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

3,955 posts (3,959 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,955 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:

Darksol, so you're saying that because the feat specifically references two-handed weapons, and because when you are dual-wielding you are treated as having a one-handed weapon and a light weapon, not a two-handed weapon, that you cannot dual-wield a double weapon in conjunction with this feat?

If that's what you're saying, than I don't personally believe in that interpretation for a moment.

Don't believe it if you want. I don't believe the factor that you cannot attack with the Shield while using a two-handed weapon, but according to Owen, you can't do that with this feat, because attacking with the Shield makes it something that isn't a Shield (a Martial Bludgeoning Weapon).

The same concept applies here. You can't attack with a Two-handed Weapon with the Double property as a Double weapon, because attacking with the Two-handed Weapon as a Double weapon makes it something that isn't a Two-handed Weapon (a One-handed and Light Weapon).

If it makes you feel any better, I don't agree with it either. I'm just appropriating what Owen's interpretation is in relation to the question posed. That being said, you still can't TWF with a Two-Handed Weapon and a Shield because of the unwritten rule, and as you've already demonstrated, trying to TWF with a Double Weapon while using a Shield is quite questionable. I find it better to err on the side of "It's not happening." Even if it is plausible (though by Owen's argument, it shouldn't be), I have no idea why you would do that, considering how extremely feat intensive you become for doing so.

Let's take a typical Human Fighter, shall we?

1. Power Attack, Shield Focus, Shield Brace
2. Two-Weapon Fighting
3. Weapon Focus
4. Weapon Specialization
5. Shield Specialization
6. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
7. Double Slice
8. Greater Weapon Focus
9. Greater Shield Focus
10. Two-Weapon Rend
11. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
12. Greater Weapon Specialization
13. Greater Shield Specialization
14. Penetrating Strike
15. Hammer the Gap
16. Greater Penetrating Strike
17-20. Anything

That is an extreme amount of feats that you take to optimize being able to wield both a Double Weapon and a Shield at the same time. The good news is, it comes online by 2nd level, and only gets better. The bad news is, you don't really spend your feats on anything else except that until 17th level.


Torbyne wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Sadly, Shield Brace does not say "normally" anywhere in its text.

Okay, I'll take a step down into the pedantic death spiral these types of debates usually turn into.

You can use a two-handed weapon and a shield with Shield Brace.

However, according to all the shields descriptions in the Core Rulebook, when shield bashing "Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon."

Does Shield Bash allow me to use a martial bludgeoning weapon with my two-handed weapon? No, only a shield. If a use a shield to bash, it becomes a martial bludgeoning weapon. I am now not using it as a shield, so the ability to use it with a two-handed weapon no longer applies, I am using it "as a weapon" (as written later in the shield bash description), not as a shield.

Does parsing the rules that thinly make sense? No, not really. But that's the direction this kind of argument goes.

Thank you for spelling it out so clearly. Was this another feat you authored? If so, i have to admit i am quickly becoming a fan of your work :)

Just to keep the drag down going though, Shield Brace wouldn't interfere with the normal functions of a weapon besides adding the shield's ACP to attack rolls... meaning a double weapon such as a monk's spade could be used as a double weapon with shield brace so long as no new attacks are added to the routine from the shield?

You'd be using the Double Weapon as a One-handed and Light Weapon when you TWF with it, not as a Two-handed Weapon, so it wouldn't function.

The intent behind the feat, according to Owen, is you use the subjects as they're intended to be used, and nothing more. If you're using a Two-handed weapon, you can't use it as a Double weapon and expect to maintain usage of the feat, if you're using a Shield, you can't use it to attack and expect to maintain usage of the feat.

This is a lot like the current Slashing Grace, except all of the limiting text that you see in Slashing Grace, isn't currently there for Shield Brace.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Sadly, Shield Brace does not say "normally" anywhere in its text.

Okay, I'll take a step down into the pedantic death spiral these types of debates usually turn into.

You can use a two-handed weapon and a shield with Shield Brace.

However, according to all the shields descriptions in the Core Rulebook, when shield bashing "Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon."

Does Shield Bash allow me to use a martial bludgeoning weapon with my two-handed weapon? No, only a shield. If a use a shield to bash, it becomes a martial bludgeoning weapon. I am now not using it as a shield, so the ability to use it with a two-handed weapon no longer applies, I am using it "as a weapon" (as written later in the shield bash description), not as a shield.

Does parsing the rules that thinly make sense? No, not really. But that's the direction this kind of argument goes.

It doesn't make sense, since a feat still allows you to retain its use as a shield while still using it as a weapon. The argument fails because a shield is both a defensive tool and an offensive tool, at the same time.

Thankfully, it doesn't have to, since the unwritten rule keeps the concept of TWFing with them in check. Besides, that's a lot of feats a Fighter has to invest in if he wants to keep both his offense and defense relevant...


Correct, Ravingdork; this means that it's wielded as if you could use both at the same time, whereas without the feat, you cannot.

There's nothing in the feat that says the two-handed weapon is wielded in one hand, or is treated as a one-handed weapon, or that it overturns the unwritten rule. So what are we left with? The general rules. You know, the ones we fall to when the specifics aren't mentioned anywhere.

The general rules are that if a weapon is a two-handed weapon, it deals 1.5x Strength modifier, and it cannot be used with TWF, as it breaks the unwritten rule. (At this point, the unwritten rule might as well be a written rule.)


Ravingdork wrote:

Thank you for your unofficial interpretation, Mr. Stevens. If it is as you say though, how come Shield Brace doesn't specify that you still can't attack with both?

As written, it clearly states that you can "use both" with no caveats whatsoever on the manner of use.

Also, devs have made it clear in the past that FAQs only pertain to themselves and that one should not project their meaning onto other areas of the rules. Is that not exactly what you are doing here? This isn't about spiked gauntlets, two-handed weapons, and armor spikes. This is about Shield Brace.

I believe it's important to note that what we're saying is that you can use both normally. Since we mean to use them normally, it doesn't circumvent the normality that is the Armor Spikes FAQ, which is "No 1.5x Strength Main Hand + 0.5x Strength Off Hand."

I'll also chip in about the whole "Double Weapon usable One-Handed" thing:

Double wrote:
You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

It's quite clear the intent is that a Double Weapon defaults to being used and treated as a two-handed weapon when not being used as a Double Weapon. The only weapon that I noticed which may not function this way is the Taiaha, and even that's sketchy, because it's mentioned in the one-handed weapon list, but the Double weapon property says it's used two-handed when not using as a Double weapon.


In order to take a Prestige Class, you must meet the pre-requisites set out by the prestige class.

For Dragon Disciple, you must be able to speak and understand Draconic, have 5 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), you cannot be a Dragon-related race, and you must be able to cast 1st level Arcane spells spontaneously.

This means you cannot take levels in Dragon Disciple until level 6, at the earliest. If your Bard PC doesn't have the ranks or the language, then I suggest you tell them to work towards that straight away if they want access to Dragon Disciple in the proper time.

The best thing about Dragon Disciple is that it gives you a +4 Strength bonus at 4th level, meaning that's an extra +2 to hit and damage, shoring up the fact that it's 3/4 BAB like the Bard, and you'll still maintain 3 levels of Bard spellcasting. You also won't lose any net BAB going this route, and you'll pick up some interesting abilities through the Draconic Bloodline. In other words, I suggest not going past a 4 level dip in regards to Dragon Disciple, as it's not worth losing the BAB progression and further spellcasting, since the other benefits are mediocre at best.

The big thing with going Dragon Disciple usually means you're going to want to be more of a Natural Weapons Melee type character, as you can grow Claws and eventually get a Bite attack that gives 1.5x Strength. This isn't a bad idea, or, you can just take a big two-handed weapon, buff your to-hit and damage to the teeth and use the Bite in addition to your normal attacks. You'll still get 1.5x Strength on the Bite attack, as it's a specific rule regarding Dragon Bite Attacks, which that one functions as.

The only thing I can say I dislike about Natural Weapons is that you must invest in an Amulet of Mighty Fists +5, or you'll have to deal with high-powered Damage Reduction, which can be a real killer with your bite attack.

I honestly would've picked a Skald, or even Bloodrager, if I was going to go a more melee-based "Bard" route; granted, Inspire Courage is nice, but Spell Kenning is invaluable in its power. Being able to cast Divine Favor or similar buffing power on myself is an extreme boon, one that can certainly overturn the benefits of Inspire Courage. But a Bard can be almost as good a combatant if he has the right archetype(s).

