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

BigDTBone's page

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber. 2,167 posts (2,184 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 2 wishlists. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

With a fresh brain this morning, I noticed I may have missed an opportunity.

By trading out greater weapon specialization for improved critical Johnny's DPR goes upto 283.34

By trading out improved precise shot (ouch) for improved critical Johnny's DPR goes upto 295.69

By trading out warrior of old for killer, and IPS for IC, Johnny's DPR goes upto 299.96


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Ok, here's Ingrid Inquisitor

** spoiler omitted **...

How are you getting the 4th attack at high BAB?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Ok, here's Ingrid Inquisitor

** spoiler omitted **...

The skills/ooc utility are a non-variable in a DPR build. In a real game you would have the support of a full party. A bard to inspire and cast good hope, a wizard to cast haste and GMW on some arrows each day so your bow could be seeking/distance, a cleric for magic vestment and blessing of fervor.

If you had reliable access to any/all of these your other choices might be different. Certainly good hope wouldn't stack with touch of rage, though touch of rage does outpace it.

Also, Johnny Bowman as statted has only chosen 1 of 4 available mutagens. He could take fly, or one of the feral forms.

By moving the gear around as described above 4k gp for a headband of vast intellect with intimidate would be affordable and useful. He could switch his FC bonus to skills from HP, or could choose Human for the skill points.

Anyway, I think you see my point.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Rambear wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Fighter - Mutation Master. Lvl 12.

The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd.

h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.

h vs AC 24 is .95 on all attacks
d is 41.5
s is 0
t is .05
c is 3

Attack Total is 45.34

BAB +12 gives 3 iteratives, plus rapid shot, plus boots of speed makes 5 attacks.

45.34*5=226.7

Manyshot does not multiply on critical so round average for it is 39.43

Johnny Bowman
Half-Elf Fighter (Mutation Warrior) 12

3/day—quickened touch of rage
2/day—touch of rage

EDIT: Though I seriously dislike the Touch of Rage + Opportunistic gambler thing, I had missed the robes of Arcane heritage. Which means that the build looks solid. My bad.

I still think that an Inquisitor (with a 1-level dip in Paladin for a good aura and Litany of Righteousness) would outdamage you at least 3 rounds a day!

It's a DPR build. If something doesn't feel right you haven't optimized hard enough.

Edit: I wanted to include things in the build that highlighted the fighter's build flexibility with all those feats. To me bringing STR and DEX down -2 each, 3 feats, and the robes is worth it to get +4 back to STR and have a 15 CHA instead of a 7. The touch of rage thing is some what a bonus in that combo so I spent the extra feat and trait to take full advantage of it. That is the nice thing about fighters, they can afford the feats. So much more interesting than improved point-blank or snap shot...


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

It would be equivalent, in regards to how it would restrict two-weapon fighting, and the availability of the off-hand, for an attack, as a two-handed weapon, or one-handed in two hands would, even though it is not a two-handed weapon, or an one-handed weapon wielded in two hands.

That is what is being said, yes?

Also, the one- handed weapon in two hands meets the "wield in two hands threshold" that @ attack time use(2) and hold(2).


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

A think an important part of the Longbow description, is being ignored.

Longbow wrote:
You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.

If the Longbow were treated as a two-handed weapon, instead of a Ranged weapon that required two hands to use, then a small Longbow would only require one hand to wield it, if used by a medium PC.

This is not the case, because functionally, the Longbow is not a two-handed weapon, and does not have the same rules as a two-handed weapon, but rather, follows the rules of Ranged weapons, that require two hands to use.

^^^ good stuff right there.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Fighter - Mutation Master. Lvl 12.

The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd.

h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.

h vs AC 24 is .95 on all attacks
d is 41.5
s is 0
t is .05
c is 3

Attack Total is 45.34

BAB +12 gives 3 iteratives, plus rapid shot, plus boots of speed makes 5 attacks.

45.34*5=226.7

Manyshot does not multiply on critical so round average for it is 39.43

Johnny Bowman DPR - 266.13

The stat block has the adjustments for the Greater Mutagen, Touch of Rage, and Boots of Speed figured in directly. As well as rapid shot, point-blank shot and deadly aim.

Mutagen lasts 10 min/lvl so it is allowed as an "always on" buff in DPR.
Boots of Speed are free action to activate.
Johnny Bowman took Quicken SLA (touch of rage) so he can activate is 3/day as a swift action.
Optimistic Gambler extends touch of rage by d4 rounds each time it is used.

