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

2,799 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,799 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Why not, I'll play a little part in the charade here...

This golden blade has an ornate crossguard with a pommel, fashioned entirely out of ebon steel, an edge whose size would require those of mortal strength to wield with two hands. It is indestructible and can emanate energy waves to attack enemies far while also able to cut enemies nearby.

The sword has a mirrored foil, whose blade is silver and has the same ornate crossguard pommel design, fashioned out of gold.


Pax Veritas wrote:

This is what I hope will become a very long thread of community input regarding the elephant in the room.

Backstory: As a veteran gamer (since 1982) I've hit a wall that nearly every gamer including you has hit, or will hit at some point--and we (I) need your help!

The Problem: For years, gaming session provided a "gaming buzz" i.e. a happy wholesome high of joy (you know what I mean). However, home games in Pathfinder drag on too long. Campaigns run too long. Players get bored. A few encounters/rooms per week is NOT enough content to reach that gaming thrill (and I don't know what's changed).

Observation: I still observe rare moments when that "feeling" returns: a) new campaign first sessions with new characters b) when we play a 1-shot adventure with all new characters and c) for a few sessions after when we bring in a new player. But that's it.

Caveat about PFS: Let's leave PFS out of this equation without any value judgment of that style of game. Let's just say we're focusing on home games, with homebrew content.

Question: What can be done to re-ignite the flame of these veteran gamer blues?

The answer comes from your observation: The thrill you receive comes from new things (which is actually axiomatic compared to a "Back in my day" approach that I thought this would take). Each example that you show that gives you the thrill involves new campaigns, new characters, and/or new players.

I would highly suggest you play a new (yet similar) system. In fact, this would be the perfect time you pick up the Pathfinder Unchained book and create a campaign based purely on the rules in that book. It'll be new, which means excitement and thrill for you and your other gamer friends.


Kalindlara wrote:
Well, the ability does say "he can cast this spell as a standard action". It isn't exactly sky-is-blue, 100% airtight and unarguable reasoning. :)

It is, when you actually read the full description. Here's enough to demonstrate what the entry specifies:

Summon Monster wrote:
Starting at 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. Drawing upon this ability uses up the same power as the summoner uses to call his eidolon. As a result, he can only use this ability when his eidolon is not summoned. He can cast this spell as a standard action and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level).

The paragraph structure regarding "spell" refers to the class feature the Summoner gets; it can't refer to the actual Summon Monster spell, because it's only referenced for the effects of the feature, for starters (it doesn't grant him actual uses of the spell), and the intent shows the adjusted benefits of this class feature because this ability cannot work in conjunction with their Eidolon class feature.

The entry does further state that the class feature counts as being on his spell list for the purposes of feats and other requirements that need it.


Greven wrote:

I'm having a small conflict with my GM over what is acceptable for my character to do in combat.

For about 5 levels (Currently a Ninja4/Sorcerer1/DragonDisciple6) I have been using a Katana and Ring of Force Shield.
I would begin my turn with the Force shield on, Katana in one hand.
Free action deactivate Ring of Force Shield
Free action Two hand my Katana
Attack
Free action Reactivate my Ring of Force Shield.

This was acceptable for quite some time. The situation that became upsetting for my Gm was this

I started the round with the shield active and my katana in hand.
Drop katana as a free action, grow claws as a sorcerer bloodline power as a free action, deactivate shield as a free action, as a swift action go invisible with my Ninja trick (Vanishing Trick), 5 foot into base to base contact with enemy, full attack, then activate shield in my offhand as a final free action.

Am I overstepping what should be allowed with free actions? I assumed all of this was quite fluid to preform in my mind. Dropping weapon while growing claws and turning off the shield to vanish into a blindspot of my enemy, smack him a bunch while re-appearing next to him turning on my shield to defend myself.

There is a FAQ regarding swapping handiness on weapons, and the FAQ says a general rule is one re-grip and one re-lease is a fair ruling (though GM still gets final say). To be honest, that is a lot of stuff going on with you there; releasing the Shield, growing Claws, and applying the Shield would be overstepping those boundaries set in the FAQ.


kestral287 wrote:

But are rays wielded?

That's the core question, because the Gloves have a slightly different requirement.

EDIT: Never mind, thought you were answering a different part of my point. That's... amusing, actually.

Rays are not wielded like a standard weapon, whereas Flame Blade and Produce Flame are; neither are Unarmed Strikes or Natural Weapons, but they are cited as separate entities that would receive the benefit.

Additionally, it would require that the 'weapon' be wielded in a hand that wears Deliquescent Gloves; since you can't wield a Ray, much less have it in your hand, it wouldn't apply

Although the FAQ elaborates that Rays and Weapon-Like Spells would count as weapons for effects that are dependant upon such, Rays would be excluded from the benefits of Deliquescent Gloves simply because it's not something wielded, whereas Flame Blade and Produce Flame are. If there was a Ray that can be wielded, then there would be a case for it, but until that's proven, I err on the side of RAW.


Numarak wrote:

Inspire courage has a PC or a NPC as a target, you can't compare something that has an object as a target to something that has a creature. Is like saying you can use Baleful Polymorph on a bed because you can use Polymorph any object on it.

And no, inspire courage works on spells that require an attack roll, such as scorching ray, but not to fireball; so we can not generalize on its basis.

Thus being said, the item specifies which attacks gain the corrosive weapon special ability, and its an exhaustive list: melee attacks made with *that* hand, unarmed attacks and natural attacks made with *that* hand, and the last, attacks made with weapons wield with *that* hand.

A)
Flame Blade is not a weapon. Is a spell wielded as a weapon So I'm not sure if it will qualify for it as _Ozy_ already stated. I would say it does not qualify, although I'm not adamant on this.

B)
About the second question, I would say no. Only melee attacks made with the glove or a weapon in contact -wielded- with the glove's hand, gain the corrosive ability. If they wanted that missile or thrown weapons gained the ability as well, they would have included it in the description of the item as they stated for corrosive, flaming or elemental bows. It's the attack that gains the corrosive ability, not the weapon.

Imagine you casted Spectral Hand, Shocking Grasp and had those gloves on, it's just logic that if you use Spectral Hand to deliver the Shocking grasp, it does not benefit from the corrosive, but if you melee touch attack a close enemy and hit it with the glove's hand, it will cause the Shocking grasp damage plue 1d6 of acid.

To redact what the Deliquescent Gloves RAW is:

Deliquescent Gloves wrote:
If the wearer uses that hand to wield a weapon or make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, that attack gains the corrosive weapon special ability.

Are you wielding a bow when you make attacks with it? Yes? Then attacks you make with it gain the Corrosive property. End of discussion. The RAW doesn't give a flying #^!& if the weapon is melee or ranged, it cares if the hand(s) wearing the Deliquescent Gloves is wielding a weapon or not. Also consider the wording of Flame Blade, in that it says you "wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar".

Quite frankly, I could instead substitute the Flame Blade spell for any weapon-like object, like a cooking pot or a table; people would argue that it's Improvised Weapons, meaning they're not actual weapons, so they wouldn't benefit from the Gloves, and that argument is just plain stupid.

Lastly, look at this FAQ:

Rays FAQ wrote:

For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so you don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.

The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.

I would constitute the benefit of Deliquescent Gloves would be an effect that affects weapons (since it gives the weapon you wield the Corrosive property, and affects only weapons), meaning the Deliquescent Gloves by way of this FAQ, would apply to Flame Blade.


I'd rule that it would apply to both scenarios, as the benefit applies you're using the hands to wield a weapon. Though many people will argue that since they're not actual weapons (and only lets you wield them like one), it wouldn't be applicable, and it's a fair interpretation, but it's not one I'd go with.

YMMV.


Again, it took a FAQ to reach that conclusion; before that FAQ, you ran into tables that ruled Flurry only functioned at Monk level BAB, and others which calculated the other BAB into the class feature.

You can spout that this instance is identical to that one all you like; quite frankly, there are rules that are identical to one other (for example, Wildblooded for Sorcerers is an Archetype, but would follow rules very similar to that of Sub-Domains), and yet they are still given the shaft otherwise (because Wildblooded is an Archetype, and not a Sub-Bloodline, you can't stack that with Crossblooded), whereas other things (i.e. Sub-Domains) that are similar in scenario and function aren't treated that way.

