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

2,609 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,609 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Shane LeRose wrote:

Impact increases the weapons damage by one size category.

A warpriest that's one size larger does more damage. Quit it with the "source". Your character swings the weapon.

Will people please stop nick picking the rules with a fine tooth comb. It's getting ridiculous.

By peoples rational a warpriest can never benefit from Impact in any way.

Seriously? This is the game you want to play? Go be lawyers.

You act though as if splitting hairs is a silly thing to do when it comes to this game. It's not. Saying 'he did it,' when there's no male creature around, makes no sense. Saying 'she did it,' when not specifying which woman we're talking about, in a group of women, also isn't clear enough. (It's only through the pointing of fingers and/or singling out of the multiples that the proper meaning gets across.)

Whether you like it or not, specifics are important, if it's legal documents, or the rules of a game, and failing to properly define those specifics, and the subjects related to those specifics, leads to problems. Problems that, if not addressed, leads to consequences several people don't want to deal with.

Additionally, parsing what the rules mean and what a legal document entails are, fundamentally speaking, the same paradigm. There are several reasons that people play this game, and quite frankly, several of those who make a career of dissecting legal documents and other business paraphernalia are also people who play Pathfinder. And by the way you treat those who 'play legalese' with Pathfinder, I'm sure you'd say the opposite is also true. (That is, those who play Pathfinder are also great at reading legal documents and such.)

Lastly, who are you to tell us what we want to play? I didn't realize my parents actually gave a damn about this game and are telling me "Timmy, if you don't select a level of Wizard right now, I'm going to ground you from playing Pathfinder." By the way, my name is not Timmy. If we want to play "Pathfinder: Suits and Lawyers Edition," we can do that all we want with those who share that likeness. We'd also play "Pathfinder: Monopoly Edition" (AKA How to cheese the game) and "Pathfinder: Houseruled to be a Completely Different Game Edition" if we felt like it.


What is the emoticon holding for items?


mplindustries wrote:

I disagree. Warpriest changes the base weapon damage, while Impact raises your effective size. I believe it absolutely works.

However, Impact in general is absolutely not worth putting on your weapons until you've already got a +5 weapon, because it will almost always add less DPR than its equivalent enhancement bonus.

Bringing up the relevant text:

Sacred Weapon wrote:
Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. The warpriest can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made. (If the weapon's base damage exceeds the sacred weapon damage, its damage is unchanged.) This increase in damage does not affect any other aspect of the weapon, and doesn't apply to alchemical items, bombs, or other weapons that only deal energy damage.
Impact wrote:
An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger.

While I can see the argument made for it being applicable to Sacred Weapon damage (the book doesn't specify that it isn't weapon damage, more than it's an alternate form of weapon damage), I'm inclined to think that is not RAI for two reasons. Mainly is that I don't think the devs viewed Sacred Weapon damage as being its own form of weapon damage, merely that it overrides what the weapon previously had. Additionally, I doubt it's RAI for Impact to apply to Sacred Weapon damage in the first place.


ChrisLKimball wrote:
Does impact weapon allow a medium warpriest to use the sacred weapon damage track for a large warpriest?

Since the warpriest's class feature overrides the weapon's listed damage dice, and Impact only affects the weapon's damage dice, no.


RumpinRufus wrote:
"It lets players who aren't having fun create new characters they will actually enjoy playing" doesn't seem like that much of a downside to me.

The downside is that it encourages exploiting just so players can feel overpowered and trvialize encounters, something which it seems the current GM does not want to have happen (and would therefore cause him to not enjoy the game). The GM's happiness is just as important as the players' happiness, and if the PCs aren't liking certain aspects of their character versus not liking their character at all, I'm sure the PCs can work with their GM to find a middle ground regarding character aspects so the PC becomes more enjoyable. If the GM is absolutely unreasonable, then we got bigger problems besides "My character's nose is too big."

With that being said, remember that not all characters in parties are of equal power, or even equal equipment. Not all of the equipment of the first PC will be applicable to the newcomer PC, for starters. This means that whatever equipment does become applicable, should be subtracted from the newcomer PC's WBL to help counterbalance the exploiting.

Secondly, adventurers aren't cheap to come by; I imagine that if the PCs want the new character into their group, they need to give some incentive, and for those of the mercenary type, the only means to do that would be to sell the old person's gear to come up with enough gold to 'hire' the newcomer, which that PC can then use for whatever means (for mechanical purposes, this composes the rest of the WBL for the newcomer PC to utilize to gear their character).

