harzerkatze's page

115 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 115 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The Tekko-kagi (Ultimate Equipment p. 38) can be used defensively like a buckler.

- Does that mean a monk could use it to gain a shield bones while retaining his monk AC bonus, seeing that is not a shield, even though used like one? A mithral Tekko-kagi would have no ACP and thuswould need no shield proficiency.

- Could a Tekko-kagi be enchanted with shield enhancement, like a shield that can also be used as weapon can also be enchanted as weapon?

Hi there,

I thought I had grappling all figured out, but along comes a new character and suddenly I stumble about new questions. Hope you guys/gals can help me figure them out.

Two separate issues:
1) I stumbled about the difficulty to actually maintain a pin against someone. Now we all know that escaping a pin or a grapple goes against your CMD, not your grapple combat maneuver check, and that is often not very high and hard to boost. But that's not what tripped me up. It was when I noticed this:

Core Rulebook p. 200: Pin wrote:
Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.
Core Rulebook p. 199: CMD wrote:
Any penalties to a creature’s AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.
Core Rulebook p. 179: Dodge Bonus wrote:
Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses.
Core Rulebook p. 200: When you are grappled wrote:
If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent’s CMD;

Let me get this straight: When I have someone pinned, to escape he only has to roll against my CMD WITHOUT MY DEXTERITY MODIFIER, without any dodge bonuses and with an additional -4 to my Dexterity from being grappled? (The latter only has an effect if my Dex is 12 or below). Is that supposed to be that way?

It makes sense to lose your dexterity modifier to attacks from outside the grapple, but why does pinning someone make it easier for them to escape?

To make things worse, almost no effect seems to improve my chances of actually keeping someone pinned. All of the grapple feats, items etc only give a bonus to grapple checks, not to defense against escape. Even the Improved Grapple feat is worded vaguely enough that I am not sure it applies when someone wants to escape my pin.
Is the DC to escape my pin really practically only 10 + my BAB + Strength bonus? (A ring of protection won't make much of a difference there.)
That seems trivial after a few levels, when I look at the opponents CMBs.


Core rulebook p. 200: Grapple wrote:
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.

Does this penalty also apply to the Combat Maneuver check to escape a grapple or a pin that an opponents has to do, if they e.g. don't want to drop their sword help in one hand?

Taow wrote:

For the purpose of discussion, the spell I have in mind is Chill Touch.

When you spend your charges, is that a specific kind of action, or are you just spending one charge per attack under whatever conditions apply (full attack, haste, AoOs, etc...)?

Spending a charge per se isn't an action, it happens whenever you touch someone, e.g. because hit him with an unarmed or natural attack.

However, you now have the option to do touch attacks. Doing a touch attack is a standard action, so you only get one per round.

Xaratherus wrote:
I actually agree that RAI it was not intended to stack with the bonus from a masterwork quality weapon. As written, I would give greater weight to the specific language of a class feature than of a variant\clarification of a general rule, and so RAW I believe they would stack.

I can agree to that reasoning. There is an ambiguity in the wording that I believe was unintentional, but leads to strict RAW reading allowing this.

I believe the effect on game balance is small, so it's OK with me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
It gets even cheesier when you consider that both would also stack with a masterwork weapon giving you a +2/+1 attack/damage situation.

Arcane Pool does not stack with Masterwork, no enhancements do. The +1 to attack and damage replaces the +1 to attack from masterwork.

Cyrad wrote:
With a Kasatha, it is like multiweapon fighting instead of two-weapon fighting.

This I very much doubt. While it would be cool, I believe that nowhere is it said that a multi-armed monk gets more flurry attacks than a two-armed one.

Thinking about multi-weapon fighting revealed to me that I do not fully understand how the monk works, which is bad since I play one.

Can a monk decide to use two-weapon fighting (or in case of a kasatha monk, multi-weapon fighting) with his unarmed strikes? Effectively ignoring flurry of blows and making multi-weapon attacks with his fists like any other Kasatha could?

Problem is that the Unarmed Strike description in the monk class says "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes." Does that mean a monk cannot use off-hand attacks with his fists, so he couldn't use multi-weapon fighting with them, or does this mean that when he multi-weapon fights with his fists, all his attacks would add the full strength bonus, as they are no longer off-hands?

I just stumbled across the Flying Talon.
I thought that was only from the previous edition, e.g. the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (PZO1111).

- Is that an actual Pathfinder weapon allowed under the current rules?

- The Wording is strange. Are the +2 to disarm in addition to the +2 granted from the disarm weapon special feature? It grants +2 to trip, and the trip special feature doesn't, although I suspect that that is a relict of the 3.0 rules.
Also, does "The talon gives its wielder a reach of 10 feet." just mean it's a reach weapon, so you cannot attack adjacent, or does it actually give you reach?

It seems a departure from all other weapons, being a light reach weapon.
Mages could really use that for spellstrike at 10 feet, and for reaping AoOs from closing medium enemies.

Now that the Bestiary 4 includes the Kasatha, a player race with four arms, I am curious what other DMs would allow such a character to do with that. I know that the rules strictly RAW give you more off-hand attacks and nothing else, but of course players would like to use those hands for other things, too. And many limitations only exist because almost any race has only two arms, so that's what developers thought about.

