merpius's page

Thanks for the full analysis. That was informative. Makes more sense to me now.

The cantrip one makes some sense: original level of the spell is 0, so being dazed for 0 rounds means not being dazed. Not that it isn't legal, it is just that you're using a 3rd level slot to cast a cantrip with no additional effect.

Not sure how produce flame or fire wall are "not legal", however.

If what you are saying is true, then those class abilities are nearly completely useless; even a plain +1 weapon has a requirement of Craft Magic Arms and Armor. If the fighter or occultist needs to meet crafting requirements (and, since we're talkign RAW here, they must either meet all of them or none of them; anythign else woudl DEFINITELY require special language to account for it), then they need that as well as a caster level. The only way to apply the construction requirement of "creator must have the chosen combat feat and its prerequisites" is to also apply the requirement that they have Craft Magic Arms and Armor and have the spell magic weapon.

I do not believe that is how it works; the RAW do not specify any of that at all, nor do they imply it, as they do not mention any sort of crafting or construction at all. Imbuing is different.

So, given that I believe they do not need to meet the construction requirements in order to imbue a weapon special ability, I believe that applies to all available weapon special abilities. Thus, the only (RAW) limit on the feat imbued with Training would be that it must be a combat feat. In theory it could even be a combat feat that the imbuer could not benefit from, because they do not meet the prerequisities. They are unlikely to do that, but it does look RAW.

I think you are making a typical mistake of attempting to apply "common sense" or "game balance" to RAW; they do not apply. In this case it is worth remembering that there is no reason at all to need to answer "how is the feat chosen and where does it come from?" At least the latter part; obviously the feat is chosen by the imbuer, but where does it come from? Magic, this is magic.

Ah, well I see the quandry. A swarm is a single target, even if it isn't a single creature, so I still think it should work. But it may suffer from table variation, since it isn't completely straightforward.

For #3, yes, the weapon cord would prevent the weapon from flying away.

for #1 & #2 I'm not sure it is precisely RAW, but they probably intended that you use the Thrown Splash Weapon "missed the target" rules. If so, then it would be a d8, with 1 indicating towards the disarmer. Since Greater Disarm specifies a distance in feet, I would use that as if it were movement; so, if it is on a diagonal it would move 2 squares away (so they still couldn't simply 5 ft step and be on the square); if it is one of the straigth directions it would be 3 squares.

It is worth noting, however, that none of my answer for #1 & #2 is strictly RAW; it would be RAI at best. Perhaps someone else has a citation that doesn't require making a jump to a "similar" situation.

Yes; natural attacks are weapons, and this doesn't specify "weapons held" or "manufactured weapons."

Getting the subtype gives you the race; it is a one way gate. If you have the subtype you are the race, so you "are treated as that race." The reverse, however is not true; just because you are "treated as the race" doesn't mean that you have the subtype.

That's because (in Pathfinder) the race is defined by the subtype, not the other way around.

That said, for game-balance reasons, a GM may choose to go against the RAW on this and disallow the 20th level manifestations of powers until the character is actually 20th level.

I know I'm going against popular opinion here, but I think, pure RAW, Confused Peon is right. Here's why;

* Each arcane school gives the wizard a number of school powers. These are then listed with a name and a type (Resistance (Ex) for example) - if you're identifing certain particular sentences within each of these as seperate "powers" then you'd need a name for that power; can you identify such a seperate name?
* The mythic school ability specifically references not gaining access to powers, but any you do have access to advancing as per the increased level.
* The listings of the powers sometimes indicate an advancement based on some regular level incriment, but often also indicate advancement at specific levels.
* The ones that list something different happening at 20th level do not indicate that this is a "new" power, but, just like things that happen at other specific levels, indicate that it is a new capability of the power.

Looking, for example, at Abjurations "Resistance" power; it starts at 5. But if we ignore anything that isn't a periodic increase, it would never increase. Instead, you get set level increases at level 11 and 20; to Resist 10, then to Immunity. By the reading that the others have given, the +4 levels would not apply to the 11th level capability either; since it is at a specific level (that happens to not be 20th, in this case), you would have to wait until your actual level was 11th. I'm certain that is not RAI, and pretty sure it isn't RAW either.

If these 20th level (or other) capabilities were listed as seperate powers, then (obviously) you would not gain them.

Modify Memory makes a permanent (not instant, though, so it can be dispelled) modification to up to 5 minutes of the target's memory.

From the above: the RAW difference is that you take a -4 to hit with a lethal weapon if you are trying to deal non-lethal damage with it (ex. using the flat of the blade to deal nonlethal damage).

Explaining how it works is an exercise for the GM and will encounter infinite table variation; it isn't a matter of rules, it is a matter of fluff.

If you'd like an example of how it could be explained away for creatures that are non-solid; pushing the substance of their bodies around (and the subsequent reforming of that substance) is exhuasting for those creatures, thus it can eventually knock them unconcious, even though it generally does no lasting harm.

The inverse situation to what he is saying would, however, allow them to be used; if Skald has specifically called out in particular performances that those performances could be used with battle dance, then they could. I believe that is born_of_fire's point; they could have, when they made skald, had some/all/whatever of that stuff work with battle dance. But they didn't.

Unless there is something specific, the non-existant specific doesn't trump the real, printed, general. ;) (you know, if you want a really confusing way to say it).

