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


Off-Topic Discussions

4,151 to 4,200 of 6,833 << first < prev | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | next > last >>
Designer

Rysky wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Huh, if I put the asterisk in brackets, it makes a bullet point. I never knew that about our boards until now!

Wuzzhuh?

  • COOL! Thankies Mark ^w^

  • Yup, I stumbled on it while trying to use the appropriate style of using brackets for nested parentheses to indicate asterisked rogue talents, and I was surprised as you when my post transformed into a bullet point.


    If you look at the "How to format your text" examples at the bottom of the page, you'll see that the asterisk in brackets is shown as a way to create bullet points within a list. But it works even when outside of any list tags.

    Silver Crusade

    Mark Seifter wrote:
    Rysky wrote:
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    Huh, if I put the asterisk in brackets, it makes a bullet point. I never knew that about our boards until now!

    Wuzzhuh?

  • COOL! Thankies Mark ^w^

  • Yup, I stumbled on it while trying to use the appropriate style of using brackets for nested parentheses to indicate asterisked rogue talents, and I was surprised as you when my post transformed into a bullet point.

    Cool, just don't destroy part of the messageboards by accident next :3


    Mark Seifter wrote:
    Secret Wizard wrote:

    [Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes is somewhat cheaper than an Amulet of Mighty Fists for the weapon build, but combining with the fact that weapon builds are encouraged to pick ki focus as well, I feel that the style ends up making a magic-item reliant class much more so.

    That being said, if this was the objective, I can see where it's coming from. I have been very satisfied with the Unchained Monk in most regards otherwise.

    Oh, that's really smart! I totally blanked on the bodywrap, but it saves you a bunch of gold over time, and you're right that it's perfect for this situation.

    It's our job to remember that kind of stuff! Your job is to make new Ki Powers ;P

    Designer

    There's some Intrigue stuff (including some art shown to the camera) from the Secrets of Pathfinder panel on our new Twitch channel! I've linked the video from my fan page (most recent post here).


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    Was that a "Mounted Fury" archetype that I spotted when you were showing off the magical child picture?

    Designer

    MusicAddict wrote:
    Was that a "Mounted Fury" archetype that I spotted when you were showing off the magical child picture?

    Good eye! Yes, it's basically Zorro.


    Watching that now in hopes I get to know what happened to Aroden!

    Continuing with the Unchained Monk, 'cause you love it so much, I'm confused about one skill:

    Quote:
    Ki Mount (Su): A monk with this ability can spend 1 ki point as a standard action to grant 2 temporary hit points per monk level he possesses to his mount for 1 hour per monk level. As long as the monk and his mount are adjacent or the monk is mounted, the mount shares the benefits of whichever of the AC bonus, evasion, high jump, improved evasion, ki strike, perfect self, and still mind abilities the monk possesses. A monk must be at least 6th level before selecting this ki power.

    Does this mean that the mount gets AC Bonus equal to the AC Bonus that its rider receives, or is it recalculated with its own animal WIS? Does Ki Strike apply to its natural attacks, or does it need Unarmed Strike? Do these work if the companion has barding?

    EDIT: Just as a comment, I created a five UnMonk builds with a breakdown of level 12 items and stats... Might be a good way to look at what different build styles look like, for development?
    What I'm trying to say is give me an archetype for UnMonks with an AC.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    MusicAddict wrote:
    Was that a "Mounted Fury" archetype that I spotted when you were showing off the magical child picture?
    Good eye! Yes, it's basically Zorro.

    I will also admit that just now, in an attempt to get a really nice screenie of the magical child artwork to just point out how much it reminds me of a certain time manipulating magical girl to my pathfinder skype group, I actually got a fairly clear screenshot of a good chunk of the two pages. Without saying what it can do, that familiar actually seems fairly impressive.


    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    There's some Intrigue stuff (including some art shown to the camera) from the Secrets of Pathfinder panel on our new Twitch channel! I've linked the video from my fan page (most recent post here).

    Enjoyed watching this. There were a couple audio issues splattered throughout, but that was it. Some cool info and insight from everyone.

    Also, I hope my 3.5 GM doesn't watch this and takes away my beautiful Celerity cheese.


