>>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<<

[TrinitysEnd]

Thanks once again for such quick responses! I know a lot of people who will be happy about that Diadem bit! As for if I literally said that, it's the closest phonetic I could figure for me being unable to speak comprehensible words (And also one of the first things I typed out to my friends when I got the news)! I was very happy to receive that news!

Continuing on with the thread's theme though: What's you favorite things to read when you are reading a TTRPG book? Do you like the lore? The stats? The flavor?

[Suz]

Hi Mark

Pathfinder RAW rule on Threatening.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."

If you've spent your Attacks of Opportunity for the round, do you no longer threaten? The rules states that you threaten all squares into which you "can" make a melee attack, and I've got a RAW player who's suggesting it works like crossbow bolts.

If you have no more bolts then you can't shoot, if you've go no more attacks that round then you can't make a melee attack therefore you don't threaten.

[andreww]

Hi Mark, I would be interested in your views on the Cleric alternative channel options in Ultimte Magic.

They say that clerics may take options which are "based on one aspect of her deity's portfolio".

We don't have a definitive list of which deities offer which alternate channel options. How closely do those options need to be to a particular deity's portfolio?

I currently have a player wanting to play a Cleric of Calistria using the ale/wine variant. Calistria's portfolio is lust, revenge and trickery. I can sort of see how drunkenness might lead to any of those but it is a bit of a stretch to say they are part of her portfolio.

If it matters this is for PFS.

[Ashram]

Hey Mark, had another item you might want to look into adding to the Horror Adventures FAQ list. There's a bit of a problem with the Death Druid archetype: Death Druid shared consciousness

[The NPC]

Mr. Mark Seifter,

Can the bloodrager take the mooncursed barbarian archetype?

[Chess Pwn]

The NPC wrote:

Mr. Mark Seifter,

Can the bloodrager take the mooncursed barbarian archetype?

... no, cause it's not a barbarian.

[Ashram]

One mooooooore thing! Spoilery things from Psychic Anthology.

Spoiler:

The Focused Blast infusion says it grants your kinetic blast an enhancement bonus. Does this enhancement bonus count as allowing your blast to bypass DR as a weapon enhancement bonus would?

[Mark Seifter]

Ashram wrote:

One mooooooore thing! Spoilery things from Psychic Anthology.

** spoiler omitted **

Skipping questions to here: nope, that's ordinarily an effect from magic weapons themselves.

[Ashram]

Alright. That makes it... Significantly less useful for the burn cost or the half damage.

[Mark Seifter]

Ashram wrote:

Alright. That makes it... Significantly less useful for the burn cost or the half damage.

Honestly, I'd usually prefer to do something flashier like a fun shape or a substance with a kicker, but when it comes to crunching the highest numbers for single target damage (which seems to be the baseline a lot of people use, so clearly a lot of other people are interested in playing it that way), you're going to do more that way with those extra +s in your corner. For a quick example of where it goes when you start having to pay higher burn, if you normally hit with your empowered composite blast on a 7 (it's even better if you need a higher number to hit) and grab a +4 accuracy boost, that's almost as much extra damage per round as if you had the ability to somehow "double-empower" it from x1.5 up to x2, and it's more reliable. I'd only take half damage if I really need the hit on a critically-low opponent or to apply a kicker.

[Shalloecoore]

Hi Mark I was hoping you could clarify what item slots a pseudodragon would have access to as an improved familiar. I've searched the boards for all things pseudodragon and can't seem to find an answer.

From the FAQ:

In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, animal companions always have access to barding and neck-slot items so long as they have the anatomy...

Additionally, animal companions have access to magical item slots, in addition to barding and neck, as listed on the inside front cover of the Animal Archive so long as they select the Extra Item Slot feat. The Animal Magic Item Slots table found in Animal Archive is not a legal except under the following conditions. First, an animal companion, familiar, or bonded mount, may choose one slot listed under its body type when taking the Extra Item Slot feat

So if I understand this correctly, a pseudodragon would have access to the neck and barding slots and, assuming I can trade the weapon finesse feat that a pseudodragon comes with for the "Extra Item Slot" feat, I could pick one other additional slot associated with the pseudodragon body type listed in the Animal Archive table. If all that is correct, then what body type would a pseudodragon fall under in the Animal Archive table?

Many thanks!

[FiddlersGreen]

Hi Mark, if you were to take a stab at making Zuko from Avatar, how would you go about it (class/feats/stats etc)?

