Every save or suck/die is like that. They're based on chance though, when I play a wizard that isn't a blaster, I tend to use things that impede enemies with little or no chance to save like waves of fatigue, sleet storm, grease, etc or buff party members like haste. Save or die is unfun for the party, either you win the fight yourself or you do a whole lot of nothing.
Fly. Between the two if I only had the choice of one I'd take fly every time.
Lyra Amary wrote:
Ring of Displacement, whatever suits your fancy, just costs more. Blinking hurts your damage output.
Most goods traded are high volume, low cost. 240 US short tons of potatoes for instance is 9,998.5 cubic feet of potatoes. I'd really like to legitimately see 10,000 cubic feet of potatoes balanced on a brachiosaurus without some form of magical storage. While we don't suffer wear and tear as PCs, NPCs definitely have them affect their things. Accidents happen.
Teleport was never designed with freight transportation in question so it doesn't have any restrictions on the amount of stuff you can carry as long as you can carry it but if there were rules about it I'd assume that there would be harder restrictions.
Siren's Mask wrote:
Paralyze is listed in the 3.5 Freedom of Movement. The FAQ is an interpretation, not RAW, it is valid for the purposes of this discussion.
FAQs aren't RAW people. Ever. Only official errata reprinted into books are RAW as you need to be able to play the game using only the rulebooks without any outside sources like the paizo forums or SRD.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Or improved grapple, you don't need grab though it would likely be the best choice.
Otherwise he is right, there is no point in doing this when you can just grapple, CMB check again to pin and tie them up / coup de grace whatever suits your fancy.
Of course, it would be nice to get FAQ clarification on a lot of things. The point of fun killers like myself (or the people in my smite thread) are to convince people that sometimes questions that seem stupid or trivial to us are not worth asking so the important ones get answered faster. Which questions are actually stupid or trivial is obviously opinion, and I'm of the opinion that this one is one of them.
Edit: And yes, the FAQ is interpretation not this is how it works because it states outright that the spell is openly worded. If you want to play RAW anything that prevents movement is affected by freedom of movement, including death, being turned to stone and divine intervention that causes you to cease to exist. All of these situations prevent you from performing move actions so if you want a level 4 spell to trump gods, death and the like, go ahead. Not at my table.
Siren's Mask wrote:
If you want to play that way, then FoM only works on what is listed and nothing else.
Or you can use logic, read the intentions of what is actually suggests, compare it against the freedom spell which is level 9 and supposed to be a lot more powerful and read the 3.5 FAQ which while it might not apply fully, still should everywhere that it wasn't contradicted.
3.5 FAQ on Freedom of Movement:
Does the freedom of movement spell protect a character
each of these spells puts something in the way of the creature
Since freedom of movement is from 3.5, then the FAQ and intent of the spell should carry over unless stated otherwise.
Edit: Sorry for the awful text formatting, it's copied from a PDF containing the 3.5 FAQ.
If you have still silent remove paralysis prepared or a paladin's lay on hands has the paralysis mercy selected, they can still take an action to remove paralysis. It's physical inhibition only, even if the source of the physical inhibition is a mind-affecting effect.
Nope, paralysis is physically preventing you from moving, which also prevents you from taking most physical actions. You can still take mental actions freely. It's a movement inhibitor, not an action inhibitor. Daze and stun are action inhibitors, you were hit in some way or had a spell cast on you that prevents you from thinking straight or similar and are unable to act appropriately.
Daze and stun are closer to frightened to confused than paralysis. They prevent actions entirely or prevent you from doing the actions you want to do. You need to have the ability to tell your body to move before you can do so.
The 20% miss portion that you suffer on your own attacks when you blink is not due to concealment so most abilities that negate miss chance will not help.
Nothing I know of from pathfinder, third party or otherwise can prevent this 20% miss chance due to being on the ethereal plane at the time of your strike, but 3.5 has a feat that does work with blink. Pierce Magical Concealment was/is commonly used by blinking rogues to land all their attacks even while blinking.
Edit: This is quite strong though, I don't think I'd allow it depending on how you play with miss chance stacking. It's been stated by JJ that concealment and blink do not stack, only 1 50% miss chance but the rules state only concealment miss chances do not stack. Only 30% of blink is concealment, the other 20% is because you are on the ethereal plane during the attack, so displacement's 50% bonus should overwrite the 30% portion of blink, and stack with the 20% ethereal portion of blink.
If you play with stacking, I wouldn't allow the feat, if you play without it, I would because you are effectively gimping yourself by using blink instead of displacement.