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    MusicAddict wrote:
    Was that a "Mounted Fury" archetype that I spotted when you were showing off the magical child picture?
    Good eye! Yes, it's basically Zorro.

    So between that and the existing Mysterious Avenger archetype for the Swashbuckler, we basically have two ways to build Zorro now, right?

    It will be interesting to compare and contrast the two archetypes.


    Kind of an odd question here, but, thematically, which of the kinetic elements do you think would make the best lover?

    I ask because a post on the Pathfinder RPG group the other day mentioned a human could take Racial Heritage (grippli) and qualify for the Agile Tongue feat (granting him a 10 ft. long, prehensile tongue). I'm wanting to turn this character concept into a kineticist NPC for me to use in a game I may or may not be taking over GMing.


    So will Ultimate Intrigue and/or Horror Adventures give us any Kineticist love?


    Can moment of prescience be used for initiative checks?

    MOMENT OF PRESCIENCE wrote:

    School divination; Level sorcerer/wizard 8

    Casting Time 1 standard action
    Components V, S
    Range personal
    Target you
    Duration 1 hour/level or until discharged
    This spell grants you a sixth sense. Once during the spell's duration, you may choose to use its effect. This spell grants you an insight bonus equal to your caster level (maximum +25) on any single attack roll, combat maneuver check, opposed ability or skill check, or saving throw. Alternatively, you can apply the insight bonus to your AC against a single attack (even if flat-footed). Activating the effect doesn't take an action; you can even activate it on another character's turn. You must choose to use the moment of prescience before you make the roll it is to modify. Once used, the spell ends. You can't have more than one moment of prescience active on you at the same time.
    Initiative wrote:
    At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions)..

    It is pretty clear that initiative is an ability check the question is, is it an opposed check?


    Do temporary hit points count as part of your hitpoint total for the effects of spells like symbol of death or power word kill?

    POWER WORD KILL wrote:

    School enchantment (compulsion) [death, mind-affecting]; Level sorcerer/wizard 9

    Casting Time 1 standard action
    Components V
    Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
    Target one living creature with 100 hp or less
    Duration instantaneous
    Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
    You utter a single word of power that instantly kills one creature of your choice, whether the creature can hear the word or not. Any creature that currently has 101 or more hit points is unaffected by power word kill.
    Temporary Hit Points wrote:

    Certain effects give a character temporary hit points. These hit points are in addition to the character's current hit point total and any damage taken by the character is subtracted from these hit points first. Any damage in excess of a character's temporary hit points is applied to his current hit points as normal. If the effect that grants the temporary hit points ends or is dispelled, any remaining temporary hit points go away. The damage they sustained is not transferred to the character's current hit points.

    When temporary hit points are lost, they cannot be restored as real hit points can be, even by magic.

    It seems like they should, or am I reading too much into the bold text from temporary hitpoints?


    Can you reduce the burn cost of composite blasts like you can an infusion with gather power/supercharge?


    Dragon78 wrote:
    Can you reduce the burn cost of composite blasts like you can an infusion with gather power/supercharge?

    I got this one, Mark. Dragon78, your question was already answered by Protoman in the other thread you asked this; however, if that was not enough then here is the same answer from Mark a while ago.


    Mark,

    I was hoping you might be able to clear something up for me. The FAQ on TWF with multiple weapons has this at the bottom:

    TWF FAQ wrote:
    In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."

    Emphasis added.

    I've looked through the rules on TWF and iterative attacks and I don't see where this follows. What is the reason/where is the rules text that suggests TWF forces you to make your iterative attacks with only your primary hand?

    Thanks in advance.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

    Mark, do magic items that produce the effects of spells have to overcome spell resistance?

    We used an otherworldly kimono to trap an enemy in a maze effect, but were not sure if the item needed to roll against SR.

    Silver Crusade

    Mark -

    Since the Design team might be slow about addressing this, it was suggested I come here to ask your opinion on this.

    http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tcdl?Liberation-Domain

    My opinion is it works just like FoM vs magical effects and any other interpretation opens up a can of worms, not the least of which is defining what 'movement' is in game terms.

    Would you be willing to clarify?


    Mark - are you tired of rules questions yet? I know it's your job, but when I get home from work the last thing I wanna think about is work, you know?

