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

2,353 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

As with Favored Enemy and Bane, Defiant is only as effective as often as it can be applicable. So if you plan on fighting a lot of X types of creature, getting a Defiant property keyed to that type of creature will ensure a lot of powerful use against that type of creature.

Of course, expecting constant usage is wishful thinking, but there are APs and PFS Scenarios that have the usage of a single type of enemy. (It's practically the sole reason why Crane Wing was viewed as overpowered in PFS, and nerfed because of it, even though it was only powerful due to ignoring pre-requisites.)

To answer your questions now.

1. Yes, you can have 2 of the Defiant properties keyed to 2 different creature types as long as you pay the respective costs and reduce your limits for it. Most properties wouldn't work that way, but since this property has a specific choice that is made at the time of creation, and each choice being (or should be) an independent property of each other, this serves as an exception to that rule.

2. To answer this one, let's refer to the description:

Defiant wrote:
Armor and shields with this special ability excel at blocking the attacks of certain types of creatures, similar to a bane weapon's excelling against certain foes. Against the designated foe, the item's enhancement bonus to AC is +2 better than its actual bonus and provides DR 2/— against attacks from that foe. This increase in enhancement bonus applies only to the armor or shield's enhancement bonus, not to temporary bonuses (such as the magic vestment spell).

Reviewing the text, if you had a +1 Defiant (X) armor and +1 Defiant (X) shield, the Enhancement Bonus increase would stack, as it applies to the enchanted item's enhancement bonus. Since that affects 2 different bonus types, they would stack. However, since both items grant DR 2/- against the designated creature type, that would not stack since that effect is keyed to the same statistic, and share the same type.

Additionally, if you had +1 Defiant (X) and Defiant (Y) Armor, with a similarly enchanted Shield, if a creature fits under both X and Y templates, I believe those effects would accumulate as above. For example, You would have an effective +5 AC on both items against a Chaotic Evil Demon Outsider, though your DR would remain unchanged.


I was reviewing both Spell Storing properties, specifically the armor version, and the text was significantly more different, though it still led me to having a question. Before I start proposing it, let's review the weapon version:

Spell Storing (Weapon) wrote:
A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance of having a spell stored in it already. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

Fair enough. Notice the bolded part; it says one targeted spell, meaning the target could be anything. As long as it has a Target line, then it's eligible, meaning Scorching Ray, Acid Arrow, etc. can all be stored in this.

Now, let's review the Armor version:

Spell Storing (Armor) wrote:
This armor allows a spellcaster to store a single touch spell of up to 3rd level in it. Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as a swift action if the wearer desires. Once the spell has been cast from the armor, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted touch spell of up to 3rd level into it. The armor magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it.

So the armor version specifically requires a Touch spell instead of a spell target, and it procs off of whenever they are hit by a melee combatant.

For argument's purpose, let's say the PC has a Spell Storing armor. He gets caught out and gets a smack across the face. Now, instead of putting on, say, an Empowered Shocking Grasp before the next combat, could he instead put an Intensified Scorching Ray on the armor, and, when he gets hit, use it as a Swift Action to deal 16D8 damage to the target? Is that a thing?

(Before everyone tries to argue the Swift Action subject, I'm aware of the Anti-Paladin Ninja that is Stephen Radney-Macfarland and his post on the matter.


Magical Knack, the trait, actually increases your Caster Level by 2, as long as the Caster Level increase isn't higher than your current hit dice. I think everybody means Magical Lineage...


Agreed, most armor properties aren't that good. Only decent Shield property is Bashing, and that's only if you're going to make it into a weapon as well.

That being said, it doesn't mean there aren't any good properties. The Deathless property is a pretty solid investment if you plan on fighting against Clerics, Vampires or other kinds of Undead/Negative Energy entities. Here's the description:

Deathless wrote:
This armor protects its wearer from harmful negative and positive energy, including channeled energy. The armor absorbs the first 10 points of positive or negative energy damage per attack that the wearer would normally take. The wearer has a 25% chance to ignore negative levels from any attack. Deathless armor does not block healing of any kind and does not protect against positive or negative energy effects that do not deal damage or bestow negative levels. The deathless ability can be applied to armor of any sort, but not shields.

Costing only a +1 bonus, it's a very powerful effect, and is a must-have for Good characters, since a lot of enemies will be fighting with Negative Energy or Negative Level effects.

The Spell Storing property is also amazing if you are a caster (if you can make magic weapons and armor, then chances are, you can cast spells). Here's the description:

Spell Storing wrote:
This armor allows a spellcaster to store a single touch spell of up to 3rd level in it. Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as a swift action if the wearer desires. Once the spell has been cast from the armor, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted touch spell of up to 3rd level into it. The armor magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled suit of spell storing armor has a 50% chance to have a spell stored in it already. Spell storing armor emits a strong aura of the evocation school, plus the aura of the stored spell.

This is also a +1 Bonus, and if you specialize in Touch attacks for Damage or Debuffs, this property will help you out greatly on your action econmy.

My suggestion is a +1 Deathless (or Spell Storing) Armor and a +2 Shield.


Jack Rift wrote:
Wrong size weapons impose a -2 penalty (if I remember correctly). Otherwise yes, they could.

From the PRD:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons wrote:

A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Referencing crossbows, it says that they can be fired in one hand, and you could fire two crossbows at the same time, one per hand. They are considered a light or one-handed weapon, depending on the type of crossbow when you fire them in this manner.

Since you only need one hand to actually fire the crossbow, and they are considered a light or one-handed weapons when you fire them, in the case of a Light or Hand Crossbow, they become unwieldable by a Medium or larger creature, since it becomes something other than the above bolded designations. Heavy Crossbows apply the same thing, except to Large or larger creatures.


To be honest, if that were the case, you could create Maximized Empowered Intensified Fireball wands, and that's hardly the intent of having restrictions like that. Not even if you had Spell Perfection could you pull off something like that.

While CL isn't a limiting factor (there is debate on this part, actually), spell level is, and applying Metamagics adjusts the spell level by a set amount.

That being said, you could still get away with something like an Empowered Shocking Grasp being put into the armor, since that still constitutes being a 3rd level spell.

It still takes a Standard Action to put the spell into the armor, and a Swift Action to activate the armor (which is a misnomer for its intended purpose; it should be an Immediate Action instead).


TarkXT wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
There is no limit except that imposed by the GM.
Aid Another wrote:
Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

Seems like an absolute statement, meaning GM FIAT limits would result in being a houserule.

One that I would probably agree with for balance purposes, but it's certainly not the RAW or RAI of the Devs.

There are hard limits on how many aid another checks you can get. But they're based on physics rather than RAW. If you assume everyone has 5ft reach, medium, and is airborne you can get up to a +48 bonus against a medium sized opponent on attack or AC. If everyone is on the ground than the bonus reduces to +14.

True, and that's not what we're getting at. That "hard limit" isn't imposed by the GM, as RD claims it to be, it's a limit imposed by the mechanics of the game.


Each item has a set size. For example, if a Hand or Light Crossbow is a Light Weapon for a creature of appropriate size, assuming Medium size, you would be correct in that a Large or bigger (or even Diminutive or smaller) sized creature would be unable to use it.

For a Medium Heavy Crossbow used by a Large creature, it would be a Light Weapon, yes.

As for reloading, it technically does, since you need one hand to hold the crossbow, and the other hand to load the bolt into the pullable lever.

I believe PFS houserules magic items that aren't appropriately sized for the PCs automatically resize, and is something that could be appropriated for your home game, so as not to constantly feed the PCs junk that's unusable and only serves as vendor trash whenever they defeat encounters against enemies who are different on so many levels.

You could also simply allow the Crossbows to be of Medium size and negate the issue entirely that way, though it's more-or-less the same subject as above.


Ravingdork wrote:
There is no limit except that imposed by the GM.
Aid Another wrote:
Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

Seems like an absolute statement, meaning GM FIAT limits would result in being a houserule.

One that I would probably agree with for balance purposes, but it's certainly not the RAW or RAI of the Devs.


Tangaroa wrote:

With inspiring courage, arcane strike and versatile weapon his damage won't be a total wash, but yes agile and piranha would certainly help.

For damage, another option would be to save up and go for holy on the weapon. That's a significant delay in the power curve, but holy is effective against a huge fraction of enemies.

I kind of find bladethirst to be supobtimal. The disruptive chain much the same, especially for small/low damage/low mobility characters. A high mobility character with a reach weapon would get much more mileage out of that feat chain (although, there is always haste and expeditious retreat.)

If you want my opinion regarding gnome melee bards, I would probably just go with a vanilla bard, or any of the following archetypes: animal speaker, savage skald, sound striker. All of them have more interesting powers, and give up less useful features of the bard class. (although, sound striker has confusing rules the bear a careful forum search).

By the endgame, with those abilities included, you're looking at, at-best (assuming 14 Base Strength) 4 + 5 + 5 + 7(24 Strength, +6 Belt and +4 Level Stats) + 3.5 = 24.5 damage per hit, and with 3/4 BAB and a maximum of 4 attacks with Haste, an average of 2 or 3 hits per full attack equates to a minimum of 73.5 damage per round. That's the damage of a competent martial's single attack. At that point, creatures will have an average of over 200 hit points, meaning it would take at least 3, usually 4 rounds of full attacks to kill one big guy, or maybe 3-4 mooks.

At level 6 (his starting level), having a base increase of +2 from Inspire Courage, +2 from Arcane Strike, a +3 Strength modifier (14 Base Strength, +2 Belt), and a +2 Arcane Bond weapon, plus base weapon damage would equate to 12.5 damage per attack. Being 3/4 BAB, he only gets a single attack until 7th level, so 12.5 is his DPR. Most things by that level have ~70 hit points, meaning it will take close to 5 or 6 full rounds of attacking to kill a relevant creature. By PFS standards (maybe not a good way to do it, but it's much more conservative than the minmaxing that occurs on this board), that's two entire combats where he effectively can focus one guy and get him dead.