If you're more interested in the Bloodline Powers, and not so much the other benefits of the Dragon Disciple, the Eldritch Heritage feat chain is something to consider. Using that in concert with Dragon Disciple may be pretty good, since you could take Improved Eldritch Heritage (Orc) for the Strength of Beasts ability, giving you an extra +2 to +6 Strength for melee. The Touch of Rage ability isn't bad either, especially since the Eldritch Heritage abilities scale equal to 1/2(Character Level - 2), and is shored with the Greater Eldritch Heritage feat (which may be worth it since the Power of Giants is pretty strong).


Yes, it would, as it attacks as a +4 weapon, which includes being able to bypass the relevant DR.


The problem here is that the GM is treating you like a Paladin, in that if you don't do the absolutely correct thing, you'll fall.

Clerics, while they can lose their abilities, aren't nearly as limiting. Here's relevant text:

Ex-Clerics wrote:
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds

Based on what the GM did, not only did you lose a level, but you can't gain that level back unless you utilize the Atonement spell cast from another Cleric of the same faith, which requires ~3000 gold worth of materials to do. Even if you managed to acquire a Restoration scroll, it wouldn't restore it, because you would be gaining a level back from Cleric, which is impossible when you're considered an "Ex-Cleric."

The important thing to note is that this sort of stuff happens only if you grossly violate the code of your deity. Unfortunately, that's not clearly defined anywhere in the book, which is why the GM is able to technically get away with being a rude jerk to whatever the PC may try to do, and that is something that you and the GM would have to get squared away in session 0, so you know what will (and will not) result in falling.


Matt2VK wrote:

Going build & run a Dwarf (standard dwarf with Axe and shield) Slayer in PFS. Plan is to make him a tank and a trap spotter/disabler.

What I need advice for -
Thinking about getting him some heavy armor since it'll have little to no effect with him. Just trying to decide how to go about getting this heavy armor or if I even should.

Do I grab a feat for Heavy Armor?
At moment I'm against this as I've got more feats to pick then I have spots for the feats.

Take a level of Fighter?
Leaning towards this as it gives me a extra Feat slot & Heavy armor.

Grab some other class or a fighter archetype that gives me heavy armor?
Thought about Warpriest as it boosts my Will save and gives me some nice utility while just loosing +1 BAB and +1 HP

or Do I just forget the Heavy Armor and make do with Med Armor & Shield?

To be honest, the Heavy Armor proficiency feat can be acquired through taking the Combat Training Rogue Talent, which gives you a free Combat Feat that can be used for Proficiency, so it's not that big of an investment on the Slayer's behalf, and doesn't require you to delay Slayer progression. You probably can't take it until 4th level, as you'll use your first talent on Ranger Style feats, but until that point you probably won't come across any Heavy Armor you'll actually want, as it's a fairly expensive investment pre-4th.

Additionally, if Medium Armor is a requirement, Mithril Heavy Armor will allow you to circumvent that, and is a good investment anyway for lowering ACP and increasing MDB, issues which plague Heavy Armor.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
I just don't understand, and never have, why Paizo is so adamant about never, under basically any circumstances, allowing dex to damage with flurry of blows. Why does every Monk basically have to be the damn Hulk?

A lot of times, Dexterity-based options are a trap, since they require more investment than being Strength, are usually less effective than Strength builds, and the differences are nominal, or require specific kinds of investment to make truly shine.

Monks would be of those "specific kinds of investment," since they cannot use armor or shields of any kind, meaning they have to utilize Dexterity to the fullest.

That being said, the original answer to the OP becomes "No," primarily because Boar Style alters the base damage to be Slashing, and is not normally Slashing, meaning he cannot use Slashing Grace on something that's originally Bludgeoning. Claws, on the other hand...


Cyrad wrote:

Can I drop prone while nauseated?

Can I drop a weapon while nauseated?
Can I speak while nauseated?
Can I take my hand off a two-handed weapon while nauseated?

Both the game and FAQs classify many trivial activities as free actions. According to this FAQ, I can't do any of these actions.

1. No, because if you drop prone too fast you're probably going to throw up or evacuate your bowels due to the quick and violent motion of just falling down; you need to carefully adjust your body so that you don't end up doing that. (It's presumed that you don't want to ruin or soil your equipment and/or clothing, so...)

2. This one is a little silly, but you technically can. You just have to set it down or sheathe it, both of which are Move-equivalent Actions. That being said, there should be no reason for this to come up because there is no gain by dropping your weapon; unless you're Dominated, and they're telling you to drop your weapon, this shouldn't come up, and if it does, then there's alternatives to take.

3. If you've had an extreme hangover, or you've had something that just tasted gross and didn't agree with your body, would you be the talkative one, when you're trying to keep your puke at bay, or even while it's throwing up out of your mouth? I didn't think so.

4. Same as #2, except you have to spend a Move Action to manipulate it to only be in one hand.

It might be stupid in certain instances, but it's a condition designed to severely debilitate you. I've seen stupider things being claimed in even more sketchy instances than this, and they've been Paizo-approved.


I'm just going to leave this here.

Oh, and this.


The feat does what it says it does (which is "you can use a two-handed weapon sized appropriately for you from the polearm or spears weapon group while also using a light, heavy, or tower shield with which you are proficient"). As Ravingdork says, there are no other restrictions sans the ACP applies to your to-hit, which means you're getting the benefit of 1.5x Strength on your two-handed iteratives with the AC benefits of the Shield.

I will, however, point out that this is still subject to the Armor Spikes FAQ, in that you cannot TWF with both the Spear/Polearm and the Shield at the same time, as that breaks the unwritten rule (as stupid as it is).

That being said, this feat extremely changes the balance between Two-Handing Martials and TWFing towards the Two-Handing's favor, since they can have just as much AC as someone who is TWF with one (or two) shield(s), and deal their highest modifier damage more consistently, without sacrificing anything more than a couple feats, and maybe allocating some of their currency resources toward their shield defenses, whereas before it was a gamble of "Kill them before they kill me." Now, that risk is reduced substantially early game, and somewhat in the late game.

I wouldn't allow this at my table, primarily for the factor that this is too strong for it to be ready within the first few levels of a character. Granted, there are Fighter archetypes that do exactly what this feat does, but they're locked behind class features, as I feel something of this power and/or flavor should be.

**EDIT**

Even with a Light Shield, you can put the Nodachi in the Shield hand to cast a spell or use other effects requiring a free hand, and swap it back, meaning that Paladins and Clerics and similar character types are much more powerful, either defensive-wise or offensive-wise.


Moto Muck wrote:
Enhancement bonuses only add to cmb of disarm, trip, and sunder. Drag and reposition are also included if it is a weapon with the trip special. Dirty trick might be added if the GM allows on a case by case basis. I can't post link by SKR but ruling was made back in 2011. Unsure if there has been further update or errata.

The ruling was made in regards to how Weapon Finesse interacted with such maneuvers. Here it is.

Keep in mind that the effects of Weapon Finesse (and other subjects that you utilize the benefits for the weapon,) only work when you are using the weapon in question to perform the maneuver. Otherwise, subjects which don't use the weapon (such as Grapple or Bull Rush) don't receive the weapon's benefits, unless they specifically state so.


Malag wrote:

Keep in mind that these CMB checks are done via weapon exclusively. While you do get a significant boost, you still risk dropping the weapon via disarm per normal rules and some dirty trick maneuvers might not apply (expect table variation here). I am also unsure if this luck bonus applies to all stated CMB checks or a single CMB check chosen at the time of creation because a flat increase in of +3 (for +1 weapon) on all four stated CMB checks seems a bit high. Other then that, I can't see anything wrong with your interpretation. Just have a page from the PFS Guide printed out up-front so the GMs can see it, otherwise they might mix the two enchantments with the same name.

Edit: You receive 2x Ench bonus as luck and weapon Ench on CMB rolls, but same doesn't apply to CMD. You only receive fixed luck bonus on CMD, so essentially you would get +9 on CMB and +6 on CMD (in your example above).

Adam

Incorrect.

Dueling wrote:
The dueling weapon also grants this same luck bonus to the wielder’s CMD score against these types of combat maneuvers.

It says it provides the same bonus to CMD. That bonus it references is 2x Enhancement as a Luck Bonus.

That being said, I don't know why it's not an Insight Bonus, because it involves being skilled in your ability to perform combat maneuvers, not being lucky...