    What's your favorite flavored...
    Class
    Race
    Feat
    Monster
    ...that you otherwise dislike the mechanics of?


    Hey Mark, have a question about the Timely Inspiration spell. It says

    "The target gains a +1 competence bonus per five caster levels (maximum +3 bonus) on the attack roll or skill check retroactively."

    As written, that means no bonus until caster level 5 for a 1st level spell. In the absence of a FAQ, could you provide some insight into what it should read/the intent was?


    One more. The feat Skald's Vigor says

    "While maintaining a raging song, you gain fast healing equal to the Strength bonus your song provides, starting in the round after you begin the song."

    Does that mean only the Inspired Rage raging song provides any fast healing? Is the feat useless for the Spell Warrior archetype that gives weapon enhancement bonuses to allies instead of a strength bonus?


    Two Fridays in a row with no faq, is something happening to cause this delay?

    Silver Crusade

    Probably the site going through the ringer.

    Designer

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    In a recent post on my fan page, we were talking about how there's no solid theory for why these AMA threads tend to have such a huge percentage of awesome and respectful interactions, so I thought I'd just come in here and say thanks for being awesome!

    Designer

    Secret Wizard wrote:

    Watching that now in hopes I get to know what happened to Aroden!

    Continuing with the Unchained Monk, 'cause you love it so much, I'm confused about one skill:

    Quote:
    Ki Mount (Su): A monk with this ability can spend 1 ki point as a standard action to grant 2 temporary hit points per monk level he possesses to his mount for 1 hour per monk level. As long as the monk and his mount are adjacent or the monk is mounted, the mount shares the benefits of whichever of the AC bonus, evasion, high jump, improved evasion, ki strike, perfect self, and still mind abilities the monk possesses. A monk must be at least 6th level before selecting this ki power.

    Does this mean that the mount gets AC Bonus equal to the AC Bonus that its rider receives, or is it recalculated with its own animal WIS? Does Ki Strike apply to its natural attacks, or does it need Unarmed Strike? Do these work if the companion has barding?

    EDIT: Just as a comment, I created a five UnMonk builds with a breakdown of level 12 items and stats... Might be a good way to look at what different build styles look like, for development?
    What I'm trying to say is give me an archetype for UnMonks with an AC.

    It would gain those abilities, so I think that would mean it follows the same rules: no armor, its own Wis bonus, and ki strike on unarmed attacks. I think any archetype for mounted unchained monk would probably keep this power in mind (by giving it automatically, possibly early, and then trading out evasion on the mount since you usually have it anyway, etc); could be cool.

    Designer

    MusicAddict wrote:
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    MusicAddict wrote:
    Was that a "Mounted Fury" archetype that I spotted when you were showing off the magical child picture?
    Good eye! Yes, it's basically Zorro.
    I will also admit that just now, in an attempt to get a really nice screenie of the magical child artwork to just point out how much it reminds me of a certain time manipulating magical girl to my pathfinder skype group, I actually got a fairly clear screenshot of a good chunk of the two pages. Without saying what it can do, that familiar actually seems fairly impressive.

    It's pretty impressive. Much like with Chosen One (the previous magical girl-ish paladin archetype), Luna can be a silvanshee now; I mean clearly she isn't just a regular cat!

    Designer

    Xethik wrote:
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    There's some Intrigue stuff (including some art shown to the camera) from the Secrets of Pathfinder panel on our new Twitch channel! I've linked the video from my fan page (most recent post here).

    Enjoyed watching this. There were a couple audio issues splattered throughout, but that was it. Some cool info and insight from everyone.

    Also, I hope my 3.5 GM doesn't watch this and takes away my beautiful Celerity cheese.

    We were apparently a sound test for the real deal.

    As to celerity...if the GM is using it right against the PCs, you should want it gone, I think. NPCs benefit from it especially, particularly in groups of mooks where the NPC was probably going to die on the next round anyway if they don't kill the PCs this round (usually not the situation for PCs). In my game, I kept saying I might use it but kept on not doing so, over and over, until that final fight.

