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


Off-Topic Discussions

1,901 to 1,950 of 6,833 << first < prev | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | next > last >>

Does the second line of the quick draw feat prevent quick draw from interacting beneficially with the ninja talent Hidden weapons?

Or more specifically, if a character has both quick draw and the ninja trick hidden weapons, are they able to draw a concealed weapon as a free action?

The hidden weapon ninja trick makes drawing a concealed weapon a move action with no sleight of hand check required, just like drawing an unconcealed weapon. Quick draw allows you to draw a weapon as a free action instead of a move action. Per hidden weapons, drawing a concealed weapon is a move action. The only issue I can see is that the second line of quick draw states that you can draw a hidden weapon as a move action. Does that line from quick draw prevent the feat and ninja trick from working together?


Okay, I thought I understood what you meant about adamantine being godlike alongside Armor as DR, but looking at it again, I'm not sure I actually see a problem. Can you explain where the problems arise with Adamantine and Armor as DR?

Designer

First World Bard wrote:

Mark,

Sarah and I will be going to our first PaizoCon this year. Anything we should keep in mind about event registration / the lottery / good times to get out and see some of Seattle (as this will be our first time there)?

Hmm...well you want to be sure to use all your numbers in lottery ratings. Linda and I usually used 4 on only one event, so in case we lucked out and got at the top of the list, we would get our top choice. Then more 3s, a fair number of 2s and 1s, and plenty of 0s.

Seattle is pretty accessible through the Light Rail, and any time you have free is probably a good time.


I have a question regarding the Duelist and SwashBuckler. Can one use the Riposte from the Duelist class when they have parried using the Swashbucklers parry?

Designer

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I have a question about Shield Spikes

Shield Spikes wrote:
These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you

So, some people on the forums are interpreting this literally, saying that since spikes count as a size increase, you can't put the Bashing Enchantment on it and expect it to stack.

So that is the RAW, I guess, but it seems completely counter-intuitive that adding spikes causes any kind of size increase. The nature of Shield Spikes' damage increase seems to be completely different from any kind of size increase, real or virtual, and I have trouble believing that the writers really meant their description of Shield Spikes to be a stacking limitation on the Bashing Enchantment.

What do you think?

It's kind of an odd decision from an "explaining to new players" perspective to define shield spikes in that way, I agree. I'm not really sure why that decision was originally made. The whole thing about attacking with shields is actually written pretty confusingly.

Designer

Avadriel wrote:

Does the second line of the quick draw feat prevent quick draw from interacting beneficially with the ninja talent Hidden weapons?

Or more specifically, if a character has both quick draw and the ninja trick hidden weapons, are they able to draw a concealed weapon as a free action?

The hidden weapon ninja trick makes drawing a concealed weapon a move action with no sleight of hand check required, just like drawing an unconcealed weapon. Quick draw allows you to draw a weapon as a free action instead of a move action. Per hidden weapons, drawing a concealed weapon is a move action. The only issue I can see is that the second line of quick draw states that you can draw a hidden weapon as a move action. Does that line from quick draw prevent the feat and ninja trick from working together?

There's two actions at play here, the "draw or sheathe a weapon" action from the combat chapter and the "draw hidden weapon" action from the Sleight of Hand skill. Quick Draw improves the first one to a free and the second one to a move. Hidden Weapons improves only the second one, to a move; it doesn't change that you're taking the "draw hidden weapon" action. Heh, sometimes I think you almost need a law degree to crossreference all of these rules!

Designer

Albatoonoe wrote:
Okay, I thought I understood what you meant about adamantine being godlike alongside Armor as DR, but looking at it again, I'm not sure I actually see a problem. Can you explain where the problems arise with Adamantine and Armor as DR?

Basically, it's because all magic armor (which past a few levels, everybody has magic) is bypassable by adamantine weapons unless the armor is also adamantine, and all natural armor is bypassable by adamantine weapons unless the creature has DR/adamantine (so stoneskin is a huge power spell, I guess, if that works). It would be in the regular game like if adamantine targeted touch AC.

