bbangerter's page

Couple of additional points.

If the mount is taking more than 1 single attack, it is using a full attack action, and cannot move more than a 5' step afterwords.

From your original description you indicated the mount attacked with its hooves (multiple) then moved away. Unclear if the moving away was a 5' step, or an actual move of some distance (~30-40 feet). A full move action could not be taken if it did indeed make multiple attacks.

Also, horses (if not trained for combat) treat hoove attacks as secondary attacks, even though that is their only form of attack, so take a -5 to attack rolls.

So, you can take a 5 foot step as part of an immediate action, but not by itself.

I don't believe this is accurate. If it is, then I can cast Stone Shield to not only to get a +4 to AC against a creature, but at the same time 5' step out of its reach and avoid its attacks altogether. I think the immediate action in question would need to specifically allow a 5' step. There are 1 or maybe 2 other immediate action spells that could likewise be used, not for their intended purpose, but as a defensive 5' step trigger in the same way. (Most immediate action spells require some kind of specific triggering condition that would not occur from being attacked).

For example readied actions specifically allow a 5' step as part of the readied action (so long as you did not move during the round).

And there is the FAQ regarding creatures with trip/grab/etc abilities associated with their attacks. Prior to the FAQ it was questioned whether they got such rider effects on AoOs they made. PDT ruled that because those things are associated with their attacks, those could be taken outside of turn.

So I believe a 5' step is only allowed during your turn, unless explicit rules allow otherwise. Readied action and step up feat chain are the only ones that come to my mind. That is, non-actions still being a type of action follow the requirement of only on your turn as a general rule.

Claxon wrote:

The first example that I can think of comes from Inquisitors. (I may be a little rusty because it's been a while since I played PF1) Judgements are swift actions, bane is a swift action, and there are some buff spells that are swift actions. The difference in allowing a swift action to be done as a standard action can mean a difference in the ramp up time to peak damage for the Inquisitor. I think you run into similar constraints for Magus (Magi) too.

If you allow the Inquisitor to do swift actions as a standard, yes the potentially waste turn 1 buffing, and start turn 2 with their swift action buff, but they get full peak damage on turn 2 attacks.

Inquisitor is the prime example, but I'm trying to think of 3 swifts that would be ramp up damage faster than

1 - Judge (swift)
1 - Divine Favor (standard)
2 - Bane (swift)

That's why I don't think trading your standard for an extra swift is at all unbalancing. I can't think of any swift actions that would be better than a standard.

Correct.

Choices would be
Round 1
Judge + move + attack OR Judge + full attack OR Judge + Divine Favor or other spell
Round 2
Add bane + full attack

vs with a swift + readied swift
Round 1
Judge + Bane + Move
Round 2
Full attack

You've miseed out a single attack, or possibly a full attack with the second version. Though you technically have a 3rd swift action that might be useful. Maybe if the enemy wasn't in range and you really expected them to provoke from you between turns.

If any class breaks things with swift actions though it would be the inquistor - but only in specific circumstances.

A magus might be able to break them too, but magus swift is usually a quickened spell on top of a full attack. Or using spell recall. Things like arcane accuracy and accurate strike are swifts you would want to use combined with a full attack - so would rarely combine them with a readied action - and certainly not with a readied swift. Though there might some obscur niche cases with other swift arcana that could break things.

the start of your turn reset all your actions. (move, standard and swift if you didn't use a swift action in your last turn and an immediate action between turns).

Minor correction. Using a swift action on your previous turn has no impact. Only the use of an immediate action between your turns consumes your upcoming turns swift action. The immediate action consuming your upcoming turns swift action occurs regardless of whether you used a swift action on your previous turn or not.

That is correct.

For a more in depth analysis see this guide to touch spells and the magus

If it isn't a new turn, the limitation "You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn," "In a normal round, you can perform ... a [one single] move action" is fully in effect. The Ready action says that you get to Ready a swift move action, not that you get to perform a second Swift move action.

This still has not been addressed.

The text (RAW) is against you on this one either way you look at it.

If the readied action is still part of your turn, then you still don't get an extra move or swift actions above what is normally allowed during your turn (or readied actions are specific > general and allow either a second move or second swift during your turn).

If the readied action takes place outside of your turn (which is what the readied action rules actually say), then the limit of one move or one swift during your turn does not apply - because the readied action is not taking place during your turn.

That is because the rules are muddy. I am in the camp that "It is the continuation of your turn, so you can use only one swift action, either in the original turn or with the readied action." But no part of the rules says that.

This part is pretty hard to justify as even just a difference of opinion on muddy rules, given:

The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun.

That statement is not muddy at all.

bbangerter wrote:

you need to explain how that is different for a standard action in which you also only get 1 per turn if you already used up your standard (as required by readying an action).

Again, specific overrides general. The rules for readying an action explicitly state you can ready a standard action.

That's odd. The rules also explicitly state you can ready a swift action.

