Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Kaigon the Miscreant

Durngrun Stonebreaker's page

1,965 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,965 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

If we are hand-waving reality, why reload times? Why not hand-wave early firearm development and just go straight to a gun that can be reloaded fast?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You do realize your uncle and his friends paid into unemployment while they were employed, right? And then, after they lost their job through no fault of their own, reaped the benefits of unemployment insurance. Their situation would not have happened in the 1800s because after they lost their job, they would have starved and died penniless in the streets. Their families too. Their foreclosed homes would have brought down everyone's property value and the local stores would have all closed because no one had money to buy things. That's what you want to go back to? I don't think you know what a social contract is.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
What Sohei get at 6th level is Weapon Training. That's it.

Wrong. Look again.

Sohei Weapon Training wrote:
Weapon Training (Ex): At 6th level, a sohei gains weapon training in one of the following weapon groups, as the fighter class feature: bows, crossbows, monk weapons, polearms, spears, or thrown weapons. He may select an additional group of weapons for every six levels after 6th, to a maximum of three at 18th level. A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training. This ability replaces purity of body, diamond body, quivering palm, timeless body, and tongue of sun and moon.

They get weapon training and the ability to use flurry and Ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training. It's listed in the class ability they get at 6th level. You get that class ability at 6th level, not before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People are so stupid wanting things to make sense. Ha!


FAQ


Bandw2 wrote:

still I WANT TO KNOW WHY.

I've read the CRB with the FAQ and i feel that explanation doesn't hold ground. yet, everyone seems to think it's a matter of fact from the threads of yesteryear. WHY? i read them, many people today who say no, doesn't work, were fighting tooth and nail to say it was still legal.

"as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."

this seems to apply off-hand to physical hands, and the term both only applied to 2 objects in correct english, but it is possible to have many hands, and even more off-hands via race.

people, keep referencing the unwritten rule, and i'd really like to know what that is.

Primary and off hands is a matter if effort, not physical hands. Your "off hand" could be your left hand, either foot, a headbutt, or a hip check if you wanted. Think of it this way: you can make an unarmed strike even if your hands are full. So you have two daggers, your primary dagger deals 1x Str damage, and your off hand deals .5x Str. Can you also kick, or headbutt, etc.? With a two handed weapon, or a one handed weapon in two hands, you require your primary and off hand deal 1.5x Str damage. Can you also kick or headbutt, etc.?


Bandw2 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
graystone wrote:
You must have a different book than I. Mine says "Two hands are required to use a twohanded melee weapon effectively." CRB pg 141 How are two off hands NOT two hands as per the core rule book?
Well I do have a second printing. (Light hearted emoticon) I simply read in context. The "two hands" refer to the primary and off hands mentioned in the same passage. Otherwise it's stating "two handed weapons require two hands." I could have figured that out myself.
but that's the point, we're no longer in the realm that that context covered, aka only have 2 arms.

If you're talking alchemist, you do not gain either extra primary hands or off hands.

If you're referring to a natural three (or more) armed race, then you get extra off hands but not extra primary hands.

Again, these are the rules as they are. If you are the GM, then change them however you want. I am not in any way trying to say it would be overpowered or broken.

but i have still yet to see manifest proof that you NEED a primary hand for a t-hander.

It's in th CRB, there's a FAQ, I don't know what more you need (or why it's my job to provide it). You asked, I've tried to explain. Run it as you wish. You said you were the GM.


Bandw2 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
graystone wrote:
You must have a different book than I. Mine says "Two hands are required to use a twohanded melee weapon effectively." CRB pg 141 How are two off hands NOT two hands as per the core rule book?
Well I do have a second printing. (Light hearted emoticon) I simply read in context. The "two hands" refer to the primary and off hands mentioned in the same passage. Otherwise it's stating "two handed weapons require two hands." I could have figured that out myself.
but that's the point, we're no longer in the realm that that context covered, aka only have 2 arms.