Correct.

Keep in mind that if you are affected by a Luck Bonus to Attack Rolls, it will not stack with your weapon properties.


Cpt_kirstov wrote:
W. John Hare wrote:

Instead of calling it falling, why not call it what it really is, uncontrolled flying.

Flying through a threatened square provokes.
Attacks of Opportunity are generated.

as quoted up thread, if you cause a flying enemy to fall, it specifically says that they do not provoke.... So if we go by the falling rules in the flying section, they would not provoke

Kudaku wrote:

Somewhat surprisingly, I found that the "are you falling intentionally "-argument seems to be backed up by the rules.

If you're hit while flying with wings, you have to make a fly check to avoid "falling" (losing altitude). If you fail that check, you gain 10 ft of free movement, and that movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

CRB, p. 96 wrote:
Attacked While Flying: (...) If you are flying using wings and you take damage while flying, you must make a DC 10 Fly check to avoid losing 10 feet of altitude. This descent does not provoke an attack of opportunity and does not count against a creature’s movement.
That makes me wonder... Is there anything stopping a flying creature from voluntarily failing a fly check, plummet to the ground with free movement without provoking AoOs, and then casting Feather Fall when they're 5 feet above the ground?

That section only applies if you fail the DC 10 fly check to avoid losing 10 feet of altitude; nothing else. That is a specific application contrary to a general rule that movement provokes.

If you were hit by an effect that made you lose your ability to fly (say, you were affected by a Fly spell, and it was suppressed by an Anti-Magic Field), you would still provoke for any descent you would take, because your falling or "altitude lost" wasn't by failing a DC 10 fly check via taking damage, it was because an Anti-Magic Field suppressed your flight.

Notice how it doesn't say "fall 10 feet." Although it's functionally the same, you're essentially saying a Fireball spell and a Fireball SLA are the same thing. They're not, and they're classified separately for a reason.

@ Byakko: There are subjects that require you to take actions without actually taking actions. The 5-foot step, nocking an arrow to fire with a bow, delaying, these are all things that are activities that can (or are required to) be taken, but aren't listed as actions. The funny thing is, the 5-foot step would actually provoke, as it's movement that's not an action, except the only reason it doesn't is because it says so.

Also, the notion that an action must be spent in order for movement to provoke is absurd. Movement in and of itself isn't (always) an action. If I had an ability that allows me to instantly take a Move Action by spending X resource, which isn't an action to do, the argument that it doesn't provoke because an action isn't taken is absurd; and I've said previously, the only reason movement caused from maneuvers like Drag or Bull Rush does not provoke is because there is specific text saying it doesn't unless you possess the relevant feats. Otherwise? It provokes, as normal. Hell, I could Grapple someone, take the Move activity, and both myself and the target I have Grappled would provoke as if moving, even though the target that's moving with me is taking no action on his behalf.

This is like saying Quickened Spells don't provoke because they're a Swift Action to cast instead of whatever action they are normally. That's incorrect. They don't provoke because they specifically say they don't provoke, because the general rule is spellcasting, of any kind, provokes.

Again, if you can't produce the proof that falling in and of itself, specifically says it does not provoke, then you're left with an interpretation where a character is moving (which provokes) and yet not moving (which doesn't provoke), with nothing to supersede the general rule that moving provokes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I seriously don't get why it is that movement from one axis (horizontal) provokes and the other does not (vertical). Create Mr. Pitt's interpretation is correct and leaves no awkward rules incursions.

The rules specifically state that moving out of a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. It doesn't matter what sort of movement it is, whether it's intentional or not, if you're moving out of a square threatened by an enemy, it provokes. From the PRD:

Attacks of Opportunity wrote:
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square...Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

That's it. Them's the breaks. The general rule is that any sort of moving out of a threatened square will provoke an attack of opportunity against the target who threatens that square.

The only reason movement from subjects like Bull Rush or Drag don't provoke is because the rules specifically state they don't provoke unless they have the Greater feats. From the PRD:

Bull Rush wrote:
An enemy being moved by a bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Bull Rush feat.
Drag wrote:
An enemy being moved by a drag does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Drag feat.

If you used the Move section of the Grapple rules, it defaults to the general rule that movement from a threatened square provokes, because there is no specific overriding rules text, as exampled above, anywhere in the Grapple rules.

This means that, unless there is a specific rule that states movement caused by falling does not provoke, Create Mr. Pitt's interpretation is the correct one. Otherwise, you're running into Schrodinger's gravity, where a creature is moving vertically, but is not actually moving vertically, which makes no sense. If you're moving, you provoke unless it says otherwise. It doesn't matter whether you're moving intentionally or not, movement is movement. (I also suggest you don't confuse this for something the likes of Dimension Door or Teleport; those are teleportation abilities, and are therefore not movement.)


I've fought enemies who have had the ability to take multiple standard actions in a round, and quite frankly, they alone are a menace to face.

The most recent one we fought was an Avatar of Urgathoa who had a Vorpal Negative Energy Scythe and the ability to both cast a spell, attack, and/or Channel Negative Energy, combined with a bunch of Reanimating Undead Bone Golems she commanded all at the same time. It's pretty brutal when you're 5th level and you're facing a level 7 Avatar of a Deity of Undeath and her Gatekeepers of the Afterlife.

Needless to say, it was an absolutely hellish combat. We actually had 2 PCs die during that fight, and that was when we were at full power, and were a 6 player party who were Evil Aligned (meaning our source of Positive Energy counteraction was quite scarce).

That being said, we weren't exactly optimized, nor were we tactically sound. If we were a Good-Aligned party who was optimized and had an extreme amount of tactics, we would've came out with no casualties, and significantly less resource loss.

My suggestion is to only do this if you feel the PCs are absolutely dominating their regular combats, and I wouldn't do this unless they were at 100%; this gives them time in the midst of combat to prepare how to counteract such a powerful foe.

I mean come on, the ability to take multiple "turns" in a round are usually pseudo-variations that are limited in their use, and that's using Mythic rules for PCs. There's a reason Time Stop is a 9th level spell, despite not being able to perform direct hostile actions on other entities in the world until the spell effect ends; it's extremely powerful stuff, and you should only fight such a fire with the same kind of fire.


James Risner linking the Temporary HP FAQ should've closed the deal; the only reason any arguments are going on is because people don't like the ruling because it's not in the book, to which point I say grow up and write an errata in your hard copy.

It even says in the first sentence of that FAQ:

FAQ wrote:
Generally, effects do not stack if they are from the same source...

That's as official as it gets. The FAQ made by the devs says outright that the general rule is effects from the same source do not stack. That's it, them's the breaks.

It doesn't matter if the effect is a Supernatural Ability, a Spell or SLA, an Extraordinary Ability, a Class Feature, whatever, it doesn't stack with itself unless there is explicit language stating otherwise.

The fact that such is lacking from Offensive Defense means it won't stack with itself. There was also a statement from a Dev (I think the one who created the talent) that says that it's not designed to stack up, despite being a Dodge Bonus, though I can't find it unfortunately. If someone has some better luck, please post it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So let me get this straight; you feel the party of 4 will need the following stuff:

-Healing
-Channel Energy
-Knowledge Religion

And you don't want anyone to play a single class that can do all of that stuff? When there are other classes that can do that same exact thing, and perhaps then some?

I think you need to understand that you don't necessarily need 2 of those 3 subjects, and the third can be easily fixed with enough skill points and proper modifiers to said skill.

In-Combat Healing is not really a viable combat tactic until the mid-game, and falls off at the end-game due to Rocket Tag (thankfully, I believe RotRL caps off by level 16 or 18, which is when Rocket Tag starts coming online), and that's because of the Heal spell. The Caster Level scaling for a Heal spell is infinitely better than the few measly D8 + Caster Level Cure spells give you, and isn't worthwhile unless a PC is about to get dropped/killed.

Out-of-Combat Healing, although much more necessary, doesn't require a whole hell of a lot of investment or commitment when you have PCs with a Cure Wand and either a proper spellcaster or a party member with very high UMD ranks. This means spellcasters in your party can save their spell slots for more powerful and useful spells, and everybody will still be in good health between fights.

Channel Energy, although invaluable due to its ability to heal multiple allies in the early game, without spending spell slots, falls off and serves as nothing more than an "I love/hate Undead" ability by the mid-game, when Mass Cure spells become available. Although Mass Heal is a 9th level spell, the factor that you can heal upwards of 1,000 hit points across 4 people with a single 9th level spell slot makes Channel Energy serve as a cheap pseudo-Mass Cure Wand. (Or the "I love/hate Undead" ability that just sucks by the late game unless you're using it to eradicate undead mooks surrounding you.)