Johnny Bowman
Half-Elf Fighter (Mutation Warrior) 12
CG Medium humanoid (elf, human, orc)
Init +9; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; Perception +13
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 30, touch 18, flat-footed 22 (+8 armor, +7 Dex, +4 natural, +1 dodge)
hp 112 (12d10+36)
Fort +13, Ref +15, Will +6 (+3 vs. fear); +4 vs. effects that cause you to lose your grip on weapons, +2 vs. enchantments
Defensive Abilities bravery +3; Immune sleep
Weakness light sensitivity
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 60 ft.
Ranged +4 adaptive darkwood composite longbow +32/+32/+32/+27/+22 (1d8+37/×3)
Special Attacks weapon trainings (bows +4, heavy blades +3)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 12th; concentration +14)
3/day—quickened touch of rage
2/day—touch of rage
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22 (28), Dex 20 (24), Con 14, Int 7 (5), Wis 10 (8), Cha 15
Base Atk +12; CMB +22; CMD 39 (43 vs. disarm, 43 vs. sunder)

Feats
Deadly Aim
Eldritch Heritage (Orc) (touch of rage +7)
Greater Weapon Focus (longbow)
Greater Weapon Specialization (longbow)
Improved Eldritch Heritage (strength of the beast +4)
Improved Precise Shot
Manyshot
Point-Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Quicken Spell-Like Ability (touch of rage)
Rapid Shot
Skill Focus (Survival)
Weapon Focus (longbow)
Weapon Specialization (longbow)

Traits
Optimistic gambler
Warrior of old

Skills Perception +13, Survival +2; Racial Modifiers +2 Perception

Languages Common, Elven
SQ elf blood, touch of rage
Combat Gear mutagen (greater); Other Gear +2 mithral breastplate, +4 adaptive darkwood composite longbow, belt of giant strength +4, boots of speed, cloak of resistance +3, efficient quiver, gloves of dueling, robe of arcane heritage
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Boots of speed (10 rounds/day) Affected by haste
Bravery +3 (Ex) +3 to Will save vs. Fear
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Deadly Aim -4/+8 Trade a penalty to ranged attacks for a bonus to ranged damage.
Elf Blood Half-elves count as both elves and humans for any effect related to race.
Elven Immunities - Sleep You are immune to magic sleep effects.
Improved Precise Shot Ignore AC bonuses and miss chance from anything less than total cover/concealment.
Light Sensitivity (Ex) Dazzled as long as remain in bright light.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Manyshot You can shoot two arrows as the first attack of a full attack action.
Optimistic Gambler Effects that grant you morale bonuses persist 1d4 rounds longer than they normally would as a result.
Point-Blank Shot +1 to attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at up to 30 feet.
Precise Shot You don't get -4 to hit when shooting or throwing into melee.
Quicken Spell-Like Ability (Touch of Rage +7 [5/day] [Sp], 3/day) Spell-like ability is cast as a swift action up to 3/day.
Rapid Shot You get an extra attack with ranged weapons. Each attack is at -2.
Touch of Rage +7 (5/day) (Sp) Gain listed morale bonus to attack, damage, and Will saves for 1 rd.
Weapon Training (Blades, Heavy) +3 (Ex) +3 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades
Weapon Training (Bows) +4 (Ex) +4 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Bows

*Slight overspend on items. Came out at 111,330. If it makes you cranky then reduce AC by 1 and change +2 breastplate to +1 breastplate.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
voideternal wrote:

So lemme get this straight. First, there's this FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

Then, there's Player A and Player B.

Player A says, "A Longbow requires two hands to use, so this FAQ applies, and I can't two-weapon fight with, say, a longbow and an unarmed strike."

Player B says, "A Longbow is under the 'Ranged Weapon' category as opposed to the 'Two-Handed Weapon' category, so this FAQ doesn't apply. It is unknown whether I can two-weapon fight with a longbow and an unarmed strike."

Is this the scope of the argument?

Pretty much, although I would say that player B is closer to "A Longbow is under the 'Ranged Weapon' category as opposed to the 'Two-Handed Weapon' category, so this FAQ doesn't apply. Two-weapon combat section in the core rulebook has no restrictions on ranged weapons so I believe I can two-weapon fight with a longbow and an unarmed strike."


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
graystone wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
However, since this is the rules forum, and HL is an officially sanctioned product, it is a house rule.

Herolab isn't a rules source. Anytime someone says 'herolab lets me do it' I ask what the actual rules say. 'sanctioned' doesn't change that.

As far as a house-rule: I don't see the rejection a non-paizo product a house-rule.

It's not about using Hero Lab as an official source; it's about using Hero Lab as a tool to create and manage characters.

Outside of PFS, GMs are free to restrict whatever tools they want. Since Hero Lab is an officially-sanctioned product, PFS GMs have to be reasonable.

Take note of the part I quoted. It IS about using Hero Lab as an official source. Note how he says this is a rules forum and NOT using Herolab would be a house-rule to not allow it in a home game.

You can feel anyway you wish to about Herolab, but it's NOT a paizo product and isn't a rules source. Myself, I found plenty of errors and I don't care what form they show up as.

As to what tools to use, I'd prefer it done by hand. That way, when I ask how a bonus ended up this number, they know why. Not 'I hit the button and it spit out this number'. Errors can still happen but it's easier to find if you know how it came to be.

Pretty much this. It can take a good bit of time to track down where an error comes from. I found a bug in the Oracle wood bond mystery that was giving +x to hit and +x to damage. I couldn't figure out where the extra damage was coming from. The dialog box said "untyped bonus." Well thanks. I just started taking stuff off until the damage went away.