If your players want to play like this the next time they cast freedom of movement have the recipient fly off into space as they are no longer affected by the gravity of the planet or the star it orbits around and would fly off in a straight line. Not to mention depending on the composition of the orbit of the planet if it is post apoapsis the planet's orbit would be accelerating and the player would start to sink into the planet since rock and stone apparently no longer impede their movement until he can clear the orbit. This will often have them end freedom of movement embedded in the planet.
Or, you can just use it as intended and only have it prevent movement restriction, not action restriction.
Not only are your players munchkins but they are bad at it.
Lyra Amary wrote:
You could not piranha srike/power attack on the first round to make sure your offensive defense goes up. It's not like that's a huge source of ninja/rogue damage. It might even be best to not do it at all, which would completely counter the lack of bab though lower your damage output somewhat. There are options to shore up your weaknesses of being in melee as well, you can get things like cloak of displacement and ring of blinking.
Or you could just make a ranged sneak ninja and use sniper goggles to do gross amounts of damage. You'll suffer early until you get find a way to snipe pre-10 but then once you get invisible blades you can full attack with a ranged weapon sneaking with impunity.
Edit: If you can get enough to hit or an enemy has a low flat footed AC you can push your minimum sneak roll to 5 and max to 7. Average 36 sneak attack damage, which is pretty significant. Even my Paladin which is level 10 right now and heavily optimized does 34 damage per swing with strength, power attack and smite all factored. This is just sneak attack, if they have really low flat footed AC you could push the damage almost 40 with deadly aim*.
*Correction, agile is melee only, no dex to damage for ranged ninja/rogues.
If this logic works, then freedom of movement makes you immune to death, because death impedes your movement too.
It's only for things that specifically impede movement directly, not indirectly like daze, stun or death.
The redeemer text does seem to imply that the class is designed to combat (and "redeem") creatures typically seen as monstrous by the civilized races that may not necessarily be evil. The wording of merciful smite though in and of itself does not state that it allows smiting of non-evil creatures, and since it "otherwise works like and replaces the standard paladin's smite evil" any smites against non-evil is wasted to no effect.
I don't know how I'd handle this personally to be honest, but I don't see anything in the text that gives a very clear picture to intent so in your situation I would do whatever makes the most sense to your group really. Allowing any paladin to smite non-evil creatures does make the paladin quite a bit stronger in theory but in practice most of the baddies in campaigns are evil anyway so even allowing the smite bonuses to apply to these non-evil creatures might not be terrible.
Edit: Maybe require that the enemy in question is considered a monstrous race for smite to apply in the case of a non-evil enemy, then apply full bonuses and allow for the lethal/non-lethal swapping. Sometimes you require a lethal beatdown even in situations where you don't want to kill because things can be resistant to non-lethal damage like the invulnerable rager DR.
Ethereal jaunt does not pull touched targets in with the caster. As the phase spider ability works like ethereal jaunt, this is a no-go.
Using the phase spider for guerrilla tactic-style fighting is a good idea, especially if it targets some of the less hardy party members who might be more susceptible to poison (metagaming: low fort saves!).
You would have to invisible while making the attack. What the phase spider is doing is effectively no different than dismissing invisibility and then attacking. However as soon as invis is gone you are seen so no sneak attack dice if you attack after becoming visible.
Pointless nitpick, dismissing invisibility is a standard action and would prevent you from dismissing and then attacking. <3
From the perspective of a GM who rigidly follows whatever story/combat he has set up before hand without taking into consideration that if enemies had preemptive knowledge that a ninja is one of their foes they might try to negate him, yes the ninja tends to blow things up. Enemies that tend to have knowledge of the party like wizards and other casters should not be so surprised and unprepared if the GM is a good one unless the ninja takes extra consideration to hide themselves from information gathering techniques like scrying.
The relevance of my comment about banned classes in relation to my comment of your post is clear, don't play ignorant just to snark.
The massive strength of the barbarian, besides the literal massive strength and damage, is pounce which makes him amazingly mobile My comment was only in comparison to other melee classes so the points about archers, while correct, aren't valid. If that wasn't clear from the fact that I was addressing a barbarian comment then that's unfortunate. Melee options other than barbarian require that they position themselves before blowing up the target, like ninja/rogue.
