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

2,188 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say you're not dodging 19 different attacks but rather everything that comes your way. Imagine trying to catch one out of twenty things that come at you in a span of 6 seconds.

As to the other point, would you allow a fighter to bring an NPC whose sole purpose was to bull rush them into place for a full attack every round?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:

differentiating that MMO players are not "normal gamers" really bothers me

you are not better or special because you use pencils and dice instead of a keyboard and mouse

Maybe you're not...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First World Problems, amirite?


AndIMustMask wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
deuxhero wrote:
If they errata it, I'd prefer to see it restricted to weapons you can flurry with, not just unarmed strikes.
The trouble is, with the right class or ability, that is all weapons.
even if it was unarmed-strike specific, wouldn't martial versatility do the exact same thing to make it applicable to any weapon?

That would still restrict it to just close weapons, wouldn't it. (And require you to be a 4th level human fighter or equivalent.)


fretgod99 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quote:
A creature that takes a direct hit from a healing bomb is healed as if she had imbibed the infusion or potion used to create the bomb.
It uses the dice of the potion/extract, not the bomb.
Precisely this. Instead of having one person drink a potion/infusion, you chuck it at a group of people. The person it hits is treated as having drank the potion/infusion (e.g., 1d8 + CL up to 5 for CLW). People in the splash radius are treated as if they drank the potion/infusion and rolled all 1s on the dice.
Has anyone said otherwise?
There were questions or comments upthread about whether it would scale with level like regular bomb damage and whether it would also apply INT modifier like regular bombs typically do.

Alchemists add their Int to any splash weapons, not just bombs. I agree those bonuses wouldn't apply to healing someone but I don't see why they wouldn't apply to damaging someone (undead or dhampir or whatever). It splashes and is still a bomb.

Edit: no one asked if it scaled by level (or at least not that I saw in my quick re-read thru) but whether a FCB of +1/2 levels would apply.


fretgod99 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quote:
A creature that takes a direct hit from a healing bomb is healed as if she had imbibed the infusion or potion used to create the bomb.
It uses the dice of the potion/extract, not the bomb.
Precisely this. Instead of having one person drink a potion/infusion, you chuck it at a group of people. The person it hits is treated as having drank the potion/infusion (e.g., 1d8 + CL up to 5 for CLW). People in the splash radius are treated as if they drank the potion/infusion and rolled all 1s on the dice.

Has anyone said otherwise?


Is it cool to hang out with eight year olds, now? Man, I must be getting old.


It is not dealing "heal damage." It is healing damage (and this is the important part -->) instead of dealing damage. Hard to get more explicit than that.


Don't know the character but what you described could fit an alchemist. (Infused curatives for healing, bombs for blasting, extracts for magic...) Dagger of Doubling is all the reason you need to use a dagger!


Zwordsman wrote:
3) It's still a splash weapon and a bomb and it says Heal damage. so the int bonus and the level ups apply.

Not when healing his allies (or himself).

Quote:

from d20 (so maybe not the same wording as book?)

Healing bomb
Benefit: When the alchemist creates a bomb, he can choose to have it heal damage instead of dealing it. Creating a healing bomb requires the alchemist to expend an infused extract or potion containing a cure spell. A creature that takes a direct hit from a healing bomb is healed as if she had imbibed the infusion or potion used to create the bomb. Creatures in the splash radius are healed for the minimum amount of damage the cure spell is capable of healing. A healing bomb damages undead instead of healing them.

I guess it would apply to undead (but I think you'd be better off with holy water).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:
If they errata it, I'd prefer to see it restricted to weapons you can flurry with, not just unarmed strikes.

The trouble is, with the right class or ability, that is all weapons.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
For the purpose of basic game theory, the person in question gains nothing by moving
On the contrary -- his action is noticed by others around him (because it is a winning strategy for them to notice who cooperates and who does not). He stands to gain a considerably increased future likelihood of people acting on his behalf in expectation of assumed mutually-beneficial quid pro quo arrangements, not only from Fakey, but from casual observers.

Or others notice his capitulation and decide he still has nicer seats then they do so they ask him to change seats with them. And why wouldn't he? They are only asking him to move one seat, it's not like you have to take any previous action into account.


Put Endless Ammunition on your repeating crossbow and never reload again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never bought into the argument "...because dragons, everything is meaningless."


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Subparhiggins wrote:
If there is anything a child character could conceivably do as well as an adult, its magic.

except there is no situation where a child prodigy version of a character wouldn't be gimped in comparison to it's adult self.

