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

Bill Dunn's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 5,556 posts (6,496 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 21 aliases.


1 to 50 of 691 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hah! You no longer look like a spoiler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:

I have a lesser and a greater rod. I try to use the lesser one for empowering my quickened fireball. Does it work? No. It would be a level 7 spell since that is most disadvantageous to me.

Now I try my greater rod instead. Does that work? No. Since the greater rod can't handle a level 3 spell, that is more disadvantageous to me.

Now, see, I was interpreting "least advantageous to the caster" as requiring the use of the more expensive rod to empower the quickened fireball rather than assuming the intent of the rule was to be outright broken.

Going in assuming that the game is supposed to work rather than assuming the most pedantic interpretation of the rule text is right seems to work a lot better for me. Maybe you should try it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
GM Rednal wrote:
That sounds about right, Claxon. It's kind of a weird corner case. ...Though, I'm not sure why you couldn't just take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword and use it two-handed anyway... XD I mean, if you're proficient in the weapon to begin with, it shouldn't matter if you're one-handing or two-handing it...

Welcome to the silliness of the bastard sword and its exotic proficiency - something that exists entirely to keep the bastard sword from being a dominant strategy over the long sword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Nicos wrote:
amethal wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Protection from evil to seal an unholy pact with a devil prince?, a good act in the multiverse.

I think you might be missing the point a bit here.

Effectively they are (at least) two acts. One is good and the other is evil.

Well, yeah, you are right, Just cast the spell five more time and we are cool. A good thing that the spell level don't count for those rules.
The assumption that all acts are equal is false, just FYI.
The rule is there, cast several times a good spell and you are good. Don't be dishonest.

If you want to be honest, then don't ignore the rest of the sidebar that presents mitigating factors.

Frankly, I thought things were going well with that sidebar until they included specific numbers of spells cast that could cause a 180 on alignment and be counted on one hand. Numbers that low are pretty much ridiculous.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

You can also check Base Attack Bonus in the glossary on page 11 of the Core Rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

There are some definite challenges and frustrations that can come with small melee characters (or any martial characters, really). The typical -2 to strength, and lower die size for smaller weapons will be noticed but so will the typical -10 ft movement rate. All three of those factors can frustrate a player who doesn't give them some thought and that's why I make sure players are aware of those limitations when I GM and they are looking at small PCs.

I don't have a problem with small characters in general - heck, I play a halfling paladin in PFS. But even I feel a little frustrated to effectively be -2 on all melee damage, all other things being held equal. And some skill checks will be trouble too with lower strength and, particularly for jumps, lowered movement. Some players really can't handle that bit of frustration, even though it's not exactly a huge issue. They should be advised away from small melee characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

There is no hard and fast rule to this. Some people are ready to GM right away, some are never ready. As long as you have a willingness to give it a try, the flexibility to experiment, the forgiveness of friends for the inevitable mistakes (they will happen, that's OK), and the time - I'd say go for it.

As Hmm points out, start simple. PF is well suited for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The thing is... Carol Danvers is like Wolverine... she's a veteran in both the superhero world, and in the old-school black ops world as well. I'd prefer an actress that reflects that maturity.

She's also older school Women's Lib so she always seems a bit more contemporary with that era to me. I have nothing against Brie Larson, but a woman with a little more mileage would fit my preference better - some one like Lena Heady.

But I figure they're going with someone more coming into their prime and having an origin story. I can see why they'd prefer that. Just hope they keep some Mar-Vell connection


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

One issue with the law vs chaos divide is that behavior may not appear all that different between lawful and chaotic characters in the short run. They just have different worldviews that drive how they look at situations and rationalize how they behave. This can make things pretty murky, particularly for newer players or ones who don't have as much time on their hands to mull over this crap as I do.

So I try to provide a bit more oomph to what it means to be lawful or chaotic. I tell people to think more along the lines of collective vs individual when looking at lawful vs chaotic. Lawful characters see themselves fitting into collectives as important pieces of the machine of society (or pieces of the puzzle, whatever metaphor turns you on) by their nature. Chaotic characters think of themselves as unique individuals and, if they fit into society (which they can), it's not by nature, it's by choice.
And it's not just any single society for either of these questions. It's a bunch - nation, ethnic group, religion, guild, company, order, whatever. As someone who is a part of these societies by nature, the lawful character tries to conform to the expectations of all of the societies they belong to - prioritizing competing expectations only when they need to. Those instances may be difficult, but conformity is otherwise relatively easy on the psychology. The chaotic character picks and chooses which tenets of which societies they will follow - this irons out many of the internal philosophical conflicts a chaotic individual might face, but lead to more outward conflict as they buck traditions and expectations they don't like.

