digitalpacman's page

How about a third-party independent review for wrongdoing ???? No? Figures.

@deadmanwalking

They dropped a rock from above and watched it pass through. That made them think it was traversable. I missed an opportunity to take creative liberty and have it blow the rock up or something. But since it said creature in the stat block I just assumed items aren't affected, likely so the guards can fire arrows out at enemies?

@fumarole just to answer your question as is:

They were on a raft gondola pushing their way in. I tried "stopping them" by having the aligator dino attack their raft. Instead it just made them push faster into the barrier. So the gondola man pushed the raft into the barrier. They were very close together.

I did tell them that the pillars are routing power to somewhere unknown. But I think they forgot :( After this blunder I've decided to do their work for them and repeat the important bits every session.

They never saw the pillar completely with Gherard. I took the bit about him being protective of it as preventing them from inspecting it, trying to goad them into taking it from him. But they had no problem letting it go. I told them many many times that the first pillar they found was white, and white was not present among the 8 other colors. And explained each color name exactly.

@deadmanwalking Really? I'm looking at the image right now and the dotted line border goes around the water. It even talks about how the monster guarding it doesn't swim through it.

> The primeval crocodile has learned to avoid moving through Dahak’s shell and stays outside the perimeter as long as the shell is active.

It also says there is no floor outside the fortress to walk on.

> The fortress palisades surround the central building like a ledge, rising 15 feet out of the water.

It literally says that the PCs can use a boat towards it.

> The swamp water surrounding the fortress is 5 feet deep. To reach the fortress, the PCs must Swim, Fly, or take a boat, and must Avoid Notice as they approach if they want to keep from being detected.

They knew there was a magical barrier. I explained it multiple times. But there isn't anything that seems to say it's dangerous. I mean, yes, I know that it's dangerous. What I'm looking for here is any information I might have missed that should communicate it's a bad idea other than them generating a gut feeling. They haven't ran into any dangerous dragon pillars before this point. It's essentially a shape L path from Akrivel to the elephant people then to the cult.

They did run into Gherard, but they let him leave with the pillar thinking it was a good idea to get rid of it.

I don't know if I missed anything. And I didn't exactly know what to do else. I see now I probably could have given a heavy handed hint but in the moment I didn't think of it.

I forget how to do spoilers, but this is all spoilers.

[spoilers]My group went straight from Akrivel to the elephant people, then straight to the the cinderclaw fortress. Then they made a boat and sailed through the shell. They then TPK'd. I now see that I should have seen it coming and maybe had a bird fly into it and die.

What is it that I missed about the campaign to prevent this behavior? There's no clues, no indication, nothing. And the directions given initially pretty much influence this behavior. They are only told about the elephant people. So naturally they could easily pick to go there first. Then easily choose to follow the river east. Running straight into the fortress.
[/spoilers]

I'm mega late to the party. But if you have something like DR 10 you can cast it on yourself so that all melee focused characters have to commit to 2d6 dmg per round to attack you. I got to this from looking at the Div Pairaka.

It's probably appropriate that you raise the caster level. But from all the monster advancement I've seen, it doesn't say to.

bbangerter wrote:

digitalpacman wrote:

Thanks, this is exactly what I am trying to say.

I think the best interpretation is to allow them to adjust their attack to have a 5 ft step in it. And, if the character has movement left, to continue their movement. The issue will still exist when people approach each other using 5 ft steps (like you would in boxing) but I'll just deal. My players aren't interested in using this strat anyway. They consider it cheating.

Here is the thing. You are already allowed to take a 5' step as part of a full attack (no new rules needed). This shows that your theoretical invincible defender using readied actions doesn't actually work. It might buy the defender a round or two till their opponent catches on, but unless the attacker is mindless in its tactics they can foil it, and actually make the defenders position worse then if they'd not used this tactic to begin with.

Also importantly (and repeatedly), this hypothetical "5-foot step invincibility" can be negated by a crossbow, or a longbow, or a thrown dagger, or a breath weapon, or a spell - any one of a thousand different ranged options that are available to casters and martial warriors both. Heck, even if you want to stick to melee, as long as you've got a BAB of +1 you can drop your current weapon and draw something with reach as part of your move action, and suddenly that 5-foot step doesn't put the defender out of range anymore.

That's a moot point, because melee vs melee happens. Often. Any time you fight an animal with 5ft reach. Many, MANY, creatures do not have reach or ranged attacks. This tactic even existing in pathfinder means a level 1 commoner can defeat, or permanently defend against, a dire bear.

digitalpacman wrote:

Thanks, this is exactly what I am trying to say.

