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

BigJohn42's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 273 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

There's a Crusader archetype for the Cleric, that details a more martial-oriented priest.

You might also want to consider a dip of Dawnflower Dervish instead of a Fighter dip - it gives you Dervish Dance without needing Weapon Finesse.

Another possibility is to aim for the Guided Hand feat, and cut down on some of the MAD. It doesn't help with weapon damage, just to-hit rolls, but it might be of some help.


Osric Stonebrook wrote:

Sounds good so far. I guess my last question is this. Utilizing all the feats you have listed above with a Fighter and having 4 attacks per turn - Would a full attack action look something like:

Main hand
Off hand
Off hand
Off hand

OR

Main hand
Off hand
Main hand
Off hand

Thanks again for the clarification.

Assuming a 6th level fighter (+6 BAB) with both Two Weapon Fighting and Improved Two Weapon Fighting, but no other attack bonuses (10 STR, no Weapon Focus, etc), the following would be acceptable attack options:

Single Attack:

One attack at +6. Does not require a full-round action (can still take a move action)

Single Weapon, Full Round:

One attack at +6, one attack at +1. Requires a full-round action (cannot take a move action, but can 5' step)

Light Secondary Weapon, Full Round:

Main hand takes one attack at +4, one attack at -1. Secondary weapon takes one attack at +4, one attack at -1. Requires a full-round action (cannot take a move action, but can 5' step)

Two One-Handed Weapons, Full Round:

Main hand takes one attack at +2, one attack at -3. Secondary weapon takes one attack at +2, one attack at -3. Requires a full-round action (cannot take a move action, but can 5' step)

For anything beyond a single attack, with a single weapon, the Full Attack action is required. It ooesn't matter what order you take the attacks in, so long as you're declaring the attack before the roll (no "That's a 20! That's my off-hand second attack!"). Most groups that I've seen roll attacks from Highest to Lowest, Primary hand before Secondary.


Awesome story!

I'm working my way through AoW now, and would love to see any statblocks you've developed.


Bruno Breakbone wrote:
Bruno would also ask for clarification succubus must be the controlling grappler in grapple to deliver kiss as well.

Well, based on what I can see, by RAW, the Succubus doesn't even need to be part of the grapple... She could just run around kissing grapplers.


Poit wrote:
Huh. Well, if that definition no longer exists in Pathfinder, then this should totally work.

But that section included all kinds of bonuses, including racial, circumstance, and insight. A quick search of Paizo's PRD didn't show any definitions for these bonuses, either. I'd be much more inclined to believe that Paizo dropped a portion of the glossary for space (because other bonuses, like enhancement, dodge, and Armor, appear elsewhere), than that they intended to wipe the definitions of these different bonuses.

That section is just plain missing from Paizo's PRD, and the blank was apparently filled in by d20pfsrd.

There are other arguments for why this might not work - I just didn't want to open a can of worms, and led with what I thought was the strongest argument.


Mattastrophic wrote:
BigJohn42 wrote:
It does not apply on ability checks, damage rolls, initiative checks, or other rolls that aren't related to a character's level or skill ranks.

That's a good catch there (could you link us to it?), but there is one problem.

If we use that text for competence bonuses, then Inspire Courage cannot add to damage rolls, because the ability applies a competence bonus to damage rolls. In addition, a pale green prism ioun stone adds a +1 competence bonus to ability checks.

Without that contradictory sentence, the circlet would add to your initiative rolls, because an initiative check is an ability check, which would become Charisma-based.

-Matt

In all fairness, my quote was from d20pfsrd.com, who was quoting the 3.5 rules on bonuses, which are much more in depth than anything that Paizo has put out. I didn't realize that at the time of my initial posting.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Bonus-Competence -

If it's no longer valid for Pathfinder, for some reason, than someone needs to let d20pfsrd know, so they can take it down. This appears to be part of the rules that didn't get copy/pasted over, for some reason.

As far as the two specific instances you mentioned (Inspire Confidence and Pale Green Ioun Stone), I'd go with the "Specific Overrides General" rule... Those two cases specifically allow an exception to the rule. It's also worth noting that this ability and item both did the same thing in 3.5, where this rule is specifically called out.