I think this solution would best solve your problem.


RumpinRufus wrote:

Casting spells as an AoO is a bad idea for a lot of reasons, IMO.

Firstly is the wizard taking Combat Reflexes, and then declaring in combat that he suddenly considers the party to be his enemies. As they move past him, he now gets to cast 5 spells/round.

Second is that it weirdly incentivizes casters to keep Long Arm active, so they can cast a spell at anyone who tries to melee them.

Additionally, usually someone can only move 120 feet per round maximum, but then if people provoke from them they can now move faster, like 150 feet (or 180 if they have Combat Reflexes and two people provoke)? It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think combat maneuvers like Grapple make sense as AoOs. Other types of actions, not so much, both for balance and for verisimilitude. If you think it's fun, then go for it, but expect a lot of wonky results, especially if people are actively trying to game it.

It opens a lot more doors for the Wizard to explore, meaning the weapon type they possess and such actually makes a difference. Additionally, consider that even if the Wizard is granted these opportunities and makes the appropriate investments, he is blowing a lot of his resources to cast these extra spells, something which low-level, is not worth doing, and by high-level, wouldn't matter since the first spell he casts in the first round (and probably first turn) of combat would result in combat ending in the first place.

If a Wizard tries to do that sort of cheese, the GM would shut him down immediately, and probably end up giving the Wizard the Confused condition until he decides to wise up and follow the rules, since he takes friend and foe for granted.

One last important thing to note: drawing spell components is a free action, according to the action table in the Combat section. Unless the caster has a bunch of non-material components memorized in his spells, he cannot cast spells unless he draws the materials needed before-hand on his turn, as the sort of action he is trying to fulfill cannot be done outside his turn.

In other words, I find that unless the PC is trying to play like Batman in regards to spellcasting, you should not run into any problems, and if you do, then it's easy to shut him down right then and there as far as the cheese is concerned.


Ravingdork wrote:

And this is where we disagree on a number of points. First, the stacking rules only really apply when referring to bonuses. Second, bonuses from the same source NEVER stack. Third, circumstance bonuses from different CIRCUMSTANCES stack, not sources; the terminology, though similar, means different things.

In any case, I'd argue that the bonuses and rule changes the feat provides are different from that which you'd get from working in shifts and thus have no bearing on one another (both because they are different things, and because they aren't really actual bonuses, excepting that +2).

I never debated separate circumstances don't stack. I said Circumstance Bonuses from the same source (in this case, Cooperative Crafting,) do not stack. Meaning you can't have, say, 4 people with Cooperative Crafting provide a +4 Circumstance bonus (though those people could instead work on 2 different projects and provide a +2 to the check on each), because the +2 you originally get arises from the same source, which is the Cooperative Crafting feat.

From the Common Terms section under Bonuses:

Circumstance Bonuses wrote:
A circumstance bonus (or penalty) arises from specific conditional factors impacting the success of the task at hand. Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same source.

Whether the crafting time adjustment stacks or not isn't covered in the rules, though I'd reckon any sane GM, as well as the intent of the rule, would follow the "only 2 people can work in conjunction" paradigm the feat sets, meaning it too would not stack together.


Ravingdork wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
That's what this feat is doing - it expands your options by allowing multiple people to work on the same magic item and get it done faster.

Except it's not. It's common sense that multiple people could work together on a project. There's no rule anywhere against doing that, that I'm aware of. This feat shows up and says "more than one can do it." Since there was no such rule limiting it before, this feat add has added a limitation.

kestral287 wrote:

That's not at all what I'm saying.

That's good. That way leads only darkness.

kestral287 wrote:

Here's what we know about cooperative crafting:

  • A given crafter can only work on one magic item at a time.
  • Where are you getting this assertion? I see no evidence for this limitation.

    kestral287 wrote:

    Here's what we know about cooperative crafting:

  • C.Crafting doubles speed and grants a +2 on the die roll. With two crafters, you achieve the same net benefit via use of Aid Another. With three crafters you achieve a 50% increase over the feat.
  • Using your apparent logic, you can't add a third crafter at all, because no rule seemingly exists to support it.

    kestral287 wrote:
    This creates difficult rules questions. Who makes the item creation check? The team leader? The weakest link? Everybody? What happens if one crafter starts work on another item-- does everybody's work vanish, or only his?

