steven_mallory's page

Even though the Items of Different Size section explicitly says “Precious materials, however, have a Price based on the Bulk of the item, so multiply the Bulk value as described on Table 6–20, then use the formula in the precious material’s entry to determine the item’s Price”?

If it were just straight x2, why bother including that note at all?

So how does that interact? If the giant instinct barbarian wants a Large low grade cold iron weapon for a weapon that ordinarily has 2 Bulk, a Medium weapon of that sort would cost 48 GP (40 + 4 * 2 Bulk).

Does the Large version cost 96 GP (double), or based on that line in Items of different size, 56 GP (40 + 4 * 4 Bulk after doubling for Large size)?

Trying to figure the costs and determine whether it makes more sense to just carry silversheen (3gp) and cold iron blanch (10gp, 140gp after you want to improve your weapon to +2 at level 10).

Rule sections:

Under Giant Instinct, Core Rulebook page 87:
“Titan Mauler (Instinct Ability)
You can use a weapon built for a Large creature if you are Small or Medium (both normally and when raging). If you're not Small or Medium, you can use a weapon built for a creature one size larger than you. You gain access to this larger weapon, which can be of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation. It has the normal Price and Bulk for a weapon of its size.”

Under Items of Different Sizes, Core Rulebook page 295:
“Creatures of sizes other than Small or Medium need items appropriate to their size. These items have different Bulk and possibly a different Price. Table 6–20 provides the Price and Bulk conversion for such items.

For example, a morningstar sized for a Medium creature has a Price of 1 gp and 1 Bulk, so one made for a Huge creature has a Price of 4 gp and 4 Bulk. One made for a Tiny creature still costs 1 gp (due to its intricacy) and has 1/2 Bulk, which rounds down to light Bulk.

Because the way that a creature treats Bulk and the Bulk of gear sized for it scale the same way, Tiny or Large (or larger) creatures can usually wear and carry about the same amount of appropriately sized gear as a Medium creature.

Higher-level magic items that cost significantly more than 8 times the cost of a mundane item can use their listed Price regardless of size.

[EMPHASIS] Precious materials, however, have a Price based on the Bulk of the item, so multiply the Bulk value as described on Table 6–20, then use the formula in the precious material’s entry to determine the item’s Price. See page 578 for more information. [END EMPHASIS]

Table 6-20: Differently Sized Objects
Creature Size Price Bulk Light Becomes Negligible Becomes
Tiny Standard Half* — —
Small or Med. Standard Standard L —
Large x2 x2 1 Bulk L
Huge x4 x4 2 Bulk 1 Bulk
Gargantuan x8 x8 4 Bulk 2 Bulk
* An item that would have its Bulk reduced below 1 has light Bulk.”

Then finally, under Cold Iron Weapons, Core Rulebook, page 599:
“Iron
PFS Standard
Cold Iron Weapon (Low-Grade)
Item 2

Source Core Rulebook pg. 599 4.0
Price 40 gp (+4 gp per Bulk)
Craft Requirements at least 20 sp of cold iron + 2 sp per Bulk
PFS Standard
Cold Iron Weapon (Standard-Grade)
Item 10

Source Core Rulebook pg. 599 4.0
Price 880 gp (+88 gp per Bulk)
Craft Requirements at least 110 gp of cold iron + 11 gp per Bulk
PFS Standard
Cold Iron Weapon (High-Grade)
Item 16

Source Core Rulebook pg. 599 4.0
Price 9,000 gp (+900 gp per Bulk)
Craft Requirements at least 4,500 gp of cold iron + 450 gp per Bulk”

Great story, charming narrative connective tissue, and the artwork is excellent. That said, mechanically it's very heavy on the skill check challenges, and among the skill check challenges, its specifically VERY heavily weighted towards the Charisma-based skill checks. Make sure you bring multiple face characters if you can.

Any chance, uh, "Mr. G" will become a recurring NPC? The party and character I played this with had a rather... "interesting" interaction with him, and I'd be delighted to see him pop up again if the overall campaign's reporting conditions for the scenario determine that he's canonically able to do so. :)

Not finding a clear answer on first pass through the rulebook, so I'm hoping to confirm my instinct on how to handle a certain fiend's special ability. Everybody's best friend the Barbazu/Bearded Devil has the following ability:

Infernal Wound (divine, necromancy) A bearded devil’s glaive Strike also deals 1d6 persistent bleed damage that resists attempts to heal it. The flat check to stop the bleeding starts at DC 20. The DC is reduced to 15 only if the bleeding creature or an ally successfully assists with the recovery. The DC to Administer First Aid to a creature with an infernal wound is increased by 5. A spellcaster or item attempting to use healing magic on a creature suffering from an infernal wound must succeed at a DC 21 counteract check or the magic fails to heal the creature.

Nasty, but fairly straight forward. The question(s) I'm looking for clarity on: how do healing potions and/or elixirs of life interact with said ability? Spellcasters attempting to use healing magic on someone suffering from an Infernal Wound have to make a DC 21 counteract check.

1) Since a healing potion is magical healing, does it also have to make a DC 21 counteract check?

2) If yes (my assumption is yes), is the potion's counteract check modifier derived by looking at the item level, taking the standard DC for that level (DC 15 for a Level 1 Minor Healing Potion, DC 18 for a Level 3 Lesser Healing Potion, etc.) and subtracting 10 to get a modifier (+5 for a Minor Healing Potion, +8 for a Lesser Healing Potion, etc.)?

3) Elixirs of Life don't have the magical trait like a Healing Potion does, so should they be treated the same way vis-a-vis an Infernal Wound? I'd inclined to think yes, as there's no neat/consistent way to treat it like mundane First Aid.

4) Finally, just to nail it down, the requirement for counteract checks and increased DC healing stops after the persistent bleed does, right? The alternative being that the PCs need to heal all the damage caused by the infernal wound(s) before they can heal freely again. That'd not only be potentially brutal for the players, but would also be a PITA for the GM to have to try and track what damage was the result of an Infernal Wound and which wasn't, and then argue whether the Infernal Wound damage has to be healed first before non-Infernal Wound damage can be healed (like an old Laurel & Hardy bit regarding the bottom half of a milkshake), or if they've just a got a pool of damage from a nasty wound that sticks around after their other wounds heal if they can't make a successful counteract check.

Thoughts?

Prepping to run this a bunch of times at PaizoCon, and I'm trying to figure out the intent of one of the replayability modification options.

For task #2, option #4 at low-tier gives one of the creatures you're fighting a shield as an item, and under the shield lists:

"Raise a Shield [reaction]"

Since Raise a Shield is usually a single action that anyone with a shield can take, and there's no trigger listed here, is this meant to be:

a) The Reactive Shield feat/ability, which is a reaction triggered by an enemy hitting you with a melee Strike while you're wielding a shield, which is functionally the equivalent of "Raise a Shield" as a reaction

b) The Shield Block feat/ability, which is a reaction triggered by you taking physical damage while your shield is raised

c) something else I'm not thinking of/aware of?

The Dwarven Ancestry feat "Defy the Darkness" is listed as limited access for PFS. Anyone know where/how access can be gained? There don't seem to be any hints in the APG itself, and I don't think I've seen it on a chronicle sheet up to this point.

Is the table minimum for this currently set at 5? Or less? Just trying to plan/organize for a local convention later this year.

Looking for something official, not sure if it exists, as I don't recall seeing it, and Google Fu has come up dry thus far.

With the exception of some things like wall spells, the vertical height of a lot of area spells is left ambiguous. At lower levels, when most creatures and characters in a combat are on the ground, this isn't really an issue. But the higher level play goes, the more things like flying and weird terrain come up that make the question relevant. So for the two most frequently types of area effects, the question would be:

Radius effects: do we treat the radius measurement as good for all 3 dimensions? A fireball centered at ground level would be a 20' radius hemisphere, while one centered 20' in the air would be a full 20' radius globe, with the vertical topography resembling the 2D contours of the area? Or is it simply a 20' radius area with a 5' height?

