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grankless wrote:
There's also the fact that I can't think of any other effect in the game that just completely removes your attribute bonus universally. Even Feeblemind doesn't do that!

When you have been feebleminded, your int/cha are set to 1. You no longer have a int/cha bonus to be applied. You have a -4 penalty applied. So while it doesn't explicitly say you lose the bonus, it is implied by virtue of an effective change to your ability score changes your bonus/penalty. This is the same if you had taken ability damage/drain.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:

There are 2 references in the CRB to being denied your DEX bonus while Pinned, and one IS referencing AC. That means either the one that references AC is a typo or the one that doesn't reference AC is a space-saver.

I'm not persuaded that a footnote to a table talking about AC modifiers is compelling enough to override what the pinned condition itself says. It looks to me more like a reminder that pinned also removes your dex bonus, which of course affects your AC if you have a dex bonus. Table footnotes are rather on the bottom side of the rules authority totem pole.

I'd actually like to go back and look at all the page # references that were made above where the phrase "dex bonus to AC" is made, to see the context these statements are being made in. I just need to find my CRB, and feel compelled enough to actually do it :).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wonderstell wrote:
Leaper's Libation

That item is like pre-FAQ prone shooter feat. It eliminates a rule that doesn't actually exist.

There is no rule that you can't jump more than your base speed. The rule is that jumping doesn't allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round. If I double move (and jump the whole way) I move jump double my base speed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder movement rules are built around a 2-D grid system, not a 3-D cube sytem (until you get into flying rules).

e.g, we don't charge people diagonal movement for moving up or down a flight of stairs or steep slope (though rough terrain may apply). We only count change in distance in the 2-D top down view of the grid.

For a person standing still who is merely making a vertical jump, the rules leave us rather in the dark (or dim light at best) for what to do on maximum jump height vs movement allowed in a turn. It's mostly a moot point as most characters can't make the jump DC for it to matter - until you get into characters built for jumping of course, then you start seeing some absurdly high effective jump rolls possible. So then it comes back to a GM either limiting a character despite their investment in said builds, or finding ways to adjudicate it to both make sense while not diminishing the character investment.

eg. "You may dimension door/teleport to the top of the 200' cliff, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let your character jump there" seems a bit arbitrarily punitive to me if the player wants to create a jump focused character instead of playing a wizard who regularly breaks all rules of reality anyway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature’s AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.

The rules don't seem to be super clear on this, but a couple of thoughts:

1) If the creature takes a penalty to AC, it also takes it to CMD. While losing a dex bonus is not a penalty per se, it seems to be in the same vein of intent. Regardless it should certainly apply to CMD since part of the CMD value is based on the dex bonus.
2) Should it be just as easy to escape a grapple as a pin? I don't think so. The loss of dex certainly would make that the case. Note that "A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class." So the character, in addition to losing an additional 4 AC, also loses 4 CMD.
3) CMD and Escape artist are different things, so not perfectly clear they should receive all the same bonuses or suffer the same penalties. I think they should work the same, escape artist just being an option you can boost much more easily than increasing your CMD, if that is an important aspect for your character. And refer back to 2, escaping a grapple is easier than getting out of pinned.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

FAQ answers this fairly succinctly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To me its not an issue of fairness/unfairness to larger/smaller creatures. It's a matter of what the rules actually say. If they intended it to hit larger creatures multiple times thats a pretty glaring issue to not explain in detail.

When the rules say an AoE effect deals damage to each creature in the effect it means just that. Size is irrelevant. If the rules instead said a creature that occupies one or more squares in the effected area suffers damage for each of those squares, that would be a straightforward explanation of it.

But if you want to push the bigger creatures have more hp so should take more damage route - D8 typical for many medium creatures vs d12 typical for many larger creatures (which isn't actually true), you are suggesting its fair because a creature that has 50% more HP takes 400% (or even higher with huge+ creatures) more damage?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
The manifestation of fireball is both from the caster and where it lands. It's not unreasonable to assume that teleport spells would also have an emanation at both points of the teleport. But without spellcraft, you'd just know that some magic thing happened in a place. You'd need a successful spellcraft check to know which magic thing happened there.