Paladin smite adds a lot of damage yeah, but how much does sneak attack add? At level 11 a paladin can add 11 damage (or 15 with bracers of the avenging knight), while 6d6 sneak is an average of 21 damage, which can be pushed up by deadly sneak making the minimum roll on sneak dice 3. The paladin gets cha to attack rolls but the ninja often is attacking flat footed which can sometimes be as good or better, and sometimes worse. The paladin penetrates all DR, which is a great boon and hard to beat, but the DR needs to be greater than 5 for this to matter with average damage rolls, or even greater than 10 if the paladin does not have the bracers. Offensive Defense, if you can land the hit equals out the AC bonus from smite too, and often rogues can have similar AC to paladins wearing full plate because of their often prodigious amounts of dexterity. The ninja has no answer to the increased hit die or the self-healing because the paladin IS the better class, but the gap isn't as large and the advantage to offense is certainly not heavily skewed in the paladin's favor, slightly yes. The power gap is certainly not as large as melee vs ranged, especially gunslingers or things like nova bomb alchemists or T1 casters in general against martials.
The classes aren't balanced. Yes the barbarian and many other martials are the mechanically superior option to ninjas/rogues but they aren't the complete garbage that a lot of threads on paizo make them out to be. I don't play ninjas/rogues and I still think the hate they get is overblown.
Well, as to the readied actions, those interrupt the victim's turn so if they are set to attack as the spider pops into the material plane and attacks the readied action would strike before the spider does. If the readied action killed the spider no attacks would come from the spider at all.
"The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."
As for ethereal jaunt, I don't believe if following the rules strictly a phase spider rogue (is this a thing?) would benefit from being invisible in terms of getting sneak attack or not. The target is visible while attacking, even if they weren't visible until the last moment, so no sneak attack dice. Logically something that was invisible suddenly becoming visible and attacking you out of no where would probably be able to land precision damage to take advantage of your unawareness, you could perhaps houserule that.
Lyra Amary wrote:
Why not just, you know, flank? It's not like rogues/ninjas are THAT fragile or vulnerable in visible melee combat with the right feat/talent/trick choices. Offensive Defense is a good one.
Meanwhile, the party Barbarian pounces, and gets the same amount of damage or more with much fewer hits required, while having more HP, DR, etc.
Yeah, but the barbarian is an outlier and exception, not the rule.
Hell, we are doing a power limited campaign in which we don't allow full caster and other extremely powerful options, and barbarian is one of the non-full-caster banned classes.
Yikes, spell level is entirely different from caster level.
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
You are now* one of only two people that have actually went out of their way to break down the sentence into its components, correct or not for either you I cannot tell, though I am amused that someone in this thread thought that this was taught at a third grade level.
The indirect object is not intrinsically tied to the direct object that is associated with it, right? Would that not mean all damage rolls is indeed all of them, not all rolls associated with the direct object associated with the subject? Grammar is hard.
You are correct in that if smite evil is a personal buff and the FAQ does state it is then smite evil is intended to be a personal effect on the paladin then I concede that the power attack example is a good one. The wording on Warding had me thinking that smite evil had a component that affected the target as well.
*Edlited for clarity.
See Swift016's post to see why you are not correct.
Disclaimer: I know nothing of english, but it's clear that this entire thread except for one person does not either.
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
See THIS is helpful. I like you.
This is helpful for people who are looking for the intended use.
The sentence structure, as outlined by Swift016 very clearly (wrekt), states that all damage rolls gain the damage bonus. It doesn't matter if the effect is something on the paladin, it has no stated range limit, target limit and most importantly, does not state the paladin as the explicit recipient for the damage roll bonus.
Edit: You're too fast for me! I returned the original post so yours isn't out of context.
What the supposed English majors in this thread (Faelyn, Jiggy) seem to be implying is that there is an implied subject.
Let's examine this a little more closely.
"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all [her] damage rolls made against the target of her smite."
The supposed implication is bolded. This is not correct. The only way that there would be implied ownership to the damage roll portion of the sentence is if the original was worded as such:
"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to damage rolls made against the target of her smite."
Note the omission of all, which is the explicit wording of whose damage rolls they are, which would make the first correction and implication true.
If you are going to try to correct people's english, actually be right.
My point was not that it is a correct reading, but that people may believe it is. This is not confirmation bias, this is evidence.
This is really, REALLY a stretch to even claim this is worth asking. No, it doesn't work like that, no the wording doesn't hint, or indicate or anything else that this is how it works.
Except the first reply to the thread was an acknowledgement that this is a valid reading. Covering your ears and yelling until I go away does not make it any more true.
This is no more valid than the thread asking about flat-footed vs traps because there were some very "special" people in that thread. If people can't get that right, there is room for this question too.
Power attack doesn't affect the target, it's a personal "buff".
Of course it's not true, there is evidence of this because of the existence of aura of justice and powerful justice as I have already outlined. I'm not asking if it's true, I'm stating what the RAW is and if it has ever been officially acknowledged in some way.