This was some 3 years after the APG was realeased. How many people played an Oracle with wood bond mystery and just assumed HL did the math right? How many of them would have argued their character was correct on an audit? How many of them would have said, "I have XYZ# of characters I built in HL and none of them have any issues" ?

Just food for thought.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Gwen Smith wrote:
graystone wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
However, since this is the rules forum, and HL is an officially sanctioned product, it is a house rule.

Herolab isn't a rules source. Anytime someone says 'herolab lets me do it' I ask what the actual rules say. 'sanctioned' doesn't change that.

As far as a house-rule: I don't see the rejection a non-paizo product a house-rule.

It's not about using Hero Lab as an official source; it's about using Hero Lab as a tool to create and manage characters.

Outside of PFS, GMs are free to restrict whatever tools they want. Since Hero Lab is an officially-sanctioned product, PFS GMs have to be reasonable.

Whatever tools the players use to build and manage characters, there will be mistakes. How do we deal with them?

If someone builds a spreadsheet to calculate their ability scores, modifiers, and attack and damage modifiers, and we find there are mistakes in it, should we say that no players should ever use spreadsheets to calculate modifiers?

If a player builds a character by hand, and they make a mistake, do we just not that player build a character again, or just not let them play?

Most Hero Lab errors I've seen have been configuration issues or user error. Some have been actual bugs--which is why I always recommend that people verify the numbers, submit bugs when they find them, and use one of the custom adjustment packages to override these bugs until they get fixed.

It isn't a matter of mistakes because the kind of characters a new player will build Herolab can handle pretty well. There may be a +1/-1 off here or there but that is going to happen no matter how you build your c-sheet.

I'm more concerned with new gamers not learning the game because they are MMO character building rather than figuring it out. These are the same players whose turns take twice as long and have a hard time figuring out where and when to apply modifiers like Power Attack, Point Blank Shot, or heaven help us if they pick up a weapon not on the sheet.

It is my experience that when players learn the game first then Herolab is a very good supplement to the character creation process, but when players use Herolab to learn the game you wind up with players who don't know the game.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
If you're GMing PFS you don't get to decide who uses HL and who doesn't.

Wow, I struck a nerve here. This isn't the PFS forum and I don't see a herolab section in my CRB.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
If you're talking about a home game, of course you're welcome to make whatever house rules you want.

Why do people say "homegame" and "house rule" like they are some derogatory term? "Homegames" are how the game was written and meant to be played. PFS is a marketing tool. PFS is not "pure" or "real" Pathfinder.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
However, since this is the rules forum, and HL is an officially sanctioned product, it is a house rule.

HA! What an awesome statement. Do you work for Lone Wolf? No? Just a feel like a stock holder with that $250 of 1's and 0's on your computer? Yea, me too.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
As I said in my next post after the one you posted, a lot of the errors in HL are the result of user error.

That is one of the reasons I don't let new players use HL in my games. But the biggest reason is I had 2 new players join up who were friends with a guy who used HL. He made their characters in HL and for 2 years those guys never bothered to crack a book to look at options, learn rules, or figure out where their own characters were going. Pathfinder has a steep learning curve but it isn't 2 years long. When we wrapped that campaign and started something new I sat down with them and hard print books and it was amazing how quickly their gameplay improved. HL is a tool, but you have to know what you what to build before you use a tool. You can't take a nailgun to a pile of wood and just look for places to stick the nails. Not if you want to build a house anyway.

Basically, my rule is players must be rules proficient or have a hand-filled character sheet. It has made my games leaps and bound better. For what it's worth, in the 2 games I run 8 of 11 players use HL on ipad for their c-sheets. It is no problem for me, but I have copies of their characters and I audit them.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I've seen people willfully ignore HL's restrictions and build illegal characters. I've also heard of people who think that having the HL license means you have access to that source material.

The first sentence is a feature not a bug. The second sentence is PFS related, so I really don't care. It certainly doesn't weigh into how I feel about HL.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I am not, however, denying that HL has some bugs. I will also admit that the bugs have gotten worse since the ACG was added. I will say, though, that the team is very quick to respond to any bug reports and fix them.

Herolab has lots and lots of bugs. I find them all the time. About half the reports I send to them get updated quickly, the other half get completely ignored. There are more issues still that aren't bugs but simply "yet to be implemented features" from such recently printed books like say.... the frakking Core Rule Book. Beyond that HL has serious problems handling complex builds. Multiclassing with classes whose class features should stack is flat out going to give you problems. I don't care what the combo is, it is more likely to bork up than get it correct. Size increases are a joke. Multiple size increases and you just need to figure it by hand and write it in after you print it.

All that said, it is still a useful tool. I use it all the time. But I literally laugh out loud when people begin to extoll the virtues of the magnificent Herolab like it's the best thing since Jesus, Santa, and Duran Duran did a comeback tour and champagne rained down from the heavens.

Protip: someone is too green to use Herolab if they call it "Herolabs."