Some touchstones, feel free to add your own:
Fire bender kineticist
Decent unarmed combatant
Competent dual-wielder
Good at stealth
Some kind of multi-class?

Not looking for a full build, just a general concept (though a full build might also be fun). Feel free to name or hint at options from psychic anthology too. =)

Second but potentially related question:
Regular kineticists need to have a free hand to use their kinetic blasts. Is there any feat, talent or item that allows them to do what Zuko does near the end of this clip (linked), either by waiving the 'free hand' requirement or otherwise allowing them to blast whilst holding an item or channel their blast through a sword?

[Mike Bramnik]

Heya Mark!

Out of curiosity, what do you think in Pathfinder would match up best to a Georgian KHANJLURI (main bit starts at 2:42 and best bit around the 5:00 mark) type of concept (aside from a Sarenite-ish dervish build, which almost seems too easy)?

Continue to love your work, and hope to see you at Gen Con again this year!

[Limas Venomscale]

Can a familiar gained by Elemental Whispers gain the benefits of magic items via Inscribe Magic Tattoo (Item Creation Feat)?

Do elemental Whispers familiar's have any senses when not manifested?

[Haldelar Baxter]

Are any of the new void talents considered evil to use and affect alignment?

[Taenia]

Hey Mark, not sure if you saw my earlier question so hope you don't mind if I ask again.

What is the cast time on Spark of Life. It references Summon Monster only in what it is summoning not how it is cast so wasn't sure whether it would follow the Standard action or 1 round casting time. If not expect a surprise visit next time I am at Paizo.

Thanks

[GhostwheelX]

Hi Mark, got another question if you'd be so kind; if a character with the Versatile Channeler feat later takes a level of Life Oracle and took the Channel ability, would they also be able to channel negative energy with their oracle channel?

[Luthorne]

Hey, Mark, I was looking at the ectoplasmatist and fractured mind archetypes for the spiritualist due to a wacky idea I had for a kitsune flavoring it as attacking with spiritual tails, and surprisingly they seem to stack, but without a phantom, can emotional power provide anything? Or am I wrong about them stacking? This is likely going to be for Pathfinder Society, by the by, though I would certainly also be interested in seeing how you would handle it outside of that as well.

[Krol Thorngage]

Hi Mark, I'm here looking for two answers on the swashbuckler (also mouser) and his deeds.

Here we go:
If the mouser/swashbuckler is on a difficult terrain, can he use his deeds Dodging Panache and Underfoot Assault ?
And what if he's swimming? Flying?

Also, for the Mouser Underfoot Assault, if i am below an enemy, can he take 5 foot steps? And if he can, can he 5 step to a zone where i'm no longer below him and would he provoke an attack of opportunity (would he be able to use acrobatics to avoid it)?

Reference:
Dodging Panache (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent attempts a melee attack against the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action spend 1 panache point to move 5 feet; doing so grants the swashbuckler a dodge bonus to AC equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 0) against the triggering attack. This movement doesn't negate the attack, which is still resolved as if the swashbuckler had not moved from the original square. This movement is not a 5-foot step; it provokes attacks of opportunity from creatures other than the one who triggered this deed. The swashbuckler can only perform this deed while wearing light or no armor, and while carrying no heavier than a light load.

(Mouser)
Underfoot Assault (Ex): At 1st level, if a foe whose size is larger than the mouser's is adjacent to her and misses her with a melee attack, the mouser can as an immediate action spend 1 panache point to move 5 feet into an area of the attacker's space. This movement does not count against the mouser's movement the next round, and it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. While the mouser is within a foe's space, she is considered to occupy her square within that foe's space.

While the mouser is within her foe's space, the foe takes a –4 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks not made against the mouser, and all of the mouser's allies that are adjacent to both the foe and the mouser are considered to be flanking the foe. The mouser is considered to be flanking the foe whose space she is within if she is adjacent to an ally who is also adjacent to the foe. The mouser can move within her foe's space and leave the foe's space unhindered and without provoking attacks of opportunity, but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser. This deed replaces opportune parry and riposte.

[Thistlefoot]

Hi Mark,

Does a weapon used by an telekineticist for kinetic blade take damage every successful hit? The entry for telekinetic blast seems clear when you throw the weapon, but the wording on kinetic blade is more vague.

[Mark Seifter]

N N 959 wrote:

I'm back for more sage advice.