Cone effects: do we treat the cone as expanding outward in the same fashion on the vertical axis as on the horizontal, so a 15' color spray is 5' high adjacent to the caster, but 15' high in its most distant squares? Or is it just a 5' high cone throughout the whole 15' horizontal area?

My own thoughts:

• The 'risk' is you could roll 'snake eyes' on your bonus 2d8 for a crit and an 8 on the damage die, meaning you end up doing less healing than you normally would have. In fact, below level 6 you could possibly end up doing more damage than healing (granted, this is really unlikely, but if you roll all ones on your healing and an 8 on the damage, your patient nets a 4 HP loss).
• Using Assurance generally means you are using a sub-par Treat Wounds since you can't auto-succeed on the Expert version until level 6, the Master version until level 14, and the Legendary version until level 22 (a.k.a. never).
• At a certain point, our GM just hand-waived away the actual checks/rolls anyway since it no longer added anything to the game (whether it took 3 checks or 4 to get the party to full didn't really matter).
• Note that this feat specifically works with Treat Wounds but not Battle Medicine.
• As for this only being 'one feat' I think it is more accurate to call it 'one more feat' since being a decent healer already calls for Assurance, Continual Recovery, Ward Medic, and probably Battle Medicine, which means adding Risky Surgery will probably mean you have spent half your skill feats on this (assuming you are not a rogue/investigator), or slightly less than half if your background gives you one of these. This is not a small investment for most classes...

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that assurance still counts as 'rolled' for feats like this because otherwise, it really wouldn't work with anything in the game. Of course, I haven't seen anything from the developers to clarify their intent on this...

Crunching the actual numbers, yes, the odds of doing more harm than healing in total on a success if you're shooting for DC 15 (once you're shooting for DC 20+ there's literally no chance, and that can start as early as Level 2 for Rogues and Level 3 for anyone else) are literally less than 0.2%. The odds of your 1d8 doing more damage than the extra 2d8 you'd be getting by turning a success into a critical success is just under 11%. Probability wise, the risk and reward aren't so much in the ~83.6% chance of improving on the amount of healing you get on a success, it's in increasing your odds of turning a failure (that is, not getting a success at all) into a critical success.

If you add Assurance into the mix, there is literally no chance of failure (unless the player is math challenged enough that adding 10 to their proficiency modifier and determining which DC level it meets or exceeds is a struggle). At that point the only thing remaining is the ~83.6% chance of increasing the amount of healing you're dishing out vs. the ~10.9% chance of decreasing it. I'm not a medical professional, and I know there are risks in any and all surgical procedures - anyone out there know whether a procedure with an over 80% chance of making the patient better, an 11% chance of making the patient worse, and virtually no chance of causing fatal complications constitutes "risky" surgery? ;)

Personally I agree with Gary that the two things seem very counter-intuitive when put together, and therefore shouldn't be. Blave, I'm not trying to argue that it's game-breaking in the power level of the benefit it provides (the feats you mentioned can be amusing to watch when they make a 3rd level Rogue a more effective out-of-combat healer than a 3rd level Cleric), and 4.5 extra healing is indeed a drop in the bucket at higher levels (though we all know that those drops sometimes make all the difference). That said, the fact that a particular hunk of cheese is small doesn't mean it shouldn't still be counted as a member of the dairy food group. ;)

I'd say some of this is on those members of the 2nd edition design team who decided that wands of Cure Light Wounds were the scourge of the Pathfinder universe in 1st edition. Their effort to make healing more scarce has made Medicine the Perception skill of 2nd edition, made Battle Medicine almost ubiquitous as a 2nd level skill feat choice, and has left players looking for any edge they can get in terms of being able to successfully dish out healing-on-demand to themselves and their fellow party members, even if they're not a Cleric or Bard, and even if their Wisdom is on the low side. Assurance allows you to play the numbers game in a way that takes out any anxiety or uncertainty, and then people look to build out the power of their guaranteed healing from there, even if the build-outs don't make the most sense, or end up triggering semantic debates like this one.

Assurance Feat 1

Fortune, General, Skill
Source Core Rulebook pg. 258 2.0
Prerequisites trained in at least one skill
Even in the worst circumstances, you can perform basic tasks. Choose a skill you’re trained in. You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus (do not apply any other bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).

Risky Surgery Feat 1

General, Skill
Source Advanced Player's Guide pg. 208
Prerequisites trained in Medicine
Your surgery can bring a patient back from the brink of death, but might push them over the edge. When you Treat Wounds, you can deal 1d8 slashing damage to your patient just before applying the effects of Treat Wounds. If you do, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your Medicine check to Treat Wounds, and if you roll a success, you get a critical success instead.

I've had a couple people bring this tactic to a table, and while I've allowed it so far as a GM, I'm not at all keen on it. Both mechanically and fluff-wise the two things seem at odds with each other.

Yes, there is some risk with Risky Surgery that you'll put the patient into the dying condition if they have 8hp or less (but since this is Treat Wounds rather than Battle Medicine, its a pretty minor risk, as the implication is that you're doing this while you're out of danger from enemies and have plenty of time available, and there are plenty of other ways to stabilize said patient immediately in an out-of-combat setting unless they're also wounded 3 [or 4 for the Diehard folks]).

Realistically, most of the time all you're doing is gambling 1d8 hp for a +2 to your chance to get them 4d8 healing (as any success will be a critical success). In the abstract, you're basically doubling the risks and benefits of Treat Wounds from -1d8 on critical failure, +2d8 on a success and +4d8 on a critical success to -2d8 on a critical failure, -1d8 on a normal failure, +3d8 on a success, with a roughly 10% shift in your odds towards success. We all know that in any single throw of the dice, -1d8 can end up being more than +3d8, but in aggregate, it should even out. You are quite literally, taking a risk, though a calculated one.

When using Assurance, you're not making a roll, and there's no risk involved at all - the result is known. You simply get the numeric result of 10 + your proficiency modifier (and they don't say "treat the roll as if you had rolled" they say "forgo rolling to receive a result"). If you're trying to use that in conjunction with Risky Surgery, I think everyone can agree that Risky Surgery's +2 is null and void, as Assurance explicitly says to ignore any other bonuses or penalties besides the user's proficiency modifier. But Risky Surgery also says to treat a rolled success as a critical success. You're not rolling anything - there is literally no "risk."

Mechanically it doesn't seem to jive (though we can argue over whether we're quibbling over words unnecessarily due to imprecision on the part of the writer, or if the distinction between "roll" and "get a result" is intentional). Fluff-wise if you're using Risky Surgery and Assurance together, you've literally just taken a risk in a situation where the outcome is assured. That's... I guess inane is the best word for it?

And let's be honest, if the combination is legal, its a one feat investment to increase the amount you heal with Treat Wounds, not two. Plenty of people will still take Assurance (Medicine) as a feat, even if they can't use it in conjunction with Risky Surgery. Assurance (Medicine) is still desirable without it, because players out of combat want to be sure that their Treat Wounds won't hurt their patients and/or end up being a wasted use of 10 minutes if time is a factor. And players in combat with Battle Medicine will still want it because they don't want to hurt their ally or waste a precious action in a combat situation that's dangerous enough that one or more fellow party members are either on the ground or perilously close to getting there.

Grapple, p. 200 CRB wrote:

Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.

It says: You can inflict damage to your target equal to .... or an attack made with armor spikes

As it says "or", I would say that it isn't in addition to the normal damage, but instead an alternative source of damage.

The armor spike text is unclear, so it is possible that it deals damage when you make a successful grapple check, i.e. that you can go:
grapple check -> success -> deal weapon spike damage
or
check to maintain a grapple -> successful -> deal weapon spike damage -> decide if you want to damage, pin, etc. your opponent -> if you choose to deal damage you can choose to deal the weapon spike damage.

Your strength bonus to damage will be added to the damage of the spikes.

Right, so that's the "armor spikes replace the damage done by the unarmed strike" position. If that's the case, then yes, absolutely Strength bonus would get added to damage. If the reverse position (armor spikes are additional damage on top of the unarmed strike), I'd think you wouldn't add Strength bonus to their damage, under the general rule that you don't add the same ability score modifier to the same roll more than once.