There are already rules available for an int 20 adult wizard…the child version of that character would be lesser.

while that would be fine for an NPC, for a PC, age should be cosmetic, and unless the character is seeking a very specific mechanical advantage from their age, you shouldn't generally penalize the PC for their age, unless the mechanical bonus you offer is proportionate to the penalty offered

for example, being a size smaller with +2 dexterity and -2 strength for some ages is fine, it balances out, but assigning arbritrary penalties to a fantasy player character to enforce realism on a game where warriors suplex balors and win, does it matter whether the warrior suplexing the balor is a 30 year old male or a 12 year old female? either way, killing a balor by suplexing it is pretty high fantasy, so we can be lenient with PC children being equivalent to adults.

Wait, age should be cosmetic unless it provides a mechanical advantage?


Broodmaster Little Bo Peep?


CountofUndolpho wrote:

@Durngrun Yes it does, if you use a Light Weapon for an AoO then you use a light weapons worth of effort and so on. An AoO isn't an effortless attack with any weapon you have on you; you have to be capable of wielding that weapon with the required amount of effort.

If I am carrying my Long spear with one hand I cannot make an AoO with it as I cannot wield it with one hand and you don't get a Free action with an AoO to grasp it with the free hand. I have the weapon in hand but not the amount of effort needed to wield it.

If I am wielding a 2HW i.e. attacking with it, I cannot use an ordinary Light weapon at the same time even if, as is the case with armour spikes, I am carrying it - I don't have that amount of effort available. Therefore I cannot threaten with it so I can't make an AoO with it.

If we have to bring up TWF then no, as he has both a Light weapon and a One handed Weapon's worth of effort freely available.

Explain to me why two-handed fighting prevents an AoO but two-weapon fighting doesn't, as I am still unsure as to what you mean.


CountofUndolpho wrote:


@Durngrun You have to have a light weapon's "amount of effort" available to use armour spikes as an attack. It is an odd mechanic but it's how it's written. "Hands" are part of the oddness of the mechanic.
PRD wrote:
You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)

An AoO is an attack at your normal BAB so you need to have the capacity to use a Light Weapon to use Armour Spikes for one.

But nowhere in the rules does it say the amount of effort used in your full attack affects your AoO.

Look at it this way: if a character made a full attack, two weapon fighting. Would you say he had "used up" his effort and then could not make an AoO? If not, why would a two-handed fighter be denied an AoO?


CountofUndolpho wrote:

I am only talking about when using a two handed weapon and armour spikes.

CountofUndolpho wrote:
It would be worth checking with your DM about whether they threaten when using a two-handed weapon. I rule that if you can't use them for TWF alongside a 2H weapon then you can't threaten with them whilst wielding a 2HW. Apparently others follow Magda's 'always wielding a dagger' policy. Though I have never played in a game where it is allowed.

The bit in italics is a bit I should have put in the original comment.

@Durngrun I am unsure how you could think I said from any of my posts, if I have put my point across so poorly as to mislead you, I appologise.

If you point out the offending passage I will try to amend it to your satisfaction and our mutual understanding.

So do you think you have to have a free hand to attack with armor spikes?


So you're saying if you had a long sword and a short sword and then made a full attack with the long sword that you couldn't make an AoO with the short sword?


I don't know if it would work for your concept/campaign but I played a chaotic evil half-orc who simply didn't want to go to jail. He had learned early on you could do pretty much want ever you wanted to creatures that were considered bad or evil. So he joined up with some local adventures and tormented/killed anything that got in their way.


Schools get tanks too!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrose Dalsine wrote:
Shimesen wrote:
POKEMON!!!! EVERY EIDOLON EVER THOUGHT UP IS NOTHING MORE THAN THAT CHARACTERS POKEMON!

Excuse me. My beloved wife is not one of those Poke-creatures you speak of. AND NEITHER ARE OUR CHILDREN.

I would poke your eyes out with a sword for the insult. But it is obvious you are blind and addle brained. Therefore I will let you suffer in your ignorance.

If you're not Poke-ing your wife, where did the children come from?


I don't know if I'm more astounded by the question "does one-handed weapon mean one-handed weapons or something else?" or that so many different answers have been given.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Calth wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)

This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

That is not at all what the feat says. The feat does only one thing, reduce penalties for attacking with multiple weapons. It does not grant any attacks. Neither does the two-weapon fighting feat. The Two-weapon fighting combat rule is what grants an extra attack, and there is no multiweapon fighting combat rule.
The Normal clause of the feat says "attacks made with all of it's off-hands," not any off hand.
Yes, so if you used your extra attacks from the twf line on additional attacks with different weapons you'd get the penalty reduction on all of your offhands. With just two weapon fighting, the reduction is for a singular offhand and so if you fought with your 3rd or 4th arms you'd still take full penalties with them. This allows you to alternate freely between the arms in the same turn and not take extra penalties for doing so.
That is wrong.
Read the feat. No its not. It specifies off hand as per singular in two weapon fighting.