So would you allow e.g. the following things?

1) The character has multi-weapon fighting and wants to draw 4 weapons or weapon-like objects as one move action. The rules only allow drawing two when you have two-weapon fighting.

2) Wielding a weapon to make AoOs, a shield, a metamagic rod and casting a modified spell with somatic components at the same time.

3) In a grapple, characters can only do things that require one haand, probably because the other has to hold the enemy. As this character has more hands, would you allow actions that require more hands, e.g. spellcasting with a metamagic rod? Attacks using multiweapon fighting with three hands? Wielding a greatsword?

4) If I have a Kasatha Magus, would you give spell combat more attacks? Spell Combat is like Two-weapon fighting, but a Kasatha uses multiweapon fighting in place of two-weapon fighting.

Malag wrote:
I would still like to hear several more responses from other people. It seems however that each time I post topic, people don't know what to answer :I.

As a DM, I would rather not make house rules regarding this, because Dirty Trick already is one of the best combat maneuvers. It is versatile, effective and especially compared to the popular trip there are few opponents immune to it. No matter if you can fly or slither about, you can get blinded. It is also one of the few player options to make an enemy shaken and then frightened without a save.

So no, I'd be against making it better by allowing item buffs to it. Which is not to say that I wouldn't give a bonus to an ingeniously dirty trick now and then if the description fits the situation well. But a fixed rule means that the player will just use acid every time, and that is rather a rules mechanics boost than a cool story.

As I said, the stealth description and the invisibility detection table on p. 563 diverge, and it is hard to tell which version or combination of both applies. A problem I see is that stealth seems to be designed around hiding somewhere out of sight, which is the norm for it's use. Invisibility is sort of a different case. So the flat "It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging" from the stealth description might not apply to invisibility/being blinded.

An example. If I as a DM had a character who hides in a bush, lets a guard walk past and then shoots a sneaky arrow at the guard, staying hidden in the bush, that's totally believable. Difficult, which is why sniping is at -20, but entirely realistic.
If the same character wants to jump out of the bush, stab the guard without killing him, then run back into the bush (e.g. spring attack) and expect the guard not to know where he went, I would find the idea preposterous. That's why it makes sense to say Using Stealth while attacking is impossible.

But if you are invisible, that's entirely normal. If you stab someone and then walk away a few meters, they WILL not know where you went unless you leave tracks/disturb dust etc. And the latter should be a question of how good you are at hiding.

So to me it makes sense to say a character that is invisible or fighting someone blinded can attack in melee and then take a move action to move away, using stealth. Pinpointing him afterwards would be DC Stealth Check +20 for invisibility moving +20 for pinpointing -20 for fighting, so Stealth Check+20. It may be that "It’s impossible
to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging." from the stealth skill description doesn't apply. That may be why the table has a DC modifier for attacking (-20) instead of outruling it, like stealth.

But unless there is some official answer to this, the contradiction between the stealth description and the table makes finding a definitive answer impossible.

Another fear question: Are all fear effect, e.g. demoralize with Intimidate or shaken from the Dirty Trick maneuver mind-affecting effects to which constructs, oozes, plants, undead + vermin are immune?

Every fear monster ability seems to be mind-affecting, and it would make sense that you cannot intimidate a mindless being. But I couldn't find that anywhere.

kinevon wrote:

Remember that the SRD only contains OGL content, mainly (entirely?) from the hardcovers, so content from the Player Companions, Campaign Settings, and such do not get added the Paizo PRD.

So far as I know, both versions of Dueling are PFS legal, just a bad naming convention issue. Not the first time, nor the last, that two different things wound up with the same name.

I checked, e.g. the agile weapon ability of that book IS in the SRD. So it seems they just left the other out because their database only holds one ability of that name. Generally the Pathfinder Society Field Guide is officially part of the SRD.

But man, a +10 luck bonus to manuevers for +1 price? That's incredibly powerful for a maneuver magus like mine. Amulet of Mighty Fists for 4.000 gp, here I come.

Beek Gwenders of Croodle wrote:
can you use Stealth to avoid being hit in combat if your opponent is blinded?

OK, I researched the question about fighting against blinded enemies or while invisible a bit further. It's complicated, because the rules are spread out through the Core Rulebook: The stealth skill description on p. 106, fighting while blind on p. 442 and fighting invisible on p. 563. Those rules aren't really identical (e.g. stealth seems more to be written with someone hiding behind cover in mind, not someone invisible), which makes it confusing. Here is what I could distill. To avoid confusion, when I say "being unseen" below, I mean someone is either invisible or the opponent is blinded. I use that to avoid unnecessary complicated sentences, as I mostly talk about both.

-> If you are fighting an unseen enemy, you need to pinpoint his location. An enemy is automatically pinpointed if he attacks adjacent in melee, but only until he moves again. So if you face an unseen enemy who has either not attacked yet or has moved since his last attack, you can use perception to pinpoint him.
Doing so is a Perception check (at -4 if blinded!), which is a free action 1x/round (p. 443 top) and can be done again as a move action (perception skill action p. 102). Important to understand here is that there are two different results to detecting something unseen: Knowing it is there somewhere and knowing where it is exactly/pinpointing it. This is described on page 563 lower left, the Difference in DC is 20!