Your quote from grapple is from the part where it talks about your three options after making a successful grapple check to maintain said grapple. Would the spikes do damage on the check to initiate the grapple? Or just that specific variety check where you're maintaining the grapple and choosing to do damage instead? A similar question could be put in the direction of whether this is how Kraken style is also meant to work:

KRAKEN STYLE (Combat Feat, Style Feat) (from Melee Tactics Toolbox)

You savagely squeeze and twist when grappling.

Prerequisite(s): Wis 13, Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +3 or monk level 3rd.

Benefit: When you succeed at a grapple check while using this style, your opponent takes an amount of bludgeoning damage equal to your Wisdom modifier in addition to any damage your grapple deals, such as when you choose to harm your opponent as part of a successful check to maintain a grapple. In addition, you gain a +2 bonus on combat maneuver checks to maintain a grapple.

So is that the way spikes (and/or the feat) are intended to function? Their damage only applies on a grapple check made to maintain a grapple if you're electing to do damage as a result of that check, and it then replaces the normal damage you'd do with your unarmed strike?

The spiked armor entry is pretty wide open, as it just says that the spikes can deal damage in a grapple or as a separate attack, and then defers to the armor spikes entry for further details. The armor spikes entry calls it "extra" piercing damage rather than "instead" or "alternate" or terms like that.

I guess the question at that point would be, are the items really meant to be that niche of a use - that is, a way to get around DR X/piercing?

For your vanilla martial character, sure, armor spikes represent an upgrade, from the 1d3 non-lethal offered by their unarmed strike to 1d6 points of lethal piercing damage from the spikes. But most characters who end up grappling spend at least a feat or two on it (to avoid provoking AoOs with attempts, and to be somewhat competent at it), and more often than not the PCs who do so are brawlers and monks. For them, 1d6 lethal piercing damage in a grapple is a lateral move from 1d6 lethal or non-lethal bludgeoning damage at 1st level, with it becoming an increasing regression with every 4 levels they gain.

If all that is so, it's worth asking, who would use these things at all, except as that weird unitasker kitchen gadget break out once a year for six seconds when special company shows up (in this case, a foe with DR X/piercing)? Although to be fair, I guess when armor spikes were first introduced, brawlers weren't actually a thing yet, and monks had no way to gain access to them (as oreads with fleshgem spikes are the only workaround I can see for the monk's general prohibition on armor).

My personal preference (and that's all it is) would be to view the phrase "extra damage" in armor spikes as meaning that the extra 1d6 piercing from the spikes can be added on to the overall damage from the unarmed strike, sans any additional Strength bonuses or what not. The fluff argument for it would be that you're still doing the same thing to damage the grappled foe that you otherwise would (squeezing their head and neck, tearing their ears off, crushing their ribs, etc.), but whereas before you were simply using your arms and hands in conjunction with your torso and/or legs as the two halves of a nutcracker, now one half of that nutcracker has sharp points on it besides.

That doesn't seem terribly game-breaky, though it still leaves all those other DR totalling and enhancement interaction questions up in the air.

Having run one many moons back, as I recall, they can shapechange, but their options for doing so are strictly limited to those forms available to them as a result of using their special ability "Object of Desire."

Object of Desire (Su)

While using its detect thoughts ability, an erodaemon can see into the mind of a humanoid and identify the person the target most desires, whether it be a lost loved one or an object of lust. As a full-round action, the erodaemon can change into the form of this desired person as long as the target is a Small, Medium, or Large humanoid. The erodaemon gains a +20 bonus on its Disguise and Bluff checks to impersonate that person and avoid being detected as a fraud, but spells like true seeing negate this effect as normal. This effect ends if the erodaemon attacks any creature. Actions that could reveal the erodaemon as a fraud (such as performing an action that the imitated person would obviously not do, like cast a spell or speak Infernal) require the erodaemon to make an immediate Bluff check to continue the impersonation, with the erodaemon losing some or all of its bonus depending on the severity of the breach (GM’s discretion).

Irori have mercy - the armor spikes entry leaves all sorts of things terribly ambiguous. I've got an oread monk (tetori) who's starting to get up into the mid-levels, so the questions are becoming more relevant to damage output (especially in regards to DR as more and more monsters start to crop up with said same), so I'm hoping for a little guidance beyond what I can find in the RAW that I'm aware of. As a starting point, here are the rules for both fleshgem spikes specifically, and armor spikes more generally:

FLESHGEM (from Advanced Race Guide, page 147)

Price PFS Legal 1 gp (decorative), PFS Legal 50 gp (spikes)
Weight — (decorative), 5 lbs. (spikes)
Description
An oread adventurer discovered these small green gemstones when, after suffering a wound from falling on some jagged stones while exploring a cavern, she noticed pieces of beautiful green crystal growing from her skin. Oread jewelers found that these crystals, dubbed fleshgems, seemed to feed on the elemental energy that permeates an oread's flesh, growing from tiny chips of stone into large, elaborate gemstones. Essentially harmless, implanting fleshgems became a unique racial method of body alteration among oreads, equivalent to tattoos and piercings among other humanoids. Decorative fleshgems cost 1 gp and are merely ornamental. Fleshgem spikes, on the other hand, grow into elaborate crystalline shards that function as armor spikes, but the oread wearing them cannot wear armor over the spikes and even normal clothing requires special holes or seams to allow the spikes to stick out. Implanting a set of fleshgem spikes takes 10 minutes, and the resulting shard takes about a week to grow to full size. Removing a fleshgem takes 1 minute; the person removing the gem must make a successful DC 15 Heal check to avoid dealing 1d4 points of damage to the oread. The fleshgem spikes can be sundered or destroyed as if the growths were a worn object (hardness 1, 5 hp), but unless the embedded root of the fleshgem is removed, the shards grow back 1 week later.

ARMOR SPIKES (from Core Rulebook, Page 151 and/or Ultimate Equipment, Page 9)

Statistics
Cost +50 gp Weight +10 lbs.
Description
You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage on a successful grapple attack (see “spiked armor” on Table 1–5: Martial Weapons). The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.

SPIKED ARMOR (from Core Rulebook, Page 142, and/or Ultimate Equipment, Page 18)

Statistics
Cost +50 gp Weight special
Damage 1d4 (small), 1d6 (medium); Critical x2; Range —; Type P; Special —
Category Light; Proficiency Martial
Weapon Groups Close
Description
You can outfit your armor with spikes, which can deal damage in a grapple or as a separate attack. See the armor spikes entry on page 10 for details. Armor spikes can’t be disarmed.

Okay, so a few of the basics are clear enough. The oread monk can have spiked fleshgems embedded in her skin, and those fleshgems are treated as armor spikes, a manufactured weapon made of crystal that can be enhanced, sundered etc. But that's pretty much where the clarity stops, even looking at some old threads on the subject of armor spikes in general.

Area 1: When do/can the fleshgem/armor spikes deal damage? The entry for Armor Spikes says "on a grapple attack," and the entry for Spiked Armor says "in a grapple" (let's treat "as a separate attack as mostly irrelevant, as in most situations, most monks and brawlers of medium level or higher will prefer the damage dice of their unarmed strike to the 1d6 offered by the spikes).

1) Do the spikes do damage on the check to initiate a grapple?

1a) If yes, is Strength modifier added to this damage, since ordinarily initiating a grapple does no damage?

2) Do the spikes do damage on all checks made to maintain a grapple, including those to pin or move the target? Or just the checks made to do damage in their own right?

3) When the spikes do damage, do we simply add 1d6 on top of everything else? I've seen others previously argue that the spikes damage should replace the normal unarmed strike damage, in which case pretty much the only reason a mid-level or higher brawler or monk would ever use them would be if a creature has DR that's susceptible to piercing damage but not bludgeoning. On the other hand, I've seen others argue that since its a separate weapon added into the grapple, the character's Strength modifier should be added a second time. That seems excessive.

