toastedamphibian's page

1,395 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,395 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

blahpers wrote:
toastedamphibian wrote:
Blackstorm wrote:
A wants to charge B. Can he charge?
Cutting the corner of a creatures space is widely permitted and does not carry any penalties in any other situation, I see no reason to treat that as an obstruction in this case.
This is not true. The rules for soft cover have a similar restriction--even just a smidge of a square containing a creature produces soft cover.

Yep. Seems I'm wrong here. I still don't see any reason behind it.

Blackstorm wrote:
A wants to charge B. Can he charge?

I'd say yes. If C where a solid object blocking off that entire square, then no (As you cannot cut the corner of a wall). Cutting the corner of a creatures space is widely permitted and does not carry any penalties in any other situation, I see no reason to treat that as an obstruction in this case.

Cavall wrote:

Just wanted to point out that plants aren't immune to nonlethal. So you can in fact slice a tomato with non lethal. If you do enough. Like..say..add power attack.

I also wanted to point out no one ever says to ME "thanks for having the courage to post."

But you're welcome anyways.

Plant Creatures aren't, Plant Objects however most certainly are. Unless that particular Tomato has a wisdom score, you can hit it all day with your sap and not bruise the skin unless you choose to take a -4.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, you can retrain his HP up to max using the retraining rules.

maouse33 wrote:
Yeh, all said, the Medusa Gaze would still affect them. A garden full of invisible statues of summoned Stalkers... and when you kill the medusa all her magic fades... musuauahahahaaa... oh wait, now I am writing as if I never read the rules... lol.

Summoned Stalkers would just vanish after a fairly short time (Seconds to years). Going to want Called invisible stalkers.

"Grab" is not an attack. I have no idea what you are all talking about in that regard. That was the 3.5 term for the touch attack made to begin a grapple I think...

General consensus seems to be that, if you possess a body part with greater reach than your UAS (Long Tongue, Hair, Tentacles, Long Neck...) you can use that body part to make the touch attack included with the casting of the spell (Against Touch AC, not doing any damage from the attack, etc.)

My question is, if that Tongue/Hair/Tentacle has the the "Grab" special ability, does delivering the spell count as hitting with that appendage for triggering the free Grapple check given by the Grab special ability?

I would think not, but figured I'd get some additional opinions.

Bucklers are shields, and do not have any special rules changing their "don" action. So it is a move action to don a buckler.

(Same for a teko-kagi? Who knows?)

Skarm wrote:

a) The former isn't the same as the "Blocking" property?
"When you use this weapon to fight defensively, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC"? Or it is more extensive (as it does not require to fight defensively)?

On your turn, you choose. Either use it as a weapon, and don't get the AC bonus, or use it as a buckler, with all that entails.


"It provides its owner with a +2 circumstance bonus on attempts to disarm or sunder swords or other slender-bladed weapons."

So now I am lost:

Does this bonus stack with the +2 of the disarm property?
("you get a +2 bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to disarm an enemy")

+2 from Disarming, addition +2 to disarm and sunder if it is "sword like".


If it stacks means that when I try to sunder with it swords and other bladed weapons, I get a +2 bonus and provoke AoO, right?

...and if I try to disarm the same weapon, I'd get a +4 bonus and not provoke AoO, right??



Moreover, I was wondering it "use like a buckler" means also that I could carry a weapon in that hand and attack with a -1 penalty (like a buckler) instead of attacking with the Tekko-Kagi?

The Tekko-Kagi could be the cooler version of the Cestus??


All sounds right to me. They are nifty.

I still say this isn't something that needs to invoke magic.

Item that attaches to your wrist with blades that extend out to your hands, item that attaches to your wrist and makes blades pop out into your hand. A version that pops the item out and has it stay connected to your wrist does not seem like it should be particularly difficult given that spring loaded wrist sheaths are already a thing that apparently work fine.

Mechanically, your spending a full round action to hide, and then a swift action to retrieve, a weapon. Same as anyone else. The fact that this particular weapon does not even make your hand unuseable for other things REDUCES the utility of this, and is not a good reason to forbid it...

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Bit necroing here because I've been seeking a forearm blade type of weapon and this is closest I can find. But since someone pointed out that it's attached to the forearm, does that mean the hand is free?

There's also no ruling on how long it takes to detach.

Yep, hands free. Counts as a buckler when your not attacking with it though, so would take a penalty on attacks with that hand, etc.

Surprised I couldn't find anyone else asking this...

You can deliver touch spells with natural weapons, right?
If the attack you use to deliver the touch spell has Grab, do you get to make a free grapple check?

Screw it. Change their (air) subtype to (earth) replace their fly speed with earth glide. Laugh.

Sam Phelan wrote:
Moved to Rules



VoodistMonk wrote:

I understand the point you were trying to make here,


See, frogs eat flies,

Good to know.

blahpers wrote:
Swarms do area damage, so they aren't immune to eacb other.

And? 0*1.5x is still zero, is it not? I seem to recall a bunch of people claiming swarms to be immune to trample and whirlwind because they are 'weapon damage'.

It's dumb.

