the_move's page

40 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Hi! I have got a question regarding the Blessed Hammer feat and the Rusting Grasp spell.

The Blessed Hammer feat lets you deliver touch spells with a warhammer. Rusting Grasp is a touch spell. Now if I am correct an attack with the charged hammer deals damage and if the target wears non-magical metal armor, it's AC will be reduced by 1d6.

The spell states that you can only do one melee touch attack per round, but since I am not using melee touch attacks, but weapon attacks instead, does that mean that the spell's rust effect can now be delivered with every attack during a full-round-action? And what about attacks of opportunity?

The other question is if I still provoke attacks of opportunity, if I want to destroy the target's melee weapon, even though I am not doing a melee touch attack?


Thanks, guys!


Bump! Anyone got an idea?


Hello!

The new Blood of the Ancients supplement includes a feat called Aerial Roll.
It states that if your fly check is successful the attack, which triggered feat misses automatically. Now I wonder if this also works against automatic hits coming from natural 20s.

My guess is that Aerial Roll still negates the attack, since the feat does not relate to your AC, but instead let‘s you outmaneuver it.

But what do you think?


Thank you!


Chess Pwn wrote:
modifier is used if they want negatives to be applied. bonus is used if they want only positive numbers. And I imagine penalty would be used if they only wanted negatives.

Forgive me my suspicion, but...

Well, in order to prevent negatives to be applied the rules are usually written like this: „X+Ability Modifier (minimum 1)“
In fact I yet have to see a ruling where they do not use that formula and instead refer to an ability bonus. Why change their usual constellation? Also why would they use „(ability) bonus“ twice with two different meanings? (See eidolon)


So, why did they not just use the proper expression (modifier), and instead used a wording used previously in a different context?
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/72172/how-do-i-calculate-my-black-b lades-skills


Hello!

I've got a question regarding the capacity and progress of the arcane pool the black blade of a bladebound magus actually acquires, since there is somewhat of a discord in my party because of that. The book (and other sources) state that the black blade has got an arcane pool with a number of points equal to 1 + its Intelligence bonus.

Now some members of my party think that with "Intelligence bonus" the actual Intelligence modifier is meant, although it's obscure why Paizo had not just used that exact wording. Also, if the modifier was meant as bonus, why would the blade progress up to Intelligence 19? Why not 18 or 20?

However looking through the rulebooks I stumbled across other cases like the summoner's eidolon and the druid's eidolon, where you may not find an "Intelligence bonus", but "Strength bonuses" and "Dexterity bonus", which state: "Add this modifier to the eidolon’s Strength and Dexterity scores,...", or "Add this value to the animal companion’s Strength and Dexterity scores."

The black blade's ability progression seems to be similarly regulated as shown in it's statistics chart, only that the definition of it's Intelligence Bonus seems to be included into it's Intelligence definition, which states "...It starts at 10 and increases by 1 for every two levels ...".

Has someone got an idea? Can this be even explained by "RAW", or is this in any case leading to an interpretation?


Is it actually intentional that this spell can not be used on constructs, since the 'object' clause is missing.


Does the Burn! Burn! Burn! feat work with Kinetic Blast, since it's actually considered an psychic instead of a magical source?


What if you got 4 hands or even 6? All the same type of attack, like an unarmed Calikang just using his Slams. Do you still need Natural Spell combat in order to be able to use all your hands during Spell Combat?


Well, they also throw spears, it definately would justify a spear or harpoon to be effective within the very first square (within the first 5 foot) below surface.


I wonder why all thrown weapons are deemed ineffective, when thrown at a submerged target. As far as I know there are/have been plenty of indigenous people, who catch fish with spears and harpoons.


I thought it might be a good weapon for a dwarven Goliath druid in the Giant Slayer campaign. Dumped two levels into fighter to save me the exotic weapon feat and further grant me two bonus combat feats. I started using that weapon at lvl 2.

1st Big Game Hunter
2nd Power Attack (Fighter)
3rd Cleave, Goblin Cleaver (Fighter)
5th Orc Hewer
7th Combat Reflexes
9th Stand Still
11th Great Cleave
13th Steel Soul
15th Giant Killer

With large size (huge at lvl 16) it seems to work pretty well. Also got the Destruction domain to add some rage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the feat called "Skill Focus (Mythic)" combined with an ordinary Skill Focus addressing the same skill lets me take 10, or take 20 even when rushed, or threatened.

Now, while I see a use for that in case of a take 10 I have doubts that any skill does equally profit from the take 20 thing.

Theoretically being able to take 20 regardless of rushed, threatened makes it usable in combat. Yet, the problem I see for example is...

1) I would still need 20 rounds (or more depending on the skill) within combat (like escape artist), so who cares if I can not be rushed, or threatened since it stays practically impractical.