Designer

Snuffling wrote:
I have a question regarding the Duelist and SwashBuckler. Can one use the Riposte from the Duelist class when they have parried using the Swashbucklers parry?

While a Swash/Duelist can use both types of parry and riposte, they each work on their own; a duelist riposte comes from a duelist parry and a swash riposte comes from a swash parry.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I have a question about Shield Spikes

Shield Spikes wrote:
These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you

So, some people on the forums are interpreting this literally, saying that since spikes count as a size increase, you can't put the Bashing Enchantment on it and expect it to stack.

So that is the RAW, I guess, but it seems completely counter-intuitive that adding spikes causes any kind of size increase. The nature of Shield Spikes' damage increase seems to be completely different from any kind of size increase, real or virtual, and I have trouble believing that the writers really meant their description of Shield Spikes to be a stacking limitation on the Bashing Enchantment.

What do you think?

It's kind of an odd decision from an "explaining to new players" perspective to define shield spikes in that way, I agree. I'm not really sure why that decision was originally made. The whole thing about attacking with shields is actually written pretty confusingly.

I have to suspect there was a disconnect in the rules writing. Both "spiked armor" and "spiked shields" have entries in the weapons table. A "spiked shield, light" and "spiked shield, heavy" are actual weapon entries just as spiked armor is a weapon entry. Since you you can't shield bash with any other type of listed shield, there is no need to reference the damage for spikes in the armor section. I'm guessing someone added the armor section and then forgot to remove it when they went back and actually added the weapons as entries into the weapons table.

Alternatively, someone might have thought shield spikes needed to be identified in their own right. I suspect that this preserves the option of having spikes made out of completely separate material than the shield.

The rule are also confusing with regards to enchanting the shield as a weapon with and without spikes, as I'm sure you may have seen the thread on the cost of a shield enchanted as a weapon.

@Scott - It's been pointed out that an NPC in the NPC codes lists a Shield of Bashing as stacking with spikes. The entry shoes that the weapon does 2d6. So per the books, these things stack and were probably meant to stack from the get go. And as I've pointed out, if size increases work on armor spikes, there's no logical IC reason why they would not work on shield spikes and the size FAQ does nothing to explain it or address it.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
Okay, I thought I understood what you meant about adamantine being godlike alongside Armor as DR, but looking at it again, I'm not sure I actually see a problem. Can you explain where the problems arise with Adamantine and Armor as DR?
Basically, it's because all magic armor (which past a few levels, everybody has magic) is bypassable by adamantine weapons unless the armor is also adamantine, and all natural armor is bypassable by adamantine weapons unless the creature has DR/adamantine (so stoneskin is a huge power spell, I guess, if that works). It would be in the regular game like if adamantine targeted touch AC.

Well, I never knew this. Where is it stated, for future reference?

Designer

Albatoonoe wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
Okay, I thought I understood what you meant about adamantine being godlike alongside Armor as DR, but looking at it again, I'm not sure I actually see a problem. Can you explain where the problems arise with Adamantine and Armor as DR?
Basically, it's because all magic armor (which past a few levels, everybody has magic) is bypassable by adamantine weapons unless the armor is also adamantine, and all natural armor is bypassable by adamantine weapons unless the creature has DR/adamantine (so stoneskin is a huge power spell, I guess, if that works). It would be in the regular game like if adamantine targeted touch AC.
Well, I never knew this. Where is it stated, for future reference?

It's in a chart in the armor as DR section.

Obviously, I'm only referring to armor as DR here, not to the normal rules. One workaround is to just ignore that part.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
Okay, I thought I understood what you meant about adamantine being godlike alongside Armor as DR, but looking at it again, I'm not sure I actually see a problem. Can you explain where the problems arise with Adamantine and Armor as DR?
Basically, it's because all magic armor (which past a few levels, everybody has magic) is bypassable by adamantine weapons unless the armor is also adamantine, and all natural armor is bypassable by adamantine weapons unless the creature has DR/adamantine (so stoneskin is a huge power spell, I guess, if that works). It would be in the regular game like if adamantine targeted touch AC.
Well, I never knew this. Where is it stated, for future reference?

