el cuervo's page

Organized Play Member. 598 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 598 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

There was a FAQ that recently clarified how Blessing of Fervor and Haste stack. If they choose the AC bonus from BoF they don't get the extra attack from Haste on that turn. However, they can choose one of the other effects of BoF that doesn't overlap with anything granted by Haste.

FAQ wrote:
Similarly, blessing of fervor does not stack with haste, which means that the increased speed, extra attack, and attack roll/AC/Reflex save bonuses wouldn't stack between the two spells, but if you had both spells active, you could still get those three benefits from haste while choosing to stand up as a swift action or apply metamagic to a low-level spell.

But hey, at least you don't have a Paladin with stunning critical. He hit Delvahine on the first round, she failed her save and became stunned. The party cleric stunned her again, sending her to stagger. She was stun-locked for the rest of the fight.

We are roughly halfway through book 5 (could be more or less depending on how many more wings they want to visit), and we began a little more than two years ago (Sept 2013). Sessions last 5-7 hours depending on the pace and the mood, and we meet every other weekish. It's not really that consistent, especially during holiday season, and all told we've probably skipped about 8 months worth of Saturdays.

I had originally written something else here. I was wrong. Per an old post by JJ, when the bleed damage is a die roll, you roll each round for a new bleed amount. Based on that, I believe your assessment is correct.

Lord Lupus the Grey wrote:

Ok, but what about maximized + empowered with this system?

There was a restriction

An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus half the normally rolled result.

It's really not that overpowered, considering you can only maximize + empower a 4th level or lower spell. It turns shocking grasp into a level 6 spell...

Barring Magical Lineage, Wayang Spellhunter, Spell Perfection, or any others that I might be leaving out, of course.

gnrrrg wrote:
I have an animal speaker who has chosen rats as their animal friend type.

Pied piper? ;)

Sorrol wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:


checking the FAQs is useful as well as searching for existing threads.

Btw this FAQ answer does not even partially answer my question about when the off-hand 50% strength penalty to damage applies...

It's the same rule as anything else regarding off-hand attacks. It is only an off-hand attack, and thus you only take a penalty, when you are using TWF, and in that case, it is always the second attack in each iterative attack from your BAB because of the ambidextrous clause.


BAB is +6/+1, you have 14 (+2) STR, and you are wielding two longswords:

TWF without any feats:

First iterative (+6 BAB):


Second Iterative (+1 BAB):


EDIT: I double checked my math but I could have screwed up somewhere due to distractions (I'm at work) -- if I messed up somewhere, please let me know.

MisterSlanky wrote:
mdt wrote:
They are applied separately. You get two things damaging the object, but it's two different sources of damage, therefor, the hardness applies to each source of damage.

Question - and I mean this as respectfully as possible.

Could you please show me where it specifically states this in the rules. I respect and understand that this is how it's ruled in the vast majority of situations (I myself do it just to conform), but I've never been shown where it says this is how it's handled.

Is this another of those situations where 90% of the people agree, but there's no actual reference, or is there a reference that's been forgotten over time?

This is not a conversation about how hardness works - that one's well documented, this is about damage from two sources that are combined into one (spellstrike is usually the best example).

EDIT: D'oh, ninja'd by jiggy.

Spellstrike doesn't combine the melee and spell damage into one attack. It lets you cast a touch spell as part of your melee attack and deliver the touch through your weapon. So you have melee damage AND spell damage. They are still sourced separately and treated as separate attacks. The only exceptions are specific rules that may combine damage from multiple attacks (such as the Clustered Shots feat in Ultimate Combat, for purposes of overcoming DR).

chaoseffect wrote:
el cuervo wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
The attack is against the target's full normal AC. Attacking randomly won't negate the target's armor, shield, etc.
I agree, that's what makes the most sense. So really, we're just looking at an additional 50% miss chance after the attack roll?
Correct. The AC 5 thing is literally for attacking the square, not anything on it; that only works for splash weapons because by they affect an area anyway with the splash damage but even then it is sub-optimal as direct hits do more.

Sorry, I edited my post while you were writing yours! I should probably spend less time editing and more time proofreading before submitting my posts. ;)

Jeraa wrote:
The attack is against the target's full normal AC. Attacking randomly won't negate the target's armor, shield, etc.

I agree, that makes sense in terms of armor, shield, dex, and so on. Thank you for the clarification.

The rules say that if an enemy or object has total concealment, you can't attack it directly but you can attack into the square that you think it is in with a 50% miss chance.

My question is, what is the AC for this attack roll? Is it an attack roll against the enemy/object's AC with a 50% miss chance? This seems to make the most sense.

The answer I often hear is that an attack into the square should use AC 5 (per splash weapon rules), with a 50% chance to hit the target.

Even if we bump it up to AC 10 (the default AC for inanimate objects, IIRC), that's still only an AC 10 to hit and then a 50% miss chance.