-> So if the unseen attacker attacks in melee and them moves (as move or 5 ft step), what happens? As the stealth description says, if he is fighting or charging or running, he cannot use stealth. So the Perception DC for his opponent according to p. 563 is thus: DC 20 +20 (pinpointing) -20 (fighting) = DC 20 to pinpoint the unseen opponent (DC 0 to just know there is someone unseen about).
So if you make a melee attack against a blinded opponent or while being invisible and then either move away with a move action or a 5 ft step, this would be the DC the opponent has to beat (but remember the -4 if he is blinded). Too bad that unlike heroes, almost every single monster except for oozes and constructs seems to have maxed out perception, so that may not help for long...

-> When it comes to ranged attacks, you have it easier: You can make one attack and immediately make a stealth check again as part of moving about, so stealth IS allowed (see sniping, in the stealth skill description). The check is at -20, but add +20 for being invisible but moving and +20 for pinpointing, and you still have your stealth check+20 to hide. So being an invisible ranged attacker that shoots and moves works great. Also, even if you do not move, ranged attacks do not automatically pinpoint you, they just give the opponent the direction to you.
For the unseen spellcasters among us, speaking does not prevent stealth per the stealth description, it only gives -20 from the table on p. 563, like attacking (which should probably be the same -20 as sniping). So casting a spell while invisible (even a ranged attack spell) and then moving away has the same Perception DC to pinpoint as sniping: Stealth check+20.

-> If you are not fighting/speaking/running/charging, it seems best to ignore the table on p. 563, as the results will differ from what the stealth description says (e.g. stealth gives a -5 for moving more that half your speed, the table gives a -5 for moving up to half your speed and a -10 for moving more than half your speed). If you are not fighting/speaking/charging/running, you will be using stealth as opposed roll instead of a fixed DC, as stealth is not even an action. You get stealth check+40 if you are standing still, +20 if you move up to half your speed, and +15 if you move up to your speed (+20 -5). But remember that you cannot attack in melee, speak, run or charge in the same round.

Also interesting: Pinpointing someone unseen is 20 harder than noticing someone. If you are invisible and sneak past some guards (max half your speed), they make perception checks against your Stealth DC+20. But if they beat your DC, they only know you are there. They only pinpoint you if they beat you by another 20! So even if you are noticed, the enemy is a long way from attacking you.

-> If the opponent blows his perception rolls, he can try to find you using groping about, as described on p. 443 and 563. He has to choose 2 squares and makes touch attacks into them, including miss chance for total concealment. So being pinpointed that way is not likely.

-> If an opponent that has not pinpointed you just moves about and passes through your square by coincidence (illegal, but he does not know that...), I would treat that as an overrun. Meaning you can let him pass without revealing yourself, or you can take the AoO and stop him (which isn't what you want, but the temptation...). Thus, finding an enemy by just moving about usually only works for creatures with scent, as then they automatically pinpoint someone as soon as they are adjacent.

-> When fighting an opponent that is invisible (not when you are blinded), you can use flour etc to find them: See "powder" on p. 70 of Complete Equiment or p. 48 of the Pathfinder Society Field Guide for a more complete description.

Jorin wrote:
this is the dueling from the PFS Field Guide

The Dueling Weapon ability does not seem to be in the SRD. Is the Pathfinder Society Field Guide somehow not an official pathfinder product? Or was that ability later removed as errata?

Nicht wrote:

Also - how does the Demoralize option of the Intimidate skill interact with causing a shaken condition using the Dirty Trick combat maneuver? Or with the 'rattling strike' hunter's trick from the skirmisher ranger archetype?:

Pg. 321 of the Advanced Player's Guide, under 'Dirty Trick':

"If your attack is successful, the target takes a penalty.
The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions:
blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or

Pg. 128 of the Advanced Player's Guide, under 'Hunter's Tricks' of the Skirmisher Archetype for the Ranger Class:

"Rattling Strike (Ex): The ranger can use this trick as a
free action before he makes a melee attack. If the attack
hits, the target is shaken for 1d4 rounds."

Is it possible to use two dirty tricks in a row to cause an opponent to become frightened? Can you use two rattling strikes in a row to do likewise? Can someone perform a rattling strike and then follow it up the next turn with a dirty trick to cause the opponent to take on the frightened condition?

As the last quote from Mr. Frost clarifies, the not-stacking exception only applies to shaken from the demoralize use of the intimidate skill, including the Enforcer feat. So two Dirty Tricks to make an opponent shaken should result in a frightened opponent. You just cannot e.g. use enforcer and then Dirty Trick to make him flee.

Topically related, how do you people play the frightened effect of "flees from the source of its fear as best it can"?
- Does the opponent have to use the withdraw action on his next action?
- Run away, provoking AoOs?
- Is he allowed to instead use a move to just remove the Dirty Trick effects? That would not be fleeing, but on the other hand it seems excessive that he runs away for multiple rounds when he can simply snap out of his fear with no roll. He is frightened, but not panicked, so he's not that irrational.

One option I personally prefer is to rule that the opponent must move away in some way (more than a 5-ft-step), so he can either make a withdraw, using up his full action, or use a move, provoking AoOs but allowing him the use of his standard action to remove the Dirty Trick effect.