That is why I said YMMV, because the sort of things I and TGMaxMaxer brought up will be real issues when it comes to table variations, both in home games and in PFS; and unless FAQ'd like the Flurry BAB issue was, will result in people interpreting the rules differently from others (just like the Monk Flurry issue, which was solved by FAQ).


kestral287 wrote:

In a great many similar cases, like Flurry's "BAB is equal to Monk level" clause, the treatment is that BAB = Monk level for Monk levels only, you add in other classes normally.

So that reading is a pretty overly-literal reading that... honestly I'd be surprised if many GMs took.

It took a FAQ to answer that, and that's because people thought Flurry overwrote a character's entire BAB, and it doesn't, because it only treats the BAB he acquires from his Monk Levels as equal to his Monk Level, not the entire BAB itself.

Comparing Class Features to BAB is quite a stretch to say the least. It's not unreasonable, but there would be suspect table variation at the minimum, so YMMV.


Cavall wrote:

"Finally, for the purposes of these feats, the warpriest can select feats that have a minimum number of fighter levels as a prerequisite, treating his warpriest level as his fighter level"

You could take weapon spec at fighter 1 and warpriest 3. 1 plus 3 is 4.

You can bold ONLY as many times as you like, but 1 plus 3 is 4.

Actually, that RAW says your Warpriest level becomes your Fighter level. A Warpriest 3 would count as a Fighter 3 for his bonus feats; his actual fighter levels aren't factored in, meaning he wouldn't be able to qualify for Weapon Specialization at all. This is supported by the factor that there are several abilities which are class-level dependant having a clause that states [random class] levels stack with [other random class] levels for the purposes of [random class feature].

That language is missing here, meaning a Warpriest 3/Fighter 2 would still treat his bonus feats as a Fighter 3 for the purposes of qualifying for those bonus feats.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Bashing is still a crazy good enchantment, you've just gotta settle for a non-spiked shield.

Dual shields remain the most badass fighting style I know. :D

It's honestly a trade-off, and it varies on which is more important: a +1 Shield Enhancement (that has an extra size of damage dice), or a few gold for an attachment (that changes the damage type to something a lot more unimportant).


Bear Burning Ashes wrote:
Well, drat.

Honestly, I'd take his post with a grain of salt, because you can notice several rules inconsistencies with his post in regards to other rules he cites. A prime example towards the end is him saying that Spikes on a Shield are their own weapons, whereas the RAW treats Shield Spikes as an add-on subject to a Shield, and when combined, becomes its own item.

I only reference that post because, since he designed the Klar, he specifically points out that there is a Blade on the item, which is what the 1D6 One-Handed Martial Slashing Damage entry relates to: The fact that it has a blade, and that blade is not a part of the Klar's Shield Bash capabilities. Remember, the Bashing property only adjusts Shield Bash damage, not just all damage altogether.

The RAW description actually makes no such distinction in relations to the entry the Klar has, since the hardcover book cites it as a "Light Shield with Armor Spikes," meaning the description would say the Klar is actually a combination of the Light Shield entry and the Armor Spikes entry. (i.e. you have a 1D6 Martial Light Piercing weapon attached to a Light Shield that bashes for 1D3 Bludgeoning.)

That being said, the Klar is all sorts of messed up, and it needs Errata/Official Clarification badly, since the RAW doesn't match up to the RAI that James Jacobs says it should emulate, and several people are stipulating that the Klar entry is the Shield Bash damage (when James Jacobs' post outright says Bashing wouldn't apply to the Blade of the Klar).


Bear Burning Ashes wrote:

I'd like to see that quote from JJ, as my Shoanti has been using a Bashing Klar for almost 10 levels now.

I had done extensive research (including posting my own thread) to make sure it was legal. I'd hate to have missed something.

Here


CountofUndolpho wrote:

So why doesn't masterwork give a shield +1 to attack if it's a weapon?

How do you arm yourself with two shields with the restrictions they place on use of hands?
How do you remove them?
If there is only one magic shield slot how then can you use two magic shields? (and so logically two ordinary ones)
Magic weapon slots varies on limbs and abilities so is not specified.

I didn't understand your post about the Klar Darksol.

As to why you can't give a +1 enhancement to attacks with a shield, it's because the rules say you can't, simple as that, plain as day. From the PRD:

Masterwork Weapons wrote:
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.

The rules specifically say that Masterwork Shields must reduce armor check penalties, so you aren't allowed an option to grant a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, no exceptions allowed. (This rule would also mean a subject like the Klar, which is a shield that has a weapon attached, cannot receive a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks.)

As for how you arm yourself with two shields, there aren't really restrictions for putting them on or off, all that's mentioned is that a move action is needed to 'ready' (read: equip) them; this is supported by the factor that the table doesn't make a footnote of it requiring help to don, as Full-Plate or Half-Plate would, meaning you don't need to have hands free to equip them. Even so, I'm sure Quickdraw Shields would provide further ability to do so, since it states you can draw a weapon (and don a shield) simultaneously, versus where you normally don just a shield. This same argument applies for removing them.

Again, the Magic Shield "slot" is a major misnomer, and simply shows an iteration of "Same X doesn't stack," similar to how the Staggered condition needlessly revisits the ability to take Swift, Free, and Immediate Actions. Although it's mentioned as a slot in Core, this sort of thing isn't reflected in future books (which, if there was a reason for there to be a slot, would be listed, and thus is what the original purpose of slots were supposed to intend).

As for the Klar, you said that it's a Martial One-Handed weapon that Shield Bashes for Slashing Damage. The description says that it's a Light Shield with Armor Spikes, and James Jacobs refers to the Blade on the Weapon not receiving Shield Enhancement benefits like Bashing in one of his posts (can refer you to it if you really need it, but I'm lazy about it currently). To further clarify, the actual Klar entry on the weapons table is the Blade's attack, and is a Martial One-Handed weapon that deals 1D6 Slashing damage; it has other uses (like other shields) in that it is a Light Shield with Armor Spikes (possibly meant to read Shield Spikes), so it deals 1D3 Bludgeoning Shield Bashes, or 1D6 Piercing from Armor Spikes attached to it (or a 1D4 Piercing Shield Bash, if meant to read Shield Spikes).


CountofUndolpho wrote:

So you are OK with using two magic shield even though you only have one slot? One of them just doesn't give a shield bonus because it can change it's designation from Shield to Weapon at will.

By that logic the plate mail and spiked breastplate option above is also legit.

The fact that you can't give a Masterwork bonus to attack to a Shield supports the supposition that it's a weapon?

The fact there is are separate sections under the headings Armour and magic armour properties for shields means its just a weapon with fancy rules?

If it's a weapon why is there a shield proficiency skill? Why not just leave it under Martial Weapon Proficiency. Though that would cause problems for bucklers and Tower Shields. That's alright they can't be used as weapons so they are just shields... but shields are weapons?!

My head hurts.

I think the Shield itself being a magic slot is a major oversight in the rules. Any sort of subject that one could cheese out from using two shields (HURR DURR, DOUBLE SHIELD AC!) would be overran by other written rules in the Core. For example, the Double Shield AC cheese cannot possibly be done, even if the Shield wasn't a slotted item, because Same-type bonuses don't stack (and Shield bonuses aren't a stat that can stack infinitely). Another example is Bashing (with extra thanks to the new FAQ) wouldn't cause you to Bash as if 4 sizes larger because size increases and effective size increases don't stack with themselves (though a size and an effective size increase would); just as well, the extra size increases only apply to the item in question, not the character, meaning no double-dipping. The same would be applicable to a character trying to use two +5 AC/+5 Hit Defending Shields, as untyped bonuses from the same source (in this case, the Defending property) wouldn't stack. Though you can certainly make a +5 AC/+5 Hit Defending and a +5 AC/+5 Hit Guardian combo, granting +11 AC and +5 Saves, while granting +5 to Hit and Damage as well because Shield Master.

But ultimately yes, Shields as Weapons have extra rules, because they encompass both an armor-type item, and a weapon item, at the same time.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I wonder if the anti-shield posters have an opinion on the Klar, Scizore, or Snarlshield.
Klar: acts as a (very) light spiked shield but does slashing and is a one-handed weapon...?! so actually it should act as a Heavy one-handed bladed shield? or... we wait for the UE errata?