If I'm a PC and those are the odds, I'm going to close my eyes and swing blindly at the square every time, because why try to beat the enemy's AC when you can swing blindly and hit 50% of the time?

Maybe what makes the most sense is to make your AC 5 (or is it 10?) attack into the square. If you hit the AC, make the 50% miss coin toss, and if you succeed there make a to-hit roll against the enemy's AC and proceed as normal.

Crimeo wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Are people seriously trying to argue that they can use hexes on targets their characters aren't able to target?
No you have to target them. But doing so only requires line of effect and not line of sight, unless the hex states otherwise, if it is a Su ability.

If supernatural abilities are spells, they require Line of Effect (see quoted text below).

If they are not spells, the book is silent on the matter, unless you take the text in the glossary at face value and assume that all information about a supernatural ability, how it is used, and what it targets is contained within the description of the ability (because that's what the glossary says).

Overall, there are very few references to supernatural abilities in the CRB (two specific mentions, one in the Special Abilities section and one in the Glossary, and two other places: in the info on polymorph spells and in the section describing Natural abilities).

There is some credibility in the idea that an offensive use of a hex is considered an attack, but even that is ambiguous because the text says:

Magic wrote:
All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.

This has been pointed out in this thread before, but I'd like to call into question the specific use of the word spells throughout this section, once again. I have a hard time believing that in such a rule set -- where ambiguity and assumptions are very bad things to have and to use -- that the game developers, writers and creative minds would use the term "spell" to describe all magical effects and actions, when there is already distinction in place between "spell" and "supernatural ability" and "natural ability" and "extraordinary ability" in not one, but two places.

Magic wrote:

Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.

You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).

An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.

Peet wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
If you haven't run the Xanesha fight yet, note that the quarters up there can be a little cramped considering her large base and the fact that she uses a reach weapon, especially if you have a larger group and/or a lot of animal companions, summons, etc.; I would consider making any additional monsters you add to that fight able to fly as a consequence.

Good point, Ian. I will probably give Ulmothax a high acrobatics.

On the map in the AE edition, the map of the top level shows some of the roof angling up towards the statue of the angel. Are you supposed to be able to occupy square that show roof tiles?

When I ran that scenario, the battle itself occurred on the roof, so my answer would be yes.

The Archive wrote:
As a counterexample: Supernatural abilities do not heed the magic section of rules. Breath weapons are supernatural abilities, so Breath weapons do not have defined shapes, sizes, and can universally pass through walls because they do not need LoE. Breath weapons act like this because cones and lines are defined under "Aiming a spell" and that section does not apply to supernatural abilities, such as breath weapons.

The rules for aiming a spell, specifically the rules for line of effect, say that whenever a spell targets an object or a creature or when you attempt to create an effect in a space, you must have line of effect.

Breath weapons are not spells, but they do create an effect in a space, thus they require line of effect. There's your explanation on how breath weapons work with the rules as written while otherwise treating supernatural weapons distinctly differently than spells and SLAs.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
el cuervo wrote:
Say you saw an enemy run around a corner and you know he's hiding there and had nowhere else to go because it's a dead end. Why couldn't you use the Charm hex, which entails "beckoning and speaking soothing words" to charm the target? If the target can hear your magically soothing words, I would allow that to work (along with the requisite Will save and so on).
That's fine. The ability specifically calls out how it targets, which is a case of specific>general.

This has been my argument for hexes the entire time. Other hexes have similar wording: "one creature within 30 feet" and so on. Why do those need line of sight but Charm does not?

Misfortune wrote:
The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round.

My point is, either it's incredibly hit or miss whether there is enough information in the supernatural ability to tell you how it targets, or it is implicit that they don't need line of sight/effect unless it says they do.

Matthew Downie wrote:
el cuervo wrote:

Telepathy is a supernatural ability. It can target any creature within the stated range as written for each creature who has the ability. By the logic being applied in this thread, telepathy requires line of sight and line of effect. However, there are examples all over Paizo's own adventure paths that violate this rule, such as when an NPC communicates back to its master from a different room and through walls, details about the PCs via telepathy.

If telepathy is a supernatural ability, and all supernatural abilities require line of effect and line of sight, then Paizo writers have been reading the rules wrong all along.

Another possible reading: establishing a telepathic link requires line of sight, but once the link is established, it can be maintained without line of sight. After all, Pathfinder telepathy doesn't (AFAIK) allow you to automatically sense the presence of all creatures within 100 feet. So how can you establish a telepathic link with someone if you don't know they're there?

If (Su) abilities don't require line of sight, what do they require? Let's say I fall down a trapdoor and find myself in a pitch-black room. There are probably some creatures in the room; I can't see any of them. What do I need to do to target one with a Supernatural ability that doesn't require LoS? Make a perception check? Guess the square it's in?

In some cases, there is already an established telepathic link. In other cases, NPCs contact other NPCs or PCs telepathically without having established any prior link.

