yumad's page

Usually additional damage from spells and inspire courage for your weapon attacks assume YOU are wielding it. You are not wielding these javelins, they are being thrown by the spell, I'd say no weapon damage modifiers from other spells on holy ice. Interesting question though.

Honestly the spells that make me go wuh? Are suggestion and blindness. Blindness is permanent and requires I think a 4th level spell to remove.

Suggestion can easily take someone completely out of the action for hours so that many times a player might as well pack up and leave. The bbeg giving you problems? Suggest he go read a book as you kill his minions then gang on him 4 to 1.

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.

So, Who here is willing say that Haste, when you account for general effectiveness returned versus spell level, is the single most powerful spell in pathfinder?

I am. Other spells may be more powerful in absolute terms, but none so consistently and drastically effect an encounter, at such an early level, and remain so tremendously effective into the highest levels as haste.

If Haste didn't already exist and a player came to me with Haste as a custom spell, I would say "Okay, this looks cool, but it's not a 3rd level spell, make it 6th level and you've got a deal".

If that seems extreme to you, look at 6th level Transmutations and ask yourself honestly, Would I rather cast Mass Bull's strength, Disintegrate or Haste? Well, Disintegrate might deal a fair amount of damage, but it requires an attack roll... And allows a save... And probably won't deal as much damage as hasting your party works out to anyway.

I motion that haste be Crane Winged. Yay? Nay?

Um.

Fly. Between the two if I only had the choice of one I'd take fly every time.

yumad 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.

Regardless, Power Attack is still a source of damage. If I have to give it up because I can't hit with it, then that's losing damage that another martial otherwise would not need to give up. Additionally, having lower BAB makes you have less attacks than full BAB martials. That was another thing I discovered when I was playing a Ninja.

yumad wrote:

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.

I don't think a Cloak of Displacement is a good idea. Rogues have among the worst saves in the game, and taking this would prevent you from wearing a Cloak of Resistance.

The Ring of Blinking is a good idea, however. I never noticed it before. Good catch.

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.

Quote:

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.

Logic would dictate that the 3.5 FAQ is completely moot, as it specifically says that it only effects physical impairments, and the pathfinder version specifically adds a condition not covered in the 3.5 version of the spell, namely paralyzed. The addition of Paralyzed, a condition that has both mundane (poison), and magical sources, as well as the possibility of being either physical or mental, changes the written and intentional understanding of the 3.5 version.

Freedom as a 9th level spell includes all of the goodness of FoM, save it specifically counters Imprisonment, a spell that not even wish or miracle can save you from. It makes no mention of mental or physical impairment, and even uses the same language about movement as FoM. However it should be noted that Freedom does include stunning, it makes no mention of daze, or more specifically the topic of this thread. Is this an intentional oversight?

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.

The eidolon needs the Grab ability or it will draw an attack of opportunity. And it needs the Improved Reposition or Improved Drag feat to pull things into the water without provoking another attack of opportunity. And it'll need a high enough CMB/CMD to maintain a hold. Lastly, PF characters can hold their breath for many rounds.

So... yes, but it's not likely to be very effective.

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.

The 3.5 FAQ presumably doesn't apply (at least not completely), since it suggests that FoM wouldn't work against hold person, which PF developers have said in the past that it does work against.

It would make some sense to rule it the way that FAQ entry suggests (note that it calls it an interpretation, rather than "this is how it works"), but IMO it would be equally sensible to rule it the other way.

Of course, official clarification regarding dazed/stunned vs FoM would be nice either way :)

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.

yumad wrote:

Paralyzed

A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through.

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.

How ever you want to term it in your game is fine, but Hold person is a mind-affect. "physical inhibitor" is not a game term, neither is "mental inhibitor". Mind-affecting is though, and so is the condition of Paralyzed. FoM doesn't make a distinction to the cause, source or circumstance of the condition Paralyzed, just that you are not affected by it while you have FoM on. Meaning by RAW there is no distinction between the various forms of paralysis for the purpose of FoM, or their is no distinction between physical or mental movement restriction.