Also, if you have frightened an enemy with two Dirty Tricks and he spends a Move Action to remove the effect, is he then shaken or unaffected? Meaning to say, can he remove both tricks with one move? That would seem wrong for e.g. blinded and shaken, but since the frightened effect has replaced shaken, I am unsure. I would say he is still shaken, though.

Azothath wrote:

Dancing Lights (evoc)1; Range:100+10*CasterLevel & all within 10ft, lights wink out if they go out of range.

Abundant Ammunition (conj)1; if you pull out a second arrow/bolt the first one vanishes. An odd non-LoE non-range effect.
Floating Disk (evoc)1; The spell ends if you move beyond its range 25+ 5*[CasterLevel/2] or take the disk more than 3 feet away from the surface beneath it.

so there are a couple... that was just picking the first 3 I came across at first level...

Yes, I know there are a few spells that have such limitations in their wording. But as Limp Lash does not, I was wondering if there is a general rule in effect here that I am unaware of?

The Limp Lash FAQ showed me that I do not really understand one game concept: What kinds of spells end when the line of effect is broken after they have been cast?

The FAQ says breaking the line of effect ends the spell, so if a target moves around a corner or behind a column, the spell would be over. Does that apply to other spells as well? My understanding always was that as long as you had line of effect when casting a spell, what happens later doesn't matter, neither regarding line of effect nor range. You cannot outrun a charm spell or curse or a summoned creature. The only similar example I know is Flaming Sphere that winks out if out of range.

Or am I mistaken, and spells only last if you keep near enough?

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
James Jacobs has clarified this spell here in the Golarion FAQ.

Great, that helps a lot.

Now to another open question aboit the spell: Can you affect undead and constructs with it? They are immune to ability damage + drain, as well as paralysis, but not to ability penalties, it seems. So can you use the spell to reduce them to Str+Dex 1, even though that does not paralyze them?

The question about how Duelling interacts with Arcane Pool or another variable enhancement bonus (e.g. furyborn) is unclear and tricky. If your understanding is correct, the magus gets a great advantage on maneuvers, as he can easily push the enhancement to +5 (greater magic weapon + Arcane Pool), which would give an additional +10 on Disarm, Trip, Dirty Trick and Reposition maneuvers, which are among the best anyway.

The rest is correct. Spell Combat using True Strike almost ensures that your maneuver succeeds. But you spend a spell and an attack, the enemy only needs a move to get up again (provoking AoOs no less), so that's kind of balanced.

BTW, it seems to be an omission on the designers part, but the weapon ability should also apply to sunder, as that maneuver is clearly done with the weapon. Sunder is neither listed under the maneuvers supported, nor under those not supported...

Here is my question regarding the Create Pit spell:

"Reflex negates"... What happens when I create a pit under someone and he makes his save?

- Does the spell fail (the text "Any creature standing in the area where you first conjured the pit must make a Reflex saving throw to avoid falling into it." does not sound like that)?

- Does he get moved from the area (where)? What if there is nowhere to move (the famous 10'x10' room with an orc and a chest...)

- Does he hover in place?

Also, do you have to bull rush opponents into the pit fields, or the surrounding sloped fields to make them fall down automatically?

This spell would be SO MUCH FUN with Improved Trip and Ki Throw...

Man, this spell sounds great, if only the wording was clearer regarding existing rules.

- My understanding is that the enemy cannot move beyond the 20 ft. reach, as it says twice that the spell ends if you let go of the whip or it is destroyed. Too bad that they do not say whether the enemy can just move away to break the effect, as most spells end when you exceed their range..

- I thought penalties of the same source do not stack. So does the 1d6 penalty per round never go higher than 6?

If the enemy can only end the spell by disarming you or sundering the whip (which according to Core Rulebook p. 174 requires a non-bludgeoning weapon), this is an excellent spell, especially since it allows no save. Sure, it takes about 4 rounds to paralyse an enemy (2-3 if maximized), but each round, he loses 1-3 to attack, damage, AC, 2-6 to CMD and 1-3x HD in HP.
Fight someone with only bludgeoning weapons, and all you have to do is prevent being disarmed - which is often easy with a meatshield in a narrow corridor or if you can make AoOs against disarm maneuvers.

Ellis Mirari wrote:
Maezer wrote:

They typically don't print a two-weapon fighting or multiweapon fighting attack line unless they have the feat. But yes it could make attacks with all 4 arms.

It would be unarmed strike -1 (1d6+1), 3 unarmed strike -5 (1d6).

Okay thanks.

As a DM, I would have serious reservations against allowing that race as a player character. Four attacks at level 1, 8 attacks at level 6 is a bit much for just a multiweapon fighting/ improved multiweapon fighting feat. Think what a flanking rogue can do with this.

Ellis Mirari wrote:
Are there rules somewhere for metal weapons made out of wood?

No, and that is conspicuous. You can make almost any weapon from bone, obsidian and stone and don't even have penalties when they are magical, but somehow not from wood. The ironwood spell is high-level, not even permanent and only works on normal wood, clearly inferior to just building an obsidian weapon and enchanting it.