    And I'm totally fine asking those questions (though I think it would be the chosen team leader who makes the check, and all of the team's work is lost if they start on a different project).

    Kchaka wrote:
    If you are following RAW rules by the letter, you can't, you gotta follow the usual rules, "each crafter must work on one item only, for a maximum of 8h a day,..." bla bla bla.
    You're not quoting rules, merely your own personal interpretation of them. Also, majority interpretation does not necessarily equate to the RAW. I've been proven right in the past when the...

    Cooperative Crafting sets a precedent in what the game expects. By rights, the feat is required in order to get the benefits it lists. Not having the feat means none of those benefits apply. And yes, Cooperative Crafting, by RAW would only allow 1 set of benefits, since Circumstance Bonuses stack (unless they're same-source, which for both is Cooperative Crafting), and the time reduction wouldn't stack with itself for the same reason.

    Although you may be correct in that a PC and another PC or NPC can collaborate on a given project, nothing in RAW bars that. However, even if you allowed that, unless both have the Cooperative Crafting feat, you don't receive those benefits, or any other benefit in doing so, outside of maybe the other PC/NPC granting you components to actually make the item in the first place, but that isn't what's being asked here.

    "Can I have outside help in making an item?" and "How can I make item crafting a faster process?" are two completely different questions, even if similar, if not the same answers for both might show up (since Cooperative Crafting is a "2 birds, 1 stone" sort of thing).

    Additionally, using cohort/follower advancement as a means to get all the item creation feats for free is listed as an example of inappropriate advancement choices, AKA an exploit, according to the hardcover Ultimate Campaign. So unless you want to deal with the party basically getting a free portable self-cost-reliant Magick-Mart, then by all means allow it, and might I suggest some aspirin for the headaches that will ensue.


    Ashiel wrote:
    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
    The first part doesn't make sense; you can't use your Unarmed Strike's damage over the item you have equipped, that's like saying I have a Cestus and a Longsword in the same hand (which, by the way, is certainly possible), I go to make an attack with the Cestus, and then say "Oh, I'm dealing damage with my Longsword instead; they occupy the same limb, so it's cool." Not only can you not do that in regular rules, the rules regarding Monks don't allow that sort of post-hoc decision choice, especially if you take into consideration that those attacks have differing attack bonuses, which can cause a hit or miss on a given roll.

    A cestus uses its own rules so your talking about it in this case is as pointless as talking about magic missile. You declare if you're using your gauntlet prior to your attack, just like you do with any attack, be it an unarmed strike, shooting your bow, swinging your sword, or using a touch attack. If you use your gauntlet, it is an unarmed strike that deals lethal damage (you could take a -4 to deal nonlethal though).

    Here's the actual mechanics of the gauntlet in the core rules with added emphasis so certain bits are easier to notice.

    Quote:
    Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.

    Parsing this from one sentence to the next.

    1. Gauntlets let your deal lethal damage with your unarmed strikes. It modifies your unarmed strike. The damage is per your unarmed strike except it is lethal. So monks + gauntlet = higher lethal damage.

    You make it seem though as if I glossed over it without noticing. I read that sentence, and I also read the sentences afterward. The first sentence only explains that it lets you deal lethal damage normally instead of the inverse. That's all the Gauntlet says it associates with unarmed strikes; the other sentences aren't relevant to unarmed strikes. If anything, by RAW I could have a gauntlet equipped, make an unarmed strike via kicking, and because I have the gauntlet equipped, that kick automatically defers to dealing lethal damage without penalty instead. (But I'm not going to support something that ridiculous; that's for another thread.)

    The point is that it only affects one thing in relation to unarmed strikes, and that alteration doesn't even apply or relate to the actual gauntlet in the first place, since by the rules, you make an unarmed attack with the gauntlet, and not an unarmed strike. So the first sentence isn't relevant to attacks made with the gauntlet, since it's actually an unarmed attack made with a manufactured weapon, and becomes supported by the fact that Paizo decided to make Unarmed Strike and Unarmed Attack their own, separate game terms. (Of course, without the gauntlet, what else would be considered an unarmed attack apart from unarmed strikes?) Additionally, since the Monk class feature specifically alters Unarmed Strike damage dice, and not Unarmed Attack damage dice, a Monk still deals 1D3 damage with the Gauntlet, versus his base 1D6 or higher damage dice.