The fireball itself is not part of the "spell manifestations". "Spell manifestations" are the indicator someone is actually casting a spell as opposed to just wiggling their fingers and saying gibberish. The visible ball of exploding flame is part of the spell effect that shows up after the casting of the spell is completed. (The quoted FAQ even makes the distinction between manifestations and over spell visuals). Teleport may or may not have extra visible components (that's going to be entirely GM discretion). Personally I like to think of teleport having a soft "whumpf" noise associated with it from the displaced air - but none of that is rules based or factored into stealth checks without GM intervention.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Agénor wrote:
bbangerter wrote:

So no, you cannot take free actions outside of your turn without a specific exception.

Does this result in some clunky rules sometimes? Yes.
But that doesn't mean it isn't the rule. It just means that if you want to change it for personal playstyle, better narrative story telling, or any other reason, feel free to house rule it. But again that does not mean it's not the official rule.

We are derailing the thread. I propose we stop about whether free actions cannot be taken out of turn or not here. I'd be glad to discuss this in another thread if you open it^^

I'd be happy to discuss it another thread if you feel inclined - feel free to create a new thread and drop a link in this one to it if you want. I'm not sure there is much to discuss though as multiple FAQs make it pretty clear what the dev team thinks about the default case of when free actions can be taken is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:

Melee weapon’s can be thrown. But, we already knew some melee weapons could be thrown. That doesn’t mean the dagger is a “ranged weapon” though, especially for enchanting purposes.

It’s like saying you can put agile on a long sword because you can use finesse with it if you take slashing grace. But the weapon doesn’t care about how it could be used, but about what it is. And the dagger is a melee weapon. So no designating.

A dagger is both a melee weapon and a thrown weapon.

We know it's melee because it is listed under simple melee weapons on the table.
We know its ranged because
1) It is a thrown weapon as shown earlier. (it does not appear on both the ranged and melee weapon tables for convservation of space and all that).
2) The rules tell us

Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon’s use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon’s usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, or Large).

There isn't anything stating it can only be one. Just like a weapon can be both P or S, depending on how it is used, and it would qualify for enchantments that can only be applied to a P or an S.

The rule doesn't state that only thrown weapons that cannot be used as melee weapons count as ranged weapons. They make a blanket "thrown weapons are ranged weapons" claim.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Does it actually seem overpowered to anyone to allow keen on a thrown dagger? Because I'm not seeing it. Meanwhile, the rules could be interpreted any which way, so why not let the combo work?

At what point in time did RAW care about whether something was OP or not? You can use that reasoning for why you house rule something one way or another, but for an actual discussion on what a rule is it has no bearing on the matter.

So if a dagger with keen gets its effect when thrown, and since a dagger is also a thrown weapon, we could then put Greater Designating on it and get all the benefits while making melee attacks right?

Or give my two handed weapon of choice the throwing enchantment, then apply lesser designating and gain all the benefits? So while making such as weapon would require a total of +3 worth of enchantments and only provide me with a net +2 attack/damage, so not as good for me personally as just adding +3 enhancement bonus to my weapon, it does wonders for a party with multiple melee classes, or for my full TWF build since I don't have to stack as many bonuses on my off hand weapon.

As to the actual question, rules here are murky, but I fall in the "in must be used as a melee weapon to qualify for benefits that are applied to it as a melee weapon".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A couple of points:

The rules are written from the perspective of bipeds. When a creature is not a biped (tiger, hellhound, etc) you will need to adjudicate appropriately. Personally in this case I follow the same reasoning Claxon does and limit one appendage for a grapple.

In days past a FAQ got made about hands and hands of effort, and such. Do the grapple rules refer specifically to literal hands or more the metaphorical hands of effort? Again, because the rules are written from the bipedal perspective, adjustments must be made when the creature is not bipedal. Again personally I wouldn't read the grapple rules as refering only to literal hands.

These same sorts of problems come up with certain spells. Spells like ray of enfeeblement talk about the ray springing forth from your hand. Does this mean dragons can't actually cast it, cause they have claws and not hands? Or how about dark naga? The default dark naga has this on their spell list, but as a snake has no actual hand for the spell to spring forth from.

1 to 50 of 307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>