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Krodjin wrote:
So it's reasonable to conclude that a bow is a two-handed weapon because the rules state it requires two hands to use it.

I disagree. The game must specifically tag items to "count as" if they do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

The core line as been fraught with these issues since the beginning. The first run of the APG let the playtest version of the summoner through, Ultimate Magic had the cantrips hit the editing room floor but left all the references to them in the book. Every book in the core line has had big to major issues with editing, and many many smaller issues with term alignment and other consistency issues. Overall, they just push the books out too quickly.

For this reason I stopped buying first run core books after Ultimate Magic. I just don't trust their process enough to shell out the cash. I just get the PDF now. If some other company were ever to unseat Paizo as the premier TTRPG company this would be the avenue to pursue.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Krodjin wrote:
Are you implying that a bow can be used in one hand?

I'm not implying anything. I'm directly stating that bows don't have handedness at all.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Used in two hands != two-handed weapon.

Two-handed weapons are a specific category of weapon. You can find the complete list on table 6-4 of the CRB. You will notice that bows aren't categorized as such.

Did you have a specific quote which says "bows count as two-handed weapons?"

As for evidence that a bow isn't a two-handed weapon, also check out table 6-4. It is listed under "ranged."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Herolab is irrelevant as far as the rules work. We do not need to FAQ things so they match what Herolab says. Herolab does not develop Pathfinder, and their mistakes do not reflect on the actual rules

Agreed, no FAQ needed, its quite clear, which is rare for the ACG.

Good rule of thumb, don't trust Hero Lab. Its really really bad.

At one point for PFS I had audited over 20 (probably pretty close to 30) hero lab PC's, and not one of them was right, and some had TERRIBLE flaws.

To be fair this was a few years back and I hear its gotten better, but I still hear about these errors all the time, a few just came up for people I know yesterday actually. The worst part is said people then argue about how it doesn't work, even when multiple people are reading and seeing the EXACT same thing!

I don't touch it though after seeing how awful it was back then, plus I think you have to pay for each book, I already paid for them though, why buy them again?

This is gross hyperbole, and some of the worst I have ever seen at that (see what I did there?). HeroLab gets the rules right way more often than not, and the ones they do tend to confuse are the ones that everybody confuses. I understand you may not like HeroLab, which means you probably don't use it. And if you don't use it, you probably shouldn't comment on its efficacy.

I use herolab all the time, it is a great tool for many reasons. But it simply cannot handle complex builds. On a complexness scales of 1-10, herolab will bork anything higher than a 4 and require serious handholding beyond that point. I audit all of my NPC's from ground up when using it and won't allow new players to use it all.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Simon Legrande wrote:
FireWings26 wrote:
Amora Game wrote:

I dig this approach in coming to the boards saying "I'm an editor available for freelance". However we need to establish a relationship of who you are and what do you do.

After looking at your profile (yes i do that), and realizing this is either a new account or an old one that you never posted on until this time, we (3PP) have no idea who you are. Your profile is blank and all we know is your board name is FireWings26.

That is definitely something I did not think about, so I appreciate the message. You are completely right. I have had the account for almost a year, but I am new the messageboards.

What do you do if your editor needs an editor?

If that is the worst that she lets through then she will be about 5000% better than the RPG industry average.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
HectorVivis wrote:

2 things:

Bows are two-handed weapons.
Composite Longbow wrote:
You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. You can use a composite longbow while mounted. [...]

Saying that once you fired you don't need your arm anymore doesn't matter. It's like trying to make two-weapon fighting happen with a greatsword and a gauntlet because once you hit with your greatsword, you still can free your hand.

AFAIK, every weapon that could be use in a two-weapon fighting style mention their handedness: Firearms are directly categorized as being one-handed firearms while crossbows (same books) mention it in their description, with the penalty you will suffer.
If bows were meant to be used in a two-weapon fighting, be sure they would have let you know.

A 4-armed character could use 2 bows in a full-attack action, but not while two-weapon fighting.

need two hands to use != two-handed weapon. For a complete list of two-handed weapons refer to table 6-4 in the CRB. You will notice that longbow and shortbow are not listed as two-handed weapons.

As far as weapons valid for two weapon fighting; it is all weapons not specifically disqualified by the THW/TWF FAQ. The two weapon fighting section in the combat chapter just says: [paraphrase] "Two weapon fighting, you can do it, here are some penalties."


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:

Can I make a suggestion for a rule in future editions of the rule book?

"If you cannot ask a rules question with a straight face, or if the DM laughs so hard on hearing it s/he can't breathe, the answer is no." I can't help but feel that would take care of so many rules threads that pop up just because the writers assume that everyone is smart enough not to try and twf with a bow.

I asked with a straight face. I am the DM in 2/3 of the games I play.

What about being smart makes you not try to twf with a bow?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Also I still feel that the FAQ says you if you use to hands to wield, and so if at any point the Bow uses two hands to wield then it fall into the FAQ. And so if it's two hand wield for action economy then it is 2 hand wielded for the FAQ. I don't see how this wouldn't work this way.

