Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Archaeik's page

1,308 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

CountofUndolpho wrote:
We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.

Pretty much only from you, who is misinterpreting the rules and twisting them to imply something they don't.


LoneKnave wrote:
They are rake attacks. They follow the rake attack rules. The text is a (incomplete) reminder, not something to overwrite the general rules. At least in my reading. It'd be pretty bonkers if it overwrote those, as this'd mean yet another 2 attacks on every grab-release (on top of the 2 you had from grabbing and constrict).

Specific overrides general. Eidolon rake functions exactly how it sounds, every successful grapple check. It does not use UMR rake at all.

Constrict is restricted to serpentine in the APG, so there's less issue there than with Unchained.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
We (generic we and specific we) have had this argument umpteen times before - I disagree with you. There is no specific rule/FAQ - expect table variance.

There is a specific rule

Threatened Squares: wrote:
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.

You are arbitrarily limiting which weapons your players can use. If the rule was that you only threaten squares using the last weapon you attacked with on your turn, the rules would say it. This is a permissive system.


"growing claws" can be seen as fluff. The crunch clearly delineates them as "rake attacks".

It's debatable whether this means feats and abilities that apply to claws also don't work in every case, but Grab is quite clear that it only applies to certain types of attacks (you pick one) and Rake is not on that list.


LoneKnave wrote:

Not to sound like a dingle... but read the rules on rake.

Quote:
A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.

You don't get the rake attack until you start the turn grappling, not right after grapple.

I disagree with Umbral Reaver; you could apply the grab evolution to the rake (strict reading could mean you need to take it twice, but still), it just wouldn't be useful unless your DM rules you can release (which is a free action) after starting the rake, but before finishing it, to re-grapple, which may be a cheesy/cool combo if you got constrict.

Eidolon Rake is specifically different than UMR rake.

Eidolon Rake wrote:
An eidolon grows dangerous claws on its feet, allowing it to make 2 rake attacks on foes it is grappling. These attacks are primary attacks. The eidolon receives these additional attacks each time it succeeds on a grapple check against the target. These rake attacks deal 1d4 points of damage (1d6 if Large, 1d8 if Huge). This evolution is only available to eidolons of the quadruped base form. This evolution counts as one natural attack toward the eidolon’s maximum. The summoner must be at least 4th level before selecting this evolution.

The only difference for Unchained is that it mysteriously removes the quadruped restriction.

To the OP, Rake attacks, though they use Claw statistics, are not Claw attacks, so they should not get to attempt Grabs.

The real problem is Final Embrace, which fails to specify which/how many attacks gain Grab (however it's really broken to let Rake qualify)


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Archaeik wrote:

With Grabbing Master, you should be able to maintain on 6 targets. (but it's difficult to initiate the 6th w/o Grab)

Hmm. I don't follow this logic. Aren't you only allowed a single swift action per turn? As far as I can tell, 3 targets = 3 actions, spending your standard, your move, and your swift.
Grabbing Master (Combat) wrote:

You can grapple two foes as easily as one.

Prerequisites: Grabbing Drag, Grabbing Style, Improved Grapple; base attack bonus +12, brawler level 8th, or monk level 8th.

Benefit: When you are grabbing two opponents while using Grabbing Style, you can use your grapple to move or damage one or both opponents you are grappling, instead of just one.

RAW has a few issue with what I said, which is why I italicized should.

RAI seems to imply both targets are successfully maintained with a single check -- so it's 3 maintains x2 per action for 6 targets.


shroudb wrote:

There is a distinct difference between a Two level dip and simply picking up one feat.

With each book that comes out more and more "equal to mod" abilities come out.

There was a need for paizo to draw a line.

At this state of the game, given the huge volume of such abilities (especially regarding Charisma stacking), a carpet bombing nerf was the most efficient way to do this (and to free up text from new books as they come out)

I don't disagree with the need, but I do think the untyped equivalency was a change to existing rules and is very hard to infer by a simple reading of the rules without also bothering to read the FAQ.


Johnny_Devo wrote:

It seems entirely legal to me.