If the rules are you get a move action on your turn (that is 1 move action on your turn). And you get 1 swift action on your turn. Why is it that a readied action lets you get 2 move actions, but not get 2 swift actions?

If getting 2 swifts breaks the other rules. Then the same logic must hold for getting 2 moves (or 2 standards).

As I grok do u pointed out

If you used your swift already, you can't take an immediate until the start of your next turn.

Is incorrect. Using an immediate action consumes your swift for your upcoming turn. Using a swift (on your turn) does not prevent you from using an immediate action after your turn is over. The reverse does not apply.

You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn).

If you want to argue that the swift action rules are more specific than the readied action rules, please answer these questions:

We had this exact same fight six months ago.

** spoiler omitted **

I've been feeling the deja vu looking at this thread too :)

As I pointed out in the other thread

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action...

The rules also state you only get one standard action and one move action per turn. So for those arguing that you only get 1 swift per turn and thus can't ready a swift action (if you took a swift on your normal non-readied part of your turn), you need to explain how that is different for a standard action in which you also only get 1 per turn if you already used up your standard (as required by readying an action).

If you can't get 2 swifts (spread across your turn, and the after your turn is over part of your ready), you also can't get 2 standard actions (1 to ready the action, and another to do something with).

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

The quality of their gear is also another indication that can be used.

That’s a good idea. I guess you could get a rough idea of that with an appraise check. But it’s either 1 full round action to determine the most expensive item or 1 standard per item they have, which is time consuming

That is assuming you are trying to figure out the actual value. Some things should be a little more obvious. The guy in polished full plate that fits him well is probably fairly high level. The guy in ill-fitting patched up studded leather is probably not. The guy in the fitted studded leather in good repair is probably not low level.

Yes, your version is fine for assuming who's most important in a mixed group. But by using appraise, you could make some assumptions about their general wealth by level for NPCs. Which would give you a ballpark of what levels they are, instead of how they stack up to each other relatively.

If they are all dressed the same, you could appraise their armor and weapon and get a pretty vague idea of their level. Armor upgrades a little faster than weapons. So, those break points can tell you things. Regular armor, probably level 1-4. Masterwork armor but regular weapon, probably level 3-6. Masterwork weapon, probably level 4-8. Those are just generalities, but they do give you possibly helpful ranges. If a group of enemies all have masterwork weapons, I wouldn't use the sleep spell against them. And you can make similar assumptions based on how magical their weapons and armor are.

Of course you may not have enough time to appraise the enemy group in time to determine that.

Action: Appraising an item takes 1 standard action. Determining the most valuable object in a treasure hoard takes 1 full-round action.

As a GM I'd probably also rule that just looking at an item from 20-50' away is insufficient to actually do an appraisal of it. You might be able to determine it is masterwork from that, but not that it is +2 harmonizing, champion, full plate mail (eg, worth 49k+). A proper appraisal would generally involve being able to handle the item and inspect it more closely IMO. This could be a good place to add circumstantial penalties - so a high roll might get the player close enough to its value to still be useful.

Of couse this all assumes the items being appraised are at a proper experience/wealth level. Sometimes that 1st level NPC has wealthy parents, or that high level NPC just broke out of prison and hasn't collected any good equipment yet.

Temporarily treat your enemies as allies when they crit your team so you regain panache when the enemy is doing well.

Alliedness is a two way street, not I want you to be my ally and you must comply.

This is allowed both by the full attack description linked by Red Metal and by the 5' step rules themselves.

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance. You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

Emphasis mine. A full attack is a full round action. You can take a 5' step before, during, or after your full round action.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Blinsight wrote:

fnaf 1 said:
Tremorsense only pinpoints the square of the creature, so displacement is fully effective.

I don't think so. It might just be the theory of relativity.

Diego is correct on this.

Consider for example invisibility. If you know the target square the invisible creature is in, you can attack them (or rather you can attack the square they are in), but you still suffer the 50% miss chance.

Pinpointing a creatures location (aka tremorsense) only tells you what 5' square(s) they occupy. It does not grant you anything beyond that.

Blindsight negates all penalties based on (lack of) sight. As displacement is a sight based effect, blindsight negates it.

The problem is that the wording of the feat can be interpreted in two ways:

1) You make one cumulative attack against all the opponents in reach and make a separate roll for each target to resolve it. As you attack multiple targets it is not an AoE attack.

2) You make a separate attack against each opponent in reach.

Each interpretation has its set of problems and we will never get an official reply.

Obviously, I consider 1) the correct answer, but it is possible that the Devs would have ruled differently.

There is an issue with the argument that using two weapons with different reach gives extra attacks. Using two weapons does not meet the qualification of "...bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities."