Knowledge (Religion) doesn't require you to be a Cleric to take ranks or have a good Wisdom modifier to it. A Druid, who has more skill points, can just as easily put points into this, or a Ranger, or a Paladin, or any other high-skill-point class.

The only thing I will mention is important that you didn't mention is the ability to remove status effects. Restoration, Remove Curse/Disease, etc. are all very important spells. Also, lacking a Divine Spellcaster in general sucks, but Divine Spellcaster doesn't automatically mean Cleric.

So far, from what I can tell of the problems you've outlined, they can't already be solved or ignored by the other party members in favor of other, more powerful options. In fact, you glossed over other issues that should be addressed, and can be addressed without someone being a Cleric (though not without someone being a Divine Spellcaster).

Seriously, Druid or Oracle are great substitutions; the Druid even moreso, as they aren't a particularly effective healing class, due to reduced Cure progression (but maintain full status removal progression), and still function as a full Divine Spellcaster.


James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
at the very least implies that even without the feat, I can repeatedly Dirty Tricks someone and make that condition that I applied last and last for as many rounds as I care to muster (or until they remove it themselves with a Move or Standard Action).
Got a rule for this? Like a general rule that conditions stack for duration purposes?

It's cited within the feat. It's not exactly the best place to put such a precedent, though quite frankly it's about as much of a general rule as it is that Natural Weapons are Light Weapons.


James Risner wrote:

What what?

Ok, if that "In addition to increasing the duration of the condition as normal" isn't in the normal Dirty Trick write up and is in a feat then you only get that when using Dirty Trick Master.

That makes no sense.

The feat only allows you to increase the condition severity for certain conditions you apply, as that is "In addition to increasing the duration of the condition as normal." The bolded language at the very least implies that even without the feat, I can repeatedly Dirty Tricks someone and make that condition that I applied last and last for as many rounds as I care to muster (or until they remove it themselves with a Move or Standard Action).

This means that if I were to, for example, kick a male town guard in the privates (to make them Sickened for 1D4 rounds [average 2.5 rounds] (+X per 5 CMD I surpass) in Round 1 of Combat, and then proceed to do it again in Round 2 of Combat, the feat allows me to make that Sickened condition become the Nauseated condition (combined with Greater Dirty Tricks, this means that if they don't spend a Standard Action to gather their bearings and remove the Sickened condition, they'll be perpetually Nauseated and physically incapable of removing the Nauseated condition from themselves).

Without that feat, I would only extend the duration of the Sickened condition in Round 2 (presuming he didn't remove it in Round 1), and wouldn't be able to increase the Sickened condition to a Nauseated condition.


Deighton Thrane wrote:

You do need a bab of +1 for power attack, heavy armor proficiency would probably be a better feat for level 1, even if it won't pay off for a while. Also druids aren't usually proficient with long spears, despite being proficient with both the spear, and the short spear. In fact, there are no reach weapons on the druids proficiency list (it's a short list), but there are a couple great weapons in the scimitar or scythe, all depending on whether you want to go sword and board or 2 hand with your brute druid.

But all this is kind of irrelevant considering the OP is starting at level 10, meaning wild shape is the go to combat form. Personally I feel like this is actually getting towards the dusk of the combat druids effectiveness. I'm currently playing a wild shape focused druid at level 14, and the power level, and ability to keep up with dedicated melee characters really starts to drop off at this point. Not to say that the build is bad, but it's not really dominant like in the early levels when you hit nearly as hard as the fighter, and can have an animal companion that's near indestructible to help flank for you, or the rogue if you've got one.

At 12th level you're going to get the last boost to wild shaping, you're going to be struggling to decide what to spend your money on, because you don't really have enough to keep both you and the animal companion relevant, short of using every available spell slot for animal growth and atavism, and you're going to want more spell slots because you're finally getting some really good spells, like freedom of movement for the wizard (has saved our bacon more than I like to admit).

Now, VMCing in barbarian can help keep up accuracy and damage, but since VMCing wasn't an option for me, I went the celestial obedience (Falayna) route, which does a couple things, first it improves your grapple CMB and CMD by 4, which, considering you have a bunch of forms with grab, means you're a lot more likely to grapple something. Second thing it does is, at level 12, gives you...

Druids are proficient with all armor, just can't wear anything metal. That's why Dragonhide and Stoneplate are very commonly made for Druids (Stoneplate for Dwarven Druids, actually, which is what I suggested).

Caster Druids are kind of meh. They can't feasibly do a lot of damage sans Flame Strike due to having to counteract resistances all the time, and that begins to fall off in the following levels. The higher level spells aren't really much better, and will still run into the same problems as before, except on a much worse scale, up to and including immunities. Even varying your spells to account for a wide array of resistances and immunities won't do you too much good, as resistances to the primary 4 elements will be common (usually 10+), and immunities to one or more of them will begin to show up. A lot of other blasting types can easily vary their damage types to deal with no resistance or immunities on their staple spells, without having to dig through some random 3PP book to find a spell that functions as their staple, but does X damage instead. Sure, Damage Reduction will also be an issue, but at least when you get the gold, you can easily counteract that with little to no hassle; the only Damage Reduction you have to deal with is DR/-, and unless you're a Paladin fighting an Evil creature, or a Fighter with Greater Penetrating Strike (which only reduces that amount, not negates it), so will everyone else.

The three things that extremely limit a Combat Druid's effectiveness are A. Lack of To-Hit/Damage Buffing (seriously, outside of Greater Magic Fang and Strong Jaw, Druids have zero offensive buffing), B. Lack of strong Combat forms past level 6 (this might be false, due to the release of new beastiaries, but quite frankly, there haven't been any sort of animals catching our eyes outside of what's mentioned in Treantmonk's Guide, so I'm inclined to believe that a Dire Tiger is perhaps the best form to ever take with your Wild Shape outside of niche situations), and C. Lack of Full BAB (which can't be shored up in any way, and is a curse to help "balance" being a full spellcaster, albeit with an awful spell list). A lot of the Druid's spells are usually niche utility stuff, and the other lot are damaging, status effect cures, or some form of weird control that can't work right half the time anyway.

Granted, there are some things a Druid can do that general beatsticks can't thanks to their spellcasting, it's just I don't see the benefit of optimizing towards that something when the optimization I've currently provided him is more than enough to reach the same amount of effectiveness than if he actually had a higher Wisdom score.


Calth wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

No.

Here's the full entry of that exploit:

Bloodline Development wrote:
The arcanist selects one sorcerer bloodline upon taking this exploit. The arcanist gains that bloodline's 1st-level bloodline power as though she were a 1st-level sorcerer. The arcanist must select an ordinary bloodline with this ability, not one altered by an archetype. As a swift action, the arcanist can expend 1 point from her arcane reservoir to bolster her latent nature, allowing her to treat her arcanist level as her sorcerer level for the purpose of using this ability, which lasts for a number of rounds equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1). She does not gain any other abilities when using this exploit in this way, such as bloodline arcana or those bloodline powers gained at 3rd level or higher. If this ability is used to gain an arcane bond and a bonded item is selected, the arcanist can only use that item to cast spells of a level equal to the level of spell that could be cast by her equivalent sorcerer level (limiting her to 1st level spells unless she spends a point from her arcane reservoir). If the arcanist already has a bloodline (or gains one later), taking this exploit instead allows her arcanist levels to stack with the levels of the class that granted her access to the bloodline when determining the powers and abilities of her bloodline.

The first sentence of that exploit explicitly calls out for a Sorcerer Bloodline. The exploit repeatedly mentions Sorcerer Bloodlines, and only Sorcerer Bloodlines.

In a home game, it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow it to work with Bloodrager Bloodlines; nor would it be overpowered. But as far as a PFS or by-the-book game is concerned, it does not work.

That's not really true. The sorcerer bloodline restriction is only relevant for when the arcanist has no bloodline. While the original text is in the opposite order, the rule is really: If you have a bloodline, arcanist levels stack with...

Considering all of the prior text specifically involves Sorcerer Bloodlines, it's most likely the intent that the whole stacking subject will still refer to Sorcerer Bloodlines only.

I understand the RAW argument, but again, I highly doubt it's RAI.