PRD on Shinning Star wrote:

Shining Star (Su): At 8th level, the celebrity has learned how to focus attention on himself so thoroughly that even the presence of danger does not distract his adoring crowd. When using fascinate, a target making a save to break the effect because of a potential threat takes a –4 penalty on that save, and even obvious threats require a save rather than automatically breaking the effect. Creatures affected by the bard’s fascinate ability ignore the shaken condition. The ability replaces dirge of doom.

** spoiler omitted **...

1. It looks like as written yes; if you fascinate first, they're paying you so much attention that it lasts through threats, but it doesn't provide for negating that other sentence about pre-existing combat.

2. Probably a case by case basis, depending on the pre-existing conditions when initiative is rolled.

3. Potential is what takes the penalty as per the ability, not obvious.

4. That one is really unclear. I would probably roll it roughly once per threatening-dude-doing-threatening-stuff. So like if a kasatha draws four swords, I would only roll it once, not once per sword, but if a kasatha draws sword, that's one roll, and if a non-hiding sniper draws a bead on me to fire, that's another one, and a goblin lights a fuse leading to a bunch of explosives, that's another one. Other solutions to this question are also totally fair, and I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if a GM ruled it differently, since I'm essentially just making something up that seems to me to be fair to PCs who got hit by this sort of super-fascinate while also not leading to huge bookkeeping and adjudication each time.

[Mark Seifter]

Ectar wrote:

Regarding both the heavens oracle mystery and heavens shaman spirit:

The level 20 abilities state that if you die you are reborn 3 days later as a star child. What is a star child?

I don't really know. I think someone asked this when the APG first came out and the answer was that it was flavor text describing your rebirth and not mechanical, but I can't find the thread.

[Joana]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Regarding both the heavens oracle mystery and heavens shaman spirit:

The level 20 abilities state that if you die you are reborn 3 days later as a star child. What is a star child?

I don't really know. I think someone asked this when the APG first came out and the answer was that it was flavor text describing your rebirth and not mechanical, but I can't find the thread.

This one, maybe?

[Steve Geddes]

Have you memorised the entire internet, Joana? Or just this bit of it?

[N N 959]

Mark Seifter wrote:

2. Probably a case by case basis, depending on the pre-existing conditions when initiative is rolled

Thank you for providing some clarity on the topic. I wanted to follow up on #2. Just for reference, my original question was:

NN959 wrote:

2. If the Bard is first to act after Initiative is rolled, can a bard use Fascinate or does the rolling of Init preclude the use of Fascinate/Shining Star?

So in the nominal case a party is in a dungeon, turns the corner and finds a group of predatory (and hungry) ogres. Init is rolled, fighter goes first and he delays. Then the bard goes. Can she fascinate the ogres?

[Mark Seifter]

D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-double FAQ!

FAQs wrote:

Haste: Haste says a hasted creature can make an additional attack during a full attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, but what about other sorts of attacks like unarmed strikes?

Unarmed strikes and other attacks that work via full attacks (such as mystic bolts, kinetic blade, and flame blade) all allow an extra attack with haste. However, single attacks such as incorporeal touch attacks or melee touch spells delivered round by round after holding the charge do not.

Touch Spells: In the Magic and Combat chapters, it says that I can touch a single ally as a standard action or up to six allies as a full-round action and that I can combine delivering a touch spell with a natural attack or unarmed strike. But what if I just want to deliver the touch spell to an enemy? It just says I can do it “round after round.”
Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action. It can’t be used with a full attack.

Despite two this week, we still might be able to have one next week, but definitely not the week after.

[Alanya]

Mark Seifter wrote:

D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-double FAQ!

FAQs wrote:

Haste: Haste says a hasted creature can make an additional attack during a full attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, but what about other sorts of attacks like unarmed strikes?

Unarmed strikes and other attacks that work via full attacks (such as mystic bolts, kinetic blade, and flame blade) all allow an extra attack with haste. However, single attacks such as incorporeal touch attacks or melee touch spells delivered round by round after holding the charge do not.

Aww Casper is a sad shadow :(

[Gisher]

Yay! Yay! FAQ FAQ Friday Friday!

[andreww]

Does this mean that ghosts cannot make use of vital strike on their corrupting touch? That will make a certain chelaxian ghost a sad panda in a high level module.

[KingOfAnything]

andreww wrote:

Does this mean that ghosts cannot make use of vital strike on their corrupting touch? That will make a certain chelaxian ghost a sad panda in a high level module.