Area 2: Damage Totals vs. DR
Fleshgems have to be made of crystal, but more conventional spikes could be made of cold iron, alchemical silver, adamanatine, what have you, and the spikes can be enhanced like any other conventional manufactured weapon. At the same time, most grappling brawlers and monks will spring for an amulet of mighty fists at some point, which can be given enhancements other than the simple +1 to +5 (agile, flaming, holy, etc.).

4) If the spikes damage of 1d6 is added on top of everything else (as opposed to being treated as a replacement damage total for the unarmed strike's damage, or a separate, additional damage total with its own addition of the character's Strength modifier), how do we treat that for DR purposes? Is it all one pool of damage that is simultaneously both bludgeoning and piercing damage (like a morningstar)? Or are they separate, so that a creature with DR 5/bludgeoning would take full damage from the unarmed strike, but at most 1 point of damage from the spikes? Would a creature with DR 5/slashing or DR 5/- get to enjoy its DR "twice," by reducing the unarmed strike's damage by 5, and the fleshgem/armor spike's damage by 5?

5) How do the two enhancement totals interact against DR? If an amulet of mighty fists is +3 and a fleshgem/armor spike is +2, the unarmed strike part of the damage would ignore DR/cold iron or silver. Would that DR still apply against the 1d6+2 the fleshgem/armor spike is adding to the total? Or is it riding along on a damage total that already gets past the DR?

6) How do the individual enhancements of the two items interact at that point? If the amulet of mighty fists and the fleshgem spikes are both enchanted with the same enhancement that does additional damage (let's say flaming), does that add an additional 2d6 fire damage instead of 1d6? Or do they not stack in that way?

Those are the most salient points that come up at this juncture. Anyone have a line on any good RAW material that clears any of it up? Or even an instance where a developer weighed in one some of these points on a forum? (The only armor spikes related FAQ I'm aware of was back in 2013, and simply clarified that you couldn't make an off-hand attack with armor spikes in the same round you made an attack/attacks with a two-handed weapon)

If not, anyone feel strongly about one or another answer to any of those 6-7 questions to venture an argument back up by tangentially related rules, or simply a strong sense of "how things oughta be?" ;)

Looking for a good ruling on the cost of Large and larger weapons when the PCs come upon them and try to use or sell them (say, looting Large and Huge giants).

The CRB states that weapons for Large creatures cost twice the listed amount. No problem there.

What about the cost of making a Large or larger weapon masterwork? Is the 300gp cost a flat amount, or does it need to be increased (doubled to 600gp?) for a Large weapon? I've seen GMs rule this both ways.

What about the value (and sale price) of a Huge giant's adamantine greataxe that the party wants to sell off (or that their Titan Mauler Barbarian wants to enlarge himself to use)? The entry for adamantine as a special material just says +3,000gp for a weapon, it doesn't give a poundage cost, or indicate that it necessarily changes by size category. Should it be a flat 3,000gp like a Small/Medium weapon? Doubled and then doubled again for increasing by 2 size categories above Medium (so 12,000gp)? Add 3,000gp per size category increase, so +9,000gp to the cost of a Huge adamantine weapon?

I can see arguments for any/all of these interpretations, but I don't see anything definitive in the rules to point one way or another.

So here's an interesting one from a player who'll be at one of my tables for GenCon:

Tangleburn Bag (150gp)
This sack contains tanglefoot bag materials and alchemical powders that burn at a high temperature. It functions like a tanglefoot bag, plus a direct hit on a creature deals 1d6 points of fire damage, and the creature must make a DC 20 Reflex save or catch on fire. If it catches on fire, for the next 2 rounds extinguishing the flames is a DC 25 Reflex save instead of a DC 15 save, and using water to extinguish the flames creates a burst of burning material equivalent to alchemist’s fire making a direct hit on the target (including splash damage). After the initial 2 rounds, the flames may be extinguished as normal. Crafting this item is a DC 30 Craft (alchemy) check.

Said player has levels in rogue and alchemist, and has the ability to use the spell create water. When initially thrown, the tangleburn bag isn't a splash weapon, but if it's extinguished using water in the first 2 rounds, it creates a burst effect equivalent to a direct hit with an alchemist fire. You may be able to guess where this goes, but here are the questions/implications in order:

1) Will the alchemist using Create Water generate that effect? This one seems like an easy yes.

2) Since its the alchemist doing it, and it generates a splash effect, should the alchemist get the bonus damage from his Throw Anything bonus feat and class feature? Should he be able to use feats like Concentrated Splash on his target?

Create Water doesn't require any sort of touch attack, and allows you to place the water fairly precisely if you're within close range (you just can't cause the water to appear inside a creature or the like). Clearly this is cheese, but that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't work, particularly if he's willing to spend 2 turns in order to generate the effect.

Thoughts?

Searched the forums and found several threads on this subject, but none came to a definitive conclusion, whether “everyone/an overwhelming majority agree” or “a developer descends from on high and says unto the Pathfinders: ...”

Running an Eyes of the Ten table in the near future, and the party is psyched to use this as a tactic, so a definitive answer one way or the other is necessary (preferably one that doesn’t have them waffle-stomping the whole thing).

If a summoner of one kind or another brings in multiple lantern archons or hound archons, each has the following ability:

Aura of Menace (Su) A righteous aura surrounds archons that fight or get angry. Any hostile creature within a 20-foot radius of an archon must succeed on a Will save to resist its effects. The save DC varies with the type of archon, is Charisma-based, and includes a +2 racial bonus. Those who fail take a –2 penalty on attacks, AC, and saves for 24 hours or until they successfully hit the archon that generated the aura. A creature that has resisted or broken the effect cannot be affected again by the same archon’s aura for 24 hours.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/archon/

So 2 questions:

1) (probably the simpler one) Who gets nerfed? It says “any hostile creature” - the intuitive answer is “those hostile toward the archon and its allies.” But the way it’s written leaves it open to the interpretation that it’s anyone engaging in hostile actions/combat, akin to what you’d consider for a calm emotions spell. Does someone have to be specifically hostile towards a specific archon to be subject to that archon’s aura? Or specifically hostile to the summoner? Or do allies who are fighting in the area also become subject to this effect?

2) And by how much? First instinct here is to say that since the penalty is untyped, it should technically stack, and therefore since multiple auras are separate (though identical - supernatural, not spell) effects, those in the area of more than one aura should be subject to a penalty of -4, -6, etc. if they fail multiple saves.

As I’m certain the PCs preferred interpretation will result in a dozen or more archons flooding the board seeking to nerf all foes the PCs face (while slowing combat to a crawl), I’m not exactly thrilled at the prospect. However, we’re looking to run this for PFS credit, so “the rule of fun” should at least try to err in favor of “getting it right.”

Thoughts?

With 8-99D released, is this version retired? Or is it still available to be run for credit?

Okay, so I'm trying to figure out whether there's an exception to the rules, or a specific order of operations to the math to make a babau's protective slime a threat to any manufactured weapon. Here's the ability's text:

Protective Slime (Su)

A layer of acidic slime coats a babau’s skin. Any creature that strikes a babau with a natural attack or unarmed strike takes 1d8 points of acid damage from this slime if it fails a DC 18 Reflex save. A creature that strikes a babau with a melee weapon must make a DC 18 Reflex save or the weapon takes 1d8 points of acid damage; if this damage penetrates the weapon’s hardness, the weapon gains the broken condition. Ammunition that strikes a babau is automatically destroyed after it inflicts its damage.

Okay, so it does damage to natural attackers/unarmed strikers if they fail a Reflex save based on the first sentence, and automatically destroys ammunition based on the third sentence. Fair enough.

The second sentence is where there seems to be an issue of futility and useless dice rolling. At most, if the wielder of a manufactured melee weapon fails the Reflex save, their weapon has to contend with 8 points of acid damage, and if that penetrates the weapon's hardness, it gains the broken condition. Just looking at the table for damaging objects, no blade or metal-hafted object or heavy shield has anything to worry about, as they all have a hardness of 10. The remainder (non-metal-hafted weapons, light shields) have a starting hardness of 5 (they gain +2 hardness for every +1 enhancement on the item, so they frequently won't be subject to this either).