Druid would perhaps be the best bet if you want to shy away from healing, as their delayed healing progression and lack of healing class features means they don't make the best healers. Although only 3/4 BAB, with the ability to Wild Shape and increase their statistics that way, they are certainly able to do some good. (My group is too stupid to understand this, but that's their problem, not mine.)

The best part is, since you will not be primarily casting (if you are, it will be buffs, utility, and summoning most likely), this means that having maybe a 14 or 16 Wisdom is good enough. The only feats you should need for a Battle Druid are Power Attack and Natural Spell (for buffing and/or summoning), meaning if you're up for it, taking a variant multiclassing option like Barbarian (Rage is some good stuff), or Fighter (for Armor and Weapon Training) may be a good idea to further shore up being a 3/4 BAB.

My suggestion is Duergar Druid with some Barbarian VMC (primarily because as a Duergar, it's best to be wearing the heavier armors, whereas others would take a Monk dip for Wisdom to AC). I'd suggest an archetype, but to be honest they all kind of suck. The Shaman archetypes might be worth it, depending on your build, though eventually Wildshape will just outweigh its benefits, since some of the aspect benefits you get from it are good, and some allow you access to some nifty domains you might not otherwise take, but not being able to use those benefits when Wildshaped and having to delay your Wildshape progression sucks. Your stats should look something like this at 10th level, presuming some +2 headbands and belts:

Strength 22 (18 + 2 Belt + 2 Level)
Dexterity 12
Constitution 18 (14 + 2 Belt + 2 Racial)
Intelligence 7
Wisdom 16 (12 + 2 Racial + 2 Headband)
Charisma 3 (7 - 4 Racial)

You can just go with a regular Dwarf if the 3 Charisma is off-putting, but you will be losing out on strong SLAs and valuable immunities if you do. There isn't a whole lot of stuff that does Charisma damage near as I can tell, so you'd be really unlucky if you ran into something that does.

Since you won't be particularly spell-focused, I'd suggest grabbing the Animal Companion. One of the more prominent Druid guides recommends a Tiger or Lion, primarily due to having a lot of attacks, plus Pounce and Grabs, which if successful, make enemies easier to hit, and provides a flank buddy. The problem I have with Animal Companions are that they slow the game down some, and they can honestly be fairly expendable, and quite easily against CR-relevant enemies or bosses.

Your feat choices will be Power Attack at 1st, Natural Spell at 5th, and perhaps Multiattack at 9th (if not, I'd take Raging Vitality, since you can rage for 14 rounds per day, and that gives you even more hit points to utilize). You'll have access to Rage and Uncanny Dodge. At 11th level, you'll be able to choose a Rage Power, and you can select the Extra Rage Power feats at that point. My suggestion would be Reckless Abandon, so you basically transfer your to-hit penalty as an AC penalty when you Power Attack. There is also the Reckless Rage feat, which basically makes your Power Attack one step stronger than normal for its bonuses and penalties.

If you're worried about Rage Rounds in combat, you can take the Extra Rage feat, which gives you an additional 6 rounds of Rage. You will only have 5 feats, and you have a fairly strong amount of Constitution, so I wouldn't worry about the Extra Rage feat.

As for equipment, you don't particularly need a weapon, though you can invest in a Heavy Darkwood Shield if you wish (I personally wouldn't until later in the game, but it's your call). Your funds will probably be tied up with an Amulet of Mighty Fists +5, which is okay since you can cast the Ironskin spell on yourself, which scales better than an Amulet of Natural Armor. You'll want to invest in either Dragonhide Full Plate, or just plain old Stoneplate, preferably with the Wild property so you can maintain its AC (the same goes for your Shield, if you plan to use it). Stoneplate is a little cheaper and more thematically appropriate for your character, but also weighs 75 pounds. You'll have 62,000 gold available to you at level 10.

With +1 Wild Stoneplate, +1 Ring of Protection, and a +3 Cloak of Resistance, you're already looking at 27,000 gold spent. You'll have enough money for a +2 Amulet of Mighty Fists (16,000 gold), a +2 Strength/+2 Constitution Belt (10,000), and a +2 Wisdom Headband (4,000), for a total of 59,000 gold, leaving you 3,000 gold to do whatever. You'll want items with constant benefits, as selecting use-activated items will not work when Wildshaped. To that end, I'd recommend the Feather Step Slippers, so you can always be in a position to 5-foot if you need to cast a spell or move out of something (because difficult terrain always sucks). Another alternative is the Boots of the Cat, if you like the whole "Death from Above" approach, without the "Death" part being equally applicable to you via fall damage.

Lastly, Skills. You'll have 3 Skill Points per level, thanks to your Favored Class Bonus. (I'd put them into hit points, so you can be extremely overbearing, but quite frankly the skills are more valuable to you.) Thankfully, these will be straight forward: Survival, Handle Animal, and Knowledge (Nature). That's about all a Druid needs to invest in skills. This list will expand when you decide to add Intelligence to the Headband.

Your basic to-hit and damage while Raging and Wildshaped should be at +16 (7 Base + 10 Strength + 2 Enhancement - 2 Power Attack - 1 Size) for 19.5 damage per attack (3.5 Dice + 10 Strength + 4 Power Attack + 2 Enhancement), or 58.5 damage per round. If you take a Dire Tiger, you'll be able to Pounce, and get 3 attacks off with an extra +2 to hit, all at your highest BAB, and each with a Grab attempt. Your Animal Companion, while it won't be as effective, can still contribute a similar amount of damage with a lower to-hit.

Your AC with Ironskin while Wildshaped will be at 28 (10 Base + 9 Armor + 9 Natural + 1 Deflection - 1 Size). Not particularly powerful, though this will take some time (and money) to become better. Your base AC is actually only 21 (10 Base + 9 Armor + 1 Deflection + 1 Dexterity), with Ironskin adjusting it to 26. HP will be (8 X 1 + 4.5 X 9 + 4 X 10 = 8 + 40 + 40 =) ~88, which increases to 108 when Raging (or 118 with Raging Vitality). Saves will be Fort 14, Reflex 7, Will 13, which are fairly well-rounded, though not exactly great. An optimized spellcaster's general DC will be ~24 (10 + 5 spell level + 9 modifier [5 Base + 3 Headband + 1 Levels]), which means you're breaking even with Fortitude (10+), you're slightly uneven with Will (11+), and your Reflex will be extremely lacking (17+).


If it said "high," I'd say high jumps, but because it says "far," I'm inclined to say long jumps.


No.

Here's the full entry of that exploit:

Bloodline Development wrote:
The arcanist selects one sorcerer bloodline upon taking this exploit. The arcanist gains that bloodline's 1st-level bloodline power as though she were a 1st-level sorcerer. The arcanist must select an ordinary bloodline with this ability, not one altered by an archetype. As a swift action, the arcanist can expend 1 point from her arcane reservoir to bolster her latent nature, allowing her to treat her arcanist level as her sorcerer level for the purpose of using this ability, which lasts for a number of rounds equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1). She does not gain any other abilities when using this exploit in this way, such as bloodline arcana or those bloodline powers gained at 3rd level or higher. If this ability is used to gain an arcane bond and a bonded item is selected, the arcanist can only use that item to cast spells of a level equal to the level of spell that could be cast by her equivalent sorcerer level (limiting her to 1st level spells unless she spends a point from her arcane reservoir). If the arcanist already has a bloodline (or gains one later), taking this exploit instead allows her arcanist levels to stack with the levels of the class that granted her access to the bloodline when determining the powers and abilities of her bloodline.

The first sentence of that exploit explicitly calls out for a Sorcerer Bloodline. The exploit repeatedly mentions Sorcerer Bloodlines, and only Sorcerer Bloodlines.

In a home game, it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow it to work with Bloodrager Bloodlines; nor would it be overpowered. But as far as a PFS or by-the-book game is concerned, it does not work.


You mean like this?

If you spend your first level feat, you could get an extra 1st level spell known for your spell list. If you are Human, you can spend both of your feats to gain 2 1st level spells known to your spell list.

Though, if you're asking to cherry-pick certain spells that you normally cannot know and add them to your spell list, you will need to pay it through class levels (regular and/or prestige).


Darksmokepuncher wrote:
Indrajit wrote:
I think it would be beneficial for those trying to assist for you to perhaps post some of the other items you've set up for the others so that there is a solid baseline for what you'd consider to be “cool bells and whistles.” Beyond that, it would also be useful for you to describe the monk a bit. Obviously he's a strong combatant and such and you want to avoid adding to that, but where does he stand in regards to social skills (and does that realm even matter the him or the player), and/or general utility?

