but you just said creatures provide regular cover so there is no soft cover...
cuatroespada, I'm with you. However, the soft cover part is irrelevant, because if you're making a melee attack, soft cover doesn't matter anyway. That is to say, your enemy still gets a +4 to AC, but they don't get to use the soft cover for stealth or as a bonus to reflex saves, both things that don't matter for the purposes of being targeted by melee attacks.
On the other hand, the stance you are advocating for means there is zero reason for the line about reach weapons using the rules for ranged attacks to exist at all.
No, as I pointed out before, the difference is that melee attacks normally draw lines from each corner of the attackers square to (it would seem anywhere in) the target's square to determine cover; ranged attacks draw lines from a single corner of the attackers square to each corner of the target's to determine cover.
cuatroespada, I'm with you. However, the soft cover part is irrelevant, because if you're making a melee attack, soft cover doesn't matter anyway. That is to say, your enemy still gets a +4 to AC, but they don't get to use the soft cover for stealth or as a bonus to reflex saves, both things that don't matter for the purposes of being targeted by melee attacks.
I'm just confused as to why you think the +4 AC from soft cover would still apply?
but you just said creatures provide regular cover so there is no soft cover...In that case, no there isn't.
Right, which would make the entry on it entirely pointless. To me, that renders your stance unreasonable.
No, it's soft cover regardless. If it were a ranged attack, it would apply.
i don't know what to tell you... it seems pretty obvious to me that the general rules for determining cover come first, and then the more specific rules about the types of cover follow. apparently, that doesn't seem obvious to you.
Well, which line would do nothing if that's the case?
Without that line, wouldn't a low wall provide cover from a reach weapon where it doesn't with that line?
edit: I envisioned attacker and target being adjacent to the low wall, but according to the Low Obstacles part you have to be "closer" than your target which seems wrong, but no more wrong than what you're getting at so... I don't know.
I'm just confused as to why you think the +4 AC from soft cover would still apply?
Because it's still cover? I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore. The rules specify that for melee attacks against non-adjacent enemies (such as with a reach weapon), use the same rules as for ranged attacks. If there is a creature in the way, it provides cover, per the ranged rules. It is soft cover, however, and cannot be used for stealth or to provide a bonus towards reflex saves.
I'm just confused as to why you think the +4 AC from soft cover would still apply?Because it's still cover? I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore. The rules specify that for melee attacks against non-adjacent enemies (such as with a reach weapon), use the same rules as for ranged attacks. If there is a creature in the way, it provides cover, per the ranged rules. It is soft cover, however, and cannot be used for stealth or to provide a bonus towards reflex saves.
i now see how you (and probably TriOmegaZero and Artoo) are understanding these rules, but i'm still not sure i agree. i am, however, less confident in my position.
GUYS!! Take is to another thread, please! This one is to help people with little known rules, not get into deep discussions about each one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Learned you only get one immediate/swift action per round, kind of ruins the cheese I was imagining with my master of styles. Can't panther style aoo counterattack and serpent style sense motive ac boost in the same round. Luckily crane wing is a free action.
You might want to check out the Crane Wing errata.
OK, so what is up with Gate?
It say I can control creatures, but not how long. In 3.5 it was 1 round per CL. What is it now?
You can choose which action(standard, move at level 7, swift at level 13) to use when activating bardic performance.
OK, so what is up with Gate?
It say I can control creatures, but not how long. In 3.5 it was 1 round per CL. What is it now?
In 3.5 it was up to 20 rounds per caster level, only if it was an immediate service, such as combat. You could also offer to trade them something in order for them to accept a contract of services, with as long of a duration as they were willing to accept.
In 3.5 it was up to 20 rounds per caster level, only if it was an immediate service, such as combat. You could also offer to trade them something in order for them to accept a contract of services, with as long of a duration as they were willing to accept.OK, so what is up with Gate?
It say I can control creatures, but not how long. In 3.5 it was 1 round per CL. What is it now?
OK, but what about in pathfinder? The immediate service duration was omitted, but is still alluded too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good find. It would be nice if that was called out in the Universal monster rules as well.This is not entirely true. I read it in another thread about a week ago, and it was confirmed by one of the developers - if I remember correctly, it was James Jacobs:
Creatures with the fire subtype are immune to fire and vulnerable to cold.
Creatures with the cold subtype are immune to cold and vulnerable to fire.
But an immunity doesn't automatically bring along a vulnerability.
