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

Darksol the Painbringer's page

2,593 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,593 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Coriat wrote:

The general rule cited above states that when you are restricted to taking only a single standard or a single move action, you can still take swift or free actions as normal.

Being nauseated restricts you to only a single move action.

Specific overrules general is a principle to apply when two rules disagree, but I don't actually see where the second rule is supposed to be in disagreement with the first, much less specifically overrule it. The second rule merely provides one of the circumstances to which the first rule applies.

Unless we're talking about the certain types of free and swift actions that nauseated does specifically address - e.g. spellcasting - in which case yes, the specific nausea rules about those types of free or swift actions would overrule the general allowance of free and swift actions.

In the general case of being limited to a Standard or Move Action, you can take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions as normal, and you're correct.

But, "only" is a much more limiting factor when it comes to the Nauseated condition. When it says "The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn," the specifics of the Nauseated condition, which say you get the move action, and nothing else because it otherwise breaks this rule, supersedes the general rules given for restricted activity, which say you can take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions as normal.

That's basically a step-up from, other than the can take a single move action, the Helpless condition.

Josh-o-Lantern wrote:
What about Produce Flame? You are clearly wielding magic at that point. Not a ray, but just throwing that out there. Also, are there ray spells you can do over several rounds similar to the above spell? I recall a few touch spells that do this (Rusting Grasp), but I don't know any rays off hand.

A fair enough proposition. It's no different than having Chill Touch active to threaten, since it is an "armed" unarmed attack. However, it still falls under the Fighter Weapon Group fallacy; although it would be considered in the Thrown weapon group (since the spell calls it out as a thrown weapon), it's not actually defined as being in that group. One glaring problem I don't understand is how such a spell interacts with the whole "Holding the Charge" rules for Ranged Touch Attacks, since it can be expelled as both a Touch and Ranged Touch.

Fighter Weapon Training in that specific group would apply its benefits to the spell, but effects like Weapon Focus/Specialization would fall under the same propositions as Weapon Focus (Ray), in that unless the attack being made is with a Ray, it won't work. I don't even think an effect like Produce Flame would be viable for choice with Weapon Focus/Specialization feats. Maybe Weapon Focus (Touch), but whether that applies to Ranged Touch separately is a whole different issue.

Of course, if you were Human, took Weapon Focus [random Thrown weapon], and then took Martial Versatility/Mastery, the benefits of those feats would then apply to Produce Flame, since it technically falls under the Thrown Weapon Group (but again, it's not explicitly defined there, so it is at best a RAI interpretation).

Ipslore the Red wrote:
Rays have been stated to be a valid selection for Weapon Focus

Yes, they are valid for Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, as that's specifically pointed out. But they aren't cited in the Fighter Weapon Groups, ergo it's not exactly a weapon. It's the same reasoning as to why people don't use Vital Strike when it comes to touch attack spells.

and the Snap Shot line of feats lets you use a ranged weapon for an AoO.

Snap Shot states that its effects work "when wielding a ranged weapon," so this fails on two accounts now; the fact that it's not an actual weapon, as defined in the Fighter Weapon Groups, and that ranged touch spells cannot be "wielded," since they are discharged the moment the free attack is made.

It seems to follow that selecting Weapon Focus (Ray) and then Snap Shot would allow you to cast a ray spell as an AoO within your minuscule threatened area.

Maybe if you had a Ray-like effect that was usable as a constant ranged attack (such as like from a Lantern Archon, fused or otherwise), you might have a point. But that is few and far between, if at all existing. Outside that, I don't think there is a single Ray spell that actually performs what you want to do, meaning your goal is impossible outside of homebrew; in which case, why are you asking in the Rules Question sub-forum?

Making one attack is a standard action, and casting one ray spell is usually a standard action. It seems to fit.

So is drinking a potion, rummaging through your bags, performing certain combat maneuvers, etc. Why not just let players use that for attacks of opportunity also while we're at it? If you're going to break the intent for one activity, it'd only make sense to break it for all of them.

And would Combat Reflexes allow you to cast multiple spells for multiple AoOs?

That is some capstone-level class features right there; no, probably even higher than that. Not even the Mystic Theurge prestige class capstone or Quicken Spell feats, two of the most powerful action-economy spell-use abilities in the game, have that power, and they are pretty limiting/resource intensive as it is. Throwing this sort of game-changing power out there is absolutely ridiculous. I'm surprised the Bloodrager or Arcanist don't have these sorts of features available to them...

Do you wield your rays only when you cast it, or whenever you might be capable of casting it? You could argue that they only exist when they're cast, or you could argue that you wield an ordinary weapon even when you're not swinging it.

RAW, the bolded part is enforced, no questions asked, based on two rules accounts: Firstly, Ranged Touch Attacks are discharged immediately when they are cast and they cannot be held for any reason. Secondly, spells with a duration of Instantaneous occur, at best, within the action of the PC in question, and once the action is done, so too is the spell effect, meaning once the spell is cast and the attack is made, the effect is gone, and so too is the PC's ability to "wield" the weapon.

Additionally, since the Ray is not an actual object (it's an effect created from a spell, things that aren't always objects), which is even more proof as to why it's not a valid choice for subjects like Vital Strike, it's also required to be able to threaten squares prior to the provocation taking place. Of course, assuming you can supersede the whole "holding the charge on ranged touch attacks" issue, something which PCs have no capability to do. (Monsters certainly could though, if built right.)

N N 959 wrote:
PFS would rather have everyone subject to the same bad rule, then let GMs try to fix it on an individual basis.

I already understood that PFS uses its own chassis to be self-reliant, and that it has to be consistent in regards to providing a universal experience for all players. But as you said before that, Pathfinder is filled with weird outcomes, meaning consistency is a lot more scarce the more cornercase the situations become, and to be honest, the OP's scenario is one of the fold, and breaking it down, we get to the core of the inconsistency: the spelled out limitations of the Nauseated condition from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, and to what exactly it all entails.

I understand PFS has limitations built in to satisfy their expectations they have set for their organized activities. But I'm more focused on the reasoning behind some of those limitations, and analyzing their reasoning in regards to, what I personally believe is, hypocrisy on their behalf, since a lot of their limitations, especially in regards to the Quick Runner's Shirt and Divine Protection feat, is one of their methods to curve power creep.

The bolded part, I find, is not an acceptable excuse to promote badly written rules for both the PFS chassis, as well as the RAW of Pathfinder; these excuses that create un-fun scenarios for their players, something which I am almost certain, does not fall under what the creators of PFS had intended, nor the desires of those who wish to participate in PFS gameplay.

I will reiterate my point: I'm not saying that Joe the Lone Ranger should get a free pass because he's just an average character; that is an individual basis, and is not what I'm getting at. I'm saying the ramifications of the Nauseated condition is the issue here, because as it's written, you cannot do what I stated before, which is dig through your bags, drink potions, drop items, use swift-action class abilities, and several others, which, logically and realistically speaking, should be doable.

N N 959 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
But you see the point I make when I say that is yet another reason why PFS gameplay causes badwrongfun in unintended mannerisms, and why having zero flexibility in how a condition is ran in regards to certain situations is the only reason why this badwrongfun exists, thanks to the rules of PFS gameplay that the GMs and such follow/establish, without double-taking it and thinking "Well, that makes no sense to how it should affect the game entities, I'll just run it as X."

Let's pretend your analysis is correct and we have some weird outcome. Pathfinder is filled with weird outcomes. There are thousands of pages of discussion in this forum alone with people debating the correctness of any particular clearly written rule.

The promise of PFS isn't to make sure that the rules are robust or satisfy every GM's idea of correctness. The promise of PFS is that the games are fair. PFS creates an environment where I can take the same character from GM to GM, from scenario to scenario, and expect the same application of the unambiguous rules. There is no absolutely no substitute for this outside of PFS on the global scale that PFS operates.

What you fail to comprehend is that every GM, if given the opportunity, would start changing whatever rule they deem to be at odds with their notion of what is right and proper. That means that every time I sit down at a table, I have no idea what is going to be allowed or what is going to be denied, simply because the current GM thinks they are smarter than the men and women who wrote the games.

Before PFS, I played homebrew games...and I hated it. GMs constantly want to reinvent the game. Or, they don't understand the rules as written and won't listen to any voice that's not their own. I have yet to play in a homebrew game where a GM didn't want to change an unambiguous rule...for whatever reason. PFS eliminates that headache. PFS is godsend for those of use who play-by-post because we have time to...

I wouldn't make the proposition that the games are "fair." Pathfinder, going by the number crunching, has resulted in several currently-written classes, such as the Rogue, Fighter, and core Monk, being significantly weaker than other classes that Paizo themselves have released. It's much more correct to say that PFS "follows the design values of Paizo," since a lot of what Paizo publishes throws balance out the window. Although PFS tries to regulate balance by banning certain content, i.e. QRS and DP, it falls short when it comes to conditions like Nauseated functioning the way the OP says it does in PFS. And you can't do anything for yourself about it.