Here's one example and is wielded by a medium creature:

Gorum's Blade
+1 Keen Greatsword (Large)
3/day Magic Vestment
Free Sunder attempt on a confirmed critical hit.
If the wielder suffers a critical hit, she must make a will save equal to the damage dealt or go berserk (gaining all the benefits and drawbacks of the barbarian's rage ability) She attacks the nearest creature and continues to fight until unconscious or dead or until no living thing remains within 30 feet.
An avatar of Gorum suffers no penalty for size when wielding this weapon.

The monk played the first half of what we've played of the campaign so far as a mute (Monk vow) so his social isn't great. However, other characters have that down. His knowledges are OK. He is a grappler and does not need more help there. His saves and AC are so high that I can only hit him like 20% of the time and Ive already bumped the CRs about as much as I can.

Does that help?

That helps with the sort of power level we can gauge, though this ultimately depends on how the Monk is built. A full (or estimated) build would greatly help in determining what can and/or should be shored up, as well as determining if you may (or may not) be overreacting to the Monk's general power.

I also noticed that you mentioned a drawback in the Gorum's Blade (that is, if they are critted, they go into an uncontrollable rage on a failed saving throw), which leads me to believe that there should be something similar for every character.

At any rate, here's an idea, based on the Gorum's Blade you posted:

Irori's Gi of Perfect Balance

Body Slot item
Benefits
+5 Bonus to Acrobatics Checks
3/day Negate one Re-Roll or Dual-Roll effect used against you (such as an enemy's Fortification or Misfortune), or reduced effect for an ally, as the Aura of Excellence class feature
Grants the Sense Perfection class feature of the Enlightened Paladin (usable at will)
Drawback
Balance in All Things; Including Yourself: If the wearer succeeds at a combat maneuver, attack roll, saving throw, skill check, or ability check, he suffers a -1 penalty on these rolls or checks he makes in the future. If the wielder fails at a combat maneuver, attack roll, saving throw, skill check, or ability check, he receives a +1 bonus on those same rolls and checks in the future. The penalties and bonuses take effect immediately, are cumulative, and counteract each other (meaning a successful attack roll and a failed saving throw result in no benefit or penalty to the wearer). The bonuses and/or penalties accrued reset to zero at the break of dawn, regardless of whatever bonus or penalty the wearer possessed.


eakratz wrote:
.....aaaannd it's all moot. He died gloriously last night, sacrificing himself to an evil clerics channels by grappling her and holding her in place until the rest of the party could get to her.

Curious as to how the Cleric killed you with nothing but Channels when you were grappling her.

Did you fail to Pin her (and therefore make her effectively unable to do anything)? Did you choose not to disarm the Holy Symbol that she carried? Did you dump your Wisdom score so damn low that you couldn't make the Will Saves and basically got killed that way?


anium wrote:

You can Disintegrate a bow and dispel a bless, that don't make it a creature.

This is written in the spell description:
If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers.
This two lines are what make me think that it needs your intervention

Did I say that Spiritual Weapon was a creature? No. I said it was an entity, something that is distinct from anything else in existence.

That part of the spell description is not relevant to it being its own entity. It has a default option that it takes (hovers at your square) until you direct it to do otherwise, which requires a Move Action on your part.

The same is true for Summoned Monsters; they have a default option (kill all enemies), and act upon it until you speak to it (a Free Action), and if it understands your speech, it will follow any direction you otherwise have for it (keep so-and-so alive, focus whatshisname first, etc).


anium wrote:

I doubt you know all the DM everywhere, spiritual weapon is clearly a spell, your spell, that you are directing. Would you say the same for spectral hand and interposing hand?

You don't summon a creature, just because it can act in auto mode doesn't mean it's a real entity.

Never claimed to know every GM. All I claimed was that you probably won't pull it off at a PFS table, which is perhaps as by-the-rules as it gets. The GMs are required to abide by the rules posted in the book(s), as well as any FAQs mentioned in the FAQ page on this site, and any questions will be directed to VO's and whatnot, who will give the official ruling if the GM is unclear as to how something functions.

I never said Spiritual Weapon wasn't a spell, nor that it was a spell that the Cleric did not cast. He did cast it, because he used the spell slot, and the spell effect scales based on his Wisdom and his Caster Level. The Cleric can also redirect it to attack someone else as a Move Action. But other than that? It automatically functions on its own, without requiring any other action from the Cleric.

Wraithstrike laid out the argument clear as day. The rules state you only gain the AC against attacks made by the target of the Smite. If you Smited the Cleric, the Cleric has to be making the attacks, not the spell that he cast which attacks of its own volition. The same is true with summoned monsters, which attack of their own volition (though if the caster can talk to them, he may ask them to redirect their attack).

I already agreed with you in that Acid Arrow would grant you the AC, because the Wizard, who you Smited, is the one making the attack roll, not the Acid Arrow that he created. The Acid Arrow does not act of its own accord, all of its activities involve the Wizard making and performing all of the essential decisions, such as targeting, making the touch attack roll, etc. All of that is done by the Wizard, who you Smited.

The same isn't true for Spiritual Weapon. The caster makes the original target, and serves as a catalyst for how effective the spell is, but the caster isn't required for the spell effect to continue functioning; it can makes attacks regardless of whatever the caster does for future rounds, and beat on the original target until it dies or the duration expires (or runs out of the caster's spell range).

You then went on to say that Spiritual Weapon is not an entity. If it's not an entity, then how can I target it with Dispel Magic, Disintegrate, a Rod of Cancellation, etc., if it's not an entity (and therefore not something that I can target specifically)?


CampinCarl9127 wrote:

I like that argument.

"Well the English language is vague and I don't think conjuration makes sense anyways, summoning creatures should be evocation so therefore all this other evocation counts as a separate source of damage".

1) Yes
2) Yes

But at this point you're dissecting the English language and trying to give argument directly counter to the written rules, so I can tell this argument is going nowhere. Feel free to rule at your table however you want, but don't try to force your interpretation upon others as "the only true RAW".

Good day.

You clearly misunderstood my point.

I never said that X should be Y. I don't particularly care what school a spell should be, because they have no relevance to what a spell specifically does, they only have reference to what a spell of that school generally functions, as well as their limitations, if any, such as Beast Shape, Form of the Dragon, Mirror Images, et. al. The specifics of the spell can easily overturn the general rules of arcane schools.

I said that X could be Y, according to your argument that the arcane schools properly and concisely explain how spells of each school operate, and their limitations, and the only reason why it's not Y is because the school listed is X. In fact, what I said was that you could put Y in place of X, and the spell would be functionally exactly the same as if it were X.

That's it. All I'm saying is that your argument of "Schools properly explain what each spell does" is just about as valid as any other "expect table variation" answer, which in this instance, isn't acceptable.

I gave my interpretation; it's concise, it's properly explained, there's no flaws to it, and there are no arguments against it besides "I don't like that it works that way" from the OP, to which I say "Tough luck, rule it another way in your home games if you don't like it."

But I can guarantee you that if you played this sort of scenario in a PFS table, they will rule it identical to how I have. If you don't believe me, then try it at a PFS table.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Well the schools of magic have extensive rules governing how they function, so I believe they are absolutely relevant when talking about magic. Divine spellcasting is not exempt from the rules of the different schools of magic.

Yeah it's a pretty difficult question. I don't think there will be enough rules evidence to prove either side of the discussion.

In regards to stuff like Polymorph and certain Illusion spells? Sure, I'd agree with that.

But you're talking about Evocation. Here's what it says:

Evocation wrote:
Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage.

So we know that Evocation specializes in manipulating energy or force to serve a specific purpose, and on that note, basically tells the laws of Alchemy in Fullmetal Alchemist to go suck eggs. It then says that these spells produce "spectacular effects" (fairly open-ended, as "spectacular" is synonymous with words like amazing or wonderful). A Force Weapon attacking a designated enemy of its own volition is pretty damn amazing and wonderful.

Quite frankly, there's nothing particularly limiting or exclusive in that text. If anything, Evocation is almost as open-ended as a Universalist spell like Wish, according to the definition we're giving of what Evocation spells do or function as.

I mean, given the information presented, the only reason why Summon Monster isn't an Evocation spell (you are creating a random monster or three out of nowhere by tapping into the magical energies of the planes, making three monsters appear for basically nothing at all) is because it's already listed as a Conjuration spell, though such a spell can very easily fall into being Evocation.

