|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Oh, I didn't realize that no shields could be adamantine. I guess there is no confusion then about a Folding adamantine shield. Thanks for your help. :)
It's mostly because there's no clause for shields in the adamantine listing for items. If a GM wanted to treat a light or heavy shield as a weapon, then you could make one out of adamantine for the normal weapon cost. But that's GM discretion.
That one is definitely GM discretion. By straight RAW, you can't make an adamantine shield of any kind (Why, I have no earthly idea, probably something about DR stacking)... Unless the shield is also a weapon. In which case, it would function and cost the same as an adamantine weapon. I'm sure the initial intention was "Oh, you want a fancy material on your shield? Shield spikes it is, then!"
There actually is a mithral tower shield in the core line: The Force Tower from Ultimate Equipment. It's half the weight of a standard wooden tower shield (Apparently ignoring that there isn't a steel weight to go off of), has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +4, an armor check penalty of -7, and would cost 1,030 gp, based on the idea that mithral shields are +1,000 gp and tower shields cost 30 gp.
Just wanting to reply to this, since it was bugging me. The "early period rapiers" you're referring to are estocs, and they're not rapiers at all. They were mostly English and French longswords with a spike for a blade, and were used to penetrate armor as you said, on the battlefield.
The rapier was absolutely a civilian weapon; a nobleman's weapon to be sure, but definitely not a battlefield weapon. If it was well-made it MIGHT pierce/break chainmail, but they were completely impractical against someone in plate armor.
That's... Actually pretty badass.
Sweet. A little odd that they didn't have mithral as a material for shields, but whatever.
Since I know you can't edit your post, it's pg. 108.
Mark Seifter wrote:
He never said Jason took YOU out to lunch.
Although, a much more likely scenario would be Jason having one too many and spilling his guts to you. :P
But, it's a thrown weapon with 20' range increment. So apparently you can fling a 12' rope out to 100'. :v
Snapdragon Leafwhistle wrote:
For simplicity's sake, I'd say "this area" would be like the ranger's favored terrain. You'd get that bonus while travelling in the same terrain as where you were walking; if you went through more than one, pick one.
The "tyrant" antipaladin archetype does not reference any of the antipaladin's abilities and spells with the [chaotic] descriptor changing to [lawful].
Such abilities include the Fiendish Boon weapon ability still granting anarchic instead of axiomatic, and spells such as protection from law, protection from law, communal, magic circle against law, and dispel law.
Original warpriest playtest says hi as well.
Ah yes, the carbon copy/revolving door character.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Saba is pretty close, although he's more of a black blade.
Barachiel Shina wrote:
Yep, looking at it right now. It's under the Fetchling section, but it's open to everyone. And it only took Paizo seven years to publish it in a non-core book!
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
What book are you looking in? That way I can read over the info before coming to a decision. Assuming I have that book, that is.
Inner Sea Combat.
As far as the actual questions go:
Hayato Ken wrote:
Common sense would tell you it would be like any other combat maneuver, IE you use your Strength (Or Dexterity if you have Agile Maneuvers), plus the BAB of whatever attack in your progression you're using.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ninja ki being Charisma rather than Wisdom is because unlike monks, who gain usage of their ki through monastic training and attuning their minds and bodies, ninjas treat their ki as a tool and call it up through force of personality.
...Be glad there's no PF feat like Kung-fu Genius, which allowed monks to use Int for all of their Wis-based abilities...
Queen Moragan wrote:
My headcanon as to why alchemical silver takes that damage penalty is because silver is softer than steel and the alchemical process that alloys the silver with the steel makes it weaker as a result. Which is why alchemical silver bludgeoning weapons aren't mentioned.
hey trying to find some information on the spell Jolting Portent in the spell it says you use either your wisdom (for clerics) or charisma (for oracles) and im trying to find out if you use the full wisdom score or just the modifier normally id go with just the mod (and did when it came up in my game but id like clarification)
Common sense would tell you you use your Wisdom modifier for clerics and your Charisma modifier for oracles.
This line of thinking makes me desperately wish that the devs would go back and make clarifications for this and alchemical silver to read: "Gold/alchemical silver is too soft to hold a fine edge, and takes a -2 penalty to damage as a result; due to the same softness the prevents the material from taking a sharp edge, gold/alchemical silver cannot be used to make bludgeoning weapons, as the weapons would dent and break easily." The very clear RAI of this is that you can't make bludgeoning weapons from gold, as if it's too soft to hold an edge, if you were to make a gold hammer and beat someone with it it would dent itself into uselessness after a few battles at best. The same with two-handed weapons; they aren't mentioned because unless they're magically strengthed, you either can't make them or they would be useless and too soft to be used as weapons.
Now, if you were to magically strengthen the gold item as you're crafting it, then it could be made into whatever you want. Note that "magically strengthen" is different from "make magic"; the rules for that sort of thing were changed from Ultimate Combat to Ultimate Equipment.