If you're talking alchemist, you do not gain either extra primary hands or off hands.

If you're referring to a natural three (or more) armed race, then you get extra off hands but not extra primary hands.

Again, these are the rules as they are. If you are the GM, then change them however you want. I am not in any way trying to say it would be overpowered or broken.


graystone wrote:
You must have a different book than I. Mine says "Two hands are required to use a twohanded melee weapon effectively." CRB pg 141 How are two off hands NOT two hands as per the core rule book?

Well I do have a second printing. (Light hearted emoticon) I simply read in context. The "two hands" refer to the primary and off hands mentioned in the same passage. Otherwise it's stating "two handed weapons require two hands." I could have figured that out myself.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Yo' mama so nasty, Kuthites who have gravely sinned against their god are ordered to f@!& her as penance!

That's just mean, man. We're keeping it light and friendly here.

Oh, and
Yo' momma's so fat, her ass has it's own congressman.


graystone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
graystone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
graystone wrote:
BigDTBone: SO a race with 4 natural arms only has two metaphysical "hands of effort"? I call BS as multiweapon fighting states that creatures with 3+ arms gain more than that.
As far as I know, a naturally four-armed race would have one primary hand and three off hands.
Yes, and that adds up to more than two metaphysical "hands of effort" as he said in replying to me talking about it not stating what to do if you have more than 2. And since it's never stated how you two=handed weapons interact with 4 armed races, we can't assume 'both' requires a specific primary/off-hand combination. Both off-hands satisfies the 'both' requirement for two handed use.
A two handed weapon requires a primary and off hand, not two off hands.
No, it requires both. If you have a quote from one of the books that states what you just said please post it.

Quoted it several times.

CRB pg 141
Light weapon: primary Or off hand
One-handed: primary Or off hand
Two-handed: Both primary And off hand.


Bandw2 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Although the issue of metaphorical "hands" gets tricky to explain in Pathfinder, this particular question has already been answered in the FAQ.

If you're a standard PC race, and are already swinging a two-handed weapon, you can't also make an off-hand attack.

With exotic, multi-armed races, it gets trickier. Luckily, these races aren't allowed in PFS, so if this is for a home game (which it sounds like it is) feel free to rule as you please.

alchemists can gain arms...

But they do not gain any extra "primary" or "off hands"


graystone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
graystone wrote:
BigDTBone: SO a race with 4 natural arms only has two metaphysical "hands of effort"? I call BS as multiweapon fighting states that creatures with 3+ arms gain more than that.
As far as I know, a naturally four-armed race would have one primary hand and three off hands.
Yes, and that adds up to more than two metaphysical "hands of effort" as he said in replying to me talking about it not stating what to do if you have more than 2. And since it's never stated how you two=handed weapons interact with 4 armed races, we can't assume 'both' requires a specific primary/off-hand combination. Both off-hands satisfies the 'both' requirement for two handed use.

A two handed weapon requires a primary and off hand, not two off hands.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Theconiel wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Yo' momma's so fat, Obi-wan said, "that's no moon, that's yo momma!"
Yo' momma's so ugly, she could petrify Medusa!
Yo' momma's so dumb, she thinks Jar-Jar comes with pickles-pickles!
Yo' momma's so fat, she makes bloatmages look thin!

Yo' momma's so weak, she has to track encumbrance.


graystone wrote:
BigDTBone: SO a race with 4 natural arms only has two metaphysical "hands of effort"? I call BS as multiweapon fighting states that creatures with 3+ arms gain more than that.

As far as I know, a naturally four-armed race would have one primary hand and three off hands.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The FAQ is (relatively) clear, the rule was not.

No.

The FAQ is vague, and has no basis in RAW, and was specifically called out as part of unwritten rules, by developers.

I'm sorry I just don't understand this. You know what the rules are, regardless of how vague or complicated they might be. What do you hope to gain by intentionally confusing people asking for clairification?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
You will need to reference the unwritten rules.

You do that enough for everyone.