Counterpoint, TWF (and taking the TWF attack penalty) also is not a bonus attack from feats, spells, or abilities. It is something any character can just choose to do. No one here is suggesting that you can TWF with whirlwind to make one attack against all creatures in range, then also get offhand iteratives on top of that. But if the extra attack from TWF is prevented, does the extra weapon count as providing extra attacks (personally, IMO, it does not, in the same way being enlarged, using long arm, or fluid form, does not).

But, for option 1 we should actually examine the text of the feat itself more closely.

When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack ... against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

Its not one single attack (or cumulative attack as you stated it), with a seperate attack roll for each target. It is one attack against each. That is, it is multiple attacks, with multiple attack rolls, against multiple targets.

So obviously option 2 is the correct answer :). And the only requirement is they be in reach of your valid melee attack.

Are you using two weapons? No.
So, why you ask a question that unrelated to my point?

Just trying to understand where and why you are applying a limit.

Are you using two weapons and getting more attacks out of a full attack?
That is exactly how two-weapon fighting works.

If I am facing 2 enemies, and have a BAB of 6, am wielding a reach weapon, and have IUS. Can I make one attack against a creature 10' away with the spear at BAB, and one creature next to me with a headbutt at BAB-5, do I incur TWF penalities on my attacks?

If I instead use whirlwind attack to make those same attacks, but both at BAB, do I now incur the TWF attack penalities? I have not gained any extra attacks. The only thing that has changed is the iterative penalty.

Note: Whirlwind attack does not impose any limitations to using a single weapon for attacks. eg, if I have 2 daggers, and one is silver and the other is +1, there are no restrictions placed on using the silver against the werewolf enemies in range, and the +1 against the DR/magic enemies in range. I don't even gain any extra attacks due to reach in this.

If use a weapon without reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 9 8 squares adjacent to you.

If you use a weapon with reach while using Whirlwind attack, you get to attack the 16 squares that are 10' away from you.

If I am flying, and using whirlwind attack, am I limited to 8 attacks? Or can I make 26 attacks if I have an enemy in every square adjacent to me? Does the fact that I am flying mean I would be adding more attacks than I am allowed, and thus is prohibited by whirlwind attack?

If I have enlarge person going, or long arm, or fluid form, can I make more attacks because my max reach is increased but my min reach remains the same and I am still only using one weapon?

If you use a weapon with reach and one without at the same time, you get to attack 25 squares, so you increase the number of attacks. That imposes the two-weapon fighting penalty.

All that assumes you can use two different weapons while using Whirlwind attack, something that is unclear and GM dependent.

This is NOT two-weapon fighthing, and does not impose the TWF penalty to attack rolls.

Well, to bring this thread back on topic a bit and answer OP's question, I see no reason to demand that you cannot utilize two weapons while performing a whirlwind attack.

Personally I'd be surprised if the OP is still waiting around for an answer... 15 years later.

Keep in mind that a traditional +2 weapon isn't unusual at level 5 either, especially if you have crafting. The bladebound isn't getting much of an attack buff from this compared to a regular magus. They are just free to spend that wealth on other things.

I'd disagree with this. At level 5 your expected wealth is 10,500gp. Having a +2 weapon. 8k, +300 for masterwork, plus whatever the base weapon costs - ~80% of your wealth - tied up in your weapon should be pretty unusual. Not impossible, but rare. Even with crafting feats that's still almost half your wealth - which alone is unusual.

When you use Spell Combat, every attack you make is a different action, even if it is part of a full action. Otherwise, every effect that incapacitates you as a consequence of your attacks would work only after all attacks are done.

That's not really specific to spell combat. A fighter making a full attack against a creature with fire shield (or a similar type of effect when struck) who knocks himself below 0 HP cannot finish all of his attacks in the sequence.

The "state" is death/dead body/corpse etc. The game plays loose with those terms and it is a long standing debate as to exactly what they mean as the spell terminology jumps about...

When you state

When creatures die they go from a living creature to an object and that can end most spells.

You should very well know that, regardless of whether or not

I'm not really open to debate on the topic of creature vs object in this thread.

is true, the rules forum is going to push back on that statement :)

Each target requires a move action (or move or swift at 7th level). The only thing that changes at higher levels is the bonus (from 1 to 2 to 3, etc) and how many targets can be under the effect at once.

Spell combatSpellstrike is effective when the charge is delivered with other weapons.

Spell Combat is for when a magus wants to make a full attack and also cast a non-quickened spell.

so you closed with a foe and he got an immediate action to 5 ft away. Immediate actions are kinda rare. The other option is he readied to do so.

the problem is common enough, one of declaring actions then wanting to change your mind.
The trick is a 5 foot step is an optional free action with conditions, so the relationship/logic only goes one way, so you cannot covert it back into a move action. Consider you are doing a full action and the 5 ft step is part of it, thus you want to change the full action.
so NO, you now have a full action. many GMs would let you take a standard action and waste the rest of the action
That's what this hypothetical feat is for. The Step Up feat might be a counter. Consider it is just a one time trick now that you know.

