highbad's page

highbad wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Which is why it is fortunate that your mount is the one charging, not you.

True. But the intention of the rule seems to be that a charge grants a bonus only to melee attacks, and since the mounted charge rule as written doesn't expressly grant the option of a ranged attack, then RAI I'd extend the melee restriction to attacks made by riders. Kind of surprising there's not been an FAQ on this.

You don't get any charge bonus when using a ranged weapon from the back of a mount. If you look at the Mounted Combat rules, the charge bonuses are only given to melee attacks made at the end of a charge.

Ranged attacks are made from the middle of your mount's movement.

It sounds like we're on the same page, but we've taken different routes to get there.

The Mounted Combat rules say:

If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge.

They don't explicitly say it has to be melee. But the normal charge rules do say that.

The rules go on to say...

You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move [...] .

Technically, a charge isn't a double move; it's a full-round action that includes a creature moving at up to twice its speed. The ranged mounted combat rule is poorly worded, as it's clearly intended to provide penalties based on the speed at which the mount is moving, and not the type of action it's taking.

Which is why it is fortunate that your mount is the one charging, not you.

True. But the intention of the rule seems to be that a charge grants a bonus only to melee attacks, and since the mounted charge rule as written doesn't expressly grant the option of a ranged attack, then RAI I'd extend the melee restriction to attacks made by riders. Kind of surprising there's not been an FAQ on this.

Tom S 820 wrote:

Get up from prone is movement. So both grace and Mobility work.

Tell me how you would get up from prone with out moving?

The same way you retrieve a stored item without "moving" or draw a weapon without "moving" or attack without "moving" or cast a somatic spell without "moving".

Right. Movement is a type of move action that involves moving from one square to another. This includes moving by foot, swimming, climbing, crawling and flying. Any other move action is not movement.

You could use Rogue Crawl to make a 5' step away from the adjacent foe, then use Stand Up as a free action. However, because you used a 5' step, you may not move that round. I cannot remember if you simply cannot move after a 5' step, or cannot use a move action period. You will still have your standard action left.

A 5-foot step precludes only movement, not move actions. Your proposed tactic is a good one.

1.) When the mount is charging your attack occurs at the end of the charge. It is not specified that it must be a melee attack, as long as the attack occurs at the end of the charge. Which is usually a bad thing for archers (without point blank master).

Actually...

Attacking on a Charge

After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

There are no ranged attacks as part of a charge.

3. If my tiger (or myself while on the tiger) plows someone to the ground via overrun, and I had the "Vicious Stomp" feat, could I take that attack of opportunity? What if my mount did as well, would viciously stomping someone's face stack with trampling them to death?

Technically yes, but a GM may rule that the prone foe is out of range of your stomp attack, unless your mount is so short that your feet nearly reach the ground. As a medium creature, I'd think a tiger is a gray-area case.

I would rule it as no, even though dex damage applies a penalty rather than change a stat.

Ability damage does affect the stat, not the modifier directly. But since DEX isn't applied in this case, it has no effect. As Nefreet wrote, CHA damage would lower AC and Reflex.

I heard that an AoO doesn't provoke an AoO but never found the ruling.

RAW an action like trip or disarm always provokes an AoO, even when taken as an AoO. Keep in mind, though, that the usual per-round limits on AoO still apply, so it's not possible to end up with an infinite chain of AoOs.

That said, I personally think this is a little unrealistic, and the target of an AoO shouldn't get to make an AoO in response, since they're initiating an action and would be focused on that. So I would houserule against it.

Everything else you wrote looks right to me.

"The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by such spells without forcing the caster to make a caster level check."

This is a 3.5 passage, not PF, but it's functionally equivalent. The term "harmless" actually has no mechanical effect on saves or SR, it's just a handy tip that usually the target is willing, the GM shouldn't ask for a save, and the target may want to lower SR if able.

A save represents something the creature does when they choose to actively resist a spell. Spell resistance is a passive barrier against all magic that is always there (unless the creature decides otherwise), which the caster must actively overcome.

Spell Resistance is supposed to function like AC, and you can think of it as a special kind of armor. If a creature is the willing target of a non-magical attack, they can stand still and receive the blow, but the attacker must still beat their flat-footed AC. Or the target can spend the actions to remove the armor and further lower the AC.

No one ever said Spell Resistance was supposed to be a wholly beneficial ability.