Nicos wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Light weapons require a primary or off hand. One handed requires primary or off hand. Two handed weapons require both. Yes you have a free "limb" to make the attack but the "off hand" required for a light weapon (which an unarmed strike is) is consumed by the two handed attack.
In no place of hte description of two hand weapond does "off had" appear.

No, it says both hands. Referring to the previously mentioned primary hand and off hand.

The rule is easily changeable if you don't like it. I see no reason to try to confuse the issue after a lengthy discussion that lead to a FAQ. The rule is clear. Use it or don't.


Never had a player try to use a two handed weapon for an off hand attack but I would go with .5x Str damage. The extra attacks from two weapon fighting are explicitly called off hand attacks and off hand attacks deal .5x Str damage. (1x Str damage with double slice)


Light weapons require a primary or off hand. One handed requires primary or off hand. Two handed weapons require both. Yes you have a free "limb" to make the attack but the "off hand" required for a light weapon (which an unarmed strike is) is consumed by the two handed attack.


graystone wrote:
Ah, then Toss all that [blank] out the door and kick while you use a greatsword then (heck, use armor spikes too and ignore the FAQ). I take a very dim view of having a ruling based on unwritten rules.

The rule that two-handed weapons require your off-hand is in the book. CRB pg 141

Edit: but, yes, ignore it if you want to. I do in my home games.


Two handed weapons require a primary hand and an off-hand. They cannot be wielded with two off-hands. CRB pg 141 under Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons:


Theconiel wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Yo' momma's so fat, Obi-wan said, "that's no moon, that's yo momma!"
Yo' momma's so ugly, she could petrify Medusa!

Yo' momma's so dumb, she thinks Jar-Jar comes with pickles-pickles!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yo' momma's so fat, Obi-wan said, "that's no moon, that's yo momma!"


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way.

There is never that choice. He just says nothing. Or a platitude. Or lets the Bard lie.
So many wonderful excuses that require you to either A) ignore the scenario, or B) assume you have someone that may or may not be going to bail you out.

To be fair, whenever a demon or something makes up these situations, I almost expect good characters to the take the "we don't negotiate with terrorist" approach.

If a bad guy says he will kill hostages unless you lie to him, as a paladin or a LG fighter you are well within your rights to just start attacking him instead.

I also don't see it as wrong to not believe the words of a hostage taker.

If they die because you attack him you have failed in the "protect the innocents" clause. You have done something that you knew would harm innocent people.

Ok, icewind dale 2 example. Actual example from a game based off of 2e. Orc chieftain takes over a human village and has put the entire populace into a little circle surrounded by barrels full of blasting powder. There are scouts all along the wall as well as several mages in the encampment.

The first time in the game you approach he orders you to leave or they all die. One flaming arrow is all it takes to kill every single human in there.

Lets alter that slightly. Your paladin is recognizably a paladin, and its known in this world paladin's cant lie. Orc orders him to promise to leave, not engage in any hostile actions against them, or tell anyone else about the encampment of orcs and humans.

Using this example, only a slight deviation off of something that actually exists in a published game, if your paladin does not agree on the spot hundreds of people will die. If he attacks, well I don't think you can kill an entire village full of orcs before...

So a scenario from a video game, specifically altered to screw over the paladin, who is once again alone...


Ashiel wrote:

There's also the fact that most of the excuses don't work either, since the Paladin class also has a clause that says they avoid working with anyone that consistently offends their moral code, which means if you have a liar bard in the party, then...oops, bummer.

That said, the associates clause doesn't even do anything so...yeah, it's bad rules too. >_>

Honestly, it really just needs better rules concerning all the falling and code and associates stuff. It's just really dirty.

EDIT: No bards, no alchemists, etc.

Why is the paladin consistently in these situations? How often does "lie or I'll kill them" come up?