How do you reach that conclusion? I read the FAQ as making Vital Strike more appealing to our bodiless friends. They can't benefit from full attacks.

[BigNorseWolf]

Mark seifer wrote:

Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action. It can’t be used with a full attack.

But they still work as AoOs ? That ones called out explicitly under armed unarmed attacks.

[TriOmegaZero]

KingOfAnything wrote:

andreww wrote:

Does this mean that ghosts cannot make use of vital strike on their corrupting touch? That will make a certain chelaxian ghost a sad panda in a high level module.

How do you reach that conclusion?

Touch attacks cannot be part of a full attack and get the second attack from haste. Therefore they are standard actions and cannot be combined with Vital Strike's standard action.

[KingOfAnything]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

andreww wrote:

Does this mean that ghosts cannot make use of vital strike on their corrupting touch? That will make a certain chelaxian ghost a sad panda in a high level module.

How do you reach that conclusion?

Touch attacks cannot be part of a full attack and get the second attack from haste. Therefore they are standard actions and cannot be combined with Vital Strike's standard action.

Is Vital Strike a special standard action? I thought it was just the standard attack action from CRB.

Vital Strike wrote:

When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.

I don't think it follows that because touch attacks cannot be a part of full attack actions, they also cannot be a part of standard attack actions.

[BENSLAYER]

Hello Mark,
I am new to all of this and hoping that you can help. The Intelligence Table for Familiars sets them at 9 Intelligence when the respective P.C. is Level 7 in a single Class or combined Classes granting Familiars. This is beneficial until your take on an Improved Familiar, where apart from certain factors (irrelevant to Intelligence), the rest stays the same as regular Familiars. Creatures able to become Improved Familiars are normally above 9 Intelligence, (e.g., Cat Sith = 11 Intelligence) - so do they get reduced down in Intelligence at the earliest Levels, (Level 7 = 9), or do their higher baseline Intelligences stay the same until their "Master/Mistress" increases to Levels granting Intelligence Ability Scores above said baseline?

Familiar Intelligence Table : Core Rulebook > Classes > Wizard - Found under Familiars, 'Familiar Ability Descriptions', (p.83).

Improved Familiars using regular Familiar rules :

Core Rulebook > Feats - last sentence under Improved Familiar, (p.127) wrote:

'Improved familiars otherwise use the rules for regular familiars, with two exceptions: if the creature’s type is something other than animal, its type does not change; and improved familiars do not gain the ability to speak with other creatures of their kind (although many of them already have the ability to communicate).'

Kind regards,

Ben

[TriOmegaZero]

KingOfAnything wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

andreww wrote:

Does this mean that ghosts cannot make use of vital strike on their corrupting touch? That will make a certain chelaxian ghost a sad panda in a high level module.

How do you reach that conclusion?

Touch attacks cannot be part of a full attack and get the second attack from haste. Therefore they are standard actions and cannot be combined with Vital Strike's standard action.

Is Vital Strike a special standard action?

Yes. It cannot be combined with other standard actions like Cleave.

Quote:

Vital Strike: Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge?

No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.

The touch attack is not an attack action, and cannot be included on Vital Strike.

[Mark Seifter]

I don't think we had considered that they were using it beforehand, and technically the second FAQ is only for touch spells. To be fair, a CR 6 ghost warrior using Vital Strike for 12d6 damage (roughly CR 9 or 10 damage) seems like a recipe for a TPK to me, and I know if you look hard enough, you can also find published NPCs Vital Striking on Spring Attacks and such.

[Rysky]

Mark Seifter wrote:

D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-double FAQ!

FAQs wrote:

Haste: Haste says a hasted creature can make an additional attack during a full attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, but what about other sorts of attacks like unarmed strikes?

Unarmed strikes and other attacks that work via full attacks (such as mystic bolts, kinetic blade, and flame blade) all allow an extra attack with haste. However, single attacks such as incorporeal touch attacks or melee touch spells delivered round by round after holding the charge do not.

Touch Spells: In the Magic and Combat chapters, it says that I can touch a single ally as a standard action or up to six allies as a full-round action and that I can combine delivering a touch spell with a natural attack or unarmed strike. But what if I just want to deliver the touch spell to an enemy? It just says I can do it “round after round.”
Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action. It can’t be used with a full attack.

Despite two this week, we still might be able to have one next week, but definitely not the week after.

Thank you!