I think the best interpretation is to allow them to adjust their attack to have a 5 ft step in it. And, if the character has movement left, to continue their movement. The issue will still exist when people approach each other using 5 ft steps (like you would in boxing) but I'll just deal. My players aren't interested in using this strat anyway. They consider it cheating.

Here is the thing. You are already allowed to take a 5' step as part of a full attack (no new rules needed). This shows that your theoretical invincible defender using readied actions doesn't actually work. It might buy the defender a round or two till their opponent catches on, but unless the attacker is mindless in its tactics they can foil it, and actually make the defenders position worse then if they'd not used this tactic to begin with.

No... that's not true. So many people don't understand what's going on. I should have actually drawn it out.

The attacker always has to use his move action, before attacking, to approach the enemy. He never will get the chance to 5 ft step during his attack, because he has to move to begin it.

Here is one I work on. It's a google doc spreadsheet with city, buildings, and graphics for your districts.

You choose the buildings on the actual district grid and it updates your city stats for you.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtyEsun2xCFzdE5Gd3VZNVZuV1lFdj NIMzBWTTlrb3c&usp=sharing

Round 1

Adam is 60 feet away from Blaze
Adam wins initiative and readies an action to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away.
Blaze charges towards Adam but just before she can strike Adam takes his readied action and 5 feet steps backwards. Adam is no longer in reach and has used up his 60 feet of movement anyway, so he doesn't get his attack.

Yep, Adam has been clever here!

Round 2
Adam is 10 feet from Blaze (i.e. not adjacent)
Adam again readies to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away should she attack him.
Blaze moves (not 5 feet steps) to be adjacent to Adam and goes to attack - but Adam once again calls in his readied action and attacks Blaze and steps out of reach.

At this stage, it is debatable whether Blaze could trade in her attack as she has not actually taken it and instead move, or even continue her move action, but for now lets assume that is not possible - she committed to the attack and thus finished her move and took her standard action.

Round 3
Adam is 10 feet from Blaze (i.e. not adjacent)
Adam again readies to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away.
Blaze starts to catch on to what Adam is doing and moves adjacent to him and readies an action to attack Adam if he attacks her or attempts to move away (she cannot also ready to step up as she moved)

Round 4
Adam and Blaze begin this round adjacent to one another.
Adam didn't get to take his last readied action, but again readies to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away should she attack him.
Blaze readies an action to attack Adam if he attacks her or attempts to move away and to 5 feet step after him if needed.

This could now be a stalemate[i]

Round 5
Adam and Blaze begin this round adjacent to one another.
Adam again readies to attack Blaze and 5 feet step away.
Blaze begins to suspect Adam is going to continue this all day and so decides instead to perform a full attack and (if below +6 BAB) does two weapon fighting.
Blaze's first attack triggers Adam's readied[/i]...

Thanks, this is exactly what I am trying to say.

I think the best interpretation is to allow them to adjust their attack to have a 5 ft step in it. And, if the character has movement left, to continue their movement. The issue will still exist when people approach each other using 5 ft steps (like you would in boxing) but I'll just deal. My players aren't interested in using this strat anyway. They consider it cheating.

Squirrel_Dude wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Squirrel: Nope.

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

There's two ways to interpret that.

1. For the rest of the encounter you act on the same initiative count, starting immediately.
2. For the rest of the encounter you act on the same initiative count. Your readied actions is immediately ahead of the character who triggered your readied action.

The wording to me suggest the latter because if it wanted to be number 1, there is a far clearer possible wording.

"For the rest of the encounter you act on the initiative count immediately ahead of the character whose action you triggered with your reading action, which is when you take your readied action."

There are other ways to do it, but separating the clauses like that was the wrong way.

#1 is absolutely the correct mechanic.

The section where they discuss readied actions in the combat rules is called Special Initiative Actions. Note the description of that section:

Special Initiative Actions wrote:

Here are ways to change when you act during combat by altering your place in the initiative order.

Under the Ready section just below that, you'll note this:

Initiative Consequences of Readying wrote:

Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don't get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again). If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.

Hmm I don't know how talking about initiative order happened here. This is what happens with initiative when you ready.

A has initiative 20.
B has initiative 11.
C has initiative 10.

A readies an action when B does something.
B does nothing. (Illustration purposes only)
C does something, triggers A's action.
A does his thing.
C does his thing.

For round 2, initiative is now:
B has initiative 12.
A has initiative 11.
C has initiative 10.

digitalpacman wrote:

That's not RAW. Once the charge is complete, it's complete.

THIS is whats not raw.

Quote:

The readied action is when attacked, movement is over. You can't re-continue movement.

Charge is not movement and an attack. It is a charge.