What you can do is drop your weapon(free action) and draw another with reach using quickdraw feat. notice both counters involve feats The other thing is that parties involve multiple characters so an ally can now attack and you threaten some open squares. You can also choose to fight defensively -4 attack gaining +2 dodge AC. 'Total defense' means you cannot take AoOs and probably not what you want here.

Clarification: In the OP they have not yet committed to using a full-attack action.

Character 5' steps, and starts a full attack. Enemy steps away.

In this case the character is locked into trying to make an attack - but a full-attack can always be reverted back to a standard and move if they have only made 1 (or 0) attacks (exception of course that some types of full attacks - manyshot, and a few others - do lock you into the full-attack). The move action left over could not be used to move, but could be used to draw another weapon, drink a potion, retrieve an item, etc.

Dasrak wrote:

If the comparison is when resting, then the Monk who needs to take a full round action to pull out a potion and quaff it to get Mage Armor is way better off than the guy in plate mail who needs 4 minutes with someone else helping him to get his armor on. Nobody takes the Endurance feat, it's a bad feat, because the risk of being ambushed while asleep is not worth...

A full plate dude can get dressed in a round with a potion of Serren's swift girding.

Most of my characters who wear armor heavier than light just spend the gold to have a set of chain shirt jammies.

There is also Restful Armor

A bit pricy for just the keep your AC while sleeping part. Even a bit pricy compared to a ring of sustenance for the only 2 hours of rest required effect - but doesn't take up any additional equipment slots.

Masterwork does not affect the maximum dexterity bonus it reduces the ACP, and it costs an extra 150 not 100. A mithral chain shirt will bump the max Dex bonus to +6, but it costs an extra 1,000 gold.

Yep my mistake. I'm so used to going mithral chain shirt (masterwork automatically required) I messed up where the max dex bonus change comes from and just conflated the amount to the same as the ACP change. (And yep, my number off 100gp for mwk is wrong)

...is basically getting the equivalent of full plate without any impediment to their Dex bonus so it's hardly unprecedented.

Full Plate: AC +9

So, not really. The correct comparison for a cost analysis is a chain shirt vs potions/wands/pearl of power.

Chain shirt cost 100gp
That's 2 potions of mage armor.
6.666 wand charges.
1/10 of a pearl of power.

The chain shirt is far more cost effective until your dex exceedds the +4 max dex. Drop another 100 to make it masterwork and your max dex goes to +5.

Whatever the save is for, being Strength-based DC means a lot of characters are going to fail this saving throw. If it includes being knocked prone every round, yikes!

Side note:

Eg, a typical sorcerers spells are Charisma based DC's, because charisma is their casting stat. Characters saving against those spells still use fort/ref/will as appropriate.

Many creatures with SLAs or Su abilties have Charisma based DCs.
For example

Ghoul Fever: Bite—injury; save Fort DC 13; onset 1 day; frequency 1/day; effect 1d3 Con and 1d3 Dex damage; cure 2 consecutive saves. The save DC is Charisma-based.

So if a ghoul increases or decreases in charisma, the DC needed to save against the disease goes up or down.

Some creatures have abilties based on dex, str, etc.

I want to know if it can be done. If it can't maybe I'll homebrew something.

I also want multiple options.

At this point, I'm a little confused. Are you the GM? Or are you a player? The above two statements seem to imply both sides of the gm screen.

The answer to "can it be done" has been listed in the few options others have stated. (Haramaki, bracers of armor, mythic abilities). That IS multiple options. Other than a few things that reduce ACP/Max Dex (masterwork, mithril, fighter class abilities, maybe some other obscure ones), there isn't anything that simply removes the max dex.

If for some reason those options are insufficient:
If you are the GM, just make your homebrew and be done with it.

If are a player, discuss it with your GM, accept their ruling (for good or ill) or use one of the listed options.

Also, we already had an entire discussion on obtaining multiple swift actions in another thread, where it was noted that you could use the ready action to effectively use a standard action as a swift action, although bbangerter does not agree with this.

You have that backwards. I am the only one that agreed with you that a ready could allow 2 swifts in a turn. And no one in that thread was able to produce a sufficient counter argument as to why that wouldn't work. Of particular note for anyone who wants to take up that argument, the last paragraph of my last post in that thread needs to be accounted for.

Generally, the problem becomes mechanics vs. logic is why I asked. A full attack takes *the exact same amount of time* as a standard attack, RAW. So logically, if a target is flat footed to a standard attack because they were unaware of their attacker until the attack commenced, and therefore cannot respond to it in time, then it would also follow that it is the same for a full attack.

The rules do not define how long any given action type takes (though ~3 seconds is a common interpetation for how long a standard action takes). But even without a clear definition, a full attack taking the same time as a standard attack does not follow logically.

A standard action (attack) takes ~3 seconds. Then you still have a move action left over that takes the other ~3 seconds of your 6 second turn.