Also have a look at this older thread on the same subject.

A double weapon only counts as a one-handed and light weapon for TWF penalties, not general purposes.

The rule does not say that the off-hand attack is treated as a light weapon in all ways. It only says that it's treated as a light weapon for the purpose of the two-weapon combat penalties.

Kazaan and RainyDayNinja are correct. The offhand end of a double weapon is not a light weapon; it just gets the same penalties that a light weapon gets when two-weapon fighting. A double weapon is always a double weapon, and its type never changes.

If you're desperate for that DEX bonus, see if you can work with your GM to develop a homebrew feat. Something like...

Staff Spinner (Combat)
You are adept with a staff and can spin and twirl it with deadly effect.
Benefit: When wielding a quarterstaff or bo staff made for your size as a double weapon, you may use your Dexterity modifier in place of your Strength modifier on attack rolls made with both ends. You still use your Strength modifier when wielding the staff as a two-handed weapon (or one-handed, if you have the Quarterstaff Master feat).

The footnote to the Actions During Combat table says:

Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity.

Charge says it's a full round action, and includes movement as part of that action, so the footnote implies that the movement shouldn't provoke.

But look at this ability from the Shining Knight paladin archtype:

Knight’s Charge (Su)
At 11th level, whenever a mounted shining knight charges a foe, her movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, for either her or her mount.

...which implies that the movement part of a charge would normally provoke.

My best guess as to why it's written that way on the table is because many special attacks and combat maneuvers do provoke an AoO from the target. The attack during a charge doesn't. The table is referring only to the attack portion of the charge, and assumes the movement portion is covered by the footnote, but does a poor job of making this apparent.

The other problem is that the table implies that a combat maneuver made as part of a charge wouldn't provoke, which isn't true.

I suppose that's it then. Sure it's 3 years old, but its still PF and not 3.5. The ability to hold something while using a light shield translates to also being able to make somatic components with that hand.

Of course, when that post was made, the rules for bucklers didn't include the line about using somatic components - it was just the line about using a weapon that was carried over from 3.5. When you combine this post with the current wording for bucklers (from Ultimate Equipment), it makes them inferior to light shields in every way for casters, which seems pretty backwards.

Aiding another works as though you were performing the action yourself, except the DC/AC is always 10.

When you aid another in combat, you make an attack roll with a melee weapon you're wielding, so you apply all the bonuses you usually apply when making an attack with that weapon.

When you aid another in a skill check, you make a skill check roll and use your normal bonuses to that skill.

Aid another can also be used against spell effects, although as far as I know there's been no clarification on how that works. My best guess is that you would roll the same save as an ally who is about to roll a save to break the effect.

Regarding Scout's Charge, I think it does remove the dex bonus. "as if the target were flat-footed" seems to me that for that attack all rules for flat-footed apply.

The full clause is, "[...] her attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target were flat-footed."

So the condition is only applied to the damage roll, not the attack roll. I think it would probably have more general language if the intent was to deny the dex bonus to AC, or specifically state that.

Piggybacking on this thread since it's a similar question...

Where do you draw the vertical limits for the favored community? Would a natural cave beneath the city count? Or a manmade one? A smuggler's tunnel? If there's a 100-foot-deep lake in the community, does the U.R. still get their bonus if they're swimming at the bottom of it?

How about up above? If you're riding a griffon 20 feet off the ground, are you still in the community? How about at 100 feet? How about in an airship at 2000 feet?

The latter. The feats you get from character advancement aren't tied in any way to your class levels, only to your character level (i.e. the sum of all your class levels). So you'd get a bonus feat from that level of Fighter, but your character level would be 8 so you'd get the +1 to an ability score at that level.

Note that, because Monk requires any lawful and Druid requires any neutral alignment, you'll either have to be Lawful Neutral or shift alignment and possibly become an ex-monk when you become a Druid.

You become disabled from dropping below 0 hitpoints.

SRD: "A character with 0 hit points, or one who has negative hit points but has become stable and conscious, is disabled."

You can become staggered from spells, special abilities or from having non lethal damage equal to your current HP.

SRD: "When your current hit point total drops to exactly 0, you are disabled. You gain the staggered condition [...]."

Technically, Disabled causes you to be Staggered at the same time, so that can also go on RtrnofdMax's list of "staggering" effects.