It's in a chart in the armor as DR section.

Obviously, I'm only referring to armor as DR here, not to the normal rules. One workaround is to just ignore that part.

Page 192 in Ultimate Combat, if that helps. :)


N N 959 wrote:
It's been pointed out that an NPC in the NPC codes lists a Shield of Bashing as stacking with spikes. The entry shoes that the weapon does 2d6. So per the books, these things stack and were probably meant to stack from the get go. And as I've pointed out, if size increases work on armor spikes, there's no logical IC reason why they would not work on shield spikes and the size FAQ does nothing to explain it or address it.

Oh, that sounds very helpful. Can you give me any further information to help me find that character in the NPC Codex?

N N 959 wrote:
Since you you can't shield bash with any other type of listed shield,

I've been long under the distinct impression that shield bashing is the only kind of melee attack you can perform with any shield. Isn't that so? Can you cite a rule that says that there is some other kind of melee shield attack?

(Sorry Mark, but I did ask you first!)

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would not put too much stock in published NPCs when it comes to rules minutiae. I can also point out more than one NPC that specifically is supposed to use Vital Strike on a Spring Attack, for instance.


Mark Seifter wrote:
I would not put too much stock in published NPCs when it comes to rules minutiae. I can also point out more than one NPC that specifically is supposed to use Vital Strike on a Spring Attack, for instance.

Ok, but you yourself agreed that it's counter-intuitive that a Spiked Shield would really count as a virtual size increase that would interfere with other virtual size increase effects, and that the writers probably didn't intend that when they wrote it.

Meanwhile, here is RAW that supports your view.

NPC Codex, Scarred Wanderer Barbarian wrote:
Melee+5 bashing spiked heavy shield +31/+26/+21/+16 (2d6+11)

NPC Codex

Of course I certainly agree with you that I would like better evidence than this.

So, what do you think about shield bashing? How many ways can you think of attacking with a shield? Scizore doesn't count, since it's not a shield. I think that just leaves Throwing and Bashing. But what do you think: can you think of another way to attack with a shield?

Designer

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I would not put too much stock in published NPCs when it comes to rules minutiae. I can also point out more than one NPC that specifically is supposed to use Vital Strike on a Spring Attack, for instance.

Ok, but you yourself agreed that it's counter-intuitive that a Spiked Shield would really count as a virtual size increase that would interfere with other virtual size increase effects, and that the writers probably didn't intend that when they wrote it.

I do think its odd and makes the game more impenetrable. I'm not really sure what was intended, though my advantage, I suppose, is I can eventually ask (if they remember)!


Mark Seifter wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I would not put too much stock in published NPCs when it comes to rules minutiae. I can also point out more than one NPC that specifically is supposed to use Vital Strike on a Spring Attack, for instance.

Ok, but you yourself agreed that it's counter-intuitive that a Spiked Shield would really count as a virtual size increase that would interfere with other virtual size increase effects, and that the writers probably didn't intend that when they wrote it.

I do think its odd and makes the game more impenetrable. I'm not really sure what was intended, though my advantage, I suppose, is I can eventually ask (if they remember)!

Touche.

Any insight into my questions would be most appreciated.


Well, thank you for fielding my questions about Armor as DR. After looking through everything, I decided not to use it. It seems like it could cause a lot of weird problems, so I'm just going to avoid it.

So, anyway, have any pre-Unchained optional rules you like to use?


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I've been long under the distinct impression that shield bashing is the only kind of melee attack you can perform with any shield. Isn't that so? Can you cite a rule that says that there is some other kind of melee shield attack?

(Sorry Mark, but I did ask you first!)

You can use a shield as an improvised weapon, though its damage would follow the improvised weapon rules. So that gives us throwing, bashing, and improvised weapon use.

Technically, you can use a shield for some combat maneuvers e.g. shield slam (bull rush), trip, sunder, disarm. There might be other feats or abilities that further expend the shield options.


N N 959 wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I've been long under the distinct impression that shield bashing is the only kind of melee attack you can perform with any shield. Isn't that so? Can you cite a rule that says that there is some other kind of melee shield attack?