*hugs*

[Luthorne]

So, I've got a game where one player mostly specializes in nonlethal damage, and one thing I've noticed is that, as-written, nonlethal damage essentially bypasses ferocity, which seems strange to me. Even a single point of nonlethal damage means that an orc will go down considerably faster at low levels than it would if it was normal damage...which seems a little strange to me. What's your opinion on it?

I'm considering implementing the following change: When a creature with ferocity has taken nonlethal damage equal to their current hit points, instead of going unconscious, they're staggered (but don't take additional damage every round), and only go unconscious when the amount of nonlethal damage they've taken is equal to their current hit points plus their Constitution score. Do you think this seems fair, or would you adjust it, or is it better to just stick with the rules as-written?

Edit: I mean, kineticists exist, and PC races can snag ferocity in various ways, but being staggered can be pretty brutal, considering they can't gather energy...not sure if this might be abusable or not. My gut thinks it isn't too bad, but I don't have that much faith in my sense of game balance...

[Thrawn007]

Are there any more upcoming opportunities where we might see a Harrow Archtype for Mediums?

[CanisDirus]

Mark, we had something come up in pfs that we couldn't figure out. The core says that you can identify active spell effects using knowledge arcana, but unlike using spellcraft doesn't specify needing to use detect magic or arcane sight. Was that intended? Can a character with no magical ability and lots of knowledge figure out active spells on someone? Thanks!

[dynilath]

Hi Mr. Mark Seifter I'm confused with something here.

I find that many spells, especially those deal sonic and force damage, have a fortitude partial save.
Since their target are not object, they don't have "(object)" after the save description.
But when consider constructs and undeads, they are immune to any effect that requires fortitude save unless the effect also works on objects, so they're immune to those spells that deals sonic and force damage with a fortitude save, this looks quite weird.

spells for example:
Rebuke
Thundering Drums
Force Punch

Also, Malfunction targets only constructs, and is fortitude-negates-spell.

[Taenia]

Just to add to Dynilath's question, what about spells like Slowing Mud that require a Fort save but the effect is to cover them in mud. Are Undead and Construct immune to mud?

[Mark Seifter]

Renkosuke wrote:

Thanks for the Purist help, that information is definitely useful to have as I'm sure my next 3 characters will probably be purists :X

Random question about Phytokineticists -- I feel like this was probably addressed somewhere but I can't find it with my (admittingly poor) google-fu. The list of Wood Wild Talents on page 8 of Occult Origins lists Woodland Step as a level 2 utility, whereas the wild talent itself on page 9 lists it as a level 1 utility. Which one is correct?

Thanks!

I believe it should be level 1, like in the text.

[Mark Seifter]

TrinitysEnd wrote:

Thanks once again for such quick responses! I know a lot of people who will be happy about that Diadem bit! As for if I literally said that, it's the closest phonetic I could figure for me being unable to speak comprehensible words (And also one of the first things I typed out to my friends when I got the news)! I was very happy to receive that news!

Continuing on with the thread's theme though: What's you favorite things to read when you are reading a TTRPG book? Do you like the lore? The stats? The flavor?

It depends on the book. I usually like everything together, but especially when they blend together and synergize well (but for instance adventures have different mixes, and RPG line books have very little specific world lore until recently). People usually expect me to say it's going to be the rules, since I'm a designer, but really the excellent lore and flavor are what brought me over to Pathfinder from 3.5 (but I suppose that makes sense; someone who would go on to become a designer would be more capable to just continue with an unsupported system and make up their own rules stuff).

[Mark Seifter]

Suz wrote:

Hi Mark

Pathfinder RAW rule on Threatening.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."

If you've spent your Attacks of Opportunity for the round, do you no longer threaten? The rules states that you threaten all squares into which you "can" make a melee attack, and I've got a RAW player who's suggesting it works like crossbow bolts.

If you have no more bolts then you can't shoot, if you've go no more attacks that round then you can't make a melee attack therefore you don't threaten.

I can see where the player is coming from, and certainly, to use the bolt analogy, if you're threatening with your held shocking grasp charge only and expend the spell on an AoO, you aren't threatening afterwards. This tends to be tied to the question of threatening after taking a total defense. My group tends to come down on yes after taking the AoO but no on total defense, but honestly it wouldn't be a big deal to swap that around a bit (though it would be a lot of tracking and mental load to deal with the fallout of ruling that threatening shifting after running out of AoOs).