That having been said, I LOVE the character concept - great idea!


Galatina91 wrote:
Would a Circlet of Persuasion apply its bonus on Initiative, too?

It would not work, and here's why:

Circlet of Persuasion wrote:
This delicately engraved silver headband grants its wearer a +3 competence bonus on Charisma-based checks.
Competence Bonus wrote:
A competence bonus (or penalty) affects a character's performance of a particular task, as in the case of the bardic ability to inspire competence. Such a bonus may apply on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, caster level checks, or any other checks to which a bonus relating to level or skill ranks would normally apply. It does not apply on ability checks, damage rolls, initiative checks, or other rolls that aren't related to a character's level or skill ranks. Multiple competence bonuses don't stack; only the highest bonus applies.

It would not work because the Circlet gives a competence bonus, and competence bonuses cannot be applied to Initiative. That is the specific purview of the Headband of Alluring Charisma.


Claxon wrote:
Can I get an opinion on Iridescent Spindle Ioun Stone which says "Sustains creature without air" and what happens if someone casts Suffocation on that person? I feel like the "Sustains creature without air" part implies that at worst the person may be staggered as the air is forced out of their lungs, but would otherwise be fine since they do not need air anymore.
Suffocation Spell wrote:
This spell only affects living creatures that must breathe.

Someone using that ioun stone no longer qualifies as a creature that "must breathe".


If they haven't taken it yet, give someone an opportunity to "pre-buy" their next feat, so long as it's Leadership, for a diplomacy-monkey.

I threw in a few diplomacy encounters earlier in the campaign, to point out how useful the skill was going to end up being. This convinced one of the players to make their henchman a bard, with crazy diplomacy/bluff scores. That character ended up becoming the mouthpiece for the party, which made for some really fun times during Champion's Belt... where the party ended up styling themselves after a professional-wrestling faction.


My gut response would be to say that a single attack, by definition is not a "flurry", and therefore would use the monk's normal BAB. Even taking the -2 into account, FoB breaks even with a monk's normal attack at 5th level... anything beyond that, and they're better off doing a FoB whenever possible.

From a strict rules standpoint, I'd say that you're getting a little greedy, looking for both the full BAB AND the lack of -2 penalty. The Monk chart clearly lays out what the FoB bonus is supposed to be, for a character of a given level (obviously, adjusted by magical bonuses, STR bonues, etc). Also consider that, unless that -2 is going to mean the difference between hitting on a natural 20, and hitting on an 18-20, you're likely better off throwing the extra dice, and hoping one of them hits.

That having been said, were this posted in the Houserules, as opposed to the Rules Forum, I'd probably opine that, if ANY character wanted to take a Full-Round action to make a single attack, I'd probably allow a house-rule of an "aiming" bonus - offering full BAB to any character who wanted to stand their ground aiming seems like some good flavor.


ossian666 wrote:

Hmm then why do monk lovers get so bent out of shape about enchanting their Unarmed Strikes? You can even make brass knuckles out of adamantine so they can bypass DR...

Is it possible to work a Sunder build then using an Adamantine Brassknuckles I would be able to really break things...

If not then Urban Barbarian looks like the way to go.

Monk lovers are bent out of shape because of SKR's comments, where it was ruled that Brass Knuckles are a weapon, and as such only do 1d3.

See here for details.


Gignere wrote:

What you want is the transformative property. That can be added to a magic weapon for 10k gps, probably 20k gps for a cold iron weapon.

As to your dilema, I'll ask the GM to see if you can barter your weapon, and maybe throw in a few hundred gold for the vendor's troubles.

It's already a +1 weapon, so the extra cost for enhancement due to being cold iron has already been paid.

Cold Iron Costs wrote:

Weapons made of cold iron cost twice as much to make as their normal counterparts. Also, adding any magical enhancements to a cold iron weapon increases its price by 2,000 gp. This increase is applied the first time the item is enhanced, not once per ability added.

From a value standpoint, a +1 Cold Iron Greatsword is 4,400 GP (50 base cost +50 for being special material: Cold Iron, +300 Masterwork, +2,000 for the +1 enhancement, another +2,000 for adding that +1 enhancement to Cold Iron). Using the same calculation,s a +1 Cold Iron Bardiche would be 4,326 GP. Trade would probably be your best bet, although if your GM is a RAW stickler, you might run into trouble with selling the Greatsword for more than 1/2 the value (2,200 GP).


