On the contrary, the game try to "simulate" with its own mechanisms. You break the realism of the game if you choices imply you favour some parts over others, so your game becomes unbalanced. The game balance is the measure of realism.
I don't understand why you say that, your ex aren't related at all to the subject.
No. Not at all. Each ranged weapon has its rule.For ex, "You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.", so 1 hand to wield and 1 hand to reload. "Use" is different of "wield".
I don't see where is the problem.
You search to create difficulties where there are none to justify your point of view. Your argument is just nonsense.
You're very gourmand...it may be a sin! ;-)
You forget you must don a shield if you want to wield it.Table 6-7 p153
No. We are just applying the rules for ranged weapon: there are rules for reload, you know?
EDIT: oh! we pass the 100 posts!!! another achievment!!! ;-)
More realistic because it's more balanced between the weapons, for the game and it's not only grip a weapon but wield it to threaten. It's a way to balance actions and prevents skids.
You "push" when you try to use rules to obtain advantages without paying for.
Or to justify they can "switch" objects in theirs hands. So it allows...
Or they says, i have a 2Hweapon like a longspear that "i cannot put in my scabbard or my backpack" and "everyone takes them with one hand to walk as a walking staff", so "i am always Ready"...
It's not because you don't agree, you have to say the others use "house rules".Jodokai is true when he says they are different.
EDIT: ninja'ed by Ilja!!! :-)
In my party, those who are for free or non-action are more often players who want to "optimize", and don't matter if they have to "push rules" to their limits.
Those who agree to move-action are more often players/GM who want a play more realist and balanced.
I apply move-action since i play DD3+ and i have no problems. Feat Quick Draw is only useful when you effectively draw weapon from a scabbard.
I'm not at all convinced by supporters of free or non-action. And i remind you that the pathfinder devs's intents was to have a more balanced game and to prevent the "skids" of DD3.5...
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
I was meaning more as a Majority feel it should be a Free Action.
No, it's just your "feeling".Too much threads have been written on this subject, so many don't react now.
I think that many have the modesty to wait dev's decision and don't try to impose their ideas as a mythic "general consensus".
I am sorry, i was too naif.
I was one of the first 4 or 5 years ago who was defending the "move action" for re-grip.
5 years after, nothing has changed. The rules always are not clarified, but it seems it causes more problems because of new classes and new powers which may make great profits of some of the action's choices for re-grip.
I don't mind this debate is useless, quite the opposite, i think this choice may have great impact on our play (i.e think to some DPR optimizations...).
Gauss, it was more irony than other thing. Because everyone argue on obscure points of rules which could "unbalance the game", but seems to admit without the sadow of doubt that a simple cantrip can do everything, defeat even very high spell or make coffee.
Oh! I don't know where you've seen the magical trap may be detected by detect magic.
And why give CR to traps if it is so easy to find it?
I'm always wondering why a simple cantrip could detect magic trap.
I don't see anywhere that a cantrip can defeat spells of level 2+.
If you haven't any rogue, you have summon or HP...
I will not "argue" with you, my english is not as good as my own language.
In DD3.5, curse of lycanthropy had "another way" to cure
The only other way to remove the affliction is to cast remove curse or break enchantment on the character during one of the three days of the full moon. After receiving the spell, the character must succeed on a DC 20 Will save to break the curse (the caster knows if the spell works). If the save fails, the process must be repeated."
This "only other way to remove the affliction" has been removed in Pathfinder.
After, you can do as you want if you think this curse is too hard...
It's a curse that functions as a disease. But it's not a disease.
Curse of Lycanthropy (Su) A natural lycanthrope's bite attack in animal or hybrid form infects a humanoid target with lycanthropy (Fortitude DC 15 negates). If the victim's size is not within one size category of the lycanthrope, this ability has no effect.
Only natural lycnthrope can "infect" with the curse.
There is no conflicting information, curse of lycanthropy is stated as a curse in the affliction.
The curses may need some special way to cure them, that's the case of lycanthropy. It's especially written in its description.
And Wolfsbane is a poison that has an effect on curse of lycanthropy TOO: you need to prepare some Restoration lesser in case of...
I think it's an inheritance of old DD, and the devs keep it as it was written for this curse remains one of the most dangerous...