My guess is that this omission is supposed to avoid e.g. a Magus with Keen Wyroot rapier or scimitar reaping all those Arcane Points...

kid america wrote:

I'm looking for some bard character concepts that don't fall into the classic character with the musical instrument that buffs the party over and over and over and over again.

Hoping for cool outside the box traditional bard concepts.

I know exactly how you feel, I really like the bard as concept, but do not like to play one with D&D3/Pathfinder rules. In combat you stand around a lot while the other do the cool stuff, your AC and attack and damage is just not up there with the others. So you feel like a bigmouth who needs others to back him up, which is not that heroic.

In my case, I circumvented the problem by playing a different character class entirely as a bard. I have a monk/magus with high skills in diplomacy, bluff, intimidate and perform, carrying a lute and behaving like a bard role-play-wise, but having different combat skills.
You have to realize that bizarrely, the Pathfinder bard isn't all that superior at being 'bardic'. Sure, he can do magic by singing, but he neither sings better than other (no special bonus to perform) nor does he get a lot of bonus on his social skills. His music has magic effects, but it is not better than other music. So if you want to play a musician, you do not have to be a bard, you music will be just as good.

If you are playing a bard, you can do a lot with feat selection be get an edge in combat:
- Maneuvers are cool, if you specialize in them you can get a decent maneuver check. Trip with the whip mastery feats is nice, as you trip opponents before they reach you. Problem is that at higher levels, opponents CMDs tend to grow rapidly, and almost everybody flies or has a hundred legs. Personally I like Dirty Tricks, as they really are fun describing.
- Improved Unarmed Strike and Snake Style are good ways to get better defensively, if you can move away from opponents to avoid full attacks.
- As was said, the sound striker archetype actually deals quite some damage.

I found the rules I was looking for, check out "Darkness" in the core rulebook p. 442. I know the rules speak of being "blinded by darkness", but I see no reason why that should work differently when you are blinded from other reasons.

- When you are blinded, you have to pinpoint an opponent or attack a random spare, hoping he is there.
- To pinpoint an opponent if you do not have Scent, Blindsense or Blindsight is quite difficult:
a) you can make a free perception check, but you get -4 for being blind and have to beat the opponents stealth check by 20 to pinpoint him, otherwise you only know he is there somewhere, but are not sure where.
b) you can grope about in the dark. That is a standard action, you make touch attacks into two adjacent squares. If there is a creature, you have to beat the 50% miss chance to touch it, dealing no damage. But you have pinpointed it, until it moves and you are back to square one.
c) When an adjacent opponents attacks you in melee, you automatically pinpoint him. If he has reach or makes a ranged attack, you only get the direction. If he moves (and I think a 5-ft-step is moving), you lost him again.

Note that there is nothing about the attacker having to hide. As soon as he moves, you no longer pinpoint him!
Also, Blind-Fight is not mentioned as helping at all in this case. You do not lose your Dex and probably do not get -2 to AC, and can reroll the miss chance, but it does not help with pinpointing.

That is tough stuff! A fight in darkness where the attacker attacks and then takes a 5-foot step is really mean.
So better have some way of avoiding this fate. Personal recommendations:
- Getting Scent or Blindsense somehow.
- Move away from the attacker. If he has to follow you to attack, he cannot move away after the attack (barring spring attack), so you have pinpointed him and he will still be there on your turn.
- Grapple the opponent you have pinpointed! As the grappled description says, in a grapple, all invisibility gives you is +2 to escape grab CMD, but nothing else: No miss chance, no moving away to lose pinpointing. Same should count for blindness.

Archaeik wrote:

It's a little bit murky, but I think it's likely you get both.

Elemental Touch specifically calls out "gaining a touch a attack" to indicate that it is an armed attack you are making (on top of clarifying that it can be resolved on touch AC) for the duration of the spell.

Chill touch merely adds onto this.

Very nice, thanks!

A related question: As I gain a melee touch attack from Elemental Touch, if my BAB is 6 or higher, can I make two touch attacks with it the following rounds, treating it like a weapon attack that targets touch AC, or just one?

Kazaan wrote:
Elemental Touch isn't a touch spell. It has a range of Personal so it is more accurately considered a personal buff that grants you the effect of a special touch attack. Thus, it cannot be used with spellstrike since it isn't a touch spell and you don't get the free touch as part of casting, but it also doesn't dissipate when casting another spell either. You can always deliver a touch attack (touch spell or otherwise) via Unarmed Strike or Natural Attack so one of those could deliver the effect of both touches, but not through a manufactured weapon.

Yes, all that is clear. But what about my question?

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Say my magus casts Elemental Touch in one round and then Chill Touch the next. The former grants him a touch attack, the latter a couple of touch spell charges.
If I now make the free touch attack from the Chill Touch spell and hit, do I deal both Chill Touch and Elemental Touch damage?

It is clear that Elemental Touch damage is added to unarmed strikes. But does it add to other touch attacks, too?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How do concentration check rules work under multiple distractions?

Say you try to cast a spell while grappled on a ship in violent motion in a hailstorm while being sickened from an ongoing spell. Would that be only one concentration check against the highest DC (probably from being grappled), ignoring all the other effects? Would that be four concentration checks? Would it be one with a DC that is somehow higher?