Reading something any way except as it is literally written is RAI. This is about the RAW. Deliberate or not, the change of function is there because it's not attack rolls AND damage rolls. The addition of the adding paladin levels to damage instead of cha to damage interrupts the previous point and makes an entirely separate one. The person who worded this worded it poorly.
Um, okay? That still doesn't change the fact that the paladins adds her paladin level to ALL attack rolls. It does not say her attack rolls, it says all. The implication of whose attack rolls they are supposed to be because of the previous portion of the sentence is not important in accordance with RAW.
Brad McDowell wrote:
Removing the and just solidifies the original post.
Bypassing the DR is part of having an attack affected by smite, if you have smite provide damage, it provides its other benefits that aren't specifically restricted like attack roll.
"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess."
Now I am aware that the intent of smite evil was likely only to apply to the paladin, but with the wording the way it is the RAW interpretation is that any damage roll against a smote target gets the paladin's level in damage and bypasses DR. This is outrageously strong and how we have been using it in my campaign (I am the paladin). Looking over the aura of justice class feature and also the oath of vengeance archetype feature powerful justice it is very clear the intent of smite evil isn't to give the bolded benefits to the party out of the box but require the use of the two mentioned class features to do so.
Has there been any official developer response to this silly wording?
It's not stated that I am not invincible and not a god, so therefore I must be.
Going to go to a PFS game and tell them I'm a deity.
Those are exception scenarios, they are specifically written for those abilities, there is no combat flag in the general rules and there is especially no ruling stating that "in or out of combat" is different for flat footed. Either way, your argument about no flat-footedness out of combat is invalid.
a) That's not rules as written, enjoy your houserules.
b) If you have combat, and you don't have specific rules for something, you fall back on more general rules. That's how the system works. You cannot have specific rules for every system because the rules would be many times bigger than they are currently.
Traps do not flank because they do not threaten, they do their actions regardless of your responses and then they are done. Traps do not roll initiative because when a trap is armed it is readying an action, when you trigger it, it's initiative becomes just before your initiative (or after, however readied action initiative works). The acrobatics roll is to avoid a sentient thing actively trying to prevent you from getting through its square and is orthogonal to the discussion.
You would think a game designer would know how to interpret rules and how to fall back on more general rules when there is nothing specifically written for the entry. Perhaps that's why you are freelance.
Not applying regular combat rules to traps is houseruling unless you can show me where it says that traps do not follow standard combat rules in a rulebook. FAQs and personal opinions of developers are not relevant and are RAI.
There are situations where attacks call for targeting specific types of AC too (guns hit touch AC), but the ones that don't aren't always attacking normal AC regardless of situation. So, no, just like any attack roll, if it's not specified it works like a regular attack roll.
"Traps that attack with arrows, sweeping blades, and other types of weaponry make normal attack rolls, with specific attack bonuses dictated by the trap's design."
Effect Atk +20 ranged (6d6); multiple targets (all targets in a 20-ft. line)
Where do you see anywhere on the trap page that is explicitly says trap attack rolls are non-standard and unless otherwise specified, attack regular AC regardless of situation? I certainly don't see that. I see it saying it makes a regular attack roll just like everyone else, a single attack roll is a standard action. You are being attacked by a standard action when you are unaware, you are flat-footed.
It says it gives you 20 foot reach, and cannot be used up to 15 feet while like this so, yes enlarging should work as normal, there are no exceptions noted.
I would assume it would give you 40 foot reach, and also allow you to attack at 35 feet. Your deadzone would be double the original deadzone, 30 feet instead of 15.
Edit: Already answered by Kazaan, I agree with his logic.
I was premature in my assessment, the person I replied to (andreww) stated that it was due to using spell perfection on non-feats and I took that at face value instead of looking at it myself which I did for the second edit realizing that it was either an adding error or something else.
Hah, I didn't even catch that, for some reason I assumed spell perfection was a metamagic feat because it had metamagic prereqs. Derp.
1st Eldritch Heritage3rd Skill Focus: Knowledge (Planes)
5th Spell Penetration
7th Greater Spell Penetration
9th Varisian tattoo
11th Eldritch Heritage
13th Quicken Spell
15th Improved Eldritch Heritage
17th Greater Eldritch Heritage
19th Reach Spell
There are only two metamagic feats here yet he has spell perfection, the build is not legal. I thought there was some loss of DC, but I forget why.
Edit: You outlined it already, spell perfection on non-feat bonuses.
Double Edit: I don't actually see how he got to 47 anyway, caster level increases don't add to DC.