Once I define things that way, I have no problem seeing paladins in Cheliax, paladins as Hellknights, and paladins living alongside slave owners. They may be good and belong to the Church of Iomedae, but they're also Chelaxians and don't trust willfully disrespectful and unreliable Andoranians. I also have no problem with chaotic characters following consistent codes of behavior - they're just idiosyncratic codes of behavior - suitable to themselves. This is also why Batman is Chaotic Good, not Lawful. He does things HIS way, not the way everyone expects him to behave (that's LG Superman).

Once I put things in those terms, lawful and chaotic are a lot easier to deal with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Mulgar wrote:

Why all the hate for what they are doing? It's legal, well it is now with the changes made in this thread.

They are doing it because they want to.

And quite simply it isn't for us to judge. What they are doing is legal, let them go have fun.

While I don't think I'd call it hating, I think there's plenty of dog-piling going on here. The criticism of his plan been made, the OP is doing his thing with his players, let it drop.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Alternative viewpoint: Summon nature's ally and the animal companion are powers granted by nature to its ally, the druid, to be used to protect the life of that druid and not be eschewed because of some human moral consideration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Trade-offs are a good thing. This game needs more characters with abilities based on multiple attributes, not less of it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Feats like power attack don't bother me at all. Sure, a player could say that they'd like to swing wildly to get the same result, but I don't think I'd agree that simply stating that desire should generate benefits without investment. They simply don't have the developed ability to make consistent and predictable use of that ability - their otherwise untrained attempts being adequately covered by variance in damage due to rolled dice.

It's the feats like Call Truce that I find more concerning since they put a defined mechanic to an otherwise undefined event that any number of GMs could and would adjudicate differently for any number of reasons. If I have a player in my group with that feat, it puts pressure on me to make untrained attempts at doing the same worse in some way so that the feat is worth the PC's investment. But given my instincts as a GM, I don't think I'd make parleying any more difficult (or less binding in the result) than the feat does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
swoosh wrote:

I've been mulling over a few ideas for switch hitting characters lately and I've been kind of stunned at how incredibly hard it is to build someone who can use two or more weapon styles effectively.

Even with access to fighter bonus feats or ranger styles or something similar it still takes quite a while to get online and you still end up hitting some sort of roadblock eventually. With a rogue or investigator or cavalier or barbarian or swashbuckler or something else I've decided it's more or less a lost cause to even try.

This seems really weird, especially given how common the concept of someone with two or more fighting styles is in fiction.

It really seems unnecessary.

Is this a question about being "effective" or "optimized"? I don't find it that hard to be effective with a couple of styles, but lots of people have differing definitions of effective.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I don't directly penalize lack of role playing - I do, however, reward role playing. Good role playing tends to make task DCs a bit easier because I have more information to base my adjudications on. Backstories and thought-out motivations give me more opportunities to engage the player via that PC's connections and motivations.

Players who don't role play miss out on those opportunities and benefits. If they're OK with that, I don't have much of a problem with them. But I generally don't stop trying to draw them out a bit more.

And for my purposes, role playing isn't synonymous with acting or the craft of thespianship. That's a subset. It's more about playing the PC with the PC's distinct character in mind. It could be all in the 3rd person as far as I care.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll leave any refreshing baths to yourselves and we can pick up with further investigations - or any other plans you want to pursue...

A bit on the alleged murder site:
Eodred's Walk is a row of shops along one of the streets that helps define the Gold Market, the largest open market in Korvosa. Along its run are:

Aram's Crown - a small tavern that sells weak beer and wine for the market crowd but breaks out stronger spirits after sunset
Basha's - a small book and map store
Doom and Gloom - an old Varisian woman who gives Harrow readings
Galloping Ghost - tack and harness store
Gemshare Jewelers - gem/jewel sellers (and resellers)
Hedge Wizardry - magical supply shop
High Bridge Haberdashery - more than just hats, also clothing shop
Kep's - fishmonger
Fair-Fished Baitshop - fishing supplies
Pinking Shears - barbershop
Slicing Dicers - bladed weapons
Smoked Foods - smoked meats and cheeses
Time Stop - clocks and watches
Trapper's Hole - hunting, particularly archery, equipment


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:


Usually when the rules don't mention something, it is because it is not allowed (though I'm not of the opinion that this is an absolute as some things would fail common sense - dead characters taking actions).