Considering James Jacobs, the person who invented the Klar, states that properties such as Bashing would not affect the blade on the Klar (and yet it would still affect the Klar itself), would lead your silly interpretation to mean nothing, especially when it denotes itself as a "Light Shield with Armor Spikes." (Which ironically enough, would supersede the table entry the Klar is listed as, if we take the precedent that Feats present to us, in that Description > Table.)


Baumfluch wrote:

I did find the Bashing enhancement aswell, but i dont think its actually good.

The pathfinder weaponsize table is taken from 3.5.
If you have a medium sized heavy spiked steel shield it deals 1d6. making it bashing, granting +2 size categories you go to 2d6.
1d6 Bonus dmg ist just like fire or ice enhancement. and its a weapon enhancesment, so you have to pay more if you want to enhance it with ac aswell, because it is a different Kind of enhancement.
dont think thats worth it. It starts getting worth if you are bigger then medium sized creature, and it gets less worth if you are smaller then medium sized.

i made that build for a fighter in our Group.
we are 4 PCs, and as we started the campaign (our first PF round) we thought having a tank is effective. In fact he had like 30+ AC but srsly 0 dmg, so at least intelligend foes just ignored him. It didnt really work out for us. Thats what i love about the shieldbased two-weapon-fighter. He still has decent defensive but deals a pretty good ammount of damage, having some Utilitys with his shield (like free bullrush) plus scaling pretty well until like Level 15.

I would also re-read this part from the feat:

Shield Master wrote:
You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon.

RAW, this would mean that any penalties thrown at you mean nothing, but the intent behind this is that it removes TWF penalties anyway. So even without your Two-Weapon Warrior features, a dual-shield attacker would be able to TWF without penalty as long as they have this feat.

Also keep in mind that you can enhance your shield both as an armor piece, and as a weapon. So you could tack on +5 (AC) Bashing with +5 (Hit) Defending on a given shield, granting you a solid +11 Shield AC (including Enhancements and Defending), while still maintaining a +5 Enhancement Bonus to Hit and Damage. It makes Shields much more expensive to enhance compared to other weapons, but it makes their potential that much more powerful than other weapons.


Cheese, although often improperly used to show disgust about a subject, is to be properly used as something that is used unintentionally, against the rules, or both. Things that are "new" or "interesting" mean nothing if they go against the purpose of the rules. A lot of times, things that are allowed by RAW, but don't follow the RAI, are subjects that would fall under the category of "cheese".

Tangent to something earlier in the thread:
DM_Blake wrote:
Paizo devs work very hard to create balanced and interesting rules. They understand that chaotic rules with no balance and no structure will ruin the game and Pathfinder would die.

I find this to be a giant misnomer on your part. Paizo Devs do create rules that are interesting, sure, however that's once in a great while; if you take a look at a lot of the threads on here, they involve a lot of imbalances that Paizo essentially says "Yup, that's how it is, suck it up," whether vocally (Dev posts, Errata, or FAQ answers), or non-vocally (such as what RAW would allow to happen, and it being unchecked). They actually created imbalance with several of the things they changed, that were actually much easier to fix (and it still would have kept the unique, interesting feel the content provided). And that doesn't just apply to things that they change, but with the things that they publish, the imbalance only grows and grows, the structures gets bigger (and thusly more fragile, since there are more parts associated),

Granted, no system is perfect, and they have tried to shore up some of these issues with their Unchained spin-off, and by constructing their own rules chassis, but when the original Pathfinder game was built with the same chassis that D&D 3.X used, the same issues that would plague D&D 3.X, such as the content bloat, the Caster/Martial disparities, Rogues sucking, Paladin Alignment issues, etc. would also plague Pathfinder. It's like putting two of the same species of monkey in a cage that contains a petri dish containing parasites and expecting the parasites to only affect one of the monkeys because it has a different name with several features that are different (and many features the same).


Bran Towerfall wrote:

hey all,

our party leader(6th level aasimar paladin of iomedae) built into his back story that his mother was assaulted by a demon resulting in an unholy stain within his blood. The flavor of this backstory choice has been fun to see play out. He obviously was strict with his paladin code, and grey area moral dilemmas resulted in minor cosmetic changes like little horn buds sprouting from his head and claws forming on his hand. All changes were comical and fun to roleplay with the other pcs and a handful of concerned npcs. This paladin now just went into a blood frenzy after watching his mentor killed in front of him by the BBEG. He REALLY sold it......smashing the bad guy's skull on the ground until it was ground hamburger, smearing his blood all over himself, beheading what was left of his melon and swinging it wildly at us telling us to back away. Two party members grappled and subdued him....AND then he grew goat legs and ram horns.

Out of game I asked the gm how this new situation will probably progress. He said that since he is refusing all aid from the church/paladin order to correct the problem(atonement/consecration)he would now lose his aasimar traits and now have the fiendish template applied to his character. There has been no indication...yet, that he has lost his paladin powers.

What advice could we give him to help him deal with his new character development. The role playing element is priceless. Other players had suggested he goes straight fighter until he comes to terms with his tainted blood. I suggested he embrace his nature and take levels in bloodrager with the abyssal bloodline or even crossblooded with celestial.

Any/all advice would be greatly appreciated
ty all

With the bolded parts showing extreme levels of Chaos, as well as touches of Evil due to how he handled slaying the BBEG (he desecrated the enemy's body, as well as his own with the blood of Evil), that would call for an alignment change of either axis (probably to Neutral Good, or Lawful Neutral, or True Neutral), meaning he should've lost his Paladin powers right then and there.

To be quite honest, if it continues much further, I anticipate this "Paladin" will become an "Anti-Paladin," and his demonic appearance would be side-effects of the Abyssal Eldritch Heritage feat chains.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Apparently armor spikes are carried in the off-hand, if I recall the FAQ discussions correctly. :P
Two-Handed Weapons and Armor Spikes wrote:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.

Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

This FAQ only clarifies that you need to actually have a hand available to make attacks with the Armor Spikes for TWF, not that you're "carrying them" in that hand. Although a fair interpretation derived from this, if we weren't to treat Armor Spikes as being attached to the armor you wear, you'd have to drop the Armor Spikes in your hand in order to make attacks with a Two-Handed Weapon. This sort of arguments files back to the "My limbs are like detachable parts" argument, which is a bunch of BS, because last I checked, Spikes on Armors or Shields are affixed to the item, usually through procedures from metallurgy, primarily through welding the spike to the specified area.

Might I also add, that is one of the stupidest (and perhaps most non-sensible) Pathfinder FAQs to-date, and ranks up there amidst the likes of the Crane Wing/Riposte nerf and Wildblooded/Crossblooded FAQs.


I didn't realize that I could carry my arms, my hands, my legs, and my feet as if they were object separate from my body like several of the posters on this thread are saying that I can apparently do. What am I, some construct whose limbs can be taken off and put back on again? Or am I an organic humanoid whose limbs, if they are cut off, can only be replaced with spells/abilities like Regeneration?

Carrying, at least in this case, refers to an object separate from the character, whether it be a coinpurse, a rock, whatever. In fact, you can have those items in your other hand while wielding a Scimitar in the other, and you won't invalidate the feat. It is when the object is a shield or a weapon that the feat becomes invalidated.

One could try to cheese it and say that Improvised Weapons would not fall under this category, but the intent of the feat is that whenever you make use of an object that is a shield or weapon, or an object of a separate category that is being used as a shield or weapon, the feat becomes invalidated.


Gauss wrote:

Regarding Roll with It, it is an immediate action and like all immediate actions, it interrupts other things, such as the grab check.

Attack->Damage->Grab check
With Roll with it it is:
Attack->Damage->Roll with it->Grab Check(?)

If an immediate action negates the damage and moves your out of range of the grab check then there is no longer a grab check to be made.

I never really thought about it this way. Then again, there aren't many Immediate Action abilities that allow stuff like this. In that case, it wouldn't matter if the reduced damage from the feat is Damage Reduction or not; as long as the check is successful, the move is executed.

Of course, since the Grab ability specifies an action to be taken (and instead of it simply being an additional effect to the attack, such as a Magus using Spellstrike with Shocking Grasp), it couldn't be taken.

