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

2,493 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,493 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's the mythic version of Tail Terror.


Aberzombie wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

But a lot of the time I feel that they get put in harms way unnecessarily for unjust conflicts. And I hate that. HATE IT. And I think anyone who rah-rah's flying into war is doing a disservice to those men and women and what they stand for. That's just me though.

I can agree with this, although I think there is far less actual rah-rahing than most people see. I think if we had more politicians who served, there might be less wars.

Then again, there's always some other a*++@&% in the world who isn't gonna play nice. And America has been the major force for stability for decades now. That's just how the ball rolls. Before us it was the Brits. Before them, it was the Romans. History repeats.

I can attest that the highlighted statement is false. In my country practically every single politician (and citizen, while we're at it) has served in the army. Many politicians start their political career right as they finish their high rankling military career. For the most part, this does not discourage almost any of them from a bloodthirst that sometimes achieves almost comic proportions (so long as you are not on the receiving end, that is).

False? No. If I had left out the words "I think", then it would be false. As stated, it's merely an opinion. One I can expand on and clarify by saying "I think if more politicians served and saw active combat, they might be more aware of the horrors of war and the detrimental effect it can have on participants and victims alike".

And if how you describe your country's politicians is true, then I feel sorry for your country. I'd like to think here in the US, people like that are few and far between.

Didn't work for John McCain.


You do know that Pathfinder is not real life, right?


felinoel wrote:
MechE_ wrote:
Due to time constraints, the summoner was rushed to print and needed some additional testing. The designers have admitted this. (Sorry, I'm not going to dig up their quotes at the moment, but they're out there.)

That is what the errata is for?

THREAD UPDATE!
It looks like the DM is going to ban the Alchemical Allocation completely. I am not in favor of this reaction myself but it is hard to find DMs and I hate DMing games myself.

Why not rule that Alchemical Allocation only works once per potion or elixir?


I think it's mentioned in the book that churches sell Holy Water at cost. That's why the spell and the item cost the same.


Gauntlet-Spiked Gauntlet
Punching somebody-Punching somebody with knives coming out of my hands


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Auke Teeninga wrote:

It all depends what's on the flag.

If it's the symbol of the open road it will affect Pathfinders
If it's the Taldan flag it will affect Taldons.
If it's the Holy Symbol of Asmodeus it probably will affect summoned devils.
It it's the flag of your house it will affect anyone who has sworn fealty to you, so unless your summons spend a round to swear fealty I wouldn't grant the bonus.

Saying some people are really hardass and that you feel bad for their players is kinda insulting. You are the one that's bending/breaking the rules!

That's true. Apologizes if I insulted anyone (had a rough morning, though that's no excuse). Even if I don't necessarily agree with it I still appreciate all of you guys' input! Have fun PFS'ing!

The classic non-apology apology.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Wands back in 1e days were typically found with 100-(1d20-1) charges, based on the treasure tables, although many in published adventures were found with far fewer. So the 50 charge number has absolutely nothing to do with any Gygax preference.

If something is kinda arbitrary, people here LOVE to blame Gygax. I suppose it's because they think that d20 is too perfect of a system for anyone to have just randomly picked a number out of nowhere.

[/sneer]
Actually when I find an imperfect rule, I always blame Obama.

You have to in this economy.


graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
I'm pretty sure to all the other people over the years that said they don't stack together.
ALL the other people over the years thought that stat bonuses had two sources? I call shenanigans.

I can't say I thought about it explicitly in those terms but I always considered the stat to be the source of the bonus.


How are you both a kobold aasimar and a scion of humanity?


You can fight defensively as a standard action.


Jiggy wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
There is at least one GM who will boot you from his table for using HeroLabs audit characters that are running entirely from HeroLab. When he's done so in the past, it has always resulted in discovering the character to be illegal.
Accuracy'd that for you.

Check again


Avoron wrote:

blackbloodtroll, deliberately increasing the level of confusion is rather unnecessary.

What else would he do?


There is at least one GM who will boot you from his table for using HeroLabs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It makes you wonder how much money Nefreet has cost Paizo by driving people away from PFS and Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Does a Monk's increased unarmed damage, or other abilities, apply to Gauntlet attacks?No, that only applies to unarmed strikes.