Because that isn't the statement I made. That is the statement you are construing from my words.

I specifically said that wielding doesn't happen with regards to handedness.

You asked when does wielding happen. I said @ time of attack with regards to action economy. ie. your hands (actual) are occupied with bow functions at attack time. I still say this has nothing to do with handedness.

Since then, I have also said that I admit that explanation is unclear. Which is why I restated it in a more clear way.

What you are seeing in my previous earlier statement is only the "use" part of wield. use != wield.

That is why I gave the complete definition for wield. (Which by the way is the dictionary definition because wield isn't defined in game terms.) That definition is wield is to use and hold.

We know that to use a bow it requires 2 hands. That is given in the game text.

We know that to hold a bow it requires one hand (even at the time of use).

One hand holds the bow, two hands use the bow. The threshold for wielding with 2 hands is not met.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:

If Wield happens at attack you already said that attacking with a bow required wield of 2. Also it doesn't matter if you hold at one.

"as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."

if at any point it's taking both or "two" hands to wield, it would fall under the FAQ and count.

I said that for action economy, not handedness. Which is a statement that isn't as clear as I would like and doesn't have a good rules basis. Which is why I restated it more plainly using the wield=use+hold.

In order for wield to equal 2 then BOTH hold AND use must equal 2.

Hold for bow never equals 2, so wield for bow never equals 2.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
HectorVivis wrote:

It's simple.

Bow are two-handed weapons.

Source cite please.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

wield happens at attack.

at attack(THW); use(2), hold(2)

at attack(bow); use(2), hold(1)


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
So to use either you use two hands. BigDTBone has been so helpful in sharing that you wield either of them when using them to attack.

Don't quote me out of context. I specifically told you that bows aren't wielded with a handedness.

Here let me help you understand.

Wield = use + hold
2 hand wield = 2 hand use + 2 hand hold
2 hand wield > 2 hand use + 1 hand hold
bow = 2 hand use + 1 hand hold
2 hand wield > bow
FAQ QUESTION IS:
2 hand wield > bow + offhand attack
2 hand wield = bow + offhand attack
2 hand wield < bow + offhand attack

And the FAQ says when you use both hands to wield a weapon. So the FAQ doesn't care about this "handedness" All it cares is the amount of hands needed to wield the weapon. The FAQ doesn't care about holding. Or what weapon category the weapon falls into.

Also you totally can "hold" a 2 handed weapon in one hand. you just can't wield it with one hand.

Yes, the "+" operator is a logic descriptor which means addition or concurrently.

The FAQ says wield. Wield is a function of handedness, where Wield(Hf)=use(Ha)+hold(Hb)

The FAQ says when wield = 2

Well, wield(bow)=use(2)+hold(1), bow < 2

Is wield(bow)=> 2? No. FAQ does not apply.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

In a past life I was a dept manager for staples copy, a store manager at office depot, and I current own a non-retail print company.

Here's the info I can offer.

Some store employees are insane anal about copyright stuff, usually because they got in trouble in the past. If they refuse to print your document then ask them for a copyright release form. They will have one to give you. This form will have a place for the "publisher" sign. Print the web address of the paizo print policy and sign it.

If this isn't good enough or if they don't have the form ask for the store manager. If someone shows up and their name tag doesn't say "store manager" (ie, it says dept manager, or asst store manager) ask them if they are the manager on duty, and if they can make a customer service decision.

Explain the situation nicely. I want to print this, I am authorized.

99% of the time you can get what you want printed under these conditions. If someone was just really poorly trained, or they are being a complete toolbag you can ask for the number to their DM (they probably wont give it to you but if they are really dumb and do give it to you then you struck gold. That person will give away the farm to get a customer off the phone.) or the closest store, if you ask for the closest store then also ask who the manager of that store is. (This may embarrass them into doing their jobs)

Alternatively you can find another shop to print at. Someone will do you printing.

When you find a place that will do your printing, ask the associate for their card. All of the national chain print centers give their associates cards. Ask them when they are usually around. Make a habit out of working with that person. They will hook you up. Once someone knows your job specs they will prioritize it. They may also do stuff like run the maps in color and charge for b+w, or run it on 24lb instead of 20, or they may only ring you for 20 copies instead of 23. (None of that is a promise, but it happens everywhere for regulars)

Don't pay more than $.35 for a color print or $.10 for black and white. All of the national chains have price matching, and every week someone is running a sale at that rate. Mention it. They will price match.

If you are able to plan ahead, use an online printing service. You can get color prints less than $.15 that way.

Just in case anyone is curious. Print shops don't buy supplies at all. They lease the printers for $200-$600 a month depending on the machine. And then they pay the lease company "per click" which means basically per image. So an 11x17 costs them the same as a 8.5x11 to print. I won't tell you my exact rates, but I will say that I pay less than $.07 per color click, and less than $.008 for a b+w click. That doesn't include paper, which for a nice 24lb 8.5x11 is about $.005

Alternatively, if you need like 10,000 copies of something, you can PM me.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Spell Bender and Spellwarp, as written, can be used on any arcanist spell. The answer for multi-class is entirely unclear at this point as multiple FAQ's would point you in different directions.

this one
this one
and this one all seem relevant, but contradictory....