One could assume that being moved from the square provokes AoOs, but there is an interesting tidbit from the feat:

Roll With It wrote:
This involuntary movement provokes attacks of opportunity normally if you move through threatened squares, but does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the creature that struck you in the first place.


Ahpook The Destroyer wrote:

My question is this: Can a character with Dervish Dance gain its benefits on their initial and iterative attacks, and then using Quick Draw, pull a weapon in their offhand, make Two Weapon Fighting off hand attacks, and then resheath that weapon again.

It seems legal as per the RAW. Am I wrong about this? If so please break it down for me so I understand why.

Example:
A 6th level Swashbuckler with an 18 Dexterity, Weapon Finesse, Dervish Dance, Two Weapon Fighting, and Quickdraw.
Normal: +10(+4Dam)/+5(+4Dam)
2WF: +8/+3//+8
Can It Be: +8(+4Dam)/+3(+4Dam)/Quickdraw/+8/unQuickdraw

Thanks so much in advance!
AtD

This is the same sort of cheese that players have tried to execute using Two-Handed Weapons in conjunction with Crane Riposte. (FYI, there was a FAQ released stating that regripping and releasing a hand on a Two-Handed Weapon is a free action [which means not outside your turn, so no Crane Riposte], and you are allowed to do each of those once per turn, meaning you could still get Crane Wing benefits; unfortunately, the feat nerfs ruined this concept.) Trying to manipulate the amount of hands necessary to do so is a more fine cut here, because you're trying to cheese Off-Hand attacks with an actual hand-in-weapon method, which I can guarantee you is not going to work.

Here is the TWF FAQ regarding the attack rotation you can make. When it comes to standard iteratives, you can make an attack with your main-hand, and an attack in your off-hand (assuming BAB +6), using different weapons, and it does not constitute TWF. You can mix and match which order you take these attacks, but since you are BAB +6, you only ever get 2 attacks. It is only by getting attacks from beyond your standard BAB, do you have you specify the main-hand/off-hand weapons, which weapon attack goes first (and that they must all be taken first before you can take the attacks in your off-hand).

That being said, reviewing the Dervish Dance feat text:

Dervish Dance wrote:
When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.

The feat text specifies that you can only gain the feat benefits if the following circumstances apply - if your Scimitar is properly sized for you, and if you aren't carrying a weapon or shield in your other hand. (It says off hand, but that sort of phrasing is only important for TWF purposes.) Since TWF is considered a simultaneous act (you must specify your main-hand and off-hand weapons before you can take the TWF option, you would have you draw your offhand weapon before you take the TWF option, meaning you wouldn't receive the benefits of Dervish Dance.

That being said, if there are weapons that aren't carried (such as a Natural Claw or Unarmed Strike) in your off-hand, it circumvents the cited limitation, and it receives Dexterity to Attack/Damage benefits.


Sammy T wrote:

If DR stops all damage, then riders like trip and grab would be negated.

From Mark Seifter in my Geokineticist playtest thread, after I posted an AAR of my Kineticist who's DR ate all the damage from a wolf's bite but still got tripped.

Remember that Damage Reduction is an actual game term with given effects, and only when the damage is negated by Damage Reduction itself (and not a pseudosynonymous form of damage reduction like Incorporeality), does it negate rider effects. Also keep in mind that it works only on most special effects, not all of them. (Though Mark Seifter's post does imply that special effects that provide combat maneuvers would apply to a Grab ability.) With all that said, if the feat specified Damage Reduction (the game term), the Grab would not be applicable if the Goblin was able to negate the damage.

However, since the feat makes no such distinction, the Goblin's screwed (it's a Goblin, what else did you expect to happen?).


chbgraphicarts wrote:

A Round is 6 seconds.

You are allowed 2 Movement Actions, a Movement Action and a Standard Action, or a Full Round Action, along with 1 Swift/Immediate Action per Round, and 1 5ft Step.

If you REALLY want to break it down, here goes:

A Move Action is 2.25 Seconds

A Standard Action is 3.25 Seconds

A Swift Action/Immediate Action is .25 Seconds and can only be performed once/Round

A 5-Foot Step is .25 Seconds and can only be performed once/Round

A Full-Round Action takes 5.5 Seconds

A Free Action takes 0 Seconds because it can be performed over other Actions.

There ya go - that way, you cannot take 3 Move Actions in a Round, you cannot take 2 Standard Actions in a Round, and you can still use 1 Swift Action and 1 5-Foot Step even when making a Full Round Action or taking a Move Action & Standard Action together.

This makes sense from a purely mathematical point of view, but as Rub-Eta points out, there are rules that would categorize subjects like Swift and Immediate Actions as effects that would fall under the same duration as Free Actions; there are also rules that have different interpretations regarding Full Round Actions, specifically Meta-Magic Spells (Full-Round Action) V.S. Summon Spells (1-Round Cast Time), in that one is completed within the round, and the other doesn't complete until the following round. The factor that there are differing time executions between the two subjects (that are technically supposed to equate to the same thing) provides more than enough evidence as to differing durations being a result of not properly quantifying how long each action actually takes.

Additionally, PF is abstract of realism. Realistically speaking, not everyone can accomplish the same tasks in the same exact amount of time. In this case, not every single character finishes spellcasting such as a basic Vanish spell in the 3.25 seconds that you claim always happens, no matter the circumstance. It also doesn't take into consideration the implications of conditions that limit your ability to complete actions. Staggered is a prime example of a condition that limits your ability to perform actions (which also means you're technically cutting down on the time you have within the round). From that token, this realism also takes into account the time estimation for each action that you believe applies, which PF is abstract from, as provided with conditions like Nauseated. The only reason a time stamp is listed for Rounds total is for spell effects whose duration is Minutes/Hours per level, whose duration if Rounds were not given a timestamp, would be unclear as to how long they would actually last.


K-kun the Insane wrote:

My CORE character has just reached level 3 after tonight's scenario (Infernal Vault) and so I asked advice on which feat (Combat Reflexes vs. Combat Expertise) I should take. One guy asked me what my plan was and I told him I was going Shadowdancer.

"So you're going to have an Undead following you around?"
"Yeah...?" Sounds cool to me.
"So you're going to have an Undead following you around?"

Oh... Crap! This is a very good point he brought up for one character breaking reason:

Serenity is a Reaper of Pharasma (Fighter 1, Cleric 2). She is completely built around the idea of being a Reaper of Souls, both living and (un)dead. I can't think of any reason she would allow this (awesome) abomination to keep (un)living.

I have until Shadowdancer 4 (Character level 9), which is only 6 levels away now, to figure this conundrum out. Please help me, Advice Forum, you're my only hope!

Summon Shadow wrote:
Unlike a normal shadow, this shadow's alignment matches that of the shadowdancer, and the creature cannot create spawn. The summoned shadow receives a +4 bonus on Will saves made to halve the damage from positive channeled energy and the shadow cannot be turned or commanded. This shadow serves as a companion to the shadowdancer and can communicate intelligibly with the shadowdancer.

I wouldn't mind a Shadow if it didn't basically cause an epidemic and upset the flow of life and death (which is what Pharasma would be most hateful about). She won't take you as seriously as you want her to if you take this route I'd imagine, primarily because you're using the very thing she despises to carry out her will. Possibly fitting, but since this Shadow would not upset the flows of life and death, I don't see anything that Pharasma would say "It's either me or that stupid ugly mutt of a pet you have."

To be quite honest, I'd think about finding ways of turning it into a Shadow Demon instead. Perhaps demonstrating to Pharasma a means to transmute that which she finds perversive into a subject less repulsive (and also less defiant of the flow of souls).


Vials of Resurrection, by the book would only be useful for use on characters who have died and want to/should be brought back to life. If the plan is, if a character dies, and then are revived by the potion, then they suffer 'adverse' effects, you need to establish what it is exactly you want changed in addition to that.

As for a general example, a lot of change results from Transmutation spells. If you're thinking more physiological changes, your best bet are spells like Beast Shape, Undead Anatomy, Form of the Dragon, Plant Shape, and Elemental Body, as they deal with the caster taking the form (and if it says so, the listed abilities) of the subject they transform into. Perhaps having a character receive the benefits of the 1st rank of these abilities at first and then slowly progressing to the final rank may be the best bet.