Can a Monk Flurry with a Gauntlet?No, it's not a monk weapon

Do feats that effect unarmed strikes, such as Weapon Focus, apply to attacks with Gauntlets?No, you would need weapon focus:gauntlet.

Do Gauntlets threaten without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?No

Would feats and abilities that apply to both Gauntlet attacks, and Unarmed Strikes, such as Weapon Focus, stack?No, weapon focus doesn't stack with itself.

Why would the answer to any of these questions be different?Because of the rules.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


It's fine if you don't like the rules. It's fine if you don't like the rules. It's even fine if you're ignorant of the rules. None of that changes the actual rules.

You have proven my point.

All of these answers being no(other than the stacking question), must be so, because a Gauntlet, is not an unarmed strike.

See Sean K Reynolds opinion here.

Just to be clear, BBT, are you saying a forum post by a former Dev trumps the rule in the book?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Quote:
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Does a Monk's increased unarmed damage, or other abilities, apply to Gauntlet attacks?No, that only applies to unarmed strikes.

Can a Monk Flurry with a Gauntlet?No, it's not a monk weapon

Do feats that effect unarmed strikes, such as Weapon Focus, apply to attacks with Gauntlets?No, you would need weapon focus:gauntlet.

Do Gauntlets threaten without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?No

Would feats and abilities that apply to both Gauntlet attacks, and Unarmed Strikes, such as Weapon Focus, stack?No, weapon focus doesn't stack with itself.

Why would the answer to any of these questions be different?Because of the rules.

It's fine if you don't like the rules. It's fine if you don't like the rules. It's even fine if you're ignorant of the rules. None of that changes the actual rules.


Quote:
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.


Speed weapons don't stack.
Haste only gives one extra attack.
Thread is five years old.


Who says Alchemists need Dex?


thegreenteagamer wrote:
With 4+IntMod per level ranks in an intelligence based, nearly SAD class, there's no reason you couldn't go from chump to expert flier the second you got the extract.

Wanting to put ranks in other skills springs to mind. Not saying it can't be done but I've never see a player instantly max out their fly skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can't take any ranks until you can fly, though.


FAQ


You only get one claw attack per arm because you only have one claw per arm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the many reasons I don't play PFS.


Prone I would see more as a size bonus than a cover bonus, if you're looking to assign a bonus type.


rstencel wrote:
Though he finally did find something that hero labs messed up on, as there was a feat that was only supposed to be usable by orc's, that hero labs listed as usable by anyone.

Off topic but was it Surprise Follow Through? It's listed in the half-orc section of the ARG but is available to anybody. (In that it does not list Half-Orc as a prerequisite.)


alternis sol wrote:

hmm I'd say yes for PFS because of this line

Pathfinder Player Companion: Varisia, Birthplace of Legends wrote:
Additionally, a bladed scarf dancer can wield a bladed scarf as a one-handed melee weapon.
the bladed scarf dancer can wield the scarf as a one-handed weapon which is what the bladebound requires.

It has to be a one-handed slashing weapon (or rapier or swordcane), not simply wielded as one. Although I think it's perfectly fine as a house rule. I have even combined bladebound with staff magus to create a blackstaff character.


You get the bonus in between shield throws?


Do unarmed attacks provoke?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Uh, you realize I was talking about the part where when you try to use it the material part loses cohesion and the light part radiates away at the speed of light. And anyway since brilliant energy weapons aren't subject to the gravity of non-living matter they wouldn't necessarally fall through the planet in the first place, rather they would stop following the motion of the planet, solar system, etc. as those things no longer exert any force on the weapon.
You're over-thinking it. It's a fantasy lightsaber.

As opposed to a real lightsaber?


Go barbarian and focus on grapple, then you can hit people with other people!


Considering there is no DR/fire, I'm inclined to say yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have you tried asking the players why?


Except it's not a level 7 PC fighting, the game is built around four (or now 6 in PFS, I believe) PCs fighting.


Avoron wrote:

This post is completely separate from the actual armor spikes FAQ. The FAQ said that attacking with a two-handed weapon used up your off-hand, preventing you from making an off-hand attack in the same full-attack action as an attack with a two-handed weapon.