As for the second scenario, I'm not in any way proposing that you should be able to automatically target anything even if you don't know it's there. It does not follow.

If you have awareness of a target, though, you should be able to target it with a hex that doesn't say "visible target."

An earlier example I gave is the Charm hex.

Charm wrote:
A witch can charm an animal or humanoid creature within 30 feet by beckoning and speaking soothing words.

Say you saw an enemy run around a corner and you know he's hiding there and had nowhere else to go because it's a dead end. Why couldn't you use the Charm hex, which entails "beckoning and speaking soothing words" to charm the target? If the target can hear your magically soothing words, I would allow that to work (along with the requisite Will save and so on).

Diego Rossi wrote:
el cuervo wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

You should read what I posted more carefully then, I say very clearly_

I wasn't even responding to your post.

Nice edit, but you replied "No one said anything about an attack.", so yes, you were replying to my post.

I didn't edit it out if disingenuous spite. When I said I was not responding to your post, I was referring to my post about telepathy. Prior to your involvement, I had not been discussing attacks. The conversation as a whole has been focused on supernatural abilities (and specifically, hexes), and whether they need LoS/LoE. Telepathy is a supernatural ability that apparently does not. Now please, stop deflecting the conversation from my actual arguments. Argumentum ad hominem won't get you anywhere.

Diego Rossi wrote:

You should read what I posted more carefully then, I say very clearly_

I wasn't even responding to your post when I brought up telepathy.

It has been repeated ad nauseam in this thread that all supernatural abilities require line of sight and line of effect. At least one individual said specifically that telepathy requires line of sight.

As for your response to my previous post, rather than follow Occam's Razor and use the simplest logical explanation, you'd rather explain away the discrepancies between the different supernatural abilities as possibly being due to different writers?

Telepathy is a supernatural ability. It can target any creature within the stated range as written for each creature who has the ability. By the logic being applied in this thread, telepathy requires line of sight and line of effect. However, there are examples all over Paizo's own adventure paths that violate this rule, such as when an NPC communicates back to its master from a different room and through walls, details about the PCs via telepathy.

If telepathy is a supernatural ability, and all supernatural abilities require line of effect and line of sight, then Paizo writers have been reading the rules wrong all along.

The alternative is that supernatural abilities do not always require line of sight or line of effect.

It's been asked a few times, and no one who is in support of supernatural abilities requiring line of sight has addressed it.

If all magical abilities that target something implicitly require line of sight due to some wording in the CRB section on Magic, then why do some supernatural abilities explicitly state that the user must be able to see the target, while others do not?

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

More spells than just rays are subject to LoS and LoE. It was quoted earlier how burst effects require LoE.

The term spell is used for simplification.

But you are clearly adamant in your position, so I bid you a good day.

You've misread what I wrote, or otherwise ignored it entirely. Rays are subject to LoS for targeting, and subject to LoE in order to hit. I don't disagree that burst effects require LoE, because, as I just said (and you ignored), when you create an effect in a space, you need LoE. I don't dispute these two points at all. In fact, I'm the one who brought that up.

The term "spells" is not used for simplification at any point, anywhere in the rules. When the game rules say something about spells or casting a spell, they are talking about the specific act of casting a spell. The rules for line of effect, which I have quoted several times, require that targeting an object with a spell you cast requires line of effect. The rules also state that creating an effect in a space (any type of emanation, from any source) requires line of effect.

Hexes are not spells. They do not create emanations. They target a creature or object based on the rules written in the text for the hex. Some hexes require line of sight. Others do not. None of them necessitate that the user has line of effect.

We also have this, from the common terms:

Getting Started, Common Terms wrote:

Spell: Spells can perform a wide variety of tasks, from harming enemies to bringing the dead back to life. Spells specify what they can target, what their effects are, and how they can be resisted or negated.


Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical attacks, defenses, and qualities. These abilities can be always active or they can require a specific action to utilize. The supernatural ability's description includes information on how it is used and its effects.

Note that the bit about spells says that spells specify what they can target, what their effects are, and how they can be resisted, but leaves out how they are used. That is because the information for how all spells are used is outlined within the Magic section.

On the other hand, it says the information on how supernatural abilities are used is contained within the description for the ability.

Supernatural abilities are magical abilities which are subject to magic section rules. The magic section rules state that line of sight is required for ray spells and ray spells only. The combat section of the book also agrees with this: ranged attack rolls require line of sight.

Line of effect, in the magic section, specifically states that when you target something with a spell (not with magic, or magical abilities, but specifically a spell) or when you attempt to create an effect in a space, you must have line of effect.

Supernatural abilities are not spells (they're not even spell-like), and if they are targeting an object or creature they are not creating an effect in a space. Therefore, if you target something with a supernatural ability, such as a witch's hex, you do not need line of sight (because the hex isn't a ray) nor do you need line of effect (because it isn't a spell nor is it creating an effect in a space).

