Driver 325 yards wrote:
@Driver 325 yards: You can joke but i don't understand why you ask a question for which you've already an answer, and anyway you don't any care from others answers.Discuss with you seems to me fruitless...
The "anything confusing" is that it occupies the belt slot and "can transform the belt into a single masterwork slashing and/or piercing melee weapon of her choice".
a) it goes on to occupy the slot (i think so): you cannot use of another belt, except if you add new abilities to your belt.
b) it doesn't occupy belt slot when transformed (which is valid): then you can have another belt which functions.
2) There doesn't appear to be a restriction on weapon type, designation, or size, except slashing/piercing melee.
The Bladed Belt seems to be too advantageous for the price and requirements necessary to make it(if compared to "transformative"). And the fact that it's a belt is just to explain the low price...
I think this magic item is perhaps a good idea on paper, but haven't be tested enough, so has been too vaguely worded.
Just look on "transformative" weapon ability and notice the differences...
Perhaps it will be better if its creator explains us what he wanted to do.
Waiting this time, it's another item i will put in the stasis's box.
Doomed Hero wrote:
I don't think so.You've always the option to add a new magic ability on your belt
adding new abilities
It's costly but possible to add power of "belt of physical perfection", or other like that, to this Bladed Belt.
You have a weapon discreet which can change following your need. For instance, it may be interesting to have a longspear +2 with reach, and after a scimitar +2 with your shield.
Ed Girallon Poe wrote:
Some monsters in scenario have "special powers" which only belong to themselves... and are not into the rules...
You could find another examples in other books with monsters that "cheat" with rules.
Friend of the Dork wrote:
reference? see the spell.Suffocation spell
"Saving Throw Fortitude partial"...it means that the target must do a ST a soon as the spell is cast, and if the ST fortitude succeed the target is affected but less severely.
initial ST succeed: the target suffocate just for 1 round...........staggered for 1 round. No more effect.
initial ST fail: the target suffocate.......staggered. On its next 3 initiatives, the target will make a save. If a save is failed, he moves one step further along the track to suffocation. Of course, the target is at least staggered during this 3 rounds.
@pad300: it's not possible to take a 5-foot step with another kind of movement
In one of my campaign, one of my player (his PC is human) had children with a fey (i.e a dryad). For several outside reasons, we stopped the campaign.
I checked the races and i don't find what could be an off-spring of an human and a fey.
I don't play with OGL, but if there is good stuff, why not?
1) Do you know if something not too strong exists?
cheesy? sure, but...One day, my players asked me for that and i answered "ok but the monsters do the same!"
When they find the next magic item which was a weapon +2 only usable by chaotic evil with Profession Midwife skill rank 5... they all agreed to forget this "cheesy rules".
I don't see where is your question.
It is not because you're upon contact with something that your spell discharges, otherwise when you're upon contact with ground your spell will discharge as soon as cast...
The spell concentrate in your hand and you need to touch something to discharge. Happily.
And think this one: a wizard on his horse casts a touch spell... oh dear... the poor wizard kills his horse... but luck is with the wizard, his ennemies die laughing...
I think he would say Ring of transposition
Better than a cohort!!!!
hum... i don't like at all this FAQ... too much a kingdom for munchkin...or abuse...
I've never seen a diabolist's imp played, but i don't mind it's weak.
In response to named bullet, a lesser rod of maximize would allow you to get free nat 20s for 1st level spells, expensive but worth it for some, really cheesy though... maybe use share spells, improved to give it to yourself and familiar (or animal companion for nature oracles)
PRD:"Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20),..."
Not sure too that a "20 because maximised" keeps on to be "natural"...
Ximen Bao wrote:
Not sure it's "RAW".The effect of the spell is "throw a dice and keep the result", not the "numeric result of the dice": it seems to me a shortcut to say it's RAW because one can find "dxx" inside.
And devs cannot cover all combinations.
Anyway, as you said, noone should accept these combinations with empower or maximise.
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.