So, even if you kept with it, while it makes your ability to kill much more relevant, you're still equating to requiring 3 or 4 full attacks (which means 3-4 rounds worth of actions) to kill one melee-competent guy by the time you reach levels where every encounter turns into Rocket Tag.

That's not even including the enemy striking you back, and with Bards having only D8 hit points and only able to use Light Armor with a 12 Dexterity (because Charisma is required, you need Strength for your "damage," plus some Constitution for extra hit points doesn't leave you much for Dexterity with a 15 point buy) you are going to get hit a lot, and hard, quite easily.

The reason why Bladethirst may seem suboptimal is because you haven't yet come across a situation for it to be relevant, but there are plenty. When fighting incorporeals and you don't have Ghost Touch weapons? Bladethirst gives Ghost Touch property to a frontliner's weapon, now he does full damage. Enemy hiding in Displacement? Help a ranged out and give their weapon the Seeking property. Crit fishing, but too poor to make it effective? Keen property just made you twice as effective at your job. Even making it +1 higher could allow your allies to bypass certain DR should the situation arise.

All of those benefits increase damage and hit probability way more than an Inspire Courage could ever hope to accomplish. A shame it only works on one weapon, but Mass Bladethirst is pretty lame in comparison, and by the time you get to it, the property itself becomes useless because Rocket Tag.

If he could apply Dexterity to Damage and use Piranha Strike, he'd be competent at melee (and have good defenses, too!), and still be an awesome Bard. Problem is, since he doesn't have access to that, he could try to be good at melee, but he won't last long, and the math doesn't support his choice being a strong and useful one.


gnomewizard wrote:
stuart haffenden wrote:
What are your stats?

As I am reading this I am thinking of going for the dex based since i am smaller.

Str: 10 (+0)
Dex: 16 (+3)
Con: 13 (+1)
Wis: 10 (+0)
Int: 10 (+0)
Cha: 16 (+3)

This is a 15 point buy including 4th lvl bonus and racial bonuses for gnomes. i don't really like dump stats 15 pt buy is hard enough w/o being hindered by negative to things like perceiving.

someone also suggested this array:
Str 10, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 15

Thoughts?

If you tried to go Dexterity, you need a way to apply Dexterity to Damage rolls for being an actual melee combatant to work. Otherwise, your damage is going down the crapper. Unfortunately, none of the sourcebooks you listed that you have access to allow for such, meaning you might be better off simply dumping Dexterity and Constitution down to 12 and increasing Strength to 14, and stick to using a Reach weapon as others have suggested, so you aren't getting slaughtered by those who don't use Reach weapons.

That being said, contributing via damage in melee isn't the only route. You could bump Intelligence to 13, get Combat Expertise, and focus on Dirty Tricks. At Greater Dirty Tricks, your debuffs last 1D4 + 1 per 5 you beat their CMD, and if they want to remove them sooner, they need to spend a Standard Action for each one. Bonus points for you taking Agile Maneuvers feat, so you get Dexterity to your Dirty Tricks Maneuvers instead of Strength, and you can apply a multitude of conditions, such as Staggered (Cheap Shot), Blinded (Sand in the Face, Eye-Poking, etc.), Dazzled/Fascinated (Extremely Bright Lights?), etc.

Aid Another routes are also good. Being able to bump up to a +9 to AC per enemy attack (up to your Dexterity Modifier+1) is a really nice ability to have, and granting a +9 to a melee ally's lowest attack roll via Readied Action is great for confirming your allies' damage and increasing their DPR consistency. And since you can cast spells with your weapon in hand, you can use a Heavy Shield for increased survivability, a one-handed weapon, threaten to use Aid Another, and cast spells all at once. I personally use a Cestus, so that I can hold a Metamagic Rod in that hand, make use of it, and still fulfill my ability to cast spells, as well as be able to make attacks for Aid Another.


gnomewizard wrote:

This has been so helpful. I have a question instead of the long/short sword many of you have suggested. Could a Gnome bard use the gnome hooked hammer. Cause really this pc idea is being inspired by the NPC on pg#19 of the npc codex. Obviously not the build on that page but the picture.

I like that the npc is ready and raring for battle but has rods and potions and wands strapped to him along with his bow and hammer...

Unfortunately no. Being a Gnome only allows you to treat weapons with the word "Gnome" in its name (Gnome Hooked Hammer) as a Martial weapon. It does not outright grant proficiency, meaning unless you get all-around Martial weapon proficiency, you can't make use of it without spending feats for proficiency.

And if you have to spend proficiency feats for it, why bother limiting yourself to being a Gnome to spend the Martial proficiency feat when you can be any other race and get the Exotic proficiency for the same effect, and have a much better Favored Class Bonus like the Human's?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
The whole system is based in quantum uncertainty. 6 seconds of combat just happened. They're done, completed, finished. The characters know what happened already; they lived it (and some may have died it). But the players don't know what happened; that's what all the dice rolling is about; the players finding out what their characters already know. Same applies to Knowledge checks. You roll a Knowledge check and it isn't like your character just learned that information on the spot. He's known that information for years, but, just as he's not supposed to use Out-of-Character knowledge, you're not supposed to have Out-of-Player knowledge. So you roll Knowledge to see what the character has known all along, having learned it long ago.

I'm completely on board with accepting a certain amount of unreality in order to make the game playable. Taking turns instead of the simultaneous actions it's supposed to represent, make knowledge checks instead of knowing that information the whole time; how else are we to play these things?

But quantum uncertainty should be kept to a minimum. There is no need to have a quantum limb here, when the rule could easily (and more sensibly) be that the limb is defined either when the grapple is attempted or when the grapple succeeds.

Quote:
...it's strange that this limb isn't chosen at the time of the grapple, but at the moment the target wants to attack
It's even stranger than this! Let our PC be wearing a cold iron spiked gauntlet on his left hand and a silver spiked gauntlet on his right. When grappled, he is free to attack with either, but not both. In round one he could attack with his left. In round two he wants to attack with both, but the DM says that after he has attacked with the first attack (his right) then that prevents him from attacking with his left. Why? Because his left is immobilised by the grapple. Round three: attack with his left? No problem. Okay, for my second attack I'll...

The rules are abstract in this regard for a reason, and that's because the players need to use common sense for each situation. The players who are being grappled shouldn't get a choice as to which limb is grappled, that's something the one who initiates the grapple designates when he makes his roll; he's the one trying to grab a limb, and I'm pretty sure a PC doesn't just want to let something grab them in the midst of combat. Obviously, once a limb is grappled, that limb remains the one to be nullified at all times. Of course, the creature who initiated can choose to nullify a separate limb if he wants, with a successful Grapple check to maintain instead of one of the other options.

This sort of thing should be expanded to following Called Shot rules in regards to respective grapple penalties involving limbs; for example, instead of grappling a given hand, nullifying any actions that can be made with that hand, I could instead grapple a leg, and force them to move at half speed, being down a leg and all to move. Or a Wing to hamper fly speed and fly checks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Foul II wrote:
ME LIKE SMASH wrote:
gnomewizard wrote:
ME LIKE SMASH wrote:

After ability points are all spent (with advancement bonus)

Str:10
Dex:14
con;14
Int:10
wis:11
cha:18
Feats: Weapon finesse (Rapier), Toughness, pow attack

Weapon: +1 Keen Rapier

why not do a strength build since arcane duelist is a melee striker

You requested to be a gnome,so I gave it to him.

Although a half-orc would be better.
aasimar (the variant that gets +2cha +2str and has alter self (another +2 to str) as a spell like ability, I think they are angle blooded) would be better

OP's GM says he gets access to Core, APG, UC, and UM. No ARG unless he approves, meaning Aasimar is out the door. (It's a shame, because Aasimars are the best there is for Bards.) Halfling is a great alternative; the only cutback is the -2 Strength, which hurts his melee damage greatly.

That being said, I personally find Bards to not be great melee types unless you choose an Archetype that grants massive attack and damage bonuses, or the ability to convert your Dexterity to Attack and Damage, given their lack of proficiencies with armor and weapons and 3/4 BAB. Arcane Duelists make better caster types, since they get one "Get out of Jail Free" spell, Bladethirst comes online at this level, not to mention the ability to cast spells with your Arcane Bonded weapon in hand. They do get increased armor proficiencies, but that won't be until 10th and 16th level.

The only real melee weapon they can use is a Rapier, and the only real ranged weapon they can use is a Shortbow, which sucks because no extra damage modifier. (You're better off using a Firearm by that point.)

That isn't to say that Bards can't be in the front lines. If they invest in enough Dexterity and Armor items, their AC and Saves can tolerate having lower-than-usual hit points. They can do other things besides melee attacks, such as buffs, debuffs, and Aid Another, which makes having a 3/4 BAB and weak damage moot when you can make your melee friends that much more effective.

I understand dump stats aren't really appreciated, so for a conservative 15 point buy pre-racials, I recommend this:

Strength 10
Dexterity 14
Constitution 12
Intelligence 10
Wisdom 8
Charisma 16

If you take Halfling, your statistics would be as follows:

Strength 8
Dexterity 16
Constitution 12
Intelligence 10
Wisdom 8
Charisma 18

So he's a little weak and a little on the brash side, but is agile and charming. Sounds like a typical halfling to me!

You could even just go Human to bump the Charisma to 18 (and save your Strength to being 10), given that the Human Favored Class Bonus is extremely valuable to a Spontaneous Caster like a Bard.

If you plan to Aid Another, investing in Weapon Finesse and using a Rapier will be required, plus having Bodyguard to make proper use of AoOs for your allies being attacked makes you indispensable as a fellow combatant. Getting Arcane Strike, Combat Casting, and Disruptive for free feats makes you even better at being in the front lines casting spells (and making it harder for enemies to cast spells with you around), meaning you'd make great spellcasters become shut down. I also recommend these gloves later down the road.


lemeres wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

If it's not hurting, oppressing, or killing someone, it's not evil. Source: The freakin' alignment rules.

Doesn't matter if it is creepy or gross. Creepy and gross is not evil (though a lot of evil may be creepy and gross).

I think dragon crafting could be considered 'hurting, oppressing, or killing'.