A more typical example would be casting while under the effect of e.g. Elemental Touch (acid). You both take 1 point of ongoing damage, which calls for a DC 11 + Spell Level, and are sickened for the duration, which calls for a check against Spell save DC + Spell Level.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nidho wrote:

No. Check the skill description. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

Anyway, in the situation with the drow, it has enough an advantage by being "invisible" that it doesn't matter. The drow will be pinpointed when he attacks but he's a move action away from hiding again.

Hmmm, I am not sure that's how it works.

If you opponent is blinded, you have total concealment.
Core p. 197, total concealment: "You can’t attack an opponent that
has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies."

So the opponent has to figure out where you are, no matter if you have used an action to stealth or not.

"Ignoring concealment" goes on to clarify: "Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40
bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can’t see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues)."
But a blinded opponent is not a sighted opponent, he at least has no other visual clues.

So say I battle an opponent, blind him with e.g. Dirty Trick or Blindness, then make a 5-foot step either to the left, right or back.
My understanding is that the opponent does not know where I went, he can only attack a square he guesses I'm in. If he has scent and is adjacent, he pinpoints me automatically, likewise with tremorsense, blindsense or blindsight. Otherwise, he can probably make a perception check vs. my stealth+20, but that is a bit muddy rules-wise, as I am not invisible, he is blinded. Perhaps he has to choose a field to attack and hope I'm there.

This question is about the Ready action. As a standard action, you can ready a standard action to trigger to a certain event. My question concerns readying spells to trigger when an opponent casts a spell.

Say I am fighting a wizard. On my turn, I ready casting Scorching Rays on him if he casts a spell. He does, I hit with my two rays and deal 28 points of damage. Does he have to make a concentration check against 38 + spell level for being damaged while casting, or not?

The confusion arises from the fact that on the one hand, Readying is described as happening before a trigger, so one could say the spellcaster has not yet started casting the spell and thus doesn't have to make a concentration check. On the other hand, you can explicitely ready an attack to disrupt the spellcaster while he is casting a spell. And making an attack is that same action as casting a spell: A standard action. The Ready description explicitely says "If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character." Does that mean he has to make a concentration check if interrupted while spellcasting?

So another ways of asking this questions seems to be: Is the proceding described under "Distracting Spellcasters" on Core p. 203 just an explanation to the ready mechanics and you can do the same with other standard actions, or is it a special rule that works differently?

If this is legal, it seems to be a much more effective way of dealing with spellcasters that counterspelling, as you both deal damage and stop them from casting.

In my group, there is some confusion about how and with which action you use certain things in spellcasting. I would appreciate if someone could clarify these to me and point me to where these things are explained in the rulebook.

1) Material components. On the one hand, it seems that you have to have those in a hand to use them, since you can't cast spells with material components when pinned, on the other hand you do not seem to need to draw them as an action. Is my understanding correct that you have to draw them with a free hand, but that that is part of the spellcasting action (even for a quickened spell) and uses the same hand used for somatic components? But you cannot cast a spell with material components if both hands are full, even if that has no somatic components (e.g. from the Still Spell feat).

2) Metamagic rods. Do you need to hold them in another hand than the one doing the somatic and/or material components, or do you wave the rod Harry-Potter-style for the somatic component? Asked differently, can you cast a somatic components spell using a metamagic rod when you only have one hand free? How about a material component spell?

3) Potions, Wands and other items that effectively cast spells. Is my understanding correct that you first need to draw these as a separate action before using them as standard actions? Wands are drawn like weapons, but how about potions? Are they drawn with the 'Retrieve an item' action, provoking AoOs, or is there a way to draw them safely like weapons? What is the effect of a bandolier, seeing that getting stuff out of a backpack is the same action?

4) Scrolls. Is drawing a scroll part of using it, or is that a separate action?

I am unsure about the relationship of incorporeal and ethereal, but if you want to be able to grapple anything, finding a way to get the blink spell is helpful, too, as it allows you to "Treat other ethereal creatures and objects as material." Which should mean that you can grapple ethereal creatures.

BTW, tripping a ghost with ghost-touch weapons is out, as they probably count as flying.

harzerkatze wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
As to the question about fighting defensively and such, we're kicking around that idea before posting an answer.
Bump to respectfully inquire whether there have been any developments from kicking around the idea among developers...

Since six weeks have passed, allow me to ask whether there has been any progress on this question?

Vincent The Dark wrote:
So each claw attack has the +3 Attack bonus until discharged?

To answer the questions a bit wider:

- When you hold a charge, you can discharge it with any natural attack: Claws, bite, tail slap, doesn't matter. The "only claws" limitation only applies to spell combat. These natural attacks aren't touch attacks, however, you make regular natural attacks, and if you hit, you deal damage and discharge the spell.

- When you make an AoO and hit, you discharge the spell. When holding a charge you count as armed, so if you have no natural attacks and no Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can make AoOs unarmed until you hit. You cannot, however, make an AoO as a touch attack.

- If you hold a charge of Shocking Grasp, all attacks vs. metal-wearing opponents gain the +3, until one hits. Shocking Grasp has only one charge, so that ends the spell.

Kazumetsa Raijin wrote:
Seems legit to me. Also, you don't even have to just impart it into his Hands, it could be anywhere on his body as he can kick, headbutt, etc.

