Simple RAW for Pathfinder Thread V: Golarion Strikes Back

[Cieyrin]

Aha! Awesome~ I guess he wasn't being odd for a change. (previous odd moments in the past include him being confused as to why a pistol with normal black powder might not work underwater and him wondering if otters could swim... ^-^;)

You may be thinking of that it doesn't grant casters with spellbooks/store spells in familiars free spells. Most prestige classes that grant advances in casting grant spells known at the same levels but not for spellbooks unless otherwise specified. So a Sorcerer gains spells known for a casting advance in Eldritch Knight but a Magus would not learn a new spell for her spell book.

[Florian]

Aha! Awesome~ I guess he wasn't being odd for a change. (previous odd moments in the past include him being confused as to why a pistol with normal black powder might not work underwater and him wondering if otters could swim... ^-^;)

Not so odd, because from a RAW standpoint, he is right on both accounts.
1) (Pre-loaded) Firearms explicitly work underwater. Reloading with powder and shot underwater is what doesn't work without magical means or switching to cartridges (see Ultimate Equipment p.42).
2) Otter familiars have a swim speed, but no inherent swim skill, the +8 bonus more or less being cancelled out by the low STR score. So the ability to take 10 means they'll automatically drown in rough waters.

[Calthropstu]

Q388:
Would an arcane eye trigger a trap or spell passing through it?

[Florian]

A388:

Now that's a tricky one. The eye is something that is there, has a size, is invisible and can roll along a floor, that much is clear, it is blocked by solid objects, so there is an interaction. What's unknown is whether it has a creature type, counts as an object and so on.
So I think it won't trigger anything that has specific conditions, but will trigger anything that has blanket area conditions (ex: "entering the warded area triggers...") or is triggered by sight (ex: "Looking at or reading a Symbol...").

[Psyren]

A388: It would depend on the specific trigger of the trap, but this is also a very gray area of the rules - the sensor created by scrying spells is very vaguely defined. It's invisible, so presumably a trap trigger that sees invisible things could detect it, but there is no language about how big it is, what it looks like (when visible), whether it can exert pressure, whether it's considered an object etc. Your GM will unfortunately have to come up with a ruling for such qualities.

[Calthropstu]

Q389: can an arcane eye travel through water

[Florian]

A389: Let´s shorten that a bit, ok? For stuff like Magical Sensors, no matter if Arcane Eye or the Occultist ability or what-have-you, there is no RAW answer. Only thing you can do is look up very specific interactions and that's basically it.

[upho]

Q 390: The description of the tusk blades says the following (my emphasis):

"These metal caps must be specially fitted to a creature’s horns or tusks; a blade reminiscent of a sword or axe head projects from each cap. If the creature makes a gore attack (including as part of a powerful charge), the attack deals both piercing and slashing damage, and has a critical threat range of 19–20 (this range can be increased by other effects). Tusk blades can be enhanced as melee weapons; the enhancement is applied to the creature’s gore attack."

What does the emphasized part actually mean?

Is it:

1. that the gore attack can gain magic weapon enhancement bonuses both as a manufactured melee weapon and a natural attack, while the gore still remains only a natural attack in all other respects, including for the purpose of adding MWSAs (magic weapon special abilities), and still cannot benefit from any other options limited to manufactured weapons? (Meaning the tusk blades are a viable target for the magic weapon spells, but cannot be masterwork or used with options such as Hone Weapon or have any weapon mods.)
2. that the gore attack can gain magic weapon enhancement bonuses as well as MWSAs as a manufactured melee weapon and a natural attack, while the gore still remains only a natural attack in all other respects and thus still cannot benefit from any other options limited to manufactured weapons?
3. that the tusk blades makes the gore attack count as a manufactured as well as a natural weapon in all respects, basically as if the above emphasized rules quote had said "Tusk blades can be augmented as melee weapons; the effect is applied to the creature’s gore attack."?
4. something other than alternative 1-3 above?

Which of the above is correct, and why?

[Calthropstu]

A390: It is a natural attack that gains the benefits of whatever enhancements are on the blade. It still counts as a natural attack. It changes the threat range of a gore to 19-20, even if it was better, can be enhanced with magic as a weapon but does not say it counts as a weapon for anyghing else.

So to answer:
Natural attack= yes.
Manufactured weapon= for the purpose of magic enhancements only.
Disarm = no.
Steal = yes.
Metal weapon = yes.
Proficiency required = natural attack.
Benefits from feats, items and abilities that enhance natural attacks.