I mean, the fact that their is an industry for your organs and bodily fluids seems creepy (at least in the sense of the black market, rather than legitimate organ donors; hard to imagine most dragons doing that)

This brings up the Murderhobo Paradox:
Do you just happen to get loot from legitimate fights and killings, or are you fighting and killing in order to get loot?

Killing something for the sole purpose of using their body parts is something that falls in line of evil, yes.

But that's not what's happening here. All they are doing is making use of parts that would otherwise just rot into the ground that they are planted on. The reasoning for killing them can be something completely different, which you seem to think isn't the case at all.

It's no different than Native Americans hunting buffalo to survive in the wild, and then using every bit of their body parts for clothing, tools, food, etc. And they've managed to thrive as a culture of people. The only difference is that these aren't Awakened Buffalo.

For argument's sake, let's say they are. Does that make them evil, hunting and killing these buffalo for survival?

Murderhobo paradox makes no sense; people have their motivations, and being motivated by greed, while quite negative, isn't inherently evil, since currency can be acquired through honorable work and cheap trickery alike. The point is, it doesn't matter how the character gets his money, just that he gets his money, and whether he gets it from honest adventuring or through manipulation and coercion determines whether he is Good or Evil.

Other people are motivated through a driven cause they feel to uphold, either through a personal attachment, or for an obligation they agreed to do, and the same concept can apply, though the cause itself does have an influence in your alignment (for example, if you just want to kill everyone, that's Chaotic Stupid/Stupid Evil right there).


I find that with several other options, there is a "Once this choice has been made, it cannot be changed" clause behind it.

FCBs should function no different, given that, as written above, several other FCBs would cease to function in the way they are intended to work.


Peet wrote:

Two-weapon fighting does require two hands. However, TWF is not an action.

Full-attack is an action. Full attack does not require you to use two hands, or even one hand. You simply need to be able to make two or more attacks.

The grappled condition does not specify that you are being held by the arm, or that one of your arms is not able to be used. You can grapple creatures that do not have arms. Creatures without arms can grapple you as long as they have something that can grab you (many creatures grapple with their tail, for example).

That kind of thinking right there breaks the game. If TWF is not an action, why don't I TWF every round since it doesn't take any action to do?

Re-read the Combat Section regarding Full Attacks more closely.

Full Attack wrote:
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

Let me get rid of the clutter to make the sentence much more coherent and relevant to the point I'm making.

Full Attack (Edited) wrote:
If you get more than one attack per round because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

So, TWF is, in fact, a Full Attack, which then makes TWF a Full-Round Action.

Granted, TWF has shown you don't need to actually use your hands to have two weapons, as evidenced by Blade Boots, Armor Spikes, and Unarmed Strikes or other Natural Weapons, you still can't have TWF with both weapons in your hands, you pick one (it should be rolled at random, to be quite honest with you), and then you find another suitable weapon which does not require hands to use.


@ Coriat: I'll do the math breakdown.

WBL Breakdown:
108K WBL will have a +6 Dexterity Belt, +6 Charisma Headband, which equates to 32K of my 108K WBL.

You have a +4 Benevolent Cestus crafted at cost (since it's his Arcane Bond), so 25K right there, making it 57K of my 108K WBL. That's not too much.

Throw on a +2 Benevolent Deathless Mithril Medium Armor (probably a Kikko), and that'll rack up about 13K, making it 70K of my 108K WBL spent.

With a Cloak of Resistance +3 (9K), Ring of Protection +2 (8K), and an Amulet of Natural Armor +2 (8K), that will equate to a 25K price, making it 95K of my 108K WBL spent.

Finally, throw in Gloves of Arcane Striking for 5K, and a +2 Living Heavy Steel Shield for another 5K, and we're about at my WBL when we factor in consumables.

He is a level 10 Arcane Duelist Bard and a level 2 Sacred Shield Paladin, with the Helpful and Magical Knack traits, so he has his full 12 CL and has a base Aid Another of +4 instead of +2. (Before you ask, he is an Azata-Blooded Aasimar with Scion of Humanity Racial Trait with the Racial Heritage feat taken at 1st level, so he can legally take Halfling stuff.)

And it's not like I'm not factoring buffs in. A lot of the Bard's spell buffs will be active before combat even begins, and if not, then a Quicken Metamagic Rod will definitely do a lot more than a few bits of damage or AC for a given attack. He won't have access to it quite yet, unfortunately, so he'll just have to make due. He otherwise has no use for Swift Actions every round.

Buffs that last minutes per level can be cast before a combat begins; exceptions are round/level spells like Haste, and there aren't too many of those.

To be honest, choosing that race and those feats and traits really makes the character. Having a base 20 Charisma and 18 Dexterity is very nice to have as a Bard of this type, something I certainly can't do without an Aasimar. Plus having Scion of Heritage for Halfling benefits is really huge, and having to spend one feat and one trait for all of the Halfling defensive feats I can take, the ability to increase my base Aid Another to twice that of the previous is amazing for the low levels, and only makes his ability later on that much stronger.

While you are correct, Good Hope can be cast before the combat begins, and Haste can be cast as soon as it begins, along with Inspire Courage. So I'm still pumping the same numbers, but the Haste and Inspire Courage only take one round's worth of actions to do. What do I do with the rest of them for the combat? Debuff perhaps, but I can't just throw spells out like hot cakes, and I can't really buff anyone else, since I'm already spending 2 3rd level spell slots. I'm not designed to do a lot of damage, and having 3/4 BAB I'm lucky to hit AC 10 anyway, so why spend actions swinging and missing all game when I can be making the guy who does it and is good at it, even better at doing it with those same actions?


Self-explanatory question.

Say the only way a Paladin could survive was to eat another living being of the same race. Would they do it, or would they sooner sacrifice themselves for that same person to live?


AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

Okay, so in nearly every instance where it talks about drinking the blood of sentient creatures, it says this is an evil act. But the Dragonslayer's Handbook talks about how you can use Dragon Blood as healing, there is the Dragon Drinker sorcerer archetype, etc. So, does it say nothing about alignment? Can a Paladin drink dragon's blood cause the RAW doesn't say (that I can find at least) that drinking dragon blood is evil?

I will say I don't have the actual book yet, just read the crunch on Archives of Nethys and d20pfsrd (checked both, looking for anything about "drinking dragon blood is evil same as humanoids" and saw nothing.

To be honest, I find the whole "Drinking Blood is Evil" thing to make no sense, both RAW and RAI, especially when you're talking about a medicinal use for it, since you are saying the ingestion of Dragon Blood provides healing capabilities.

That being said, Dragonslayers using the scales, bones, innards, etc. of a Dragon as a means of life is no different than Native Americans nomading around and killing all the buffalo, using the furs, bones, meat, and other stuff for sustenance. They are naturally living off the land. The biggest difference is, for gameplay terminology, the Buffalo aren't intelligent, they're 2 Intelligence animals.

So if those same Native Americans went around and killed Awakened Buffalo (it's about the closest in-game comparison we'll get) for the same reasons Dragonslayers go out and kill Dragons, would they really be Evil? Well...that's for you to decide. I really doubt it.

@ Rynjin: The OP isn't talking about drinking Dragon Blood for a thrill or from a living dragon, which the whole "Drinking Blood" arguments originate toward; drinking the blood of a living, breathing sentient creature who feels pain and suffering from the act. So let's compare.

Is the Dragon alive? No. Is the Dragon sentient? It's dead. It's a corpse. So, it's not even a creature, it's an object, meaning moot question. Is the Dragon in pain and suffering? No. Again, it's a corpse, whatever pain and suffering it felt that led to its death is over and done with. Plus, since it's dead, it's an object, so we're back to the previous question. Is the Dragonslayer doing it for the thrill? Arguable, though given that the Dragon's Blood has medicinal qualities, plus he is using more than just the blood of the Dragon, and Dragons (or even those of Draconic ancestry) can be overzealous and territorial towards other creatures, it's extremely doubtful. So all of those qualities that people would take to mean Evil aren't even applicable in the first place, given game mechanics.

Quite frankly, it's survival of the fittest. Living things need to eat and use the resources of the land (and its inhabitants) in order to survive. If other animals were sentient like us, I'm sure mice would refer to owls as a bunch of jerks who just swoop down and take them from the ground all willy-nilly like a bunch of horrible kidnappers, dogs and cats would throw the Evil card at each other almost constantly, and who knows what else. Simply denying it because "Oh, you're doing it to something who can think and act on a level beyond that of basic creatures, you're evil!" is the same reasoning behind "You can't fire that guy, he's the best at his job, you're evil!"


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Cool, 2 Traits invested into a single spell so you can cast it with a single spell 2 levels earlier. I'm glad nobody in the party knows how to interrupt spellcasters or counterspell the most commonly selected 3rd level Arcane spell in the game or anything...
Wow, fireball is the most common 3rd level spell in your games? Wow....

It's no less common than Haste, Dispel Magic, Fly, etc. It's the earliest accessible AoE nuke spellcasters have access to that have amazing range and just the right amount of area to cover. It also has a damage scale (10D6) that can expand even more with Intensify Spell (15D6).

Not to mention, you're the goober who brought it up in the first place. Why not Ice Storm, or Stone Call, or Burning Hands? Because Fireball is the best spell you can use for those 2 traits, so why would anyone who wanted to deal massive damage and get optimal use of those traits not take Fireball?


thejeff wrote:
Coriat wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The reason you see it as stupid is because you aren't doing it right. Consider this:

Aid Another is a Standard Action, correct? You can ready a Standard Action, including Aid Another, correct? So, couldn't I ready an Aid Another to Aid my ally's lowest attack roll to help confirm his lower hits?

No, actually, because a ready action occurs before the triggering action.

Right. So my triggering action is Bob's third iterative attack.

You can ready an action for part way through someone's move action, (when he comes around the corner, when he comes into range) why not part way through their attack sequence?

You can certainly ready an action to interrupt Bob's third iterative attack with an aid another, what you can't do is wait until Bob's third attack is over and then go back and apply your aid another bonus.
Of course not. I assumed by "lowest attack", he meant attack with the lowest iterative bonus, not actual lowest roll. Perhaps I was wrong.