You can't drink a potion to remove that condition, you can't dig through items in your bags to find something to remove the condition, you can't even use class features that don't take standard actions to remove the condition on your own (Paladins primarily, though I think they're immune to sickness and such at a certain point). You're basically forced to do nothing but run away, and while that can be a viable tactic in some scenarios, if it's a fight you can't really escape from, you're basically dead(weight).

That condition, certainly outweighs the capabilities of what a QRS or DP feat could possibly do. So it doesn't make sense to say it's meant to be a "fair" game.

Dave Justus wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

Of course you can drip your weapon. There is always the manipulate an object move equivalent that, among other things, would include the dropping of a weapon. Usually you wouldn't use it for that, because you could just choose to use the free drop a weapon action, but since you can't take free actions, you might in this circumstance.

From the PRD:

Manipulating an Item wrote:

Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.

This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Actions in Combat.

It's not always a move-equivalent. Usually it is, but the type of manipulation (in this case, drop an item, of which a weapon is,) is pre-defined in the table. Since the drop an item, a type of manipulation regarding an item, is a free action, RAW he can't do it.

Good effort trying to weasel it in, but the RAW clearly says otherwise.

Fine. I will use the manipulate an object action as a move to place my sword on the floor instead of dropping it. You quite clearly can get the sword out of your hand. You also quite clearly can't do it as a free action (and hence be able to do anything else that round.)

You are clearly trying to make RAW not make sense, rather than making any effort at all to make sense of RAW.

Show me where the bolded is in the action table and I will concede my point. Except it's not in the action table, meaning it's not a valid action to take, simply because the multiple methods of manipulating an item do not all share the same action type needed to take, that's both the RAW and the RAI.

We can do this dance all day, and you can sit there and say I'm twisting RAW all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that RAW not only supports what I'm saying, which may in fact be stupid. And I agree with you: Realistically speaking, it's stupid and makes no sense to enforce that ruling.

But you see the point I make when I say that is yet another reason why PFS gameplay causes badwrongfun in unintended mannerisms, and why having zero flexibility in how a condition is ran in regards to certain situations is the only reason why this badwrongfun exists, thanks to the rules of PFS gameplay that the GMs and such follow/establish, without double-taking it and thinking "Well, that makes no sense to how it should affect the game entities, I'll just run it as X."

My apologies on the Sonic damage.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

1) It isn't needed because everything that would encompass Energy Resistance (All) already exists.

2) It's overpowered because a single ability that gives a flat reduction to all different types of energy, including types that don't really HAVE a resistance against them, is way broader than DR/-, and any creature that had such an ability would have a MAJOR CR bump due to how bulky it would be.


What you're not realizing is that there are only 3 different types of physical damage - Slashing, Piercing, and Bludgeoning... well, 5 technically (Falling and Crushing).

DR(n)/- isn't too awful because it's usually kept relatively low, AND because Energy damage of all types still gets through. DR(n)/(type) is often much higher, because only 2 of the 3 different types of physical damage are resisted, plus all energy damage gets through.

On the flip-side, resisting all types of damage BUT three is an extraordinarily powerful ability. One ability makes something resistant to NINE of the 12 types of damage. Give that thing levels in Barbarian and/or Adamantine Armor, and suddenly it resists ALL types of damage, and that is something that becomes pretty darn hard to kill.

Making something resistant to the 4 Elemental Energies isn't too powerful, however, since Force, Positive/Negative, Sonic, and Typeless energy still work. It's still very powerful to have Res against all 4 elements, but it's not completely game breaking.


And, again, Fire Resistance, Acid Resistance, Cold Resistance, and Electric Resistance all already exist. An ability which combines all four creates a few rules questions. How does it interact with things that make mention of Energy Resistance (type): if an ability increases Fire Resistance by 5, would it also increase the amount of Energy Resistance (All) by 5 total, would it only increase the fire quality, or would it not work at all because Resistance (Fire) is not RAW the same as Resistance (All), etc.

You cited the ones that you found, and I stated that the ones you found can either still be bypassed by one of the same (in the case of Spell Resistance/Immunity), or that it's selective in its choice, and doesn't encompass everything like you claim it does (Elemental Resistance/Immunity).

Additionally, a lot of those subjects that were cited usually fall under the conversion rules of Hardness, in that it cuts whatever damage in half instead of reducing by a set amount like Damage Reduction and Resistance does. On top of that, Damage Reduction applies to more than just damage type. Alignment and Material damage reduction (or even item-specific requirements, like the pre-errata Epic, Vorpal property for the Jabbawock, etc.) are also valid qualifiers for Damage Reduction. DR covers a lot more than you think it does, and is not limited to the simple Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing that you cite.

Quite frankly, throwing a creature that's resistant or immune to all energy damage is an end-game encounter that can probably result in a TPK if the party isn't geared towards it. Such, as you said, is powerful, but also rare, since, you must also consider what else would have that sort of power? Not much, if anything, as evidenced by the lack of content associated with it. After all, the only concept in the PF ruleset that comes close to a Resistance/All mechanic would be each of the Prismatic spells (barring Prismatic Spray, I believe, but even then).

As for the stacking, it's simple, as the answer also lies in the Damage Reduction rules. For example, creatures that have DR 5/Silver and DR/5 Good would count as having DR 5/Silver and Good (or DR 5/Silver or Good, depending on difficulty; most things that low CR would use the or, whereas higher CR creatures would use and). As far as, for example, a DR 10/Adamantine and DR 5/- combo would go, if a creature is not using an Adamantine (or +4) weapon, it would reduce damage by 10. If a creature does meet the DR/Adamantine requirement, it would still be reduced by 5.

In this case, if a creature has Resistance 10/Fire and Resistance 5/All, an enemy that deals Fire damage would have its damage reduced by 10, whereas a creature that deals Cold damage would have its damage reduced by 5.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

If you want an example of Resistance 5 (All), then Aasimars and Solars have basically that.

An Aasimar has Acid, Cold, and Electricity Resistance 5, and with a feat can gain Fire Resistance 5. That's pretty darn strong, but giving it Negative Resistance 5, Force Resistance 5, etc. would make it shrug off most spells that damage.

A Solar, as well, has Acid & Cold immunity, and Fire and electricity 10. Needless to say, it's REALLY solid.

Also, there are materials and abilities which can bypass forms of Resistance as well - how those would react with Resistance (All) is... questionable, at best.

Is Resistance (All) identical as Fire Resistance, or is it separate? Does something that overrides Fire Res then bypass Res (All) as well? It's easier to just straight-out separate them into different abilities, or make it unique to a certain monster, like how the Tarrasque is unique among monsters with how impossibly hard it is to kill.

I don't see how the rules for Damage Reduction can't be extrapolated and thrown into the same light for resistances, where having two separate resistance types would stack together in that you need both (or in the case of resistance, affects both). With that same token, if DR/- applies to all physical attacks, then Resistance/All should apply to all energy damage.

The known energy damage categories are Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, Force, Negative and Positive. Resistance/All would apply to each of those energy categories equally. If a creature has Resistance 5/All, then whenever it is hit by any of those energy damage categories, its damage is 5 less, the same way that a creature that has DR 5/-, whenever it is hit by any physical attack, its damage is 5 less.

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Self-explanatory question and discussion. I'm surprised about the several ways one can acquire DR/-, but there are zero abilities, feats, class features, spells, etc. that grant an effect akin to Resistance/All.

Is it because a Resistance/All effect would be too powerful? Is it because no content in the history of Pathfinder ever considered such a concept? Is it because the concept itself cannot be properly displayed (for example, any of the Prismatic spells I find would constitute effects related to Resistance/All)?

So, what's the deal here?


People misunderstood my question, so I rephrased it.

Okay, so your idea is what I thought it was.

Because there are way too many types of energy, it doesn't make sense thematically, really, and is kinda too nuts.

DR(n)/- is fine because it only hits physical damage - all types of elemental damage gets through, so spells and even things like a +1 Flaming Longsword, for example, still do damage. The other way around is nuts.

There's Elemental Immunity, Elemental Resistance, Spell Resistance, and Immunities out the wazoo.

There basically isn't a need to Omni-Resistance X

Spell Resistance only applies to certain spells that say they need to pass a Spell Resistance DC. Some spells that are actually spells can still work on enemies that have Spell Resistance/Immunity, i.e. Constructs. Additionally, not all energy-based effects come from spells; Supernatural abilities, Extraordinary abilities, or even simple effects from creatures or the mundane world, like torches, can create "energy damage".

Elemental Resistance and Immunity are special qualities that either reduce certain effects by 50% or negate them entirely, the same that Elemental Vulnerability increases certain effects by 50%, and those are specified to the creature.

Taking your +1 Flaming Longsword concept, and turning it into a dual wield character with a +1 Cold X (doesn't really matter what the other weapon is), a Fire Elemental with Fire Immunity would not be affected by the Longsword's fire damage, though the Longsword's base damage still goes through. It's a two-way street. Saying "it's overpowered" or "isn't needed" is silly when they both function as semi trucks with two completely different supply hauls. By that same logic, DR/- isn't needed either, since there are so many other effects that reduce damage.

