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

2,444 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,444 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Sword of Subtlety


If you don't see it now, then the terrorists win.


If they changed the duration of the spell from 1st and 2nd to 3rd, why do you think they didn't intend to change the duration for the magic item?


Alchemist


I believe the ruling on Sprited Charge with pounce was that only the first attack dealt extra damage. I imagine the same reasoning would apply here and only the first attack would deal the extra damage from Janni Rush.


Sometimes you can make a difference. (Assuming you have $1.75 million)


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Does not the Bastard Sword change shape, handedness, and has it's hardness and hit points, along with how it interacts with feats and abilities, depend on how many hands touch it, but sometimes not, and sometimes yes, which varies, depending on if it's correctly sized or not, and that too is subject to change?

Only in that crazy, mixed-up head of yours.


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fergurg wrote:


He was a trespasser who refused to leave. That is a very good reason for the cops to be there.

And I'm sure there was a good reason for the choke hold...

He was resisting arrest. The officer had no choice and didn't intend to kill him anyway.

There's pretty much no way the officer could be convicted or even charged in this case - because they only look at the very end. At each step along the way, the officer did nothing illegal. There were of course plenty of things the officer could have done to deescalate the situation and not wind up forcibly arresting the poor man (and thus killing him), but the police have no obligation to do so.

Does the same apply to mall cops?


This is why we needed an FAQ that says you actually have to wear a magic item to benefit from it.


Played a bard in a one shot that focused on illusions. her name was Ellis Dee.


Torchlyte wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Full is indeed equal to 1.0 (aka 100%).

If your Strength is 18, and your modifier is +4, then dealing your "full Strength bonus to damage" is dealing +4 damage.

Full means that it is not reduced, not that it is set to a specific amount. Nobody in the real world uses the word "full" to imply a restriction or diminish something.

+4 damage for an 18 Str is not reduced.


I've not played a character multiple times but I've certainly rebuilt characters before.


ElementalXX wrote:
Well this was probably the fastest faq ive seen

It's probably easier when everyone already knows the answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I blame that damn butterfly.

Iron Butterfly?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElementalXX wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I... They errata'd that in? What kind of... This is like being told that using big weapons is badwrongfun by a dev. What a waste of resources.
It was terrible faq, the author has clearly stated that his intent was to break the weapon size limits but due to sloppiness in clearing obscure rules the archetype will never work as intended. The PDT ruling puzzles me up to this day

I believe the original author wanted to break size limits but the devs deemed it overpowered and changed the ability before it was printed.


ElementalXX wrote:
Do you all realize the faq was written before something such as titan fighter ever existed? The faq adressed that weilding large weapons was not possible by virtue of titan mauler alone. It does not applies at all to titan fighter

A large light weapon is considered a one-handed weapon for a medium creature, but it is still a large weapon and not appropriately sized. A large one-handed weapon is considered a two-handed weapon for a medium creature but is still a large weapon and not appropriately sized. Normally, a large two-handed weapon is unusable by a medium creature but the titian fighter ability lets it count as a two-handed weapon however, it is still a large weapon and not appropriately sized. The titian mauler ability requires an appropriately sized weapon.


Batman: Brave and the Bold


Roll one attack against the target and then have all images react accordingly.


Iron Man 2: Iron Man & War Machine vs. Vanko


Now, are you sure you want to have a fight? Because I'm only gonna use my thumb. My right thumb. Left one's much too powerful for you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Cop breaks woman's eye socket while she is handcuffed in the back of his car, not charged. So apparently, even after you have restrained the suspect you can beat them on video and be found not at fault for anything.

Maybe she broke her own eye socket.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

Why did Charlie go back to cops in the 1920s and 1930s above? That makes no sense.

To answer the question posed in the topic, as any black man can tell you, "because they can."

20s and 30s? Hell, he went back to 1874!


Constantine wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Hold on, let me go get a list of every single person killed by type 2 diabetes, cause that's about as relevant as the information you posted.

People die. Police officers are at greater risk of dying than most people. That is not an excuse

While you do that, I'll grab a list of civilians shot by police officers. Oh wait, I can't because they don't report them even though the law requires it. I guess police officers are criminals too. Now who do we trust?
We are just supposed to believe you on that? Honestly, people say anything and claim they are facts....

No, you don't to have believe me.


DS9 is where Star Trek fandom goes to die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie D. wrote:

Why are my facts questionable?

Because Officer Wilson changed his story.


Would police work seem as dangerous if we only counted four percent of officers killed on duty?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

Hold on, let me go get a list of every single person killed by type 2 diabetes, cause that's about as relevant as the information you posted.

People die. Police officers are at greater risk of dying than most people. That is not an excuse

While you do that, I'll grab a list of civilians shot by police officers. Oh wait, I can't because they don't report them even though the law requires it. I guess police officers are criminals too. Now who do we trust?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes you get shot not responding fast enough. (Your reaction time is less than 1+1/2 seconds I hope.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes you get shot while out shopping.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes you get shot asking for help.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course, sometimes you still get shot when you comply.