FAQ'd


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
So to use either you use two hands. BigDTBone has been so helpful in sharing that you wield either of them when using them to attack.

Don't quote me out of context. I specifically told you that bows aren't wielded with a handedness.

Here let me help you understand.

Wield = use + hold

2 hand wield = 2 hand use + 2 hand hold

2 hand wield > 2 hand use + 1 hand hold

bow = 2 hand use + 1 hand hold

2 hand wield > bow

FAQ QUESTION IS:

2 hand wield > bow + offhand attack

2 hand wield = bow + offhand attack

2 hand wield < bow + offhand attack


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
KuntaSS wrote:
If you don't care about handedness then why are you involved in this argument about handedness of bows?
this isn't about the "handedness" of the bow. It's about whether or not you can use a bow as part of two-weapon fighting. And the question I asked BigDTBone was when do they count as being wielded. Which has nothing to do about handedness.
Wielding a bow as it relates to action economy happens when you attack with it.
And what about a THW? When do you wield it?
As it relates to action economy, also when you attack with it.

Okay so you've say you wield a bow when you attack with it, and you wield a THW when you attack with it. And both take two hands to use.

THW: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively
projectile weapon: projectile weapons require two hands to use

Now to the FAQ, "as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon" So as you are using both of your hands to wield your weapon. You have stated that attacking with either is wielding it. Also we know that attacking is using it as intended. So according to what you've said and the text, both weapons use both hands to be wielded. Therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks with either.

As it relates to action economy, not to handedness.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
If Fox News gets a black guy to come on a show and declare racism is over... do we believe him?

I will gladly believe that he believes it.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
KuntaSS wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
KuntaSS wrote:
If you don't care about handedness then why are you involved in this argument about handedness of bows?
this isn't about the "handedness" of the bow. It's about whether or not you can use a bow as part of two-weapon fighting. And the question I asked BigDTBone was when do they count as being wielded. Which has nothing to do about handedness.
So you are saying two weapon fighting has nothing to do with handedness? There's no aspect of, for example, a greatsword that makes it be treated differently in relation to TWF, compared to a dagger?

So before this goes on, what are you meaning when you say "handedness." It's important I understand what you're meaning with that term if I'm to give an accurate answer.

but that would be boring to not do more and this could save time if I'm right about what you mean.

Now if "handedness" means "how many hands does this take to use to attack with" Then handedness does affect TWF and it consumes your primary attack and your off hand attack.

If "handedness" means which category it's in on the weapon table then it
doesn't. because a one-handed weapon wielded by two hands to attack is not a two-handed weapon. Thus a ranged weapon will never be any of those if used as intended.

If "handedness" means how much STR you add to it, then again it's not relevant. how much STR and whether you can TWF are not related. SKR did post their design philosophy which has to do with this, but it doesn't change or modify how the rules work.

If it means something else please share so I can see how it's fitting into the discussion.

Yes, handedness means the minimum amount of effort required to wield the weapon.

Melee weapons are noted that their handedness is equal to their category. Ranged weapons do not have a handedness unless assigned it, ie light crossbows count as light weapons for handedness.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
KuntaSS wrote:
If you don't care about handedness then why are you involved in this argument about handedness of bows?
this isn't about the "handedness" of the bow. It's about whether or not you can use a bow as part of two-weapon fighting. And the question I asked BigDTBone was when do they count as being wielded. Which has nothing to do about handedness.
Wielding a bow as it relates to action economy happens when you attack with it.
And what about a THW? When do you wield it?

As it relates to action economy, also when you attack with it.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
KuntaSS wrote:
If you don't care about handedness then why are you involved in this argument about handedness of bows?
this isn't about the "handedness" of the bow. It's about whether or not you can use a bow as part of two-weapon fighting. And the question I asked BigDTBone was when do they count as being wielded. Which has nothing to do about handedness.

Wielding a bow as it relates to action economy happens when you attack with it.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
it covers any weapon that requires two hands to use. That is the wording of the FAQ. As you use two hands to use a weapon you then don't have an off hand. Since a bow requires two hands to use, just the exact same wording as a THW. And since the FAQ says "if you are using two hands to use it, it subsumes your off-hand."

use != wield

The language in the bow entry is use.

The language in the FAQ entry is wield.

These words are not the same thing, they are not interchangeable, and they do not have a specific in-game definition that makes them that way.

Fine we can take this a step back if you want. So you're saying use does not equal wield. So when do you wield a bow? When do you wield a THW?

Wield as it relates to handedness of a bow doesn't happen at all in pathfinder.