Self-explanatory question and discussion. I'm surprised about the several ways one can acquire DR/-, but there are zero abilities, feats, class features, spells, etc. that grant an effect akin to Resistance/All.

Is it because a Resistance/All effect would be too powerful? Is it because no content in the history of Pathfinder ever considered such a concept? Is it because the concept itself cannot be properly displayed (for example, any of the Prismatic spells I find would constitute effects related to Resistance/All)?

So, what's the deal here?


People misunderstood my question, so I rephrased it.

Dave Justus wrote:
voideternal wrote:
Daneel wrote:
so while Nauseated I can pick up my weapon off the ground (move) but I can't drop it (free) ... I can stand up from prone (move) but I can't drop prone

Wow, re-reading Core, it seems like RAW supports this statement.

... My common sense is screaming to me, "NO!"

Please, somebody, prove me wrong. I really don't like what RAW is telling me.

Of course you can drip your weapon. There is always the manipulate an object move equivalent that, among other things, would include the dropping of a weapon. Usually you wouldn't use it for that, because you could just choose to use the free drop a weapon action, but since you can't take free actions, you might in this circumstance.

From the PRD:

Manipulating an Item wrote:

Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.

This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Actions in Combat.

It's not always a move-equivalent. Usually it is, but the type of manipulation (in this case, drop an item, of which a weapon is,) is pre-defined in the table. Since the drop an item, a type of manipulation regarding an item, is a free action, RAW he can't do it.

Good effort trying to weasel it in, but the RAW clearly says otherwise.

LazarX wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Yet another nail in the coffin as to why one shouldn't play PFS.

That being said, I don't get how a Nauseated character isn't effectively Helpless, given their extremely limited ability. Additionally, think about the other limiting factors that Nauseated should imply with the ruling that you guys are implementing; if you can't use weapons to attack, what makes you think you can use armor or shields to defend? How can you even use your legs to move when that too requires concentration, deciding where you need to go, maintaining the usage of your limbs, etc.?

To me, the whole "requires concentration" refers to the activity of spells that have Concentration for a duration, or to be a bit more general, concentration checks for spells/spell-like abilities. It's never really defined in the book, and if we take the literal definition, then it affects just about every damn thing you could think of, and the concept of you thinking about what you could think of too.

In that same token, if "extreme stomach distress" is all it takes for the Nauseated condition to occur, the next broken character concept is giving every enemy you come across diarrhea.

Was there actually a point to this other than making an anti-PFS rant? If a player wants to try something while nauseated on a table I'm running whether PFS or not, he need merely say what it is and on a case by case basis, I'll let him know whether it's possible or not. I'd even allow him to drop something that he's holding to his feet as a free action. Anything else beyond that...that depends.

You read the first part of my sentence, and then assume it's all about PFS? All I implied was blanket rulings like what the PFS GM in question created causes a lot of otherwise unintended consequences for those affected by such a condition, making the game un-fun and therefore another good reason as to why such a game shouldn't be played.

I then went on to assume that, if the PFS GM was actually correct, what his ruling results in: a denial of common sense and making characters/creatures with the ability to make enemies Nauseated the next meta when it comes to PF.

Under that same concept, when it comes to PFS, the RAW is the LAW. If it says you can only take move actions, you can only take move actions. There is no common sense when it comes to PFS, there can't as it probably would betray the RAW of the game; the closest thing to common sense is RAI, and the GM has demonstrated here that he doesn't have and/or use it.

Think about it for a moment: The written examples say you can't attack, you can't cast or concentrate on spells, etc., and that you can take only move actions. The limitation from that also means, following that train-of-thought RAI that the GM has ruled, you can't breathe, you can't eat, you can't sleep, you can't use armor, shields, and weapons properly, you can't drop things, you can't talk, you can't use special class features or items to remove the condition, you can't even dig through your bags, much less use anything that's in your bags. You're basically a flesh sack running around like a decapitated chicken waiting to be thrown into the meatgrinder; and you can't do a damn thing about it by yourself except by being immune to it, which, unless you're a Paladin, is an impossibility.

But, the Quick Runner's Shirt and the Divine Protection feat are both "too good" for players to use? Can you say "double standard"?

The point I make is that if the PFS GM is providing that much limitation to that condition, it's synonymously no different than the Helpless or even Unconscious conditions in its limitations, something that is hardly the intent of what the condition is supposed to imply.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You need to have Greater Penetrating Strike to overcome DR/-, and it only overcomes 5 points of it.

Yet another nail in the coffin as to why one shouldn't play PFS.

That being said, I don't get how a Nauseated character isn't effectively Helpless, given their extremely limited ability. Additionally, think about the other limiting factors that Nauseated should imply with the ruling that you guys are implementing; if you can't use weapons to attack, what makes you think you can use armor or shields to defend? How can you even use your legs to move when that too requires concentration, deciding where you need to go, maintaining the usage of your limbs, etc.?

To me, the whole "requires concentration" refers to the activity of spells that have Concentration for a duration, or to be a bit more general, concentration checks for spells/spell-like abilities. It's never really defined in the book, and if we take the literal definition, then it affects just about every damn thing you could think of, and the concept of you thinking about what you could think of too.

In that same token, if "extreme stomach distress" is all it takes for the Nauseated condition to occur, the next broken character concept is giving every enemy you come across diarrhea.

Icyshadow wrote:

I think people forgot this part of Reincarnate.

Core Rulebook wrote:
A reincarnated creature recalls the majority of its former life and form. It retains any class abilities, feats, or skill ranks it formerly possessed.

I already went over this. Nobody is saying they are losing the feat, which is what the bolded part in Reincarnate addresses to the affected player: That any feats and such that they possess are kept. As written, that does not supersede the factor that you must still meet the pre-requisites or the feat no longer functions. To continue to have something (which is the dictionary definition of "retain") doesn't overcome the fact that you must have the pre-requisite to use the feat.

It's no different than having levels in a Racial Archetype. Nobody is saying they no longer have those levels; after all the RAW outright states the levels they previously had are kept. They merely argue that they don't meet the subtype needed to continue taking levels in that Archetype, meaning they must multi-class to advance, as they can no longer take levels in the Racial Archetype for the class they already are.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Scion of Humanity Aasimar do not have the Human Subtype, but easily qualify for Racial Heritage.

Subtype, is not the be all, end all.

In fact, if subtype was, then the feat would not function, as it gives you no additional subtypes.

Scion of Humanity wrote:
An aasimar with this racial trait counts as an outsider (native) and a humanoid (human) for any effect related to race, including feat prerequisites and spells that affect humanoids.

This is almost the same exact language dictated in the Half-Orc "Orc Blood" and Half-Elf "Elf Blood" racial traits, and since this is also a Racial Trait, logic dictates that this one functions no different than the other two presented in the Core.

As I've explained to you before since counting as a creature for effects related to race and having a subtype is an effect related to the race you are, you gain the respective subtype, ergo Half-Orcs and Half-Elves get both the Human and Orc/Elf subtypes, the same that Aasimars get both the Human and Native subtypes, and anything it possesses.

Keep in mind that, as I've said before, the rules regarding Racial Heritage, a feat, and Racial Traits/Subtypes, are different; especially when Racial Heritage cites specific examples versus the lack of them cited in the other abilities, as well as the precedent Mythic Racial Heritage sets for what the base Racial Heritage is supposed to do (i.e. make them not actually gain racial traits/feats, only qualify for them). (The Aasimar one simply states that spells and feat pre-requisites are included, which means that is on top of everything else that presents itself.)

@ Avoron: Not sure if didn't read thread or definition of feats.

You can't use the benefits of a feat if you don't already meet the pre-requisites of the feat; this functions for both taking the feat in the first place, and any permanent adjustments to your statistics (such as a Strength drain from a Shadow Demon).

The requirement for Racial Heritage is that you are Human, correct? This means that you have Human for a race (or you have the Human subtype); racial traits or other abilities that state you are Human or have the Human subtype for effects related to race (, of which a subtype is,) satisfy this requirement as well.

However, in order to receive the "Count as both Human and X for any effects related to race," you must have the Human subtype before the quoted part (also known as the benefit of the feat) can even begin to apply.

So, as I stated before, if dead Human PC with Racial Heritage (X) gets reincarnated as a Half-Orc or Half-Elf (or even a Human again), he retains the Human subtype and therefore the Racial Heritage feat keeps functioning. If he reincarnates as a creature who does not have the Human subtype, he no longer benefits from the Racial Heritage feat until he either regains the Human subtype pre-requisite, or retrains it into another feat he qualifies for.

So I have but a few questions to pose to the party that claims you can use the feat to qualify for the feat to determine how they would run scenarios in comparison to the RAW presented in the book.

1. Say I was an 8th level Fighter who just took Greater Weapon Focus for his 8th level Bonus Feat. I fight a vampire and he level drains me 2 levels. What happens to the feat I just took for being 8th level?