I hope both of you got your lists backwards. DS9 was clearly the worst show in the Star Trek universe.

"Hey, guys! You know that show about space exploration? What if we did that but set it in one place?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since we're demanding book quotes, is there anything that says evil stops being evil if you put brackets around it?


I had a four-armed alchemist/gunslinger named Nadarr the X-Pirate. I don't think anybody ever noticed.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I absolutely agree that the authors may have intended for [Evil] spells to be Evil acts. They did not, however, explicitly write it as such.

No amount of 'this is how it SHOULD read' will convince me that it IS read that way.

You mean other than explicitly writing the word Evil right next to it?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Yeah it's really not that explicit. I mean, they only use the word evil four times. That could mean anything.

Our disagreement has always been over "does the use of Evil power make the act Evil?" with you stating that the use of Evil makes the act Evil while I state the alignment of the act determines if it is Evil.

Much like bombing the city is not evil because you are using nuclear weapons but because you are murdering innocents.

Just another argument about the ends and the means.

But you do that by making two acts into to one act.

Casting an [Evil] spell is evil. (It's right there in the description.) Doing something good with the spell is a separate act.

"I cast Infernal Healing to heal my friend."
I cast Infernal Healing-evil Heal my friend-good

"I cast Animate Dead and rebuild the orphanage."
I cast Animate Dead-evil. Rebuild the orphanage-good

"I stole some bread to feed my starving children."
I stole some bread-evil. Feed my starving children-good


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The Archive wrote:

Referring to the descriptions of spell descriptors in Ultimate Magic, namely:

Quote:
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
And yet it still stops short of explicitly calling the casting of [Evil] spells Evil acts. I imagine Paizo is maintaining their policy of not hard coding playstyles into the rules.

Yeah it's really not that explicit. I mean, they only use the word evil four times. That could mean anything.


I thought summoned monsters had to check SR. is that a change from 3rd edition or am I just remembering that wrong?


Magda Luckbender wrote:

The alternate approach, which I've seen slice up many golems, is Create Pit followed by Summon Monster III. Summon a Lantern Archon to fly above the pit and zap the golem's touch AC with damage that cuts through all DR. Enhanced with Inspire Courage this is 10+ HP per round directly to actual HP totals. If it's a really big golem get multiple archons.

Yes, the Create Pit spells pretty much auto-neutralize most golems. It's then easy to destroy them. This is why wizards et al are Tier I.

Wouldn't golems be immune to summoned monsters?


I would say Weapon Focus (Warhammer Musket) would apply to ranged and melee attacks. I would also allow Weapon Focus (Musket) to apply to the ranged attacks (but not allow both to stack, obviously) and Weapon Focus (Warhammer) to apply to melee attacks.

(Although, you should go Axe Musket so you cover B/P/S damage all at once. Well, one weapon at least.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, a light saber crossguard is utterly ridiculous. I'll stick with crossbows firing lasers, thank you very much.


Solar bike path


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What!? The lava rules aren't perfect? Then clearly you should be able to sheathe a weapon as a free action.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Strangely, there is no -2 to CMB from using the tower shield. There is mention of bonus, but not penalty.

Performing a Combat Maneuver:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.


We've already had this debate.


Rynjin wrote:
Larkspire wrote:

Raising someones corpse so that He/She can be your slave in death is straight up Evil,no matter how you justify it.

I don't mean by game mechanics either.
Necromancy/Black magic/Grave robbing has been vilified by almost every civilization and artistic medium (for good reason).
It's so blatantly,Obviously wrong that it seems silly to even have to point it out.-Watch any horror movie...ever.
People will rationalize anything.

That's because many cultures have superstitions about corpses affecting people's afterlives.

Not the case in Golarion, where your soul goes to the Boneyard to be judged and then is sent to one of the outer planes, regardless of your corpse's condition.

A corpse is a corpse. It is a sack of bones and meat and s~$*.

Did you mean Pathfinder? I thought several people have mentioned Animate Dead specifically ties the soul to the undead in Golarian.


Ferocious Resolve
Your orc heritage allows you to fight on.
Prerequisites: Con 13, half-orc, orc ferocity racial trait.
Benefit: You gain the ferocity universal monster ability, allowing you to continue fighting at negative hit points. When using this ability, you gain a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.
Normal: A half-orc with the orc ferocity racial trait can fight for 1 more round after he is brought below 0 hit points.

One round, once a day vs. always.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
would a Zombie mining crew really hurt anyone? they don't need to eat, can't be poisoned by the gasses in the mine, can't contract mine oriented diseases, feel no fatigue, and could literally mine for weeks. Zombie Labororers are literally the solution for harsh enviroments like mines or factories

Dey took er jobs!!


I was also thinking Giant Fist Gauntlets . Awesome Hulk item.

1 to 50 of 2,444 << 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.