Your way of doing it makes the game completely unplayable. You wind up with immortal tap dancing kobolds that can't be killed by a barbarian under 6th level because they just ready an action to stab and step away as they're swung at.

Gronk the first level barbarian is coming after a kobold. The kobold wins initiative. The kobold holds an action to wait for Gronks attack, at which point the kobold will stab gronk with his dagger and 5 foot step away.

You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.

Gronk advances 25 feet and attempts to swing. The kobold stabs gronk with his dagger and steps back 5 feet.

What you're saying is that Gronks turn is over. He has both moved and attacked. Furthermore the kobold can KEEP doing this, because his initiative score stays above gronks.

If gronk holds his action, The Kobolds actions are triggered on gronks ATTACK. Not gronk's presence in the square next to him. So what happens there is gronk moves up to the kobold and holds. The kobold holds.Gronk isn't attacking so the Kobolds attack/step actions don't happen so gronk doesn't attack. Gronk holds. The pair share a LONG few moments of awkward silence gazing into each others eyes. The party bard starts playing "Caaan you feel the love tonight" in the backrgound. When the rules interpretation winds up at an elton john number you know someone screwed up....

This is the point as to why I think this is dumb.

So you are a supporter of rewinding time for readied interrupts? The player already started their attack. If they choose to continue moving, that prevents the interrupt from ever happening. It's a break in the time-space continuum!

It is my understanding that one must charge "directly toward the designated opponent." and "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." It seems to me that one's opponent taking a 5ft step isn't going to get him out of the way of most melee attackers. Simply stepping out of the line of the charge won't do it (unless the attacker is rolling a barrel or something).

I remember someone posted a diagram made by SKR illustrating this principle.

What got me to thinking was; what if someone readied an attack against a well-armored opponent, and wanted to take advantage of a possibly lower AC if that opponent power attacked? Would the -2 apply to the attacker (A) if (B) has a readied action "In case he power attacks me"...?

This doesn't work either. You are interrupting the attack, not the movement. "Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after."

If the attack interrupts it, then it's the attack that got interrupted, not the movement. So the movement is _over_ by this point.

ubiquitous already solved your stalemate. B simply 5'-steps during his impending attack.

But he can't... he has to move. You can't 5ft step in any round with which you have moved.

digitalpacman wrote:

Turn 1

A readies.
B moves.
B attacks.
A triggers, attacks 5ft steps
B cannot attack, therefore loses his action.

Turn 2
A readies.
B attacks.
A triggers, attacks 5ft steps
B cannot attack, therefore loses his action.

This is easily rectified by B simply moving up to A and readying to attack A if A attacks B.

The cycle is then broken, as if A attacks B, B gets to attack and 5' back, but A can follow with a 5' step and complete her attack. It's the same for if B attacks A at this point.

I don't know what you are trying to say. B can't do that. He moves every round. Every round, A moves away, and B has to chase, while A is getting attacks, and B doesn't.

If, perchance, B guesses that the readied action is "when I attack" instead of "when I approach" (the more common one), so he runs up to his target, noticed there is no attack, then readies his action to attack when attacked. Now they are in a stalemate.

Because of how readied actions work, during turn 2, A readies the same action, then B attacks. A attacks, moves, and B's attack fails because he cannot change time. You cannot take back an interrupted readied action because it's a "Rewind" effect. If you allowed someone to retake the move, then they can change time.

If B attacks and A reacts to the attack, but then B decides "nope don't care not going to attack anymore". Then how did A get the attack in the first place. But yes, if you house rule that when interrupted, if you haven't moved, you can add-on your 5 ft step anytime you want, it breaks the cycle completely. This is probably the best interpretation.

digitalpacman wrote:

Turn 1

A readies.
B moves.
B attacks.
A triggers, attacks 5ft steps
B cannot attack, therefore loses his action.

Turn 2
A readies.
B attacks.
A triggers, attacks 5ft steps
B cannot attack, therefore loses his action.

This is easily rectified by B simply moving up to A and readying to attack A if A attacks B.

The cycle is then broken, as if A attacks B, B gets to attack and 5' back, but A can follow with a 5' step and complete her attack. It's the same for if B attacks A at this point.

Cycle isn't broken. It becomes a 100% perfect stalemate, which is where I say this is broken. It's either defender wins, or no one wins. Because the only counter to it, is itself, and it, in itself, is abstaining from attacking.

digitalpacman wrote:

But the thing is, you don't know what his readied action is. So how would you even know if he readied to attack you when you are in range, or when you attacked him?

I'd know he had an action that he didn't do anything obvious with.

digitalpacman wrote:

And for your scenario to work, it would require you to re-ready your attack as well.

Nope. Follow along.