I am not at all referencing what the feat does. I pointed out the normal clause. Those are the rules as unaffected by the feat. It says "attacks made with all off hands."


AndIMustMask wrote:

ah.

then what is even the point of multiweapon fighting? i mean by the name i'd guess it's for folks with three or more arms that can hold/use weapons (alchemist doesn't count since it's arms are specifically cited to be unable to attack). like a strix or kaliklang or whatever its called with four longswords or somesuch.

That is correct.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Calth wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)

This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

That is not at all what the feat says. The feat does only one thing, reduce penalties for attacking with multiple weapons. It does not grant any attacks. Neither does the two-weapon fighting feat. The Two-weapon fighting combat rule is what grants an extra attack, and there is no multiweapon fighting combat rule.
The Normal clause of the feat says "attacks made with all of it's off-hands," not any off hand.
Yes, so if you used your extra attacks from the twf line on additional attacks with different weapons you'd get the penalty reduction on all of your offhands. With just two weapon fighting, the reduction is for a singular offhand and so if you fought with your 3rd or 4th arms you'd still take full penalties with them. This allows you to alternate freely between the arms in the same turn and not take extra penalties for doing so.

That is wrong.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)

This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

The question is "Does the limbs evolution grant additional off-hands?"
It is my opinion that it does not.

Check again, that doesn't actually grant attacks to all of your off hands. It just says it reduces the penalties for the attacks you make with all of them.

If you noticed the bolded part, that's missing in your quote, you will notice I was referring to the Normal clause of the feat.


AndIMustMask wrote:
i thought multiweapon fighting only reduced the secondary natural attack penalties for having boatloads of natural attacks (like dragons can have gore/bite/claw/claw/wing/wing/tail slap)

That's multiattack.


Calth wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)

This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

That is not at all what the feat says. The feat does only one thing, reduce penalties for attacking with multiple weapons. It does not grant any attacks. Neither does the two-weapon fighting feat. The Two-weapon fighting combat rule is what grants an extra attack, and there is no multiweapon fighting combat rule.

The Normal clause of the feat says "attacks made with all of it's off-hands," not any off hand.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:
Yet they do work the same and the rules are the same, this isn't 4e this is pathfinder. Mulitarmed creatures don't have an explicit rule, even the 4 armed PC race has multiple offhands with no rules except having more arms. I understand what y'all are saying but your view is no more supported than mine, saying but you can't see the rule and NPCs are different doesn't cut it. This game is an explicit rules based game, unquantified rules have no place here.

Where in ANY of the rules are you seeing anything saying they work the same. EVERYTHING quoted in this thread so far has shown that they DON'T work the same. Even the 4 armed races added in the race guide still fall under these same rules. 1 extra off hand attack, this is the intention and design of the game. The rules text, the dev quotes and the examples provided in all the published material all shows you that.

Nope all there extra arms are offhands.

And yet, nowhere do you get an additional attack per offhand. Unless you can find an ability or rules statement that gives you additional attacks per offhand this really isn't a debate. Nothing exists to grant you such an ability, not found in the combat rules or any of your characters special abilities.

And btw just because you can wield multiple weapons, it does not ever state you get extra attacks from doing so. That trait still does not give extra attacks.

PRD wrote:

Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)

This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

The question is "Does the limbs evolution grant additional off-hands?"
It is my opinion that it does not.


graystone wrote:


And to further BBT's point, would you stop an awakened dog from using armor spikes on it's barding because it doesn't have any hands?

For some reason I read that as an awkward dog and had no idea why that mattered.


Lemmy wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Lemmy said otherwise, I even specifically mentioned that in my post.
I may have misunderstood him (or you), then.

To make things clear... What I said (or at least, what I meant) s this:

The game already provides bonuses and penalties for your attribute modifiers. I do not punish players for not role playing, I just apply the bonuses and penalties provided by the rules. Some players are not comfortable role playing for one reason or another, so I don't force them to do it and don't hurt their characters for not doing it.

I do, however, occasionally reward good role play with bonuses to skill checks and similar rolls. Notice that by "good role play", I do not mean "player is good at talking to people", I mean "do something in an interesting and/or creative way", like providing a really good argument in a discussion with an NPC (you don't have to be outspoken to use logic), coming up with a creative way to check for traps or poison, finding an unexpected solution to a problem, etc.