[Mark Seifter]

andreww wrote:

Hi Mark, I would be interested in your views on the Cleric alternative channel options in Ultimte Magic.

They say that clerics may take options which are "based on one aspect of her deity's portfolio".

We don't have a definitive list of which deities offer which alternate channel options. How closely do those options need to be to a particular deity's portfolio?

I currently have a player wanting to play a Cleric of Calistria using the ale/wine variant. Calistria's portfolio is lust, revenge and trickery. I can sort of see how drunkenness might lead to any of those but it is a bit of a stretch to say they are part of her portfolio.

If it matters this is for PFS.

While it might not generate exact matches, I'd say for PFS check the portfolio line in the deity entry for synonyms or near-synonyms (so for instance, Calistria definitely doesn't have one for Ale/Wine). That said, honestly it would probably be better if those options were balanced with each other instead of having a few damaging options with blatantly more powerful kickers than the rest (Ale/Wine, Rulership, etc) so that way players wouldn't so often be trying to debate their way into those same few.

[Chess Pwn]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Suz wrote:

Hi Mark

Pathfinder RAW rule on Threatening.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."

If you've spent your Attacks of Opportunity for the round, do you no longer threaten? The rules states that you threaten all squares into which you "can" make a melee attack, and I've got a RAW player who's suggesting it works like crossbow bolts.

If you have no more bolts then you can't shoot, if you've go no more attacks that round then you can't make a melee attack therefore you don't threaten.

I can see where the player is coming from, and certainly, to use the bolt analogy, if you're threatening with your held shocking grasp charge only and expend the spell on an AoO, you aren't threatening afterwards. This tends to be tied to the question of threatening after taking a total defense. My group tends to come down on yes after taking the AoO but no on total defense, but honestly it wouldn't be a big deal to swap that around a bit (though it would be a lot of tracking and mental load to deal with the fallout of ruling that threatening shifts without more AoOs left).

Umm... I see a potential problem here Mark if you're not talking about house rules your group uses.

Melee Tactics Toolbox, p. 8 wrote:

Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking — including making attacks of opportunity — but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.

So unless this isn't actually valid as a rule source, threatening isn't dependent on needing AoO because even total defense doesn't stop threatening.

[Chess Pwn]

CanisDirus wrote:

Mark, we had something come up in pfs that we couldn't figure out. The core says that you can identify active spell effects using knowledge arcana, but unlike using spellcraft doesn't specify needing to use detect magic or arcane sight. Was that intended? Can a character with no magical ability and lots of knowledge figure out active spells on someone? Thanks!

I'm curious about this as well. How does identify active spell effects using knowledge arcana work?

[Mark Seifter]

Ashram wrote:

Hey Mark, had another item you might want to look into adding to the Horror Adventures FAQ list. There's a bit of a problem with the Death Druid archetype: Death Druid shared consciousness

That one's not actually a problem, though it might seem so at first glance. The ability to enter consciousness comes from the phantom class feature, not shared consciousness. Shared consciousness simply grants some additional benefits for doing so, and the death druid intentionally doesn't receive those.

[Mark Seifter]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Suz wrote:

Hi Mark

Pathfinder RAW rule on Threatening.
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."

If you've spent your Attacks of Opportunity for the round, do you no longer threaten? The rules states that you threaten all squares into which you "can" make a melee attack, and I've got a RAW player who's suggesting it works like crossbow bolts.

If you have no more bolts then you can't shoot, if you've go no more attacks that round then you can't make a melee attack therefore you don't threaten.

I can see where the player is coming from, and certainly, to use the bolt analogy, if you're threatening with your held shocking grasp charge only and expend the spell on an AoO, you aren't threatening afterwards. This tends to be tied to the question of threatening after taking a total defense. My group tends to come down on yes after taking the AoO but no on total defense, but honestly it wouldn't be a big deal to swap that around a bit (though it would be a lot of tracking and mental load to deal with the fallout of ruling that threatening shifts without more AoOs left).

Umm... I see a potential problem here Mark if you're not talking about house rules your group uses.

Melee Tactics Toolbox, p. 8 wrote:

Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking — including making attacks of opportunity — but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.

So unless this isn't actually valid as a rule source, threatening isn't dependent on needing AoO because even total defense doesn't stop threatening.

In general, non-RPG line books are not definitive rules sources for weighing in on core rules questions; overall it's pretty unusual for them to weigh in like that at all. That particular book came out quite a bit after the question came up for our group.