Correct via the bolded part. Here's what I meant:

Assuming 12th level, I can have the Swift Aid feat, +3 Deathless Benevolent Medium Mithril Armor, Arcane Striking Gloves, and a +3 Benevolent Cestus for a weapon (could be even higher, given it's an Arcane Bond weapon and I can enchant it for half value and count as having the crafting feats necessary to enchant, but I'll play it conservative here), plus Helpful Halfling trait via Racial Heritage (Halfling) at 1st level with Aasimar with Scion of Humanity Racial Trait, resulting in aiding +7 to AC or +7 to Attack rolls, and I can forgo the Swift Aid for attack rolls (I could probably skip taking this feat entirely if to-hit is already plenty high enough with Inspire Courage, Haste, Heroism, etc.) to either grant an additional 3 AC (resulting in 9 total) if Aiding AC, or an extra +3 to my ally's damage roll if aiding to-hit.

For my round, I use my Swift Aid feat to either give my fellow melee a +(X/2) bonus to AC against one attack (if enemies are next in the initiative before him), a +(X/2) bonus to attack rolls for one attack (if he is next in the initiative before the enemies), or make use of my Arcane Strike for an Aid Another type bonus of my choice. I then ready an action for Aid Another when my ally makes his 3rd attack roll.

So, when it becomes his turn, and he makes his attack, he would get +X (X equating to my Aid Another bonus) when he rolls for his 3rd attack roll. Everybody get it now?


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ Thomas Long 175: A Dazing Spell casts as 3 levels higher, so that's not really a scary thing by the time it becomes relevant. There are better things to apply for lesser spell levels (Empower, Intensify, Heighten, Extend, just to name a few). Even so, unless you get it in a rod, it's highly impractical to take as a Metamagic feat, given that there are much better choices to take.

In addition, reviewing the Dazing Spell description:

Dazing Spell wrote:
If the spell allows a saving throw, a successful save negates the daze effect. If the spell does not allow a save, the target can make a Will save to negate the daze effect.
No matter what kind of spell you use (you can't use non-damaging spells, by the way, so good luck with that Slow spell coming with a Daze effect), you are allowed a Saving Throw to make the Daze go away, which is usually either Reflex or Will, determined by the saving throw type of the spell being cast, if it normally allows one.
I'm just going to laugh softly because you think dazing spell isn't relevant. Btw, magical lineage + wayaang spell hunter says hi. 4th level dazing fireball, able to be cast at 7th level.

Cool, 2 Traits invested into a single spell so you can cast it with a single spell 2 levels earlier. I'm glad nobody in the party knows how to interrupt spellcasters or counterspell the most commonly selected 3rd level Arcane spell in the game or anything...


@ Thomas Long 175: A Dazing Spell casts as 3 levels higher, so that's not really a scary thing by the time it becomes relevant. There are better things to apply for lesser spell levels (Empower, Intensify, Heighten, Extend, just to name a few). Even so, unless you get it in a rod, it's highly impractical to take as a Metamagic feat, given that there are much better choices to take.

In addition, reviewing the Dazing Spell description:

Dazing Spell wrote:
If the spell allows a saving throw, a successful save negates the daze effect. If the spell does not allow a save, the target can make a Will save to negate the daze effect.

No matter what kind of spell you use (you can't use non-damaging spells, by the way, so good luck with that Slow spell coming with a Daze effect), you are allowed a Saving Throw to make the Daze go away, which is usually either Reflex or Will, determined by the saving throw type of the spell being cast, if it normally allows one.


Lemmy wrote:

Well... That's nice and all, but the amount of effort and resources invested to get a okay bonus for 1 attack makes sure AA is still pretty much useless 99% of the time.

Benevolent is an enhancement I'd never use on add to any weapon, and I sure as hell wouldn't spend a ring slot with a Ring of Tactical precision.

IMHO, if your character has nothing better to do, then someone made some grievous mistake in their character build and/or combat tactics.

Aid Another is one of those mechanics that are good in theory, but got neutered by their implementation.

Azata-Blooded Aasimar Arcane Duelist Bard 18/Sacred Shield Paladin 2 would heavily disagree with you.

The reason you see it as stupid is because you aren't doing it right. Consider this:

Aid Another is a Standard Action, correct? You can ready a Standard Action, including Aid Another, correct? So, couldn't I ready an Aid Another to Aid my ally's lowest attack roll to help confirm his lower hits? You betcha, my ally just got a heavily increased DPR for me confirming hits for him. What else would I do with my Standard Action? Cast buffs? Sure, if I need to cast them. Crowd-Control effects? If there's anything I need to lock down that we can't deal with right now, certainly. It's not like I have super-gamechanging spells available to me, being a 6th spell level caster and all.

I can also use the Swift Aid feat, granting half an Aid Another bonus to an ally's roll as a Swift Action to help the highest attack confirm too, if the enemy's AC is super-high, but if I don't have to, Quickened Buffs or Crowd Control effects via a Metamagic Rod are still available to me, or better yet, granting my Arcane Strike damage bonus to my ally, or increasing his AC for a single attack, probably the enemy's Highest Base Attack, equal to that of the bonus damage to be delivered via Bodyguard are also valid choices to make with my Swift Action for the round.

Speaking of Bodyguard, the ability to provide Aid of a base of up to +10 AC (I calculated 9 before, thanks for mentioning that ring!), while having an Arcane Bonded +5 Benevolent Cestus (much easier and cheaper to craft it that way). Even if it's for just one attack, having an 18 Base Dexterity. The best part is? These all stack with other people who Aid Another.

And that's just in regards to Aid Another. This character can also go Fighting Defensively, increasing his Reflex Saves, as well as granting half of the extra benefits for doing so to any ally adjacent to him. And once per combat, I add my Charisma as Deflection AC against a target, and if he tries to hit anyone close to me (I save this for the BBEG of a campaign), they only take 50% of the actual damage. Tack on the ability to buff like a Bard with Haste, Heroism, plus Inspire Courage and other great goodies, and your allies are going to have bonuses that make them only not work on a 1 (or 20 if it's against an enemy's roll).


From the D20PFSRD:

Grappled wrote:

A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

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.

In regards to the OP and "two light weapons," it becomes a corner-case issue, given the bolded part above, because making attacks with light weapons can be subjects that do not require hands to perform. Bite Attacks, Unarmed Strikes (with Legs and Elbows, or even a Headbutt), Spiked Armor, etc. are all attacks that don't really require hands to perform.

However, if you were to TWF and you tried to use both weapons in your hands, you wouldn't be able to because of the bolded clause; you are using two hands to perform the TWF action, and therefore that becomes an action you can't take. If, on the other hand, you were trying to use just one weapon in your hand, and an Unarmed Strike with your leg, it becomes a valid action you can take.


Secane wrote:
@ Darksol, but do you think the extra crit range should come from taking Keen or via Improved Critical?

It depends on if you plan to use that weapon for the rest of the game, and if you plan to make use of Bless Weapon. If you plan to use that weapon for the rest of the game, it's not a bad idea to get Keen on it, though if you want other juicy properties, it will cost you even more to get those on, not to mention the other great wondrous items you may be able to get. But, if want to make use of Bless Weapon, you'd have to take the Improved Critical feat, though as I said above, it will free up some cash for other useful items.

I also suggest you compare and contrast each choice, and weigh its strengths versus what you give up for it: to me, Improved Critical is very nice for your weapon type, and your immunities, saving throws, and strong healing power as-is (getting an extra 2D6+4 for your Lay On Hands is extremely powerful, not to mention causing one of those Lay On Hands to give Lesser Restoration is just icing on the cake), you can stand to do without Greater Mercy. Although your AC would be lacking due to Blood Rage, your ridiculous damage should be able to destroy any immediate threat on a given auto-confirmed 17-20/X3 critical against a Smited BBEG. It costs a feat, but you can always get Greater Mercy by 11th level, whereas that 6K you spend for Keen can be put to some amazing but cheap wondrous item. Of course, doing that gives you an extra 1D6+2 to your Lay On Hands if you use no Mercies, but you're already ahead of the curve with your Bracers anyway, so no point for that at the moment.

Ultimate Mercy can be very good to bring to the party, but in PFS play, I find spells such as Raise Dead, although a mean way to look at it, they are, as you said, a random group composition, so it is either going to be overly useful (to the point that you have to give up all your LoH charges to use it, potentially compromising the integrity of your build), or absolutely useless (because this base is covered by a Divine spellcaster in the party). In addition, you won't be getting it until 11th level at the earliest, and by that point PFS play is almost at its limit, so you won't be getting much use out of it, if at all.

When you get access to casting 3rd level spells, be sure to pick up Haste from your Unsanctioned Knowledge. Being able to buff yourself and the party with easily the most powerful Martial buff in the game on a regular basis is a really nice boon, and also helps you not have to rely on others to have it. And for 4th level spells, Freedom of Movement is amazing to have.


So either I use it as a Light Spiked Shield for D4 damage and Finesse with it, or use it as a One-handed Weapon for D6 damage, but no Finesse or Agile; as evidenced by the Thunder and Fang feat description, very well, you proved me wrong here. I also forgot that I probably wouldn't be able to cast spells with the Klars either, whereas with Quickdraw Darkwood Light Shields and the Quick Draw feat, I could.

You aren't reading what I typed correctly once again. I said I take the Infiltrator Witchguard Ranger archetypes for the first 10 levels; at 10th level, thanks to Witchguard Patron spells, I can get access to the Silence and Haste spells from the Time patron, since they will be put on my spell list to prepare for the day. The Infiltrator Archetype allows me to select adaptations from my Favored Enemies, 1 at 3rd level (Iron Will from Undead Favored Enemy), and then 2 more at 8th level, which are usable 10 minutes per day per Ranger level.

So I take that for 10 character levels. Once I hit 11th level, I then take Invulernable Urban Barbarian archetypes for the remaining 10 character levels, getting the Beast Totem line, and a couple other goodies. By level 20, I'll have the ability to Pounce to serve as my capstone, plus 3rd level casting (although I really only use it for the Haste), and the ability to make 8 attacks with TWF with no penalties, and deal competent damage while maintaining a strong defense. You with me so far now, or am I still tripping you up?