In fact, this raises quite the interesting question to me. If you somehow had a third limb that worked just as well as your other limbs, or a prehensile tail like from a tiefling, could you possibly use that third limb to grapple even a third target at the same time? Move action to maintain the first target, suddenly swift to grapple a second, and standard to grapple the third.

This has been asked a few times now because of Grabbing Style, I don't remember seeing dissent about it.

Ostensibly, you can grapple as many targets as you have "hands" (including pretty much any apendage with Grab I think). However, that prehensile tail does not seem to qualify, even with the Grasping Tail feat (unless I've missed something).
With Grabbing Master, you should be able to maintain on 6 targets. (but it's difficult to initiate the 6th w/o Grab)


I don't remember much argument about Oradin builds that relied on SAD optimization before this.

And I find it unintuitive to automatically consider all untyped 'bonus equal to mod' abilities as synonymous with 'mod', and I think a lot of other detail oriented people read the rules as I do in this regard. It probably should be added to the book.

Also, regarding errata, there is a distinction between actually changing a rule and cleaning up language to prevent misinterpretation, even if you won't acknowledge that distinction.

ps you meant implicitly saying


Rapid Grappler (Combat) wrote:

You are a quick hand at grappling.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Greater Grapple, Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +9 or monk level 9th.

Benefit: Whenever you use Greater Grapple to successfully maintain a grapple as a move action, you can then spend a swift action to make a grapple combat maneuver check.

I had never interpreted this quite so literally before, but this looks entirely RAW legal to me.

However my question is RAI (unless someone wants to point out where I'm wrong per RAW).

Is it intended to be able to initiate a grapple vs a new target with Rapid Grappler?

Is it intended that Rapid Grappler is NOT restricted to a GCMC against the same creature? (I've been curious about this one for awhile now -- it seems strongly implied to me that it's against the same creature)

And in case there's anyone who cares "why?"
Grabbing Style
You killed the target of your maintain and another target is in reach.


The issue is whether or not "make two grapple checks each round" is a permissive statement or a reminder.

Given that there is no expressed restriction on the number of grapple checks(of any kind) you can make in a round as a general rule, it is unlikely that it is intended as a strictly permissive statement.

Further, while there is ambiguity as to whether Rapid Grappler's check is intended to be "in addition to any others", I think it is.
The common interpretation is that it grants a third opportunity.


Took me a moment to figure out you are asking if you can apply the the SA to the Constrict despite it not being a 'grapple check to damage or pin'.

RAW, I'd say no, based on my statement above. On top of that, Constrict is even its own action.

RAI, I'd say no. Even UMR Constrict seems to be disqualified. Also, I don't think you'd normally apply SA of any kind to either version of Constrict, as there's not an attack roll.

On the other hand Strangle(Ex) applies to every grapple check where you choose the "damage" or "pin" option. This is up to 3 times per round if you have both Greater Grapple and Rapid Grappler.
Strangle will not apply to a roll that initiates a grapple.

Also WHW Constrict is a swift action. (this was errata, but even what you quoted says swift)


FLite wrote:

As far as I am aware, the theoretical limit for maintain is 4 creatures, but requires optional rules.

1 standard
+1 move (greater grapple)
=2 x 2 (grabbing master)

Rapid Grappler (Combat) wrote:

You are a quick hand at grappling.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Greater Grapple, Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +9 or monk level 9th.

Benefit: Whenever you use Greater Grapple to successfully maintain a grapple as a move action, you can then spend a swift action to make a grapple combat maneuver check.

Also, potential RAW issues with Grabbing Master

Quote:
When you are grabbing two opponents

It also never explicitly says you also successfully maintain vs both targets with a single check, only that you "can ... move or damage ... both".

Initiating against more than 3 opponents pretty much requires Grab.


wraithstrike wrote:
There are too many points in this. It would be better if it was broken up over a series of threads.