<turn 1>
Character A: readies.
Character B: moves adjacent to A. If A had readied to attack when B moves into range, that attack occurs now before B attacks and A steps away. B, who hasn't attacked yet, can continue the move and attack A.

If A's readied trigger is "B attacks", A is still standing there ready. B remembers that A apparently did nothing on A's turn and suspects some sort of readied action. B readies an action himself to strike at B if B does anything other than delay.

<turn 2>
Character A: readied action was not triggered, so according to the rules, "If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don't get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again)." A can re-ready his action at this point, or so something else. If he does anything other than delay, he triggers B's readied attack. Let's say instead that he readies again without triggering B's readied attack.
Character B: B's readied attack hasn't triggered either (unless it actually did, see above). B attacks A, triggering A's attack and step away. B now steps 5 feet and full attacks A.

Worst case, A gets one attack on B before B attacks A. This is fair, as A had the initiative. Best case, B gets a readied attack on A and then another as A does something that provokes.

digitalpacman wrote:

And then it turns into this giant stalemate, yet again. Of everyone readying an attack to attack when attacked.

Only if the triggers are so chosen.

digitalpacman wrote:

Also, it removes charge from the game, unless the person charging was

...

Your scenario isn't the one I'm pointing out. The scenario I'm pointing out is:

A readies to attack and 5ft step away when he is attacked.
B moves into range. Ends his movement.
B attacks A.
A triggers readied action, attacks, and moves back. B does not get to attack, nor can he move forward and attack. He can move forward, but that would gain nothing.
This is a 100% stalemate, or B always wins.

the only way to stop it without ranged attacks is a complete stalemate where both parties have a readied attack to attack when attacked. Therefore nothing happens.

Also you making a house rule that you can choose your declared action that you are going to take, after someone interrupts you and you do not like the out come.

In reality, by RAW (because you can't change time, and readied actions are rewinds), your example works as follows:

Turn 1
A readies.
B moves.
B attacks.
A triggers, attacks 5ft steps
B cannot attack, therefore loses his action.

Turn 2
A readies.
B attacks.
A triggers, attacks 5ft steps
B cannot attack, therefore loses his action.

The reason it works this way is because it's a rewind. It's a "flaw" in the way the rules work with readied actions. Other posters have mentioned this. If your action is to do something when a spell is cast, and the caster doesn't want to cast their spell anymore after you do what you did, it doesn't matter. They still have to cast their spell.

Because of this, since you were not 5ft stepping, you cannot then 5ft step and change time.

If my opponent readies to attack me and step away, I can move right up to him and ready my own attack. If he simply re-readies when his initiative comes up, then on my turn I can attack. It will trigger his attack and step, but I can now (since I haven't moved) step with him and deliver a full attack to his single attack.

But the thing is, you don't know what his readied action is. So how would you even know if he readied to attack you when you are in range, or when you attacked him? At that point it's a complete gamble, and then the same stalemate would occur realistically. Because in a life or death situation, you couldn't leave it up to a gamble to be completely and utterly annihilated (you'd never be given a chase to fight back).

And for your scenario to work, it would require you to re-ready your attack as well. And then it turns into this giant stalemate, yet again. Of everyone readying an attack to attack when attacked.

Also, it removes charge from the game, unless the person charging was able to do it turn 1 before the opponent had a chance to react.

It's already standard protocol to have monsters approach you, over approaching them, because you get a full attack and they don't. Adding the ability to negate an approaching monsters entire turn to that already one-sided benefit is overbearing.

Other systems I've seen prevent this by when you take damage, your ability to perform well lessons, so it helps people who make the first attack. But meh.

One readies the action "Attack and 5-ft step back when attacked".

The other charges, and his attack is interrupted.

Peasant b merely charges 35 feet instead of 30 feet. There's nothing in the charge rules about your opponent having to move still.

Technically you don't even need to move in a strait line, so if your hasted opponent uses a held action to dart 30 feet to your left, you veer with him.

That's not RAW. Once the charge is complete, it's complete. The readied action is when attacked, movement is over. You can't re-continue movement.

digitalpacman wrote:

Okay... everyone on your side does it. Now it's impossible to engage, yet again. Just think about the consequences in real life if you could do this. Boxing wouldn't be a sport, because it would be impossible. MMA wouldn't be a sport, because it would be impossible. Fighting in melee general wouldn't be possible. Two samurai run into each other on an ill beaten path. They draw their swords... and stand there until one of them dies from thirst.