[FearlessGnome]

Q391: Black Seraph (from Path of War) stances and maneuvers are all supernatural. Feats in general are not. Are Black Seraph Style and other feats that require Black Seraph maneuvers known supernatural? I can see it both ways. Just because a prerequisite is (Su) doesn't mean the feat has to be, but it provides a Profane bonus, which sure does sound like it would be supernatural. Likewise, Black Seraph Annihilation is a feat with only other feats as prerequisites, but it inspires fear in anyone who is even close to you, which doesn't sound mundane at all.

[TheFamilarRaven]

A 391: There is nothing in the rules that explicitly states that a certain bonus is inherently magical. Some might be most commonly obtained via magic, but that doesn't mean that the bonus is magic. What matters is the source, thus profane damage or bonuses can be either supernatural or mundane, and anything that grants or enhances profane damage or bonuses is not necessarily magic in origin.

To answer your question, no. Feats are not considered supernatural or magical unless they say so, even if they require a supernatural ability as a prerequisite. And usually, classifying a feat that augments a supernatural feat as supernatural would be a moot point, because the only time it would become relevant would be in the event of an anti-magic field, in which case you couldn't use the associated SU ability in the first place, rendering the feat momentarily useless.

In the case of Black Seraph Annihilation, well, for reference, the Dread Witch PrC back in 3.5 had an ability that let fear effects affect creatures normally immune to fear. This was an Ex ability, so there is precedent for abilities that by-pass immunity that are not inherently magical in nature. And I'm sure there is an example of something similar in PF.

[Togath]

Q 392: do gillmen age like humans? I can't find a chart anywhere.

[Cieyrin]

A 392 According to the Advanced Race Guide tables 5-3 and 5-6, Gillmen age at the same rate as half-elves.

[Recherché]

Q:393 Are there any rules for how much a given monster corpse would sell for and if so where/what are they?

[upho]

A 393: There are no such price lists AFAIK, although the Harvest Parts feat allows you to harvest useful parts from a corpse, and use them as raw materials for item creation of a value equal to monster CR² x 10. The feat says such parts "can’t be bought or sold in most settlements". (There's also the related Grisly Ornament and Monstrous Crafter item creation feats which enables you to gain additional benefits from body parts of slain monsters.)

And there's the Talismanic Components variant magic item creation rules, which includes some market price suggestions on useful body parts from certain monsters.

Otherwise, I think this purely up to the GM, and would of course depend on the setting, campaign and other stuff. For example, I can imagine that in many settings, there are a few wealthier academies/groups/NPCs interested in monsters/alchemy/certain dark magic that would likely be happy to pay handsomely for a reasonably fresh monster corpse. Though whether the PCs know of any such potential buyers and would agree to sell to them is of course far less certain.

[Val666]

Q#394:

Is the wisdom damage effect from the feat, Dreamed Secrets, a mind-affecting ability?

[Psyren]

A394: It doesn't say it is so it isn't. Having said that, since it is ability damage, you can circumvent it or cure it in the usual ways.

[Togath]

Q#395: If I intercept an attack using the feat "In Harm's Way", do I apply dr and/or resistances I have to the damage taken?

[Psyren]

A395: "Full" in that context means "normal" - so if you have defensive qualities that reduce the damage you take and they apply to the damage in question, they should function appropriately.

[KekPafrany]

Q#396 - catfolks and claw blades.

I have a catfolk, with claw attacks and as an unchanined rogue I would like to keep the claws as her special weapon with DEX damage and everything.

But rules are not totally clear here.

1.) Do I need to have extra feats to wear the blades?

Claw blades state that "change the weapon type from a natural weapon to a light slashing weapon"

So normally a catfolk can have 2 claw attacks with her max BAB while full attack, because both of her claw are primary attacks.

If she wears one set of claw blades then her other hand becomes secondary natural attack, and she uses that hand with a -5.
If she wears two sets of claw blades, does she suddenly need the TWF feat or she gets great penalties on both of her attacks? (the -4, -8 ones).

2.) The claw attacs originally were "B&S" - wearing the blades makes only "S" from them?

Or are they still doing "B&S" type of damage, and only the name of the weapon type is changed?

3.) There are more feats for a catfolk's claw, wearing the claw blades will they still work on them?
- Catfolk exemplar feat sharp claw option states that the claw damage changes into d6. It doesn't states anything about natural attacks, so I am sure if it will work with blades (but am I right?)
- Improved natural attack feat changes a natural attack into a bigger one. Will this still work while wearing the blades?