2. Say I have 14 Strength and I take Power Attack. I'm fighting a shadow and it drains me of 3 Strength points. What happens to the Power Attack feat?

3. Say I am an Elf Monk with the Anaconda's Coils belt equipped, and I take the Final Embrace feat. An enemy spellcaster throws a Dispel Magic at my belt while I have him constricted. What happens to the Final Embrace feat?

(I'll give you guys a hint: If the answer is anything other than "The feat ceases functioning," you're incorrect and is not how it would be ran in PFS, and ignores both RAW and RAI.)

CraziFuzzy wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
And a magic item.
Okay, but that's not relevant, as you'd be particularly insane to allow a magic item to grant prerequisite for a feat.

I guess stat belts/headbands for meeting statistic pre-requisites fall under that sort of thing in your games, too?

Keep in mind that as long as they don't have the item equipped, they can't use the feat, and it just burns a hole in their feat list. It actually makes no sense to design your feat choices around one or two items...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm more surprised people didn't suggest Oracle, since it has the whole "I can cast but still beat faces in" concept the OP asked for. Warpriest is also another great option for this.

Rynjin wrote:
Bronnwynn wrote:

>Your coils are particularly deadly, allowing you to constrict opponents of your size or smaller.

Flavor text says that your coils are particularly deadly. If you reincarnated as a bugbear, you wouldn't have coils.

Yes, that's flavor text, but if you're constricting things with your coils and you suddenly don't have coils because you're a kobold then it doesn't make sense for the same reason that having blood of <x> in you doesn't apply once you are in an entirely different body.

You do realize that you're essentially saying people with the Constrict special attack but no coils can't qualify for this Feat?

Even though the rules explicitly say otherwise?

If the constrict attack is via a natural weapon, then by RAW and RAI, if they do not possess the limb needed to carry out the attack, they cannot take the attack in question.

I don't know how the Constrict ability for Tetoris are written, but if there is no clarifying language granting exception, then you are left with contradicting RAW, and you're looking at another FAQ-worthy subject.

Self-explanatory subject.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

He counts as Human, and the race chosen by the Racial Heritage, by the feat itself.

For example, let's make up a feat:

Made up feat wrote:

Incredible Strength

Prerequisites: Strength 13

Benefit: You gain a +2 Inherent bonus to your Strength score.

Now, you have a PC, with 13 Strength, who has this feat, and virtue of this feat, now has a 15 Strength.

They die, and reincarnate into a race a -2 penalty to strength, this would bring their new total strength to 13, as they would not lose the prerequisites of this feat, as the feat itself now makes meeting those prerequisites possible. They would not now have a total of 9 strength.

You can't use a feat's benefits until the pre-requisites are met. If you don't have 13 Strength before you apply the feat's benefits, the feat doesn't give you the increased Strength. It does not function. Period. That's it, them's the brakes.

Heck if we went by the logic you claim, if I was an 8th level fighter and got level drained, I'd still meet the pre-requisites and receive the benefits of Greater Weapon Focus, even though my actual level is 7th (or lower).

Except, PFS and many others rule the exact opposite. You can rule it your way in a home game, but as I said above, that's RAW and RAI.

Jacob Saltband wrote:

I think I'll call it 'adjustable'. What it does is this.

Normal weapon enhancements gives the weapon a plus to attack and a plus to damage, so say we use a +2 weapon, what adjustable does is allow the weilder of the weapon to move the attack and damage bonuses around. meaning that as a move action you can have a +3/+1 weapon or a +4/+0 or +1/+3 etc. even if you make it +0/+4 it is still considered a magic bonus to attack so you can bypass DR/Magic.

So what do you think? Overpowered, underpowered, useless and not worth the time, useful if the cost is right, etc...

Too good. Way too good, and is very prone to min-maxing issues in every game.

Honestly, Weapon Special Abilities should be something more along the lines of utility or some benefit outside of the weapon's base ability to kill. This falls under just that: The weapon's base ability to kill just got exponentially higher compared to a basic + Enhancement, instead of a lesser boost to a secondary statistic or a separate utility.

Something like this I think would be much better suited to allowing the weapon to change between Cold Iron, Silver, Steel, Wood or Adamantine for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction, and I would reduce it to a +1 bonus.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I believe I understand you view, a bit more now.

I do fail to see, in detail, how that affects a Reincarnated PC, with the Racial Heritage feat.

Say PC is Human with +2 into Strength and has Racial Heritage feat for Elf because he wanted some special feat from there or whatever. His might fails him for the last time and it costs him his life. Party doesn't have Cleric Buddies, but knows of some crazy Druid guy who can cast Reincarnate, so they take his intact corpse to the Druid and he casts the spell.

Now, in order to qualify for the Racial Heritage feat, you must be Human (or in other words, have the Human subtype). That is a pre-requisite of the feat, and if that pre-requisite is permanently lost, so are the benefits of the feat itself (though it still takes up a feat slot).

For simplicity purposes, let's evaluate 2 roll possibilities, Half-Orc and Gnoll [this one could be basically anything]. If the PC rolls the Half-Orc percentile, he receives the Orc Blood racial trait (or in other words, has both the Human and Orc subtypes), meaning he retains the Human subtype needed to take (in this case, continue using) Racial Heritage, and the feat functions as normal for him.

If the PC rolls the Gnoll [or whatever other] percentile, he receives the Gnoll subtype, and loses the Human subtype he previously possessed. His Strength and Constitution go up, but at the cost of his 2 feats (which actually is a more favorable trade-off if the feats were applied correctly). Since he loses the pre-requisite needed for Racial Heritage to function, he no longer receives the benefit of the feat, which is counting as both Human and the selected race (Elf) get the picture.

So, if he's not Human, and he has to be Human to count as being both Human and whatever, how can he be considered Human from a benefit that no longer applies?

blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, you are saying you gain the subtype, but none of the benefits, except, when you do, but that is uncertain, except it isn't?

Seriously, how are you saying this works?

Let me start from the beginning, since I seem to be confusing you. (Maybe myself too, but a fresh start is a good idea here.)

You have Half-Orcs, Half-Elves, and then the Racial Heritage feat. The first 2 have a racial trait which says they count as both Human and Orc/Elf for any effects related to race.

Now, subtypes are granted to creatures that are, or are related to, the given subtype. Since Humanoid subtypes are given based upon the race of the creature, it is an effect bestowed by being from, or related to, that race, ergo it gives the respective subtype, and therefore the PC in question receives all of the benefits of the subtype (for Half-Orcs, Darkvision 60, and for Half-Elves, Low-Light).

The Racial Heritage feat is a different sort of exception to the rules mentioned above for several reasons. Firstly, it is a feat, not a racial trait, consisting of a completely separate set of rules, meaning the rules for this feat and the general rules for Racial Traits aren't the same. Secondly, it cites, as examples for say being both Human and Dwarf, that you only qualify for taking feats and traits for that race, and don't actually possess them. Lastly, consider the effect of Mythic Racial Heritage:

Racial Heritage (Mythic) wrote:
You gain a single racial trait of your choice from the race you picked when you took non-mythic Racial Heritage. That racial trait can't modify your size or ability scores. You also gain the racial language of the race (if any) if you don't already know it. For races with multiple racial languages, you gain all of them.

If the benefits of subtypes are cited as racial traits (given the precedence of Half-Orcs and Half-Elves with their Low-Light and Darkvision 60 benefits cited as racial traits, as well as the Elf and Orc subtype entries), the bolded sentence in the Mythic Racial Heritage feat would be akin to the Prone Shooter feat, since the original feat would otherwise provide it anyway.

So in essence, I am saying that it grants a pseudo-subtype, in that it provides them to be treated as having that subtype for specific spells/abilities, qualifying for feats/prestige classes/favored class bonuses, etc. But it does not grant them the other bonuses (and penalties) of having that subtype.

Of course you would argue that if it really gave you a subtype, it would give you the benefits anyway, and if it didn't, then it didn't actually give you the subtype. As I stated in my previous post, you would normally be correct, but the PRD says this regarding that issue:

Beastiary wrote:
A creature cannot violate the rules of its subtype without a special ability or quality to explain the difference.

I find that is something which the Racial Heritage feat falls under.

Does that clear things up?

blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, are saying, by choosing Racial Heritage(Goblin), you also get the benefits of the Goblinoid Subtype, and get Stealth as a class skill?

If I choose Racial Heritage(Ogre), then do I get all the benefits of the Giant subtype, and gain low-light vision, and treat Intimidate and Perception as class skills?

As long as you are choosing a race that can be from the Humanoid subtype, it qualifies for Racial Heritage.

Racial Heritage wrote:
For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.

As the example states above, taking Racial Heritage (Dwarf) would allow me to qualify for traits, feats, how spells/items affect me, etc. It doesn't mention anything about gaining new features from it, so it falls under one of those GM FIAT situations, which, many would say no, and whether that's right or not will be left in the dark until clarified by the Devs fully.