Wield as it relates to handedness of a Two-handed weapon happens when you use it. Melee weapons are convenient like that, because their handedness is built into their category.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Uh Oh! Not Again! Unarmed Black Woman Shot to Death by Police in Georgia!
How is it possible to run a news site and NOT time/date stamp your articles?
When it's not a news site?
Quote:
NewsBuzzDaily.com is a combination of real shocking news and satire news. Please note that articles written on this site are for entertainment and satirical purposes only.

Sorry, Comrade Anklebiter, this one doesn't seem real.

The handcuffed guy shooting himself in the chest after having been searched for weapons is real though.
As I said earlier, it just goes to show you can't take any chances with those black thugs.

good catch


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Uh Oh! Not Again! Unarmed Black Woman Shot to Death by Police in Georgia!

Ugh, so. Wow, just wow.

So much stuff went wrong there. So many ways to avoid that. So many procedures violated by so many different people.

Loss Prevention associate dick-heads. I really hate people who work in retail loss prevention. I have never met one in 10 years (store level upto LPDM) who wasn't a shady, power-whore, prick. That attitude got this lady killed.

The next time someone asks you for your receipt you look them in the face and at the top of your lungs scream, "NO A*%!$~@, I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE TO YOU OR YOUR STORE THAT I OWN MY POSSESSIONS!"


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Uh Oh! Not Again! Unarmed Black Woman Shot to Death by Police in Georgia!

How is it possible to run a news site and NOT time/date stamp your articles?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Okay, it boils down to:

Does the FAQ cover just two-handed weapons, or any weapon that requires two hands to use?

Gotta point out, it literally can't be just two handed weapons otherwise you could dualwield falcatas while two handing them with 4 arms, which is exactly the kind of silliness they wanted to eliminate in the first place.

So clearly its probably closer to say you cannot dual wield weapons wielded in two hands.

The DEV team has been on record many times that they do not write with the assumption that a player character has more than 2 arms and 2 legs. They have said that their rulings are based on the regular form. So extrapolating their logic out into a 4 armed character does not function. You cannot break their logic foundation to prove how an interaction works.
Right but an alchemist can have 4 arms. How he interacts with TWF is the same as one with 2 arms.

That was the point I was making to Thomas Long. The Dev's are so loathe to introduce rules for 4 arms because it would basically break the game wide open in about 87,000 places. That is why rules like vestigial limbs have restrictions build right in. That way they don't have to write global rules about how to govern them.

Thus, giving an example of a creature with 4 limbs as "evidence" of "how the devs intended it to work" isn't useful because the devs didn't write the FAQ with 4 limbs in mind to begin with.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
it covers any weapon that requires two hands to use. That is the wording of the FAQ. As you use two hands to use a weapon you then don't have an off hand. Since a bow requires two hands to use, just the exact same wording as a THW. And since the FAQ says "if you are using two hands to use it, it subsumes your off-hand."

use != wield

The language in the bow entry is use.

The language in the FAQ entry is wield.

These words are not the same thing, they are not interchangeable, and they do not have a specific in-game definition that makes them that way.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Okay, it boils down to:

Does the FAQ cover just two-handed weapons, or any weapon that requires two hands to use?

Gotta point out, it literally can't be just two handed weapons otherwise you could dualwield falcatas while two handing them with 4 arms, which is exactly the kind of silliness they wanted to eliminate in the first place.

So clearly its probably closer to say you cannot dual wield weapons wielded in two hands.

The DEV team has been on record many times that they do not write with the assumption that a player character has more than 2 arms and 2 legs. They have said that their rulings are based on the regular form. So extrapolating their logic out into a 4 armed character does not function. You cannot break their logic foundation to prove how an interaction works.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Krodjin wrote:

Bows are designated as 2 handed weapons and require 2 hands to use

You make 2 statements here.

"Bows are designated as 2 handed weapons"

Where? You need to show the rules where is says "Bows count as two-handed weapons for the purposes of x,y,z"

And "Bows require 2 hands to use."

I agree, but that doesn't mean anything in game terms relating to handedness or "off-hands." It simply means your hand (actual) is occupied.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Krodjin, you are missing that the bow is just occupying your hands, not subsuming your "off-hand" Just as if you were holding a shield. Your hand your be full but you could still make an unarmed strike.

EDIT: Also, BBT isn't saying "it doesn't say I can't." Why does everyone feel the need to attack BBT directly?

What BBT is saying is that Two-weapon fighting is a thing in the game. Two-weapon fighting says I can two weapon fight. I choose to two weapon fight with a Bow and IUS.

That's it. He has gone to rules, found the rule that allows his action and has completed that action. YOU are saying that he must have BETTER rules to do what he wants. That "yes you can" isn't good enough, it has to say "yes you can on Sunday after 9 with a full moon and a cat watching you?" That is unreasonable to expect from a rule set.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

requires both hands to use != using both hands to wield.

edit: And actually, "using both hand to wield" is factually incorrect about the bow. That's not how a bow works.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
prd wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

In this case, the second weapon is your IUS.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Elbedor wrote:
Yes Krodjin, you are correct that projectile weapons follow their own set of rules apart from melee weapons. That has been BBT's argument from the beginning. :p

Indeed, this is exactly the point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Krodjin wrote:
So the foundation of this claim is that a Longbow is a one-handed weapon? Where does it say that?