I assume this is the item in question? Doesn't call itself a +1 Bashing/+1 Flaming shield like you say it does. It says it's a +2 Bashing Heavy Spiked Shield, so you're wrong on at least two accounts, that the modifiers for the propertes calculated separately, and the actual Enhancement bonus amount. It then says it deals 1D6 Fire damage and 1D6 Divine damage. It also costs ~27,000 gold. If we did it the way of +1 Bashing and +1 Flaming combined like you said it was, that number makes absolutely zero sense, since +1 Bashing equates to 4K, and +1 Flaming equates to 8K, there's 15K that unaccounted for.

So let's try it my way: A +2 (AC) Bashing shield costs 9K to enchant. We have a mimicked Flaming property, so 2K for that. It also has a 1D6 versus Evil creatures; the closest property that symbolizes that is the Holy property, a +2 bonus, so that bumps it from 2K to 18K. Combining the 2 different numbers according to what the Shield section says (9K + 18K = 27K), that total equates to the price being listed, and it functions as an effective +6 Shield, having +2 in Enhancement Bonuses to AC, +1 in Shield Special Abilities, and +3 in Weapon Special Abilities.

Trying it another way, we can have a +2 AC Bashing shield with a +2 Hit Flaming (it explains how it says the regular bash damage is 2D6+2, which, with the above example, makes that line of text incorrect via calculation), making it the same cost, though the 1D6 V.S. Evil price isn't factored in, which, if it was, would make the shield cost a lot more.

That being said, Specific Items with effects not symbolized in the special abilities chart aren't an accurate means to determine whether an item is calculated with separate or combined modifiers, since the Asura Shield in question doesn't actually refer to the Flaming and Holy properties, even if the effects are practically identical. (Ironically enough, using the properties themselves would actually be stronger than the specific item in question.) In this case, we also don't know how much bonuses the uncalculated effects are worth, if we decide to enhance this same exact weapon in the future.

My argument of Armor Spikes V.S. Shield Spikes is the same argument that was presented in whether Haste allows Monks to make an extra attack with their FoB or other Full Attack Option if they didn't use a Monk Weapon; the Haste RAW mentioned "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon." Because Monk Unarmed Strikes are considered both a Natural and Manufactured weapon for spell effects that target such, and Haste targets a creature, not a creature's natural or manufactured weapon, RAW, Monks couldn't get an extra Unarmed Strike attack with Haste.

The same concept applies to the former argument we are having; because Shield Spikes refer to enhancing "the shield" into a magic weapon in its own right, you must enhance the shield itself as a weapon, not the spikes on the shield itself, because RAW, they aren't considered an object separate from the shield for you to enhance. Armor Spikes, on the other hand refer to enhancing "the spikes" into a magic weapon in its own right, meaning you can enhance the Spikes separately from enhancing the Armor.


Seranov wrote:
In theory, yes, but I'm pretty sure you can't put Bane on shields? I might be wrong here.

Yes, you can. You can enhance a shield as both a weapon and a suit of armor. You can even give it a +1 to AC and be able to apply weapon special abilities to it.


@ Mavael: At the level they're at, even round/level spells last enough for the combat; assuming 9th level, that's 9 rounds they can use buffs to slaughter creatures (Divine Favor has a 10 round non-scaling limit, but still). Most combats by the low levels last 3 rounds tops; in the mid levels, maybe 5, maximum 10 rounds if it's a BBEG. By the endgame, Rocket Tag begins, making even round-duration spells a bit much.

@ OP: I'm a level 10 Mobile Fighter in a homebrew who gets access to Divine Favor 3/day, just to make sure I can have that buff in practically every fight. There was only ever 1 instance in where I had to cast it twice in the same fight, and that's because of crowd control shenanigans combined with reinforcements from the enemy half-way through the battle.

As a Paladin, who has all kinds of immunities to crowd control shenanigans, and the ability to crush evil down to nothing with a couple solid hits, combats will be a lot shorter than what my Fighter had to deal with.

That being said, your focus is key. If you need the survivability, Greater Mercy is pretty good, since it's about half the effects of your Bracers if you just simply need a heal (it doesn't apply the extra 1D6 if you have to use at least 1 Mercy on yourself). If you want to give more survivability to your friends without compromising your own, Reward of Life is good, since you still heal yourself up to your Charisma modifier if you use a LoH to heal someone else.

If you need the damage, I'd take Improved Critical; using a Falcata, the 17-20/X3 multiplier is pretty nasty, and getting automatically confirmed X3 criticals on bad guys who are Smited about equates to a one-shot. Paladins are practically invincible anyway, so I would take this option.


Aelryinth wrote:

You forgot Improved Shield Bash, to keep your Shield AC.

You forgot all the TWF feats. You're still spending feats to keep them, and you can't take them and the Shield Master line of feats at the same time. So, you're spending general feats.

EACH of those shields cost you 54k. That's 108k. That's level 14+ to acquire that much money for weapons/shields.
Rangers don't benefit from Courageous and Furious.
Light shields don't benefit from 2h Str or 2h Power Attack. And you need to take the Natural Attack totem line to get Pounce.
Light shields suck on single attacks. You can't charge and Pounce all the time.
Rangers still take level 6 to get Shield Master. When exactly are you grabbing all these uber barb levels and spellcasting on top of it?

The crappy damage from using a shield is that it's a 20/x2 weapon. If you want to do real damage, you need a higher threat range or a higher crit mod. It's a SIMPLE weapon, for all intents and purposes. A spiked Bashing light shield is a worse weapon then a LONGSWORD, without spending 4k in magic to make it viable.

You went and started stacking enhancement bonuses again, which is done nowhere else in the game. You want to cite a rule that specifically says that shields stack enhancement bonuses, you're fine.

Otherwise, that rule that you keep citing for +10 bonuses means that two non-stacking +10 bonuses do not violate the cap. When they stack, come see me. I could give the shield 50 different +10 enhancement bonuses, and as long as none of them stack, I'd be fine.

What you're arguing about that shields are not treated exactly like armor spikes is strange, dude. I mean, come on. The only other item which is weapon and defense at the same time, and you're basically saying that precedent and how they handle it doesn't apply. No, no, they have to make up rules which exist nowhere in the rules and get spun into place because you don't want weapon and armor enhancements to remain separate.

You cling to your interpolation and odd English. Ignore the dev...

Never ignored them, you just don't know how to calculate the feat progression. I get ISB and Weapon Finesse by 1st level (you can figure out how that works), TWF by 2nd level, Piranha Strike by 3rd level, Shield Master by 6th, Improved TWF by 7th, Bashing Finish by 10th (can get earlier, but other important feats, plus bonus feat slot by that point is quite limited), and Greater TWF by 11th. So, I get 3 off-hand attacks and 4 main-hand attacks, since by the time I hit 10th level, I get access to cast the Haste spell, at standard iterative BAB. I also get Bodyguard and In Harm's Way as Bonus Feats for free too, not to mention my Hunter's Bond basically makes both me and my caster friend practically invincible to melee attacks for a certain amount of rounds.

What else do you spend your general feats on as a 2H Martial? Extra Rage Power? Barbarians get Rage Powers every 2 levels, what's so damn good that you can't get both Spell Sunder and Pounce by the time you're 10th? Maybe Raging Vitality if you have the base Con for it?

Power Attack is a given for any martial, unless they're Dexterity based using Light weapons. In which case, Piranha Strike takes precedence, as it does here.

Extra LoH/Channel? Sure, if you're a Paladin or Cleric, but healing is frowned upon in games unless it's from the Heal spell, and Channel Smite is just plain bad form anyway.

Improved Initiative? Everybody gets that, good to know you have to take this feat just to be like everyone else.

Except, since I'm building Dexterity and use Light weapons, I can dump my Strength to 10, and increase my other statistics, but it's the same exact thing. If those feats are being spent for things like Iron Will (which I can get access to in fights by 3rd level), it's hardly a problem to spend feats on that sort of thing, since it seems there's nothing really build-breaking to not take.

You compare 54K for a single shield to 200+K for a single two-handed weapon. I'll have close to 100,000 gold in WBL in other items besides my weapon, meaning my secondary items will be a lot more prevalent.

And in hindsight, I shouldn't even get Light Spiked Shields, when a Klar deals 1D6 base damage and still functions as a Light Shield with Spikes, meaning I can enchant it as a shield, so the 2D6 damage it can deal from Bashing property (compared to a Heavy Spiked Shield, which does the same exact damage) is still in place. (Thanks for helping me notice that, the build got quite a bit stronger and cooler now.)

A Pure Ranger? No, they don't make use of them, and that was never stipulated. What you didn't seem to understand is that this isn't a pure Ranger. It's a 10 Infiltrator Witchguard Ranger/10 Invulnerable Urban Barbarian. By 11th level (about damn time) is when I get access to Urban Rage, being able to amplify my Dexterity to a +10 modifier by that level.

Rangers get access to spellcasting by 4th level. Then they can cast 2nd level spells by 7th, and 3rd level spells by 10th. Although they don't actually have any spells/day for 10th, any bonus points from your casting modifier (having a 16 Wisdom allows me to cast a 3rd level spell, i.e. Haste) still let you cast for the day.

I'll agree that I won't be pouncing all the time, but Barbarian Pounce is a very powerful ability by 10th level, the absolute earliest they can take it and is something that basically no other class can duplicate. At least I still get it as my 20th level capstone, which is about in-line with a Mobile Fighter's capstone, if not outright superior.

People don't use shields as weapons to Crit Fish with, nor is that the intent behind it (though Bashing Finish feat sure does support it). If Crit Fishing is all you're trying to do, who gives a damn about damage dice, when everybody knows the damage comes from static bonuses being multiplied, like your Strength and Power Attack and Enhancement bonuses?

