Simple RAW for Pathfinder Thread V: Golarion Strikes Back

[Zsaber0]

Q 256
Is it possible to change a +1 flaming sword into a +1 "anything or equal value" sword.

[Palanan]

Q255a:

Is there a feat which allows you to take a move action in the same round as a TWF attack?

[Calthropstu]

Q255a:

Is there a feat which allows you to take a move action in the same round as a TWF attack?

A255a TWF is a part of a full attack. There is no feat that reduces a full attack to a standard action.
However, there IS pounce which allows a full attack on a charge.

[Psyren]

A255 addendum: Usually the only way to move and full-attack is by 5-foot stepping. There are feats that let you move more than 5ft in your step, such as Outslug Sprint. There are others that let you move as part of a full attack action, such as Dimensional Assault. Finally, there are some that grant pounce, like Vulpine Pounce or Claw Pounce, but those have racial limitations.

Your best bets for true move + full-attack are magic (shapeshifting or spells that move you as a swift action) or via specific archetypes like Mobile Fighter. Feats generally won't help much aside from more restricted ones like the above.

[upho]

A 2050 addendum: The problem resolving this is the very ambiguous word "wield" here.
Key is "The weapon is considered wielded or attended by the activating character for all maneuvers and effects that target items". Conclusion is that you never actually stop to "wield" it for rules purposes.

A 250 addendum: I believe Florian misread the sentence he quoted. It explicitly says the dancing weapon is still considered wielded/attended "...for all maneuvers and effects that target items" (my emphasis).

IOW, this means the dancing weapon is considered wielded for things like a rust monster's Rust ability, sunder, disarm and steal combat maneuvers, and most likely for all other things which would've directly affected the weapon had it been wielded normally by the activating character (such as an enlarge person spell). But it most definitely does not say the weapon is considered wielded for any other purposes, such as the effect of the vicious ability (which does not affect the vicious weapon itself, but the wielder of the weapon and the creature hit by the weapon).

So the quoted sentence is actually a far better argument against vicious working with dancing, since specific rules items normally only mention exceptions to the general rules. And the general rules for weapons say you need to use one or more hands to hold a weapon in order to wield it.

The dancing RAW don't explicitly mention "wield" in any form again, but touch upon a few closely related rules items and terms. Here are all the potentially relevant parts and key conclusions (emphasis by me):

"...a dancing weapon can be loosed to attack on its own." According to the general RAW on the subjects of holding weapons and using them to make attacks, this part clearly says the weapon is not wielded.

"It fights for 4 rounds using the base attack bonus of the one who loosed it..." So outside of the activating character's base attack bonus, attacks made by the weapon do not gain the same attack bonuses and penalties as attacks made by the character would if wielding the weapon (the weapon will typically have a lower attack bonus when attacking by itself). Again, nothing here to suggest the weapon is still considered wielded.

"While dancing, it cannot make attacks of opportunity, and the activating character is not considered armed with the weapon." RAW, you're considered armed with a manufactured weapon you wield. And AFAICT, the only possible way for you to no longer be considered armed with that weapon is actually by no longer wielding it. So this also supports the conclusion of the first part.

"The weapon is considered wielded or attended by the activating character for all maneuvers and effects that target items." And here are the exceptions to the first part. As mentioned, these do not cover the vicous effect.

[Calthropstu]

Q257:
a:If I manifest mindswitch then cast simulacrum, would I get the body I inhabit, or the body I left?
b:What about true mindswitch, would that change anything?
Edit: Nvm, I thought it was target: self.

[Palanan]

Q258: Interaction of Two-Weapon Fighting and Sneak Attack.

When an unchained rogue flanks an opponent and hits twice with light weapons, does each weapon do Sneak Attack damage?

I thought I'd seen something to the effect that Sneak Attack is only applied to the first strike, but I can't find it in the CRB.

[Psyren]

A258: Sneak Attack applies to every attack that meets the requirement. Basically you do something like this.

(1) Make first swing.
(2) Are you flanking or target is denied Dex bonus? If yes, that swing gets sneak attack.
(3) Make next swing.
(4) Are you still flanking or target is still denied Dex bonus? If yes, that swing gets sneak attack too.
(5) Repeat 3-4 until you're out of attacks.

[heavyfuel]

Q 259 Is there any Wondrous Item that creates an AMF?

[Morphic tide]

Q 259 Is there any Wondrous Item that creates an AMF?

A 259: If there isn't, there should be guidelines for custom magic items tucked away in either an equipment-centric splat or the DMG. D&D 3.5 sticks it's basic custom magic item guidelines in the DMG, but also has some other, similar rules(like it's guidelines for feat-granting custom items) in other equipment-centric spats.

Actually, have a link to said guidelines.

Edit: Have another link to a specific one that makes an AMF that's actually a pre-existing item.

[Psyren]

A259: As noted, Equalizer Shield is your only non-custom, non-spellcasting option.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Q 256
Is it possible to change a +1 flaming sword into a +1 "anything or equal value" sword.

A 256 Scroll down a bit after following this link, until you find a header titled "Altering Magic Items". The passage indicates that you can not alter existing weapon properties as per the standard rules, but it provides guidelines and for DMs interested in allowing it.

[Zsaber0]

Q260

If a fighter archetype says it replaces "weapon training" without a I,II,III, or IV does that mean it still only replaces the the first weapon training or all of them.

[Psyren]

A260: If no number/grade/iteration is specified, you lose the entire class feature.

[unseenmage]

Q261
Lesser Simulacrum states that the Simulacrum created is not under your control.

What happens when you make a Lesser Simulacrum of an Animated Object or normally otherwise controllable Construct?