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
from being stunned? The argument is that “stun” is a
condition that hinders movement.
Freedom of movement is one of those tricky spells that has
a lot of open-ended wording that might lead to confusion. The
spell becomes much more manageable if you just look at it as
something that ignores any physical impediment to movement
or actions. If you assign this restriction, then it makes sense that
freedom of movement works against solid fog, slow, and web;

each of these spells puts something in the way of the creature
that stops them from moving/acting, or specifically targets the
creature’s physical movement.
With this interpretation, spells and effects such as hold
person that apply a mental impediment to taking any action
would not be bypassed by freedom of movement. These are
mental effects, and freedom of movement only helps you bypass
physical effects (such as solid fog) or effects that specifically
impede just your movement, not spells that stop you from
taking any action, as hold person does.
In the same vein, freedom of movement would not work on
someone who had been turned to stone by a medusa’s gaze or
by a flesh to stone spell.
To answer the original question, being stunned is one of
those mental effects and would normally deny a creature the
ability to act at all. Since it’s not specifically focused on just
impeding movement, and it is a mental, not physical
impediment, freedom of movement would not help a stunned
creature to act or move normally.
This interpretation of freedom of movement can make it
easier to adjudicate the effects of the spell, but it is also more
restrictive. As always, it will ultimately be up to the Dungeon
Master to make the best call as he sees fit for his campaign and
play session.

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 freedom of movement worked against all of these effects that prevent actions then the spell Freedom has no purpose.

Paralyzed
A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through.

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.

You know, at first, I thought, "this is ridiculous, your players are trying to abuse the system."

I went ahead and read the whole spell to see if something was missed and here you go.

PFSRD wrote:

This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.

Daze and Staggered are as much a debilitation to your movement as paralysis, on an even lower scale actually. I guess a case truly can be made here. Good find!

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.

Hmmm...I tend to agree except my players are making a good argument. The first part of FOM does say: "This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell..."

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.

Rynjin wrote:

yumad 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.

The problem being that that requires the Rogue to actually hit something, which is far from guaranteed.

This is correct. Without an additional source of attack bonuses (Weapon Training, Smite, Favored Enemy, Rage, etc) while also having lower BAB, it was hard for me to hit enemies without being able to hit flat-footed AC by being invisible. I could also flank, but being visible meant I was diving into enemy back lines, where other enemies could pile on me. Offensive Defense was a nice source of AC, but it also only affects the enemy you hit with Sneak Attack, not any other enemies that may happen to attack you because you are out of position.

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.

But, can it not be argued that daze does indeed impede movement?

"The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC."

It restricts the movement by making the dazee unable to take actions...

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.

However, what the Phase Spider can do is to stalk its victims, start a surprise round by phasing into the material plane and attacking (gaining sneak attack against its flat-footed foes if it's a rogue), and then phasing back out again before round 1 begins (possibly with a grabbed foe along with it; I'm not entirely sure if the rules allow that).

Continuing those tactics at varied intervals for a while should lead to a party becoming fairly paranoid and/or frustrated.

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

Had a player reroll a ninja and just wanted to makes sure I'm not missing something here.

Essentially with vanishing trick, a ninja in melee on his turn can do the following:

Swift-Vanish
Full Round- First Attack Sneak, Vanish Removed, Remaining normal attacks

And when the ninja gets invisible blades:

Swift- Vanish
Full Round- All sneak attacks, remains invisible.

From a GM perspective it seems once he hits level 10 everything gets obliterated unless they happen to have detect invisibility up. Accurate or inaccurate?

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.

yumad wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

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.

Meanwhile the party Paladin Smites, and gets the same amount of damage or more with fewer hits requires while having more HP, AC, self healing, etc.

Meanwhile the Party Ranger lets loose with a flurry of arrows at his Favored Target, dealing the same amount of damage or more while having more HP, an Animal Companion, spells, attacks at long range, etc.

Meanwhile the party Fighter attacks a target and deals the same amount of damage or more with fewer hits required (alternatively "lets loose with a flurry of arrows for ludicrous damage") while having more HP, higher AC, etc.

The only difference between them and the Barbarian in that scenario is that he can do it in one round instead of two like the everyone else.

yumad wrote:

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.

Relevance to the subject at hand?

yumad 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.

The problem being that that requires the Rogue to actually hit something, which is far from guaranteed.

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.

Sehnder wrote:

Had a player reroll a ninja and just wanted to makes sure I'm not missing something here.

Essentially with vanishing trick, a ninja in melee on his turn can do the following:

Swift-Vanish
Full Round- First Attack Sneak, Vanish Removed, Remaining normal attacks

And when the ninja gets invisible blades:

Swift- Vanish
Full Round- All sneak attacks, remains invisible.

From a GM perspective it seems once he hits level 10 everything gets obliterated unless they happen to have detect invisibility up. Accurate or inaccurate?

I've had actual experience playing a Ninja over level 10, and this is exactly what happens.

When I fought against anything that could not see through invisibility, they could do nothing against me and I cut them to pieces. But when they could see through it, I fell back to the effectiveness of a Rogue, which is to say, fairly useless.