(Sorry Mark, but I did ask you first!)

You can use a shield as an improvised weapon, though its damage would follow the improvised weapon rules. So that gives us throwing, bashing, and improvised weapon use.

Technically, you can use a shield for some combat maneuvers e.g. shield slam (bull rush), trip, sunder, disarm. There might be other feats or abilities that further expend the shield options.

So you would characterize an attack with a Klar (as on both the Weapons and Shields tables) as a shield bash attack?


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

So you would characterize an attack with a Klar (as on both the Weapons and Shields tables) as a shield bash attack?

Ultimate Equipment says this:

Klar, Ultimate Equipment p.12 wrote:
The traditional form of this tribal weapon is a short blade bound to the skull of a large horned lizard, but a skilled smith can craft one entirely out of metal. A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes; a metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.

Assuming that what they meant is "shield" spikes and not armor spikes since I don't think you can add armor spikes to shield and the klar is not listed as armor,

Shield Spikes, UE p.14 wrote:
You can’t put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

So per RAW, the Klar is functionally a light shield.

Let's look at bashing quality form UE,

Bashing, UE p.115 wrote:
Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.

There's no reason I see why bashing could not be added to a klar because the klar counts as a light shield. I see no reason why a klar wouldn't get the benefit of its damage die increased by two sizes as it is a weapon that is treated as a light shield, but does not technically have shield spikes on it.

So as an aside, it's illogical for both a klar and a madu (which is also treated as a light spiked shield if you are non-proficient) to both benefit from the bashing quality as normal, but not a spiked shield.

However, I should point out that the klar references in UE seem to have some inconsistencies. Aside from the klar description talking about a shield with "armor" spikes, the damage listes for a medium klar is 1d6 while that of a light spiked shield is only 1d4. So it's confusing that it's treated as a light shield "with armor spikes" but the damage is neither that of a light shield or a light spiked shield. At least the madu does the same damage as a light spiked shield.

I'll also add that it's entirely possible that a klar is, in fact, a light wooden shield with armor spikes. In which case, I guess you can use it as you would armor spikes in addition as a weapon. If Paizo did mean armor spikes, it's still treated as a light shield so that would require you attack by making a shield bash, only you get the damage of a heavy spiked shield, despite it only counting as as light shield without shield spikes. It also opens the door for allowing "armor" spikes on any shield. Clear as mud.

The problem that we are faced with as players and GMs is that these rules are all made up. While I think most of us believe that rules logic should be internally consistent if not objectively rationale, it's clear that when you are dealing with a fantasy game, the path between rules does not necessarily lead in a straight or intuitive line. This is art, so it can go anyway the rule maker (artist) wants it to go.

I would love to hear Mark's comments on the klar and the seeming confusion of it citing "armor" spikes and doing the damage of a heavy spiked shield.

Liberty's Edge

If I wanted to start a discussion on possible homebrew options for converting core monk archetypes for use with the Unchained monk, would you suggest I start it in the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion area, since houserules are what Unchained is all about anyway, or should I just go ahead and head for the homebrew forum?

Designer

Shisumo wrote:
If I wanted to start a discussion on possible homebrew options for converting core monk archetypes for use with the Unchained monk, would you suggest I start it in the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion area, since houserules are what Unchained is all about anyway, or should I just go ahead and head for the homebrew forum?

Still homebrew, but you could always tag it with Unchained! (You may want to wait a week or so for the book to come out so more people have it at hand)

Liberty's Edge

If I have a way to fulfill the requirements for both "sides" a teamwork feat, could I activate it by myself? I'm thinking specifically of Outflank or Precise Strike in combination with Dimensional Assault. (It occurs to me that Dimensional Assault might be a special case, since it contains language that specifically says you can flank with yourself.)