[Psyren]

A261: "The creature is not under your control" is pretty clear-cut. Control Construct should let you re-establish that if you need to though.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Q 262 If a creature with both two natural attacks and a manufactured weapon is making a full attack (Let's say their BaB is +6), do they get 4 attacks? 2 from BaB and 2 from natural attacks?

[Psyren]

A262: Yes, provided that the natural attacks not use limbs that are occupied by the weapon (e.g. you cannot hold a sword in your claws and still use the claws.) Assuming compatible natural attacks, e.g. a bite and a tail, the sequence would be:

Sword +6
Sword +1 (-5)
Bite +1 (-5)
Tail +1 (-5)

If you have Multiattack, those last two would increase from +1 to +4 (i.e. -2 penalty instead of -5.)

[unseenmage]

Q263

Can a Mimic in the shape of a the statue of a human benefit from a Hat of Disguise?
Not asking if it could/would move, just asking if it could appear to be someone else while still mimicing a statue of yet another someone beneath the illusion?

Spoiler: possible if convoluted scenario/plan

Show

Could it mimic a statue of the court vizier while wearing a Hat of Disguise to appear to be the king all while the court wizard is walking by with True Seeing active so the court wizard sees the vizier masquerading as the king?

Q264
As above but for a Doppelganger instead?


Q265
Can a human sorcerer use a Page of Spell Knowledge to cast the goblin racial spell Vomit Twin?

[Florian]

A263/264: No, because you can´t layer on two uses of the same skill, in this case disguise. Both critters would have to use the skill to disguise their true form an than disguise the mimicked form, which is not supported by the disguise skill. Beyond that, True Seeing would pierce all layers of disguise/illusions.

A265: Yes, that would work if the creator of the item was a goblin.

[unseenmage]

Some questions regarding the Book of Night Without Moon...

Q266
Can the shadow trapped in the book of a creature that died or ceased to exist still be used to make a shadow duplicate of that creature?

Q267
Shadows created by the book are described as intelligent. Is this still true if one uses the shadow of an unintelligent creature?

[Cieyrin]

A 266 Nothing about the book suggests it matters what state the creature the shadow came from is for it to be in the book, so yes.

A 267 It doesn't matter if the creature the shadow came from was intelligent or not, the shadow will be regardless.

[unseenmage]

A 266 Nothing about the book suggests it matters what state the creature the shadow came from is for it to be in the book, so yes.

A 267 It doesn't matter if the creature the shadow came from was intelligent or not, the shadow will be regardless.

Is there any way to determine how intelligent?

[Korahir]

Is there any way to determine how intelligent?

Addendum A267: As the shadow is created as if with the spell shadow conjuration the intelligence should be that of the owner of the shadow since shadow conjuration states that a shadow creature "has all normal abilities and weaknesses." The clause about the shadow being intelligent might be there to make shadows of animals, vermins and constructs usable. Although for that there is absolutely no RAW way to determine the intelligence score. Treat the shadow as having the original value with a special quality that allows it to follow complex commands.

[Florian]

Oh, come on, the book is a plot device, pure and simple.

[Nibbens]

Q268

Can a character tumble through a symbol of striking?

The symbol of striking

threatens its area and the area around it as if it were a Medium creature wielding a magic version of [a] weapon

.

So, by the wording of the spell, it seems like it could be tumbled through, a success meaning the tumbling character can move through the spaces without provoking the attacks of opportunity. But that kinda seems janky to me. Besides, the spell doesn't specifically mention where the CMD (for the tumble) would come from. You could logic it out as the caster's, but that'd be much easier to hit than a non-casters, rendering this spell significantly less useful than a 5th level spell seems like it should be.

Any thoughts on this?

[Psyren]

A268: Sure you can - it threatens as if it were a creature, and you can tumble past creatures. You have everything you need to calculate its CMD too - base(10)+ size (M = 0), attack bonus (CL+1), and ability mod (casting stat.) If you move directly through the symbol's square, it gets +5 to its CMD.

So a 9th-level Witch with 22 Int who scribes this thing would give it a CMD of 10+0+9+1+6 = 26 as the DC for your tumble check, or DC 31 if you tumble directly over it, before CL boosters. If she gives it a reach weapon, it will threaten a wider area as well. That's a decent CMD for level 9 I'd say. (Compare to other CR 9 obstacles like a Moon Dog at CMD 25, an Avoral at CMD 29, or a Juvenile Copper Dragon at CMD 28.)

[Nibbens]

A268: Sure you can - it threatens as if it were a creature, and you can tumble past creatures. You have everything you need to calculate its CMD too - base(10)+ size (M = 0), attack bonus (CL+1), and ability mod (casting stat.) If you move directly through the symbol's square, it gets +5 to its CMD.

So a 9th-level Witch with 22 Int who scribes this thing would give it a CMD of 10+0+9+1+6 = 26 as the DC for your tumble check, or DC 31 if you tumble directly over it, before CL boosters. If she gives it a reach weapon, it will threaten a wider area as well. That's a decent CMD for level 9 I'd say. (Compare to other CR 9 obstacles like a Moon Dog at CMD 25, an Avoral at CMD 29, or a Juvenile Copper Dragon at CMD 28.)

Makes sense. I wasn't taking the Casting Ability mod into account for CMD, but that too lines up. Thank you, Psyren. Always a pleasure!

[boriss283]

Q269

Hello. Does Glamered armor radiate magic ? I know there is nothying about it in Glamered armor description, but Glamered weapon does not radiate magic and i just wanted to clarify it. May be there is some FAQ or some thing about it.

[Cieyrin]

A 269 Yes, it does. You'll notice the addition in Glamered as a weapon property includes Magic Aura as a prereq, while as an armor property it does not. That particular feature was explicitly added to the weapon property.