But even for that pool of manufactured weapons with a hardness of 5, we also have to consider the following rule:

Energy Attacks

Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

So, on that basis, since the 50% calculation is applied before the hardness is factored in (explicitly stated as being the correct mathematical order of operations here), the babau's protective slime is doing no more than 4 (1d8/2) acid damage to a weapon. Does this mean the text in the second sentence of the protective slime ability is just wasted words, and no one wielding a manufactured weapon has anything to worry about? Or was the intent to ignore the halving rule for this kind of ability so that it has at least a puncher's chance of doing something?

Note that it is an "opaque sheet of flame" so creatures will have 100% concealment from creatures on the other side of the wall.

Yup, tracking on the 50% miss chance due to total concealment. That was actually part of my previous post, which wondered about how to deal with the interaction of different types of miss chance - in this case the total concealment of the wall of fire, and the semi-ethereal/semi-invisible hodge-podge created by the blink spell.

I figure you could actually make a pretty nasty melee combatant using an oracle of flame this way. You don't care one bit about the fire damage for attacking through your own wall, and if you take the Gaze of Flames revelation, you can see through the wall of flames just fine. Give the wall of fire a 5' radius, and its basically akin to fire shield and invisibility in one.

Lots of fun this one! Quick question - as it'll spare me spending a couple hours going through every scenario's chronicle sheet for Seasons 6-9: anyone know where/how you can get access to the skillslot cybernetic implant (i.e. the item required to make the skillchips you find in the adventure into something useable)?

Fairly related to my last rules question/post:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/wallOfFire.html#wall -of-fire

The rules for being in proximity to a Wall of Fire or passing through it are pretty straightforward. But what about attacking through it?

Different cases would include:
1) a medium creature making a melee attack with a non-reach weapon against an enemy in the adjacent square on the other side.

2) a medium creature standing back from the wall 5’ and making a melee attack with a reach weapon against an enemy on the other side.

3) a large or larger creature attacking a foe on the other side using its natural attacks

4) a large or larger creature attacking a foe on the other side with its natural reach (i.e. a non-reach manufactured weapon)

5) a large or larger creature attacking a foe on the other side with a reach weapon

In each of these cases, would the attacker take damage once per attack, once per round, or not at all?

Ran part of a module (Ruby Phoenix, so perhaps a mild spoiler here) recently, and couldn’t find a definitive answer at the time, so I went with what I thought was a logical answer, and wanted to see if there was a more definitive answer somewhere.

The situation involved an oracle with a ring of blinking and the wall of fire spell (though there are plenty of other types of secondary concealment that could fit in the example - fog cloud, invisibility, deeper darkness, etc.) Once the caster activates the ring, they have a 20% miss chance on their own physical attacks, and a 50% miss chance for physical attacks made against them, by virtue of the fact that they’re bouncing back and forth between the material and ethereal planes (a timing question, but also partly visual, since the spell stipulates that your enemies’ miss chance goes down to 20% if they can see invisible creatures, but they get no benefit if they have the Blind Fight feat, and also points out that ethereal creatures are both invisible and incorporeal):

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/blink.html

Kinda fiddly, but all pretty workable. What happens however when a subject under blink adds a second effect with a miss chance to the effect? In this case the caster had two high level barbarians bearing down on her, so she surrounded herself with a small-radius wall of fire, pointing it outwards. The wall of fire provides total concealment, blocking line of sight, by virtue of being “opaque.” Ordinarily, attacking a foe on the other side of such a wall would be a 50% miss chance, though stuff like the Blind Fight feat or some creatures’ ability to see through flames would reduce or negate the miss chance.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/wallOfFire.html#wall -of-fire

So, with both of those effects in play, what are the miss chances for the blinking oracle on one side of the wall, and the raging barbarians on the other side (no one involved had Blind Fighting or the ability to see through flames.

The simplest “go away and stop making us think hard” answer is just a flat 50% for everyone based on the wall of fire, using the idea that miss chances shouldn’t stack.

The harshest position is to say that since they’re from fundamentally different sources, resolve them separately, meaning the barbarians have to get through a pair of 50% miss chances, while the oracle has to get past a 50% miss chance and a 20% miss chance. This is what I went with under the time crunch and not wanting to bring the game to a screeching halt. Alternatively, you could resolve the percentages into a single roll and say the barbarians have a 75% miss chance (50% + 50% * 50%) and the oracle has a 60% miss chance (50% + 50% * 20%).

An in-between position would be to say that since the wall of fire renders other visual considerations moot, but the 20% portion of blink’s miss chance would still apply, then the barbarians should be contending with a 50% miss chance and a 20% miss chance (aggregate of 60%). Still another interpretation would be that see invisibility reduces blink’s miss chance because you can see the subject on both planes, but the Blind Fight feat doesn’t help because... you pick the mental and physiological reason that makes sense to you, so the 75% total should be reduced, but only to some other value between 75% and 60%.

In the event that no definitive answer to this already exists, happy debating! :)

0gre wrote:

@Rezdave Russ was replying to Zappo's Q about the Inquisitor not the general cast.

That makes better sense ... I kept looking for a Poster named "Inquisitor" to whom he was replying.

I missed the question. Sorry.

R.

In any case, the original question has been rendered somewhat moot by a recent FAQ:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t1a6&page=3?Does-ammunition-fired-from-a-m agical#130

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t1a6&page=4?Does-ammunition-fired-from-a-m agical#179

I've seen a couple threads for variations on this question, but the most interesting wrinkle has yet to get an official answer.

From the alchemist bomb class feature, tired and true.

Bomb (Su): Splash damage from an alchemist bomb is always equal to the bomb’s minimum damage (so if the bomb would deal 2d6+4 points of fire damage on a direct hit, its splash damage would be 6 points of fire damage). Those caught in the splash damage can attempt a Reflex save for half damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the alchemist’s level + the alchemist’s Intelligence modifier.

Alchemists also get the Throw Anything feat as a bonus.

Throw Anything (Ex): All alchemists gain the Throw Anything feat as a bonus feat at 1st level. An alchemist adds his Intelligence modifier to damage done with splash weapons, including the splash damage if any. This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature.

So clearly an alchemist throwing a flask of acid does 1d6+Int mod damage on a direct hit, and does 1+Int mod splash damage to everyone who's adjacent to the target. The operative question is: do the victims of the splash damage get a Reflex save as they would against the splash damage from the Alchemist's bombs?

I've got one player trying to argue that they don't, and he's been using it to just target squares (touch AC of 5) to get basically automatic souped up splash damage on larger groups of foes with vials of acid.

Related secondary question that I don't think I've seen answered either: unlike acid, alchemist's fire does extra damage on the following round. Same player wants to argue that he should get to add his Int mod to both damage rolls. Yes or no?

Alchemist's Fire: A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage.

Huzzah! Vindication tastes good. ;)

Don't really need to go that far in levels to get to +14 to hit against a scenario-ending caster/BBEG - level 4 paladin managed it by making him his smite target (+4 BAB, +4 Str, masterwork weapon, + 1 weapon focus, +3 Cha mod for smite, +1 inspire courage from the party's bard).

That's my preferred interpretation too, but I've got several people (including some VOs) looking at these same passages and insisting "no, because a natural 1 can never hit, it can't pop an image either," I guess on the basis of the idea that a nat 1 should never benefit someone by furthering what it is they're trying to do.

Automatic misses and hits portion of the Combat section in the CRB states that a roll of 1 on an attack roll always misses and a 20 always hits.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html

Mirror Image's spell text reads as follows:
"Whenever you are attacked... if the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your images is destroyed by the near miss."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/mirrorImage.html

Obviously someone who attacks the caster and rolls a natural 1 misses - if its attack modifiers are enough to still get within 5 of the AC (caster AC of 18, attacker modifier of +14 for example's sake), will the natural 1 still pop an image since it misses by 5 or less?

Anyone know whether they've ruled on what if anything out of this book is PFS legal, or when we might expect such a ruling? Censoring Critical seems like one of those things no 15th level martial-focused Seeker playing the All For Immortality series should be without!

