Simple Q&A Pathfinder (By RAW) I

[rockdeworld]

A426
Yes. Off-hand is not defined in PF, so you can define it to cover any weapon, including natural attacks. The natural attacks wouldn't be -5 if used in this way, that's only if used for iterative attacks. Instead, use the TWF table to determine penalties and use 1/2 STR for damage because they're being used as offhand weapons.

When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.

Edit: this is in dispute.

[Larpus]

A426+
However, if you just so happens to have 3+ natural attacks, you should get Multiattack instead, which allows you to use your all naturals at -2 together with a weapon and doesn't deduce the -2 from your main weapon attack.

[RFLS]

Q 427

Spoilered for length. Pathfinder rules, but 3.5 material allowed.

Spoiler

Show

So, I'll be running a gestalt campaign in the near future, and one of my players is going to be building a character focused on buffing the everloving hell out of his animal companion (a bird of some sort). He'll be going Witch 4//Druid 4, and then into Arcane Hierophant. He wants to know what happens if he goes, for instance, Witch 4/Arcane Hierophant 4//Druid 4/Cavalier 4. Does he have 1 animal that has, effectively, 12 levels of animal companion and 8 of familiar?

[Zherog]

A 427

Gestalt rules aren't RAW pathfinder. While it's a completely valid question, it's not valid for this thread. Sounds like a good candidate for a new thread to me.

[CowMasterTrojan]

Q 428

Currently working on a high level catfolk ninja. If they fight with their claws, is there a way to get enchantments onto the claws?

[Zherog]

A 428 partial

Get magic fang or greater magic fang cast on you.

An amulet of mighty fists also does what you're looking for.

There are probably other ways, too.

[Cieyrin]

A428 The Advanced Race Guide has claw blades which change your claw natural attack into masterwork light slashing weapon which can thus be enchanted. I think that means you switch from the Natural Attack rules to Two Weapon Fighting as well, it's...kinda weird, honestly.

[killem2]

Q 429: In regards to this:

Capacity: A firearm's capacity is the number of shots it can hold at one time. When making a full-attack action, you may fire a firearm as many times in a round as you have attacks, up to this limit, unless you can reload the weapon as a swift or free action while making a full-attack action. In the case of early firearms, capacity often indicates the number of barrels a firearm has. In the case of advanced firearms, it typically indicates the number of chambers the weapon has.

So if a level 8 fighter wants to fire a Revolver that says its capacity is 6, does this mean, the fighter can shoot twice (because of their BAB), then if they have the ability to reload as a swift/free action, they can fire two more times?

[CowMasterTrojan]

A428 The Advanced Race Guide has claw blades which change your claw natural attack into masterwork light slashing weapon which can thus be enchanted. I think that means you switch from the Natural Attack rules to Two Weapon Fighting as well, it's...kinda weird, honestly.

Thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for.

I also came across this item if anyone ever wonders the same thing.

[MrLemon]

A429 No.
That reading, while semantically possible, is definetely not intended.

The purple part is referring to the "up to this limit" part and nothing else.
So, if your firearm has a capacity of 2, you can not shoot more than 2 times in a Full Attack, even when you could because of BAB or Haste or something. There just are no more bullets.
The EXCEPTION is when you can reload during a full attack, if you have a way to load more bullets into the firearm during a full attack, you can shoot more (if you have attacks left).

[rockdeworld]

A429 Dispute/Clarification
This sentence is particularly badly written, so that it's unclear what the part you bolded refers to. For reference, I'll insert markers.

When making a full-attack action, (a) you may fire a firearm as many times in a round as you have attacks, (b) up to this limit, (c) unless you can reload the weapon as a swift or free action while making a full-attack action.

If your DM rules that part (c) refers to part (b) (as the designers presumably intended), then no, because being able to reload the weapon as a swift/free action doesn't give you the ability to make more than your normal number of iterative attacks.

If your DM rules that part (c) refers to part (a), then maybe, it's unclear because it now says "you may fire a firearm either less or more (DM decides which) but not exactly as many times in a round as you have attacks." If you can do it as a swift action, the part about "up to this limit" now references the limit after reloading, which in your case would be another 6 shots. If you can do it as a free action, the part about "up to this limit" no longer applies because you can reload as many times as you have ammunition.

[Karoht]

Q430: Flesh Would Rage Power DC VS DR and Resistances
Flesh Would is an awesome little Barbarian Rage Power. If you take a hit, you make a Fort Save to turn it into non-lethal damage. If you are able to Rage Cycle, you get some excellent mitigation every round. However, I am curious as to how it interacts with Damage Reduction and similar effects.
http://www.pathfindersrd.com/classes...flesh-wound-ex

Lets say a Barbarian has DR 5.
If the incoming damage is 32, is the save DC 32 or 27?
"The barbarian must make a Fortitude save with a DC equal to the damage that would be dealt by the attack."
Well, against 32 damage, the Barbarian would be dealt 27 damage.
Or is "would be dealt" intended to be the gross damage, not the net?