RuyanVe wrote:

Transformative is out of the question due to WBL limits (my ranger is currently 7th level), as I have a long list of gadgets I need to buy (we spent 6 levels in the wilderness without the possibility to shop nor take our time to craft ourselves).

Ruyan.

Well, maybe someone in the aforementioned large Dwarven community would be willing to add Transformative at-cost? That's only 5,000 GP. It would be a way to remain within RAW while getting what you're looking for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say that the easiest way, by RAW, would be to pay 10,000 GP to give the Greatsword the Transformative quality. I can't think of anything beyond that other than GM Fiat.


Gruingar de'Morcaine wrote:
The problem with the wizard and buff spells is that he is extrememly likely to fail a save. With the party he is opposing (see the root thread above) he is likely to have upto 4 SoS spells incoming every round. At least by the 2nd or 3rd time they encounter him.

How many rounds do you plan on him hanging around for? Get in, cause some chaos, get out. Especially if they start to show that they're going to have stuff that can get through his lesser globe, then he needs to be that much smarter about how and when he hits... wait until they're in combat with something else, where they can't all turn on him at once.

Additionally, 7th level characters are only going to have one or two spells that won't be negated by the lesser globe. Depending on what they tend to memorize, that might not even be an issue.

A cloak of resistance +5 is 12,500gp. That would give this guy a FORT/REF of +7, and a Will of +11, before attribute bonuses. Given that the DCs on the spells are going to be 15-18 or so, that would give you weak saves at about 8-11. Other feats/traits can further shore up these defenses, if you're still worried about it, not to mention Cat's Grace and Bear's Endurance. Ablative sphere grants improved cover, which will boost the REF saves by another +4.

Leading the attack with Distracting Cacophony can make the spellcasters use concentration checks to be able to cast spells,

Emergency Force Sphere is an Immediate action, which can block line of effect for the SOD/SOS spells.

Play this NPC smart - have him figure out what spells the casters normally use, and prepare his defenses against those eventualities. Have him scry on days that he's not attacking, keeping up on what kinds of tactics and spells they use... and adjust accordingly.


The problem seems to be getting out without getting caught/captured/killed. That being the case, I'd suggest using a wizard for this - consider some of the following school abilities:

  • Conjuration/Teleportation: "Shift" gives you limited teleport as a swift action. Dimensional Steps gives you further movement/escape ability as a standard action.
  • Illusion: "Invisibility Field" gives you Greater Invisibility as a swift action for rounds per day equal to the wizard level.
  • Illusion/Shadow: "Shadow Step" gives you another limited teleportation, but with a flavor that the PCs could eventually overcome. Still 240' of movement isn't shabby. Downside is that it's a standard action.
  • Transmutation: "Change Shape" lets you take elemental form as if using Elemental Body I - Earth Glide, anyone?

With access to 4th level spells, I'd rock the following buffs:

  • Protection from {most common alignment in the party}
  • Mage Armor
  • Shield (Protection from Magic Missiles)
  • Expeditious Retreat
  • Protection from Arrows (if you've got ranged opponents)
  • Resist Energy {Whatever the casters prefer}

Combined with the Invisibility to get your villain there to begin with, that's 3 1st level and 3 2nd level spells. That leaves 1 1st level, 3 3rd level, and 2 4th level spells to select from, when planning contingencies and how you want to mess with the party. If you're only planning on throwing out one or two effects, then escaping, then add in "Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser".

Use the terrain and situations to the villain's advantage - put him in a place where melee types can't get to, during a fight where hordes of goblins have flooded the casters, etc.

Now it's a matter of deciding just HOW you want to mess with the party. Lots of spells = lots of versatility. I also didn't include any magical items... WBL says an 8th level PC character should have 33k of equipment, whereas an 8th level NPC should have 7,800 GP. 50k is a LOT of money to throw at a single 8th level character... but with the right gear, this guy could be pretty indestructible for quite a while.


hogarth wrote:

Let me put it this way. Suppose the spell read as follows:

"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that choice of favored enemy for all purposes."