4. Does the wearing of the claw blades still counts as her selected "claw" weapon?

The Finesse training at the unchained rogue says that: "starting at 3rd level, she can select any one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse (such as rapiers or daggers)".

5. Aaaaaaand how many times does it take to get one set of claw in the hand or off the hand? Is it similar to the ratfolk tailblade?

The tailblade description is more useful than the claw blades' about natural weapon feats and strap-on/remove times.

[Cieyrin]

A 396a If you have the cat's claw trait, you are proficient with Claw Blades.

As for wielding a pair of claw blades, they're treated as a light slashing weapon, so Two-Weapon Fighting investments would be needed to wield them effectively.

A 396b The claws should have been originally Piercing and Slashing but wearing Claw Blades makes it into a Slashing weapon only.

A 396c Claw Blades do damage as the original claws, so Catfolk Exemplar and Improved Natural Attack will still work.

A 396d Yes.

A 396e They make no special note of it, so I'd assume similar to putting on a spiked gauntlet or cestus, since you're just slipping them on your fingers, not trying to weaponize your tail like a tailblade or a kobold tail attachment, so it's just a move action.

[Psyren]

A396a: As long as you have the "Cat's Claws" racial trait (which you need in order to use them anyway) you are automatically proficient with them, so no additional feats are needed regardless of your class.

A396b: Yes, this item effectively turns your claws into light manufactured weapons - so if you equip a pair of them, you will need the TWF feat to avoid taking the appropriate penalties. The advantage to using them is that (a) you get iteratives (i.e. more attacks than a pair of claws would normally allow, (b) you can enhance them directly, freeing you up from needing a AoMF or BWoMS in other slots, and (c) you can do other things with them that you normally can't do with natural weapons, like make them out of special materials like silver or cold iron, or coat them in contact poison etc.

A396c: Claws are "B+S." Claw Blades are "B or S". You still have access to both, but not at the same time - you choose which one on each attack.

A396d: The wording is unclear, but Claw Blades appear to still count as claw attacks, for things that care about naming a specific weapon. In other words, if you picked "claw" as your Rogue finesse training weapon, it should still work.

A396e: For things that care about natural weapons however, like Improved Natural Attack - your Claw Blades aren't natural anymore, so you won't get those benefits. (The upside of course is that now you can benefit from manufactured weapon goodies as noted in 396b.)

A396f: With no other action specified, the default action to draw a weapon is a move action, or faster with Quick Draw.

[upho]

A 396 Dispute: just in case you or anyone else found the contradicting previous replies confusing, I believe Psyren is absolutely correct according to RAW, while it appears Cieyrin got a couple of minor things wrong:

A 396b The claws should have been originally Piercing and Slashing but wearing Claw Blades makes it into a Slashing weapon only.

Claws natural attacks always deal S and B unless otherwise mentioned, not P. Claw blades changes this to S or B, as Psyren wrote.

A 396c Claw Blades do damage as the original claws, so Catfolk Exemplar and Improved Natural Attack will still work.

Improved Natural Attack will definitely not work, as claw blades are explicitly not natural attacks, and the benefits of Improved Natural Attack explicitly only applies to a type of natural attack.

And strictly according to RAW, the Sharp Claws option of the Catfolk Exemplar feat doesn't work either, as it says (my emphasis):

"...your claw damage increases to 1d6."

"Claw" is not the same thing as "claw blades". However, it may very well have been intended to work, as it is unclear whether cat’s claws with claw blades are still treated as cat's claws for the purpose of options not explicitly dependent on the claws being a natural attack. (Personally, I believe it is likely that Sharp Claws was intended to work also with claw blades, considering both the feat and the weapon include benefits specifically for catfolk with the cat's claws racial trait.)

A 396d Yes.

Unless the benefit is explicitly dependent on the attack being made with a natural attack, and/or otherwise does not apply to attacks made with a manufactured weapon (as in the case of Improved Natural Attack, an Amulet of Mighty Fists, Body Wrap of Mighty Strikes, strong jaw, etc).

[Cieyrin]

Q 397 If a Stonelord Paladin chooses the Increased Damage Reduction Defensive Power, does he gain DR 1/- during the usage of Defensive Stance or does it increase his DR/adamantine from Heartstone by the same amount?

[Psyren]

A397: It depends on how your GM interprets the "from this class" clause that Stonelord inherits from Stalwart Defender.