According to the PRD it is entirely true:
Energy Immunity and Vulnerability
A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
This is very explicit for cold and fire immunity. It doesn't say anything about being immune to acid or electricity, for instance.
You can dual-wield light and/or medium shields. Makes for an interesting shield bashing and bull rush build.
OK, but what about in pathfinder? The immediate service duration was omitted, but is still alluded too.In 3.5 it was up to 20 rounds per caster level, only if it was an immediate service, such as combat. You could also offer to trade them something in order for them to accept a contract of services, with as long of a duration as they were willing to accept.OK, so what is up with Gate?
It say I can control creatures, but not how long. In 3.5 it was 1 round per CL. What is it now?
Sounds like a question for the Rules Questions forum.
Sounds like a question for the Rules Questions forum.OK, but what about in pathfinder? The immediate service duration was omitted, but is still alluded too.In 3.5 it was up to 20 rounds per caster level, only if it was an immediate service, such as combat. You could also offer to trade them something in order for them to accept a contract of services, with as long of a duration as they were willing to accept.OK, so what is up with Gate?
It say I can control creatures, but not how long. In 3.5 it was 1 round per CL. What is it now?
Yep!
1) Would you let spells like Shades, Shadow Conjuration, and Shadow Evocation mimic custom made wizard/sorcerer spells?
2) Would you change what kind of spell like abilities a simulacrum creature has compared to the original?
3) How would you handle players trying to use planar binding for cheaper/free wishes?
4) What is the duration of immediate service on the Gate spell?
5) Would immediate service gated efreeti be under enough control by the caster as to grant the caster un-perverted wishes?
6) In general how would you handle a player who plans to make frequent use of planar binding?
1) If the caster of the shadow spell knew about those spells, yes.
2) I might, in some cases, where the spell-like abilities allow the creator of the simulacrum access to spells that he shouldn't yet have access too (such as a djinni's wish).
3) By playing up the fact that the creatures granting those wishes always have their own agendas and making it somewhat risky to use them for those wishes. See the glabrezu chapter of Demons Revisited for more detailed examples.
4) Calling a creature with gate is instantaneous. The creature is there, and then assuming you can secure its cooperation, it takes as long as it takes to perform the service.
5) No.
6) By giving each of the creatures he conjures specific and unique and memorable personalities so that they become recurring NPCs.
1) Why the restriction on only custom spells they know? What about customs spells they just know of?
4) Gate talks about being able to control creatures under a certain HD, then goes on to explain how you could secure their service for longer more involved favors. This question comes up, because the 3.5 gate allowed you to call a creature for one round per level as "immediate service". The PF version of the spell seems to make that same distinction, but does not specify how long the not "longer or more involved" service is. I'm confused as to why they specify what creatures you can control if you can't control creatures.
1) Because if you don't know something exists, you can't copy it. Note that I said "knew about the spell" not "knows the spell."
4) I'm confused now too. Might be a good question to ask on the rules forums so it can be FAQed.
I wonder if the gate spell is used so rarely now, that this issue never came up?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Sounds like a question for the Rules Questions forum.OK, but what about in pathfinder? The immediate service duration was omitted, but is still alluded too.In 3.5 it was up to 20 rounds per caster level, only if it was an immediate service, such as combat. You could also offer to trade them something in order for them to accept a contract of services, with as long of a duration as they were willing to accept.OK, so what is up with Gate?
It say I can control creatures, but not how long. In 3.5 it was 1 round per CL. What is it now?
Yep!
** spoiler omitted **
Obviously the RAI in this case is that you form a buddy cop duo with the called creature.
Guys i've seen it mentioned at least twice in this thread that incorporeal creatures are immune to crits, can someone cite or link this? I can find no evidence of it being the case.
|
An incorporeal creature has no physical body. An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality. In addition, creatures with the incorporeal subtype gain the incorporeal special quality.
Objective Morality.
Doted
Guys i've seen it mentioned at least twice in this thread that incorporeal creatures are immune to crits, can someone cite or link this? I can find no evidence of it being the case.
Not sure what the original source is, but it's on the Rogue page in the PF SRD, in a sidebar.
Incorporeal (subtype): "An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits (unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality.)
Thank you, that's not in the core book or Bestiary (hence my confusion)
Thank you, that's not in the core book or Bestiary (hence my confusion)
Actually, I just found it in the Bestiary, under Creature Types. It's also on the official Paizo reference doc, here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to remember that as well though we didn't use it.
I betcha it was a thing in 3.0 (back when Innuendo was a Skill).