For side-by-side comparison, a Half-Orc or Half-Elf, who already possesses the Orc/Elf subtype without the feat, receives the benefits of Darkvision and Low-Light Vision, which is also ironically enough the same benefits cited within the subtypes themselves, and they can reap all the benefits of their Human heritage, since they can take Human-specific archetypes/prestige classes, favored class bonuses, and other goodies.

However, they didn't spend a feat to receive those benefits; they had them upon creation for choosing that race specifically, so I highly doubt the intent behind the Racial Heritage feat is to provide all the benefits of the subtype chosen. To explain why choosing the subtype and not receiving all the benefits of that subtype can be the case, I reference this sentence in the Beastiary:

Beastiary wrote:
A creature cannot violate the rules of its subtype without a special ability or quality to explain the difference—templates can often change a creature's type drastically.

I believe Racial Heritage, a feat, which, I believe all of them are normally qualified as an Extraordinary Ability, falls under that category, don't you think?

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Now, take the Racial Heritage feat, which requires you to be Human (or in this case, have the Humanoid [Human] subtype). When you are Reincarnated to something that doesn't have that subtype, you are no longer Human, ergo you no longer receive its benefits. (As an aside, if you were reincarnated to be, say, a Half-Orc, you would still receive Racial Heritage's benefits because you still possess the Human subtype.)

To add on to that, BBT's logic fails upon itself because the feat does not allow them to be Human because in order for them to be Human, they have to actually have the Human subtype to qualify for receiving the "count as Human" benefit from Racial Heritage.

Be your standards, the Racial Heritage never functions.

The feat does not give you additional subtypes.

The hell it doesn't. How about you ask yourself one question (better yet, make a FAQ thread about it): What is a subtype, and what does it consist of?

The whole "subtype V.S. functions as subtype" falls under the same fallacy as Spells V.S. SLAs. Why make the distinction when they both otherwise function exactly the same way?

The answer in regards to Spells V.S. SLAs falls under class features which require or cite Spells instead of SLAs. Ultimately, when a feature or subject calls out for the subtype or race specifically is when the distinction needs to be made. Does that same concept fall under this argument? Not really, especially when Racial Heritage, mechanically speaking, basically says you get all the perks of having the subtype (while not outright saying you get the subtype).

Simultaneously, several FAQs from the Devs would disagree with you. Half-Orcs and Half-Elves qualify for taking Racial Heritage going by this FAQ here, as well as their Favored Class Bonuses according to this FAQ here. But wait! How could they qualify if they aren't actually Human?! Because they count as being both Human and Orc/Elf for anything related to those races. Mechanically speaking, that is the entire point of a type/subtype, to denote that they originated from that race.

Now wait a regards to the Half-Orc and Half-Elf entries, what does it precisely say again?

Half-Orc: Orc Blood wrote:
Half-orcs count as both humans and orcs for any effect related to race.
Half-Elf: Elf Blood wrote:
Half-elves count as both elves and humans for any effect related to race.

Isn't that practically the same exact text used in Racial Heritage?

Racial Heritage wrote:
Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.

It is?


I have one final question to pose: Is a type or subtype an effect related to race? I'd certainly say so, especially since you believe it provides some sort of mechanical benefit outside of it being what it is. Consider the Beastiary and how it has listed creature subtypes. I'll cite the ones used in my example above:

Human Subtype wrote:
This subtype is applied to humans and creatures related to humans.
Elf Subtype wrote:
This subtype is applied to elves and creatures related to elves. Creatures with the elf subtype have low-light vision.
Orc Subtype wrote:
This subtype is applied to orcs and creatures related to orcs, such as half-orcs. Creatures with the orc subtype have darkvision 60 feet and light sensitivity (half-orcs do not have light sensitivity).

I invite you to make a FAQ thread about subtypes and what they include and exclude, as well as what can safely be concluded as granting them, but I can assure you that you'll be fighting an uphill battle, assuming such a battle can even be won.

mplindustries wrote:

My take is that you save once per round, and if you fail a particular round, you cannot pick up or use it that round.

If the character failed the save and dropped their gun, it wouldn't matter how many additional actions were spent trying to pick it up, all attempts that round will fail.

Edit: I also would have ruled that they do lose their action, though.

I highly doubt that is to be the RAI, simply because the initial saving throw applies to the object you have in your possession, and if it fails, it's dropped. After that, if you made the save, you make a saving throw to hold on to or use the item in your possession each round, the same as the first.

Additionally, look at this more closely:

Grease wrote:
A saving throw must be made in each round that the creature attempts to pick up or use the greased item.

If the bolded part said for, then you would be correct, they would only get one save, because the saving throw applies to the round, not the action used to retrieve it, as the RAW and RAI currently supports. Of course, if the PC tries to use the item in the same round it's picked up, this would also mean it has to make 2 saves to do it.

After all, if that is the case, looks like Grease would be the most overpowered 1st level spell in the game, simply for that level of crowd control power.

Krith wrote:

You don't lose the feat or the bonuses. This is actually covered in the spell descriptioon:


"A reincarnated creature recalls the majority of its former life and form. It retains any class abilities, feats, or skill ranks it formerly possessed. Its class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and hit points are unchanged. Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body. First eliminate the subject's racial adjustments (since it is no longer necessarily of his previous race) and then apply the adjustments found below to its remaining ability scores."

So, per the spell, you only eliminate racial adjustments to stats (and based on the prior sentence, presumably only the physical stat adjustments). Feats and their effects are maintained per RAW.

You're missing the point.

Let's take Power Attack with its 13 Strength pre-requisite. You have 14 Strength.

You suffer 2 Strength Drain from a Shadow (or something, for example), meaning your permanent Strength is now 12.

Since you no longer qualify for that feat due to your lack of Strength, you can no longer use the feat, correct? It even says so right here in the Feat section off the PRD for CRB:

Feats: Prerequisites wrote:
A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.

Now, take the Racial Heritage feat, which requires you to be Human (or in this case, have the Humanoid [Human] subtype). When you are Reincarnated to something that doesn't have that subtype, you are no longer Human, ergo you no longer receive its benefits. (As an aside, if you were reincarnated to be, say, a Half-Orc, you would still receive Racial Heritage's benefits because you still possess the Human subtype.)

To add on to that, BBT's logic fails upon itself because the feat does not allow them to be Human because in order for them to be Human, they have to actually have the Human subtype to qualify for receiving the "count as Human" benefit from Racial Heritage.

Grokk_Bloodfist wrote:

Hi there

I am about to play in a Carrion Crown adventure and after some deliberation, I've decided to switch to playing a Fighter as I've never played one before. In particular the Two Handed Fighter.

I'm in a 3 man party consisting of a Dwarf Inquisitor (Rage domain) and a Human Reach Cleric of Desna. Because we only have 3 players, the DM will allow us to have max HPs.

My challenge is to stay a straight fighter and human. I was inspired heavily by Druss the Legend but wanting to put my own spin.

I am not going for a one trick pony but when I was running one of my players made a comment how useless Vital Strike was. So I wanted the challenge of trying to make it work. Even though it is situational I can see where it is really useful - great against opponents with DR and high AC foes that you are probably not going to hit with iteratives. Combine with Furious Focus and the other Two Handed Fighter archetype features, it seemed viable.

What I came to was that I can use Two Handed Thrower with all the archetype perks of the Two Handed Fighter, hurl a weapon with Greater Vital Strike + Devastating Strike for a lot of damage. I can also Sunder + Vital Strike, Lunge + Vital Strike, Attack of Opportunity with a Vital Strike (once). Also if I use a Reach weapon I can sunder without incurring AoOs. I have avoided Cleaving since I think it is mechanically weak past low levels.

For this build I was looking at using a Lucerne Hammer, getting an adamantine version with the returning property ASAP and as many pluses as I can afford. The idea is stand at a distance, throw the hammer where I can, have it return and keep the enemy at bay using reach and Combat Reflexes. If they get in range, take a five foot step back or drop the hammer, switch to spiked gauntlets.

Any feedback here would be greatly appreciated!

Here's what I've come up with:
1: Power Attack, Toughness, Iron Will
2: Furious Focus
3: Improved Sunder
4: Two Handed Thrower
5: Combat Reflexes
6: Vital Strike
7: Lunge
8: Greater Sunder
9: Devastating Strike
10: Improved Iron Will
11: Improved Vital Strike
12: Disruptive
13: Improved Devastating Strike
14: Sundering Strike
15: Death or Glory
16: Greater Vital Strike
17: (open)
18: (open)
19: (open)
20: (open)

The feat list isn't too bad, but there are some issues that you should be aware of.

Right out of the gate, don't take Toughness, at least not right away. If you're going to be playing with maximum Hit points (and the enemies are not, of course), the extra 3 or so hit points aren't worth the feat, even if they scale. Chances are, enemies in the lower levels aren't going to be one-shotting a 12 hit point Fighter. I'd sub that for something else, like Weapon Focus. (You can never have enough bonuses to hit and damage.) If you are still somehow having trouble staying alive in the later levels, go ahead and take it, but starting out, you shouldn't need it.