While I agree they will never use this thread as a basis for a FAQ, the issue is more strictly the number and variety of abilities either named or that function like HiPS. (so it's not particularly our fault that the number of questions snowball)

It really needs another blog since there seems to be a fair amount of disconnect between name and RAW functionality in a few cases.
It would also be a great opportunity to clear up if certain elements intentionally function differently from each other (even if that never makes it into true errata).


James Risner wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
the FAQ also needs to expressly equivalate 'mod+untyped' with 'mod+mod', it seems neither did they.
Maybe I didn't address it because I felt the FAQ addressed it.

The FAQ doesn't address whether you or they consider it a change. It certainly seems like it is.


The quibble I have with #9 is only that the movement still provokes, they simply can't capitalize on that opportunity.

Quote:
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

Maybe I make too much of an inference, but if a diversion makes an opponent "unaware" and the only definition we have is from stealth

Quote:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.

Then the diversion should also grant total concealment.

This distinction is less of an issue if you consider the stealth roll effective from the start of movement instead of entrance to actual cover/concealment since it no longer requires an inference.


Tripping Strike wrote:
Benefit: Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack, you can trip your opponent, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. If your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent's CMD, you may knock your opponent prone as if from the trip combat maneuver. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop your weapon to avoid being tripped.

This is a relatively convoluted feat mechanically.

You never actually roll a combat maneuver check, but you get to behave as if you did, including the risk of being tripped in return.

You misread and misinterpreted the line about AoOs.
It is saying that you do not provoke an AoO for trying to trip your opponent. (Ostensibly because Improved Trip only applies to CMB checks, which this is not. You also would not add the +2 bonus to your confirmation roll to determine success, as I read it.)


James Risner wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
You can argue that everything in the FAQ was "always intended to be be this way" but I see nothing to support that there was not some kind of fiat here.

Let's pretend I'm not saying it was always this way.

There are countless posts from JJ and others that it worked this way before the FAQ. So most people using these rules should be aware of how the rules worked for "ability mod to thing" twice before the FAQ. The fact the FAQ came down to support all the previous posts shouldn't come as a surprise should it?

I feel like you're ignoring the specific complaint I've brought up, which was not about multiple instances of ability mods stacking, but 'mod + an untyped bonus equal to mod'.

I readily accept that the PDT interpretation was always that mod + mod didn't stack. But I don't consider the above to fall under mod+mod in any case; and given that the FAQ also needs to expressly equivalate 'mod+untyped' with 'mod+mod', it seems neither did they.


Ssalarn wrote:
Brace is not a standard, move, swift, or free action. The action you are readying is an attack action, which is then modified by the Brace property the same way a mounted charge action is modified by the lance's special property or Spirited Charge, assuming that the target of the attack meets the condition (is charging).

The Brace property indicates the ready action you must take is "setting a brace weapon against a charge".

Mechanically this is similar to simply readying an attack, but it's fairly implicit that there's a bit more involved than just waiting until they get in range and that it's probably telegraphed to your opponent.

The phrasing seems to prevent using the action to complete attacks not vs a charge as well.


James Risner wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
The FAQ redefined untyped bonuses of this description to no longer stack with other untyped of the same description or direct modifier bonuses.
Does it? Or does it state that when you apply an ability to something, the source is the ability not the ability that allowed you to apply your ability?

Yes it does, if the "bonus equal to" is a typed bonus of some kind it still stacks with an ability modifier according to the FAQ.

So either it changed what I said, or it changed this.
You can argue that everything in the FAQ was "always intended to be be this way" but I see nothing to support that there was not some kind of fiat here.

Part of the issue is that in the case of Divine Grace specifically, it was incorrectly written to convey the actual source of the bonus in the first place. There was no need to carpet bomb every similar untyped bonus (but as another poster pointed out, it's easier than adjudicating each separately).


James Risner wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
You keep saying this, except the FAQratta had to explicitly change Divine Grace to also not stack.

I can't even follow what you are saying. I'm not entirely sure you followed what I said either. I'll try again.

In 2009, some felt that when Ability A said "Cha to AC" the source was Cha. So when some other ability said "Cha to AC", the same source didn't stack.

The distinction is specifically about "a bonus equal to".