It's not related to the character's Cha score (or any other attribute ), it's related to the player's creativity.

I enjoy role playing in my table, as do my players (and again, I mean, player creativity and initiative), so I try to encourage them to do it, but I do not force it on them.

IMHO, if you have to break the rules, do it in a way that benefits the players and makes them have more fun. I might be too permissive a GM, but my 3 general GMing guidelines are:

1- Always say "yes", unless you really have to say "no".
2- If you have to improvise a ruling, do it however is more beneficial to players. Better give them a small boost than cheat against them.
3- Don't whine. Adapt.

EDIT: Oh, one more thing: Role playing is not the same as "using social skills". You can be a mute Fighter with Cha 7 and still role play far better than the Bard with Cha 20. Role play is acting your characters ideas, personality, actions, beliefs, quirks, etc...

So what do you do when an uncreative player wants to play a creative character? (Emoticon that denotes light hearted post)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think what I liked best about Man of Steel was the subtle use of imagery.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Having more limbs does not grant extra Unarmed Strikes, because Unarmed Strikes are not dependent on limbs. An Unarmed Strike is a single weapon. All characters have multiple ways of delivering said unarmed strike (punch, kick, knee, elbow, headbutt, pelvic thrust, etc.). You do not, however, get to have an attack routine of Punch/Punch/Kick/Kick/Knee/Knee/Elbow/Elbow/Pelvis/Pelvis/Etc./Etc., because you do not have Weapon: Punch, Weapon: Kick, Weapon: Headbutt, and so on. You have Weapon: Unarmed Strike, which is a single weapon which may be used with any of your limbs, with the added benefit that it's sort of like a double weapon; You can use Two-Weapon Fighting with it (and even this is a generous interpretation, near as I can tell there's nothing in the rules explicitly allowing an Unarmed Strike to be used by itself with Two-Weapon Fighting, everybody just seems to have assumed this is the case over the years because of Flurry...however Flurry may only actually work because it SAYS you can use Unarmed Strikes with it).

I see no reason why having 26 arms would change this fact. You merely have more arms with which to deliver said attacks, not more attacks. You may punch while holding something in your other 25 limbs, after your legs, head, and dick have been chopped off, and that is the only benefit you receive.

Extra limbs give you additional off-hand attacks, yes, but only if you have the weapons for it. If you had 26 swords, you could attack 26 times.

You do not have 26 Unarmed Strikes, you only have 1, regardless of your number of limbs.

Take Ball of Arms Man back to the system he originated from.

This.

Your available unarmed strikes are completely independent of limbs.

You could have no arms, legs, or head, and still two-weapon fight with unarmed strikes, or have 26 legs, and arms, and still get only the same amount.

There is a FAQ that explicitly allows TWF with an unarmed strike. I would assume that same logic applies to a creature using multi-weapon fighting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Cha gets picked on a little because people tend to want to act out social interactions. Just rolling checks in a social situation is boring. People expect some in-character dialogue and then have trouble reconciling a great speech with a terrible roll or vice versa.


Onyxlion wrote:

Eidolons have a cap on their natural attacks not weapon attacks. See that's the big debate here no where is it stated that extra arms grant you the ability to use that arm as an offhand only that every creature that has more than 2 can do it.

I'm aware the cap only applies to natural attacks, that was actually my point. If the limbs evo provides additional off-hands, you would easily exceed the cap making it irrelevant.

Quote:


Limbs (Ex)

An eidolon grows an additional pair of limbs. These limbs can take one of two forms. They can be made into legs, complete with feet. Each pair of legs increases the eidolon’s base speed by 10 feet. Alternatively, they can be made into arms, complete with hands. The eidolon does not gain any additional natural attacks for an additional pair of arms, but it can take other evolutions that add additional attacks (such as claws or a slam). Arms that have hands can be used to wield weapons, if the eidolon is proficient. This evolution can be selected more than once.

Again I believe it's not intended for them to gain additional off hands but I agree that it is not explicit.


It still doesn't change the weapon in any sense.

Look at it this way: a character sees a long sword lying on the ground. He picks it up and makes an attack with it. Afterwords he sets the long sword back down. In what way is the long sword different?


Onyxlion wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


I would say look at the difference between a naturally multi-armed creature vs an alchemist with vestigial arms if you don't believe the rules make a distinction between the two. The only question is how the limbs evolution is intended to function. I do not believe the intent was for them to provide extra "off-hands."
Vestigial specifically say that you don't though. Also are you saying that monster I created from my mind and can change at each level is somehow not natively multi armed? Or that the limbs evo doesn't grant attacks because that bipedal base is in more trouble considering it starts with a pair of limbs?