Improved Devastating Strike should not really be needed either, since your attack bonuses are already high enough when facing enemies. Additionally, unless you're using an 18-20/X2 weapon (the Nodachi is a great example for this), it's not worth the feat since your chances of critting are pretty slim.

Disruptive won't really make a difference by that level, as most casters who are worth their salt won't be having trouble combat casting, and the minor penalty it gives won't amount to anything.

Combat Reflexes is not going to help you out too much unless you get other abilities that grant you additional Attacks of Opportunity, A feat for an extra AoO per round, although it seems nice, isn't really worth it against smart enemies. If you were going to take Bodyguard, I'd say go for it, as you would be getting extra uses for your AoOs; on top of that, there are better feat selections.

If you are planning to be a thrower-type, Lunge won't be particularly useful.

Death or Glory, although nice, is a very situational feat. The only time you will be able to use it properly is if the enemy you're attacking has already used their Immediate/Swift Action for the round, as their ability to hit you back is nullified. Otherwise, you're only trading 1 for 1 at slightly higher benefits, and that's not a smart tactic unless you're enabling a better trade for one of your party members.

As a personal note, Sunder, although a great maneuver for Two-Handed Fighters to excel at, does come at its own price; you'll be destroying the gear you'll be claiming as your own, and fixing it will cost money, or even selling it will end up having a reduced value for its damage. I won't say not take it, but I will say to be careful with its uses, as you may end up destroying powerful upgrades you may want/need.

For your open feats, I'd suggest grabbing the Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feat lines, as well as the Penetrating Strike line of feats, pumping out your damage and attack numbers are your bread and butter. Improved Initiative is always good; being able to go first in combat is very valuable, especially in later levels where going first decides the battle because rocket tag.

Grokk_Bloodfist wrote:

Oh using 25 pt buy because we only have 3 players. Here's my stat allocation thus far:

Str: 17+2=19
Dex: 13
Con: 15
Int: 10
Wis: 13
Cha: 9

Not a bad selection, and I'm assuming you don't want to dump stats, but I can wedge in a few more points for your optimization level here.

Dexterity should only be 12 tops, as Combat Reflexes and none of your other feats do not require Dexterity. The +1 modifier for Full Plate is all you're going to need.

Constitution should be dropped down to 14. You are paying 2 points for no mechanical gain, when those 2 points can increase some more important statistics.

Wisdom should be pumped up to 14, and Charisma can be placed back to 10 with the extra cutbacks you made.

If you have access to the Advanced Race Guide, I would consider removing the Toughness Bonus Feat you would normally get, as well as the extra skill point per level, and take the Dual Talent racial trait. From there, you can also pump your Constitution or Wisdom up to 16 if you'd like. Or, you can have some dump stat leeway, be able to safely dump your Charisma down to 7 (resulting in the effective 9 you currently have), and raise your Strength to an effective 20.

As far as skills, you won't be doing much, and that's because you aren't designed for it. If you had Armor Training, I'd highly recommend Acrobatics, even if it is not a Class Skill. (If it wasn't, the Additional Traits feat would be very helpful, since this would make Acrobatics a Class Skill, as well as another benefit of your choice from the Traits section.) Otherwise, I'd do a Climb/Swim hybrid divvy-up (that is, you effectively spend 10 points on both), and the other skill to be maximum Perception. (You can never have enough Perception in a party.)
If you have other questions or need other suggestions, I made a fairly comprehensive Two-Handed Fighter guide. (You can find it here, and it should cover all the bases you could possibly need covered, as well as some adventuring tips.

Good luck!

Ssyvan wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The second question is irrelevant. to benefit from the power you must be both adjacent to yourself and an ally. While you can be counted as your own ally, failing the first condition renders the entire proposition moot. It is an AND qualifier, not OR.

But, as some have already pointed out you can't be your own ally in an impossible situation. Adjacent to yourself does sound pretty impossible, so why do I need to be adjacent to myself to benefit? Outside of that one condition everything else seems to work in benefit of the user.

I've read enough of this, and I've whipped up an Arcane Duelist Scion of Humanity Aasimar with the Racial Heritage (Halfling) feat that takes this feat, Bodyguard, as well as some other synergizing feats, and I come down on the side where this feat does not apply to you. You must fulfill all of the requirements of the feat in order to receive the benefits. The same is true for even selecting a feat, for example, Bodyguard, a feat that could be used without the Combat Reflexes feat, but it is still a requirement to take that feat in the first place.

Additionally, consider the battle map where you calculate the positions of both the PCs and the bad guys, and treat it as a graphine sheet; at no point are you in 2 different coordinate paths at an interval in time (in this case, each turn in combat), and the ability only works on things that are both allies (specific nodes on the graph which are denoted in respect to the relationship between said nodes) that are corresponding points in the graph. Are you one of the nodes the ability affects? Yes, you are, unless it doesn't make sense in a realistic sense or the ability in question says otherwise. But are you on one of the corresponding points in the graph?

No, you are not, as the corresponding points in the graph will forever be the coordinates that are adjacent to your current position in the graph; they are not a set position that you can move into, they are a variant position based upon the coordinate your PC occupies.

Look at the ability wording closely; it says that it applies that bonus when worn, not holding or carrying. If it's not worn, the bonus isn't being applied to your AC. The final sentence says that even if you don't have it on your person, it still retains that power. In other words, if it's disarmed from you or you decide to unequip it, once you get in possession of it and wear it again, its bonuses reapply.

You are correct though, in that a Buckler is a shield and counts for this ability, as well as effects that ignore Shield Bonuses don't ignore the bonus this ability provides; i.e. Touch Attacks.

Also take note that it specifically calls out mechanics from the Channel Energy class feature, meaning you have to expend Channel Energy uses to power the ability. This makes the Extra Channel feat much more valuable, and that this ability overrides the mechanics one would try to use Quick Channel for.

Of course, a better question would be if a Disarm counts as being struck in combat; RAI, I'd think not, but you're still making an attack against the target's number, so it can go either way.

Rikkan wrote:

Is this FAQ purely for ability bonuses? Or does it include other referential bonuses as well?

Like say, if I play a daring cavalier, when I use challenge I add my level to damage and if I pick up precise strike I also add my level to damage. Are those considered to be the same source?

And what about orange ioun stones? They add an untyped caster level bonus. If I have multiple ioun stones are they considered to be different sources (different ioun stones) or the same source?

As it sits, it is purely for ability scores, though I suspect it may extend to class/character level-based subjects. Simultaneously, you must understand that subject is not exactly a valid argument, as the Challenge feature adds equal to Cavalier levels, whereas the Precise Strike adds equal to Swashbuckler levels. Since those are two separate class level statistics and not your character level or the same class, they would stack.

As far as caster level is concerned though, when it comes to Ioun Stones, they don't stack unless otherwise stated, meaning if you had multiple CL-increasing Ioun Stones of the same type (Orange Prism), they won't stack with themselves, since that CL increase is from the same source of Ioun Stone. If they were separate types, they would stack. [Additionally, I don't think the level-based restriction that may come from the FAQ will apply to that statistic, simply because there are several subjects that increase CL which also have restrictions to that CL increase, so it checks itself (Magical Knack, for example).]

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

So if I am playing an oracle/paladin character with the Sidestep Secret and Smite Evil class abilities (see below) does the Dexterity/Charisma replacement to AC and the Charisma/Deflection bonus to AC no longer stack? They appear to have different bonus types, but come from the same "primary" source.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I suspect that, at least in the short term, this FAQ is going to cause a lot more confusion than it clears up.

That ones nice and straightforward, it's pretty much called out in the FAQ. As smite evil grants a typed bonus (deflection) = to your charisma it will stack with the oracle abilities that replace dexterity with charisma.

This is correct, as in this case it isn't a result of a double-dip, which I will define as using the same modifier type derived from the same ability score to apply to the same statistic. You are simply using your ability score modifier and a deflection bonus that is equal to your ability score modifier, meaning they will stack.

If you were trying to use Divine Grace from the Paladin feature and Divine Protection feat simultaneously (excluding the written Special note that wasn't added until later), then it would not work as they are both the same modifier type (Untyped) derived from the same ability score (Charisma) that applies to the same statistic (Saving Throws).

Blave wrote:

Sources: Core and APG only. No free traits.

In Runelords, my cleric (Iomedae, Heroism/Tactics, melee focus) was the group's healer and tank. She died during the fight with "Big M" at the end of part one. Rest of the group are:

Gnome Sorc - Elemental (Fire)
Elf Alchemist - Archer/Bomber
Elf Ranger - Archer
Dwarf Barbarian - SMASH

As you can see, the group lacks two things: Healing and enough melee guys to protect the archers/caster. My cleric covered both good enough, but now she's quite dead and I need a new character. Preferably one, who can do the same without feeling too similar. So I'd like to avoid another battle cleric or a melee Oracle.

Any ideas?

Well that certainly makes it difficult, and I'm assuming that the GM just won't allow you to make another cleric...

I'll go with the rest and say to go Paladin next. Lay On Hands is going to be your big healing ability (which makes self healing pretty useful) and your spells and auras will serve more as a buffer. A lot of times you're immune to secondary effects, like disease, mind-control, etc. so your utility/heal spells can be reserved for your party members.