Boxing would be a sport, because one boxer would simply advance until he had backed the other into a corner. With the grid system in play, at that point, he's boxed in by the attacker and the ropes, and can no longer five-foot step. That actually happens quite a bit in boxing - it's one of the reasons why we have the phrase "got him on the ropes". MMA would function the same way - back them into a corner of the octagon and now they've got nowhere else to go. In fact if you look into it, I'm sure you'd find that those artificial barriers - the ropes and the cage - were put in place for that specific reason.

As to the Samurai example, you're again presenting something that does not happen frequently in-game - a one-on-one duel. However, I'd point out that the idea that they'll just stand there until they die is unrealistic; one of them is eventually going to make a move, even if it's not the optimal attack, because to do otherwise would be cowardice.

Lots of ways to get around. It can be an effective tactic, but it's by no means insurmountable. The fact that it limits you to a single attack per round is a huge factor.

Do you watch boxing/mma? If they simply follow each other they don't get backed into a corner. They circle the ring. Every boxer knows how to do this. They push you into a corner by putting pressure disallowing you to side step properly. In MMA it can be easier because of the octagon.

Avatar-1 wrote:

Pretty sure there was a thread about this awhile ago. There was some logic as to why it was eventually an ineffective tactic, but I can't remember what it was.

Jonathon Vining wrote:

My favourite readied action I saw someone use is "I ready to move 30' away from the party if an AoE spell is cast on us."

This is hilarious - does that work? It sounds like it might!

It might if the character has spellcraft and successfully identifies the spell...however, if the GM rules that targeting does not have to be set until the spell goes off, then the caster may just target the character after he moves...

Okay... everyone on your side does it. Now it's impossible to engage, yet again. Just think about the consequences in real life if you could do this. Boxing wouldn't be a sport, because it would be impossible. MMA wouldn't be a sport, because it would be impossible. Fighting in melee general wouldn't be possible. Two samurai run into each other on an ill beaten path. They draw their swords... and stand there until one of them dies from thirst.

I don't think you guys are getting my point. If this is the way combat works in Golarion, NO ONE WOULD EVER FIGHT ANYONE. Because attacks would _always_ lose.

And it has nothing to do with movement speed either, the reaction is "when I am attacked" You only get one move, and move attack action per turn. If you are attacking your move action is ended. You cannot continue a move after the interruption.

I ask this question because it sounds silly if you can, but by RAW it sounds like you can.

Picture two standard level one commoners about to get into a fight and are 30 feet from each other, they have swords.

One readies the action "Attack and 5-ft step back when attacked".
The other charges, and his attack is interrupted.

The first commoner then attacks, and backs up. He is now out of range.
The second commoner can no longer make a valid attack at this point, and loses his attack.

The first commoner can continue this, forever, and never get attacked. Which means in the pathfinder RAW system it's impossible to approach and attack anyone who knows about this.

Is this just a mistake? Personally I am not going to allow it in my games.

It's is a death effect, and can't be used to kill creatures with regeneration. They still take the full damage, but do not drop so -con in hp. No where does it say that coup does that to you, it says you die. Any effect that says "you die" means it's a death effect. That is what "death effect" means. It means it applies death no matter the circumstance.

If you look up coup de grace and creatures with regen you'll see the rulings.

Those are the same images... the first one isn't with a REACH weapon, it's a TALL large creature vs a LONG large creature. Long large creatures don't have reach, typically.

A lot of people have posted false info here...

If you fail the acrobatics check, you do not simply end your movement. You pause, and process the AoO. The two times you lose your movement is if you go through an enemy square, not a threatened (like under an ogre). Or if you fail your check, get an AoO, get hit, and fall prone.

There are many, extreme penalties for failure. You get an AoO against you, and if it hits you, you have to make another acrobatics check at the same DC, if you fail you are knocked prone.

All of this is listed under acrobatics... nothing specially hard to find.

"If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone."

"If you attempt to move though an enemy's space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity."

You are assuming a single level 3 cleric.. someone playing a single player game... a party against a CR 3 is a joke.

Anyways. It wasn't a rules question, per say. It was, if this is a typo, and the rules DON'T say this, then the lore is wrong.

Something _has_ to be wrong.

I understand that they are different... it's just... grgrglellele. Makes no sense.

I'm adding immunity to damage drain onto Big T's stats.

It's the same answer for either classes. You use control undead spells to take over an incorporeal undead creature that deals ability drain. The tarrasque cannot touch incorporeal, and at low levels it takes a long time, yes, but it's just an example of it's weakness. The creature has to confirm a critical on the tarrasque for 1 wisdom damage X number of times till it's dead... but since command is DAYS of length it can just follow the tarrasque around till it happens.