I don't believe the eidolon is meant to get extra off-hands because that would quickly break the cap for maximum number of attacks. However I don't have my books to review at the moment so I can't say with absolute certainty. If the eidolon does gain additional off-hands then anyone taking the limb evolution would also gain the extra off-hands.


wraithstrike wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Creatures that are naturally multi-armed get additional "off-hands." I do not believe the limbs evolution grants additional "off-hands."

The rules make no such distinction between permanent(natural) and semi-permanent limbs.

Your limbs become "off hands" by virtue of not being the primary hand. If it had to be called out then every creature with multiple arms would have to call out "off hands" in its entry.

I would say look at the difference between a naturally multi-armed creature vs an alchemist with vestigial arms if you don't believe the rules make a distinction between the two. The only question is how the limbs evolution is intended to function. I do not believe the intent was for them to provide extra "off-hands."


Onyxlion wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/monstrous-humanoids/shobh ad

From bestiary 4, 4 armed fights with 2 2 handed longswords. Which invalidates their own FAQ.

If you note the damage of the long swords, this creature is not two-handing either long sword.
Actually looking closer at it you're right but it seems to be taking massive negatives to it's attacks, I'm not sure I even understand that attack stat block now.

BAB +5, Str +5 = +10 attack -4 mwf w one-handed weapons, -1 large = +5 attack


Creatures that are naturally multi-armed get additional "off-hands." I do not believe the limbs evolution grants additional "off-hands."


Onyxlion wrote:


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/monstrous-humanoids/shobh ad

From bestiary 4, 4 armed fights with 2 2 handed longswords. Which invalidates their own FAQ.

If you note the damage of the long swords, this creature is not two-handing either long sword.


Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

A Drunken Brute Barbarian should be able to drink an Extract, without provoking.

Drunken Brute wrote:
Raging Drunk (Ex): While raging, the drunken brute can drink a potion, or a tankard of ale or similar quantity of alcohol, as a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A potion has its normal effect, while an alcoholic drink allows the barbarian to maintain her rage that round without expending a round of rage for the day (instead of the alcohol’s normal effects). For each alcoholic drink consumed while raging, the barbarian is nauseated for 1 round when her rage expires, in addition to the normal fatigue that follows a rage. Tireless rage does not negate this nauseated condition but the internal fortitude rage power does. This ability replaces fast movement.
Why would you think that? An extract is not a potion, it's used as one but is explicitly called out as an extract not a potion or alcohol and Raging drunk only works with those 2 choices.

Just mix your extracts with liquor. After all, alcohol is a solution.


I had a half-orc ranger/barbarian with Two-handed Thrower, Improved Charging Hurler, and Hurling Charge (rage power). With a Called Orc double-axe, he would charge, throw his double-axe (with +2 attk/dmg, 1.5x Str dmg), call his weapon back, and take his attack at the end of his charge.

He had a belt of mighty hurling and the ranger dip for two-weapon fighting (in case anybody survived the charge).

Who needs Dex?


Impact Critical Shot is another fun feat for a throwing build.


Mikaze wrote:
Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

LazarX;

Raw that is true. But the way my group play and how i feel the game should be played, there are always exeptions based on setting or circumstances.

If the witch has cast a spell that if she is a virgin (live or dead) at 00.00 than the demon prince nesguch is summoned onto the mortal plane. Than you cant kill her or reson with her.

One of the ways that can be solved is for the good alligned charracter to make sure she no longer is a virgin. Forcefully so.
Evil act no. Kind or cuddle, no. But not evil.

Don't you dare. If you're seriously going to go down that road, you need to close your account and get out.

But you're fine with him defending torture? What about using rape as torture?


Iterative attacks do not augment unarmed strikes. You can make more unarmed strikes but the unarmed strike itself is unchanged. Making multiple attacks with a sword do not make the sword better.


Scavion wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Does the morality of the torturer change if he is wrong? If it is an innocent who has been framed? Can good intentions save you if both the action and the outcome are evil?

He is absolutely okay if he's been tricked. Your own alignment will not shift, though team evil got a freebie.

Though it's really hard for an innocent to be convicted by an inquisitor. They have a very nice spell list for that.

Are intentions all that matter? Is there a difference if he is simply wrong rather than tricked?


Does the morality of the torturer change if he is wrong? If it is an innocent who has been framed? Can good intentions save you if both the action and the outcome are evil?

1 to 50 of 2,188 << 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.