    The reason a Gauntlet doesn't otherwise return to dealing non-lethal damage is because A. it's listed in the weapon table, and B. it doesn't have the non-lethal weapon quality, meaning it defers to dealing lethal damage normally.


    1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
    Ashiel wrote:
    blackbloodtroll wrote:
    Does a Monk's increased unarmed damage, or other abilities, apply to Gauntlet attacks?

    Yes.

    Quote:
    Can a Monk Flurry with a Gauntlet?

    Yes.

    Quote:
    Do feats that effect unarmed strikes, such as Weapon Focus, apply to attacks with Gauntlets?

    Yes.

    Quote:
    Do Gauntlets threaten without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?

    No.

    Quote:
    Would feats and abilities that apply to both Gauntlet attacks, and Unarmed Strikes, such as Weapon Focus, stack?

    Bonuses from the same source don't stack, but there is no "Weapon Focus (Gauntlet)" because according the gauntlet's special rules the gauntlet itself isn't really a weapon so much as it modifies your existing unarmed strike.

    Quote:
    Why would the answer to any of these questions be different?
    They wouldn't. Gauntlets in the PRD are internally consistent. Wearing gauntlets modifies your existing unarmed strikes to deal lethal damage (nothing more, nothing less). You're still treated as being unarmed. The gauntlet doesn't care what your unarmed damage is (so monks), only that it is now lethal.

    The first part doesn't make sense; you can't use your Unarmed Strike's damage over the item you have equipped, that's like saying I have a Cestus and a Longsword in the same hand (which, by the way, is certainly possible), I go to make an attack with the Cestus, and then say "Oh, I'm dealing damage with my Longsword instead; they occupy the same limb, so it's cool." Not only can you not do that in regular rules, the rules regarding Monks don't allow that sort of post-hoc decision choice, especially if you take into consideration that those attacks have differing attack bonuses, which can cause a hit or miss on a given roll.

    Additionally, the Unarmed Strike benefits, including the damage dice benefits cited in the Monk class feature specifically call out Unarmed Strikes, a specific type of attack, and not Unarmed Attacks, which attacks made with Gauntlets otherwise function as. Lastly, gauntlets do have a specified damage dice in the weapon table, meaning making attacks with the Gauntlet versus making attacks with your Unarmed Strike would apply the appropriate damage dice; even if the damage dice ends up being the same, that doesn't mean the attacks themselves are made with the same weapon.

    Monks can only use Flurry of Blows with Unarmed Strikes and weapons with the Monk special quality. Unless the Gauntlet has or is somehow given the Monk special quality, it is not possible for the Monk to use Flurry of Blows with the equipped gauntlet (and therefore, the equipped hand).

    This depends on the parameters of what Weapon Focus can be exclusively applicable to. Since the book specifically cites Unarmed Strike as an example, and not simply Unarmed, it's safe to say that if you have Weapon Focus (Gauntlet), the benefits of that feat do not apply to any Unarmed Strikes you make. The reverse is also true; if you have Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), it does not apply to attacks you make with an equipped Gauntlet.

    The Improved Unarmed Strike feat does not specify Unarmed Strikes in these cases, merely that you threaten even while unarmed, and that you do not provoke when making unarmed attacks. However, when making an attack with a Gauntlet, you would still suffer a -4 penalty to try and deal Nonlethal damage, since this ability specifically calls Unarmed Strikes to do that.

    There is no internal inconsistency, Gauntlet attacks and Unarmed Strikes are different subjects.

    As a side note, why the hell would a Monk, who always gets Improved Unarmed Strike for free, need Gauntlets, when he can always change his method of attack without penalty in the first place?


    blackbloodtroll wrote:
    Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


    Just to be clear, BBT, are you saying a forum post by a former Dev trumps the rule in the book?

    Actually, upon review, I am merely showing a Developer(former) noting there are contradictions, and complications.

    I hope you can see these as well.

    This isn't the first time a Developer's "clarified intent" is otherwise stalemated, if not trumped by the rules cited in the book. Remember the Bodyguard feat with Jason Nelson, the developer who designed said feat? He clarified what the feat was supposed to do, but explicitly stated that it's not RAW, and it may not be RAI. Additionally, even if he was a Developer at the time he glossed at the issue presented, Developer statements do not count as official FAQ answers or errata, which is what is needed to be presented in order to clarify or overturn a previously-written rule in the books.