Although there aren't any spells that allow you to emulate things like Demons, Devils, or Daemons (that's the proper spelling, though I have no idea why Demons and Daemons are separate entities), a lot of that stuff delves with rituals and circumstances that lead characters to directly turn into those creatures (i.e. Shadow draining all the strength of a character turns him into a Shadow ~1D4 rounds later), and is something you should look into if you're looking for a more direct conversion.

Another alternative is to look at the Reincarnation spell, modify it to suit your needs, and just roll with that. Ultimately, pick your poison from here and I'm sure your game will last just fine.


Vestigial Arm wrote:
The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting).

So this would allow you to TWF with the limb, but it doesn't grant you the ability to utilize Multi-Weapon Fighting. Or, you can just have that extra hand hold a shield and gain Shield AC. That being said, if you have more than two limbs, you qualify for Multi-Weapon Fighting instead. Double Slice would, by RAW, only affect one off-hand, the same way Improved/Greater TWF would only affect one off-hand attack. Since your plan is to only use two weapons anyway, that's not an issue.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'm going to take a tip from your book, and say that's an invalid argument because we're talking about a fantasy game here, real life physics don't apply. Of course, that's if I were you.

Showing me a picture of a shield and asking me how one might bash with it and do bludgeoning damage with it, I thought you were asking for a real-world-verisimilitude answer, and that is what I was giving you. mplindustries was also asking for a real-world kind of answer on how any shield could inflict slashing damage, and that is what I was giving her.

I do not in fact believe that you can in game inflict bludgeoning damage with a shield bash from a spiked shield.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You also have yet to justify how a Klar, which is supposed to be a Light Shield, (AKA it's a Light Weapon in the Weapon table,) bashes as a One-Handed Weapon.

I don't have to justify it, at least not in rw terms. The rules say it. The rules characterize all melee attacks with shields as shield bashes. The rules direct you to the weapons chart for the amount and type of damage and the type of weapon each given shield is treated as. The Klar's shield bash is listed on the Weapons Chart as a 1 handed Martial Weapon that does 1d6 Slashing Damage.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The only other conclusion I can come up with here is you're just pulling stuff out of your rear again.
Well, so much for keeping a civil tone. The only conclusion I can draw from your tone is that you believe I am right, resent it, and want to make this about insults instead of facts and rules.

You're ignoring the entire precedent of spikes described in the game. Look at Spiked Pits (both the trap and the spell), those deal Piercing Damage. Look at weapons like Rapiers those deal Piercing Damage. You compare anything that has a sharp pointy end, and it has Piercing Damage listed. There is no RAW given that grants the Klar exception to that precedent. This is exactly what I mean when I say you're pulling stuff out of your rear, because you're making up some ridiculous precedent that goes against everything else that's similar in the game, and saying it's right just because you essentially think all fingers are thumbs.

You're trying to assume that a Klar is just a shield. Given the illustration of what a typical Klar looks like, that metal blade at the bottom certainly looks like something you'd cut with, but given that it's jutting out from the absolute bottom of the item, I doubt you could effectively bash an enemy with a slashing weapon. Even James Jacobs, the inventor behind the Klar, mentions there being a Blade that Bashing would not affect.

James Jacobs wrote:
The bashing quality enhances your shield bash attack with a klar, but does nothing for the klar's blade. Likewise, adding bashing to a shield with spikes does nothing to the shield spike damage, since bashing is a shield magic quality and spikes are not shields, but are in fact weapons."

The fact that he mentions "the klar's blade" not being affected by the Bashing property, which I'm certain is part of the Klar that you say applies to Shield Bashes, is more than proof enough that the Klar's entry is treated as a separate weapon entirely from it being a Shield that you bash with. If that's not enough proof, then nothing will ever convince you of your viewpoint, in which case I'm done with this circle of dizziness.


Entryhazard wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
In addition, I'm curious as to why you would make a Sylph Sorcerer and not take the Sage bloodline (which allows you to have Intelligence for your mainstat instead of Charisma for all of your Sorcerer-related class features). You could take the Crossblooded archetype and take both Elemental (Air) and the Sage Bloodlines, getting the benefit of both your Air Affinity and your racial Intelligence boost affecting your spells and your other class abilities.

Because sadly wildblooded (needed for Sage) and crossblooded do not stack as archetypes.

Had variant bloodlines been worded like the subdomains are it would have been better but that's not what happened

Doh. That's a silly predicament. I guess this is one of the nice things spellcasters can't have (which is a switch for a change).


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
As for being able to bash or attack with the spikes of a shield, here's a generic representation of a Spiked Shield. Tell me how you're going to choose to deal Bludgeoning Damage with that while still being an effective Shield Bash. Last I checked, you need feats to be able to do stuff like that, meaning the base type is unchangable (unless the item gave you a choice anyway, such as the Morningstar).

You bash with the edge of the shield instead of the broad surface of it. There were 2 episodes in the first Season of Deadliest Warrior where they tested the Spartan shield as a weapon in its own right. The expert representing the Spartans bashed the ballistics gel torso-and-head with the broad plate of the shield, but also executed a short, fast whack in the side of the dummy's head with the shield's bronze edge, giving the target a depressed skull fracture that would have killed a real person.

mplindustries wrote:
Third, can we just talk logically about what this weapon is? It's a slashing blade attached to a shield. You don't bash with the blade, you slash with it. I know, this is not a RAW argument, but, come on, you obviously slash, rather than bash with it.

Now imagine the edge of the Spartan Shield were a sharpened cutting edge. Or imagine you are using the Klar as pictured in this thread to make a hook-punch attack, catching your opponent at the inside corner where the base of the blade meets the heavy, nubbly body of the shield, ripping out flesh as the shield is withdrawn.

mplindustries wrote:
So, there you go.

I'm going to take a tip from your book, and say that's an invalid argument because we're talking about a fantasy game here, real life physics don't apply. Of course, that's if I were you.

You can try to design a unique shield to do what you said you could do, but the book is abstract of unique base details that allow you to do what you say it can do. If the book says it deals Bludgeoning damage, it deals Bludgeoning damage. If the book says that it turns into a Piercing weapon, that means it overrides it being a Bludgeoning weapon. So RAW, you can't do Bludgeoning and/or Piercing damage with a Spiked Shield, especially when there are feats that you have to take to be able to change the damage type of a given weapon in the weapons table.

You also have yet to justify how a Klar, which is supposed to be a Light Shield, (AKA it's a Light Weapon in the Weapon table,) bashes as a One-Handed Weapon. Armor Spikes nor Shield Spikes cause that designation increase (it's only an effective size boost, not an actual size boost), and nothing else in the description makes any mention of it being a One-Handed Weapon. The only other conclusion I can come up with here is you're just pulling stuff out of your rear again.


kestral287 wrote:

RAW it does not.

Ask your GM for a home game; I'd be shocked to see one that says no.

I second this. The full entry from the Sylph's Air Affinity trait:

Air Affinity wrote:
Sylph sorcerers with the elemental (air) bloodline treat their Charisma score as 2 points higher for all sorcerer spells and class abilities. Sylph spellcasters with the Air domain use their domain powers and spells at +1 caster level.

The Sylph's abilities specify that only Sorcerers that have the Elemental (Air) bloodline treat their Charisma modifier as 1 higher; this makes sense, because this ability would not apply if I were to, for example, take the Eldritch Heritage feat chain for the Elemental (Air) Bloodline and acquire those abilities.

That being said, it's not unreasonable to treat it affecting any character that has the bloodline, and this is especially true given that Bloodragers did not exist when the ARG was created. Normally an errata would be needed, but since this doesn't include ACG material (because it wasn't a thing when this was released), it only makes sense that it's not listed, because it would include a Core book further down the chronological release date, which wasn't feasible at the time the ARG was created.

Slight Tangent:
In addition, I'm curious as to why you would make a Sylph Sorcerer and not take the Sage bloodline (which allows you to have Intelligence for your mainstat instead of Charisma for all of your Sorcerer-related class features). You could take the Crossblooded archetype and take both Elemental (Air) and the Sage Bloodlines, getting the benefit of both your Air Affinity and your racial Intelligence boost affecting your spells and your other class abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

93. Player: "I'm going to put this artifact in my Bag of Holding so it can stay safe and nobody will know about it."

GM: "Well, that's fantastic, a really smart decision! I'll just mark it down on my sheet over here that you have your artifact in that Bag of Holding so it doesn't draw attention-AAAAND it's gone.