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
If I wanted to start a discussion on possible homebrew options for converting core monk archetypes for use with the Unchained monk, would you suggest I start it in the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion area, since houserules are what Unchained is all about anyway, or should I just go ahead and head for the homebrew forum?
Still homebrew, but you could always tag it with Unchained! (You may want to wait a week or so for the book to come out so more people have it at hand)

Completely off-topic, but I took Mark's Unchained Spirit to heart and wrote updates to all of the Core Rules monk archetypes to make them compatible with Unchained. I'm going to publish them with my company, Everyman Gaming, LLC, in the first week or two of May. Of course, if you can't wait you ought to unchain them yourself. ;-)

Completely on topic, if there's one thing that you wish you COULD have Unchained but couldn't (any reason), what would it be and why?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Will scorpion whip take the FAQ next week, or will it be taking 10 on Knowledge checks, or something else? Find out next week on FAQ Friday!

Ya could always do all of them. I would not complain. :)


Mark Seifter wrote:
I would not put too much stock in published NPCs when it comes to rules minutiae. I can also point out more than one NPC that specifically is supposed to use Vital Strike on a Spring Attack, for instance.

I'm aware of the FAQ on Vital Strike/Spring Attack.

From my perspective (both as GM and as a player), this ruling detracts from the fun of the game by discouraging mobile combat options and encouraging the "always stand there and full-attack" mentality that I, honestly, find kind of boring. This is why I've chosen to specifically overrule this FAQ in my home games, and it's really not breaking anything as far as I can tell.

I know this is settled, but I'm curious about the line of thinking that led to this ruling.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
I know this is settled, but I'm curious about the line of thinking that led to this ruling.

I'm not Mark, but I seem to recall there having been a post from Jason Bulmahn back in the day, stating that the whole point of Vital Strike was to be a sort of "consolation prize" for when you already weren't going to be able to full-attack, like when you were staggered or in a surprise round or if you needed your move action for something.

I'd hazard a guess that the cleanest way to enact that was to tie it to the Attack action. How would you write it in order to meet its goal while also allowing it to work with things like Spring Attack? I don't know of a way that isn't super-wordy. :/

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

'any time you make only one attack during your turn'?

:/


The problem I've had with VS is that its just too expensive to become that effective most people really can't afford their feat progression to derail from their build. I saw one fix for this that basically had it scale up like power attack.

Prereq: bab +6.
Rolls damage dice twice, @ bab +11 roll three times and @ bab +16 roll four times.

Basically combine all three VS feats into one that scales with BAB

What do you think about this houserule?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

TriOmegaZero wrote:

'any time you make only one attack during your turn'?

:/

I'm guessing from that face that you see how insufficient that would be. And I agree.

:/

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Just spitballing. It's really just academic for me.

Liberty's Edge

Spring Attack
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and take the attack action, which must be a melee attack. You do not provoke any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Probably not a good idea to have rules text that says "as X type of action, perform Y type of action".

Liberty's Edge

From a design elegance standpoint I concur, but I don't think it actually breaks anything.


Why not base it off of flyby attack? and just roll shot on the run into it as well?

Prerequisite: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Once per round, you can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature takes a standard action either before or after its move

I figure the 'once per round' clarifies how it interacts with mythic. Thoughts?


Gnomes of Golarion wrote:

Effortless Trickery

Your natural knack for illusion allows you to maintain at least one illusion spell with little effort.

Prerequisite: Gnome.

Benefit: You can maintain concentration on one spell of the illusion school as a swift action. This has no effect on spells of other schools or on illusion spells with durations that don’t depend on your active concentration. While you may only maintain one spell as a swift action, you may take your move and standard actions to maintain other spells normally, if you wish.

Normal: Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

CRB>Magic>Spell Descriptions>Duration wrote:

Concentration: The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentration.

You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.

In your opinion, Mark, does Effortless Trickery, by reducing concentrating on a spell to a swift action, override the limitation in the CRB that you can't cast another spell while concentrating? Or when it says you can use your standard and/or move actions to maintain another spell, is it referring to spells cast from a wand or with a SLA or something similar that isn't technically "casting a spell?"


Mr. Mark Seifter,

Are eidolons allowed to use the variant multi class rules? What about a rogue eidolon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:

Mr. Mark Seifter,

Are eidolons allowed to use the variant multi class rules? What about a rogue eidolon?