Would that be the same or different?

"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that choice of favored enemy for all purposes."

as opposed to:

Instant Enemy wrote:
"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes. "
"Ranger: Favored Enemy wrote:
Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, a ranger selects a creature type from the ranger favored enemies table.

The only difference between the two wordings is replacing the word "type" with "choice". I don't see a difference there, other than that your wording is more ambiguous.

The spell, as written, references "Favored Enemy Type", just as the Favored Enemy ability tells you to select a "creature type" from the table.


hogarth wrote:
Note that there are a few things that refer to a ranger's favored enemy that are outside the ranger's special abilities (e.g. the Horn of Antagonism from the APG).

This spell references the Favored Enemy ONLY in that what the Ranger is allowed to treat the target creature as.


Matrixryu wrote:
It is pretty certain that's what the intended purpose of the spell is. You know that Paizo doesn't always write these things clearly.

With all due respect, it's anything but pretty certain... since that's not at all what the spell says. The spell, as written, says that the Ranger gets to treat a target enemy as if it were one of the creature types that the ranger has as a Favored Enemy.

It lists no restrictions on how the Ranger can treat it as a Favored Enemy... quite the opposite, in that it specifically says it is treated as the Favored Enemy Type "in all ways."

"In All Ways" =/= "In All Ways... Except This."


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I could see a ruling that any weapons or effects used by the ranger gain the benefit as being consistent with the ruling too.

That's the point I've been trying to make.


Keltoi wrote:

I think I would prefer to see something along the lines of:

"For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes in respect to a ranger's special abilities"

That would be just fine, except that "in respect to a ranger's special abilities" is not "for all purposes". I'm reading the spell as to allow more options to what the character can do than just that - like the Ranger being able to use a cure spell to damage something he considers "Undead" as a result of the spell.

Based on RAW, that's what it says. Based on RAI, where's the harm in giving the player more options?


Aelryinth wrote:

"For the duration of the spell, the rangers gains Favored Enemy bonuses against that enemy as if it were the highest Favored Enemy bonus he currently has."

==Aelryinth

That would be a perfectly reasonable spell - if that's what the spell said.


Keltoi wrote:
I still believe his undead bane weapon is still ineffective.

I still don't understand how, if the ranger is attacking an Undead creature (which he's doing, courtesy of the spell), the Undead Bane weapon he's wielding wouldn't trigger. Either the Ranger is treating the creature as Undead, or he's not.

Keltoi wrote:
Short of an errata to clarify "for all purposes", we shall just have to agree to disagree.

I concur about agreeing to disagree, although I don't see where "for all purposes" should require any clarification.

I definitely wouldn't leave a table or group over this, although I would (post-game) definitely make my case to the GM about it. If this were part of my character concept, I would ask permission to re-tool the character. That would be more due to lack of communication between GM and Player, though.

Regardless, it has been a good discussion!


Keltoi wrote:
A ranger is fighting a fire-elemental. He casts Instant Enemy and changes the subtype to Undead, all of a sudden, the Fire elemental is taking damage from the ranger's flaming burst longsword?

Nothing about the spell says that the creature loses it's other types - the "Undead" Fire Elemental would still have all of it's Elemental resistances.


hogarth wrote:
Happler wrote:
I want to make a Cleric/Ranger so that I can cast Instant Enemy (evil outsider) and then banish them!
A mace of smiting suddenly starts to look better too. On a critical, your "construct" enemy is destroyed, no save!

Sounds like a good, creative synergy to me.


Cheapy wrote:
If the ranger has bane (dragon) arrows and decides to fail his knowledge check to figure out what that displacer beast is and assumes it's a dragon, bane wouldn't work.

Is this a serious argument? Voluntarily failing a knowledge check is a far cry from having a spell, which you have to be 10th level to cast, alter reality.

I have a lot of respect for the opinions you carry on this board, Cheapy, so I'm going to assume that you weren't intentionally reducing to absurdity.

Cheapy wrote:
The bane enhancement only cares about what the target is. The effects of the spells don't transfer to the bane enhancement.