Player: "...What?"

GM: "The artifact in your Bag of Holding, it didn't do too well, it's gone."

Player: "What do you mean, I have the artifact!"

GM: "Not anymore you don't. Poof!"

This example seems less about inducing paranoia and more about being mean-spirited. I would be more angry than paranoid, at any rate.

Anyway...

94.) Are you sure you don't want to buy a 10-foot pole? They're on a discount in the local general store...

95.) You suddenly notice that the corpses of those orcs you just killed are no longer there.

Of course, one could always think that the Artifact is actually an Intelligent Item that's claustrophobic, plus comes with a runspeed and can cast Invisibility at-will. If the PCs couldn't properly identify it (most Artifacts can't be, given their stupid-high DCs), telling them that it goes "poof" either provides false information as to what the Artifact actually does, or they think putting the item in a Bag of Holding was actaully the means to destroy the artifact. I only made it in reference to the video link, which I find is a prime example of messing with people.

At any rate...

96.) As the final blow was dealt to the BBEG, he says "You may have beaten me, but your princess is in another castle!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

93. Player: "I'm going to put this artifact in my Bag of Holding so it can stay safe and nobody will know about it."

GM: "Well, that's fantastic, a really smart decision! I'll just mark it down on my sheet over here that you have your artifact in that Bag of Holding so it doesn't draw attention-AAAAND it's gone.

Player: "...What?"

GM: "The artifact in your Bag of Holding, it didn't do too well, it's gone."

Player: "What do you mean, I have the artifact!"

GM: "Not anymore you don't. Poof!"


mplindustries wrote:
There are three written sources for the Klar. Two call it a spiked shield and one calls it armor spikes.

The other sources don't matter when the Core Books refer to the Klar separately from the sources (that I presume JJ was behind as far as design is concerned). Although he's the inventor of the item, his word's weight holds just as much as it did when Jason Nelson weighed in on the Bodyguard feat he invented. In fact, it actually weighs less because there is only one source for the Bodyguard feat, whereas there are several sources for the Klar, and the two that say "Spiked Shield" aren't in the Core Books.

One would extrapolate that when it came to the final publishings, Jason Bulmahn probably just said "Nope, I don't like those versions of the item, let's go with this one because [reasons]," meaning the intent we could gather from the Klar's other sources go out the window.

mplindustries wrote:
I am no longer sure the effective size increase thing even applies here. I kind of see where JJ is coming from--I'm pretty sure shield spikes are a totally separate weapon that happen to be attached to your shield, meaning you don't bash with your spikes, you bash with a shield or just make a regular weapon attack with the spikes. I'm kind of questioning everything here--starting to think an attack with shield spikes might not trigger feats like Shield slam...wow...

How would it not apply? When it comes to feats, the written description trumps what's written in the table, why would this be any different. The benefit of Spiked Shields falls under language associated with effective size increases, so it would not stack with effective size increases. The fact that it has its own listing in the table is irrelevant to the description of Shield Spikes, which specifies that it is simply a higher damage dice applied to the shield in question.

As for being able to bash or attack with the spikes of a shield, here's a generic representation of a Spiked Shield. Tell me how you're going to choose to deal Bludgeoning Damage with that while still being an effective Shield Bash. Last I checked, you need feats to be able to do stuff like that, meaning the base type is unchangable (unless the item gave you a choice anyway, such as the Morningstar).

If you refer to the RAW of Shield Spikes, it changes the item type:

Spiked Shields wrote:
These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon

So instead of a regular shield dealing Bludgeoning Damage, it turns into a Spiked Shield dealing Piercing Damage.

And the Shield Slam feat example is a poor one.

Shield Slam wrote:
Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat).

Even if you were to try and say that Spiked Shields don't count for it, re-read the RAW again:

Spiked Shields wrote:
attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

It doesn't matter what sort of attack you make with a spiked shield, it counts as a Shield Bash. I could actually extrapolate that argument to mean a Throwing Spiked Shield would make Shield Bashes with its ranged attacks, and a regular Throwing Shield could not, and is something Scott Wilhelm would try to say is 100% legal; but I know where to draw the line when it comes to RAW V.S. RAI, and I know that's a bunch of hooey.

Needless to say, I can agree that the Klar falls under the same pretenses the Courageous Property has, in that it uses a game term to mean something else (usually the literal sense, or flavor text, in this case, it means spikes on a shield). That being said, unless a FAQ gets established for the Klar, or an Errata, it's going to stay the same ambiguous (most likely) pile of junk ever.

@ Scott Wilhelm: Cool, you must be of the interpretation that I can attack with whatever damage type I want. That means I can make my sword's base damage be Sonic instead of Slashing, because I'm attacking so fast with it. Screw getting a +1 weapon enhancement to symbolize something like that, I'm just gonna cheat the rules because it's a fantasy game.

I can only imagine your games having things like the Wish Sno-Cone Machine and Divine Protection + Oracles combos being done without any sort of repercussion because "reasons".


Silver Surfer wrote:
Yeah cheers I saw that one... I was thinking more of a 1st level domain power that wasnt part of your deity portfolio

There isn't one otherwise, primarily because Domains are one of the few class features unique (and most of them powerful) to Clerics. Flavorwise, a Deity isn't going to just give you powers unless you were to worship and revere it (and only it). Unlike deities in 3.X, that had their own pantheons of faith and several of them got along with each other, Pathfinder deities are all lone wolf types.


Nope, it's the same exact wording.

Additionally, it does not refer to the Klar as a Light Spiked Shield, only a Light Shield with Armor Spikes, meaning it's still 1D3 damage.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Oh, and by the way... "Citation, please."

Certainly.

Mark Seifter Designer wrote:
If the size increases by one step, look up the original damage on the chart and increase the damage by two steps. If the initial size is Small or lower (or is treated as Small or lower) or the initial damage is 1d6 or less, instead increase the damage by one step.... after the first increase, it's treated as Medium.

In other words, Mark opined that when you increase 2 sizes from 1d6, the first size increase brings you up only to 1d8, but then the damage is no longer small, so the second size increase goes up the 2 steps, from 1d8 to 2d6.

Mark weighing in on 2 size increases from 1d6. Thank you again, Chess Pwn.

Looks who's spouting old news. I was asking you to confirm whether the entry for the Klar is the Shield Bash damage or not, because a lot of players would tell you that it isn't. Of course, if you don't believe them, then I think it's time for a FAQ/Errata thread.


You basically said it yourself that it's bull$#!^:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I do not see how adding a spike to a shield constitutes any kind of size increase, and I do not believe that any reasonable interpretation of Spiked Shield could conclude that the Bashing Enchantment would not work normally on the shield on account of size increase rules. In other words, I think this interpretation is stupid.

That FAQ ain't no illusion spell buddy. It's 100% real, and a link was given to the page that shows it from an official source, and you discredited it just because you disagreed with it. Keep spouting the "I have the moral highground" argument all you like, you were the first to call things that went against you stupid and unreasonable, and that's only because you disagreed with it. Same Size bonuses from different sources don't stack, whether they're actual size increases, or effective size increases. (Obviously, Actual and Effective Size increases stack together, but you can't have Apples to Apples here, only Apples to Oranges and vice-versa.)

I mean come on, you're trying to say that the Armor Spikes on the Klar are a Shield Bash Attack. By that ruling, Armor Spikes on any object, whether they're Armor or Shields, are a Shield Bash Attack.

"I'm gonna go get Bashing on my Armor Spikes for my Full Plate now and do 2D6 Armor Spike damage with a Shield enhancement. Thanks for showing me the rules can do that!" /sarcasm

Oh, and by the way...

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
So far as we have been able to get Mark's opinion, he has backed my position, but honestly, getting his opinion isn't good enough.

"Citation, please."


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
a Klar's damage entry is supposed to be a Spiked Shield Bash, it's supposed to deal Piercing Damage... The Klar should be no exception to that rule... the damage dice scale follows incorrectly,
Citation, please.

We already gave you an official citation for something previously, and you disregarded it and essentially said that it's bull$#!^. If I gave you another one, you'd do the same thing, and this would circle ad nauseum, because it's not the way you want it to be. To that end, the effort needed to fulfill your request would be in vain, meaning the request itself becomes futile.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Your argument seems to be, "it should be this way, so it is!"