I suggest opening a new thread if this debate is to continue. We've just had about 20 posts wiped for back and forth with off-topic discussion.

However, I recommend not doing that, because there has been, once again, a line drawn in the sand. This conversation has gone nowhere and will continue to go nowhere. I think the OP has enough information from this thread to decide for himself what he should do about hexes.

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

For the assertions that scar hex can only work if the requirements of both Los and loe are met up to a mile away appear to me to be genuinely false. The restriction of the requirements that would place upon the hex would mean it would rarely be able to be used.

There is a hex that specifically calls out the need for los, this immediately tells me that not all hexes require Los to function.

That's how I see it. So as I have said a few times now, if the hex doesn't say it needs LoS, it doesn't need LoS.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a series of back and forth off-topic posts. Unless you're attempting to answer the rules question being asked by the OP, take the debate to another thread.

I put a lot of effort into writing well thought out and respectful responses to questions regarding whether hexes (and the larger issue of supernatural abilities, which hexes are) require line of sight, and nearly all of my posts were written with regards to hexes. To wipe out the entirety of them seems a bit extreme.

In order to keep this post on topic, my answer to the OP is no, unless the hex says you need to see the target, it does not necessarily require line of sight.

Callum wrote:
el cuervo wrote:
It's still calculated the same way, every other 45 degree rise (diagonal) is double movement, so if you have a speed of 60, you can move 9 squares at 45 degrees, or 12 squares at 0 degrees, or, for example, 45 degrees up one square and 11 squares at 0 degrees, or 45 degrees up two squares and 9 squares at 0 degrees.
But if you're rising, isn't your speed halved (to 30 feet, in your example)?

Oh, right. So, if you're rising at half-speed at an angle of 45 degrees, that means you use double movement costs. So moving 6 squares at a 45 degree angle is your speed of 60 (instead of the normal 12). If you only moved 3 squares you'd have to check, I guess.

And this is why we need flight to be overhauled. XD

Callum wrote:
Hendelbolaf wrote:

The real question is what to do with the no man's land of 30 feet?

If you move less than half, ie 25 feet or less in the above example, then you make a DC 10 fly check.

If you move more than half, ie 35 feet or more, then you do not need to make any check.

What if you move 30 feet? It is silly but it is not technically covered in any of the above situations as the rules do not say greater than or equal to half speed or less than or equal to half speed.

Yes, quite. Similarly, what is your speed if you are rising at an angle of less than 45 degrees?

I think this is a little easier to calculate, even if it is a pain to approximate the three dimensional square spaces you are moving through. It's still calculated the same way, every other 45 degree rise (diagonal) is double movement, so if you have a speed of 60, you can move 9 squares at 45 degrees, or 12 squares at 0 degrees, or, for example, 45 degrees up one square and 11 squares at 0 degrees, or 45 degrees up two squares and 9 squares at 0 degrees. Squaring the numbers makes it easier -- as long as you are fewer spaces taller than you are spaces horizontally from your starting point you haven't moved at greater than a 45 degree ascent.

In any event, it's a real pain in the neck to actually do the work in play, though, and I wish they would simplify it to make flight less of a hassle. If ever there is a PFRPG 2.0 I hope flight is one of the things that gets a major overhaul.

Ugh. Yeah, that looks like an error in the table. The check description says greater than half it's speed, table says less than half it's speed. All the more reason to get some errata on the skill.

One should specify [(greater|less) than or equal to]. I would say that moving less than or equal to half speed needs a check, moving greater than does not. That seems to be the intent, anyway.

Dallium wrote:
Aww geeze, not this thread again.

I want to avoid the pitfalls of that thread. I don't really care so much about whether a flying creature that is paralyzed can fly or not.

What I want to know is what happens when a fly check fails for a non-winged flying creature or PC (or when one with wings fails by less than 5).

What is the penalty for failure? None is listed, except for flyers who fail by 5 or more (they fall).

If the penalty is, "you have to fly in some direction to move the minimum distance your fly speed will allow without making a check," then so be it. This is important because I have a PC who flies all over the place and he has very few ranks in Fly.

For what it's worth, I don't have a horse in this race. In no way will I benefit from what I am proposing, because I don't play Pathfinder as a PC. I am strictly a GM and have spent a total of maybe 5 hours on the player side of the screen. I am a generally inclusive, not exclusive, GM and I don't run PFS. The RAW, as I see them, are what I adjudicate at my table.

I strongly believe the descriptions of supernatural abilities wholly contain the limitations on what a supernatural ability can target. If line of sight is required, the supernatural ability says so. Otherwise, I use what makes the most sense. Charm, Cackle, and whatever other hexes require the target to hear you, don't make sense to require line of effect. As long as you can hear the ability you should be able to be targeted by it. That is, after all, how the supernatural bardic performances work.

Some clarifications are needed here. First of all, the only spells that need line of sight are spells where a ranged attack roll is made. All other spells need only line of effect. So, first things first -- IF hexes behave like spells, they do not need LoS, they need LoE.