The Bane enhancement doesn't care about anything, since it's simply a magical enhancement to a weapon. Who DOES care about it is the Ranger, who has been magically ensorceled to treat the target of the spell as if it were another creature type.

My stance is that the spell does exactly what it says, and overrides the normal rules - the Ranger treats the target of the spell as if it were a different creature type, in all ways. The Ranger attacks as if he's attacking one of his favored enemies, and as such gets the favored enemy bonus. For the same reasons, the Ranger's Bane ability triggers, because the Ranger is effectively attacking a creature of that creature type, with a weapon that is Bane against that creature type.


Keltoi wrote:
It seems to me that a bane weapon when created, is attuned to a particular creature type to inflict damage against that specific type. Whether the ranger is pretending that the subtype is a different type, has no bearing.

See, I was looking at it in the following way:

1. Ranger has an Evil Outsider Bane Dagger and Favored Enemy: Evil Outsider
2. Ranger casts Instant Enemy on a critter.
3. Ranger attacks Critter
4. Ranger checks type: "Is this an Evil Outsider"?
4.1 Yes: Ranger treats critter as an Evil Outsider in all ways.
4.1.1 Ranger gets Favored Enemy Bonus
4.1.2 Ranger gets Bane attack, because the Ranger is the one doing the attacking, not the weapon.

The only way it might make a difference is if the weapon was intelligent, and actually "knew" that the critter wasn't an Evil Outsider. The attack is coming from the Ranger, therefore the attack gets Bane.


Cheapy wrote:

It looks like the ranger can treat the dragon as an evil outsider...

But the arrows don't give a damn what the ranger thinks he's using the arrows against, so bane wouldn't apply anyways.

I would agree, if not for the "for all purposes" part of the spell. The ranger is treating the creature "for all purposes" as if it were another creature type - one that the ranger has as a favored enemy.

Considering that Bane is only a +1 enchantment on a weapon, I don't see why, from a balance standpoint, the 10th level Ranger's use of a Bane enhancement shouldn't qualify as "for all purposes." (10th level being the earliest a ranger can cast 3rd level spells).


hogarth wrote:
Hmmm...so if I had the feat Craft Construct and enough scrolls of Instant Enemy (construct), I could modify one of my friends into a suit of Construct Armor and wear him around like a battlesuit. Sweet!

First.. OUCH! If this is how a Ranger treats friends, how do they treat enemies?

Secondly... Ranger would treat the friend as a Construct, not Construct Building Materials.

Thirdly... Duration is 1 minute/level. Even assuming a way around my second point, you wouldn't be able to complete crafting in that amount of time. You couldn't recast because your friend, who is in the middle of being crafted into a suit of armor, would still be considered a construct until after the spell expires - even as a swift action, recasting it before the poor friend dies would be dicey at best.

Fourthly... Under the "Rule of Cool", this might be a really cool back story for an intelligent weapon.


Phrennzy. wrote:

If the Ranger treats the creature as "Undead" then the creature would also be immune to bleed, death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning from that ranger, just as undead are. That seems ridiculous.

The spell just lets you use your favored enemy bonus against creatures that aren't your favored enemy. Bane weapon would have no effect.

My comments were actually in reference to hogarth's plan to treat their character as a construct, to prevent others from doing nasty things to them. That would fail, because the spell only affects what the Ranger does, not anyone else.

That having been said, the spell does say that the Ranger treats the person as their favored enemy in "all ways". Being as the Ranger has to be 10th level to be able to cast the spell, I don't see how it's a problem to let a Bane effect work. A Ranger with Favored Enemy: Undead isn't going to use bleed, death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, or stunning in their attacks, especially if they've CHOSEN to treat the enemy as having those features.


hogarth wrote:
BigJohn42 wrote:
Assuming that you're not of a race that you have as favored enemy (i.e. "Human" with "Favored Enemy: Human"), then you could cast it on yourself, and treat yourself as a construct... doesn't mean anyone else needs to... Why would you try to do any of those things to yourself?
Someone tries to put me to sleep. Too bad -- I treat myself as immune to sleep and wake up. ;-)

You would be immune to a sleep spell that you cast on yourself... but that doesn't mean that you'd be immune to sleep cast on you by someone else.

hogarth wrote:
BigJohn42 wrote:
In other words, just because you're considering a Dragon to be "Undead", that doesn't help your cleric buddy can damage him with a Cure spell.
But you're claiming it would help you (the ranger) damage the dragon with a Cure spell?