That's not the foundation precisely. The foundation is that "bows" do not have a handedness at all, because they are ranged weapons. There are rules that talk about their operation, but that has absolutely nothing to do with handedness with regards to two-weapon fighting and therefore off-hands. Note that the term "off-hand" appears no where in the rules UNLESS you are specifically taking about TWF. And TWF rules have no restriction against using ranged weapons. Some ranged weapons specifically get called out as "light for the purposes of determining penalties of two-weapon fighting," but that would only imply that other ranged weapons are not considered "light." And that's fine. You can TWF with whatever weapons you want, except those specifically banned by the TWF/THW FAQ.

EDIT: The non-evidentiary confirmation of this is that the proposed combination DOES NOT exceed the 1.5x STR per iterative sequence soft cap that SKR discusses in his rationale of the THW/TWF FAQ.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Elbedor wrote:
If an Unarmed Strike is defined as a punch, kick, or headbutt, then why can't I just employ a kick or headbutt as my unarmed strike when TWF'ing with a Bow?

The TWF/THW FAQ leaves this as an uncertain corner case. It doesn't follow the stated reasoning behind that restriction, and bows aren't classified as tho-handed weapons. So naturally some people feel one way and some another. I happen to agree with you.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
graystone wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

If there was an additional FAQ in 3.5, that somehow disallows it, then apparently Jason Bulmahn doesn't know about it, because he specifically mentions it.

I am not "twisting words", and I am not being dishonest.

I truly believe in what I am saying, and I am getting really tired of the personal insults.

Seriously, quit it.

The 3.5 FAQ originally did not allow it. It was changed to allow it after much uproar. If you're tired of being called dishonest then quit being dishonest in your posts.
Link the original FAQ. This is the third request you have received. Prove your claim.
Don't you get it? Unless BBT used the out of date FAQ instead of the last FAQ it hurts his case and that's being dishonest I guess.
His "unwritten rules" claim is dishonest. The 3.5 FAQ is irrelevant.
And you sir have talked you way into my no reply list. You are being disrespectful and if anyone is being dishonest and irrelevant, it's you. I suggest the rest of the thread just ignore Durngrun from now on.

Paizo Messageboards Ignore User Plugin.

This helps.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
You keep claiming unwritten rules. I've used only written rules to explain my case and have not even cited the FAQ.

The Developers specifically noted unwritten rules. I did not make this up.

I have linked these posts before.

You're not making it up. You are twisting his words. (Which is dishonest.) the "unwritten rules" were design guidelines they followed when writing the rules. You are aware of this. You were in the discussion. You deliberately misrepresent what was said to discredit the ruling.
Except the unwritten rules weren't around because that's not how the rule worked when it was written. Also, no reason to name call. Unless you intend to admit that your position is so weak that you can only defend your claim with insults rather than debate.
I have posted rules to support all my claims. The only response has been a 3.5 FAQ and lies about "unwritten rules." Not sure how my claim is considered weak.
Your claim is weak because you resort to personal attacks to defend it. If your claim wasn't weak you could check the personal attacks at the door. You show everyone that your claim is weak by attacking BBT. You have a weak claim.
And yet not one single person has quoted rules to disprove me or support their own position. I'm not "attacking" BBT. I am merely calling him on his dishonesty.

So you admit that you have no real claim. You admit that you are only arguing for what you want to be, not what can be defended. You admit that your position is so weak that you must revert to personal attacks?

Very good. Flagged and Ignored.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

If there was an additional FAQ in 3.5, that somehow disallows it, then apparently Jason Bulmahn doesn't know about it, because he specifically mentions it.

I am not "twisting words", and I am not being dishonest.

I truly believe in what I am saying, and I am getting really tired of the personal insults.

Seriously, quit it.

The 3.5 FAQ originally did not allow it. It was changed to allow it after much uproar. If you're tired of being called dishonest then quit being dishonest in your posts.

Link the original FAQ. This is the third request you have received. Prove your claim.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
You keep claiming unwritten rules. I've used only written rules to explain my case and have not even cited the FAQ.

The Developers specifically noted unwritten rules. I did not make this up.

I have linked these posts before.

You're not making it up. You are twisting his words. (Which is dishonest.) the "unwritten rules" were design guidelines they followed when writing the rules. You are aware of this. You were in the discussion. You deliberately misrepresent what was said to discredit the ruling.
Except the unwritten rules weren't around because that's not how the rule worked when it was written. Also, no reason to name call. Unless you intend to admit that your position is so weak that you can only defend your claim with insults rather than debate.
I have posted rules to support all my claims. The only response has been a 3.5 FAQ and lies about "unwritten rules." Not sure how my claim is considered weak.

Your claim is weak because you resort to personal attacks to defend it. If your claim wasn't weak you could check the personal attacks at the door. You show everyone that your claim is weak by attacking BBT. You have a weak claim.

1 to 50 of 2,167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.