A full attack requires the use of a full round action. The full round action uses both your standard and move actions for the round. Thus logically a full round action requires ~6 seconds to perform.

A defender may not have seen the first attack coming, but there is some amount of time that occurs between the first attack and subsequent attacks in which they can start dodging/reacting to those visible attacks.

Your personal table drama has now spilled out into the "grab some popcorn" for the rest of us.

Congratulations?

Unless there is another actual rules question to be answered, highly recommend taking this offline.

Hey guys... I bet this question has been done before but I am kind of dense so I have a question..

Arcane Pool- Swift action gives a +1 to the weapon you are holding. But here is my question. Can i use multiple points to add multiple effects to the weapon at a time?

example: You are lvl 3 and have a 20 int. you are about to fight a cr 4 thing and your healer is down. you are holding a a mw scimitar and you use your arcane pool
(swift action) to add +1 and keen to your weapon. then you use your standard action to use your pool again to use pool strike and add fire damage toy your attack.

is that legal?

1) You cannot use your standard action in place of a swift action (without specific rules/abilities/magic items allow you to do so). So you cannot use points from your arcane pool to enhance your weapon twice in the same turn.

Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the property’s base price modifier. These properties are added to any the weapon already has, but duplicates do not stack. If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added. These bonuses and properties are decided when the arcane pool point is spent and cannot be changed until the next time the magus uses this ability. These bonuses do not function if the weapon is wielded by anyone other than the magus.

3) Pool Strike is a separate ability from your arcane pool (though it taps into your arcane pool points) - which uses a standard action to activate. This DOES stack with the arcane pool enhancement to your weapon.

Which now rereading your question. I think you are asking can you swift action enhance your weapon to +2 equivalent, then follow it up with a standard action to activate pool strike and do fire/cold/elec/acid damage? To which the answer is yes. So long as you are following the other appropriate rules such as the one noted by Mysterious Stranger that keen requires you to be level 5.

so you can't attempt a Sunder attack with an AoO, but it isn't a problem with Stike Back, as you are using a readied attack action.

Sunder as an AoO is allowed.

This was altered/fixed by FAQ

bbangerter wrote:

If I flick my wrist just right while holding this ruby I am better able to determine its value?

After Pageant of the Peacock "I bluff the universe and my reply is right" I have no trouble thinking that someone wanted to allow that.

It always reminds me of a player inventing a story about the six sexes of the Beholders after failing a Knowledge check and then Wizard of the Coast published a supplement that more or less supported it.

I wouldn't count a +4 to bluff as "I bluff the universe and my reply is right".

But the swap bluff for int skills could be pretty ridicoulus. Bardic knowledge might make that overkill, but archetypes that lose bardic knowledge could get great use out of it. Or even with bardic knowledge, it would be a very good way to allow skill point expenditure elsewhere.

I still think the halfling trait is probably meant to be the the six skills if they are also class skills. But I am less confident of that being correct now :)

Just judging by the typical power of traits, I'd assume it is just those 6 skills if you meet the other two criteria of class skill and double time.

This.

Most traits that improve skills give a +1 in that skill (and make it a class skill if it isn't). So up to +4 total.

zza ni version would be a +1 to a minimum of 6 skills (the 6 listed) plus all class skills which do not overlap would be another ~6+. +1 to 12 different skills is probably not the intended effect. Even with the penalty of taking double time.

Also skills like appraise, knowledge, perception, don't really fit in well with the flavor of the trait

Though others think you merely waste time, you know that those extra flourishes and ceremonial touches actually make your work just that much better.

If I flick my wrist just right while holding this ruby I am better able to determine its value?

bbangerter wrote:
"special initiative action" only means that these actions alter your initiative. It has nothing to do with whether you can ready a swift action.

This quote is misattributed. Tom Sampson said that, not me.

bbangerter wrote:

(Pizza Lord at least attempted it with his appeal to the AoO table).

This is just a blatant misrepresentation. That is most definitely not the 'AoO table' or chart. It is very clearly the 'Actions in Combat' chart.

My referring to it as the AoO table was merely an off hand comment, not an intent to represent (accurately or inaccurately) what you were saying. It was intended merely as a reference to the AoN link you provided.

Just an additional side note on that. If the table were an accurate description of what a readied action is and allows, then a swift action would not be allowed at all. As "triggers a standard action" would imply you can take a standard or a move. Standard to swift, or move to swift, are not allowed as a base rule.

No, you just have to understand that some things are exceptions or special cases and when you take a Special Initiative Action, that alters how turns and initiative works and applies in that round, thus requiring reasonable and common sense adjusting based on both the actions taken and other environmental or timed effects that are in play, including restrictions on actions. It is not intended to allow multiple restricted actions that normally require powerful magic items, abilities like Quickness, or mythic abilities like Dual Initiative.