From the wording of the spell, I don't see why a Ranger couldn't cast Cure Light on a Dragon, who is being treated as Undead by the Ranger.

It looks like it doesn't change the actual creature type of the target, just how the Ranger interacts with it. If the Ranger is considering a creature to be "Undead" as a result of this spell, then positive energy spells cast by the Ranger should inflict damage.


hogarth wrote:
So can I cast Instant Enemy (construct) on myself and make myself immune to ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, energy drain, nonlethal damage, mind-affecting effects, bleed, disease, death effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning?
Instant Enemy wrote:

Targets one creature that is not your favored enemy.

Description: With this spell you designate the target as your favored enemy for the remainder of its duration. Select one of your favored enemy types. For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes.

Assuming that you're not of a race that you have as favored enemy (i.e. "Human" with "Favored Enemy: Human"), then you could cast it on yourself, and treat yourself as a construct... doesn't mean anyone else needs to... Why would you try to do any of those things to yourself?

In other words, just because you're considering a Dragon to be "Undead", that doesn't mean your cleric buddy can damage him with a Cure spell.

Edited for grammar


Tels wrote:
BigJohn42 wrote:
Tels wrote:
It gives the caster an option. If they have a ridiculously high Diplomacy, they're better off using the skill. But if their Charisma is high, but have no ranks in Diplomacy, they're better off using the opposed Charisma Check.

Diplomacy is a CHA based skill, so anything that could be convinced via Diplomacy would be a better option - even if you don't have any ranks in the skill, it can be used untrained, and the charmed person would be "friendly".

Ordering someone does sound like an option, which would require focusing a person's persuasive ability/charisma to override common sense (as opposed to fast-talking, which would be bluff or diplomacy), and would therefore be the more difficult check to make.

I disagree. I know a player in another campaign who is playing a Sorcerer at level 8 with a 22 Charisma (24 with headband). That means he has a +7 modifier. He has no ranks in Diplomacy at all as he relies on Charm spells.

Charming a person and then asking them to hide you (via the Diplomacy Skill) after you have assassinated the king, and the character knows it, would have a DC of at least 25 (friendly base of 10 + 15 for possibly resulting in punishment). That means the Sorcerer needs to roll an 18 or higher to hit DC 25.

Conversely, the Sorcerer could order the target to hide him, and it becomes an opposed Charisma Check. The Sorcerer has a better chance of succeeding on the opposed check, than he does on the Diplomacy roll.

I would posit that if he's relying on the charm spells as a stand-alone, as opposed to using it in tandem with Diplomacy, then it's not going to work as well.

How to Kill a King with Diplomacy:

That character, with 8 ranks in diplomacy, could:
- Kill the king
- Charm the Queen (making her "friendly")
- Make a DC 10+*Queen's CHA mod* to make her "Helpful". With a +15 modifier to the Diplomacy check (had he made the investment into the skill, Queen would have to have a 22 CHA in order to NOT be helpful (be able to fail on a roll of 1).
- Use Diplomacy to ask Queen to hide him. DC of this would be, worst case, 15+*Queen's CHA mod*, IF the Queen knew that she could be "punished" for helping him (which would be the equivalent of D20 vs. Queen's CHA modifer).

If it's just some servant passing by, and not someone who witnessed the assassination, then it would just be "complicated aid" which is only DC 5+*CHA MOD*, which would end up being a d20 roll vs. their CHA mod - 10.


This also assumes that the caster isn't:
- A bard, who would have Diplomacy as a class skill
- Someone who has a trait boosting Diplomacy (and making it a class skill)
- Someone with a Masterwork Diplomacy Item (nice suit?)

I guess what I'm saying is that the Sorcerer in question is doing things sub-optimally.


Tels wrote:
It gives the caster an option. If they have a ridiculously high Diplomacy, they're better off using the skill. But if their Charisma is high, but have no ranks in Diplomacy, they're better off using the opposed Charisma Check.