There's already been some discussion on this on potions specifically, and there's some awareness that there seems to be a can of worms in play with the updated Unchained version of the Barbarian.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tlp0?Does-a-Superstitious-Barbarian-have-to-sa ve

At any rate, here's the "chained" version of the Superstition rage power:
Superstition (Ex)
Benefit: The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.

And here's the new "unchained" version of the power:
Superstition (Ex): The barbarian gains a +2 competence bonus on saving throws made to resist spells and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by 1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has. The barbarian cannot be the willing target of any spell and must attempt saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.

There's also this key caveat from the Unchained Barbarian Rage Powers entry: "A barbarian gains the benefits of rage powers only while raging."

So the bonus type changes from morale to competence, supernatural abilities fall out of the unchained version, and the bonus scales up with the unchained version. But in both cases it only applies while the barbarian is raging.

Finally, the actual rules question:
Does the requirement for making saves against spells and spell-like abilities as if you were an unwilling target while raging also apply to the Barbarian's own command word activation items (e.g. Unfettered Shirt, Winged Boots, Ring of Invisibility, etc.). I know other sections of the rules stipulate that you're usually considered your own ally, so whether you're forcing a spell in liquid form down your own throat or trying to activate you trusty boots to let you fly up and hit the monster, in both cases it seems like Superstition's requirement that you make a Will save should apply. This may make for some grumpy Barbarians until they get rage cycling down pat, but is there anyone who can make a case for the barbarian's command word magic items not being subject to Superstition?

A particularly evil GM might even push it in the opposite direction, and note that the rules state that you only get the benefits of Superstition and other unchained rage powers while raging, but the penalties of something like Superstition might apply all the time.

Given the number of Barbarians running around with this rage power (either "just because" or as a pre-req to things like Witch Hunter and Eater of Magic), this feels like it could use some clarification.

To be more specific, an AoO immediately interrupts the flow of combat. This effectively can "split" an otherwise discrete action in such a manner that it is declared, the AoO interrupts it, then the triggering action is resolved after the AoO. So it doesn't really come "before" the triggering action; that's just a convenient rule of thumb.

So, in your situation, the Brawler and the Rogue both threaten the Opponent while the Fighter and Cleric do not. Your Brawler initiates (declares) a trip against the opponent. Now, the Trip maneuver has begun, but hasn't yet been resolved. Due to Greater Trip, the Opponent provokes an AoO from both the Brawler and the Rogue. If they take their AoOs, you resolve the AoO first. After that (and now, the provocation point has passed), you resolve the effect of the Trip maneuver. Due to Ki Throw, you pick a new spot for them to move to and the Opponent falls prone in that new spot. Since the Trip has already been made and resolved, the Opponent doesn't provoke an AoO from the Cleric or the Fighter due to being tripped; that ship has sailed. However if, hypothetically, either of them have an ability that makes an opponent provoke if they fall prone, that could be a completely different story. If the conditions are met, then falling prone is a new opportunity. In fact, if the Brawler had Vicious Stomp and Combat Reflexes, he could get two AoOs; one because the Opponent provoked by "being tripped by a creature with Greater Trip" and two by "falling prone adjacent to a creature with Vicious Stomp".

Thanks, that makes sense.

(bump)

The two feats in question:

Ki Throw
--------
Prerequisites: Improved Trip, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit: On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller, you may throw the target prone in any square you threaten rather than its own square. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and you cannot throw the creature into a space occupied by other creatures.

Special: A monk may gain Ki Throw as a bonus feat at 10th level. A monk with this feat can affect creatures larger than his own size by spending 1 ki point per size category difference.

Greater Trip
------------
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.

Application issue: so, cut and dry, the movement of the foe you're tripping and ki throwing doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. But Greater Trip still applies, so the creature being tripped should still provoke Attacks of Opportunity based on that factor. The question becomes - at what point in this maneuver do the Greater Trip Attacks of Opportunity trigger against the foe for the tripper and their allies? Is it based on those who threaten the tripped foe in their original square? Those who threaten the tripped foe in the square they're "Ki Thrown" into? Both? Neither?

The practical case involves an enlarged brawler with Greater Trip and Ki Throw in the front line with a rogue ally by his side, and a cleric and a fighter behind the two of them. If the brawler trips a foe that he and the rogue currently threaten, and in the process that same foe is ki thrown towards the party's back line into a square that the brawler, fighter and cleric threaten (but the rogue doesn't), which combination of the PCs get an attack of opportunity? Brawler and Rogue? Brawler, Cleric and Fighter? All Four? Brawler only? None of them?

I believe he could still spend a move action to move adjacent and then make an attack as a standard action.

So the interpretation being that because the 5' step was prevented, the fact that they tried to move that way doesn't mean they're prohibited from trying to move a different way?

Is anyone aware of anything anywhere in the rules to support one side of the other of this?

Rules question. Here's the feat in question (Pin Down):

Pin Down (Combat)

You easily block enemy escapes.

Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, fighter level 11th.

Benefit: Whenever an opponent you threaten takes a 5-foot step or uses the withdraw action, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If the attack hits, you deal no damage, but the targeted creature is prevented from making the move action that granted a 5-foot step or the withdraw action and does not move.

And there here is the entry on 5' steps in the Combat section:

Take 5-Foot Step

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.

You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can't take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.

You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.
-------------------------------------------------------------

So here's the scenario - Combatant A (Polearm Fighter) has the Pin Down feat and a reach weapon. Combatant B (Brawler) doesn't have reach, and needs to move 5' to get into range to be able to hit Combatant A.

The Brawler's turn starts, and he has his normal options for a full round of actions, either two move actions, a move action and a standard action, or a full round action. All of those combinations also allow him a swift or immediate action, as well as a 5' step provided he didn't use a move action to physically move during his turn.

The Brawler starts by trying to take a 5' step to get in close with the Polearm Fighter so that he can have the chance of a full attack. This triggers an attack of opportunity for the Polearm Fighter thanks to the Pin Down feat. Attack hits, and the Brawler remains in his original space, as he "is prevented from making the move action that granted a 5-foot step or the withdraw action and does not move."

Now that the Brawler has tried to take a 5' step but was prevented from doing so, can he use a normal move action to try and move in close (presumably provoking a second Attack of Opportunity since the Polearm Fighter has to have Combat Reflexes as a prerequisite for Pin Down)?

Or does the fact that the Brawler tried to take a 5' step and was prevented from doing so mean that he can't use his move actions to physically move during this turn?

So this has been debated in various threads before, but I'm not sure a single consensus view has emerged on these issues, nor an FAQ answer, so here we go again:

Situation: Polearm Master with a Fauchard, wants to use Whirlwind attack.

Per the language of the feat, you're using the full attack action, and giving up your normal iterative attacks to gain a single attack at your highest BAB vs. every foe within reach.

1) Can the character attempt to disarm, trip or sunder his targets rather than using standard attacks against them during the Whirlwind Attack?
1a) If yes, must the character choose a single mode of attack for ALL of his targets, or can he pick and choose (i.e. attack everyone, trip everyone, disarm everyone, sunder everyone, but not mix and match)?

2) Do the normal "actions during a full attack" allowances and restrictions still apply? This would include:
2a) Can the character still take a 5' step either before, after or in between the individual attacks included in the full attack?
2b) Can the character take a free action, swift action or immediate action (swift and immediates can be taken any time that a free action could be taken) either before, after or IN BETWEEN the attacks. This is particularly relevant to the Polearm Master because they have the ability to shorten their reach from 10' to 5' as an immediate action, taking an attack roll penalty in the process.

3) Are the viable targets for the attacks granted by the feat calculated at the point when the character begins to use the feat, or can they also gain new eligible targets during the series of attacks by using either:
3a) a 5' step?
3b) the Polearm Master's "Pole Fighting" ability as an immediate action, changing his weapon from 10' reach to 5' reach (or vice versa)?
3c) (not relevant to this character, but put forward in other hypothetical versions of this question, so I'll ask it again) different weapons, i.e. a polearm to threaten with reach, and a spiked gauntlet to threaten adjacent foes?