I totally understand that some things are exceptions and special cases. Like "Special Initiative Actions" is a special case - that is precisely why I argue that you can ready a swift even if you have already used a swift. And that in order to get more than 1 move action per turn (outside of converting your standard to a move) you need a "...powerful magic items, abilities..." like a quicker runners shirt, or a special action like readying an action. The logic for readied actions should be consistent across the board unless we find text that tells us it behaves differently for some action types. Hence my very first sentence in my very first post in this thread "some of you are selectively applying the rules".

You keep demanding answers like, 'Why does this thing do the thing it says it can do?"

No. What I am demanding is an explanation of why a thing does what is says it does, except when you arbitrarily decide that it doesn't.

The purpose of this topic, was whether the OP could substitute a move or standard action to take more than 1 swift action on their turn (and there was a skirmish question in there too). You continuing to claim that Readying is a standard that lets you take a swift is irrelevant, because a Readied action must be triggered between turns (specifically, 'before your next action'), therefore it cannot be used to take a second swift action in that turn. Whether you believe the Ready action does or does not start a new turn, it is not 'that' turn. And if you did think that it was just an extension of the original turn... then you can't take more than one swift action in that turn.

I think you are mistaking another posters words for mine?

Readying ends your turn, the special action you take on the trigger condition occurs outside of your turn. I think we are in agreement on that?

Let me phrase this another way (even if you choose not to respond).
Specific > General hierarchy of rules
Is the 1 standard action per round rule a base rule or a specific rule?
Is the 1 move action per round rule a base rule or a specific rule?
Is the 1 swift action per round rule a base rule or a specific rule?
Is the readied action rules letting you spend a standard action to ready a standard/move/swift/free action more general, or more specific than the above 3 rules?

Michael Sayre also says this

As regards the readying a swift - Readying is essentially its own standard action that buys you an action at a later date...

He is correct in this.

Then continues

...While it is a method of "converting" your standard action to a swift, you're still bound by the normal rules limiting you to one swift action per turn regardless of what other actions you take, so it wouldn't allow you (by current RAW) to get two swift actions into the same turn.

Then makes the same error being made by posters here. He believes the limit of 1 swift per round is somehow different than the 1 standard/move per round, but makes no effort to show why or how they are different.

Azathoth, Pizza Lord, and others. You have to address this core issue. By the rules you get 1 standard, 1 move, and 1 swift per round. Why does that limitation of 1 per turn no longer apply for readied standard/move, but still applies for swift? This is the steel-man argument you cannot in good faith ignore. (Pizza Lord at least attempted it with his appeal to the AoO table).

EDIT: MSayre, does in a later post in that thread state

The difference, to me, is that swift actions specifically contain the ruling that you can only take one regardless of what other actions you take.

Emphasis mine. That is pretty much implied by you only get 1 per turn. It's a unneccessary reiteration of what 1 per turn means.

And then

The Ready action specifically contains the rules to allow you to take another standard (if you so choose) but does not in any way address the swift action limitation.

If the ready action specifically contains the rules to allow you to take another stanard, why does that not apply to swift? Those are both part of the very first sentance on readied actions.

You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action.

EDIT2: He further even acknowledges that readying a swift is fine (after using a swift), so long as the trigger does not occur during your turn.

So Ready action says "The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun." So that would mean that the ready action does not happen on your current turn. So you could, potentially, use ready to activate a swift in the same round that you used a swift action, but the trigger couldn't be anything that occurs during your turn. So, using Bane and then readying an action to use Judgement when an enemy attacks you would work, but readying an action to use Judgment when you activate Bane would not.

So your non-authoritative source doesn't even agree with you :)

Archives of Nethys lists Ready under Standard actions (for ease of reference), but it clearly says

Actions in Combat wrote:

Ready (triggers a standard action)

Ready Actual Rules

But the important part is

Readying is a standard action.

Tables in the books have lower precedence in defining the rules than actual rules text. The tables frequently have incomplete descriptions of the rules, or are out right contradictory (like here).

Further, I would not use a table on what triggers an AoO as the definitive answer to what a ready action is given we have full rules text on what a ready action is.

There are other 'problematic' rules created from the what triggers an AoO table if we take the table as the authoritative source.

Ready allows you to perform a standard action when the stated event triggers because it says it does and that's what it does

I agree. I think we should apply this same logic across the board for all readied action types. Because that is what the readied actions rules state without limitation.

So 'No', Readying to take a Swift action later in the round will not give you more than one Swift (or Immediate) action if you've taken one already in the round.

Can you explain why readying allows more than one standard or move in a round, but not more than one swift in around?

I'll reference the rules again about how many standard, move, and swift actions you get in a round.

In a normal ROUND, you can perform A standard action and A move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform ONE swift action and one or more free actions.

Emphasis mine. "A" being synonymous with "ONE" in this context.

What part of the text suggests swift is treated differently from standard and move in regards to readied actions?