Diplomacy is a CHA based skill, so anything that could be convinced via Diplomacy would be a better option - even if you don't have any ranks in the skill, it can be used untrained, and the charmed person would be "friendly".

Ordering someone does sound like an option, which would require focusing a person's persuasive ability/charisma to override common sense (as opposed to fast-talking, which would be bluff or diplomacy), and would therefore be the more difficult check to make.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quantum Steve wrote:
So, no one has ever, for example, found their spouse in bed with another individual and committed a double homicide? I'm pretty sure you wrong on that.

I would dare to say that, in those circumstances, the spouse (and other individual) would no longer be considered "allies".


Maxximilius wrote:


You can't, since you don't spend ki points to activate them.

So since the only restriction is that it has to be a ki-based ability, would Ninja ki abilities work with this?


I do now see how there's another reading for the ability, and apologize for that... but it does seem rather odd that the archtype that's based on sharing abilities wouldn't be able to share the specific abilities of that archtype.


Orc Boyz wrote:
how ever much the ki activation for the ability is.

Those don't have a ki activation cost.


Orc Boyz wrote:

At 6th level, a sensei may use his advice ability when spending points from his ki pool to activate a class ability (using the normal actions required for each) in order to have that ability affect one ally within 30 feet rather than the sensei himself. At 12th level, a sensei may affect all allies within 30 feet rather than himself (spending points from his ki pool only once, not once for each target).

sorry man you misread the ability

So how much does it cost for a Sensei to let someone else use their "Inspire" ability, or "Insightful Strike"? Those are both class abilities.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Tem has the right of it -- the abilities that BigJohn42 lists are abilities that generally don't require a ki point to use to begin with and therefore had to be added on separately otherwise would have been impossible to use with this ability.

As I was reading it, Tem wanted to use Mystic Wisdom to "share" the Qinggong's special ki abilities with the rest of the party. Unfortunately, the Sensei's ability doesn't say that it shares ki powers, but instead specifies what powers can be shared. I don't see any special synergy between these two classes at all.

Sensei cannot be used to give all allies True Strike, because what the Sensei can share is specified, and True Strike isn't on that list.


I would say that the two abilities don't interact at all, since the Sensei's ability specifies what powers can be shared

Mystic Wisdom (Su):

At 12th level, a sensei may instead spend 1 point from his ki pool (as a swift action) while using advice to provide a single ally within 30 feet with evasion, fast movement, high jump, purity of body, or slow fall. At 18th level, a sensei may spend 2 points to grant one of the abilities listed above to all allies within 30 feet, or diamond body, diamond soul, or improved evasion to a single ally within 30 feet. These abilities function at the sensei’s level and last 1 round.

This ability replaces the bonus feats at 6th, 12th, and 18th level.


Sleep-Walker wrote:
They also need an ability to allow them to conceal a sword on their person.

Nah, they've got hundreds of years to practice their Sleight of Hand skills. Between that and a trenchcoat, they're all set.

EDIT: How awesome would it be for an immortal to have Gloves of Storing?


Jiggy wrote:
BigJohn42 wrote:

This tells me that a double-weapon can:

- be used one-handed.
- can only have one end used per round, when used one-handed. Otherwise, the part after the hyphen wouldn't be there.

As a corollary to the last point, someone using a double-weapon TWO handed should be able to select which end they want to use for any given attack.

Sure seems to me like suddenly switching from talking about 2H to 1H in the span of one sentence within a single paragraph without any sort of transitional phrase sounds more like a typo than a list of various options.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Well, that's the way the paragraph reads. The first sentence specifically mentions THF, and the second sentence specifically mentions One-Handed. If that's not what was intended, they need to edit the PRD. I prefer to think of this paragraph as "Non-Traditional Ways to use a Double-Weapon."

The debate about using a normal double-weapon in one hand has been resolved at this point, based on Leo's comment (needing to use a small double-weapon, or Quarterstaff Master, for that sentence to be invoked), but the part about needing to pick an end is specifically part of that sentence, and does nothing to modify the THF sentence.


leo1925 wrote:
You can't use a double weapon in one hand, this was clarified when the feat Quarterstaff Master came out. The "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round." part of the rule means IF somehow you have the ability to use a double weapon in one hand you can use only one end, if your question is how someone could weild a double weapon in one hand before the feat Quarterstaff Master the answer is someone using a double weapon smaller than him (for example a medium creature using a small staff).