That is utter and complete BS in role playing games. If something isn't mentioned, it's because RPG rules cannot, literally cannot, cover everything that can possibly happen in a game. This is why we have referees who can adjudicate cases that come up that aren't in the rules but fit the genre or make sense to the situation at hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

You, the parents, and everyone who knew the li'l fella have my sympathies. I'm a parent of 2 kids and I can imagine the pain you're all feeling.

My suggestion: Scrapbook that character portfolio along with some photos to make a nice book of memories for the parents. Do it soon so it doesn't hang out there as an unfinished project and so the parents can have it as they work through their grief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Neither does the new Jingasa. Because you probably used it on the greataxe wielding cyclops a few levels back.

*shrugs*

Sell the old one, buy the new one. Do the same thing with scrolls and potions and other 1 use Wondrous Items.

A helmet is a bit of the wrong vehicle for a one-use magic item - a small charm of some sort would be much more fitting. I think a +1 luck bonus to AC would have still made for a much more flavorful item than the jingasa is now. While several of the fixes were, I think, good in coming, the jingasa is really a useless wreck of wrong design now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Blue Moose wrote:
Well, I have 100 of these in a variety of colors from the Kickstarter. Completely removed all the cubes from my dicebag.

I did something similar to replace my d4s.

12-sided d4

Reading them is a bit more intuitable than a tetrahedral d4. And they don't turn into caltrops if the cat knocks them to the floor in the middle of the night.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

On the one hand, I think every responder is in 100% agreement that yes, a ghoul can CdG with its claws.

On the other hand, being a pedant, I'd like to keep hammering away at the point: The rules make a very clear distinction between "natural weapons" and other types of weapons, not only in my quote cited above, but in spells like Magic Weapon (does not work on natural weapons) and Magic Fang (only works on natural weapons).

So the notion that natural weapon = melee weapon is not supported anywhere in the PRD. Note that Protoman's post only proves that a natural weapon is a melee attack, not necessarily a melee weapon.

Yes, I agree the statement should be true, but I haven't been able to find any concrete statement that it is.

Is it referred to as a weapon (as in "natural weapon")? Is it used in melee? Then as far as I'm concerned weapon + melee = melee weapon. That's so obvious to me that the explicit "natural weapon = melee weapon" is unnecessary. Weapon + melee = melee weapon.

It's only the persistence of the term "natural attack" without using the term weapon that, I think, should give any pause here. But since natural weapon is explicitly used in some places like Magic Fang, I think it's pretty clear that natural attack = natural weapon.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
swoosh wrote:
Harleequin wrote:
I have only been playing PF for a short period of time but one of the things that I find most astounding is the staggering ingratitude shown towards GMs
You're playing a game. For fun. Why the hell do you need gratitude? That's pretty damn pretentious.

Oh, you know, to honor regular old human decency when someone puts in extra effort for the enjoyment of all...

Fortunately, my players are pretty good about it. They're all long-term players and/or GMs and know and honor the work that goes into the process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Communication may be a free action, but free actions are generally considered to be available to a character as it takes its turn. I'd treat them differently for perception rolls to avoid surprises. For other cases, like actively searching an area, I'd have one rolling to aid the other.
I don't think treating the summoner as if his perception checks are "take two and keep higher" would be appropriate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"NO! NO! You're looking for a reason to fight them! And I don't want any fighting over me!" she sobs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sheriff Hemlock regards Ahdak coldly and assessingly then, apparently satisfied with whatever he found, gives a slight nod. "Go see Father Zantus at the cathedral. He will put you to use where he thinks you will do the most good."

Meanwhile, under Karl's stern interrogation, multiple goblins speak up, all talking over each other, to answer his question why they attacked the town. "Food. Loot. Burning. Food. Dead dogs, huh huh. Food. Shiny. Silver. Humans is jerks. You is jerk. No, you is jerk!" and though shackled, they jostle with each other in a quarrelsome manner, each trying to make sure his answer is the one Karl is listening to. The one most under Karl's blade, however, shouts over the others, "Shut up!" Then he grins, "Longshanks give orders. Scarbelly say we listen to Mopeyman. Mopeyman send goblins at town while he go to boneyard."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
GM_Beernorg wrote:
(she was a LG marshal (3.5 convert class)/psychic warrior, did not like being told to hang up her sword and find a man)

Who told your character to do this? Even in the write up in which Erastil is a bit of a male chauvinist, this isn't a necessary outcome. If this is the outcome presented to you, someone was reading way more hostility into it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It's also a fantasy world, which means we're not necessarily dealing with humans. Different species can have different psychologies and respond differently to such pressures or even have completely different gender divides or even genders for that matter.
True but since we have very limited to no experience with non-human sapience, we generally characterize these races with caricatures of human behavior.