If shields don't stack enhancement bonuses, and calculate them separately why does "that rule that [I] keep citing for +10 bonuses" not differentiate between what each kind of enhancement bonus is being applied? In the entry, an enhancement bonus is an enhancement bonus. You apply a +1 to AC, it's a +1 enhancement. You apply a +1 to Attack and Damage rolls, it's a +1 enhancement. You apply weapon special abilities, which require any kind of +1 enhancement, either AC, or attack and damage rolls.

The point of me linking that rule profusely is because that section specifically calls out Shields. Not referencing if it's enhanced as a Weapon, or enhanced as Armor, or whatever; but if the Shield is enhanced, the Shield's effective bonus (which includes "enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents"), which is not specific as to whether that total effective bonus applies to either Armor or Weapon properties. That tells me one thing: For shields, they're calculated into one number. It has to be, that's the general rule for enhancing, as evidenced by the rules for Double Weapons being enhanced, and there is no statement in that paragraph that mentions them being separate, or in any related section, because Shields, even Spiked Shields, aren't referenced as being 2 separate items to enhance, they are one item, period.

Spiked Armor, on the other hand, is referenced as being able to enhance two separate items, since the book says enhancing Armor does nothing to the Spikes, but you can be enhancing the Spikes, which does nothing to the Armor, since the Armor itself is not a weapon, the Spikes are. You can't say that about a Spiked Shield, since a Shield itself is an armor and a weapon, and spikes on a shield simply strengthen that weapon, which is also a source of armor.

I cling to my inference (a synonym of extrapolation, which you seem to be unable to spell correctly, or use that other word in mocking sense) because it hasn't been proven wrong yet, and as it sits, the case only gets stronger as your mocking just gets worse and worse, being even more politically incorrect with every post.

You haven't given one shred of evidence to discredit my claims other than "I and several other people have done that for the longest time, there's no way it can be wrong!" which, things have been quite inconsistent by RAW for the longest time, even though the RAI is so common knowledge it never became an issue except against Rules Lawyers, and "Devs said it works this way," which you have yet to post any source from a Dev in either Pathfinder or 3.5. You want to prove something to me, you throw your chips on the table and play out your hand; I already did, and I'm waiting for you to throw your cards out on the table. If I'm really full of crap, call the bluff and claim your victory. By all means, if you're holding back, don't do it on my behalf.


Driver 325 yards wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I just did a quick abstract math calculation there. I could more-or-less break down the math better, and it will most likely be higher. So let's calculate.

** spoiler omitted **...

Seems like it is better than I originally thought. That said, a typical barbarian at 11th level would have power attack, reckless abandon, rage (+6), and probably a +2 furious courageous greatsword, +8 Mod Strength before rage. Everyone has access to haste one way or another at 11th (speed boots)

2d6 + 16str (courageous weapon included)* 1.5 + 4 weap enhancement + 9PA = 2d6 + 37.

So, 31/31/26/21/15 (2d6 + 37). Assuming the top three attacks hit you get 132 points average. I think this is a good assumption if you are hitting four times a round with much lower to hits.

Now that is not even trying for a typical barbarian. Also, if its the typical superstitious barbarian, then your saves don't even match up.

I am not putting your build down. I am just saying that, at best, the results you got are those one would expect to have for a dedicated melee fighter. Therefore, I say you may have come up with an alternative build for variety sake, but not a build that is worth fighting over or shutting down with an overly strict ruling.

Also, I wonder what you results would be if we were to assume that the rules are not what you say. Your damage would go down some, but not a terrible lot. So, what is the discussion really about. A nuisance without much significance?

Unfortunately, I've had to be conservative with that post; I could probably deal even more if I wanted, since Courageous and Furious properties would increase my damage, not to mention I had Strength at 13 for Power Attack; foolish of me to do when I can get Piranha Strike, lower my Strength to 10, and increase my Wisdom and Constitution even higher for more durability or spellcasting ability. That being said, I can get two +2 (AC) Furious Courageous shields for the same price as my previous, and wind up having a +5 bonus to AC from my shield, a +4 Enhancement Bonus to attacks, and having my Dexterity score become 2 higher. Sadly enough, that makes my shield damage become 1D4 now.

You are missing one key thing here between my build and yours: how are your defenses? I'm practically immune to anything that requires a Reflex Save, given that I possess Evasion and a +22 Reflex Save (or +20 without Rage), my Fortitude Saves could rise to 12 (or 14), and my Will Saves to 11 (or 13), as final numbers. Not including Superstition Rage Power (should get it, though it goes against my ability to cast spells, even as Urban Barbarian), this would be even higher against spells. My AC approaches 30 without reserves, my CMD at 33, and decent enough hit points, whereas you lower your AC and CMD with Reckless Abandon, even if able to confirm more hits.

I also wonder how you're getting 5 attacks at level 11 as a two-hander, when you should be at-best getting 4 attacks via Haste.


Aelryinth wrote:
Aaaaand you're doing that interpolation thing again.

How else does one truly read then? Quite frankly, everything that is read requires extrapolation so as to comprehend the purpose behind the text, and saying I'm "extrapolating," a quintessential part of reading and comprehension, "instead of reading," which is a term used to comprehend the extrapolation from symbols like text and words, is what one gathers from reading something is what one extrapolates from the text.

In other words, you're doing the same thing I'm doing too, even right now as you're glossing over this post. Being a pot and calling the kettle black doesn't help your case any more than it helps mine.

Aelryinth wrote:

A shield is, by default, treated as an armor bonus.

A weapon is referred to by itself, and even if acting as armor, is IRRELEVANT.

Armor enhancement bonuses refer to enhancements on the armor, even if it is serving as a weapon. Enhancement bonuses to armor have NO effect on a weapon. Ditto on the other side.

I've never debated this point. Texts specifically stated whether the spikes themselves (Armor Spikes) can be enhanced, or the item that has spikes on it (Spiked Shield) can be enhanced as weapons in their own right, and from what I gather, you find those texts irrelevant.

Aelryinth wrote:

So, they are simply declaring a weapon can have +10 of enhancement bonuses AS A WEAPON, and armor can have +10 of enhancement bonuses AS ARMOR.

And a shield defaults to being armor, but CAN be a weapon, just like spiked armor CAN be a weapon.

Actually, Armor Spikes are an item that have to be enhanced as weapons themselves without affecting the Armor bonuses themselves, simply because of the line that says Enhancement Bonuses to Armor does not make the Spikes better, but you can enhance the Spikes to make them a magic weapon in their own right.

RAW, Shields, while they have similar language, don't make the distinction of the Spikes on the shield being a separate entity, unlike the Armor Spikes entry, which does.

Aelryinth wrote:

And ARMOR and WEAPON enhancements exist on TWO TABLES, separate, NOT JOINED, NOT STACKING.

If your logic held true, they'd all share the same table, which they don't.

Aelryinth wrote:
You can very, very easily have +20 items. A double weapon with 10/10 on each head. Armor +10 with Armor Spikes +10. And a Shield +10 with +10 Weapon enhancements.

I think you just contradicted yourself there. You've said previously that you can have an effective +20 item in question, but now you say the effects cannot be joined or stacked together? Sounds like you don't even know what side you're explaining.

You're also ignoring the exceptions of the Shields section that supersede that general rule of being on separate, unrelated tables; which I specifically quoted from the PRD, that doesn't specify as to what kind of Enhancement Bonus you need to apply either kind of special abilities. I'll reference it again, since skipping over things seems to be an acceptable way to win arguments; I'll even throw in the 3.5 version, so as to do a side by side comparison.

D&D 3.5:
D&D 3.5 wrote:

Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls (see the special ability description).

A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

As with armor, special abilities built into the shield add to the market value in the form of additions to the bonus of the shield, although they do not improve AC. A shield cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A shield with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

Pathfinder:
Pathfinder wrote:

Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a shield bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls (see the special ability description).

A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

As with armor, special abilities built into the shield add to the market value in the form of additions to the bonus of the shield, although they do not improve AC. A shield cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A shield with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

They both say the same thing in their respective entries. They both state that "A shield cannot have an effective bonus...higher than +10."

Now, Question: Why does it refer to the shield itself as having a +10 hard cap, when, according to you, you can enhance a shield as both an armor and a weapon, and their bonuses are mutually exclusive?

That must be filler text if you're correct; if so, why didn't the company just cut that out and put in a pretty picture or more relevant rules text? Doesn't make any sense otherwise.

Aelryinth wrote:
Seriously, man, do you think you're having an original idea? This argument was beaten into the dirt over ten years ago!

There are several things that have changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder that many people have overlooked, even argued against that change. Monk FoB, Two-Handed Weapon + Armor Spikes for TWF, and multiple other things have changed from the system you claimed the arguments originated from. Simply saying the subject was argued for a long time only proves to me that the Devs at the time didn't want to make a ruling on the matter and left it for the players to decide, and that to this day, there is no definitive intent given to us outside of what the RAW says and GM FIAT, the former being a much more arbitrary and credible source of game rules than GM FIAT.

Aelryinth wrote:

As for playing at my table..sure, come on. You don't see dual shield wielding builds because a) the damage as a weapon is crap and b) investing 600k into two items sounds good until you realize that's 70% of the WBL of a level 20 character, and getting either of them sundered would really, really suck. Oh, and the shield bonuses don't stack. And TWF still sucks, even worse with an inferior weapon like a shield.

Do you realize how feat intensive a shield spec TWF'ing build is for sucky damage?

You MIGHT invest 300k into one large shield, which is an okay weapon ...but inferior to a greatsword/any real 2h weapon for damage, and takes like level 14 to come online as an uber shield, if not later. So not only does it suck vs a standard weapon, but you have to wait that much longer for it to be a decent weapon, because, well, you have so much money you have to pump into it, and other 2h builds don't worry about that.

Crappy damage? Somebody doesn't optimize their damage too well if you're trying to use weapon damage dice as the main source of damage dealing, especially with a TWF build. Such builds work best with Natural Weapons from a Colossal+-sized creature with GVS. Everybody on the forums knows that static damage is key, even moreso with a Critical Hit builds. Nice try on that.