Don't think Brawling can be placed on Bracers. They are not light armor.

Aren't Diminutive and Fine swarms immune to each other? A swarm of Botflies and a swarm of Poisonous Frogs just kind of sit there and look at each other, both strangely unable to determine how to proceed.

Sounds like you got it right Cloudyshine.

I cannot make them do anything they could not otherwise do. You could compel them to cook a gourmet meal, or make a masterwork bastard sword in two days... they would try, if you can make such activity "sound reasonable", but success or failure will depend upon their actual skill.

I would go with a Linguistics check, DC determined by how familiar they are with the language in question.

Diego Rossi wrote:
It says you must charge. It's unclear whether or not you can charge down in uncontrolled movement.

Does not say you cannot.

But regardless of all that, at best the tiger (not capable of flight) would only be able to make 1 attack IMO, as it charge/falls past the other creature.

You have presented no support for that.

PRD wrote:

Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after.

Declare Charge Action. As part of charge action, Move. Acrobatics check to Jump -20ft without running start. DC -160. Autoc Success.

Falling wrote:
And if the character leaps down with a successful Acrobatics check...
Acrobatics wrote:
Action: None. An Acrobatics check is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.

Leaping down as part of a charge action: AOK

So, even if we take as real that falling is movement from the point of view of the rules (it isn't), you need to stop when you attack. The falling tiger can't do that.

Charge>Jump Down>Pounce>Fall

PRD wrote:

You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.

Jump down.

PRD wrote:

If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles).

Air does not hinder movement in the downward direction.


You are disproved by the first row of text of the benefits: "when you ae jumping". That isn't an uncontrolled fall, it is a controlled jump. And a controlled jump is limited and part of your movement. So to be a valid action, the jump shouldn't longer than your movement as it is part of the movement (read the rules about jumping).

Then "If the attack at the end of your charge hits". Again, the attack is at the end of the charge, not mid air.

The feat is clearly saying to make the attack first, and then use your success or failure to determine the effects of landing. You don't land, take your fall damage, find out if your prone or not, then make an attack roll to reduce the damage you already took and see if you land prone or not. You attack from the first cube you can reach them from, which if falling, is almost certainly not "the ground".

Diego: Is jumping moving? Because you can intentionally jump down. You could make the tigger roll acrobatics to achieve the necessary height, but seeing as the goal is negative height, that would be a negative DC...

I would say the intent is that you do not get the bonus to stealth, but the text does not definitively state that, and I would personally allow it.

Barley touching is touching.

blahpers wrote:

A hypothetical ethereal touch weapon combined with see invisibility would work fine against a blinking foe, per this text:

Force Sword

It is in the combat section, not the feats themselves.

If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity).

Animated broom is a creature. These creatures are objects. They are objects that are intelligent, but they are not "Intelligent Objects". Those have Ego scores.

Talonhawke wrote:
Attacking while falling and charging while falling are 2 different things completely.

And branch pounce clearly notes that fall-charging is a thing.

Edit: Correction; jumping down from above charging. If you accidentally slip, maybe you can't charge.

But if you can walk on the ceiling, you should be able to jump while doing so.

That is the literal definition of pouncing... to swoop down or jump upon something and claw it. People are being difficult with no good cause for it.

You can charge by jumping down from above as noted in branch pounce. It does not say you have to land and then attack them, thar would be a direct violation of the charge rules and common sense. Find something that says you cant attack while falling. There is clearly a rule for not being able to CAST while falling, so not having anything about not being able to attack would be a strange oversight.

One reading of a mythic ability does not a good rule make.

Edit: Janni Rush gives you bonuses when you jump while charging, without giving any ability to do so, thus implying you can.

As does Branch Pounce

Branch Pounce wrote:
When charging a target by jumping down from above (such as when jumping out of a tree)...

Pizza Lord wrote:
toastedamphibian wrote:

Cool, so demons can pick up a party member and planeshift away. No save even. Handy.


Thankfully teleport requires willing creatures (probably the lice don't want to resist, if they even counted for checking) and plane shift specifically requires a will save unless they are willing (and only one creature is transported away if unwilling).

Though if they can be touched while unconscious or sleeping, they count as willing.

Buuut, we are not treating them as creatures, but as OBJECTS. Objects need not be willing and only get saves if the person holding them wants them to.

And if the tiger where jumping from the floor to charge a flying creature? I see no reason it should work jumping against gravity but not with it. If you would allow a jumping charge, you should allow this. Get em Tigger.

Cool, so demons can pick up a party member and planeshift away. No save even. Handy.


Warped Savant wrote:

toastedamphibian -- Gallant Armor changed his opinion to what he says here.

From another thread discussing lethal/nonlethal:
Gallant Armor wrote:
FYI, I did have the opinion previously, but I have been persuaded by the logic of others that since all of the damage dealt by a nonlethal attack is nonlethal even in the case of overflow damage, Power Attack would never work with nonlethal damage. If you are dealing lethal damage, Power Attack would be added before any other effect to diminish or alter damage.
(original post)

Thanks. Really did not want to dig through that pile again.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, nothing says or implies it can take actions while attached. It says you treat it as your familiar while it is attached.