For curse and Remove Curse, it's worded "usually", that doesn't mean it's always the case. And no cure are written for Lycanthropy in glossary of CRB. So as it's written in Bestiary, you must apply those of Bestiary.
For Lycanthropy, it's a special case: the cure is specific to this curse and it's only by a cleric level 12+ with a remove disease or heal. Nothing else.
As the Bestiary is more recent than CRB, the rule inside Bestiary supersedes those of CRB anyway.
After... it's up to the GM to "soften his play" or allow players to have an access not too hard to scroll of remove disease lvl 12 or a priest lvl 12.
The re-grip of your weapon is not clarified in the rules. It may be a "free action" or "a move action": it's GM'Fiat for the moment.Many threads speak about...
And JJ Jacobs didn't clarified this point as he said:"...And at the end of your turn if your free hand remains free you'd be able to return it to grip your 2H weapon so you can still threaten foes and take attacks of opportunity if you want."
That's a pity, but rules are always not clarified.
I think you search to turn round the rules where it doesn't need.The rules are very clear, as they speak of target/opponent/creature which must not be adjacent.
If one of the square of a creature is adjacent to you, the creature is adjacent to you.
It doesn't matter which square you can or not hit.
And it's a nonsense that says a creature is at once adjacent and not adjacent.
Yes, i missed that! ;-)FAQ Ultimate Combat says "Inquisitions are like domains."
So they haven't change the paragraph in APG, but it's obvious that we should read as
"If the inquisitor has cleric levels, one of her two domain selections must be the same domain OR inquisition selected as an inquisitor."
DG, the reach weapon description specifically states "opponent" and whether or not the opponent is adjacent.
Yes, i agree. You cannot attack an adjacent opponent regardless its size with a reach weapon. The rules are very clear.And i don't think it's a good thing to get the rules more complicated when they are simple.
Thanks you Tom S 820 and asthyril for your fast answers!!!!
Tom S 820 wrote:
Evangelist / Hidden Priest.... Forget RAW. I would say this is hard role play. For a PC who is shouting to get more people in to faith X but hide the fact he is in faith X. It just seem head uphis own but backwards to pull off to me.
Hard but cool to play!!! I must hide this fact to others players...too... and keep on to help the party.I am not "against the others players", just we don't have the same vision. After some adventures, i think they will share my secret, but at the begining, this is too early, too much risky.
ex 1: inquisitor 5 (Valor Inquisition)/ranger 3 counts as
ex 2: inquisitor 5 (Valor Inquisition)/cleric 3 (domain 1: Valor Inquisition; domain 2: Strength) counts as
ex 3: inquisitor 5 (Valor Inquisition)/cleric 3 (domain 1: war; domain 2: Strength) counts as
Sure, Sable Ranger is a regional archetype of Varisia. And the Sable Company Marine is a force, an army of Korvosa.
Perhaps, the easiest way would be to pay a wizard to be teleported in Varisia and the mountains (noth of Korvosa city) where hippogriff are living...
I take the most of this thread. ;-)
I will not be able to hide i am a cleric (for internal campaign reasons), so i thought to pretend i am a cleric of an another "accepted" god.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I agree.This thread for more info
Note i like this post of Raymond Lambert
I don't understand. Hippogriff are animal companion, and the only one, for Sable Ranger archetype. So they follow the normal rules of animal companion.
from Sable Company Marine:
This ability works identically to hunter's bond when used to gain an animal companion, but can only be used to gain a hippogriff companion.
If you refer to rules Hunter Bond.
PRD Hunter Bond: "The second option is to form a close bond with an animal companion."
In this case, the animal companion is ONLY the hippogriff: no choice as standard ranger.
PRD Hunter Bond: "This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability (which is part of the Nature Bond class feature),..."
So when you look inside Druid Nature Bond:
PRD nature bond: "If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished."
A ranger which lose his animal companion may replace it with the 24h ceremony. Of course, that's not intended for ranger to make "money" with his animal companion: the animal must be released or dead... not sold. :-) It's common sense...
Of course, when the new companion arrive, the ranger must teach it the tricks as normal, and lead it as normal animal... even if his hippogriff has 3 in intelligence.
Level of cleric and inquisitor stack but only in case of the domain shared.