    Designer

    David knott 242 wrote:
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    MusicAddict wrote:
    Was that a "Mounted Fury" archetype that I spotted when you were showing off the magical child picture?
    Good eye! Yes, it's basically Zorro.

    So between that and the existing Mysterious Avenger archetype for the Swashbuckler, we basically have two ways to build Zorro now, right?

    It will be interesting to compare and contrast the two archetypes.

    There's lots of Zorro possibilities!

    Designer

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Tels wrote:

    Kind of an odd question here, but, thematically, which of the kinetic elements do you think would make the best lover?

    I ask because a post on the Pathfinder RPG group the other day mentioned a human could take Racial Heritage (grippli) and qualify for the Agile Tongue feat (granting him a 10 ft. long, prehensile tongue). I'm wanting to turn this character concept into a kineticist NPC for me to use in a game I may or may not be taking over GMing.

    Based on weird Classical/medieval/Age of Enlightenment philosophy, I think that air might be sociable, carefree, talkative, pleasure-seeking, warm-hearted, and optimistic. They can make new friends easily, be imaginative and artistic, and often have many ideas. Fire may be excitable, impulsive, and restless, with reserves of aggression, energy, and passion, and try to instill that in others. Earth might be serious, introverted, cautious or suspicious. Water might be inward and private, thoughtful, reasonable, calm, patient, caring, and tolerant. Aether might be spiritual, detached, and manipulative.

    Overall, probably air or fire when using the exact word "lover". Water would be solid for a "partner" though.

    Designer

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Dragon78 wrote:
    So will Ultimate Intrigue and/or Horror Adventures give us any Kineticist love?

    I have been including kineticist content as it fits in. That said, I did mention some kineticist stuff coming under copyfit for me recently enough that it couldn't be from Intrigue, meaning it would have to be from Horror unless we were super ahead on <redacted>. ;)

    Designer

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    MichaelCullen wrote:

    Can moment of prescience be used for initiative checks?

    MOMENT OF PRESCIENCE wrote:

    School divination; Level sorcerer/wizard 8

    Casting Time 1 standard action
    Components V, S
    Range personal
    Target you
    Duration 1 hour/level or until discharged
    This spell grants you a sixth sense. Once during the spell's duration, you may choose to use its effect. This spell grants you an insight bonus equal to your caster level (maximum +25) on any single attack roll, combat maneuver check, opposed ability or skill check, or saving throw. Alternatively, you can apply the insight bonus to your AC against a single attack (even if flat-footed). Activating the effect doesn't take an action; you can even activate it on another character's turn. You must choose to use the moment of prescience before you make the roll it is to modify. Once used, the spell ends. You can't have more than one moment of prescience active on you at the same time.
    Initiative wrote:
    At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions)..
    It is pretty clear that initiative is an ability check the question is, is it an opposed check?

    I generally think that it's a multi-way opposed Dexterity check, since you are comparing to other results and not a set DC. That said, I wouldn't be upset if a GM said otherwise.

    Designer

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    MichaelCullen wrote:

    Do temporary hit points count as part of your hitpoint total for the effects of spells like symbol of death or power word kill?

    POWER WORD KILL wrote:

    School enchantment (compulsion) [death, mind-affecting]; Level sorcerer/wizard 9

    Casting Time 1 standard action
    Components V
    Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
    Target one living creature with 100 hp or less
    Duration instantaneous
    Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
    You utter a single word of power that instantly kills one creature of your choice, whether the creature can hear the word or not. Any creature that currently has 101 or more hit points is unaffected by power word kill.
    Temporary Hit Points wrote:

    Certain effects give a character temporary hit points. These hit points are in addition to the character's current hit point total and any damage taken by the character is subtracted from these hit points first. Any damage in excess of a character's temporary hit points is applied to his current hit points as normal. If the effect that grants the temporary hit points ends or is dispelled, any remaining temporary hit points go away. The damage they sustained is not transferred to the character's current hit points.

    When temporary hit points are lost, they cannot be restored as real hit points can be, even by magic.

    It seems like they should, or am I reading too much into the bold text from temporary hitpoints?

    Our group usually has them count, but we know we've made a house ruling, and it's not a slam dunk, since "The damage they sustained is not transferred to the character's current hit points." vs. "Any creature that currently has 101 or more hit points" both using current hit points in a way that implies temp hp aren't in them. Good FAQ candidate!