Also note that while a lot of people associate Evocation spells to be dealing a lot of damage, or to be offensive, not all of them are, according to the Evocation school entry, only that they can be the high damaging spells.

At this point, using the definition or examples given of what Evocation spells are only muddies the already "supposedly murky" waters into something that cannot be properly explained.

To that end, you're effectively using something that can be easily misconstrued for any other school of magic as proof of a Spiritual Weapon being able to be affected by Smite Evil, which is infinitely more ridiculous and inconclusive than the opposing interpretation(s).

I mean come on, there are two questions you need to ask in regards to the Smite Evil AC: 1. Are you being attacked? 2. Is the attack roll by the target that you Smited? If the answer is No to either of those questions, your Smite Evil AC does not apply to the given situation, period.

Again, in the Spiritual Weapon and Cleric situation, when a Spiritual Weapon attacks, it's the Spiritual Weapon making the attack roll, not the Cleric. The modifiers for these individual subjects use different modifiers, have different means of calculation, and may not even be the same damn weapon that they're using, so saying that it's the Cleric making the attack roll is conclusively false, as the Spiritual Weapon attacks independent of the Cleric attacking.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Hmm, good question. I can definitely see some table variation.

Since it is an evocation effect and not a conjuration effect, I would rule that smite bonuses do apply.

Arcane Schools have no relevance to whether it's a legitimate effect that Smite Evil can benefit from, and they're almost doubly irrelevant in regards to Divine Spellcasting.

All that's relevant in terms of Smite Evil, is if the attack roll is coming from the target of their Smite. If no attack roll is coming from the Cleric (it's coming from the spell effect making its attacks independent from the Cleric), then it's not applying, period, end of discussion.

If the Paladin can prove that it's the Cleric himself making the attack roll, then by all means he can have his Smite AC. Unfortunately, he'll have a hard time rationalizing the Cleric making the attack roll; because if he is, it wouldn't be a Force effect, meaning it'd do physical damage, it would be using his Strength modifier for attack and damage rolls, which can be higher or lower than his Wisdom modifier, as well as be increased or decreased based on the way he is wielding it, etc.

Now, if we were talking about a character utilizing the likes of Flame Blade, then there would be grounds for applying Smite Evil AC, because the caster makes the attacks with the Flame Blade in his hand, and isn't something that just chases you and makes attacks of its own accord.


anium wrote:
It's a spell you casted and you make it attack. That you make the attack indirectly doesn't mean you are not attacking. When I DM it would break invisibility too. Just as I would if an alchemist threw bombs to an "open space" that is luckyly next to your enemy.

Invisibility has a completely different set of rules from something like Smite Evil's interaction with Spiritual Weapon, and those rules sets are not applicable to everyday rulings.

The funny thing is, even by your definition of what you think breaks Invisibility, Spiritual Weapon would technically not trigger Invisibility, and that's because Invisibility has specific conditions for what triggers Invisibility to no longer function, and shouldn't be used as general rulings for other stuff:

Invisibility wrote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

It says that spells which target a foe or have an area of effect which includes a foe would break invisibility, but then goes on to say that summoning monsters to attack your enemies (or in other words, casting Spiritual Weapons to attack your enemies) would be causing harm indirectly (i.e. independant from the caster), and therefore would not break Invisibility.

The best part is? Spiritual Weapon is a spell that doesn't have a "target" line, or an "area" line, meaning it can't be a spell that targets a foe, or have an area of effect that includes a foe. All it has, is an "effect" line that says "magic weapon of force." Just like how Summon Monster has an "effect" line that says "one summoned creature," and is likewise lacking the "target" or "area" lines.


anium wrote:

So you say if a wizard casts a poison arrow and trhows it at me it doesn't apply either because... acid is not the evil wizard.

Same with telekinesis. It is a force effect, not a summoning spell.
The weapon(and the ally) are spells, not entities, that act like something else, it says so in the description.
If you are saying Smite evil doesn't apply to spells, please show me where it says so.
Smite Evil wrote:
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite.

The bolded part is important to the argument we're making. The thing is, the AC bonus specifically says you only get the benefit against attacks made by the target that you Smite, in your instance, the Cleric. If the attack is made by anyone, or anything other than the Cleric, the AC bonus does not apply. If the effect affecting you is not an attack, or doesn't require any sort of attack roll to affect you (such as Fireball or Lightning Bolt), it doesn't apply. That's it. Them's the breaks.

So, in your Acid Arrow example, since the Wizard is the target of your Smite, and the Wizard is making an attack roll against you (and not the Acid Arrow), you would get your Charisma to your AC as a Deflection Bonus against that attack.

However, in the Spiritual Weapon example, you wouldn't get it because the Cleric is not making the attack roll, the Spiritual Weapon is. You would have to Smite the Spiritual Weapon (a wasted effort) in order to receive your AC benefits against it, because the Spiritual Weapon makes the attack(s), independent of the Cleric actively directing its focus.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Claxon wrote:

I'm of the opinion that because of this line:

Quote:
Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon.
The Spiritual Weapon is distinct enough from the character that the AC bonus from Smite Evil would not apply on attacks from the Spiritual Weapon, only against attacks from the smite'd creature (the cleric).
Since spiritual weapon uses the cleric's attack values, and is directed by said cleric, I'd find for the paladin player on this one. It's no different that if the cleric was firing on the paladin with a longbow.

When was Spiritual Weapon a projectile fired from a creature?

It's not a projectile. It's a spell. To be more accurate, it's a Weapon-like Spell, that attacks independently from whatever the Cleric might be doing in the future rounds. (Maybe casting another Spiritual Weapon just to tick the misunderstood Paladin player off, make him go Chaotic, and thereby make him fall? Joking aside...)

He could sit there and completely forget about a Spiritual Weapon still going (let's say a Mind Blank spell was cast on him, if only to humor the example), and it would still be beating on the same person he originally targeted with the spell, because the Cleric's actions, outside of the spell allowing him to re-target the Spiritual Weapon with his Move Action, have zero impact on what the Spiritual Weapon does; it is its own entity, which takes its own actions and attacks, and can be targeted individually, just like any other entity, what with Dispel Magic, Rods of Cancellation, etc.

Claxon's Summoned Monster argument should've put the nail in the coffin. If your argument is "The Spiritual Weapon is an extension of the Cleric," then how come I don't get my Smite Bonii when I'm fighting Druids or Wizards who summon Evil entities? They're just as much an extension as a Spiritual Weapon, they're both spells, they both make things that can attack me, they both can be targeted, destroyed, et. al.

As an aside, if the Cleric was using a Longbow as a Spiritual Weapon, I'd question how it would even function; does it create its own ammunition? Can I provide ammunition for it? What if the weapon can be thrown, can I choose how it attacks? If I decide to throw it because reasons, does it only get the one attack and my spell goes poof?

I'll say that it's possible to have a Longbow as a Spiritual Weapon, for the record, as this text here proves it:

Spiritual Weapon wrote:
Even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell's range, not the weapon's normal range increment, and switching targets still is a move action.

But it really brings into question how a ranged weapon, which usually involves throwing or projectile weapons, and they are basically 1-shot options; projectile weapons, I'll add, require ammunition to even attack which the spell doesn't provide, so...yeah.

I will also raise how you would empathize this argument with the likes of Spiritual Ally, something which is almost identical to how Spiritual Weapon works, but actually creates a Force combatant who can flank, make AoO's, etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

For an example.

3.5 FAQ wrote:

I have a bard in my game who has a bit of money to spend. She buys a set of bracers of armor +3 and a suit of +3 leather armor. If the bard wears both at the same time, the armor bonus from the bracers (+3) overrides the armor bonus from the leather armor (+1). Our question is, does the +3 enhancement bonus from the armor still get applied for a total of +6, is it subsumed by the magic of the bracers, or is it just ignored completely? Since the enhancement bonus and armor bonus are different types of bonuses, the bard thinks her total Armor Class bonus should be +6.

The magic leather armor’s +3 enhancement bonus applies to make the armor’s armor bonus bigger (+4 in this case). The example character uses only the larger armor bonus (+4) when wearing both the armor and the bracers.
The overlapping +3 bonus from the bracers is still there, however. (It is just irrelevant most of the time.) If something bypasses the +4 bonus from the magic armor, the bracers might still prove effective. For example, an incorporeal touch attack bypasses the whole armor bonus from the magic armor. Since the bracers provide a force effect, they protect the bard against the incorporeal touch attack. The example character still has a +3 armor bonus against the incorporeal touch attack.