Ashiel wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Whereas I just wouldn't play a game with people who are giving me crap...
And I just said that he didn't. At least with Paladins. Fireball does Xd6 points of damage is pretty straitforward and isn't subject to this "bull-s@#*tery" that the Paladin code has written into it.

So just appease the bullies?

I know that was probably just an off hand comment meant to point out why you dislike the paladin (or the code) but I see it a lot in threads dealing with paladins. "I don't like paladins because the people who play them are jerks!" Well, don't play with jerks. "I don't like paladins because when I play one other people are jerks!" Well, don't play with jerks.

If your friend wanted to play a female character but the people he played with were sexist and gave him crap, would you say don't play a female?
If your friend wanted to play a dark skinned character but the people he played with were racist and gave him crap, would you say don't play a dark skinned character?

Why is someone being a jerk because of paladins okay but being a jerk for some other reason okay? Why not, don't play with jerks?


By the time you're powerful enough to start crafting magic items, money becomes less of a concern.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

GM says: "(the NPC) just hangs back and tries to stay out of the way."
GM means: "I completely forgot (the NPC) was with you. No one has mentioned (the NPC) for four sessions!"


Ashiel wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

The debates I see about the Paladin's code is simaliar to the debates I see about the meaning of religious text.

Perhaps that is not accidental.

I'd rather have good rules. I enjoy talking about religion, but religious debates are rarely much fun (they can be if the other guy isn't a douche). I'd rather be enjoying a game with other people who enjoy a game.

GMs aren't the only ones who deal with the code thing. Having been discussing this thread on skype with some friends, one of them commented that he doesn't play Paladins anymore in online games, particularly in persistent world campaigns, because there was no telling how others were going to react to him. Some people would give him crap over the Paladin's code, and some wouldn't.

To me, as a someone who loves games and tinkering with them, my beef with the Paladin code is that the mechanics basically require me to ignore the rules and do something different to make it playable in a non-asinine manner, or to stay to the spirit of the idea. To me, that is a mark of a bad rule, and one that should be changed.

If you have to house rule for the rule to function, it's broken.

Whereas I just wouldn't play a game with people who are giving me crap...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way.

There is never that choice. He just says nothing. Or a platitude. Or lets the Bard lie.
So many wonderful excuses that require you to either A) ignore the scenario, or B) assume you have someone that may or may not be going to bail you out.

Once again, ridiculous abstract scenario, easily answered, answers ignored or dismissed.


Ashiel wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Just to respond to something from last night (I was at work and couldn't respond then).

The paladin does not value the code over other people. The paladin trusts in the code's wisdom over his own judgement. The paladin doesn't ponder "is this lie for the greater good." The paladin knows lying is evil because of the code. This is the Lawful part of the paladin's Lawful Good alignment. The paladin may think, "surely this lie is justifiable" but he knows the code forbids it. You don't lie to save the innocent because then you have corrupted yourself.

As an aside; these fall/fall scenarios are ridiculous. I have never seen one that didn't have multiple ways out without falling. Most are given solutions within a post or two that are then ignored by the "anti" paladin crowd.

When the code conflicts, there is no judgment available to choose a path. In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way. It has nothing to do with the code's wisdom.

"Tell me a lie or I'll do something evil" is not a conflict. The paladin doesn't lie. The paladin also doesn't fall because of someone else's actions. Yes the paladin should try to stop those evil actions but not by violating his code.


Just to respond to something from last night (I was at work and couldn't respond then).

The paladin does not value the code over other people. The paladin trusts in the code's wisdom over his own judgement. The paladin doesn't ponder "is this lie for the greater good." The paladin knows lying is evil because of the code. This is the Lawful part of the paladin's Lawful Good alignment. The paladin may think, "surely this lie is justifiable" but he knows the code forbids it. You don't lie to save the innocent because then you have corrupted yourself.

As an aside; these fall/fall scenarios are ridiculous. I have never seen one that didn't have multiple ways out without falling. Most are given solutions within a post or two that are then ignored by the "anti" paladin crowd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:

Now I'm going to go home and sleep with my wife!

