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

1,986 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,986 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Imagine the poor monk. At 5th level, with 5 ranks in acrobatics, +3 class skill, +4 from increased speed, +5 from High Jump, and let's say a +3 from Dex. He cannot jump less than twenty feet?


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
BlackOuroboros wrote:
Bonus points if he asked the smelly dude what his "The Man, The Legend" t-shirt is referring to.

What is that reference to?

Edit: Why on earth are people favoriting this? I'm actually asking!

Imagine one arrow pointing up and another one pointing down.


Lord Gadigan wrote:

Alchemist:

* A mad-bomber-type bomb-focused alchemist that loses the mutagens and some of its other stuff for additional bomb-related features
* Artificer variant of Alchemist that builds gadgets and such

Summoner:
* Summoner archetype that constructs Golems/constructs

These are what I was going to suggest with the addition of the Golem/Construct Summoner being Int based.


Impact is good, especially if combined with Vital Strike and you have access to Enlarge Person.


I would say:
1) yes, it's effectively the item making the natural attack
2) no, merged with the eidolon then you should be held to the eidolon's limit


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:


If I were to pick a character who exemplified this sort of ability.. it would be Inspector Clouseau.

Fletch


Alchemists are awesome!


Fighter/Alchemist. Explosive Missle with a Conductive bow.


The rare quad-necro...


Bandw2 wrote:


if someone with 4 int is a borderline idiot, then someone with 4 dex must barely be able to control their movements, must be hard to walk... oh wait, they just get -3 to their reflex save, AC and to ranged attacks... it's a wonder someone with such a disability is able to grasp a sword at all...

Actually, as has been mentioned several times, in Pathfinder an Int of 4 makes you The Villiage Idiot.


CommandoDude wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Stats should never affect roleplaying period - unless the roleplayer wants them to.

There are ALREADY mechanical penalties in place for low stats, people don't need to invent more.

Except they aren't really for mental stats. Sure if you want to know if you are strong enough to lift a box, there's a chart you can check; stomach a poison, there's a DC for that; conceive of a plan, that's just a judgement call.

This is not to say I agree with other people telling someone how to roleplay, but I understand their frustration. I would be annoyed by someone role playing their four Int as an eighteen Int, just as I would be at someone describing their gnome as a half-orc.

If you have a low INT, you get less skill points, and all skills that key off INT have penalties. If you have low Wis, your Will save and Wis based skills have penalties. If you have low Cha, your Cha based skills have penalties - and you take a penalty on Will saves on certain Spell and SU abilities.

So yes, mental ability scores have modeled penalties - which by the way, are more significant than a carry capacity penalty, given the existence of super cheap items like bags of holding. Does that strength or constitution score accurately reflect how far you can actually get traveling all day? No, not one bit. A character with a strength score of 4 can get the same distance walking in 8 hours that a character with an 18 can get if they have the same base speed.

So if you're saying a character must make a DC 10 int check or whatever to "make a judgement call" if he's dumping int, expect to have to make a DC 10 strength check just to walk if you're dumping strength in my game.

I didn't say that and I don't play in your games.


CommandoDude wrote:

Stats should never affect roleplaying period - unless the roleplayer wants them to.

There are ALREADY mechanical penalties in place for low stats, people don't need to invent more.

Except they aren't really for mental stats. Sure if you want to know if you are strong enough to lift a box, there's a chart you can check; stomach a poison, there's a DC for that; conceive of a plan, that's just a judgement call.

This is not to say I agree with other people telling someone how to roleplay, but I understand their frustration. I would be annoyed by someone role playing their four Int as an eighteen Int, just as I would be at someone describing their gnome as a half-orc.


Dagan4d2 wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Dagan4d2 wrote:

Is there any particular reason you cant use more than one shield?

If not having 2 tower shields starts to sound worth the feats. (With 4 arms)

You can wield as many shields as you have hands.

However, shield bonuses don't stack.

So two tower shields would only be useful in that you could use one as cover and still have the shield bonus. Oh well, my dreams of +18 shield bonus will cry in a corner.

Heavy Shield (+2 shield), Shield Focus (+3), Greater Shield Focus (+4), +5 enhancement (+9), Improved Shield Bash and +5 Defending Shield (+14)

You can get pretty close with just one.


graystone wrote:
TrollingJoker wrote:
It's more the part about following them and help them break out. They expected him to bolt right after them like "WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING TO MY FRIENDS!?" or something among those lines.

And this is what's totally wrong. Again, it's right there in the village idiot monster entry. Replace his character with 'any simple commoner' or 'stableboy'. Would they have the issue if they didn't know those kind of characters have a 4 int? It's quite clear 4 int doesn't mean what they think it does.

Why would he rush right in? Toddlers can be surprisingly clever and I'm not expecting calculus out of them. What he did was a fairly simple plan. (follow, open cells, hide key). "Hey commoner. Can you follow someone, open some doors and then hide the key?" Do you really expect "Derp....." and he starts drooling on himself?

The village idiot can be a simple commoner or stable boy, not all commoners or stable boys have a four Intelligence. Sure you could explain to someone, follow, open cell, then hide the key, but would you expect the village idiot to come up with that plan on his own.

This isn't a discussion on what a four Int can learn to do, but what can that person come up with on their own.


Doff=take off
Don=put on


Yes (assuming the character is medium sized) with a penalty for using an improperly sized weapon (-2 per size difference, I think).


PirateDevon wrote:

Eric Masterson, later to become Thunderstrike, was "Thor" thunder/hammer wielding badass and that remains (unless I missed something) a matter of record and continuity. But he was never the Norse god of thunder or the son of Odin.

Yes but he was a white male so that's okay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Reaching not built in audiences is always tough, but it doesn't get easier by changing what appeals to the audience you already have.

You read Thor because he's a guy?


Legion Janus wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Meritocracy! DEW EET NAO!
There is a webcomic called SSDD that examines the idea of a meritocracy and why such a government style is ultimately as much a failure as democracy tends to be.

Simpsons Did It!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
zauriel56 wrote:
I disagree with the stance of the business but not the ruling. Why should rights be infringed upon because they own a business?

Why should a employee's rights be infringed upon because they have a job?


thejeff wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:
I am coming late to the party I know, and don't have time to go through 10 pages of posts and am in the minority BUT I believe the Supreme Court did the right thing. People have talked about friends who would've died without birth control, that isn't what this is about. It's mainly emergency birth control that this would affect I believe and I don't have time to look up all the details but this means preventative measures would/could be covered but not after contraception has occurred would not. And I personally am ok with this. Birth control pills to regulate periods isn't' the same as destroying a fertilized egg to me. I believe life begins at conception ( yes I am one of those types). But also people know hobby lobby is a Christian run business. They have other options if they want a job from a place that will cover that sort of thing. Why should people be forced to compromise their beliefs? If you don't like it don't support that business and give your support to another company so they have a reason to hire those people who want to have those contraceptive options.

Well, I would take my business elsewhere, but I've never actually shopped at Hobby Lobby in the first place, so it's hard. :)

But just to clarify, you agree with the law the way it stands now after the decision? That the federal government should be able to mandate contraception coverage, but only for companies that don't object on religious grounds?

Does it change your opinion at all to learn that the Court extended the decision in another case (by letting a lower court's ruling stand, I believe) to cover all forms of birth control, not merely those where the company believes them to be abortifacients?

Just to add...

Does it change your stance that Hobby Lobby was factually wrong, and none of the birth control methods caused an abortion by the scientific definition? How about the fact that three of the four did not qualify based on Hobby Lobby's definition of abortion?


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?


5 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.


3 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!"

1 to 50 of 1,986 << 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.