I think some of you are selectively applying the rules :)

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

How many standard actions do I get on my turn? 1

How many move actions do I get on my turn? 1 (though if I have a standard action remaining I can convert it into a 2nd move action)
If I move, then use my only standard action to ready an action to move, don't I need a move action remaining to actually be able to ready said move action?

If you want to suggest that the standard used to ready becomes the standard or move you are performing, you have to explain why that same logic does not carry over to swift actions.

I also think this same line of thinking is ignoring context when you point out that you can only perform one swift action per turn. As I just noted, the rules also point out you only get 1 standard and 1 move per turn. But let's look more closely at the rules on swift.

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.

So yes, it does reiterate that you only get 1 swift per turn. But the context here however is in comparison to free actions (which you can do many of those per turn).

IMO, the same way the standard action you use grants you an extra move or standard action you can use based on a trigger, it would likewise grant an extra swift you can use based on a trigger.

Readied actions are an exception to the general rule that you only get 1 standard, move and swift action per turn. While the few spells and items explicitly state you get an extra swift, readied actions don't need to explicitly state that, because it is plainly implied when it states you can ready any of the action types without referencing that you must have that type of action still available to you - and indeed would be impossible to ready a standard if it required you have one remaining.

That said, readying a swift action is about the worst choice a player could make in a combat. Readied actions are already of extremely limited use, though I commonly see it in my games to attack or cast a single spell when the party wants to try and get the enemy to come to them rather than charging headfirst into the middle of a pack of hostiles. There are extremely few swift actions where it would be beneficial have a trigger condition on. Most swift actions are something you use modify/boost another action you are about to take.

I am not sure but I think Psychic or Mental Damage was not included

Might have something to do with the fact this thread was created in 2010.

bbangerter wrote:

For me, though they are not strictly magical items in the pathfinder universe, they are bordering on a very high level of chemical knowledge (it not outright impossible) in the real world.

But the Star Trek 24th century food-replicator technology effect is just fine?

Well the item needs to do *something* right? The real question is what are the limits? Which as noted is going to be very GM and possibly even campaign specific.

Food replicator of a bowl of gruel? No problem. Replicate a nuclear reactor that a dimension hopping wizard saw in his travels (ignoring for the moment that would exceed the cost value anyway)? Nope. At least when I'm GM.

Back in Star Trek, why do they even have shipyards? Seems like they should just have giant replicators floating in space that can create completed functioning starships out of their energy-to-matter technology. Also no welding, no seams, no bolts/rivets to hold things together. No structural flaws except at the limits of design.

These pigments enable their possessor to create actual, permanent objects simply by depicting their form in two dimensions. The pigments are applied by a stick tipped with bristles, hair, or fur. The emulsion flows from the application to form the desired object as the artist concentrates on the image. One pot of marvelous pigments is sufficient to create a 1,000-cubic-foot object by depicting it two-dimensionally over a 100-square-foot surface.

Only normal, inanimate objects can be created. Creatures can’t be created. The pigments must be applied to a surface. It takes 10 minutes and a DC 15 Craft (painting) check to depict an object with the pigments. Marvelous pigments cannot create magic items. Objects of value depicted by the pigments—precious metals, gems, jewelry, ivory, and so on—appear to be valuable but are really made of tin, lead, glass, brass, bone, and other such inexpensive materials. The user can create normal weapons, armor, and any other mundane item (including foodstuffs) whose value does not exceed 2,000 gp. The effect is instantaneous.

I personally would not qualify alchemist fire or bone burn (both alchemical weapons) as normal mundane items. But that is going to vary from GM to GM.

For me, though they are not strictly magical items in the pathfinder universe, they are bordering on a very high level of chemical knowledge (it not outright impossible) in the real world.

fast healing is considered natural not magical healing unless otherwise stated on the monster sheet. Normally its natural so its only healing one of them not both which first is the question though.

Thanks for answering this 10 year old post... and getting it wrong. ;)

When a spell or ability cures hit point damage

Fast healing is an ability. It heals both HP and non-lethal HP.

Natural Weapon wrote:

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack.

You are correct, I'd missed/forgotten this part.

Directly following your quoted section, it states "Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)", implying the above exempts one from provoking AoOs as well.

I don't find this particularly relevant as I don't believe there is anything to suggest the defensive side of it is more open ended then the offensive side of it., but we can dig into it.

If I am armed with a dagger, and have my other hand free, and a creature provokes from me, can I
a) attack with the dagger?
b) attack with my unarmed fist?

I would strongly suggest A is the only correct answer here given the context of what it means to threaten and that allowing an AoO.

If you believe both are allowed, then you also allow a person with a boot blade to take AoOs with the longbow they are wielding because they threaten with the boot blade.

The ability to make an AoO only with the weapons with which you threaten fulfill the offense part of being armed.

There is no reason to suggest that the defensive side is less restrictive then the offensive side. The context for this paragraph is the same context for both offensive and defensive sides of the coin. If I can only take an AoO with an armed (and threatening) attack, then I can only prevent an AoO with an armed (and threatening) attack.