Interpretation 1: "From this class" means "the class that Defensive Stance originally came from" (Stalwart Defender) and thus only the DR you got from Stalwart Defender (i.e. the DR/- from Defensive Stance) gets buffed.

Interpretation 2: "From this class" means "from the class that's giving you access to the Defensive Stance ability itself" (Stonelord Paladin) in which case, any DR you get from the Stonelord class gets buffed, which would include Heartstone.

Whichever one they go with, only the higher of the two will apply so it won't make much difference in practice.

[Cieyrin]

A 396 Dispute: just in case you or anyone else found the contradicting previous replies confusing, I believe Psyren is absolutely correct according to RAW, while it appears Cieyrin got a couple of minor things wrong:

Claws natural attacks always deal S and B unless otherwise mentioned, not P. Claw blades changes this to S or B, as Psyren wrote.

Huh, I wonder why it was in my head that they were S & P. Oh well, more you know...

Improved Natural Attack will definitely not work, as claw blades are explicitly not natural attacks, and the benefits of Improved Natural Attack explicitly only applies to a type of natural attack.

And strictly according to RAW, the Sharp Claws option of the Catfolk Exemplar feat doesn't work either, as it says (my emphasis):

"...your claw damage increases to 1d6."

"Claw" is not the same thing as "claw blades". However, it may very well have been intended to work, as it is unclear whether cat’s claws with claw blades are still treated as cat's claws for the purpose of options not explicitly dependent on the claws being a natural attack. (Personally, I believe it is likely that Sharp Claws was intended to work also with claw blades, considering both the feat and the weapon include benefits specifically for catfolk with the cat's claws racial trait.)

Then what is the damage of claw blades if not based on how much damage the actual claws do? There is no official entry for claw blades that gives damage. The d20 PF SRD entry is derived and not RAW. All the entry says is it changes a catfolk's claws to essentially a masterwork weapon, so why would Sharp Claws improve the claws and claw blades suddenly reduce damage back to base? What order are you supposed to apply effects? I would think feats happen before equipment does.

Unlike the ratfolk tailblade and the kobold tail attachments, which are specifically weapons and have entries, catfolk claw blades are a specific modification of the natural attacks they have from a racial trait.

[Psyren]

Improved Natural Attack will definitely not work, as claw blades are explicitly not natural attacks, and the benefits of Improved Natural Attack explicitly only applies to a type of natural attack.

And strictly according to RAW, the Sharp Claws option of the Catfolk Exemplar feat doesn't work either, as it says (my emphasis):

"...your claw damage increases to 1d6."

"Claw" is not the same thing as "claw blades". However, it may very well have been intended to work, as it is unclear whether cat’s claws with claw blades are still treated as cat's claws for the purpose of options not explicitly dependent on the claws being a natural attack. (Personally, I believe it is likely that Sharp Claws was intended to work also with claw blades, considering both the feat and the weapon include benefits specifically for catfolk with the cat's claws racial trait.)

Unless the benefit is explicitly dependent on the attack being made with a natural attack, and/or otherwise does not apply to attacks made with a manufactured weapon (as in the case of Improved Natural Attack, an Amulet of Mighty Fists, Body Wrap of Mighty Strikes, strong jaw, etc).

Then what is the damage of claw blades if not based on how much damage the actual claws do? There is no official entry for claw blades that gives damage. The d20 PF SRD entry is derived and not RAW. All the entry says is it changes a catfolk's claws to essentially a masterwork weapon, so why would Sharp Claws improve the claws and claw blades suddenly reduce damage back to base? What order are you supposed to apply effects? I would think feats happen before equipment does.

Anything that specifically augments claw damage (like Sharp Claws) will work with Claw Blades, because they count as claws. Things that generally augment natural weapons however, like Improved Natural Attack or strongjaw, won't, because the claws are manufactured now. (The tradeoff is that now you can augment the claws with manufactured weapon buffs, like masterwork transformation or weapon blanches.

[Elysiume]

Q 398: What action is it to attempt another save against Chains of Light? It uses similar wording as Hold Person, but doesn't specify the action to attempt a new saving throw. Does it just default to a standard action?

The creature is paralyzed and held in place, but may attempt a new saving throw each round to end the effect.

Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

[Psyren]

A398: Paralyzed creatures actually can't act at all, so the default is that you spend your entire turn trying to throw off the effect, just like you would with Hold Person. If you succeed, you're then free to act next round. You can effectively think of the line in Hold Person as being more like reminder text.

[flamewolf393]

Q399
Can a sorcerer take the eldritch heritage feat to gain parts of a second bloodline?