True, but taking a shot at developing or working with a race with different gender psychologies can be a lot of fun. Back on Traveller's Aslan example, one of the really fun aspects of their gender divide is how that spills over into how they deal with other races and cultures. A human male working in a technical or financial field will be assumed to be female by the Aslan because, to them, those are female jobs. That's a fun one to spring on your male players with engineer or steward PCs.

Traveller writers did some pretty awesome development of alien races over the years (one of my favorites being the K'Kree). Though most of them don't really address this topic quite like the Aslan do, I'd recommend people check out any resources you stumble on about the K'Kree, Vargr, Aslan, Droyne, and Hivers. Even the other human cultures (Zhodani and Vilani) have some nice ideas to them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Jessica Price wrote:


I'm unclear as to why anyone would think that men's opinions on women in gaming groups are relevant or needed.

Maybe you should take that up with the OP. She's the one who asked us.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

And the adamantine golem isn't even made of pure adamantine, merely some small fraction of its total mass. That's exactly like arguing my sword's blade is made of adamantine, gold, mithral, and platinum, so I get DR/Adamatine because I say it's the same as a true adamantine weapon. It doesn't have the Cannon Golem's language, so it doesn't get the ability.

Exactly like arguing the blade is made of multiple materials? I'd quibble that. More like the adamantine sword has gold and platinum inlays and mithral wire on the hilt. The business part is adamantine. The question is, does it make sense for the business end or the outer shell of the adamantine golem to be adamantine? For my money it does, hence the name rather than some-other-material golem as well as its DR which was clearly envisioned as better than adamantine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:

It is a serious question because it is a major sign of an overly controlling GM. And they do not want players, they want an audience to ooh and ah at their amazing story.

Also, what makes you, or any other GM, more immune to metagaming than the players? Don't say that it is not metagaming when the GM does it, because that is a bald faced lie. GMs may not do it with skill checks, but they do it with PC abilities and tactics.

So? You have to realize the GM isn't simply a player. He's also part of the system and above the system at the same time. His role is very different from the players' roles.

Ultimately, assuming fair dice all around, there's no systematic or functional difference between the player rolling and the GM rolling in secret (barring optional rules like hero points or certain feats that allow rerolls and suggest the player knows the outcome on the dice). I've run and participated in online games in which the GM handled all rolls. In those cases, the gameplay can be considerably streamlined by doing do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Sooooo, if I played a campaign where the communities were nomadic bands on a huge plain... With no other settlements available... WITHOUT surprising anyone with this... Could I possibly be playing Pathfinder anyway? Or am I playing some other game? More generally, what could be removed from the game before I was not playing PF? Bags of holding? Orcs? Elves? Wayang? Dorn-dergar? Falcatas? Or would removing the possibility of having bags of holding make it impossible to play PF, even if everything else remains? Would it change anything if the campaign played out in a massive extradimensional space, meaning bags of holding do not work by the rules?

If you're using the Pathfinder rules, even a subset of the rules because of campaign-based environments, you're playing Pathfinder. Full stop.