The higher level cleric has an option of this one undead creature that can ONE SHOT a tarrasque with INT drain, which on a save does half. So a 1d6, 6, one shots. Min 3 rounds to kill the tarrasque. That would be a high level cleric, around 15, taking control of a CR 13 incorporeal mob.

This strategy is posted in _EVERY_ single "how to kill tarrasque" page. Google it. It's a thing.

The problem is not KILLING IT. Just STOPPING it. I am sorry if I used the word kill, that was a typo. I meant STOP a tarrasque. Once it's STOPPED, permanently, unless someone heals it, because regen does not heal drain, you can spend any number of years trying to find a way to banish it.

The link was broken because paizo's website is retarded and malformed the URL I posted. I'll try to fix it. Their site has so many problems that I've submitted and haven't been fixed (another case of lazyness :P, I could fix all these issues in a matter of minutes).

http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MonsterDisplay.aspx?ItemName=The%20Mourning %20One
NOTE: I CANNOT FIX THIS LINK THE BOARDS DONT WORK. In the URL, make sure there are no SPACES after you paste it. It is adding a space between MOURNING and the percent 20.

It is a paizo created creature from paizo created content, available to buy on their store.

CREATURES TO USE:

This is the one on every single how to tarrasque guide.
The creature must crit to do drain 1 wisdom drain. ~15 crits = disabled tarrasque
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary3/allip.html

This uses con, and will KILL the tarrasque, then he will revive, and immediately die that round, this is by far the worst solution but it will significantly slow him down making him take 3 rounds to revive and a movement to stand.
http://www.dxcontent.com/MDB_MonsterBlock.asp?MDBID=331

This is the slowest of all of them. This uses STR drain, but same concept. The main idea is to use non-con drains.
And they are weighted based on how easily the monster is to find and if it can be created. The wraith can be created, is the worst option, but since it can be created is much easier. I'm sure there are some kind of summons spells you can use to find undead... not sure never played a high level character.
http://www.dxcontent.com/MDB_MonsterBlock.asp?MDBID=1703

The higher level you get the easiest this becomes.
http://www.dxcontent.com/MDB_MonsterBlock.asp?MDBID=1817

Another con drain one, but real hard to resist
http://www.dxcontent.com/MDB_MonsterBlock.asp?MDBID=2224

This is the BEST one to use... which a 15 level cleric could easily do. Int drain. Can 1shot the tarrasque.
http://www.dxcontent.com/MDB_MonsterBlock.asp?MDBID=480

The idea is incorporeal, undead, non-con drain. Standard listed easiest way to kill a tarrasque.

"AFAIK there are no published monsters immune to ability drain but not damage. The Tarrasque is immune to ability damage (the weaker effect) but not ability drain (the stronger effect), which makes sense, since ability drain is stronger and hence harder to resist."

I found one just now, I don't have the link. But yes it exists.

"So, your theory is that the original designers of the system, along with all the hundreds of authors that have written for it, just completely didn't understand the rules and/or were lazy?"

Yes as I see typos all the time that you would find from just reading your own product. I'm a software engineer and _every_ _single_ _word_ is read by at least 3 people before it goes up to customers. And all it takes is a single read through to see typos, grammatical errors, and so forth in paizo products. I love the content, but their QA is bad.

"Now, if you could find a monster that was immune to ability drain, but not immune to ability damage, that would probably be a mistake. Which is why there aren't any such monsters."

http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MonsterDisplay.aspx?ItemName=The%20Mourning %20One

I've been doing a lot of looking into this :) And yes, development teams are people and people make mistakes.

And this particular mistake means the lore for the tarrasque is all a lie, this is why it is irking me. A level 3 cleric can take down the tarrasque in a matter of rounds with little to know danger to himself. And a level 15+ NPC cleric/wizard (who would have been trying to stop him from whatever kingdom the tarrasque is killing) would have been able stop him no problem. And since multiple nations would most likely assist then this becomes a giant joke.

If what you all say is true, then the lore for the tarrasque is b&&+#++& because any mid level cleric/wizard can stop it alone with some prep work, and the world would have never feared it to begin with.

Does this mean the stat block is probably wrong?

Also how could something be so strong as to be immune to a stronger affect, but weaker against the weaker effect (immune drain, but not damage).

Also then why are they listed together in the universal monster guide, if they were not assumed to be approximately the same effect? I understand is one is different than the other, but technically it's a stronger affect. And yes there are mundane ways to do drain. There are diseases and poisons that do it.

Normally you are not immune to "shaken" (never heard of this) and not also "frightened" because frightened is a more severe fear-effect. They simply created something to refer to this. It seems with ability damage/drain they failed to create one to combine them, for whatever reason. Maybe it's because there is only 2, and not 3 of them (I am excluding penalty because it cannot be used to kill/unconcious and does not stack, so it's a much different beast, even lesser than damage if you wanted to include).