That needs some clearer language in the PRD then. I see, based on the equipment chart, that all the "double" weapons are considered two-handed.


Jiggy wrote:
Lots of Stuff

I was just about to point out how the 2H entry and the 1H entry both use the same wording about "one end per round", to contrast with your above-quoted statement.

Then I noticed something else entirely.

Look at the 2H entry, above, re-quoted below with different bolding:

"PRD - First entry wrote:
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

Okay, what?

I'm pretty sure something went wrong somewhere.

My line of thought came from the second paragraph of my initial quote:

PRD-Double Weapons wrote:
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

I broke this out into two sections: Using the weapon Two-Handed, and using it One-Handed.

Using it Two Handed wrote:
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it.

Pretty straight forward. Due to PF's lack of "handedness", either side of the double-weapon can be used in an attack, just like someone with two different longswords in hand can choose which one to use in a normal attack. All of the normal two-handed rules should apply, thus the 1.5x STR to Damage.

Using it One-Handed wrote:
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

This tells me that a double-weapon can:

- be used one-handed.
- can only have one end used per round, when used one-handed. Otherwise, the part after the hyphen wouldn't be there.

As a corollary to the last point, someone using a double-weapon TWO handed should be able to select which end they want to use for any given attack.


The Chort wrote:

So there is. I think it's both-ish? Probably a redundancy. It can be wielded one-handed, but if you use both hands, you can deal 1.5 strength damage, as with any one-handed weapon. I think that's what was trying to be said.

...but yeah, more clarity would be nice.

Random side note: If you can indeed use it one-handed, it would be interesting to see a character wielding two double weapons simultaneously, perhaps dropping one of them in the middle of the fight depending on what kind of monster you're fighting. (Have a bunch of different enchantments on each blade) Expensive, weird, but interesting?

PRD - Double Weapons wrote:

A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

According to this, there are three ways to use a double weapon: Using Both Ends, Using One End Two-Handed, and Using One End One Handed.

If you use it as a double-weapon, it is treated as a one-handed and light weapon.

If you use One End Two Handed, you get to pick what side you attack with, and do 1.5x Strength Damage, but can use different ends for different attacks (iterative, AoO, etc).

If you use One Handed, you have to pick what end you're using for a given round, then use only that end, with 1.0x Strength Damage... but you do have a hand free for other fun (shield, spell casting, grabbing stuff).

Lots of versatility with double-weapons.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
My favorite name for a weapon is "reasonable precaautions."

In my Kingmaker game, one of the characters named his greatsword "Summary Judgement".


LazarX wrote:
In all the years I've spent gaming, the only time I've seen characters kneel was before a king and they weren't in combat with him.

There are other appropriate times to kneel.


Matthew Winn wrote:

The setup:

Campaign setting is kind of a "What would happen if the Celts had been integrated into the Anglo-Saxons instead of subsumed/eliminated, then progressed to the Middle Ages?"

So think of it kind of as a mesh between the Tain, Mabinogi, and Le Morte d' Arthur. Literally. As in the militia still goes into battle wearing wode while being led by "civilized" knights in chain armor and during a timeframe that's a variation on the Arthur story.

Without going into overly unnecessary detail, the artifact is a great axe whose name will translate into "Claw of the Dragon" and I'm trying to decide on which fits better:

Brachium Draconis (from the Latin and fits the Arthurian aspects of the theme)

Aisghlamagh Dragon (from the Irish translation, I've been pronouncing it "I-leh-maa". I'll happily be corrected if someone knows better)

The latter has an older feel to it, but the former rolls off the tongue better. It's also easier to remember the spelling and doesn't have a word in it that is the same in english. But I was hoping for something with a little more Gaelic history to it.

Perhaps Aisghlamagh Draconis, a blending of the two? Or something completely different and more "made-up" instead of real world translation?

Bob. Bob the Great-Axe.

Bob is a great name for a weapon.

1 to 50 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 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.