[Zherog]

A 430

I think you can make a case for reading that ability either way. Based on this: "The barbarian must elect to use this ability after the attack roll is made, but before the damage is rolled."

I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the intended idea was to take the full damage before DR is applied. So in your example, the DC would be 32 (and, as the ability states, don't forget to apply any armor check penalty you have to that save).

As I said, I think it's completely reasonable to construct an argument that the DC should be 27. This is probably a case where there is no RAW answer, as unsatisfying as that is.

[Karoht]

A 430

I think you can make a case for reading that ability either way. Based on this: "The barbarian must elect to use this ability after the attack roll is made, but before the damage is rolled."

I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the intended idea was to take the full damage before DR is applied. So in your example, the DC would be 32 (and, as the ability states, don't forget to apply any armor check penalty you have to that save).

As I said, I think it's completely reasonable to construct an argument that the DC should be 27. This is probably a case where there is no RAW answer, as unsatisfying as that is.

I also had a feeling RAI was the unmodified damage. Hmm. Maybe there is an answer in the Damage Reduction entry on the SRD...

*goes off and checks...*

It describes DR as "damage ignored" and not subtracted per se. I would assume that one would 'Ignore' that portion of the effect for purposes of determining other effects, such as a save DC. But, that is just my interpretation.

[Stone Heart]

A426
Yes. Off-hand is not defined in PF, so you can define it to cover any weapon, including natural attacks. The natural attacks wouldn't be -5 if used in this way, that's only if used for iterative attacks. Instead, use the TWF table to determine penalties and use 1/2 STR for damage because they're being used as offhand weapons.

This is not correct. You can't use the TWF feats in regards to natural attacks. If you use a manufactured weapon in conjunction with a natural attack, the natural attack becomes secondary and takes the -5 penalty.

[rockdeworld]

A430 Dispute/Clarification
The wording of this ability means that it doesn't actually work by RAW.

The barbarian must elect to use this ability after the attack roll is made, but before the damage is rolled.

At the time the saving throw is made, there is no way of knowing "the damage that would be dealt by the attack." Therefore the DC is undefined. There's no way for the barbarian to succeed or fail (arguably, he succeeds if his result is higher than the damage that actually happens before the ability is applied, but that's not RAW).

Any other interpretation is RAI, and (off-topic) personally I prefer the one where you apply all factors, including DR, before deciding the DC. In your example that would be DC27.

[Zherog]

A 430 continued

I don't see it that way. The barbarian has to declare his use before damage is rolled. It doesn't say he must make his save at that point, though - just say, "Yo, GM! I'mma gonna let you finish and all. But I just wanted to let you know that flesh wound is the best ability of all time! Oh, and I'm totally gonna use it right now." So basically, order of actions are:

1. GM attacks barbarian and hit his AC
2. player declares use of ability
3. GM rolls damage
4. player rolls save

It matters because if the GM rolls crappy, maybe the barbarian wouldn't care - but he still expended his use for the rage. Or on the other end, maybe the GM rolls such high damage that the only way the barbarian makes the save is with a natural 20. In either case, maybe the player wouldn't have declared his use and would've saved it.

So no, having to declare doesn't create some gaming version of Schrodinger's cat. It just slightly interrupts the normal flow of action.

[Screech-*Lime*]

Q 431: Does a Zombie Lord count as a variant Zombie for the purposes of Animate Dead, specifically this Reanimator class feature?:

"Simple Reanimation

At 7th level, a reanimator adds lesser animate dead to his formula book as a 3rd-level extract. When he uses that extract, rather than drinking it, he injects it into the corpse he intends to animate, which rises as an undead creature under his control 1 hour later. The extract can only create zombies (including variant zombies)."

[AfroDyyd]

Q432 Do monk vows give you Ki retroactively?
As in does it give you Ki for the levels you have not had the vow for? For instance, if my level 9 monk took on a vow of chains do i get 3 additional Ki points instantly, or do i get one additional Ki point at level 12?

Vow of Chains: ...A monk with this vow increasing his ki pool by 1 ki point for every 3 monk levels (minimum +1).

[rockdeworld]

A431
No, the variants are listed on this page, and Zombie Lord is not among them. Also the Zombie Lord template says nothing about counting as a regular zombie for the purposes of creation.

A432
Yes, it's retroactive, just like Con boosts. In your case, +3 for being 9th level.