Humans only campaign using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.
Dwarven wizard only campaign using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.
Roman Legion-inspired game with extremely limited magic using the PF mechanics? Pathfinder game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Probably very little. The common tongue on Golarion is Taldane because Taldor dominated so much of the terrain and was a major economic and political power. I would expect undercommon to reflect a similar arrangement for deeper races and be based on the language of the most dominant culture.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Well, you know, phenomenal cosmic power has to come with some price now and again - and the difficulty in subtlety is one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Ultimately, the fix is even more trivial when you realize that you shouldn't be making someone roll to spot a siege engine being assembled out in the open. That's not really a fine detail nor a situation in which the outcome should be in question and subject to a roll. Save that sort of thing for when you're asking for genuine fine details like trying to spot whose livery the crew or crew leader is wearing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Even in the modern world, inheritance is held up for months to allow creditors to come forward and make their claims on the estate. It wouldn't be a stretch to see the authorities doing something similar with respect to raising the dead. They'd just hold off on allowing the heirs to take over the property (or rights, or whatever) until a reasonable period has passed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Whenever comments about being unable to see the sun/moon/lighthouse or the economic benefits of using a major creation spell vs crafting something or, really, anything along these lines intended to make the simulative aspects of the rules look like a joke - I write it off as someone using the rules in ways they aren't intended to be used. These are RPG rules - they're not economic or physics simulators. They're designed to operationalize things players want their PCs to do with reasonable nods to how we understand things to work in the real world crossed with how they work in inspirational fantasy sources ranging from books to movies and further crossed with compromises made to facilitate the usability and flow of the game. Using them to simulate an economy or determine if someone can see the sun are about as useful as using a skunk do your taxes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I had canceled my subscription just before this publication. I had planned on getting it all along - just as a PDF to save some cost. But now, curses, I must wait to get it compared to when I too had been a subscriber!


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
zainale wrote:
why isn't there more maxed leveled cross classing elves? humans learn fast. but it takes the same amount of exp for a human and an elf to lvl up in a class. elves live like 5 life times of that of a human to get to retirement. i am sure with the amount of years an elf has he or she can get to lvl 20 many times. and taking wizardry or barddom out of boredom in their old age to pass the time.

Because the NPCs in a campaign don't live under PC rules when it comes to XPs and leveling up. It's as simple as that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'm OK with that Karl.

I'm willing to allow other people rebuilds during 1st level as they feel out their characters. Not every character works as well in play as we envision.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


Maybe the problem isn't the optimizer, but the lack of investiture of the other players. I've found that some peoples' level of interest in the game just isn't as high as others--and this invariably effects the power level of their characters.

The other players may not be as invested in delving into the rules and developing power builds, but that doesn't make them "the problem". The problem is clashing styles and not enough effort put toward convergence. And, unfortunately for the power gamer, the onus is generally on the oddball to conform to the group rather than have the group conform to the oddball.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Aosrax wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Is the ranger players one of the experienced players or new? And if experienced, what games has he played? There are some games a bit more player-oriented when it comes to some if these narrative outcomes. He may be projecting that onto the game you're running, though it clashes with your GM style.

He's one of the new players. The two experienced are the two magic users.

My suggestion is to encourage him to relax on the mechanics and focus on what his character is trying to do from an in-character perspective, letting you, as the GM, fit the mechanics to the situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, we can throwing more suggestions at the wall, but if you want to keep playing Wednesday as a less miserable character - you're going to have to let at least one of them stick. I know it's only been a couple of suggestions so far, but you've been pretty quick to dismiss them and that's giving me a vibe that you're resistant to changing him or putting too much emphasis on what's "in character" for him - when the point is to change that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tormsskull wrote:


How do you view leveling up?

From an in-game perspective, I view leveling up as nothing at all significant. It's just the game mechanical abstraction of a character's continual improvement administered in discrete chunks for convenience and easy of use.

And if a PC picks up a new class, I prefer it if a player telegraphs their intention so it's easier to meld it into the story of the character's development.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I have people role play first too because I like to modify their result based on what they said, how they said it, and whether they had a particularly good approach. And in this case, for players who are shy or not good at acting, third person descriptions also count. I'm looking mostly for effort and thoughtfulness, not thespianism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
That makes sense, this sounded like one of those classic Paizo rulings (complete with SKR acting superior to most other game designers). I'll probably keep the 3.5 ruling, I honestly thought this hands of effort thing was never FAQed and that the "exchange any weapon in iterative attacks" FAQ covered it.

You're going to get some funky results and a house rule/interpretation either way, I'd use caution before throwing it out. Pathfinders slew of non hand occupying weapons at least have been released with the idea that you can't Glaive guisarm armored spike boot blade dwarven helmet and barbazu beard all together.

You could say that there's no given attack routine for that many hands, but there isn't anything against it either.

For my money, that issue would have been better fended off by saying that TWF allows one extra attack (subject to more advanced TWF feats) as long as the character has some appropriate weapon in play - be it a barbazu beard, a spiked helmet, boot spike, armor spikes, or an unarmed strike. Then you wouldn't have to go through the BS invocation of unwritten, undiscoverable rules like "hands of effort".

1 to 50 of 691 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.