Lol, we can totally create a rogue rogue eidolon now. A rogue eidolon with the rogue VMC.

Designer

Shisumo wrote:
If I have a way to fulfill the requirements for both "sides" a teamwork feat, could I activate it by myself? I'm thinking specifically of Outflank or Precise Strike in combination with Dimensional Assault. (It occurs to me that Dimensional Assault might be a special case, since it contains language that specifically says you can flank with yourself.)

It technically says it has to be another character, I think, strictly by the rules. Your suggestion sounds like it would be pretty cinematic, though, from a houserule PoV. However, teamwork feats are generally very very strong with the idea that they make at least two people feel awesome instead of one, so I'm somewhat torn.

Designer

default wrote:

Why not base it off of flyby attack? and just roll shot on the run into it as well?

Prerequisite: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Once per round, you can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature takes a standard action either before or after its move

I figure the 'once per round' clarifies how it interacts with mythic. Thoughts?

The one thing about that idea is that it probably gives too much power to casters to do a "peekaboo" with spellcasting to and from behind total cover.

Designer

Joana wrote:
Gnomes of Golarion wrote:

Effortless Trickery

Your natural knack for illusion allows you to maintain at least one illusion spell with little effort.

Prerequisite: Gnome.

Benefit: You can maintain concentration on one spell of the illusion school as a swift action. This has no effect on spells of other schools or on illusion spells with durations that don’t depend on your active concentration. While you may only maintain one spell as a swift action, you may take your move and standard actions to maintain other spells normally, if you wish.

Normal: Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

CRB>Magic>Spell Descriptions>Duration wrote:

Concentration: The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentration.

You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.

In your opinion, Mark, does Effortless Trickery, by reducing concentrating on a spell to a swift action, override the limitation in the CRB that you can't cast another spell while concentrating? Or when it says you can use your standard and/or move actions to maintain another spell, is it referring to spells cast from a wand or with a SLA or something similar that isn't technically "casting a spell?"

Ah, I remember this question from when my group first found that feat many years ago. In my opinion, effortless trickery was probably written by a freelancer who wasn't aware of that rule (the Magic chapter is the #1 place where rules live that many people don't know), and then it sort of slipped through. That said, concentrating as a swift is potentially very useful to a character like a bard who has non-spell use for standard actions, so the feat isn't worthless or anything, even if it doesn't do one of the things it thinks it does. :/

Designer

The NPC wrote:

Mr. Mark Seifter,

Are eidolons allowed to use the variant multi class rules? What about a rogue eidolon?

Since it is a variant of multiclassing, by default, you would need to be able to multiclass, so Unfettered Eidolons who already could take rogue levels could do it, but not the class feature eidolons. That said, it's Unchained! If you think it's awesome in your game, then go for it!


Mark Seifter wrote:
That said, concentrating as a swift is potentially very useful to a character like a bard who has non-spell use for standard actions, so the feat isn't worthless or anything, even if it doesn't do one of the things it thinks it does. :/

Less useful for an illusionist, though.

If you remove the above bolded sentence from Effortless Trickery, there wouldn't be an argument that you could do something other than double-move or drink a potion or whatever; it's the explicit saying you can do something that really you can't that's confusing.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
If I have a way to fulfill the requirements for both "sides" a teamwork feat, could I activate it by myself? I'm thinking specifically of Outflank or Precise Strike in combination with Dimensional Assault. (It occurs to me that Dimensional Assault might be a special case, since it contains language that specifically says you can flank with yourself.)
It technically says it has to be another character, I think, strictly by the rules. Your suggestion sounds like it would be pretty cinematic, though, from a houserule PoV. However, teamwork feats are generally very very strong with the idea that they make at least two people feel awesome instead of one, so I'm somewhat torn.

I'm not sure if that's actually correct, Mark, because they don't state 'you and another character' only 'you and an ally'.

Outflank wrote:
Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
Precise Strike wrote:
Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same the creature, you deal an additional 1d6 points of precision damage with each successful melee attack. This bonus damage stacks with other sources of precision damage, such as sneak attack. This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.