If PC inquisitor takes level in cleric, he is not bound to take the same domain. But his levels of inquisitor will stack with the levels of cleric (for power and effects, not spells) ONLY for the domain selected as inquisitor (so shared by the 2 classes).
An inquisitor with Valor Inquisition, if he chooses to take level as cleric, must take Valor Inquisition as one of his 2 domains if he wants to progress in the inquisition Valor.
If the domain shared has spells, his effective level for spells is only the level of cleric.
Free actions in the table don't include "grip your weapon"Actions in Combat
The others free actions are under the rules of GM'Fiat
For the release/grip action, consult this recent thread:
And you don't need to be so aggressive.
For the arcane gun, i recognize the rules are not very clear.
"...as they were normal firearms before the spellslinger imbued them with magic.": Arcane Guns are normal firearms imbued with Spellslinger's magic.
Reverse the grapple: the rules are not "very clear".
PRD: "If You Are Grappled: If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can)..."
It seems that with the same CMB check (as a standard action) you can break the grapple OR reverse the grapple.
The problem is that it's written too: "Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll."
So i think that if you don't want have a -4 penalty on CMB check for reverse the grapple, you need to have your two hands free.
It is strange, the other school say the same thing about your position.The 2 schools may be "RAW".
That's fact is perhaps what you wish, but the answer is in the hand of each GM.
For use the arcane gun, it must be wielded as for any other weapon. There are no exceptions. If it's a 2HW, you must wield it with 2 hands, so it functions as "arcane bond".
releasing a hand from something and re-gripping it are both free actions.
Your forget this is always a question unresolved as far as i know.There are 2 schools:
- release and grip are free: prefered by those who want to optimize
- release is "free" and grip is "move": prefered by those who like a more balanced game
However you cannot cast somatic when you wield 2H weapon: that's is effective for arcane bond 2H and that's the same for 2H firearm for spellslinger.cannot cast somatic with arcane bond 2H
Staff are not the same thing as quarterstaff, so no need to wield in 2 hands. You can have a staff one-handed and it will not be a quarterstaff.
If it is a random table, the player must throw the dice in front of you. I will be for the first time a player and i choose to be a tiefling, more for roleplaying reasons.
If your player don't throw the dice in front of you, i call that "an abuse of rules".
If I remember correctly the feat was intended for multiclassing Inquisitors.
Prerequisite: Inquisitor channel energy class feature.
I don't know what is "Inquisitor channel energy class feature"?
And from Ultimate magic
So the true question is: What is "Inquisitor channel energy class feature"?
After i have completely destroyed 3 weapons and a full-plate armor (non magical) in the same fight, my players made a petition against the use of sunder by GM... :-)
As i read it
So with +5 bonus strength
First unarmed strike of the round:
Other unarmed strike of the round:
Hum... if i understand well, sunder "is now" a standard action. I had not the heart to read the 984 posts to confirm that. ^^
Some players and me tried the sunder in game and we used "as possible to do a full-round attack with sunder".
My players thought Sunder is more an option for GM than for players, but an option a GM must use sparingly, because it's too traumatic for players.
I think Blueluck is refering to RAI.Pathfinder was built to prevent this sort of build: "pick just 1 level in one class to obtain advantages". It was the bane of DD3.5.
I think as Blueluck that it goes against the spirit of the rules.
It seems you cannot recall a spell with metamagic feat attached, except if you have chosen your spell bonded as "spell +a metamagic feat".
For AP, before playing, i have to add all the wealth in book and see if it's under or over the curve????Is there a "note" in the AP which gives this information?
I think Paizo is used to write scenario and adventures... How could i know if they have made an AP "rich" or "poor"?
Yes effectively. But i noticed that when playing Adventure Path, my players were always under the WBL amount.So i always has to regulate... the more important is that the players are about at the level of WBL amount.
And they can buy to another wizard if they can find one, if this wizard allows that, if he has the spell that the player want, if... if...
Not as simple than that.
I looked over the forum, and it seems the question to know if a cleric/oracle of life can do or not a channel while paralyzed is always...open.
@Whale Cancer: for channel and paralyzed, i think the best is to do as you feel it.
only mental actions as you write and all spell-like abilities (they are all mental).
A cleric cannot channel while paralyzed: "presenting" an holy symbol is not like "holding" it.