Second, since we have an example of a Hex (Evil Eye) that specifically calls out the target needs to be within 30 feet and visible (in fact, this requirement is only in the flavor text... perhaps setting a terrible precedent), we can safely assume that if it is not called out, it is not needed.

Charm Hex wrote:
A witch can charm an animal or humanoid creature within 30 feet by beckoning and speaking soothing words.

You don't even need line of effect for this one, just needs to be within 30 feet. You certainly don't need to see your enemy to charm them with soothing words, and you can know what you are targeting without seeing or even having line of effect. Unless you think blind people can't address specific individuals due to their inability to see them?

So no, hexes don't need LoS OR LoE unless it specifically says so. And I extend this logic to all Su and Ex abilities. They are not spells. Their rules are wholly contained within them.

Gilfalas wrote:
Does not magical flight operate as per the 'Fly' spell for the most part? If you fail a fly check you fail to achieve the task you were making the fly check for, so I would assume you would have to NOT do what you were attempting. In cases where it says a 'winged' creature would fall I would suggest looking at the fly spell to extrapolate what happens to a magically flying creature, which is basically like a feather fall effect.

The effect of the Fly spell, for all intents and purposes, is the same as magical flight (Speed 60), but even the spell doesn't say what happens. It refers you to the Fly skill. The only thing the spell adds is that if the spell wears off, the target gently floats to the ground as if under the effect of featherfall.

Hendelbolaf wrote:
It is pretty simple.

The fact that your answer is so different from The Wyrm Ouroboros' indicates that it isn't so simple. I tend to side with you, that if you fail your check to hover you need to move, or if you attempt to turn sharply and fail you still have to move but at a different angle.

As for the 90 degree turn, it really doesn't matter what the facing is. Think of a 5ft wide hallway with right angles -- you could be facing any direction but your flight path would require that you stay between the walls, floor and ceiling, requiring that you make a 90 degree turn at some point.

Hendelbolaf wrote:
The problem is when you do not make the actions in a proper order of actions. For example if you take a full round action and then fail a hover check what happens because you have no more movement to take other than a 5 foot step. That is why the DM should have you make the hover check first. If it is successful, go ahead with the full round action. If it is not successful, then take a move action to move at least half your fly speed and then use you standard action, etc.

Yes, this is a huge problem. It's why I posted. I would like to think that magical flight (from the spell or from being a magical beast or whatever other reason) would grant you the ability to automatically hover for free but that isn't mentioned anywhere and it's not safe to assume as much (as The Wyrm Ouroboros did above).

That level of action tracking should not be required and I can't think of a single other situation in PFRPG where you need to make sure you make certain actions before or after others depending on the outcome of a check. Fly checks are made as part of another action, so you get to make your check to hover when you make a full round action. But what if you fail, now that you've already used your full round? Do you get a free move so that you aren't violating the rules for flying? That violates the rules for actions, though. So, do you fall? Do you stay in place, hovering, because the magic doesn't require that you do something special to stay hovering? My problem is that this isn't spelled out anywhere, and it needs to be.

We can even extend this to winged creatures: if you fail your hover check by less than 5 and you are flying with wings, what the heck do you do? Suppose you've full round attacked this turn. You don't fall, but you obviously can't hover either because you failed on your check. It's easier here to assume that you make your hover check to see if you can hover before you make your full round attack, and if you can't hover then you only get to make your standard attack action before moving (or you just decide to move without attacking). And maybe that's the answer. But right now it's still an assumption, and I hate making assumptions about ambiguous rules.

If it were simple, I wouldn't be asking. I see it playing out a few different ways, and varying from GM to GM depending on the interpretation.

7 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

The rules for the fly skill and the related checks have explicit instructions regarding what happens when a winged creature fails its fly check.

Fly skill wrote:


Attacked While Flying: You are not considered flat-footed while flying. If you are flying using wings and you take damage while flying, you must make a DC 10 Fly check to avoid losing 10 feet of altitude. This descent does not provoke an attack of opportunity and does not count against a creature's movement.

Collision While Flying: If you are using wings to fly and you collide with an object equal to your size or larger, you must immediately make a DC 25 Fly check to avoid plummeting to the ground, taking the appropriate falling damage.

Avoid Falling Damage: If you are falling and have the ability to fly, you can make a DC 10 Fly check to negate the damage. You cannot make this check if you are falling due to a failed Fly check or a collision.

High Wind Speeds: Flying in high winds adds penalties on your Fly checks as noted on Table: Wind Effects on Flight. “Checked” means that creatures of that size or smaller must succeed on a DC 20 Fly check to move at all so long as the wind persists. “Blown away” means that creatures of that size or smaller must make a DC 25 Fly check or be blown back 2d6 × 10 feet and take 2d6 points of nonlethal damage. This check must be made every round the creature remains airborne. A creature that is blown away must still make a DC 20 Fly check to move due to also being checked.