Every time I say that at work I get the strangest looks.


Scavion wrote:
Chromnos wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
He put its AC in there, 29. With very little investment in temporary resources spent. With a buffing Summoner and a few rejuvenate eidolon spells, I sure that eidolon will survive much better than a same level Fighter.

Want to kill the eidolon? Target the summoner.

The Summoner has a D8 hit die, light armor, and good saves through Shield Ally.

It also requires a degree of metagaming from the enemy. Mindless/hungry creatures go for whats in front of them. Even intelligent opponents likely have no idea that the creature is bound to one of your party members.

Matching glowing runes might be a bit of a giveaway.


If you're unwilling to act on your good/evil intentions, then you are neutral.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Not surprised when the Devil's advocates show up in a Paladin discussion thread...

"Well if the paladin really believed in X them he would Y."

The real question is do they take themselves seriously or just having a great time RPing devil's advocate?

A little bit of both. I simply enjoy the logical fallacy of extending someone's argument to extreme proportions to show them the ridiculousness that they get.

And this is the problems with alignment threads. No one is trying to reach a consensus. Few people are trying to make a point. Most just want to prove everyone/anyone wrong.


Akerlof wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:


Paladins' Detect Evil is not totally as per the spell
PRD wrote:
Detect Evil (Sp): At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range.

"A single item or individual" and can't be used through doors and walls so not really bad guy radar. Also as a move action's worth of concentration it's a detectable action.

"Hey there's a big heavily armoured dude(ss) concentrating on me..."

I was going to dismiss this as thread necromancy, but you bring up a good point that helped in a game last weekend: The Paladin has to focus on something specific to detect evil. That means you can't try to use it to find invisible opponents. I never allowed it to find invisible opponents even without the "specific item or individual" caveat, but now I'll be more strict: Asking what, specifically, a paladin is trying to identify as evil.

Like this thread, which has been raised as undead.

A Paladin can use detect evil as the spell.


Devastation Bob wrote:
Not afraid of housecats...at all.

You sure about that?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Street sweeper in City of Brass.


Which is why so many people hate it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anti-Paladin is always in violation.
Don't follow your code? You fall.
Follow your code? You're not Chaotic, you fall.
It's a dumb class. The only thing more cliched than a cliche is doing the exact opposite of a cliche.
"He stands for good? Then I will sit for evil!"


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't it odd in these situations that the Paladin's party is never able to help the Paladin? Instead they are only there to be disadvantaged by the Paladin's actions.


It's perfectly rules legal, it's just cheesy. You're gaming a rules construct. It's only viable due to the abstraction of combat. It's meta-gaming. That's why some people dislike it.
If your DM dislikes it, I would suggest not doing it.


With Summoner, I like Barbarian with Ferocious Mount/Greater Ferocious Mount. Let your eidolon rage and benefit from rage powers.
Or Paladin with the archtype that lets your mount benefit from your divine grace.
Or for neat flavor, an Oracle with the blind curse that sees through the eyes of their eidolon.


Inquistor/Gunslinger

Add Bane to your touch attacks.


Ashiel wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

BBEG "I need that artifact of ultimate evil, you know where it is now tell me!"

Paladin
"Not a snowballs chance of that!"

According to lie of omission paladin falls....anyone buying this?

The Paladin won't fall in this case because that's not quite a lie of omission, but don't expect to get a positive response. You might very well be putting your friends in danger. If the BBEG also happened to make it a threat like, "Tell me where the artifact of ultimate evil is, or my minions will kill the prisoners", well you're pretty much screwed then.

Because Paladins fall due to other people's behavior?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems a lot of Paladin hate comes from people not understanding Lawful alignments.


Do people count?


Kryzbyn wrote:
I can't name every single company my 401k invests in for me. Can you?

Just to be clear. Are you saying you're okay with profiting off of something you feel is morally wrong as long as you don't know about it?

1 to 50 of 1,965 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.