The FAQ redefined untyped bonuses of this description to no longer stack with other untyped of the same description or direct modifier bonuses.


SheepishEidolon wrote:
However, Shatter Defenses needs about the same investment and only applies to your attacks.

But SD is not the same action economy even if it lasts until the end of your next turn (allowing a full attack -- or more if you can successfully apply one of the conditions as part of a first full attack).

Effectively, what this means is that it's easier to offer the rest of creation access to their FF AC than it is to get it for yourself.

(But, ostensibly, this is in line with their design parameters according to the Startling Shot and Superior Feint deeds)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
I expect ruling to be made WITH the rules or new rules be printed
This is really where you and I are playing a different game. I don't agree they made up something new on this. I think the rules always told us they didn't stack prior to the FAQ. The FAQ just makes it abundantly clear and tries to explain it a little better with some hand waving.

You keep saying this, except the FAQratta had to explicitly change Divine Grace to also not stack. There was no direct equivalency between a "bonus" and a "bonus equal to" previously, and in fact, there still isn't except in the case of untyped bonuses.

It's a clear change to the existing rule, even if most of the rest of the "conflicts" could reasonably be expected to be disallowed based on the overall RAI views of the PDT.


Overthinker wrote:
Scenario: my thugs have started a bar fight. I'm waiting out side the tavern drink my juice and holding my reach weapon. As the guards run up to the tavern they do not perceive me as a threat. They are running so they do not have a Dex Bonus, meaning I can sneak attack them. They are not "charging" me, but standing next to the door they are running right at me. Can I at the last second brace my polearm? They have not declared a charge, but it is the same motion.
Overthinker wrote:
not a delay as there has been no initiatives yet.

Okay let's get some things in order to determine how the rules handle this.

Brace: wrote:
If you use a readied action to set a brace weapon against a charge, you deal double damage on a successful hit against a charging character (see Combat).

RAW, I don't think what you're trying to do works unless your targets actually are charging (not just running).

They don't have to be charging you, but their path has to lead them past you. (Although it's sort of implied in the brace description they should be charging the wielder)
Also, no ready actions outside of initiative, so that shuts this down hard.

RAI, I don't find what you're trying to accomplish too unreasonable, but it raises some issues.

From what I understand, you're saying no one is in initiative yet?
If this is the case, what you are effectively asking for is a surprise round that starts just as they would be in range to attack with a triggered Brace action.

What this effectively means for you is that everyone enters initiative the moment you declare your intent. If they act before you, they can avoid your readied action, because you didn't have the speed to set it up before they get past. If you act first, expect some table variation on whether you can instantly trigger an action you ready by means of setting a condition that already exists.


Overthinker wrote:
And with a held action can't I take a readied action right before they get there?

You cannot interrupt their action with a delay.

You can choose an initiative before theirs as your delay trigger, but they will know you've used Brace.

Delay wrote:

By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.

You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what's going to happen. You also can't interrupt anyone else's action (as you can with a readied action).

Initiative Consequences of Delaying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don't get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again).

If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.


Keep in mind the Swashbuckler can spend a point to double his PS already, further multiplying on a crit (say, using Butterfly Sting to make it much more reliable) creates an incredibly powerful synergy.


Ravingdork wrote:
Is there any reason to believe that you couldn't use a menacing amulet of mighty fists with natural attacks?

I don't think you'll get much (if any) dissent provided it's still a melee attack.

IIRC the question has come up before in broader terms about whether "melee natural attacks" are [usually*] also "melee weapons", and the answer seemed to be yes.

*"Usually" because certain attacks that are often assumed/written to use natural attack rules (incorporeal touch in particular) seem to be armed attacks but not expressly weapon attacks.


Correct.

UAS is listed in the Universal Monster Rules as a natural attack (yet not a weapon on the table).
UAS is then specifically assigned to use manufactured weapon rules for attacking despite being a natural attack.
The UAS weapon entry further goes on to remove UAS counting as a natural weapon, but Monks do per their description.

Being treated as both allows you to apply effects and use it for attacks that indicate either type (as long as it remains iterative).