[AzureConundrum]

Q 434 Can Blistering Invective be put on armor or potion for use by classes unable to cast it (say a fighter)? One of my current DMs is a bit of a stickler when it comes to me being able to "generate threat as a tank", I have put a great deal already into my Intimidate including most talents affecting it or benefiting from it to demoralize enemies and create threat.

[Larpus]

A434
Range: Personal, so no armor (I'm assuming you meant through Spell Storing, clarify if you have another method).

That said, it's available as an Alchemist extract, so an Alchemist with the Infusion discovery (which he should have) can prepare one for you.

It's quite likely that it can be put into a potion, as Range: Personal is "targets one creature", which is needed for potion, but the text is not fully clear and is open to interpretation. Still, that it's valid seems more likely per RAW.

Another option is to craft a custom wondrous item with it (either through a party member crafting or especially asking for it from your DM), make it command word with either use-activation or times/day usage.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Q435
If using Words of Power, the Barrier target word appears to create a wall-shaped area effect with the duration of the Effect word.
Does this mean that an instantaneous fire effect with a Barrier target is not persistent, and deal damage only to targets present in the barrier shape when it is cast?
(It would seem more sensible that the Barrier target persists for some duration, and triggers the spell effect on the first creature passing through it, but does not appear to be written that way.)

(Link to Target words in PF SRD)

[rockdeworld]

A435
Correct, an instantaneous fire wall, eg. Fire Blast Barrier, only damages creatures that are inside the wall's area at the time of casting.

Effect words determine what effect a wordspell has when cast. They also determine the schools of the wordspell and its duration, saving throw, and spell resistance, if any.

Duration instantaneous

The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

A wordspell with this target word creates a visible barrier that is 10 feet long per caster level and 10 feet high. Creatures touching or passing through the barrier are subject to the spell's effect. The barrier does not hinder creatures passing through it unless noted in the spell effect. Creatures occupying the space of the barrier when it forms are subject to the spell's effect. The wall is 1 foot wide and must be anchored on a solid surface. The wall must be straight when formed.

[Ravens_cry]

Q436
Doe the extra attack from Blessing of Fervor stack with the extra attack from spending a ki point as a Ninja?

[rockdeworld]

A436
No.

Make one extra attack as part of a full attack action, using its highest base attack bonus.
<snip>
These effects are not cumulative with similar effects

...make one additional attack at her highest attack bonus, but she can do so only when making a full attack.

The effects are similar, so they don't stack.

[Douglas]

A436 dispute

The precise definition of what qualifies as a "similar" effect in this case is unclear. I believe the intended definition is that "haste-like" (and therefore similar and non-stacking) effects are strictly those that include a non-stacking note themselves, and "non-haste-like" effects are the ones that do not have such a note. Only one haste-like effect can grant extra attacks at a time, but any number of non-haste-like effects can stack with each other and one haste-like effect. In what I very much doubt is a coincidence, each of these categories almost universally shares several important characteristics.

Haste-like:
One up front activation cost, but lasts an entire typical battle for free after that.
Few or no limitations on how the extra attack is used.
No downside to the effect.

Non Haste-like:
Must be re-activated each round.
Often has a cost for activation (each round).
Often has a trade-off, gaining the extra attack in exchange for a penalty.
Often has a major limitation in what the extra attack is used with and how.
Almost always has at least one of the above three negative traits.

The sharp division in characteristics between these categories makes me strongly believe the difference is intentional, particularly with how perfectly it corresponds with the presence or absence of a non-stacking note.

The bonus attack from Ki Pool lacks a non-stacking note. This makes it non Haste-like, and sure enough it lasts one round and costs a ki point and swift action each round.

Under this interpretation, which is a possible meaning of RAW and I believe is the intended one, Blessing of Fervor and Ki Pool stack. Blessing of Fervor is Haste-like, and Ki Pool is not. Any number of additional non Haste-like effects could also be stacked on, but paying all their activation costs, accepting all their penalties, and satisfying all their use limitations would get difficult quickly.

[North_Ranger]

Q437

I remember there being a magic weapon ability that basically stated that said weapon can be used as the divine focus of a cleric/paladin spell. But I seem unable to locate it. Is there such a quality or does my memory fail me yet again?

[kmk_mitrene]

Q438

Can you use knowledge skill again on the same question (for example identify a thing), if you got new ranks in it? I havent found it in rules. Can you get more information about it?

[Cieyrin]

A438 That 3.5 rule doesn't seem to be in PF, so no. Common sense, however, would suggest that if you learn something new (a.k.a. invest a rank in a Knowledge skill) or go to somewhere that may have information (go to a library with the relevant topic), you should be able to, given the retry denies based on what you knew at the time.