Paizo FAQ

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Ally: Do you count as your own ally?

You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies.

This is one of the rare (and only, I think) situations where it's actually possible to flank with yourself and since you count as your own ally, it should trigger Outflank and Precise Strike.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems like Effortless Trickery could use some errata or FAQ in that case as it sure appears to be intended to allow you to have two illusions up at once. Especially since the wording is pretty specific and the usual rule of thumb is the specific exception overrides the general rule. (In a home game I would definitely let a gnome with this feat use it as intended to maintain one illusion while casting potentially a second spell.

And yes it is powerful and perhaps subject to abuse - but it also seems clearly RAI and unless there is some other reasoning I've missed why doesn't the usual rule re specific exceptions overriding general rules apply here?

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
If I have a way to fulfill the requirements for both "sides" a teamwork feat, could I activate it by myself? I'm thinking specifically of Outflank or Precise Strike in combination with Dimensional Assault. (It occurs to me that Dimensional Assault might be a special case, since it contains language that specifically says you can flank with yourself.)
It technically says it has to be another character, I think, strictly by the rules. Your suggestion sounds like it would be pretty cinematic, though, from a houserule PoV. However, teamwork feats are generally very very strong with the idea that they make at least two people feel awesome instead of one, so I'm somewhat torn.

I'm not sure if that's actually correct, Mark, because they don't state 'you and another character' only 'you and an ally'.

Outflank wrote:
Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.
Precise Strike wrote:
Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same the creature, you deal an additional 1d6 points of precision damage with each successful melee attack. This bonus damage stacks with other sources of precision damage, such as sneak attack. This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.

Paizo FAQ

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Ally: Do you count as your own ally?

You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies.

This is one of the rare (and only, I think) situations where it's actually possible to flank with yourself and since you count as your own ally, it should trigger Outflank and Precise...

I believe that the inclusion of the word "also" in the general rules for teamwork feats on page 150 of the APG and in each feat prevent this. If they didn't, then you could, for instance, always take a full-round action on the surprise round as the only character with Lookout (after all, both you and your ally would be able to act).


I thought the whole fly out of cover or spring out of cover, take an attack and return to cover was the point of flyby or spring attack? Why would letting casters do that or letting people with vital strike use their feat be so bad?

Yes it is potent but as a player and a GM I like to see support for mobility. And this is a case where the monsters and NPCs get to have some fun and goodies as well as the players. It would force players to become thoughtful and tactical - doing things like readying attacks for when the enemy is in a specific range/breaks cover etc. which I also like to see encouraged as a GM and as a player.

Designer

Rycaut wrote:

Seems like Effortless Trickery could use some errata or FAQ in that case as it sure appears to be intended to allow you to have two illusions up at once. Especially since the wording is pretty specific and the usual rule of thumb is the specific exception overrides the general rule. (In a home game I would definitely let a gnome with this feat use it as intended to maintain one illusion while casting potentially a second spell.

And yes it is powerful and perhaps subject to abuse - but it also seems clearly RAI and unless there is some other reasoning I've missed why doesn't the usual rule re specific exceptions overriding general rules apply here?

It doesn't say that you can cast another spell, though, just maintain. It's the case where the freelancer presumably intended to add some functionality to the status quo, but the status quo is not what they expected. It would be a case of specific overriding general if the feat stated you could cast spells, but it doesn't. It's likely the same situation with Potion Glutton from Inner Sea Gods, where the author clearly thought it was an increase in action economy from move to swift (so you could still drink two potions per round, "as normal," or so they thought), but really it was normally a standard action, so the feat is more powerful than intended. It happens sometimes, unfortunately. Books that aren't in the Pathfinder RPG line, however, the PDT can't FAQ.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Books that aren't in the Pathfinder RPG line, however, the PDT can't FAQ.

Sadly, this is one of the reasons I dropped my subscriptions to the Player Companion and Campaign Setting lines: the knowledge that if there are issues with any of the mechanics, they will never be addressed. :\

1,901 to 1,950 of 6,833 << first < prev | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.