2) What good is it, when it's still not feasible on skills with failures like spellcraft? So I can't take 20 to ease any kind of magic item creation, let alone simple magic item identification.

Somehow this makes the whole thing look far less mythic, let alone worth the feat.
Or is there something I have missed, besides the enhancement of the mediocre "take 10"?


Dekalinder wrote:

Weapon Finess substitute one other stat, does not add on top. Subbing char for wis on will for example would be a completely reasonable feat (that also already existed in 3.5).

You are talking about DEX. DEX already has more to contribute than any other ability.

- adds to ranged (touch) attacks, also relevant for spellcasters
- adds to AC
- adds to initiative
- adds to Dex saving throws
- with Weapon Finesse adds to melee attacks...

Well, even without Weapon Finesse many classes invest in DEX for obvious reasons.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:


The opportunity cost of dipping Paladin is far higher than a feat or two, especially for spell-casters (such as Oracle). Even at 1/2 Cha it could easily give +5 to all saves at higher levels. That's stupidly OP even for 2 feats.

As it is now an Oracle/Sorcerer probably does not get anything big to any save, since CHA is not tied to any of those. A Paladin had no interest in the previous Divine Protection, since it provided only a +1 increase for him.

Further while the previous of Divine Protection USED your CHA modifier INSTEAD of your other ability modifiers on any save, his Aura of Protection is still more potent, as it grants his CHA additionally to any save along with the other ability modifier (stacking).

So this comparison is flawed.


Divine Protection is still nice for any Swashbuckler. Anyone else can now skip it.


Wildblooded Primal is easily beaten by Crosslooded Orc/Draconic. However the Orc Bloodline is not mentioned in the guide.

@BeAuMan Primal can not be used with Crossblooded, since it requires the Wildblooded archetype and you can not have two archetypes.


Sry for digging out this old thread, but I have a question. If you want to create a Mystic Theurge using an Aasimar, who can cast Spear of Purity (cleric/oracle 2) instead of Daylight (Rolled from the D% chart in the Pathfinder Player Companion - Blood of Angels) as an SLA.

Spear of Purity can only be cast by cleric/oracles and deals positive energy damage...

- can this spell count as a true "divine spell/SLA"?

- Would this allow an Aasimar to enter the Mystic Theurge by Sorcerer 4/Oracle 1?


Well, according to the Rules Question section, Primal is an archetype, not a bloodline. So by RAW you can't choose Primal. No 1d6 extra electricity damage then.


So you are allowed to choose Eldritch Heritage Primal as a non-sorcerer, even if Primal is considered a sorcerer archetype?


Is it actually allowed to use a Wildblood archetype like Primal with the Eldritch Heritage feat? Or are those only available to sorcerers and (Imp./Greater) Eldritch Heritage can only be used with the original bloodline powers.


Btw. is it actually allowed to use a Wildblooded archetype like Primal with the Eldritch Heritage feat? I thought those options are only available to sorcerers and (Imp./Greater) Eldritch Heritage can only be used with the original bloodline powers.

If so, then Elemental would be a rather poor choice compared to Abyssal.


Can you give me examples, which it does work on?
If Spells are considered a class feature (since they are listed as such), will you regain them by a one-hour meditation then?


Hierphant's mythic path ability Sustained by Fate describes: If you have abilities or class features that require rest before they can be regained, you can choose to regain them once per day by spending 1 hour in uninterrupted meditation.

Is any spell-like ability also considered being an ability being regained by this?


Excuse me, but about this passage at the Master Summoner archetype: "If the summoner’s eidolon is not summoned, the number of creatures that can be summoned with this ability is only limited by its uses per day."

According to this wouldn't Extra Summons also increase the maximum number of creatures you can put onto the field at the same time?


Hi! Well, I am going to play a Master Summoner soon.

I thought of using the eidolon as a quadruped Mount.
I wanted to spend 2 evo-points in Flight and increase it's maneuverability via feat. Further 4 points for making it large and 1 Point for a Speed increase.

I noticed that even an enlarged quadruped Mount is able to acquire 26-28 strength at max without any buff spells. So I thought of giving it the Trample ability, which does not require an attack roll.

Is it worth the 2 Points though, since it is only usable on medium and smaller creatures? Also does it also prone targets like 'Overrun'?


To be more specific my question is, if due to Added Summonings working on a Summon Monster IX Spell(-like ability) to summon two Glabrezus (demon) instead of one, will Superior Summoning and Mighty Summons also work in connection to Added Summoning, since more than one creature is being conjured, thus resulting in conjuring four Glabrezus with just one Summon Monster IX?

Summon Monster IX (one creature of the 9th-level list)
Added Summoning (an additional demon/fiend) makes 2
Superior Summoning (an additional creature if more than one is conjured) makes 3
Mighty Summons (an additionanal creature...) makes 4
???