You could do the same thing though, with rope.

Additionally, as a tiny creature, it's light load would be 1/2 that of a medium creature, or 114 lbs in this case. Could be tight. Consider being a small race.

Sorry, negative INT mod applies a penalty to skill ranks. Regardless of your philosophical beliefs, the rules are pretty clear on that point.

Swinging a sword is not a "skill" in pathfinder.

DarkPhoenixx wrote:

I am GM, i just want consistency in the rules.

What about Cestus? It is monk weapon, but does it do 1d4 or
While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage.
what is that supposed to mean?

Don't we all... it's just not there in this case. Sorry.

If it is in a grapple because of Grab, it deals the damage of whatever weapon triggered the grab ability to start the grapple.

If, like, someone grappled Tigger, and then Tigger gained control of the grapple, and then decided to deal damage: He does unarmed strike damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gallant Armor wrote:

When dealing lethal damage, power attack bonus damage applies before applying the effects of DR, ablative barrier, shield other or any other damage reducing effect.

The important part is whether the effect is dealing lethal or nonlethal damage, not what happens to that damage after the fact.

Fairly sure this is counter to what you where arguing last week. Is this an oversight, intentional stance change, or an error in my recollection?

Yeah... run. Run and don't look back. You will get no consensus on this topic here. Save yourself!

(Ask GM to rule on it ahead of time.)

DarkPhoenixx wrote:
Vampires are CE and they make thralls

Wait what? When did that happen? (Double checks...) Nope, SOME vampires are Chaotic Evil. All vampires are "Evil" but can be lawful neutral or chaotic.

maouse wrote:

So, you declare an attack. You choose to apply power attack. You take a -1 to hit. You roll damage with +2 added. But you missed by 1, So You decide to do non-lethal damage. You mysteriously loose the +2, and now recalculate the attack without the -1 to hit?

If you think this is how combat works you are being silly.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is claiming that. You can choose to use power attack when delivering a touch spell. You take the attack roll penalty, but the damage bonus does not apply. Only the benefit is contingent, not the penalty. Maybe you do it because you want the damage boost if you get to take an AoO or something, who knows.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Wow, I looked the description but I missed it. Sometimes we are blind to the most evident things. You are right.

If the ghost has a "copy" of a ghost touch weapon or armor, it work normally and it can still pass walls.

My earlier argument was meant to address the "ghost picking up a ghost touch weapon after it was created" problem. In that situation I still think that the picked up ghost touch weapon or armor will be solid and unable to move through walls.

Agreed. Corporeal ghost touch weapons cannot pass through walls, incorporeal ghost touch weapons can. Now, what happens if you disarm the ghost of his incorporeal ghost touch weapon while you are unarmed?

Eh, if a weapon is or is not finesseable is always a function of the weilder to some degree. Can you use that TYPE of weapon with weapon finesse? Then it is a type of weapon that can be used with weapon finesse.

You can be generally good without being a saint. Many churches offer incintives and try to make attendance pleasurable in an attempt to secure an audience for their message.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isabelle Lee wrote:

Hm. I was confused about the thread topic - that's what I get for posting right after waking up. I was referring to the unchained rogue's finesse training class feature in my previous post. Between that and classically trained, a Westcrown devil should be able to get Dex to attack and damage with a longsword. ^_^

What is "Rogue's Finesse" from, anyway? It's not ringing any bells.

Rogue's Finesse Looks to be a third party rogue/investigator/slayer talent.

(Kitsune Compendium © 2014, Everyman Gaming, LLC; Authors: Alexander Augunas.)

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

Alas, my Poison Use is a racial ability, not a class feature. :( I don't qualify without GM approval, plus my build is tight enough with Boar Ferocity and Nightmare Fist to play strong off the Vigilante Intimidate boosts. Though that would be nasty with the Fist of the Avenger and Lethal Grace. Damage die would drop from d3 to d2 but would still deal +Vigilante level (max 15) on the attack, and it would go against that coveted touch AC.

Well, vigilante damage maxes at 10th, you could MC into ranger/UnRogue/Slayer for a couple levels? Best of luck.


2nd level: Signature Weapon (Gauntlet) talent
3rd level: Shield Gauntlet Style
4th level: Avenging Fist Talent
5th level: Shield Gauntlet Attack
6th level: Combat Trick Talent > Shield Gauntlet Master feat (or wait till 7th)

Gets you free weapon Spec at 8th, 1/2 your level to damage still, and your damage is 1d6 at 5th, 1d8 at 9th, 1d10 at 14th, and 2d6 at 19th.

Pinpoint Poisoner is a bit feat intensive, but touch attack poison that gets 1d2 + uas bonus damage. Could work for your build, especially if you can use featherweight darts as well as standard blowgun darts.

Not being magical does not mean it does not fill the slot.

Cestus, Gauntlets and Dust Knuckles are all gloves. You could only wear one per hand.

Wrist Launchers pose no conflict.

No. Unless the GM decides otherwise.

1 to 50 of 1,395 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>