The ability to avoid an AoO (with an armed attack) fulfills the defensive side of the above. Thus both sides of that are sufficiently fulfilled even with the restrictions on what weapons you can take (or prevent) an AoO with.

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

Let's break this down.

Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed.

Does this mean making an attack without being armed provokes, or does it mean making an attack of a type that is not considered armed provokes? That *could* theoretically be read either way. But it is later clarified in the paragraph.

An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

Clearly here the provocation occurs for an attack that is unarmed (not for if the entire creature is 'armed' or not). And it only provokes from the target of said unarmed attack.

Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

These rules only clarify under what conditions an unarmed attack actullay counts as an armed attack. eg. Monk/IUS, touch attack spell, and [attacks with a] creatures natural physical weapons.

Further, The rules on natural attacks then describe primary, secondary, strength bonuses, etc. Then adds

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action. Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.

No mention of unarmed strikes being an option to use in conjunction with their manufactured and natural weapon attacks.

And...

Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do.

The converse of that statement then is that creaturs with natural attacks cannot make unarmed strikes (else why bother pointing out that creatures without natural attacks can do so if all creatures can make unarmed attacks anyway).

If you want strict pedantic RAW, a creature with natural attacks isn't even allowed to make unarmed strikes. Only creatures without natural attacks are given that option. Making the idea that a creature is 'armed' or not with its natural attacks a moot point, since said creature can't use unarmed strikes anyway.

In fairness, I don't feel like the intent is that creatures with natural attacks cannot make unarmed strikes, but that the above is more an indication that even if a creature has no natural attacks doesn't mean it is completely helpless in defending itself. But if you want to insist on parsing the language very specifically and ignore all the surroudning context, them I'm going to insist on that approach across the rules, and not just selectively as a point of reductio ad absurdum.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Unless it says otherwise in its description, a Polymorph effect should stay active on a corpse until its duration expires.

A spell doesn't recheck if it is affecting a valid target after it has been cast (again, unless its specific description says otherwise).

Okay, so hypothetically if this transformation into a chaos beast is permanent and the individual transformed is killed, does casting Raise Dead turn him/her back into his original form or do you raise a chaos beast?

The dead creatures is a dead chaos beast. Raise dead does not remove the polymorph effect, so it raises a chaos beast.

EDIT: Weirdly enough, if you think it through, that means a sharding weapon could fire into melee without penalty, because the rule talks about ranged weapons. Something isn't quite right here lol

This is the crux of it.

Should a dart (ranged weapon, thrown) take the -4 penalty, but a dagger (melee weapon, thrown) not take the -4 pentalty without precise shot?

A reading that says one of these should get the penalty, but not the other, is an overly pedantic reading that is ignoring context.

(Side note, the weapon table doesn't even list a throwing axe on the ranged weapon table, it is listed as a light weapon, despite having the word throwing in the name)

While a dagger is classified as a melee weapon, being in the table for "melee weapons", at the time it is thrown it is a ranged weapon. When used in this way it has a range increment (a property of ranged weapons). That said, there may be some instances where the distinction between a ranged attack and a ranged weapon is important - but for many feats and abilities the two are synonmous. A thrown dagger suffers from lack of precise shot, benefits from point-blank shot, rapid shot, deadly aim, etc. A sharding weapon likewise suffers or benefits from all of these when used to make a ranged attack.

By the way, referring to the Sharding special ability, there is precedent for a special ability giving you a ranged attack with a dedicated melee weapon and that's Arcing Weapon.

I wouldn't put this in the same category as a sharding weapon. Here you are taking something that is normally a ranged attack, and altering it to be either a melee or ranged attack (with additional benefits and restrictions).

Mechnically you are making a ranged attack, and the thing you are making a ranged attack with is the duplicate (not the original that you are still holding in your hand), which gains a range increment and is treated as a thrown weapon. So this is treated in the rules as a ranged thrown weapon attack with all the implications that might have.

I am unclear on why you think point-blank shot would not apply here. Unless I missed/forgot something, PBS only cares about if you are making a ranged attack within 30' - it does not care if that is a bow, sling, crossbow, or thrown weapon. The sharding weapon meets the ranged attack criteria. The range of 30' of course still applies as appropriate.

Thanks for responding to this more than 10 year old thread. :)

Greater Dispel Magic is a different spell and functions normally while outside the antimagic field range.

All spells function normally outside of an AMF. So this isn't particularly important.

Greater Dispel Magic makes sense to dispel Antimagic Field because both are 6th level spells. (ie wizard)

This is not how the rules work. See invisibility defeats Greater Invisibility despite being a lower level spell. Spell level really has nothing to do with how spells interact.

Further,

This spell functions like dispel magic, except that it can end more than one spell on a target and it can be used to target multiple creatures.

GDM works just like normal DM with the noted differences. Being able to dispel an AMF is not listed in the differences.