This developer post is saying that light weapons, as a rule, require an empty physical hand to use. It is saying that it is impossible to ever make an attack with a weapon of any sort if your physical hands are both holding other objects.

It is not referring solely to things that are held in the hand, such as spiked gauntlets, because the specific weapon it is referring to is armor spikes.

That's the only possible interpretation of this post that I can see, and it seems absolutely ridiculous to me.

So, is this actually what he was trying to say? And is it seriously binding for PFS?

I do not believe it was ever made official for PFS (or any other) purposes. And again, I believe the reason behind it was thinking of the armor spikes being attached to a limb, such as a row of spikes down your arm.


Also there is this FAQ.


Quote:

Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.

Gauntlet, Spiked: The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of spiked gauntlets.

Gauntlets provoke, spiked gauntlets do not. Either way I don't believe you can threaten with both at the same time. You would be better off with Improved Unarmed Strike.


Avoron wrote:

"Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand."

This is absolutely ridiculous.

So if you're walking along, and you just happen to be holding something, anything, in both hands, you are incapable of making any attacks with armor spikes, unarmed strikes, whatever, just because your hands are full?

This statement alone, if it were incorporated in any way into the rules, would make every single current piece of information for hands vs. "hands" completely useless.

It would invalidate the entire concept of armor spikes, dwarven boulder helmets, and everything of the sort. It would radically change the concept of unarmed strikes for non-monks/brawlers.

This post would affect the way the rules worked more than about 50% of all paizo FAQs combined.

I honestly cannot believe any developer would ever consider saying this.

Is it seriously binding for PFS?

I believe the intent was to say you cannot use two weapons in one hand. That you couldn't attack with a two-handed reach weapon and threaten with a spiked gauntlet or something similar. The question then was "are armor spikes tied to a limb?" I do not believe threatening with an unarmed strike was ever considered debatable and the armor spike question was never officially answered. I could be wrong as that debate was before my time here and I am only aware of it because it was brought up during the armor spike FAQ debate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

So who exactly gets to say what part of a discription is 'fluff'? Is it the first sentence in a paragraph? One of the middle sentences? All the sentences? What makes up a fluff sentence?

Where is the fluff sentence in this discription?

"Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given."

Fluff is any text that doesn't fit your position.


Then I withdraw my comment. Carry on.

(Edit: I will say that it works better on the arrow rather than the bow because you cannot shut off that particular enchantment. Putting it on the bow leaves you with a weapon unable to harm constructs or undead.)


Artanthos wrote:
Cuup wrote:
I think we're leaving an important portion of the quoted text unbolded:
PRD wrote:
A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item's weight. It always gives off light as a torch (20-foot radius). A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. (Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.) A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects.
Up to interpretation, but I think we could probably assume the "major portion" refers to the portion of a weapon that is intended to deal damage, like the blade of a sword, or in this case, the arrowhead (and maybe the top half of the shaft). Therefore, only the major portion is intended to ignore cover, and cannot be outright hurled or shot through the earth, or other solid objects (the back half would still be solid and stopped by the solid door).
We could also assume the significant portion of a bow & arrow is the arrow.

But you're not putting the enchantment on the bow, it has to go on the arrow. (As has already been discussed)


Assuming you meet all the requirements of sneak attack, I don't see why not.


graystone wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Standing at "Attention" or "Parade Rest" for any length of time hurts. Standing in a "Combat Stance" is a friggin killer.
I've hear tell of these dudes in England that wear these funky hats that stand at attention for a 2 hour 'tour of duty', and may not eat, sleep, smoke, stand easy, sit or lie down during their tour of duty. The queen's guards.

And if they can do it for two hours, then anybody should be able to do it all day everyday, right?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Also if there are any rules you don't like, then jump on every thread that mentions them and claim they don't exist.


I gotta say not knowing where those goats came from just really ruined the movie for me.


Rob Richenberg wrote:
Bump, because I am trying to find an answer to this exact question for a game. Trying to find out if Beastmorph can be stacked with dendrite mutagen from Bramble Brewer.

You can hit the FAQ but I never got much interest in the topic.


Obama on Sony


Sword of Subtlety

1 to 50 of 2,493 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.