..........if you know what I mean.
Thank you, that's not in the core book or Bestiary (hence my confusion)Actually, I just found it in the Bestiary, under Creature Types. It's also on the official Paizo reference doc, here.
Interestingly, the problem arises because: the Incorporeal condition does not mention these immunities; the Incorporeal universal monster rule does not mention these immunities. The only place these immunities turn up is in the Incorporeal subtype.
Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that incorporeal creatures that do not have the incorporeal subtype (such as if granted by a spell or magic item) do not gain immunity to critical hits and precision damage.
|
This is very explicit for cold and fire immunity. It doesn't say anything about being immune to acid or electricity, for instance.Good find. It would be nice if that was called out in the Universal monster rules as well.This is not entirely true. I read it in another thread about a week ago, and it was confirmed by one of the developers - if I remember correctly, it was James Jacobs:
Creatures with the fire subtype are immune to fire and vulnerable to cold.
Creatures with the cold subtype are immune to cold and vulnerable to fire.
But an immunity doesn't automatically bring along a vulnerability.
According to the PRD it is entirely true:
Energy Immunity and Vulnerability
A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
Old text. I has been modified:
Energy Immunity and Vulnerability
A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
|
|
...Sounds like a question for the Rules Questions forum.OK, but what about in pathfinder? The immediate service duration was omitted, but is still alluded too.In 3.5 it was up to 20 rounds per caster level, only if it was an immediate service, such as combat. You could also offer to trade them something in order for them to accept a contract of services, with as long of a duration as they were willing to accept.OK, so what is up with Gate?
It say I can control creatures, but not how long. In 3.5 it was 1 round per CL. What is it now?
Yep!
** spoiler omitted **
The spell has a duration of: "Duration instantaneous or concentration (up to 1 round/level); see text". Until the text is changed we should assume that you can control the creature for 1 round level if you maintain your concentration.
Total Defense is a standard action that gives its +4 dodge bonus to AC as soon as you use it. So can use Total Defense and move past opponents, with a benefit similar to the Mobility feat.
You don't need to dump stats to be effective.
You don't need to specialise into a role.
Light Generation: Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell. These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. Such a weapon can't be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions.
We had a jerk/fun GM that started using other effects of equivalent power in place of boring old light. This started with a munchkin Paladin that kept bothering him for a holy avenger; he eventually found one that played "Pump Up the Jam" at an uncomfortable volume; much frowning ensued. Good times.
There was a section on that in the 3.5 DMGII, where crafters could choose to take a crafting "signature" to make items look unique rather than just glow.
Summoned creatures (with the "summoning" keyword) are NOT disabled at 0 hit points; they go away as soon as they are at 0 hit points.
You can ready an action outside of combat.
I think part of the confusion is caused by people seeing "Ready (triggers a standard action)" in the Actions in Combat table (Table 8-2) and think "A-ha! Ready is an 'action in combat', therefore you can only do it after initiative has been rolled!" But when you look at the rest of the table, there are a lot of things there that you can do out of combat (read a scroll, channel energy, light a torch with a tindertwig, etc...) That table is really only there to point out which things get AoOs and which things don't. Page 203 of the CRB has the full rundown on Ready and it says nothing about whether it has to be "in combat" or not.
You can ready an action outside of combat.
I think part of the confusion is caused by people seeing "Ready (triggers a standard action)" in the Actions in Combat table (Table 8-2) and think "A-ha! Ready is an 'action in combat', therefore you can only do it after initiative has been rolled!" But when you look at the rest of the table, there are a lot of things there that you can do out of combat (read a scroll, channel energy, light a torch with a tindertwig, etc...) That table is really only there to point out which things get AoOs and which things don't. Page 203 of the CRB has the full rundown on Ready and it says nothing about whether it has to be "in combat" or not.
I'm not so sure about that. Ready is a strange action that only makes sense in the artificial construction of turn-based combat: you act BEFORE whatever triggers that action. I would imagine the GM would handle turn order however he or see shes fit for the particular situation.
If the purpose of readying outside of combat is to act before a foe acts, even when that foe just surprised the party, I would let the rules determining awareness and initiative determine who acts first...
|
I apologize if someone said this (I may have missed it).
The Undead type grants proficiency in simple weapons.
So technically, that undead horse, howler monkey, housecat, balleen whale you just animated as a zombie or skeleton knows how to shiv people with a dagger, with or without opposable thumbs.
Nightmares, despite being ON FIRE, are not resistant to fire.