Try Again: Varies. You can attempt a Fly check to perform the same maneuver on subsequent rounds. If you are using wings and you fail a Fly check by 5 or more, you plummet to the ground, taking the appropriate falling damage (see Environment).


The paralyzed condition also explicitly states that creatures who are flying with wings automatically fall when paralyzed.

The question is, what happens to magically flying creatures when these things occur?

So, what happens to a magically flying creature when any of the above situations regarding winged creatures occurs? Nothing?

Attacked while flying -- simple enough, guess magically flying creatures (or otherwise flying without wings) don't need to make a check.

Collisions? Same thing, I suppose.

Failing a complex maneuver? Well, winged creatures who fail by 5 or more will fall. But the check is made as part of the move action, so you have to have actually moved to determine the DC and make the Fly check.

And if you're magically flying and attempt to make a complex maneuver and then fail your check, well, you've already moved -- do you reset back to your starting point? Reset to the point where you began your complex maneuver? Nothing at all? If you fail to make the maneuver, do you get to use the rest of your speed to complete the move action in some other way? If so, and you're now performing some other complex maneuver, then what? Another check?

If nothing happens, then why do magically flying creatures need to make a skill check to make complex maneuvers? Do they fail to move at all?

And what about the case of hovering? Does failing to hover while magically flying mean that the creature automatically moves at least half it's speed away from where it attempted to hover?


I want to fly straight up at full speed. This requires a check. I fail my check. I haven't moved, now I want to hover. I have to make a check to hover. I fail my check to hover. Now I have to move (because I've failed the check that allows me to not move while flying). I want to fly at less than half my speed straight ahead (5 ft step, perhaps). I fail my check. Now I want to fly at my full speed but turn greater than 45 degrees. I fail my check. Now I want to turn 180 degrees by spending 10 feet of movement. I fail my check yet again. Now that I've exhausted every complex maneuver, I'm forced to make a flying move action that isn't considered complex (outlined in the Check text for the skill). Is this how it's supposed to work?

The try again text says you may retry the same maneuvers on subsequent rounds, which implies that you can attempt other maneuvers on the same round after failing a given maneuver, so the above example seems correct. Magically flying creatures, it would seem, are forced to move in a way that does not require a check if they fail their complex maneuver checks, or else stop flying.

This skill has baffled me for weeks now. I am certain it needs errata to clarify how it works when a check is failed. What are the general thoughts on this?

Name of PC: Thomar (again)
Class/Level: Cleric 13
Adventure: Sins of the Saviors
Catalyst: Arkrhyst, a.k.a. Freezemaw
Story: Poor Thomar met his end once again, this time at the hands of Arkrhyst. Not much to this story -- Arkrhyst is nasty out in the open air. He used his invisibility to get close enough to use his Blizzard SLA, killing visibility, then on the next round he swooped in and grabbed Thomar. While the other PCs struggled to spot Arkrhyst through the blizzard, he happily chomped away on Thomar. While Thomar struggled in the jaws of the dragon, he put up a bit of a fight even using his channel energy to stave off death for a bit longer, but ultimately died when Arkrhyst dropped him onto the sharp, craggy rocks of Rimeskull. Poor Thomar can't catch a break.

Ian Bell wrote:

It's also not a super big deal if you just let him cast the spell. I find it's really only worth my time to get OCD about making badguys conform to precise character construction rules if it involves an aspect of them that players can find out about and take advantage of.

With someone like Karzoug where they know they're going to face him ahead of time, they could figure out, hey he's going to be missing these schools, how can we take advantage of it? But Ordikon is just a guy in a dungeon with no foreshadowing, so there's no reason to bend over backwards trying to 'fix' him; your players aren't likely to even notice anything wrong with him.

At this point in the adventure, the PCs should definitely be aware that Illusion is an opposed school for Transmutation. Perceptive players might note that Ordikon is found in the Transmutation wing and is likely a servant of Karzoug, making him a Transmutation specialist. That is, after all, what each wing was designed for -- to study the relevant schools of magic in the name of the relevant Runelord. This is even more likely to occur if you're playing with a wizard who happens to have Thassilonian specialization who is going to be more aware of the restrictions. I don't think it's OCD so much as it is making sure the story and the lore are consistent throughout.

Wow, I just realized after reading your post that I read that section in the AP entirely wrong, or perhaps didn't read it at all. I let them open the door by simply uttering the password. And apparently I missed the key in Mokmurian's other gear section, too. Oh well. My PC's got a free pass on that one. Whoops!

Diego Rossi wrote:

I have seen people on this forum read that line of text as:

- you get an increase in intelligence, with all the effects, included increased skill points
- you get a specific maximized skill.

As written and read in a vacuum it is even plausible.
Nowhere it say that you use the new skill points to pay for the linked skill and it is weird that if you have point in that skill they overlap.