Archetypes may help put you in the niche that you desire at the cost of some abilities; unfortunately, a lot of what makes the Paladin extremely powerful is in splat books. On the plus side, about 80% of the crap you fight is evil, meaning as long as you got Smite you can contribute effectively in combat for simply being a Paladin.

IDK what point buy you guys use, or if you guys roll stats, or whatever. But with a 20 point buy, you can have a decent Strength and a fairly high Charisma before racials, those stats of which are your bread and butter for your class.

Mari Amstrong wrote:
You double dip from the belt of constitution, you both use the same constitution score. Why are you guys even arguing this?

Doubledipping is a term only used when you're modifying the same statistic with the same modifier type twice, i.e. adding two separate sources that add your Charisma to your saves; this does not fall under such because you are not adding the same amount twice to the same statistic. If you are going to call the pot black, make sure you're comparing it to the kettle, not the cookie sheet, which has all manners of gray area.

Your Constitution score, when fused, instead of it being your own score, becomes your Eidolon's Constitution score. This increases your normal HP by the amount of Constitution difference between you and your Eidolon (or, in extremely rare cases, would decrease hit points if you manage to get a base constitution score higher than your Eidolon's).

That same score, when fused, also calculates the temporary HP you gain, and is factored in to the Eidolon's hit points (the total of which you get as your temporary HP).

Even if the mechanics are fundamentally the same, regular HP is not the same as temporary HP, no matter how many ways you look at it, and they are called out as separate entities in the book for a reason. By your same logic, Spells and Spell-Like Abilities must be the same, and Arcane and Divine spells must be the same too.

Except, you know, they're not, and they're cited in the book as completely different subjects.

Grindylows are Small in size, which means they can trip up to Medium-sized creatures, and Grapple works on creatures of all sizes; in other words, your tactics will work on the other guys as well. Of course, size differences will definitely work against you, but since it is basically free (what else are you going to use the Swift Action for?), it adds an extra level of danger to the encounter, since lower levels generally mean one-shots from anything, and a trip is basically a death sentence if the party isn't careful.

Honestly, having only 5 hit points means even a max damage magic missile, a couple of cantrips, or a decent arrow shot equates to a dead Grindylow, much less a hit from the fighter, so these guys are definitely squishy (as they should be).

Remember that only one enemy (or in this case, 2) against a party of 6 really works the action economy against them, so they will definitely overwhelm him in a couple of rounds simply because they can do so much more in so little time, not to mention the power of spells at this level can end encounters with just a single cast. If the party is optimized this will become easily apparent; if not, then this might be just fine. Since they are on a ship, running away from the encounter isn't really an option. Additionally, the Grindylows move very slow on land, half the speed of a regular joe, meaning the party with the right tactics should come out unscathed.

That being said, a level 1 party of 6 (each level 1 about a CR 1/2, increasing by that amount) equates to a CR 3 party, probably even higher depending on their optimization skills. A Grindylow Ranger class with a pet would equate to either still being a CR 1/2, or at best a CR 1, so him and his pet would get crushed quite easily by an otherwise CR 3 party.

I'd throw on a Grindylow Druid with an octopus pet as well, and about 2-3 regulars, each carrying javelins/spears/harpoons/etc., call it a raiding party who seizes inbound ships of their goods, and the party will have to defeat them.

Bandw2 wrote:
Artanthos wrote:

Incorrect. You are one being, there is no distinction between summoner and eidolon once fused.

The RAW stating that fact has already been quoted earlier in the thread.

what does that have to do with the eidolon's effective HP for adding temp hp? you only gain the ability scores, not it's HD with it's own con.

as mentioned the eidolon's con REPLACES, you don't use your eidlon's con, your score is replaced with his. the eidolon never actually gains a bonus to con.

edit: nevermind Darksol the Painbringer is wrong, i need to check my own information and not use others. :/

I'm not sure what you read into my statements, but I didn't state that you replace hit dice (only that I'm using averages for calculations), nor did I contradict myself once; I might not have done the math correctly, however, apples and oranges. Let me start from the top again:

You have 3rd level Summoner with 12 Con base. Eidolon has 20 Con base. Summoner comes equipped with a Belt, adding a +2 Enhancement Bonus to his Constitution score, which is added to the base total. Simple enough, right?

Assuming average rolls for both subjects, you'll run into a 20 Hit Point Summoner, and a 36 hit point Eidolon, correct?

Now, when the Summoner fuses with the Eidolon, the Eidolon's base Constitution Score becomes the Summoner's Constitution score as well. So instead of the Summoner having only 20 hit points, he'll have 32 total hit points, with an extra 36 hit points counting as temp.

Once we throw in a Constitution Belt, his Constitution Score receives a +2 Enhancement bonus. So, while not fused with the Eidolon, his Constitution Score becomes 14, resulting in 23 Hit Points total. While fused, his total hit points becomes 35, with an extra 39 hit points counting as temp, resulting in an otherwise grand total of 74 hit points.

Of course when it comes to a blanket increase, it's fairly simple. It is when we get to permanent increases, such as leveling attribute points, or using attribute tomes/Wishes to increase stats, that it becomes important to note the difference of which affects which, but even those are simple as well, since those increase the statistic of one entity.

Gaberlunzie wrote:
Say you have 14 Con and the Eidolon has 16 Con. When fused, the eidolon wears the belt, and thus has 18 Con. You use the Con of the eidolon, so both you and the eidolon have 18 Con. Thus both gain the bonus.

Remember that the Eidolon's base physical ability scores replace the Summoner's; the only saving grace is that the belt is an add-on after the fact, so even if the base is changed, the bonus from the Belt is still being applied to whatever score you're using.

Such a concept would not be applicable to a permanent addition like the ability scores you get from leveling (4th, 8th, 12th, etc.), or from Stat Tomes, since those affect only specifically your own score, not just whatever score you are currently using.

Fused Eidolon wrote:

A synthesist summons the essence of a powerful outsider to meld with his own being. The synthesist wears the eidolon like translucent, living armor. The eidolon mimics all of the synthesist’s movements, and the synthesist perceives through the eidolon’s senses and speaks through its voice, as the two are now one creature.

While fused with his eidolon, the synthesist uses the eidolon’s physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), but retains his own mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma). The synthesist gains the eidolon’s hit points as temporary hit points. When these hit points reach 0, the eidolon is killed and sent back to its home plane. The synthesist uses the eidolon’s base attack bonus, and gains the eidolon’s armor and natural armor bonuses and modifiers to ability scores. The synthesist also gains access to the eidolon’s special abilities and the eidolon’s evolutions. The synthesist is still limited to the eidolon’s maximum number of natural attacks. The eidolon has no skills or feats of its own. The eidolon must be at least the same size as the synthesist. The eidolon must have limbs for the synthesist to cast spells with somatic components. The eidolon’s temporary hit points can be restored with the rejuvenate eidolon spell.
While fused, the synthesist loses the benefits of his armor. He counts as both his original type and as an outsider for any effect related to type, whichever is worse for the synthesist. Spells such as banishment or dismissal work normally on the eidolon, but the synthesist is unaffected. Neither the synthesist nor his eidolon can be targeted separately, as they are fused into one creature. The synthesist and eidolon cannot take separate actions. While fused with his eidolon, the synthesist can use all of his own abilities and gear, except for his armor. In all other cases, this ability functions as the summoner’s normal eidolon ability (for example, the synthesist cannot use his summon monster ability while the eidolon is present).

Reviewing the entire entry, there are several subjects to consider, which are highlighted.

When in fusion, the Eidolon is considered an armor, and as such won't stack with other armor, as evidenced by the final paragraph heading. It also states that the base physical ability scores of the Eidolon replace the Summoner's base physical ability scores.

When calculating temporary hit points gained from the fusion, you only use the Eidolon's hit points, meaning any changes to the Eidolon's, and only the Eidolon's hit points, increases the temporary hit points you gain, meaning if the belt does not affect the Eidolon, it will not increase the temporary hit points.

It mentions several times that even when fused, the Synthesist is ever only considered one creature, though his type changes for effects that are reliant on it, and can be thrown out of his fusion early with the right spell.

The first and final parts are really telling as to how it would be ran, and reinforces the OP's assumption to be the correct one, since the Belt is an add-on to the PC's existing score, which is substituted with the Eidolon's, not a finite, selective subject like a Con Tome would be.

Breaking it down:

Say PC is 3rd level and has 12 Constitution, since he thinks an 18-20 Dexterity is a little spendy on his already 20 main stat. He laters acquires a Con Belt +2, raising it to 14. Now, his Eidolon has 20 Constitution base, with a total of 36 hit points (assuming average D10 hit dice + 5 Con modifier). One the base is calculated, you throw in the extras, such as the +2 Constitution; however, to calculate what is temporary and what is regular, you need to treat the Synthesist and the Eidolon as separate entities, though the result is combined (as by that point they become one creature).