Feat intensive? Not for a Ranger who can skip pre-reqs. Shield Master by 6th level is pretty nice, and I can stand the -2 from TWF until then, since I'll still have amazing to-hit. The damage won't come online until that point anyway, and many things don't have DR until you get 8th level or so. Did I also mention I can cast Haste and Silence for my party by 10th level and get Pounce as a 20th capstone?

To be honest with you, two shields at an effective +9 enhancement bonus is all that's really required for basic optimization, since you would have 2 +5 (AC) Bashing Agile Furious Courageous Light Shields with 7 or 8 attacks and all the fixings, having decent static bonuses to damage. Even in the lower levels, a +1 Agile Light Shield with all the fixings will only cost me a little under 4,000 gold a piece.

By my calculations, that one +9 shield would cost me only 54,000 gold; 36,000 in armor properties, 18,000 in weapon properties; anything else is completely optional. So a 50,000 gold jump per shield, is hardly a problem by the endgame, and is in line with a +10 two-handed weapon.

All the while maintaining a solid AC (and Touch AC), unbeatable Reflex Saves (only way I can fail a difficult Reflex Save by 11th level is by not rolling a 1, and that's only going to increase), 30 movement, no TWF penalties, etc. etc. Try doing that with a Two-Hander, and they're just not going to be good at all.


LazarX wrote:
Jeff Morse wrote:
what if you empower it?
Since the cap is not a variable, empower won't affect it. It might however, give you a greater chance of having your max.

I strongly disagree, there was a thread about this subject before.

Empower says this:

Empower Spell wrote:
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.

The Mythic versions specifically says it increases the capacity of images to 12 instead of 8. 8 in the normal version is the hard cap, and it does not change. The amount you can generate (up to the hard cap) does.

We acknowledge that, to generate an amount of images, you roll 1D4 + an extra 1 for every 3 CL you possess.

Is that 1D4+(X/3) not, in fact, variable and numeric? You can roll 1, 2, 3, or 4. The bolded part then says you include bonuses to the dice rolls in question, which the (X/3) most certainly is. So Empower would adjust the formula to be 1.5(1D4+[X/3]), which still caps out at 8 images, or 12 if you make it Mythic.


Gauntlets do not take up an Item Slot. By that same notion, Full Plate takes up the Body, Chest, Head, and Feet slots.


Joel Harris 861 wrote:
With spells that can raise the dead without the need of any trace of remains, how can you finish off an enemy who has many people who would just resurrect him. Short of divine powers, I so far haven't seen anything that can kill someone and they can't come back other than them dying of old age. This wouldn't always work though as not all of them age anyway. So how can you really kill off an enemy?

Even if you trap souls, people are going to fight you to free them and then raise them again. Helm of Opposite Alignment could work, though if he is forced to die, he may decide to simply accept the resurrection and then come back at you with back-up to take you down again.

Methods that would increase the rate of the bolded part are perhaps the most effective, while also being foolproof and nearly impossible to counter against.

If there are creatures who cannot age, find methods that would cause them to age like normal creatures, probably a spell that can do this, and then proceed to do the same as above.


Ascalaphus wrote:
It seems that it only replaces 2nd level, not 6th level bonus feats.

Trust me, all the extra Combat feats are replaced.

Heck, I would've taken it with my Infiltrator Witchguard Ranger if it only replaced the first bonus feat.


TGMaxMaxer wrote:

Or, you could take Wild Stalker Ranger and get the whole thing going at level 13.

I'm guessing the Sarenrae Ranger stuff is in Inner Sea Gods?

This could make sense, (and even that's a stretch, since those rage powers actually require Barbarian Levels to take them), except how would you then get Whirlwind Attack, when that archetype replaces the Bonus Feats that allow you to skip the pre-reqs?

16th seems to be the earliest by my count, since A. those rage powers need Barbarian levels specifically, not the ability to rage as a Barbarian, and you probably aren't going to get Whirlwind Attack anytime soon unless you get to skip the pre-reqs.


In normal cases, no.

However, I'd say an Amulet of Mighty Fists with the Speed property can grant you a single attack with a given Natural Weapon, made at your highest BAB. Of course, there is a FAQ that says it doesn't work with each Natural Weapon you possess.


Ascalaphus wrote:
I recently noticed that the Sarenrae-Ranger combat style allows you to go to Whirlwind without all those silly prerequisites. But I haven't yet found a neat way to combine that with Pounce.

You take 6 levels of Ranger and get Whirlwind Attack with the bonus feat. You then take 10 levels of Barbarian (I'd personally take Invulnerable Urban Barbarian, but your call on this,) taking the full Beast Totem line.

It takes 16 levels to do, unfortunately, but it can be done. (Maybe if you could ignore Pre-reqs for Totem Rage Powers with an Archetype, it could be done sooner.)

That being said, that's an awful lot of work when an 11th level or higher Mobile Fighter can probably do the same thing.

Rapid Attack wrote:
At 11th level, a mobile fighter can combine a full-attack action with a single move.

That's sort of like a Staggered Pounce. The best part is, you exchange your regular attacks (in which you end up losing your highest BAB anyway) for a full Highest BAB against all in reach. Brutal stuff!


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Gauss wrote:

thaX,

You cannot charge and whirlwind at the same time.

CRB p138 Whirlwind attack wrote:
Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

CRB p183 has a list of full-round actions. Full attack is a full-round action. Charge is a separate full-round action. Full-attack actions and Charge actions are both subsets of the Full-round action.

Since Whirlwind Attack can only be used when making a Full-attack action you cannot use it with another type of action (such as a Charge action) even if that action is also a full-round action.

What about when you're allowed to use a full attack action as part of a charge?

I suppose it would work, though you would also lose any extra attacks you would get from effects like Haste.


...I can't believe I never saw the Cestus before...that solves the issue, and it's just a better overall weapon; for the same price, too!

Thanks much for that. The flavor for that character just got a lot cooler...


1. This table (on the right side) should help you properly calculate your skill modifiers. Regardless of you putting ranks into a skill, you still add your respective modifier to each skill when you attempt it. Having a rank in a skill determines whether it's trained or not, and some skills require you to be trained in order to use.

2. You are correct, an Elf does get 5 racial traits. The Beginner's Box might leave some concepts out so as to keep people engaged to learning how the game is played instead of being bogged down by rules. Remember that Racial Traits are different from character traits.

3. Here are the rules for Arcane Bonds. When you get it as a ring, amulet, wand, or staff, it is not magically enhanced; it would be, for all intents and purposes, a fashion choice valued at a minor amount of gold. While it does take up the respective slot (or type, in some cases), it is otherwise considered to not have magic (to all others except yourself, the Wizard), until you actually enchant the item yourself. In the case of a weapon, such as your Quarterstaff, they are always masterwork quality. Masterwork weapons grant a +1 Enhancement Bonus to all Attack Rolls made with that weapon.

4. Here is the Combat Section. (This is on the PRD site, an official Paizo site that hosts all of the Pathfinder rules in the hardcover rulebooks. D20PFSRD is a more elaborate source, but it's not 100% up-to-speed on every change, and contains 3rd party publishing material.) The rules say that when you hit with a melee weapon (or a thrown weapon), you add your Strength modifier to damage. (A character with a +1 Strength modifier has a Strength of either 12 or 13.) The +1 in this case is symbolized by that +1 Strength modifier.

5. When you make a melee attack, you use your full Base Attack Bonus + your Strength Modifier (and Size Modifier, if any). Ranged attacks (thrown weapons fall under this category) follow the same formula, except they use their Dexterity Modifier in place of their Strength Modifier. In some cases, depending on a character's statistics, they may be a better Dagger thrower than a Dagger wielder. Interesting that...

6. Each character class has this text written in the Starting Wealth section:

Starting Wealth wrote:
In addition, each character begins play with an outfit worth 10 gp or less.

So, the clothes you start with can be any article of clothing equal to or less than that value.

7. Here's the Armor and Shields section. The relevant text has this to say:

Nonproficient with Armor Worn wrote:
A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dex- and Str-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for non-proficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.

8. This is a bit of a gray area and will require GM FIAT to remediate properly in a given game. (In other words, the GM will have to make an on-the-fly "permanent" ruling regarding that situation.) However, it is a commonly-enforced ruling to allow enemies to be considered Flat-Footed if they did not act when combat begins. (I don't think they enforce the whole Flat-Footed AC issue, though, so your mileage may vary.)

Here's the full text regarding the Flat-Footed condition, so as to help you make your own judgement call:

Flat-Footed wrote:

A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.

Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat.


Bwang wrote:
Tabled ruled this as a 'yes', then applied a -4 due to it being an improvised weapon and the gal was holding a javelin. This was in a weird grapple mess of a fight.

I know Javelins have a -4 penalty when used in a melee attack, so I'm not sure if this is simulated in that penalty or a GM FIAT penalty. In either case, that's pretty bad, since that doesn't also include a -2 penalty to attack rolls not involving grapples, plus an extra -4 Dexterity penalty (equating to another -2 if using Weapon Finesse), meaning making attacks or even trying to break out with Agile Maneuvers or Escape Artist becomes an impossible idea. The only other -4 I can come up with is if you don't initiate the grapple with both hands free, but that doesn't apply to someone who gets grappled, as in your scenario.

Even as a Bard with 3/4 BAB, trying to hit AC 10 with Aid Another when I am Fighting Defensively (-4) and using Combat Expertise later down the road (-1 to -6) becomes a very difficult experience, reliant purely on the roll itself, not to mention Strength penalties for my character. (With Weapon Finesse, it reduces the issue a fair bit, but still hefty penalties there.)


Scavion wrote:

Basically, the invisible hands shtick is primarily about how some weapons dont really require you to "wield" them like spiked gauntlets or armor spikes but some folks like to argue that such weapons take up one of your "hands" regardless.

Someone else could probably put this more eloquently.

You mean that argument we had with +X Courageous Spiked Gauntlet that spawned whether or not the Courageous property affected all Morale Bonuses or just Fear effects?