A monk then gains a special quality as he levels that allows him to bypass certain types of DR even if his UAS does not actually have that quality. (It's not "magic" for any purpose other than DR if all you have is that ability.)
So yes, you have it right.


QuidEst wrote:
3. Again, rules thread, so the answer is no, you can't summon devils. You can't serve devils. If you serve devils, you will lose all of your class features and just be a feat-less fighter with bad body odor. (Devils are LE, and Antipaladins are CE. As an Antipaladin, you have to be serving something within one step of CE.) That said, LE Antipaladin is probably the most common homebrew for the class. Even so, no, you can't summon something from the other side of the Law/Chaos spectrum. If the options are too limiting, consider asking your GM about the expanded list provided by Summon Evil Monster. That will fill in a lot of gaps.

This is a common misconception...

Paladins and Antipaladins do not have the "one step" requirement as part of their Alignment entry. (Although, in Golarion only deities within 1 step actually maintain orders.)

That said, an antipaladin wouldn't be particularly eager to join with devils based on the alignment difference, and could risk violating his edicts if he associated too closely for too long.


You always had to track damage and drain separately, I see no real difference.


You don't hit zero.

Quote:
If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die.

You track it just the same, except the penalties are based directly off the damage. I don't find it any more difficult, just different.


RumpinRufus wrote:

I would say apply the effects first, as you make the save after consumption, at which point you are already under the effects.

(And if you start with an odd Con score, remember that even so the Con damage doesn't have any effect unless you take at least 2 points of it.)

It doesn't matter if you start even or odd anymore, only Ability Drain takes effect 1 point at a time. Also, damage doesn't actually reduce your score, so it won't prevent you from using spells or feats, etc. Selective quoting below

Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.

For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.

Ability Drain: Ability drain actually reduces the relevant ability score. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability.


Is a ghost touch weapon fully incorporeal?
No? Then it can't pass through solid matter.

Partial corporeality is the reason material creatures can continue to wield them.

Edit: Actually, looking at it again, I'm wrong, a ghost touch does not change the material nature of the weapon at all, rules as written.

"counts as" literally changes nothing but how it may be used (and who can use it).


Ravingdork wrote:
Wow. Seems like it's caused more problems than it solved. (Again, what was it trying to solve?)

Things like Fury's Fall combined with Weapon Finesse/Agile Maneuvers.

There are also a few different ways to add Int to damage.

It's essentially designed to shut down SAD optimization.


The interpretation relies heavily on 'effective druid level 0' companions even existing in the first place.

It's clearly not the intent that they do. Even the Sylvan bloodline indicates 'minimum 1st' implying you need a base effective druid level of 1 to have a companion at all.

Humans with 3 companions at level 1 is not intended.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
baradakas wrote:
I would treat this as "vision" for the duration of the spell. In other words, the caster can see health status as easily as she can see a cup of tea sitting on the table. It isn't even a free action, since those can theoretically be limited at GM discretion.

While I agree this is a reasonable take on RAI, RAW may allow you to also detect invisible creatures (without negating concealment).

Deathwatch wrote:
Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell's range.
Note that PFS has a specific rule that says otherwise, so that won't fly in a PFS game.

This is all fine and good, but I'd like to point out that you'd need LoS (not just LoE) to any creature detected in this way anyway per the Magic rules, which covers most uses of stealth continuing to function vs the caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You misunderstand what that means.

It counts as both, it has to be wholly incorporeal to benefit from incorporeal rules.
The corporeal part of the weapon still interacts with matter normally, forcing you to target normal AC. This is also why a ghost can't drag one of these weapons inside a material object (like a wall) with them.


baradakas wrote:
I would treat this as "vision" for the duration of the spell. In other words, the caster can see health status as easily as she can see a cup of tea sitting on the table. It isn't even a free action, since those can theoretically be limited at GM discretion.

While I agree this is a reasonable take on RAI, RAW may allow you to also detect invisible creatures (without negating concealment).

Deathwatch wrote:
Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell's range.