4) The feat specifically prohibits extra attacks gained by means of feats, spells or abilities - if the character also has the Greater Trip feat and is tripping the foes he's attacking with Whirlwind Attack, do they still provoke attacks of opportunity from him?

My current inclinations are:
1) Yes
1a) Maybe okay to mix and match
2) Yes
2a) Yes
2b) Maybe, no explicit citation to answer the question, but you can put together a chain of logic (immediate action treated as a swift action that need not be taken on your turn --> swift action can be taken anytime you could take a free action --> free action takes no time --> if you can take a 5' step in between the attacks of a full attack, why wouldn't it be permissible to take free actions, which take no time at all?)
3a) Yes
3b) Yes
3c) Not if the reach weapon requires two hands, but this could be okay in the case of someone wielding a Dorn-dergar/Dwarven chain flail one-handed, though if 3a and 3b are both yes, this seems likely to be moot most of the time.
4) Maybe, as the intent seems to be to rule out automatically getting two attacks on every target instead of one by means of Haste, Blessing of Fervor, Two Weapon Fighting, Cleave, etc. Then again, you wouldn't get an AoO on a foe you had tripped without having taken the feat Greater Trip, so maybe the intent is to preclude those attacks too.

And.... go. ;)

In PF I don't recall that rule surviving. It isn't in the OGL because the specifics on the gaining of XP was one of the sections that was never included.

A 10th level party would have to massacre vast numbers of goblins to advance to 11th ... and they wouldn't have earned enough loot to keep up WBL ...

200,000 xp (50,000 per PC x4) takes more than 1,481 book-standard goblins to earn. That's a lotta goblins. ;)

True, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the grand scheme, but I have two engineers and an accountant (IRL) sitting at the table. They're very much of the bean counter variety. :) So it was a 3.5 rule that didn't make the jump?

Several people around our table seem to remember something along the lines of "when the average party level (APL) is X amount higher than the encounter's challenge rating, you don't gain any experience." This is for stuff like a 10th level party encountering a single goblin sentry and slitting his throat, or bypassing a pretty easy CR2 trap. Problem is, none of us can agree on how many levels "X" is (guesses include 5, 8 and 10), and none of us can remember where in the rules to look to find something that officially backs this up. Google Fu has been unhelpful to this point.

Any rules lawyers with eidetic memories know if/where this rule officially exists?

Okay, I count at least two threads related to this subject, and they include multiple references to an official ruling, but none of those links seems to quite answer the question. Point blank (ha!) does anyone have a link to an official ruling or errata on this specific question:

Can a rogue with a bow or other ranged weapon use the Gang Up feat to get sneak attacks against a non-flat-footed opponent (within 30' unless you've got certain magic items) if two or more of the rogue's allies are threatening the same foe?

If yes, it seems like something most every ranged rogue should take - hang back and snipe away when your party's meat shields bum rush your foes. If no, it seems utterly useless for ranged rogues, and mostly useless for melee rogues, as it requires the pre-requisite of Combat Expertise.

Here's the feat's language:
Gang Up (Combat)
You are adept at using greater numbers against foes.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.
-----

There's absolutely nothing there to indicate that you yourself have to be "threatening" to be considered flanking with this feat.

So the Grapple Rules are rather "intricately" written - here are the disputes in question.

If you're using Greater Grapple (which is a pre-req for Pinning Knockout anyway) and/or Rapid Grappler to maintain a grapple or pin in a way that doesn't spend your your standard action for the round, that standard action can be used to roll a normal non-two-handed attack (unarmed strike included) against any target you threaten, including the one you've grappled.

If that's the case, why would anyone take Pinning Knockout, when it's a situational and only non-lethal version of Vital Strike (double damage, nonlethal only, only if you've established a pin)?

By the same token, why take Stunning Pin, when you can just use that same preserved standard action to use Stunning Fist in the normal fashion?

steven_mallory wrote:

Yeesh... this seems like it would be a great feat for a Zen Archer, but who in their right mind is going to spend 2 feats on pre-requisites that are literally worthless in and of themselves?

Snap Shot is a pre-req for Improved Snap Shot, but does absolutely nothing for a Zen Archer that isn't already granted by Point-Blank Master (bonus at 3rd) and Reflexive Shot (class feature at 9th).

Rapid Shot (and Manyshot) are asinine feats for a Zen Archer to take, even if they're available as bonus feats. Rapid Shot has the same mechanical effect as the Zen Archer's Flurry of Blows (pre-8th level, extra attack, all attacks take a -2 to hit), and Manyshot is like Flurry of Blows at 8th-15th, with the added flexibility of giving up the extra attack to negate the -2 attack penalty, and the trade-off that your additional attack can't inflict sneak attack or critical hit damage (because so many Zen Archers are frequently dealing that sort of damage anyway).

Is there any logical reason to not hand-wave this away by removing Rapid Shot and Manyshot from the Zen Archer's list of bonus feats options at 1st and 6th level, and including Improved Snap Shot among the 10th level+ options?

This isn't really a rules question and is probably more appropriate in the suggestions/house rules or advice forum.

I thought perhaps I was misunderstanding the mechanics behind these feats and the Zen Archer archetype, which might invalidate the suggestion. If the rules function the way I've been reading them, then yes, I suppose this topic would be a good fit for the house rules section. Figured it would be good to get the "legal" review first.

Yeesh... this seems like it would be a great feat for a Zen Archer, but who in their right mind is going to spend 2 feats on pre-requisites that are literally worthless in and of themselves?

Snap Shot is a pre-req for Improved Snap Shot, but does absolutely nothing for a Zen Archer that isn't already granted by Point-Blank Master (bonus at 3rd) and Reflexive Shot (class feature at 9th).

Rapid Shot (and Manyshot) are asinine feats for a Zen Archer to take, even if they're available as bonus feats. Rapid Shot has the same mechanical effect as the Zen Archer's Flurry of Blows (pre-8th level, extra attack, all attacks take a -2 to hit), and Manyshot is like Flurry of Blows at 8th-15th, with the added flexibility of giving up the extra attack to negate the -2 attack penalty, and the trade-off that your additional attack can't inflict sneak attack or critical hit damage (because so many Zen Archers are frequently dealing that sort of damage anyway).

Is there any logical reason to not hand-wave this away by removing Rapid Shot and Manyshot from the Zen Archer's list of bonus feats options at 1st and 6th level, and including Improved Snap Shot among the 10th level+ options?

Designing an antagonist - can a vampire use a conductive weapon to do the energy drain damage usually done by its slam attack? Energy Drain is listed as a supernatural ability in the Vampire's stat block, which would fit, but it also notes that the vampire can only use energy drain once in a round. The conductive weapon property says you have to expend two uses of a supernatural or spell-like ability to get the effect to apply to a hit with the weapon. But at the same time, it says that if you have no daily limit on the number of times/day you can use an ability, you can use it once per round (not more) through the weapon. Which would apply here?

I was thinking of an old series of 3.5 modules for Eberon which included an adventure called Whispers of the Vampire's Blade, where the vampire was compelled to use its sword rather than unarmed slams that drained levels. Frankly, I like the idea of a vampire with a sword and shield having the PCs thinking that the lack of a free hand means they won't get level drained by a hit, and then getting a nasty shock the first time they get slashed with the sword.

Here's the verbiage of Conductive:
CONDUCTIVE
Price +1 bonus; Aura moderate necromancy; CL 8th; Weight —
A conductive weapon is able to channel the energy of a spell-like or supernatural ability that relies on a melee or ranged touch attack to hit its target (such as from a cleric's domain granted power, sorcerer's bloodline power, oracle's mystery revelation, or wizard's arcane school power). When the wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type, he may choose to expend two uses of his magical ability to channel it through the weapon to the struck opponent, which suffers the effects of both the weapon attack and the special ability. (If the wielder has unlimited uses of a special ability, she may channel through the weapon every round.) For example, a paladin who strikes an undead opponent with her conductive greatsword can expend two uses of her lay on hands ability (a supernatural melee touch attack) to deal both greatsword damage and damage from one use of lay on hands. This weapon special ability can only be used once per round, and only works with magical abilities of the same type as the weapon (melee or ranged).

CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Cost +1 bonus
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, spectral hand

I'd say, if it extends the duration, conservation of effect dictates that you simply add the new duration to the remainder of the old one. Demoralize for 3 rounds + Demoralize for 3 rounds gives Demoralize for 6 rounds. Rationale for this could be something along the lines of, "There's not just one big scary guy but two big scary guys... I think I'm just gonna quail in fear over here for that much longer." He's still shaken by each; not a greater degree of fear but a broader degree of fear, shaken for longer. It effectively yields a similar result to playing round-robin with the demoralizes, waiting for one to nearly wear off before applying the next; but it allows more dynamic in the fight and lets you take advantage of opportunities that come along without having to worry about, "should I pass up this opportunity because he still has x number of rounds left before the demoralize effect wears off?" Furthermore, from an RP perspective, the characters aren't really measuring it in "rounds of effect" like we would. One guy scared the hell out of an opponent and now the other guy is gonna be equally scary for good measure.

Sure, and I'm inclined to agree with that interpretation and treat it like that. But on the back end of that, should the 2 guys also pool the penalties that make it harder to keep using the demoralize tactic (+5 each time)? Or am I misreading the Try Again rules, and the penalty only applies if someone fails an Intimidate check and then tries again? Can't find any rules that explicitly says that the Try Again rules listed in the skill descriptions ONLY apply to failures.

But they don't subsume each other. The text plainly says that multiple uses on the same creature extend the duration (but does not alter it to a more severe condition). This is a change specifically for the demoralize effect because it is different from the normal fear rules. Normally, when you stack two shaken effects, it upgrades from shaken to frightened. Another shaken or frighten will then panic them. But demoralize doesn't get that option. Even if a character is already shaken or panicked from something else, a demoralize will not increase the fear effect. So instead, demoralize increases the duration.

The extension of the duration on the same creature and the increased DC by the same demoralizer are not linked together. They are separate.

Sure, that makes sense if it's the same person generating the Intimidation effect multiple times and creating the shaken condition (and that's what the rules clearly had in mind when they were written), but if it's two different people generating it at roughly the same time, something's got to give. It can't be that they both contribute to the same calculated duration of the effect, but aren't also both beholden to iterative penalties of repeating the tactic in the same way as a single person would.

If they're not iterative, then PC #1 and PC #2 intimidating the same foe at the same time should overlap, and whoever gets a higher result and causes the foe to be shaken for a longer "x" number of rounds has the only effect that really matters. The other's effect is active, but not noticeable or relevant, since it will expire before the time the longer-lasting one does. However, if the one with the shorter result uses Intimidate a second time and stacks onto their own result in a way that generates a longer running time, now theirs is the salient Demoralize/shaken effect (i.e. PC #1 demoralizes for 4 rounds to PC #2's 3, but PC #2 does uses Intimidate again the following round for an additional 2 rounds, meaning that they now have 5 rounds to PC #1's 4).

If they are iterative, then PC #2's duration would extend PC #1's duration, but they should also share the iterative increases to the DC to compensate for the shared benefit of collaborative tactics (basically allowing them to function like a single Intimidator).

Find precedent. Is there any other skill that adds to the DC when someone else does it?

Appraise: the try again is only for you. Someone else can appraise and get a different result.

Diplomacy: try again is only for you. If you fail, you can't make the same request to that individual for 24 hours. But someone else could.

Knolwedge: You can't try again. A check represents what you know. But someone else could.

Performance: Try again after failure increases the DC by 2. But someone else can do a performance and they don't get that penalty.

Sense Motive: You can't try again, but someone else can sense motive.

Sleight of Hand: After an initial failure, a second attempt against the same target (or while you are being watched by the same observer who noticed your previous attempt) increases the DC for the task by 10. But this doesn't mean someone else gets that penalty if they want to do a sleight of hand check.

Survival: A single check applies uniformly over a set period of time. But someone else can roll theirs to see if they perform better.

Use Magic Device: If you roll a 1, you can't use that device for 24 hours. But someone else could.

All these skills have try again options for the individual to is using the skill. None of them claim that when you use the skill, someone else gets a penalty. What makes intimidate so unique?

Also a valid point, which would suggest that the efforts are completely independent, meaning that they subsume each other. If the Inquisitor's spell makes them shaken for 3 rounds, then it's pointless for the Fighter to try and intimidate them until that 3 round period is over (assuming the Inquisitor doesn't use the spell as second time and extend the duration of the effect).

Seppuku's suggestion might work too - obviously there's no save against Intimidate, it's a static mechanic based on your the target's Hit Dice and Wisdom. But extending the original effect by half might work - functionally it would usually be 1 round, since fighting against appropriate foes usually results in a range of between 1 and 3 rounds (sometimes 4, or even 5 against true cannon fodder like goblins and kobolds).

I think there are two different aspects here. The DC is from the perspective of the intimidator, and the duration is from the perspective of the intimidated.

Looking at poisons for an analogy, if the same character gets hit with two different poisons, clearly each poison has a separate DC and saving throw. Now, what happens if those two different poisons have the same result? Say that Poison A makes the character fall asleep for 3 rounds and Poison B makes the character fall asleep for 2 rounds. There are three options for how this would affect the character:

1) The effects poisons somehow stack, and the character is "more asleep" for the first 2 rounds until Poison B wears off. This is really hard to adjudicate: what does "more asleep" or "doubly asleep" actually mean? For this kind of effect, we would need a complete condition-plus-enhanced-condition table (e.g., frightened enhanced = panicked), and we don't have that for each and every possible condition.

2) Both poisons track separately, and the 2-round effect of Poison B essentially has no effect on the character at all (since it's overshadowed by the 3-round effect of Poison A). That...

Definitely an interesting way of looking at it. I certainly support the idea of extending the duration, but there's a distinction between it and poison. Multiple doses of the same poison or different poisons with the same effect don't have any impact on the Fortitude saving throw of the victim. If you stick someone with poison and they save against it, I don't think they get a bonus on their next Fort save against the poison if you stick them with it again.

On the other hand, you do build up a resistance to being intimidated (until an hour passes and the DC resets), as it gets iteratively more difficult to get inside the same person's head again and again using the same psychological tactics. Eventually the target catches on to what you're doing, they gather themselves, and they get their head back in the game. If you're counting the PCs as members of a team all trying to get in the subject's head, shouldn't the subject catch onto their tactics as a whole, rather than one at a time? If it's the former, their DCs should probably stack collectively, along with the duration.

Right, I've always taken the "Try Again" rules to apply to both successes and failures where you're trying to do the same thing multiple times. If you unlock a lock, then it closes again, you can try to unlock it again (although in that case I might say that you get a +2 bonus on the check, since you're already figured out this particular lock once). I've looked for a rule saying that Try Again applies only to failures, but I haven't found one either.

Point 2 is where I'm not quite sold however - it feels like it should be both or neither. Demoralize basically means a foe (or PC) is becoming shaken in response to the Intimidating actions of a specific PC (or foe). If the rule is +5 to the DC for multiple tries, it feels like it should either be that multiple actors on the same side work together, or they don't. If you're saying that the shaken condition is a single effect, even though they're being intimidated by two different people, it should either be that their durations and DCs both stack (PC #2 increases the duration with their first attempt, but also has to take the -5 penalty since the foe's already been intimidated once), or neither stacks (both PCs track their own Intimidate DCs and don't consider their partner's previous attempts, either in duration or DC).

I feel like it makes more sense if you treat them as a team, where they collectively stack both the length and DC of their demoralize efforts. I can think of situations where you wouldn't use it like teamwork - say a battle between the PCs and two competing sets of antagonists all fighting over the same McGuffin. If someone from the first group of antagonists tries to intimidate everybody, and then somebody from the second group tries the same thing, they're working at cross purposes, and their durations (and DCs) shouldn't stack.