    After all, the big man Jason Bulmahn himself seemed to have disagreed with SKR's 'intent' behind the unarmed attack rule regarding gauntlets, as that is what's published in the book, which does not reflect what SKR said it was supposed to be. It is not RAW, and judging by what's published and this not having been FAQ'd/Errata in the past 5 years, the RAI would disagree with that too. That's all SKR's statement is currently; his own, personal supposition.


    Imbicatus wrote:
    Another awesome option would be a Scarred Witch Doctor witch. Since SWD normally changes everything to CON for spells and hexes, they are CHA for everything after going ghostal.

    That wouldn't be viable. For ghosts, Con is no longer a (valid) statistic, and is simply replaced with Charisma. i.e. Your #1 stat no longer becomes your #1 stat, it is infact eliminated entirely for a statistic that is otherwise dumped for that class. Unless there is a Charisma-focused Witch archetype, the Witch class isn't exactly a good fit.

    That being said, it would be amazing to fight a transforming ghost that would take smaller, lesser forms. Since it would only increase its damaging and protective capabilities, and suffer hardly any of the penalties associated, spells like Undead Anatomy IV would be crazy-good to use. Throw in a couple ghostly Bards amplifying his abilities through performances and other unique buffs, as well as an Oracle, and you got yourself a very difficult encounter. Tack on an Incorporeal Lich, and you got yourself a TPK.


    Mulet wrote:
    Then how the heck does flanking work?

    Well, the rules state this:

    Flanking wrote:

    When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

    When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

    The rules are simply an abstract mechanics standpoint, they don't offer a sense of realism; because of this, it trumps any sort of flavor text.

    That being said, the concept of flanking relies on you making an opponent fight on two different fronts, while his vision and such can only focus on one at a given time, (or they can try to fight both simultaneously, but it drains resources and such,) providing gaps in their defenses from the other.

    With that intent in mind, making the claim that "there is no facing in Pathfinder" throws into question whether the description of abilities such as All-Around Vision really make sense or would actually do what it says it does. Here's what the passage says:

    All-Around Vision wrote:
    The creature sees in all directions at once. It cannot be flanked.

    An ability like Improved Uncanny Dodge would have better flavor applications, since the ability to negate flanking in this case is not based off of vision, but of character experience (usually in a certain class, but sometimes inherent), versus this, which says that you can see (and thusly in essence, can "face") all directions simultaneously, the flavorful reason as to why it's unable to be flanked. i.e. If you're making the claim that there is no "facing," then by rights every single creature should have this ability, and therefore should never be flankable.

    All I'll say is that this is something that can and should be addressed in the Pathfinder Unleashed book.


    Imbicatus wrote:
    Swashbuckler weapon training gives free improved critical with all swashbuckler weapons, fighter weapon training doesn't. That is worth the trade-off of gloves of dueling not working with them imo. Especially since you can take the runner-up deliquescent gloves.

    I highly suggest you re-read the FAQ regarding rules and effects that involve class features, as the answer to this question is in that FAQ.

    Based upon the examples the FAQ cites, a feature similar to the one in question that either limits/alters the feature, but still follows the core mechanic of the feature in question, would still qualify as being that feature for the purposes of rules that involve that class feature. However, a feature that replaces each individual rank of said feature with a different ability does not count as that feature.

    Two Fighter archetypes, one that is actually referenced in the FAQ, the Dragoon and Two-Handed Fighter, are prime examples of this, serving as a bridge for the Swashbuckler Training being a viable candidate for the Gloves. The Dragoon Spear Training feature states that "a dragoon must select weapon training with the spear group." Since this feature specifically not only specifically calls out the base feature, but also calls out the increase as a weapon training bonus; not only is that benefit altered (+1 hit, +2 damage), this still falls under the category of being weapon training.

    Similarly, the Two-Handed Fighter keeps the same name, specifically says that the benefits "only apply when wielding two-handed weapons," and says it (otherwise) works as the parent feature.

    So, we can confirm that a restriction of weapon selection (and even application) don't serve as disqualifications for counting as that feature, as well as a difference of benefit values and subjects, which is only reinforced by the linked FAQ.