Admittedly, there has been a bit of it-should-be-this-way in my argument, but I'm not relying on that. Everything about what I say about how the Klar performs is backed by RAW.

mplindustries wrote:
I really can't follow how you could possibly justify 1d6 being the base slam.

You can argue against it, and indeed you have. I will address and defeat those arguments again in a following post.

This is the second time you have made a comment that suggests you are completely dismissive of my position, and it is starting to make me think that you are impervious to facts and evidence.

Still giving you the benefit of the doubt--that you earnestly would like to understand my perspective and that saying you "can't follow" my position is not just another expression of disrespect, I will outline my position.

Here it is: 2d6, justified.

The Klar is on the list with the other shields under the heading "Shields," so it's a shield.

An Attack with a shield is called a Shield Bash, so an attack with a Klar is a Shield Bash.

The listed damage for that Klar shield bash is 1d6.

The Bashing Enchantment increases the Shield bash damage of the Klar by 2 size catagories, 1 size bump increases it from 1d6 to 1d8, the other from 1d8 to 2d6.

Can you follow that?

If a Klar's damage entry is supposed to be a Spiked Shield Bash, it's supposed to deal Piercing Damage, because every sort of spike in the game, whether it's Armor Spikes, Shield Spikes, or Trap Spikes, deal Piercing Damage. The Klar should be no exception to that rule, and yet it's listed as Slashing. By this logic, I could create a Spiked Pit trap with Legos and have the trap deal Bludgeoning Damage instead, but I'm sure you and I know that is ridiculous on multiple levels.

But again, if it's supposed to be a Spiked Shield Bash from a Light Spiked Shield, as the item description says, the damage dice scale follows incorrectly, especially when a Light Spiked Shield is already listed at 1D4. It also contradicts the factor that if it were to be a Shield Bash, from a Light Spiked Shield, that the Klar entry would be listed as a Light Weapon, not a One-Handed Weapon.

So when we take your interpretation, these two factors aren't resolved, and it results in either the item description being incorrect or the weapon entry being incorrect. Since you seem to be the expert on this, I'm sure you can point out which that is.

For the record, according to the books, this is what a traditional Klar looks like.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:

The rules for polymorph state that you lose all abilities that depend on your original form.

While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.

Does this mean that a vampire loses all his vampire based abilities when he uses the vampire ability change into a wolf? If so does that mean the vampire is now a living creature with a CON score and no vampire weaknesses? Technically that would mean he loses the ability to change shape so he cannot actually use this ability. What abilities does a vampire or other template creature lose when he uses a polymorph effect? Or do you change into a template creature of the type you assume?

The answer is right in what you linked: The GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depending on form are lost or kept. That being said, it's essentially a "Expect Table Variation" answer, and although it's not a good one, it's the best RAW answer provided.

That being said, the RAI I gathered from spells like Beast Shape (which is what the Vampire's Wolf Form emulates) tells me that they only assume the form of the creature, it doesn't change their type or subtypes, meaning spells affects them as if they weren't polymorphed, which leaves the factor that they're still undead or a vampire while having the form of a wolf.


Yes, they do have to deal with the item type, because it makes a difference. Light/Heavy determines damage dice, because Light shields are (mathematically speaking) 1 size difference from Heavies. Spiked Heavy Shields equal the Klar entry's damage, which cannot be the case because Klars aren't Heavy Shields (which are a base of 1D4 without spikes), and Spiked Shields are automatically Piercing damage. Even Armor Spikes are Piercing. So why the @*$& is the Klar entry Slashing damage if it's supposed to function as either a Spiked Light Shield or Armor Spikes?!

I can sit there and say a Wizard has the Spells class feature, but that doesn't mean he automatically casts 9th level spells, which is what you're essentially proposing. He needs to have the Character Levels, Intelligence, and Caster Levels to back it up, and you're not providing the proper numbers (or source of said numbers) that equal the sum needed. To be more accurate to the situation here, you're trying to stack Intelligence Headbands to get the 19 Intelligence needed to cast 9th level spells.

So you agree it's cheese. If it's cheese, chances are, it's not intended. And if it's not intended, then it should not be happening at all. Which means your argument becomes invalid and therefore loses. I'm glad you essentially conceded right there.

mplindustries gave an official Paizo FAQ about damage dice and size/effective size scaling, and that FAQ (, which was written up by the Devs themselves,) says you can't stack size bonuses or effective size bonuses with themselves, regardless of where the source of these things come from. You're the one sitting there saying the FAQ is a bunch of bull$#!^, even though it's an official Paizo rules source (and is used to clarify rules that are unclear, whereas Errata change rules entirely).

Lastly, you're taking my stance way out of proportion. I'm not "calling the cops" on you (makes no sense, you don't get in trouble for asking the Devs a question), strawmanning, or anything of that sort. I'm proposing a challenge for you to hold up: If your interpretation was in fact correct, and that Klars do 1D6 unaltered Shield Bashes, then let's see it in PFS action. Let's pitch that idea at the Devs in their respective "Ask me" threads, and see if that's what they really intended for the Klar to do. You said it yourself you want something official (which you decided to ignore an official Paizo FAQ, and that's as official as it gets), so put it out on the field and see how it goes, because if PFS vetoes it, you can be sure that the Paizo Devs agree with it, and there you have it, conclusive proof as to how it's supposed to be ran.

Spoiler Alert: PFS (which is a strict interpretation of RAW/RAI directly from the Devs themselves), and by extrapolation, the Devs, would say the Klar works differently from your interpretation.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Additionally, look at how it's addressed: It says that it "counts as a light steel/wooden shield with armor spikes." By RAW, this means that you can either bash with it for 1D3 Bludgeoning damage (and lose your AC),

You are ignoring the weapon chart

Ultimate Equipment wrote:


Light Melee Weapons Price Dmg(M) Critical Range
Spiked light shield---- +50 gp--1d4------×2------[0]

One-Handed Melee Weapons Price Dmg(M) Critical Range
Klar---------------------12gp---1d6-----×2--------------[0]
Spiked heavy shield------70gp---1d6-----×2--------------[0]

The Klar's Shield Bash Damage is 1d6 Slashing. Same as the other shields on the chart, that is the listed damage for a Shield Bash. The weapon description is important, and I am not ignoring that, but what's on the chart is RAW, too.

You are saying that 1d6 is the Armor Spike Damage: clearly not so. The rules describe Armor Spike attacks in their own place, and they are different from the Shield Bash attacks listed on the Weapons Table in Ultimate Equipment. Armor Spikes do 1d6 Piercing and are Light Weapons, the Klar does 1d6 Slashing and is a 1 handed weapon. Your assertion that a Klar's shield bash does 1d3 seems to be based on either a mistaken impression that the Klar's listing on the UE's Weapon Chart is just a repetition of Armor Spike Damage or perhaps based on the assumption that the description of the weapon lets you ignore its listing on the Weapons chart, and I don't see how that is defensible by RAW.

Meanwhile, the fact that the weapon description says it counts as a light shield with armor spikes rather than as a light, spiked shield means that it is not benefitting from some kind of spike-induced virtual size increase and therefore does get its damage increased from 1d6 to 2d6 by the Bashing Enchantment.

You are way off the mark here. I'm not comparing Light/Heavy Shields, I said Wooden/Steel, which denotes material used. That has nothing to do with the factor that whether it's made of steel or wood, it's still a light shield. You can't make a Klar as a Heavy Shield, period.

And you're adding additional benefits to the Klar that aren't there by RAW. "Light Steel/Wooden Shield" does not translate to having Spikes just because the description mentions that Armor Spikes come with it. Last I checked, Armor Spikes apply to Armor, Shield Spikes apply to Shields, and there is no mix-matching allowed between the two. This is about as silly and out-of-place as putting Shield Spikes on Armor and saying "My Armor Spikes deal 1D8!" Even if that was the case, it's 1D4 as a Light Spiked Shield, which means at best with Bashing stacking (which it doesn't as per the FAQ), it deals 1D8, not the 2D6 you're asking for it to do.