    Designer

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Faelyn wrote:
    Dragon78 wrote:
    Can you reduce the burn cost of composite blasts like you can an infusion with gather power/supercharge?
    I got this one, Mark. Dragon78, your question was already answered by Protoman in the other thread you asked this; however, if that was not enough then here is the same answer from Mark a while ago.

    Indeed. You reduce the blast's cost, so that helps with anything that increases the blast's cost. Even metakinesis!

    Designer

    N N 959 wrote:

    Mark,

    I was hoping you might be able to clear something up for me. The FAQ on TWF with multiple weapons has this at the bottom:

    TWF FAQ wrote:
    In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."

    Emphasis added.

    I've looked through the rules on TWF and iterative attacks and I don't see where this follows. What is the reason/where is the rules text that suggests TWF forces you to make your iterative attacks with only your primary hand?

    Thanks in advance.

    So here's the deal there:

    Bob isn't using TWF and has out two weapons, longsword and shortsword. He wants to switch around with them for his iteratives without getting extra attacks. Sure, he can do that. But once you're using TWF, you have to separate your attacks between on-hand and off-hand rigidly because if you could still mix and match as you please, then you could take 100% (or 100% - 1 if there was a requirement to use each once) of the attacks with your awesomer weapon and never even use the other, just claiming to be TWFing to get double the attacks.


    Mark Seifter wrote:
    Faelyn wrote:
    Dragon78 wrote:
    Can you reduce the burn cost of composite blasts like you can an infusion with gather power/supercharge?
    I got this one, Mark. Dragon78, your question was already answered by Protoman in the other thread you asked this; however, if that was not enough then here is the same answer from Mark a while ago.
    Indeed. You reduce the blast's cost, so that helps with anything that increases the blast's cost. Even metakinesis!

    In hindsight, after rereading my post, I feel if comes off a little brusque. If so, I would like to apologize to Dragon78 and Mark, I was not intending to come off that way.

    Designer

    TriOmegaZero wrote:

    Mark, do magic items that produce the effects of spells have to overcome spell resistance?

    We used an otherworldly kimono to trap an enemy in a maze effect, but were not sure if the item needed to roll against SR.

    Whenever you're performing the effects of a spell, adjudicate all those effects unless told otherwise, so necklacke of fireballs' fireballs would apply energy resistance and SR, and the kimono's maze would apply dimensional anchor and SR.

    Designer

    Faelyn wrote:
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    Faelyn wrote:
    Dragon78 wrote:
    Can you reduce the burn cost of composite blasts like you can an infusion with gather power/supercharge?
    I got this one, Mark. Dragon78, your question was already answered by Protoman in the other thread you asked this; however, if that was not enough then here is the same answer from Mark a while ago.
    Indeed. You reduce the blast's cost, so that helps with anything that increases the blast's cost. Even metakinesis!
    In hindsight, after rereading my post, I feel if comes off a little brusque. If so, I would like to apologize to Dragon78 and Mark, I was not intending to come off that way.

    Didn't seem too brusque to me :)

    Designer

    Jokem wrote:

    Mark -

    Since the Design team might be slow about addressing this, it was suggested I come here to ask your opinion on this.

    http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tcdl?Liberation-Domain

    My opinion is it works just like FoM vs magical effects and any other interpretation opens up a can of worms, not the least of which is defining what 'movement' is in game terms.

    Would you be willing to clarify?

    My clarification would be my personal opinion anyways, and my personal opinion is that FoM is already a can-of-wormsy murky spell to adjudicate to begin with (there's a few physicists in our group, and they've had some fun discussions about the weirdness of determining what FoM should prevent/allow). I definitely agree that at the very least the domain power only works on magical effects, not non-magical impediments. As to whether it does all the same things otherwise, I feel that this would require delving too deeply down the rabbit hole of FoM in general to comfortably answer.