Clearly it is not RAI, RAI it is that you spend the new skill point purchasing the linked skill.

It's actually been clarified with a FAQ for some time now. The Headband's associated skill represents the skillpoints you would have gained. The Headband is an exception to the normal rule of Int+ items granting retroactive skillpoints, which is why I entirely disagree that other Int+ items should have specific skills associated with them. They grant skill points and the player should note which skills he puts those points into, so that when the item is removed the correct skill points are lost.

James Risner wrote:

The point of the Headband granting max ranks is to eliminate the "I take my hat off for a day, then put it on and I now need ranks in Knowledge Geography, so I'll take ranks in that today."

Robe of Runes should, and will at my table, function similarly. What ever ranks are provided by the Robe should be set in stone when it is created.

You're free to house rule it that way but that is not how it works, nor was that the intention of the designers. In addition to the information in my above post, there's also this:

James Jacobs wrote:
All bonuses are retroactive when an ability score increases, be they bonuses to damage, to skill ranks, to hit points, to saves, to skill checks... all of them. Skill ranks not being retroactive are a 3.5 convention we specifically removed from the game because it was a weird exception to the rule, and since now there are no exceptions to this rule, there's no need to specifically state that skill ranks are retroactively granted if your Intelligence goes up.


Drake Brimstone wrote:
el cuervo, no, they do not grant retroactive skill points, instead they grant Max Ranks in a skill chosen when the item is created.

Sorry, but you're wrong. ONLY the Headband of Vast Intellect works that way. Other things that provide permanent bonuses to intelligence grant retroactive skill points.

CRB p.554, Appendix 1: Special Abilities wrote:
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics as appropriate. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.

Also read the FAQ on the PFSRD HERE.

Don't forget that other +Int items (items that are not Headband of Vast Int, such as Robe of Runes) also grant retroactive skill points as if you had gained Int once they become permanent.

What Latrecis said. I've been running the AP for 2 years as of last month for my group of (originally 4) 5 PC's. I have added very little treasure -- I occasionally will swap items (we have a crossbow master so all +X arrows of Y become +X bolts of Y), or give items more suited to my players. I don't give treasure from bestiary entries aside from gear carried and maybe a few gold here and there. That being said, you'll find the treasure in the AP is widely varied and suitable to a party of pretty much any make-up. I also started by granting XP per encounter/creature killed but it's a hell of a lot of book keeping, especially since the AP tells you when the PCs should be at what level. It also lead to my players reasoning things like, "We should go kill it/them, we'll get more XP," which is a horrible thing to hear your players say. I stopped giving out XP and switched to milestone-based leveling after only a few sessions and haven't looked back. My players didn't mind, either.

That being said, my players have never complained about being below WBL nor have they ever truly struggled with an encounter (save, perhaps, Fort Rannick -- but as I understand it, every party struggles with Fort Rannick). I believe they are in fact above WBL, and unlike Latrecis I let them sell most stuff (other than the mwk goblin dog slicers -- who wants those?) at market value (half price), except for the actual treasure items which are meant to be sold at the values listed in the book.

If you're playing Rise of the Runelords as a PC, do not read any further.

Last weekend, my PCs faced the dreaded Freezemaw, and poor Thomar once again met a gruesome death. It's no big deal, once they scrape up some of Thomar from the rocks and use their scroll of True Resurrection on him he'll come back kicking. Poor guy, he's died four times since we started this adventure, yet somehow he keeps coming back. Overall, it was a fun encounter, with my PCs having had no idea how to hit him through the blizzard (50' radius is enormous) and only one party member capable of flight. They got him down to exactly 100HP and of course he took off to heal up and fight another day. He'll follow them into the Runeforge and ambush them somewhere there when it is most inconvenient for the party, naturally.

So my PCs are at the stone circle. I fully expect them to solve that puzzle in a few minutes and make their way into Runeforge.

My concern is that Runeforge is huge and there's no telling which section my PCs will explore first, which sections they'll visit, and if they'll even hit all of them. I'm pretty sure they haven't the faintest (they don't have great system mastery and aren't great at following plot points) idea of what to expect. Usually I get out the pawns and draw out maps for every encounter I expect to reach during a session, but in this case I have no idea which section(s) they will explore.

Does anyone have any tips on prepping for this massive dungeon, any gotchas that they wish they had known about before hand, or any other general advice for Runeforge? I fully expect the exploration of this dungeon to last several sessions, and I've read through the SotS general GM reference thread but wondering if there is anything that other GMs did or used for this dungeon to make it a little more convenient to run.

I'll also take any suggestions on how to make this a memorable dungeon for my party. Some of my players played 3.5 in the past but I don't think any have ever played past the standard E6 heroic levels of gameplay, and certainly not at high level 13/14/15 Pathfinder. This is their first high level dungeon, and I want to impress upon them the epic dangers of such a place.

First vote, ranger.

Second vote, druid.