Applying 3.X FAQs isn't exactly a smart idea, especially since Paizo has shown previously that they have overturned previous 3.X rulings (i.e. Armor Spikes).

That being said, I don't exactly disagree with the argument behind it.

The point here is that this is no different than, for example, the Enlightened Paladin's AC bonus ability. In the Paladin's AC bonus ability, you add a specific modifier to a different modifier, which is then added to a given statistic (in short, Charisma to Dexterity to AC).

In this example, you add a specific modifier (+X Enhancement Bonus) to a different modifier (Armor Bonus), which is then added to a given statistic (AC). It is functionally no different than the above example.

From this, it is determined that you are given a flat Armor Bonus amount from the two subjects (Mage Armor and regular Clothing), and that Armor Bonus is altered by the Enhancement Bonus (if any) on those subjects. Since the +5 Enhancement from the Clothes overrides the +4 Armor from the Mage Armor spell, it is the clear application.


Matt2VK wrote:

I wouldn't allow it, due to a number of different ways it can be used in a 'broken' way.

Some of them have already been posted but another is it's Casting Time vs the Casting Time of the spell being 'replaced'. There's a number of Full Round and longer spells this could be of serious use for.

The same could be said for the likes of, say, Limited Wish, and Mass Enlarge Person, or Mass Cure Critical Wounds, etc. in regards to cast time.

Now, on to my answer to the OP:

---

Everybody cites Blood Money, and I can't blame them for that (it is a pitfall). However, is the spell really as bad as people say it is? Even for a Sorcerer? Let's take a closer look.

First, it requires a 4th level spell slot. Second, it requires 500 gold allocated to a specific material, or, if casting Blood Money, 2 Strength damage. This is per casting, so if he's repeatedly using it, that Strength damage will add up, and if he uses too much against the likes of, say, a Shadow Demon, he's gonna regret it.

Second, in the later levels, it's going to be eating up his Swift Action that he could be using for Quickened Spells, and by that point he will have more effective things to use in most combats than 4th level spell slots. Granted, he'll be making more use of his lower spell slots, it's still not exactly a peachy combination to be up in arms about.

Third, if he's a spellcasting sorcerer attempting to use Blood Money, he either dumped his Strength, has average Strength, or even at best, a 13 Strength. Even with it being as high as that, he won't have that much Strength to burn, meaning he can only use it sparingly, just as any Wish spell should.

Lastly, let's consider some of the most powerful things he can cast with it: Dimension Door, some Ice Storm spell, Haste, Lesser Simulacrum, Lesser Geas....yeah, I'm not seeing anything extremely overbearing here.

That being said, I'd consider raising the spell component cost as well as removing the whole "minimum material cost negated" clause if it's supposed to have that much flexibility. Even raising it to 1,000 gold will shore up the concerns for Blood Money, and plus would fit some extremely powerful game-changing spells like Reincarnate in terms of material cost (so if he wanted to cast it, that'd be 2,000 gold he has to come up with on the spot).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ummm, why are we talking about Dexterity options on a thread related to a feat in a splatbook that has absolutely zero relevance as to whether Dexterity options are there or not?

This is a thread about the Potion Glutton feat, which allows you to drink a potion or similar liquid (Extract) as a Swift Action. I don't know about you, but last I checked, Dexterity isn't mentioned anywhere, nor does it have any impact on how the feat functions.


Claxon wrote:

Faulty logic.

It says if not A, then B.

But that does not mean: If A, then not B.

All creatures retain the ability to use unarmed strikes regardless of form (though the may provoke AoO for doing so). And using US in combination with natural attacks causes all natural attacks to become secondary (-5 attack) and deal half strength damage.

You got a citation for the bolded part so I can show the GM?


Somewhat self-explanatory question.

The basic synopsis is that I, a level 5 Druid, took a level in Monk to gain access to 1D6 Unarmed Strikes, which I can use in my standard form.

However, when I Wildshape into a Deinonychus, I'm told by my GM that apparently I can't use Unarmed Strikes when I'm Wildshaped. He originally said that it was the dumbest thing he's ever heard, and I wasn't able to really go much further into it because everybody wanted to move the game along, but it really irks me when I can't even use something such as a simple body-check to execute an Unarmed Strike.

Because based upon what the Natural Attacks rule states, it says:

Natural Attacks wrote:
Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do.

Which suggests that if you possess any sort of Natural Attacks, you cannot take Unarmed Strikes.

Is this true? Is your ability to take Unarmed Strikes dependant upon which physical form you possess, and that if your form possesses Natural Weapons, you cannot take Unarmed Strikes?


I'm surprised you never considered the Cross-Blooded archetype to acquire the Draconic Bloodline to go into Dragon Disciple. Although only 3/4 BAB (better than 1/2 BAB), it's shored up by granting a +4 Bonus to Strength that stacks with everything else, plus you gain Natural Armor, Wings, a Breath Weapon, and you can turn into a giant Dragon to beat the crap out of things.


Grey_Mage wrote:

The body ages to the same age as the original character. The normal life span is the same. If preserving a clone and reverting to it in order to extend a natural lifespan is all that is needed why would any mage seek out lichdom?

Not really. The body is inert. This means all sorts of growing or regeneration or what have you does not occur, because the body does not move or react to any outside stimuli other than what real world physics allows. It's effectively in a stasis, and would rot unless properly preserved through subjects such as this one. It even says so in the description:

Clone wrote:
A duplicate can be grown while the original still lives, or when the original soul is unavailable, but the resulting body is merely a soulless bit of inert flesh which rots if not preserved.

Last I checked, if it's rotting, it's not alive, and if it's not alive, then it's not replicating cells or aging like any other living thing normally would.

Lichdom is certainly a bit easier, and a lot of Mages by that point don't mind sullying their hands for something so valuable to them. It's also the quickest, and Mages are very impatient, very selfish jerkwads who are (usually) only concerned with their own application for absolute power.

Hell, with the release of Ultimate Magic, there are other ways to secure eternal life without becoming a lich (AKA 90% of challenging BBEGs) For example.

Let's also not take into consideration the very first sentence that Reincarnate states:

Reincarnate wrote:
...you bring back a dead creature in another body...

That's virtually no different from what Clone does, which creates an exact replica of a body at the time of casting, and when the character whose body it came from dies, they are brought back to life in not the same body that they originally had when the died, but a different, identical body, at the time the spell was cast.


It's ultimately a GM FIAT call.

Re-reading the description, it's not 100% clear as to which one it is.

That being said, I would probably rule it to receive the Venerable bonuses, since it says you are considered to have the body of the original (at the time it was cast), retaining all memories and personality of the soul, and then treating other aspects as if you were simply raised from death.

This would include your elderly mentality. Your physical ability scores would remain unaffected, because you'll have your original youthful body, but your mind would be the same as if you were alive previously.

If a PC had enough money and knowledge, they could have one of their bodily limbs cut off (preferably not the head, maybe a finger or a hand?), hire a Cleric to cast Regenerate, leaving them not-so-limbless, and then have a hired Wizard cast Clone on the severed body part. The PC would then use any means at their disposal to keep the body from rotting, such as the Unguent of Timelessness, though even that wouldn't be enough, as hitting a Venerable Age would take a long time depending on race, and at the minimum, you're looking at 30 days elapsing. Effects which constantly keep the body from rotting altogether would be the best, though they are scarce and almost nonexistent.

A Wizard could theoretically do all of this himself, as Regenerate is on the Witch spell list, and he could use UMD to cast the spells from a Scroll, though it is significantly more expensive this way.


Which makes no sense.

If the intent of the Superstition Rage Power is "I hate Magic, I'll do anything to not have to deal with Magic," then that should include not being able to be automatically targeted by the spell too.

In other words, if you're unwilling towards the effects of the spell, you should be unwilling towards being targeted by the spell too, meaning an attack roll should be required (but isn't, because apparently that makes sense).


Relevant FAQ


You can only take an "Extra" sort of feat when you possess the relevant class feature.

For example, if I am a 1st level Rogue, I could not take the Extra Rogue Talent feat until 3rd level, as I do not possess Rogue Talents until 2nd level.

The same is also true in regards to certain Favored Class Bonuses. You cannot, for example, put points into a +1/6 Rogue Talent until you possess the Rogue Talent class feature.

1 to 50 of 3,955 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.