You pretty much only exist in those two extremes and like what most other posters have said, the higher level you go, the more enemies you run into that can bypass your invisibility.

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.

Thread resurrection.

A 7th level sorcerer (straight sorcerer) can is only a 3rd level caster in that he can cast 3rd level spells, correct? His HD is 7 so Magical Knack would work on this class?

Or has my DM been wrong for all these years?

Yikes, spell level is entirely different from caster level.

yumad 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.

I am sad to see that you changed your opinion. Lifat is right, though. You cannot dismiss power attack as an argument for being a personal buff and at the same time say that it is irrelevant to your misinterpretation that smite evil is a personal buff.

Either way, regarding the last part that you originally bolded ("smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess"), what makes you think that anyone without the smite evil class feature can make a "smite evil attack"?

yumad wrote:

See Swift016's post to see why you are not correct.

Edit:

Disclaimer: I know nothing of english, but it's clear that this entire thread except for one person does not either.

That sentence analysis was neglectful as "the target" is not the only subject of the sentence.

I'm taking this in slightly larger chunks rather than pointing out every single conjunction to keep things clearer:
If(conditional)
this target(subject)
is evil(predicate)
the paladin(subject)
adds(predicate)
her Cha bonus(object) (if any)
to her attack rolls(indirect object)
and adds(predicate)
her paladin level(object)
to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.(indirect object)

We have three predicates and two subjects, not one. The latter two predicates refer to the paladin.

Edit for clarification of intent: So if Swift016's analysis was incorrect (failing to identify the second subject), how does that qualify him/her as "clearly the only person...

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.

yumad wrote:

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.

You're confusing your own stylistic choice vs. actual rules.

I wouldn't hire you as an editor (and I use editors so I don't have to worry about it, as you can tell from most of my posts which use incorrect English).

If you are going to try to correct people's English, try to actually be right and don't be one of those pains who think they know English, only to try to impose their writing style on everyone else.

For example...

"I closed the book and put it on the table."

I am the only subject. It is implied I both closed the book and that I also put it on the table.

As the subject of the sentence, I am implied to be the subject of both actions.

There is no other subject defined in the sentence. There is no other subject defined in the paragraph.

If it said...

The family asked me to put the book on the table. I closed the book and it was put on the table."

That could imply the family or I, as another subject has been defined.

Then again, I normally use terrible English so don't correct others...unless they are not being nice...

See Swift016's post to see why you are not correct.

Edit:

Disclaimer: I know nothing of english, but it's clear that this entire thread except for one person does not either.

I swear to God I'm gonna flag the next poster that says "shenanigans".

Antics? Capers?

There is an FAQ that says "Smite is not an effect on the weapon, it is an effect on the paladin."

Quick rewrite: "Smite is not an effect on the target, it is an effect on the paladin."
In other words, when a paladin smites evil, she "[calls] out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil". It is an effect on her, not her allies or anyone else, and it only applies when attacking that one selected target.

** spoiler omitted **

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.

yumad wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

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.

Confirmation bias is a thing.

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.

You are incorrect about what the RAW is. This construction is quite common throughout the rules and is not poorly worded. Abilities, feats, etc...only apply their benefits to those that possess them unless it explicitly states otherwise. Example:

PRD wrote:

Power Attack (Combat)

You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

Power attack doesn't say you take a -1 penalty to all of YOUR attack rolls to gain a bonus on all of YOUR damage rolls. However, it is clearly understood that is the case because it doesn't state otherwise.

Likewise, Smite Evil doesn't need to state that the "all damage rolls" is referring to YOUR damage rolls because it doesn't explicitly state otherwise.

Power attack doesn't affect the target, it's a personal "buff".

Claxon wrote:

It is all once continuous sentence explaining what happens. There is not a dilberate difference in wording to change how it functions.

And in this case is effectively meaning also or in addition to. It doesn't change whom it affects. It only applies to the paladin.

Further, as the OP pointed out, there are abilities that specifically grant the ability for other to apply smite damage from the paladin's smite. So it seems quite clear that you shouldn't be reading or interpreting that way.

If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

This doesn't seem too good to be true. It seems too massively and overwhelmingly good to be true.

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.

It is all once continuous sentence explaining what happens. There is not a dilberate difference in wording to change how it functions.

And in this case is effectively meaning also or in addition to. It doesn't change whom it affects. It only applies to the paladin.

Further, as the OP pointed out, there are abilities that specifically grant the ability for other to apply smite damage from the paladin's smite. So it seems quite clear that you shouldn't be reading or interpreting that 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.