That's one way to build a unicorn I guess...

Xaratherus wrote:
The whole concept opens up at least one interesting (if not optimal) character build: a monk\magus cross-class would give you a cheap alternative to an AoMF - plus, imagine a rime-enhanced Elemental Touch (Cold) cast and held, then coupled with a FoB? Your normal flurry damage plus 1d6 of cold damage, a chance to fatigue them from the spell, and to entangle them for 2 rounds from the metamagic?

Problem with that build is that FoB needs a couple of monk levels to be more effective than plain Spell Combat, which gives a bonus attack, too. FoB and Spell Combat cannot be combined at once, so it's either/or, and both will be hurt by having lesser levels than a straight magus or monk.

I actually am playing a magus x/monk 1 multiclass, but primarily for the bonus feats the monk provides. If Spell Combat counts as full-attack (see above), at least flurry of maneuvers of the Maneuver Master meshes very well with the magus.

LoneKnave wrote:

FoB is a full attack action, not a full round action. So if you can regularly take a full attack action as part of spell combat (and I'm pretty sure that's what "Make all his attacks" means) you should be able to flurry.

Not saying you CAN do it, but the action types do match up, so if you couldn't, this is not the reason why.

You cannot use FoB with Spell Combat for the same reason that you cannot use FoB with two-weapon fighting: FoB already counts as two-weapon fighting (FoB text: " if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat"). And as you cannot use two-weapon fighting twice at once, e.g. to make two additional attacks at -4, neither can you FoB and two-weapon fight at once.

Since Spell Combat "functions much like two-weapon fighting", the same rules should apply to FoB and Spell Combat.

It should be possible for a Maneuver Master monk/Magus to use Flurry of Maneuvers with Spell combat, as FoM has no connection to Two-Weapon Fighting, provided:
- you make the maneuver with the weapon wielded in the hand, as those are the only allowed attacks in Spell combat
- that Spell Combat younts as a full-attack for other effects that change full-attacks, such as fighting defensively, Haste etc. That is still being discussed within the design team (Designer quote), we only have a partial answer allowing Haste. So that is still open.

But FoB and Spell Combat is out.

Cyrad wrote:

I can disprove that easily.

The arcane pool feature says the magus can use it on "any weapon he is holding."

If you aren't holding a weapon, you're considered unarmed unless you're a monk, a character with improved unarmed strike, or creature with natural attacks.

It follows that an unarmed strike is not considered a weapon you are holding. If it were considered a weapon you are holding, you would be considered armed.

Therefore, you cannot use arcane pool on an unarmed strike.

"Holding" a weapon is not a common rules term, wielding is. Holding is only used in the combat chapter for holding spell charges and holding an opponent in a grapple. Your example is your personal wording, not how the rules are written.

You also do not take into account that the "holding" part only applies to the swift action of using Arcane Pool. It does not say that only weapons that are held in combat can be enhanced, I think instead it says you grab a hold of something and enhance it.

Look, I know that wordings can be read in different ways and that RAI is hard to fathom. But my impression is that they used "holding" without much thought behind it, because ther is no optimal wording:
- If they had used "touching", you would be able to enchant weapons you haven't drawn yet, which in combination with dancing probably lets you save an action.
- If they had used "wielding", you couldn't e.g. enchant an arrow and then shoot it, because you cannot wield an arrow.

So no matter how they phrase it, some circumstances are left out.
I can see no indication that they wanted to leave out natural attacks and unarmed strikes from the class, the FAQs consistently include those in Magus questions. So in my opinion, the "holding" part is describing the action: Grab a hold of the weapon and enhance it. Why not grab hold of your fist, which is part of your unarmed strike? As I said, I see no indication of design intent to preclude unarmed strikes.

Xaratherus wrote:
That said, I don't believe the intention was for the arcane pool bonuses to be applied to unarmed attacks; it refers to "holding" a weapon (you don't "hold" a fist to attack), and lets you grant magical enhancements that cannot normally be applied directly to a natural weapon (such as flaming, etc.).

You only need to hold the weapon while using the swift action to utilize Arcane Pool, you do not need to hold the weapon while you attack. So I see no reason why you should not hold your hand or tail when using Arcane Pool.

As for flaming etc, I know of no rules that forbid applying flaming or other enhancements to unarmed strike or natutal attack, please point me to those if you do.
It's just not done with Craft Magical Weapon, because it is not a masterwork item, but instead with e.g. the amulet. But the fact that the magus can enchant something on the fly that could not be enchanted before is no reason that he CAN'T actually enchant that. For example, the magus can use Arcane Pool on a non-masterwork weapon, which could not be enhanced by Craft Magic Arms & Armor. So why not an unarmed strike? Both are weapons.

Sure, some combinations are nonsensical (dancing unarmed strike), but I can find nonsensical combinatons with regular weapons, too, like a dancing shield spike or armor spike or gauntlet (or a flaming water pistol...). That should not invalidate the whole concept.