It seems to be, that something immune to damage, would be also immune to drain, and it's just lazyness or undersight on the designers perspective.

If this is not the case, and the stat block is not broken, then the tarrasque is a kitty cat and everything it did should never have occured in lore because he would have been stopped instantly.

If a creature is immune to stat damage, that includes drain as well.

Do you have a link to a FAQ, or anything that can help me define that? I feel the same way, as to how it should be, but I'm just curious if you have any rules source. Do you remember maybe reading it on a forum here, or something?

Thank you for the input.

I know that sometimes it's listed in a stat block, like for undead traits, that calls it out separately, but the universal monster rules has damage and drain under the same section.

So should creatures immune to ability damage also inherently be immune to ability drain if not listed? I would assume that the undead trait states it that way, as a way to overrule general common sense about it and allows for ability damage to be applied to mental scores.

This question is sparked from the tarrasque's stat block. It says immune ability damage, but not drain. And with an int of 2... if you find int drain (which I'm looking for) then you can one round him and he's dead forever... which makes his "lore" real stupid. Because everyone that matters in the known universe would no longer fear the tarrasque, at all, and he wouldn't have the "almost impossible to kill" lore.

I don't know if that is true, I think it prevents it after only, for when rage is DROPPED and you become neatened you can remove it by raging.

On http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/wondrousItems/hands.ht ml

Greater Minor Hand Item, 76-100 should list "GLOVES OF SWIMMING AND CLIMBING"

I have two issues to report, and one general complaint.

1) The new "mobile friendly" prd documents have an extreme problem. The javascript CONSTANTLY scrolls you to the top of the document. Often I'll have about 3-5 seconds to find my information before it scrolls me to the top. I have to disable javascript for this to work. Then I can't use the nav menu, so I end up going back and forth constantly.

2) The random wands table at "http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/appendix.html" does not have values for 81-100 for a greater medium wand. I am guessing the third row was meant to be 81-100 and not -, as this is the trend.

The last thing, is in general, the html and consistency of the prd documents are horrible. I often try to write tools for other pathfinder players, and the site just makes it super hard. For instance, your ID's on that appendix site, there is at typo of "scroll-stable" instead of the common trend of "scrolls-table". There is also broken html all over the page that messes with my html reader programs for parsing it out. It makes it _extremely_ difficult to extend the docs with tools when the root documents are not formed to a standard.

1) Is the Loyalty Penalty for failing the check to reduce unrest for the Royal Enforcer permanent?

2) Can you build terrain improvements in a city hex?

It can move the full distance is one turn. Magical flight. Think if it had flight perfect, which is generally 60 ft. It could double move for 120 ft which is almost the max range of the spell when you get it. If you had to rule a flight speed, I'd say 60 ft perfect. But I rule that it moves the max distance in one turn.

Everyone is talking about grab, but what about BEFORE the level 7 advancement? It doesn't have grab, or pounce! How is it supposed to rake? Beasts can't use the CMB grapple.

There has been changes to the rules. I just want to state that the crb says tiny creatures can move into or through occupied squares. Also it says they cannot flank. They do not threatenas well, and do not get an aoo against something moving out of its square.

However! The spell says it can flank. So I feel this could be ruled a couple. Only the knife itself gets flanking and occupies the same square as the opponent. Or you can rule that it is more like the universal wizard ability to attack with a melee weapon at range. The knife stays in a flanking square, and flies to attack constantly and gives flanking.

However the knife only attacks on your turn as well. So it may be interpreted that it lays dormant outside your turn, therefore it doesn't threaten, and doesn't flank. This is how I believe it works

If you want to let them do it, then let them do it. It's your game, but by RAW you can't.

TEAMWORK FEAT - DOUBLE COUP DE GRACE!

You can Take 10 when crafting items. Remember that Take 10 has nothing to do with failing. It only has to do with being distracted. Since you can only work on magic items when not distracted, you can always Take 10.

That being said, it does seem like a character would never fail however you are assuming that the character always has maximum ranks and only works on items he can create easily. That may not always be the case.

Imagine a wizard with 3 ranks in Spellcraft, Intelligence 16, and Craft Wondrous Item wants a bag of holding. The DC is 19. At level 3, he has a +9. Taking 10 is normally good enough however he probably doesn't have access to the spell secret chest. This pushes the DC to 24. Now Taking 10 won't help him so he needs to roll and hope that he gets a 13. If he rolls 1 through 8, he will create a bag of devouring. If he rolls 9 through 12, he simply fails.