Oh, I missed that the OP asked abotu the caster as well. YEah, definitely any reading should, almost certainly, exclude the caster as having to be under the weight limit... otherwise too many creatures with invi as a SLA are broken.

The FAQ regarding Augment Summoning indicates that it applies for SLAs; the wording in Augment Summoning is "Each creature you conjure with any summon spell gains a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and Constitution for the duration of the spell that summoned it."

So, using the word "spell" isn't, inherently, an indicator against using it with an SLA. If that is the whole of your resistance to it, then let the FAQ for Augment Summoning dispell that resistance.

Hmm, I believe the reason metamagic doesn't work with SLAs is that SLAs don't utilize spell levels or slots, so you can't manipulate the spell slot used. Basically everything else that works with spells works with SLAs.

As for casting, you do cast an SLA; it draws attacks of opportunity and can require a concentration check. The terminology used is also casting. I would suspect that these abilities work with Dragon Form, assuming you can get them and Dragon Disciple.

Yes, specific body part for PART OF WHAT IT DOES. I agree. For the bonus, however, it does not tie it to the body part.

If you want the fluff explanation of why this is; when you do a "whole body" grapple (ie, a normal grapple) you are using all of your limbs, including any that happen to have the grab ability attached to them, so you get the grab bonus. There are possibly other fluff explanations. But fluff has nothign to do with RAW. RAW is that the bonus goes to all grapple checks made to initiate or maintain a grapple by that create, regardless of the specifics of those grapple checks.

So, to answer your specific questions:

If the body part doesn't matter why it saying that you have to hit with an indicated attack?

Because you get to make a free grapple check if you hit with that attack. Furthermore, you may use just that limb (as opposed to the whole body method) to grapple, albeit at a -20 penalty.

This has nothing to do with (and is in an entirely seperate paragraph from) the general +4 bonus to grappling that the grab ability gives the creature.

Also if it doesn't matter then why does it say to use the part of the body it used in the grab?

Because that sentence is specifically referring to when you choose to use the option to grapple just with a single limb, as opposed to the other option (which you also quoted) to conduct the grapple in the normal manner (ie full body grapple).

Are you saying that if a monster has grab on the tentacles, but not the bite that it can use the bite to start a grapple as a free action?

No; they only get the free grapple attempt when attacking with the limbs that have the grab associated. If they, somehow, were able to grapple with just the bite attack (without having the grab ability on the bite attack) then they would still get the +4 bonus to grapple checks on that attempt, since that bonus applies to all grapple checks to initiate and maintain a grapple.

Note that the ability to grapple with a single limb is uncommon outside the grab ability, and the grab ability is tied to a limb (or limbs) for the purpose of determining which natural attacks get the free attempt as well as which ones are able to do the limb-specific grapple.

Are you saying that if a monster uses a tentacle with the grab ability, that it still gets benefit of grab, which is the +4 even if it does not use that tentacle to maintain the grab?

Yes; if they have the grab ability, it gives specific benefits to the limb/natural attack it is tied to, but also gives a general +4 bonus to grappling (for initiating and maintaining a grapple, specifically) to the creature, regardless of what/how they are grappling.

If so then why does it say "use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent." if you don't have to use that body part?

The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally

. The normal way of conducting a grapple is a "whole body" grapple, wherin the initator also gains the grapple condition if it is successful.

So, a creature with the grab ability on one or more of its attacks gets the following benefits:

• A general bonus of +4 to all attempts ot iniate and maintain grapples.
  
• A free attempt to grapple if they successfully hit with an attack associated with the grab ability (with caveats about size).
  
• The option, when conducting the free attempt to grapple, to restrict that grapple to using only the limb that granted the free attempt; in this case they take a -20 penalty, BUT only that limb gains the grappled codnition, rather than their whole body.
  

As for secondary attacks always taking -5: I agree they don't always. If a creature has multiattack, they only take a -2 (see the Octopus, Giant listing). If they only have 1 form of attack, that form is treated as a primary form of attack, not secondary (see all the jellyfish and other listings in your post above).

But that has nothing to do with the calculated CMB, which will always be based on full BAB, since it doesn't take weapon modifiers into account.

1. He suffers the normal penalties unless he has a feat or something else that allows him to avoid them.

2. RAW there's no reason to answer this, but if you want a possibly fluff reason; because, due to the difficulty of the terrain it requires him to move slower in order to avoid making tracks/traces.

3. Yes, if he doesn't have soemthing that helps him avoid making such checks, he still needs to make them.

Obviously such a ranger would probably prioritize boots of the winterland, since they are clearly planning on being in snow a lot.

Looking at the wording of the feat, I think RAW, False Focus would work even for optional material components.

That's RAW, though; RAI/table rules/GM allowance and game balance all pull strongly in the other direction; it creates a lot of loopholes (as demonstrated). In that sense, despite what RAW says, the GM shouldn't allow it.

I know this is a necro, but I was curious about this and came across this thread. This made me realize that "extraplanar" is ALSO a subtype.

If "evil" or "good" is expansive and problematic.... how about "extraplanar"? I'm going to hit the FAQ button as well. Though I'm pretty sure even the most RAW of GMs would not allow Alignment, or, worse, Extraplanar subtypes to be selected. I'd hope.