I'd say it's automatic, or "not an action" in economy terms. This is almost effectively the same as free, ymmv.


I don't know what you've been reading, but it seems like they are comparing it to ghost touch only for the purposes of attacking an incorporeal.

Force effects still have to target normal AC unless described otherwise.

Ghost touch weapons, even when used by an incorporeal still target normal AC. The benefit they gain from such use is access to iteratives (or abilities that require a weapon), but it's usually a worse option than their innate incorporeal touch.

In short
Force effects can target ghosts normally; force effects and ghost touch do not operate under the incorporeal rules.


Gobo Horde wrote:
Sadly body bludgeon specifically calls out someone smaller than you, so check out size increasing effects like the giant hide armour.

Related questions now that Titan Fighter is available

Does Giant Weapon Wielder (Ex) get around the "smaller" restriction of Body Bludgeon (increasing it to "equal")?
Is every creature you can use in this way considered a 2H weapon sized for you?

At a glance, it seems it might, since you treat the creature as an improvised weapon, but it doesn't actually say that the creature-weapon is sized for you (which would also shut down any Jotungrip use that seems to be a popular suggestion in these threads), but it can also be inferred (but perhaps shouldn't be) via the size restriction that equal/larger creatures are not sized for you.

Body Bludgeon seems to indicate that you could use a creature in any size category smaller than yours, but always as a 2H weapon, which makes me curious if that is also fully RAI. (ie. 3+ category difference begins to be very awkward to use two hands)
The issue being that, if RAI would indicate any handedness reduction, it also prevents use past 3 size categories difference, barring an exemption.


The numeric effect of rolling a second die, choose better is on average ~+3. It's good in a pinch, but it's no guarantee of success.


funny you should ask

In essence, I want to say RAI tends to favor usage, but expect table variation since RAW doesn't completely match up with that.


fixed

(google found it readily - for some reason referencing the first post in a thread breaks the forums? edit: no, took me awhile to notice but there was a missing colon in his link)


Wolin wrote:
In any case, since posting this thread, I've decided that probably the most sensible thing to do is make Finesse Training a Rogue talent available from level 1 and give an extra rogue talent at level 1, which you have to admit, is a better option in every respect. More versatility, more flavour and more sense. Why they didn't do this in the first place I have no idea.

Probably because they didn't want to make the feat Extra Rogue Talent available at level 1.

If you phrase your homebrew in a way that grants that feat without gaining the class feature, you can preserve that intent. (but I'm guessing you also aren't concerned)


Gwen Smith wrote:
Alternatively, the Unchained Barbarian has all the benefits of a normal barbarian with less math.

This is not strictly true unless it was errata'd to increase the damage bonus for 2H weapons so it's equal to the Strength increase version.

Currently, you benefit the most from Unchained Barbarian if you dual wield.


They should have just made it a racial bonus to NA and been done with it.


CWheezy wrote:
James Risner wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
have you ever posted an example?
Many times, one example is Fox Shape feat with it's editorial "Special:" line added by pfsrd. There are more examples.
OK, its been shown that isn't an example, because pfsrd isn't wrong. Do you have any actual examples or more non examples

The rage powers for wereboars are listed as "special" when the book presents them closer to "prerequisite", although neither term is expressly used in the book.

Edit: quote

Blood of the Moon wrote:

NEW BARBAR1AN RAGE POWERS

The following barbarian rage powers are available to
wereboar-kin and those who associate with them.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
You're still missing the point that I'm arguing it's possible they used incorrect words for the desired intent.

So basically - "My guess at what they really meant is more likely correct than the actual rule despite it being internally consistent"?

Is that what you're arguing?

If not - I'm just getting more confused at what you mean.

Well, technically it's not my guess, I saw it brought up as a possibility and personally find it plausible as I said, particularly because they seem to have gone to such great lengths to prevent the feat holder from taking a full attack as a benefit that it seems a bit weird to have such a strong team play effect, which is less "internally consistent" to me than you would suggest.


You're still missing the point that I'm arguing it's possible they used incorrect words for the desired intent.

1 to 50 of 1,308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.