For those that say unarmed strike cannot be used with Arcane Pool, would you disallow that for a monks unarmed strike as well? That is pretty explicitely designed to be handled like a normal weapon, e.g. "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

kortzen wrote:
You get the AoO but it AoO occurs just before the Creature goes to the ground...hence you can not use it to wipe it prone afterwards :/

If that was true, then the Greater Trip AoO from a regular trip would happen before the enemy is prone, too, meaning I wouldn't get the +4 against a prone enemy... It is not my understanding that that is so.

In my understanding, I make the trip (whether normal or dragoncatch-guisarme), the trip concequences are applied, and then the Greater Trip AoO is done.

OK, so you guys think the opponent has fallen to the grpound, but is not prone.

Logical follow-up questions:
- Does this kind of trip produce an AoO if I have Greater Trip? I guess so: (Greater Trip: "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that
opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.")

- Since he has fallen to the ground, he shouldn't be flying any more. So can I use that AoO to trip him regularily now?

- If I do, does he provoke a new AoO from Greater Trip, provided I have Combat Reflexes?

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Dragoncatch Guisarme : "A dragoncatch guisarme can be used to make a special trip maneuver against creatures using wings to fly. If the maneuver succeeds, the target's wings are fouled and the creature is knocked off balance, falling to the ground and gaining the entangled condition."

My question: If I trip a winged flying opponents hovering in front of me 5 feet off the ground with a dragoncatch guisarme, is he prone and entangled, or upright and entangled? Asked differently, is the entangled condition bestowed instead of the prone condition of a regular trip, or in addition to it?

blahpers wrote:
The best confirmation that I know of is that you can mix any kind of attacks in a full attack and that you can pick your targets as each attack resolves. If the GM claims that you have to finish your full attack after the first two attacks, . . . touch yourself.

Oh great. Now the thread will be moved to the mature forum...

Slazz wrote:
2: If you take a Vestigial Arm can that arm being free allow Spell combat while using a Two-handed Weapon.

Per the FAQ (, you can only use a light or one-handed melee weapon, with spell combat, and can not attack with additional limbs or attacks. So the other two arms won't help you in spell combat, except maybe giving you a choice of which weapin to attack with.

If you allow 3rd party products, the "Advanced Feats - Might of the Magus" books has feats that allow two-handed spell combat. The book is nicely balanced for a third-party product, I'd say, but your DM has to allow it, it is not core Pathfinder.

Krigare wrote:

On a somewhat related note, even though they are not the best type of weapon for a magus to use, how would metamagic rods, spell strike, and cesti work together?

Since you can still use the hand your wearing a cestus on, could you have a metamagic rod in it, have the other hand free, cast your spell and then punch with the cestus using spell strike?

Not in one round. You can cast the spell in one round with the rod, then attack the next round using the cestus. The same is possible with unarmed strike, natural attacks, armor spikes and a few other weapons.

1) Correct.

2) No official ruling whether an unarmed strike, monk unarmed strike or natural weapon counts as a held weapon has been published.

3) Arcane pool does bypass DR, there is nothing implying otherwise. Magic Weapon is a special case, Arcana Pool does not reference it and thus isn't affected.

4) You can use an unarmed strike or claw or slam as your light melee weapon in spell combat, but you cannot use other attacks in addition to that (and the spell), as per the FAQ:
"Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?

You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 04/05/13

So your bite and second claw would be useless in spell combat, as would be armor spikes, prehensile hair, talons, horns or whatever other additional attacks you can get e.g. with polymorph spells. So if you plan to primarily use spell combat, lizardman may not be the perfect race. If you only spell combat one or two rounds to get your buffs up and then full-attack, it's an option.
Keep in mind the alternative, build-wise: Play any race and cast Alter Self to take lizardman or even better troglodyte form. Trog has all attacks as primary, so you need no multiattack except when using a manufactured weapon.

Belryan wrote:
I can't seem to find agreement anywhere on this subject

It may seem counterintuitive, but the rules seem to differentialte between touching someone and being touched by someone. Because the rules for touch spells are silent on what happens when someone touches you, expect nothing to happen then. Spells that damage those that hit you, e.g. fire shield, tell you so.

So, in order to discharge a touch spell, you have to act yourself, either by attacking with a touch attack or unarmed Strike/natural attack, or by grabbing something.

Lots of other scenarios are imaginable, but the rules do not mention them, so ignore them. An example: If you told the DM that you actively touch the ground, your touch spell charge would discharge. However, standing on the ground does not discharge the spell. Kicking an opponent does, however. If the ground was an enemy and you kicked him with an unarmed strike or talon if you had one, the spell would discharge, although standing on the same ground is exactly the same, but would not discharge the spell. So you can either go the complicated way and try to reason through an increasingly complex system of what constitutes touching, or just go by the rules and ignore the "imagine-it-was-real-life" thoughts. Rules say, the spell discharges when you either attack or actively touch something. Not when you fall prone or stand up, not when you swim, not when you ride a horse. Your DM is free to say when it does count (climbing might be touching something for some DMs, although walking isn't...), that's his right as the DM, although fairness would demand that he allows you to undo the action then, seeing that your spellcaster would know that this action discharges the spell. But otherwise, go the easy route.

blahpers wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

Pahd-ahble, poe-dubble, . . .

. . . Eh, let's call the whole thing off.

I'd expect there is already a monster called "off" somewhere, so that's not a good naming choice. Poddoble is better.

1 to 50 of 115 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>