    The last piece of evidence is that the gloves only refer to a wielder having the weapon training class feature; no class is listed (meaning having it be Fighter-only is out the window), and with it citing the parent feature, all other child features (that is, similar/related features that were spawned in the likeness of that feature) would count as that parent feature for its benefits, due to the linked FAQ.

    Of course, I find this makes Swashbucklers crazy-OP and has the Fighter curl into a little ball and cry like a young girl who got humiliated by her "friends," but if there's anything I've learned from Paizo's publications, it's that balance isn't one of the things on their to-do list (especially when imbalance, something that is glaringly obvious in the face of the consumers and players, is fairly prevalent and the Devs only fuel that fire). It is a prime reason why they simply release content without much care for how it impacts itself; they would rather leave it up to the consumers/players to regulate whether something is strong, weak, available/banned, etc. But imparting the thought of balance is not something one does when imparting what something actually does in regards to the rules, and only leads to false rulings.


    One idea that comes to mind is to try and use the Wish to nullify their Mythic powers, or magic (i.e. Anti-Magic Field, or perhaps an Anti-Mythic Field). Although this hurts a lot of Cthulhu's tactics, when it nullifies about 90% of their tactics, it turns into a brutal faceoff of physical might, something which I'm certain Cthulhu would pull the win with.


    Remember that you essentially expend an Attack of Opportunity to Aid AC, according to the bodyguard feat. The bodyguard option only applies when an adjacent ally is being attacked; it is not of itself triggered from a provocation, meaning the PC does not also get an AoO. Additionally, since the Bodyguard feat specifically calls out the Aid Another action, it is not in itself an Attack of Opportunity, meaning the +4 would not apply either.

    Of course, there has been much debate as to how the Bodyguard feat actually functions, since RAW, you are using the Aid Another Action via spending an AoO (something that, normally, requires a Standard Action). The designer behind the feat has stated how it was intended to function according to how he wrote the feat, and TBH, I would say that his RAI would surpass even the big man's interpretation/rulings, since he is the one who invented the feat, versus JB who simply allowed it into the published products.

    It's like saying Megaman was invented by Nintendo, when the creator of Megaman was actually from Capcom, and Nintendo merely helped license and distribute its product via allowing them to use their gaming console(s).


    Coriat wrote:

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

    Being nauseated restricts you to only a single move action.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

    From the PRD:

    Manipulating an Item wrote:

    Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    My apologies on the Sonic damage.

    chbgraphicarts wrote:

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

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

    ---

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

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

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

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

    ---

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

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

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

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

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

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


    chbgraphicarts wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    chbgraphicarts wrote:
    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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

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

    So, what's the deal here?

    *EDIT*

    People misunderstood my question, so I rephrased it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    So, what's the deal here?

    *EDIT*

    People misunderstood my question, so I rephrased it.


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

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

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

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

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

    From the PRD:

    Manipulating an Item wrote:

    Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.

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

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

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


    LazarX wrote:
    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


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

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

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

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


    Icyshadow wrote:

    I think people forgot this part of Reincarnate.

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

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

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


    blackbloodtroll wrote:

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

    Subtype, is not the be all, end all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


    Rynjin wrote:
    Bronnwynn wrote:

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

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

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

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

    Even though the rules explicitly say otherwise?

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

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


    Self-explanatory subject.


    blackbloodtroll wrote:

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

    For example, let's make up a feat:

    Made up feat wrote:

    Incredible Strength

    Prerequisites: Strength 13

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Jacob Saltband wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


    blackbloodtroll wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    blackbloodtroll wrote:

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

    Seriously, how are you saying this works?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Does that clear things up?


    blackbloodtroll wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    blackbloodtroll wrote:
    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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

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

    Be your standards, the Racial Heritage never functions.

    The feat does not give you additional subtypes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It is?

    MIND BLOWN

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

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

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


    mplindustries wrote:

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

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

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

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

    Additionally, look at this more closely:

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

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

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


    Krith wrote:

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

    Reincarnate:

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

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

    You're missing the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Grokk_Bloodfist wrote:

    Hi there

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Any feedback here would be greatly appreciated!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Grokk_Bloodfist wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Good luck!


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


    Rikkan wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    ** spoiler omitted **

    ** spoiler omitted **

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

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

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

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

    1 to 50 of 2,609 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2015 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.