    So about a month ago I started this thread, about how dragon style+ feral combat training works with power attack. In short, if you get 1.5xSTR on your primary natural attack(s) thanks to dragon style/dragon ferocity does it count for the -1\+3 condition in PA. The discussion went well, but reached it's end do to having the disagreement distilled to its most basic form. So, since a debate could only bring the question so far, and the situation is probably too niche to justify an FAQ, I thought I'd ask you for your opinion on the matter.
    Thanks in advance, and thanks in general for running this thread. This type of designer participation is a big part of what makes me love pathfinder.

    Designer

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:

    Mark - are you tired of rules questions yet? I know it's your job, but when I get home from work the last thing I wanna think about is work, you know?

    What's your favorite flavored...
    Class
    Race
    Feat
    Monster
    ...that you otherwise dislike the mechanics of?

    Some day I might break or something, but for now, I'm a robot who can talk about rules stuff all the time without being drained, as long as it's polite (negativity is draining whether on rules or not).

    Favorite flavor but with not mechanics? Hmm...probably core monk or rogue for class, maybe kasatha or wyrwood for race, irminsul for monster, and Fey Foundling for feat (immensely awesome RP hook combined with OP-for-certain-builds benefit that leads to comical amounts of RP similarities "Oh, looks like all four of our paladins playing in this scenario were all abducted by the fey as children, just like all paladins were!").

    Designer

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pandora's wrote:

    Hey Mark, have a question about the Timely Inspiration spell. It says

    "The target gains a +1 competence bonus per five caster levels (maximum +3 bonus) on the attack roll or skill check retroactively."

    As written, that means no bonus until caster level 5 for a 1st level spell. In the absence of a FAQ, could you provide some insight into what it should read/the intent was?

    Guessing minimum 1, maximum 3 like divine favor.

    Designer

    Pandora's wrote:

    One more. The feat Skald's Vigor says

    "While maintaining a raging song, you gain fast healing equal to the Strength bonus your song provides, starting in the round after you begin the song."

    Does that mean only the Inspired Rage raging song provides any fast healing? Is the feat useless for the Spell Warrior archetype that gives weapon enhancement bonuses to allies instead of a strength bonus?

    Yeah, I think it conflated inspired rage with raging song.

    Designer

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Chess Pwn wrote:
    Two Fridays in a row with no faq, is something happening to cause this delay?

    Rysky has part of it: Owlcon (no me)->Livestream/HumbleBundle->Garycon (no Jason). And Jason will be at GAMA soon as well, though we might be able to cobble one together before then, we'll see (guessing he'll have enough catch-up to make that dicey).

    The Exchange

    Hello Mr. Seifter I have a rules question for you. if a creature is in an area that provides concealment, does it attacking out of that area into an area that have no concealment give the attacker a miss chance?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    countchocula wrote:
    Hello Mr. Seifter I have a rules question for you. if a creature is in an area that provides concealment, does it attacking out of that area into an area that have no concealment give the attacker a miss chance?

    To help Mark: nope.

    Quote:

    To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

    When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you, use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks.

    For ranged attacks, your square isn't going to be included in the lines you draw (unless for some reason you choose a corner on the far side of your space to the target), so no concealment, and for a melee attack against an adjacent foe, his square isn't in a concealment effect.


    Mark Seifter wrote:


    So here's the deal there:

    Bob isn't using TWF and has out two weapons, longsword and shortsword. He wants to switch around with them for his iteratives without getting extra attacks. Sure, he can do that. But once you're using TWF, you have to separate your attacks between on-hand and off-hand rigidly because if you could still mix and match as you please, then you could take 100% (or 100% - 1 if there was a requirement to use each once) of the attacks with your awesomer weapon and never even use the other, just claiming to be TWFing to get double the attacks.

    First, thanks for answering.

    Second, I'm still confused. I understand that using TWF creates the primary/off-hand designation. The part I'm confused about is why someone with a BAB of +6 can't do this:

    Primary / Off-hand / TWF(Off-Hand).

    Perhaps another way to ask is if there is a rule that says the iterative attacks cannot be made with an off-hand?

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

    Either weapon can be the off-hand, so I'm not sure that there is any distinction there. If you want to get two attacks with a specific weapon, use that as your primary.

    The sequence you list would technically require Improved Two-Weapon Fighting to pull off, since that is the only way to get an iterative off-hand attack.

    4,151 to 4,200 of 6,833 << first < prev | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 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.