Third vote would be oracle/cleric with nature stuff.

Fourth is pure wizard, fifth is rogue.

Never really thought about it, but aside from ranger I guess I'm really not a fan of the martial classes. Also something I never really considered, but I guess I'm a fan of divine casters more-so than arcane.

Johnny_Devo wrote:
Yeah. One of them in particular is very famous. He owns the ship known as "the aluminum eagle"

I thought it was the Centennium Swallow?

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

That might be what Paizo meant to say that in the Additional Resources Section, but they didn't say that.

They said those Feats are allowed for Kitsune characters, and they said that if you take Racial Heritage Kitsune, you count as a Kitsune character. That's a legal interpretation of the rules, and PFS Players can demand to be allowed to play characters like that.

The PFS rule is different. It says you must be a kitsune character in order to take those specific feats. Taking racial heritage allows you to qualify as a kitsune for taking feats and effects related to race, but it does not make you a kitsune character if you are a human with racial heritage. I believe this is an important distinction.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is ambiguous, it needs errata or FAQ. I doubt it's asked with enough frequency for it to get a FAQ, but who knows?

I read the description of the weapon twice, and the first time I thought that, if used as a reach weapon, you get one attack action.

The second time I read it I changed my mind and decided the wording means that you can either use it as two weapons, or as one reach weapon. This is a problem, because I can see it going either way. My guess as to the intent is the second interpretation.

Using the game as context, I can't think of a single weapon in Pathfinder that doesn't let you full-attack (except possibly crossbows/heavy crossbows without rapid reload/crossbow mastery due to reload limitations), so it's a trade-off of two weapons (great when they have two different enchantments) or a single reach weapon (which can also trip or disarm). Thematically I would side this way as well.
The benefits of this weapon actually aren't as great for flurry of blows as they are for TWF (since there's an actual trade-off in number of attacks vs. reach). For a monk with flurry, you get the same number of attacks whether it's a single reach weapon or two weapons, one in each hand.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
el cuervo wrote:

It explicitly does not work that way. PFS is an exception to the exception, as it were.

You can take up the discussion here.

What doesn't work what way?

The race restriction in the language "Feats: kitsune feats on page 5 are legal for kitsune characters; all feats on pages 24-25" does not include humans with racial heritage (kitsune). When you are a human with racial heritage, you are a human character, not a kitsune character. This is different than an effect related to race, it is explicitly stating that you must be a kitsune character.

The explanation can be found in the thread I linked above. At least, that's my understanding of the subject.

The rules argument is that traits aren't restricted. You could take magical knack simply because your character background fits with it. Maybe you plan on multiclassing later on. It really doesn't matter; it's a trait with no prerequisites.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot that magical knack requires you to name a class. Even then, if rogue can be a spellcasting class (it can, as you have already pointed out) then it should be allowed.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Daniel Myhre wrote:
The PFS house rule is that your character's actual race must match the feat's prereq if it's from the Advanced Race Guide.

But the PFS house rule allows Racial Heritage. When you take Racial Heritage Kitsune, you count as a Kitsune for pretty much everything, including taking Kitsune only feats.

Racial Heritage wrote:
You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race.

That is much stronger wording than merely saying that you now can take that race's racial feats. It actually says you count as a member of that race.

So when the PFS Additional Resources says about

Pathfinder Player Companion: Dragon Empires Primer when they wrote:
Feats: kitsune feats on page 5 are legal for kitsune characters; all feats on pages 24-25

That's okay for your human character who takes the Racial Heritage Kitsune: she counts as a Kitsune character, so she can take the Feat.

Daniel Myhre wrote:

The chain of events goes something like this.

Feat says "Only a kitsune can take this feat"

Racial heritage says "you are treated as a kitsune so go ahead and take that feat"

Then the PFS house rule says "This is Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and we decided only kitsune can take the kitsune feats from this book. Your listed race is Human so you can't take the feat, but Kitsune feats from other books may be available on a book by book basis because of Racial Heritage"

I think the chain of events rather is

PFS Additional Resources allows Kitsune Feats in Dragon Empires Primer for Kitsune Player Characters.

Fox Shape Requires you be a Kitsune.

Racial Heritage is allowed in PFS.

Racial Heritage Kitsune lets a Human count as a Kitsune, and so

can take the Feat.

What's required to make this character building option illegal for PFS play is an official caveat limiting the utility of the Racial Heritage Feat, and I haven't seen one.

As far as I can tell, a PFS GM who rules a PFS Player's characters...

It explicitly does not work that way. PFS is an exception to the exception, as it were.

You can take up the discussion here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

To be honest, I never understood why the ARG was house-ruled that way. It always seemed rather arbitrary.

Did Mr. Brock ever give any insight into the reasoning behind the decision?

Probably to avoid creating contentious combinations such as a human with racial heritage (kitsune) taking the fox shape feat. ;)

1 to 50 of 598 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>