Why do you say the DC is 19? It's 5 + item CL. This is a 14 DC. Easy beatable at level 1 wizard with one rank of spellcraft. Infact impossible to fail even with 10 int. 1 rank is 14 points, nat 1 is 15.

Hardest item would be about CLVL 20. This is easy to get. All you need is +15. 3 from int, 3 from class skill, that's 6, and now 9 ranks. So a level 9 wizard can take 10 to craft a CLVL 20 item. Just the way it works, and yes it makes no sense to even make people make checks unless it's crazy circumstances. If they take the feat to focus spellcraft then it shaves off 3 levels.

So from what people were saying about mounts and it not being a heavy horse... it sounds like it is a heavy horse. If you look at the other mounts they get special abilities. A horse does not.

Also a good question is where does the paladins mount come from. Does it poof and appear out of no where the first time its summoned even though its a real horse? Then how would the paladin choose its feats? Would his Deity find a horse that matches his exact description of capability?

It sounds more like the paladin bonds his deity with an existing animal. He doesn't raise the animal from a child, he gains it as an adult. This sounds like a reason why he doesn't get one until 5. The first levels don't apply so his bonded mount was never a small animal, it starts medium (most of them). It also doesn't, anywhere, limit the paladin to druid companions. And the general rule for reading the books are "if it says it, you do it, if it doesn't you don't". You don't assume rules.

They just did another errata. It's been years. If so why haven't they fixed the typo, since its a balance issue? Why didn't they put "the paladin should choose from a mount in the druid companion section". The way it's worded it sounds like you take the starting horse stats in the druid list and add the advanced template.

The thing I laugh about, is what DOES stop a PC from becoming a merchant for one month. Imagine how much money they could make if they put adventuring on "hold" to just craft magic items and sell them.

Any group can easily setup 2 crafters and make insane amounts "selling" them at full price. What's to stop them from buying a shop in a metropolis, hiring a shop keep for normal pay, and sending magic items regularly to the shop and coming by every month to collect what sold.

This whole sell at half price thing can be broken as soon as someone questions the reality of the situation and just goes, "well how do I accomplish being capable of selling at full price".

I don't see any indication of time on the skills page, and my DM says it's part of the rules that taking 10 takes 10 minutes...

Knowledge checks do not take time.

All other checks take 6 seconds if the skill description does not specify otherwise (like disable device).

Certain skills have progression per 6 seconds (one movement, you can do two in one turn). Such as acrobatics or climbing or swimming.

Taking 10 does not take any additional time to complete, it simply means you are in a comfortable and stress free situation for you to take your time. The situation when you cannot take 10 is up to DM discretion.

Taking 20 multiplies the time it takes to complete a task by 20. So for instance, to take 20 to search a book case, it takes 6 * 20 seconds (2 minutes).

You cannot take 20 if a 1 means something bad would happen, DM discretion.

Cheapy wrote:

One of my GMs had the same thought awhile ago, so I'm pretty curious where the idea originated.

The thought comes from spells bypassing DR and from this paragraph here.

Quote:

Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.

The "Overcoming Damage Reduction" section does not actually explain how you overcome damage reduction. It only lists things that might overcome it. Since magic ("spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks") can ignore DR completely, it leaves the impression that magic weapons can bypass most types of DR, especially mundane DR like DR/slashing.

It is not SPELLS that ignore DR, it's ELEMENTAL and NON typed damage. They should reword it.

For instance, force damage overcomes DR. Fire damage overcomes DR, etc.

Fireball deals elemental damage, etc. But if you had a spell that conjured physical darts, that would apply to DR because they would be piercing damage. Just because it is a spell is irrelevant.

A flaming sword, the 1d6 from it overcomes DR.

DR does not stack. You take the greatest, unless the rules specify otherwise. If you have DR 5/slashing and DR 10/good and someone attacks you with a non-aligned mace. You have DR 10

The vision you are given is how far you can see, and you can see that far within that range. It is not additive.

A torch gives 20 ft light, then 20 feet dim (in darkness)

So a dwarf could see 60 ft. 20 ft of light then dim then darkness. They cannot see behind that 60 ft.

A human can see 30 ft in dim light. So they can see the full 40 ft from a torch, nothing behind. If the torch is 20 ft away from him, he could not see into the dim light that the torch is giving off, on the far side from him. So he would see 20 ft of dim behind him, 20 ft normal infront, and that's it.

What's not clear about "spells cast in the last 8 hours count toward your daily limit?"

The question is about special abilities, not spells.

Ah, okay. Nothing new here.

Yes, nothing new, but also nothing concretely defined.

Also the wording under ki is confusing. It sounds like they refresh just like normal spells, to me. Others do not see it this way though.