So, to finish the example, Base Synth hit points is 20 (D6 average hit dice + 1 Con modifier), and Base Eidolon hit points is 36. Con modifier adds to your hit points per hit dice, so the 14 Con Synthesist would have 23 hit points, whereas his Eidolon would have 39. Fused together would result in 39 temporary and 23 regular hit points, or a grand total of 62.

You did and you didn't.

The Warpriest 2nd round playtest gave Warpriests a BAB with their Weapon Focused Weapons (and Deity Favored Weapons) equal to their Warpriest level (which stacked with BAB gained from other classes), which is where you're getting the +1 from.

When it came to the final publishing, they removed it because the Fervor power to Swift Self-cast in addition to Full BAB was apparently too much, since it became way too much Cleric (which is good) and not enough Fighter (which is bad); so in order to balance it out with their outdated Fighter class, since apparently it was too much (it is, but the fault wasn't with the Warpriest IMO), they took it out.

They still kept the increased damage dice and empowering abilities though...

dragonhunterq wrote:
glossary wrote:

Grappled: ...

A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit .

Making a grapple check to maintain is still an attack, but once you are grappled most concealment effects simply won't work. I struggle to justify not applying the rule on invisibility to blur/displacement etc.

I can see ruling that a displaced opponent as having a similar advantage as an invisible one though. I imagine that having your arms about what feels like someones body while he appears to wriggle about somewhere over your left shoulder to be somewhat disorienting.

I'm not so sure that's the case. If it was an attack, you'd be making the roll against their AC, not their CMD, for starters. The Grapple section doesn't call out maintaining the grapple as an attack, simply that it's a check you make if you want to hold the grapple, and it's supported by the factor that a successful check doesn't allow for an attack roll, but automatic damage from the limb maintaining the grapple (unarmed strike or claw in most cases).

Similarly, it calls out that Grapple takes a Standard Action to do, and it can't be done in place of an attack like other maneuvers can, meaning that argument isn't supported by what the RAW restrictions of Grapple are.

Additionally, the entry you cited makes no mention of concealment whatsoever; even the Stealth subject it cites to "hide from the creature grappling it" isn't the same as what Displacement provides, nor is it applicable to the situation, since Displacement isn't the same as a person trying to actively be out of sight and perception of the target. It's a wavering image of the character that alters their percepted location in comparison to their actual location.

@ Brotato: The whole "Invisibility" subject isn't really applicable, since it's not like you can't see the subject, nor can't you actually pin-point his square if you couldn't actually see invisible creatures. It's an exception listed in the Displacement spell that it makes outside of it being Total Concealment. It's just his actual location in the square may or may not be where you see him at, hence the miss chance; my question is if, when maintaining a grapple, you don't have to bother with that miss chance since you are actively holding on to the target.

So let's say you're fighting some punk who has Displacement on. So in order to get to him, you need to beat the miss chance. After rolling miss chances for your grapple attempt, you get a grip on him. Come his turn, he tries to break free, but fails. Next round, you go to maintain the grapple. Here are the relevant rules text:

Grapple wrote:
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Appendices). If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails). Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).

Now, the rules says in order for you to maintain the grapple, you have to make a check or it breaks free, and a successful check also allows you to make another action in the options listed in conjunction with the check. The damage option says you simply deal damage with an unarmed strike or claw or whatever you used to maintain the grapple.

So, since maintaining the Grapple isn't necessarily an attack, and you can outright deal damage with the maintained grapple check, does that mean you would be able to ignore the miss chance in this manner (until he breaks free or you let go and have to initiate a grapple again), since you aren't making an attack, or would it still apply?

Lost In Limbo wrote:
One point in favor of gaining a griffon through Monstrous Mount rather than Leadership is the fact that (as far as I can tell) a significant portion of the GM population either bans or heavily restricts the Leadership feat.

If the GM is going to ban the Leadership feat, he's going to ban this feat too, since they can accomplish (somewhat) similar goals.

It's a sticky wicket. Here are the relevant texts:

Speed wrote:
When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation.
Dancing wrote:
The weapon is considered wielded or attended by the activating character for all maneuvers and effects that target items.

I would be inclined to say that it does, based on the factor that the Speed property is a specific property to weapons, and since Dancing says you are considered wielding or attending the Dancing weapon for effects that target items (it's safe to assume that the Speed property is an effect for Weapons), it would be able to take advantage of the Speed property. If that extra attack were the result of, say, a Haste spell, it would not apply.

Also considering that since it simply applies your BAB plus the weapon's enhancement modifier, it's not gamebreaking to allow it.

However, many people may state otherwise, so expect table variation. Ask your GM to get the final say as to how he would run it at his table.

Pupsocket wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If it's not listed in the Fighter Weapon Group, it's not a weapon, bottom line.

What rubbish. I'm looking at the Fighter Weapon Groups, and the Falcata isn't there. Nor are there any firearms, or thrown bombs. Clearly, none of those things can be weapons, then.

Your argument is that the term "weapon" is defined on p. 56 of the core book (6th printing), which as a) unsupported by the actual text, b) patently ridiculous given the number of pointy stabby things published in later books. ,

Core Rulebook only includes Core content because Core doesn't assume you have the other splatbooks; if you want splatbook inclusion for Fighter Weapon Group listings, you look toward the splatbooks.

Ultimate Equipment has all of the splatbook extras, and those subjects you listed are defined in that book under Fighter Weapon Groups, including that which is listed in the Core. Not one of those weapon groups, both the Core and the splatbook UE, have Rays or what not listed in any group, ergo they don't count as weapons.

Similarly, the feat text specifically calls out as Rays counting as a weapon for the purpose of how the feat affects it, including being a valid choice for the feat, meaning that it otherwise is not a weapon.

@ FrodoOf9Finger: If it has a set weapon damage dice and is listed in a Fighter Weapon Group (i.e. if Rayguns were a Weapon Group), then yes, you could Vital Strike with it. But if the Ray in question by say, Scorching Ray, were used to attack, it wouldn't work because it's a Spell, not a Weapon; it counts as a weapon for the purposes of spells and effects and for qualifying for certain feat selections, but is otherwise not a weapon. It's no different than Spells V.S. Spell-Like Abilities.

Pupsocket wrote:

Rays are weapons, so if you can take the attack action to fire your ray, you can use vital strike.

-with spellcasting at range, you can never "hold the charge" in order to use the attack action. If you use Reach Spell, you now have a ranged touch spell, not a touch spell, thus no holding the charge.
-most monster abilities cannot vital strike, because they're "use supernatural ability" or "use spell-like ability" actions. a lantern archon uses it's ray as an attack, and could vital strike, if it had the feat.
-it gets a bit vague around (melee) touch spells. last time we did a couple hundred posts on the issue, the general consensus was that, while touch attack spells share many properties of armed attacks, they ultimately are not weapons and as such not eligible for Vital Strike.
-Stop arguing about the bombs ability and vital strike, the ability explicitly tells you how it interacts with vital strike.

Even if you did allow holding the charge, including melee touch attacks, the spell deals the damage, and the spell is not a weapon. If it's not listed in the Fighter Weapon Group, it's not a weapon, bottom line. Rays and such only count as weapons for the purposes of spells and abilities that affect weapons, and for taking feats like Weapon Focus/Specialization, Improved Critical, etc. to use with them.

A lot of those abilities require a Standard Action to activate, not an Attack Action, which is a specific Standard Action, one that is required for Vital Strike to work, and cannot be emulated with merely taking a Standard Action. The Lantern Archon is no exception; Rays aren't weapons, meaning it would fall under the "Use Extraordinary Ability" action, a specific Standard Action separate from the Attack Action.

You should be able to, as many creatures in fantasy are armored with wings.

But from a realistic perspective the GM would probably require you to get your breastplate re-outfitted to adhere to your new limbs, since most standard equipment aren't meant to fit winged creatures.

sowhereaminow wrote:
This will work with thrown alchemist bombs though, correct? I figure it only doubles the original 1d6, but it still works if I recall.

That's tricky; if it's an SU or EX ability, then I'd say it probably would, but if it's an SP, then I'd say no since it's a spell and not a weapon.

Shroud has it right. RAW, the damage you deal with a spell like Scorching Ray is not weapon damage, but damage caused from the spell. You could do it with a spell like Flame Blade, since the damage you deal with that is the damage the fire scimitar weapon deals.

Even so, Vital Strike is it's own special action (Attack Action), something which, when casting a Touch Spell, can't emulate, since it's only restricted to granting a free attack, not a free Vital Strike.

I will say that Shroud is wrong for Punch delivering, since a Touch Attack in itself can be done in place of the punch (though if you were a Monk with scaling unarmed damage, you lose all your other attacks if you wanted to do a FoB), but it still falls apart since the subject being delivered is not a weapon, but a spell, and so isn't affected.

Remember that feats like Weapon Focus/Specialization state that subjects such as rays count as weapons for those feats; they are not in themselves a weapon, as you don't see them in any Fighter weapon group or in the Weapon tables...

1 to 50 of 2,593 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.