No? It says directly "the paladin adds" not the paladin and her friends.

Only the paladin gets the benefit.

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.

Removing the "and" turns this into 2 sentences...

"The paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls made against the target of her smite."

"The paladin adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

And...
How does a Paladin's friend get a smite evil attack? They don't have the class ability to announce such a tactic. No bypassing DR for them.

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?

Both feats are very likely intended to do the same thing, reduce the total adjusted metamagic level, but because of slightly differing wording it merits a discussion.

It only "works" if you multiclass.

Example: An Arcanist-3 with Magical Knack gains no benefit. An Arcanist-1/Fighter-2 with Magical Knack is counted as though its Arcanist caster level were 3.

Or play specific classes with delayed caster levels like Paladin or Ranger.

The rules are written with the assumption that players are not braindead and know how to interpret them. Just because something is *not* specified does not mean that the opposite is true, it simply means that they were trying to save real estate on paper in the Core Rulebook.

A trap, by definition, is something that you're likely to be unaware of and will therefore be flat-footed to. Any other ruling is a houserule.

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.

yumad wrote:

There is no such thing as outside or inside of combat. There is no combat flag, this is not an MMO.

There is some kind of thing like a combat flag. It drives the Inquisitor's Judgment duration and the Cavalier's Challenge duration, for example.

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.

yumad wrote:

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.

(a) I don't have to convince you (nor you me). Barring an official answer from Paizo, traps in my games go off basic AC, and that's my reading of the rules as written.

(b) Your criterion is extreme (and not RAW). Show me where it says not to have traps roll for initiative. Show me where it says traps do not flank. Show me where it says that characters don't have to make an acrobatics check to move through a trap's square. The rules do not list all the things that you don't do.

Show me where it says that traps do follow the standard combat rules in a rulebook. The combat rules talk about "everybody" (not "every trap") and "combatants" (not "traps").

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.

Simon Legrande wrote:

These arguments are both valid if you don't choose to use standard combat rules with traps. Since certain traps make attack rolls with assigned attack bonuses, I see no problem with applying the standard combat rules to them.

I choose not to house rule other standard combat rules onto traps. I don't have traps roll initiative, for instance, nor allow them to flank, nor take a penalty for firing into melee. I see no problem with others' house rules that select other combat rules (such as the ability to catch characters flat-footed) to apply them, though, but I don't see the advantage in adding it.

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.

yumad wrote:

The traps in pathfinder aren't usually Indiana Jones traps, you do not have time to react to a scythe sweeping out from a slot in the wall or an arrow firing from a concealed hole any more than you have time to react to a person hiding in a bush sweeping a scythe out at you or firing a crossbow from said bush.

And I think this is the core of my disagreement. Traps in Pathfinder do give you time to react, either through a saving throw or through a melee or missile attack vs. your AC. Sometimes that AC would explicitly be your touch AC and sometimes explicitly your flat-footed AC, and where it's not specified, it would be your normal AC. None of these reactions mean that the trap's weapon is lumbering slowly towards you.

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

"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."

Hail of Arrows Trap CR9

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.

yumad wrote:

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.

You are correct. Still, ditching Bloatmage Initiate for any one other one fixes that,and Bloatmage Initiate is his worst Feat by far.

yumad wrote:

Edit: You outlined it already, spell perfection on non-feat bonuses.

Uh...where? Everything I see it used on is a Feat.

yumad wrote:

Double Edit: I don't actually see how he got to 47 anyway, caster level increases don't add to DC.

Looking at it, you're right here. There was a definite screwup. DC should be 40, though he could make a Lilitu his b!~~@ for a +4 Profane bonus to Int and make it 42. I think that's as high as it gets barring Mythic.

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.

Yep, so he does. He has also taken spell perfection as a class bonus feat which you cannot do as it is not a metamagic feat.

I think the 47 initially involved some sort of illegal Heighten Spell hijinks. The DC should be 40.

Hah, I didn't even catch that, for some reason I assumed spell perfection was a metamagic feat because it had metamagic prereqs. Derp.

yumad wrote:

I believe one of the feat choices or the order of them are illegal and he loses a little bit to the DC there, plus some of the items are extremely specific like requiring a full moon or whatever.

Still not as cheesy as using an eidolon as a mount though, X vs AM BARBARIAN is actually a 1v2, not a 1v1.

His feat order is entirely legal. The only situational thing is the quite irrelevant Moon Circlet which is adding to caster level. Given he is auto beating SR without it he really doesn't need it.

1st Eldritch Heritage

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.