To a point, I understand that the rules are ambiguous and undefined, but by that same token real-life physics would take effect. In other words, if I held onto something with the shape and thickness of a rod (good thing Lamontius isn't here to make a joke about that sentence...), and tried throwing punches, how much does it interfere with my ability to punch? Is it even possible to effectively punch while holding that rod with my fist? etc. etc.

It is also those people who would say that Full Plate would take up your Feet, Head, Hands, Body, and Chest slots, which is obviously not the intent of those rules, so they are quite obviously wrong on that stance. While most weapons require hands to properly wield the weapon, Armor Spikes and (Spiked) Gauntlets are about as handey as, say, an Unarmed Strike attack, especially with Armor Spikes since Unarmed Strikes can be any part of your body, whereas Armor Spikes would be any part of your armor. (Spiked) Gauntlets I find would be much more restricting, in that you would be using your hands (and only those hands) to execute the attack.

But there are rules that cover those sorts of situations, such as the Unarmed Strike combined with, say Deliquescent Gloves, and I think that would be a conservative precedence to assume that Spiked Gauntlets would follow.

For those who don't know what Deliquescent Gloves do, here's the description:

Deliquescent Gloves wrote:

The wearer’s melee touch attacks with that hand deal 1d6 points of acid damage. If the wearer uses that hand to wield a weapon or make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, that attack gains the corrosive weapon special ability.

The wearer’s gloved hand is protected from the acid ability of oozes, allowing him to use that hand to attack oozes with unarmed strike or natural attack without risk of harm from contact with the ooze. These unarmed strikes and natural attacks never cause an ooze to split.

The text refers to the gloves as a singular item, or gloves, whereas the name of the item itself calls out the plural noun form, meaning that either this only covers a single hand (but the entire hand slot) or the description was taken from some 3.X material and wasn't proofread fully to accomodate the hand slot covering both hands. YMMV.


Mojorat wrote:
I think it is not defined well. I would assume the gauntlet is occupied while holding the rod but I'm not sure there is any rule for or against your idea.

It isn't, which is why I was hoping to get clarification. I mean, I get it could be awkward, so a penalty being imposed isn't a bad idea (-2 I'm guessing), but that falls into GM FIAT territory.

Other people would claim if I was, say, using that hand to hold a weapon besides the Spiked Gauntlet, that I couldn't make attacks. (I obviously couldn't if I was using that same hand to wield the other weapon, though that's not the debate.)

@ Scavion: I don't know anything about this "invisible hands" that you mentioned; care to explain?

And I'm not trying to munchkin the system, I just want to know if it's legal for me to fulfill the conditions of using Aid Another while using a Heavy Shield and an Arcane Bonded Spiked Gauntlet holding a Metamagic Rod, since I assume I have to be able to punch into a square if I want to make use of a +X Allying Spiked Gauntlet to give a fellow frontliner an extra 2+X to his lowest BAB attack.


Aelryinth wrote:

That's right, you're extrapolating, you're not reading. You wandered down the road of personal interpretation of corner cases in the English language and you're telling the rest of us we don't know how to read.

By your rules, having a +10 shield with a weapon enhancement is impossible...it will violate the 100k limit of +10 armor. Because, you know, you can't restrict one rule and then break another, right?

By your rules, is adding +Flaming to a +3 Shield possible? It's not enhanced as a weapon yet. But you're saying it is, since it counts towards the +10. So now you've introduced stacking questions that, you know, DON'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

What's the price? Are you starting at +1 for the weapon side? That's not right, it's the 4th enhancement, and by your rules, they stack. So, now, WHEN I put the enhancement on makes a difference. Flaming on a +1 Weapon-side shield is 6k. Flaming on a +2 Bashing armor-side is...what? 2k? 14k?

Guess what? Those timing questions NEVER HAPPEN either. Because it's irrelevant.

They don't apply, because armor enhancements are always treated separate from weapon, and you just follow the pricing rules side by side.

Always.

So a shield is a +10/+10 item, just like a double weapon. It's function as a weapon is completely separate from its function as armor. The only place they overlap is hardness and hit points and guess what? They are both enhancement bonuses and don't stack, so it's moot.

I get where you are coming from, but you are flat out WRONG. It's not an opinion, it's not a suddenly insightful reading of the rules, it's you taking something out of context without taking into consideration other existing rules. You're just wrong, dude. And you saying that everyone else, including the people who wrote the rules, have been wrong for nigh on twenty years is making the rest of us kind of laugh.

You are making the pricing schema unnecessarily complicated, and are quite literally ignoring 20 years of the game saying "Armor and Weapon enhancements are treated separately on the same item."

The differences between RAW and RAI are obvious enough to determine whether it's RAW or RAI. I'll re-read the stacking sentence(s) again and point out the RAW and how I reflect it:

Magic Items - Weapons wrote:
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.
Magic Items - Armor wrote:
A suit of armor cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.
Magic Items - Shields wrote:
A shield cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A shield with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

The sentence structures are almost identical when put side-by-side, so we can assume that the rule for one is equal to the rule applied to the others. For simplicity purposes, I'll reference the Weapon section mostly.

As you can tell, it says that a single given weapon (barring Double Weapons and Artifacts, as they have special exceptions to this rule) cannot have a modified bonus (what that "modified bonus" encompasses is included in the parentheses) over +10. Period. That's it. It also makes no specific mention as to what types of effective bonus can be applied (given that it's assumed for weapons). This is reflected in the Armor section, meaning that both Armor and Weapons share the same restriction. A Shield counts as both for enhancing, so by rights, you could effectively make it a +10 Armor and a +10 Weapon.

However, the Shield entry is the biggest giveaway as to why I say it works the way I say it does. That section has the same exact sentence structure regarding both Armor and Shields. If it is treated as having separate Armor and Enhancement bonuses, why state whether the Shield itself has a +10 limit, when by rights, it would simply combine those restrictions? That alone leaves me one of two possible interpretations of that section:

1. The Shield must be constructed as either an armor item or a weapon item, and once the decision is made, it cannot be changed (less likely interpretation).

2. A Shield's enhancement bonus origin, nor their respective level isn't relevant to the general "+10 is it" rule (more likely interpretation). The bonuses themselves are combined for a grand total, as is evident by "the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC."

So, going with the more conservative and sensible interpretation, RAW, +X limits aren't specific as to whether they're Weapon enhancements or Armor enhancements, simply that they are enhancements. The bonuses themselves are combined for a grand total, as is evident by "the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC."

With this, I assume that having a Shield that has an effective +6 in Armor enhancements and an effective +4 in Weapon enhancements still equates to being a +10 item, which it cannot surpass unless it's a Double weapon (boring7 still thinks it is, apparently), or an Artifact. I really need to stop bringing up Artifacts, they add nothing to this discussion apparently...

I'll also point out that the enlarged sentence answers the question as to whether you need to have a +1 Weapon or +1 Armor enhancement to add special abilities. The answer? The book doesn't specify, so either kind would work. If the book doesn't specify, why should we?

That getting off my chest, I'd LOVE to play my Two-Shielding Martial at your table if you're going to let me have an effective +20 to my weapons.


Self-explanatory question.

Working on a Support Melee Bard with Arcane Duelist archetype, and this implication arose when I was fleshing out the build. (Before you say it, no, I am not dealing melee damage with this character, he's just a frontline support.) Basic equipment results in Mithril Medium Armor, Heavy Shield, Metamagic Rod, and Spiked Gauntlet as his Arcane Bond.

Now, with the rule of Arcane Bond regarding Arcane Duelists, I can use a Heavy Shield for protection, hold a Metamagic Rod in the same hand as my Arcane Bonded Spiked Gauntlet, and cast spells. But another implication arose when it came down to his other asset, which is being able to Aid Another constantly. The Spiked Gauntlet which I would use for Aid Another holds a Metamagic Rod.

But would simply holding the Metamagic Rod for spellcasting usage interfere with my ability to make Spiked Gauntlet attacks (or in this case, use it for Aid Another)?


RAW, correct, if you have 3 or more arms, you must MWF. It's no different than taking an archetype that replaces a class feature.

However, in cases like Alchemist with Vestigial Arm discovery, you can't make extra attacks with those arms if you normally couldn't without the discovery, meaning even if you take the MWF feat, you still only have access to 2 weapons to attack with.

I do see the implications, should you have a game that goes to the later levels, as being denied extra attacks simply because you have extra arms that you can't effectively use for attacks becomes a major balance issue if you planned to use TWF/MWF as an Alchemist. (It's yet another reason why I disliked the Vestigial Arm FAQ result, especially since you can't deliver Touch Attacks with those extra arms, but thems the breaks.)

Yet another reason why playing with PFS rules will simply end up shooting your character concept in the foot.


Aelryinth wrote:

It's a good thing you're wrong, or we'd all be totally confused.

Weapon and armor enhancements have always been priced and treated differently, and their limits applied differently. Now you're trying to introduce a crazy patchquilt instead of the simple and direct means of treating them as separate additions. I can't imagine the pricing problems that would erupt if your method was true.

==Aelryinth

I'm glad following the RAW confuses you, since that seems to be what you take issue with, as that's all I'm extrapolating with here.

Both Armor/Shield and Weapon follow very similar, if not completely identical, rules. Base Price Bonus increases each follow a specific formula. You need a +1 enhancement (doesn't specify, so any kind of +1 could work in the case of a Shield) to apply special abilities, and you can't beat the hard cap of +10 through any basic means (Artifacts being an exception). This is universal among those subjects.

Shields can be enhanced as both an Armor item and a Weapon item. But Shields don't have any rules that allow them to circumvent them being over a +10 weapon item or +10 armor item. I'll also point out that while items don't specify what kind of +1 enhancement you get (in the case of shields), either event says a single weapon/armor cannot have a bonus higher than +10, regardless of where the source came from (again, Artifacts are an exception, and Double Weapons have a slight difference when it comes to this rule).

I also want you to explain to me how there would be confusion with pricing as well as the problems they could possibly present, and give examples as to how that's the case. I'll gladly solve all of these supposed "problems" that you think exist, even though I already solved Boring7's, which he didn't even calculate the total price properly, because he didn't read the rules I listed from the PRD correctly.

1 to 50 of 2,353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.