Summoning 1d3+3 Hezrous also might provide some fun, though.


Hi!

I soon start in a mythic campaign and I wanted to know if this might work out.

Master Summoner (archetype)

- half-elf (gaining Skill Focus of Knowledge Planes)

- Superior Summoning (gaining an additional creature, if more than one is conjured)

- Eldritch Heritage (Abyssal Bloodline), including Improved and Greater (gaining Added Summonings at 17th lvl)

- Mythic Hierophant Mighty Summons feat (hopefully conjuring another additional creature along with DRs)

- Mythic Archmage (Dual Path) Speedy Summons

Since according to the description you are "casting" "Summon Monster" as a spell-like ability (as a summoner) which of these feats would not work with it? Would the Added Summonings bloodline power trigger both Mighty Summonings and Superior Summonings?


What makes me think they would?

Well, since you quoted the RAW. "..., regardless of your actual positioning"
So gang up negates the prequisite of flanking: "Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent."

This is also a requirement for Ranged Flank: "...and the opposite space is occupied by a threatening ally"

That's what makes me think that actually Ranged Flank negates the melee requirement and Gang Up negates the opposite positioning requirement.


My question is are these two feats Gang Up and Ranged Flank combinable, so that, as a result, you can be considered "flanking an opponent regardless of your position within 30 feet range (Ranged Flank) if at least two of your allies are threatening him/her (Gang Up)"?


Natural attacks may not increase in number, but those are companions, which means there is a PC, who also has action/attacks on his turn and it means 2 targets with individual HP pool each. Looks quite over the top to me.

They should really look this over once more, so that there may be only one primary and anything afterwards should be considered secondary.

But thanks for the answer.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Forget 3.5, and it's rules.

See Pathfinder rules here.

I've already read this section. So it means all primary attacks retain the "primary" status even when they are all used in a full-round action, doesn't it? Pretty much overpowered to give a druid 6+ attacks at full bonus on lvl 4.


A companion of mine as a large ape as an animal companion.
The Ape has a bite and 2 claws attacks. According to him the ape can use all 3 attacks (bite, claw, claw) in a full-round action sequence without any penalties occuring, since they are all considered primary weapons in the book.

However, according to the old 3.5 glossary only one natural attack can be the primary and any following are reduced to secondaries, especially for balancing reasons. https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_na turalweapon&alpha=

If the first occurs, this looks a bit overpowered to me especially, because this renders non-companion classes like the fighter or barbarian pretty useless as damaging classes, as they can't pull out that many damaging attacks at lvl4 and the druid can act himself on his turn. Being shapechanged this can result into 6+ natural attacks...at lvl 4?


anyway maybe I should save the feat for divine interference. Could come in handy to force a creature to reroll a potential critical.


Quandary wrote:

i'm not sure, toppling references 'the target' and spiritual weapon doesn't have a target of the spell.

if you allowed it to work for spiritual weapon, it should also work if you had a summon spell of type 'force'.
the toppling effect only happens once when the target is damaged/moved/fails save,
so if the toppling trip check fails, you can't try again with the same spellcasting, that was the toppling effect.

This is another issue. Spiritual Weapon actually does have targets. Maybe Multiple throughout it's duration. You immediately choose the very first target when casting the spell and it gets attacked byit right away. You can further switch targets throughout it's duration. But these are all targets of the spell. I think you are referring to instantaneous spells like the Magic Missile, so your opinion is Toppling spells might not work on force spells, which have a duration.

mplindustries wrote:

Toppling Spell should work.

Please note that Toppling Spell is not as good at is sounds--the effective CMB is actually pretty low, and you won't be able to knock enemies down for very long with it.
There is a thread floating around with lots of testimonials in it named something like "Magical Lineage Toppling Magic Missiles suck!"

According to the feat the check seems to be 1D20 + caster ability modifier + caster lvl vs. CMD. So a lvl 6 cleric with WIS 18 would have 1D20+10 to top the target's CMD. Is this really so bad? Sure it would not be that powerful vs creatures with high BAB + STR mod + DEX mod. But honestly, not every monster has got all that in combination I guess. Using Toppling Spell in a boss fight seems to be rather futile, but for crowd controlling multiple weaker monsters it might come in handy.


Imho the Description of Spiritual Weapon is terrible.
It states that it is not affected by feats and combat actions.
Toppling Spell is a metamagic feat, yet still a feat.

However Spiritual Weapon is a spell, it strikes as a spell and not as a weapon, so on the other hand the Toppling Spell should actually work properly, since it works with spells, which include the 'force' descriptor, and Spiritual Weapon does include it.

Now what is correct?


Unarmed Strike isn't a weapon attack.