Whatever the case, this is highly off-topic, and I can't make this any more simple than what I have. If you think you can get away with that sort of munchkinry, then play a PFS game where you pull that same exact combination, and see what happens. I'd also go ahead and go ask James Jacobs/Mark Seifter as to how a Klar is to be ran, I guarantee you they're going to say the same things I've said.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

@ Darksol and mplindustries:

So, I have to admit, when I read the description of the Klar as being “a small shield with Armor Spikes,” I dismissed it, because it made no sense, and I thought if Paizo really meant that, they were being stupid.

I always saw the Klar as being a shield with an extra big spike, so it does 1d6 instead of 1d4 on a Bash, gives 1 point of AC protection, and counts as a one handed weapon when used to Bash.

But you both are bringing up this literal interpretation of the rules, and I feel forced to comply, because in truth I am all about the literal interpretation of the rules.

The Klar does not have shield spikes: it has armor spikes. So that means a wielder of a Klar will do an additional 1d6 points of damage on any successful Grapple attack, and those Armor Spikes can be used as a light, piercing weapon that does 1d6. That's what armor spikes do. But when you make an Armor Spike attack with your Klar, you are not making a Shield Bash, so you keep your Shield Bonus to AC even if you don't have the Improved Shield Bash Feat. You would only lose your shield bonus to your armor class if you were making a shield bash, and that is not what you are doing here with those Armor Spikes.

Actually, the armor spikes on one's armor would be a different weapon set than the armor spikes on the Klar, so one might make a 2 weapon attack routine with each set of spikes, one with the armor spikes on the armor, the other with the armor spikes on the shield.

You can shield bash with a Klar, and its shield bash damage is 1d6 as per the Weapons Table (what the rules say). This is the Klar's shield bash damage, not the Klar's armor spike damage as you were saying before. We know this because the Klar's listing as a weapon is as a 1 handed weapon, and an Armor Spike attack is as a light weapon. So 1d6 is the Shield Bash Damage.

There is an argument you made earlier, and I didn't address it right away partly because I only wanted to address 1 argument at a time, but also because this...

The rules say that adding shield spikes increases the damage dice as if the shield was 1 size larger than its actual size (which is what translate a 1D3 to upgrade to 1D4). Bashing increases the damage dice of the shield's bash attacks as if the weapon were 2 sizes larger than its actual size (which is what translates a 1D3 to upgrade to 1D6). Whether you want them to stack or not, or how you get them to stack is irrelevant. If they are the same effect, they will not combine, end of story. The RAW is the LAW, and in any PFS game, that's what they will tell you, and they will use that same FAQ to support their ruling, and you're going to either find another way to cheese the system, or find another playstyle that you enjoy playing. Although this kicks my Ranger/Barbarian Dual Shield Dexterity Tank Damage Hybrid build in the nuts, at least I don't have to worry about getting Spiked Shields all the time to deal the big damage.

Additionally, look at how it's addressed: It says that it "counts as a light steel/wooden shield with armor spikes." By RAW, this means that you can either bash with it for 1D3 Bludgeoning damage (and lose your AC), or you can attack with it as armor spikes for 1D6 Piercing damage. One could pull some major cheese and say that you could TWF with the single Klar, but since it's not a Double weapon, nor does it have the Double property, that's far-fetched. Regardless, this ruling disregards the explanation as to why it has its own separate entry in the weapons table though, so what is up with that?

My theory? Reviewing the other half of the description says that it's "a short blade," and since (most) swords are treated as Slashing weapons, they decided to treat it as a One-handed Martial weapon instead of a Light, and they changed the damage type from Piercing to Slashing.

Although it's theoretical work, I'm certain that's the idea they had in mind when creating this item, because it's the only logical explanation I can come up with as to why it has this funky stat block that's counterintuitive to what the description actually dictates. (And since it's an age-old thing that has already been FAQ'd to oblivion and nothing has been done about it, it just turns into an "Ask your GM" situation.)


Lord Phrofet wrote:

So as the tittle says how do natural attacks and the Quick Combat Maneuver feats work together?

Let's take Quick Dirty Trick for the example (although as far as I can tell they all the say the same thing)

** spoiler omitted **

Since it says you "must choose the melee attack with the highest base attack bonus" I am a bit confused. Lets say I have three primary natural attacks (2 claws, 1 bite), do I get to choose which attack I sacrifice? Or do I have to use my normal BAB attacks and all the natural attacks turn into secondary attacks?

The answer is in the description. Look at it more closely here:

Quick Dirty Trick wrote:
On your turn, you can perform a single dirty trick combat maneuver in place of one of your melee attacks. You must choose the melee attack with the highest base attack bonus to make the dirty trick combat maneuver.

RAW, it does not specify which attack it has to be, it just has to be one with the highest BAB. Since the 3 natural attacks (assumedly) are at the highest BAB, you can choose which one to ditch.

That being said, most Bite + 2 Claw attack routines usually show Bite primary and Claws as Secondary. I'd double-check to make sure that's not the case, because it might mean you'd have to sacrifice the Bite attack no matter what.


mplindustries wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
I disagree. A Klar is a weapon that is also a spiked shield. It is not the same thing. You don't "shield bash" with a Klar--in fact, you can also shield bash with it (for normal light spiked shield damage).

Okay, you disagree.

But a heavy spiked shield is also a weapon that is also a shield. All shields are in fact weapons that are also in fact shields. I think that because both heavy and light, spiked and unspiked shields are on the weapons lists. That's why I think all shields are weapons that are also shields. Why do you think the Klar is different? The Klar is on the Armor and Shields list as a shield. That's why I think it's a shield: why don't you? When you bash with a light, unspiked shield, it does 1d3, like it says on the weapon list. Bashing with a light spiked shield or a heavy unspiked shield does 1d4. Bashing with a heavy spiked shield or a klar does 1d6. I think this because it says it's a shield, and attacking with a shield is called bashing. The damage any given shield does when you bash with it is given on the weapon list.

Quote us the rules you found that demonstrates that Klars are treated differently from other shields.

I looked up the rule and I am mistaken. In the Inner Sea World Guide, it literally says, ""An attack with a klar is treated as an attack with shield spikes."

So, you're sort of right, that it is a bash, but since it already counts as shield spikes, it won't stack with Bashing.

It makes more sense to use hardcover rules over non-core ones. Here's from Ultimate Equipment.

Klar wrote:
The traditional form of this tribal weapon is a short metal blade bound to the skull of a large horned lizard, but a skilled smith can craft one entirely out of metal. A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield with armor spikes; a metal klar counts as a light steel shield with armor spikes.

So it sounds like your original assessment is correct, and since hardcover trumps non-core as far as validity is concerned, there's no reneging out of it.


mplindustries wrote:
Also, there was a recent FAQ that confirmed you can't stack multiple effective size changes, so, the increase from a shield spike (which the Klar absolutely is) doesn't stack with the increase from Bashing. Likewise, if weapon damage starts below 1d6, you only go up one damage value for each size increase, rather than 2. So, 1d6 going up two sizes turns to 1d8 and then 1d10, whereas 1d8 going up one size goes to 2d6.

Can you link that FAQ?


Read This


Dune Drifter wrote:

The way they work according to James Jacobs is That you get 1 attack via your primary hand, and 1 for each off hand (total of 3 off-hand attacks)

With Improved Two-Weapon fighting (+6 BAB) that means he get 2 attacks with his primary hand, and 3 for his normal off hands, and an additional off hand due to Improved TWF. So that is 6 attacks per round at level 6 or 8 depending on the class's BAB.

The rest looks really interesting, just wanted to be clear on what I meant and what you meant.
No I don't like dump stats, it seems a little minmax to dump a stat to the point of you being very hindered by that stat. For example dumping Wis hurts perception the most used skill in the game.

I suppose one could rule it that way, but I don't think it's really worth the investment. Although you get killer to-hit and damage, your feats are very precious, and having to focus on multiple weapons at a time really hurts your spending cash if you want to make your weapons up to snuff in combat.

In addition to that, you're not receiving racial stat bonuses to two of your most important attributes, Strength and Charisma. Kasathas add to Dexterity and Wisdom, which sounds more like Ranged Cleric or Monk stats, as well as lacking the skill benefits and the Alter Self 1/day SLA, which increases your Strength even further, as well as other goodies.

The Kasatha might be a badass to play in the early levels, but it will lose out against other Gestalts in the long run due to the increased maintenance that comes with him (that your two classes aren't built to handle).

1 to 50 of 2,799 << 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.