EDIT: Actually, I don't really know how you're getting your numbers. A character who starts at level 1 and goes all the way to level 20 should have about 880,000 GP in gear (+/- some undetermined amount...it's a ball-park figure).
The WBL table isn't telling you how much gold they should be getting each level, it's telling you how much gold they should be at AT that level. Again, it's a ball-park number, not a hard number.
So, someone who started at 1st level and goes to 20th level should have about the same value in gear as someone who just rolls up a 20th level character...in theory.
I see a whole bunch of half-truths being written in this thread.
First, the recent FAQ on Temporary vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases has absolutely nothing to do with Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain. They are different headings. The FAQ affects Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain as much as it affects Aflictions, Damage Reduction, or Invisibility.
Just because ability damage can be healed naturally "at a rate of 1 per day" does not mean that you interpret that to be a "temporary" ability bonus from a different glossary entry.
Second, Ability Score Damage is a cumulative penalty to the modifier of any die roll that is associated with that Ability Score. It does not reduce the associated Ability Score in any way. You still have access to feats that require a certain Ability Score. You're carrying capacity is not reduced. You don't lose spell slots or memorized spells. It only affects die rolls.
For those that saw Hero Labs reduce the Ability Score with damage, you're doing it wrong: click on the "Adjust" tab, select "Add New Adjustment" under the "Other Adjustments" heading, select "Ability Score Damage", select the appropriate ability score from the drop-down menu, use the arrows to set the appropriate amount of damage, and make sure the selection box is checked.
Third, when calculating Ability Score Damage, start from "0" and work your way up, don't subtract away from your Ability Score. This is likely where all of the confusion about Ability Score Damage is coming from. For every "2" points of damage, it is a -1 to the associated die roll. In the case of Constitution, every "2" points of damage also imparts -1 hp/level.
So, as far as the OP is concerned, a 10th Level Wizard that takes 1 point of Constitution damage does not lose any hp. He will when he takes another point of Constitution damage (10 hp).
Yes, PF made a change from 3.5 and it can be easily overlooked, but it's actually quite simple in the way it works. Just remember: start at "0" and work up. For every two points of damage, it's a -1 to the associated die roll. That's it. There is nothing more to worry about.
Worst. Idea. Ever.
EDIT: on a more serious note, I've heard if you want to entice the PDT into answering your pet question, you must lure them in such a way that will leave you forever scarred—most of which involves the liberal application of very expensive alcohol.
Apparently an octopus with vestigial arms could get 11 attacks.
The Shamrock is merely pointing out the absurdity of it all. If the basis of all of this is the number of available attacks, then if clawx4/bite (i.e. 5 attacks) is ok, then daggerx4/bite (i.e. 5 attacks) should be ok...one primary, three off-hand. A claw can wield a manufactured weapon, though if it does, it may not make the claw attack but makes the manufactured attack instead. So if you can attack with all four claws, you should be able to substitute those claw attacks with manufactured weapons (one primary, three off-hand, obviously), which would also mean that such a cheesy character would then qualify for the multi-weapon fighting feat.
You apparently don't read much history...especially the history of slavery in the Caribbean islands.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
And yet you continue to make assertions about the bastard sword that belongs in the houserules thread.
So, the claws at the end of he vestigial arms grant attacks like the manufactured weapons at the end of the vestigial arms grant attacks?
No, sorry, they don't work that way.
The feral mutagen grants claw attacks because your normal arms don't have claw attacks. The fact that feral mutagen is worded as "grants claw attacks" does not override the vestigial arm limitation that they "don't grant additional attacks".
This issue isn't an innocent misunderstanding, it's a deliberate misreading to attempt to get more than the rules allow you to get.
To expand on my previous post: an alchemist tengu with claws at the end of his arms, his attack options are:
If this alchemist tengu decided to grow two vestigial arms with claws at the end, his attack options are:
This alchemist tengu with clawed vestigial arms does not have the following attack options:
EDIT 2: Having a higher BAB wouldn't allow this alchemist tengu to gain additional claw attacks, because the additional attacks from high BAB are only for manufactured weapons. So, an alchemist tengu with a +6 BAB and two clawed vestigial arms would have the following attack options:
The advantage of the vestigial arms in this situation is that the arms could be holding different weapons with which to make the iterative attacks. (EDIT 4: grammar)
EDIT 5:Throwing haste into the mix is really a non-issue. If both of your normal arms are holding a weapon, you could certainly decide to make the hasted attack with a clawed vestigial arm, or with one of your weapons, as you so desire. This extra attack isn't being granted because you have a vestigial arm, it's being granted due to a magical effect...which can be utilized by any weapon available to you.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Best. Post. Ever.
In all actuality, the FAQ question in this thread is the wrong question for the answer that is desired. The question should be: "For those characters who don't have the EWP, can they use a bastard sword (katana, dwarven waraxe, etc) for those feats, class abilities, and special situations that require a two-handed weapon? If they do have the EWP, does the bastard sword no longer apply in those situations?"
The bastard sword is a one-handed weapon. For those saying the FAQ and dev comments have created confusion, you're reading them out of context and trying to imply a certain intent for which that intent was never intended.
The intent, and the context for which you should be reading the FAQ and associated developer comments, is why you cannot wield a bastard sword, with no EWP, one handed with a -4 penalty. The FAQ is not intended to be read as a reclassification of the bastard sword.
There is so much wrong in this thread, I don't know where to begin.
1) For the purposes of which category the BS falls in (for hardness, hp, etc), it is a one-handed weapon.
The FAQ doesn't contradict anything. Nor does any developer comments on the issue. The mechanics of the BS haven't changed in 13 years.
It's only a "wall of text" for people who have ADHD, are lazy, or don't know how to read. The post is pretty short. The questions are concise. I don't pander.
Well that's certainly a winning attitude.
Cruel Kindness wrote:
This is patently false. It has a range of 65-75 feet depending on your level. You may set yourself as the point of origin, but there is absolutely that indicates that you have to.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Except that you don't select one creature per level for targets, you select a point of origin and the effects spread from there (in which spread effects can go around corners), affecting the closest creatures to the point of origin first.
There can only be one point of origin. You don't select individual targets as points of origin, or even to affect individually targeted creatures like you do with magic missile or any of the mass spells.
Someone else brought up confusion. That spell says it targets all creatures in a 15-ft. radius burst. A 15-ft.-radius burst from where? From 50 different creatures? No, you select a point of origin, draw a 15-ft.-radius circle around that point of origin and all creatures within that circle are affected by the spell. Though, it is a burst so it does not go around corners.
Wail of the Banshee works in a similar manner except that it is a spread and so you affect creatures that are around corners. So, it affects one living creature/level in a 40-ft.-radius spread. A 40-ft.-radius spread from where? Do you just select a number of creatures up to the caster level? Where is the point of origin; from where is the 40-ft.-radius spread measured? No, you select a point of origin, draw a 40-ft.radius circle around that point of origin (while also taking into account the distance traveled for going around corners) and all creatures up to the one living creature/level limit are affected. Though, you don't get to choose which creatures will be affected, you work from the point of origin outward until the limit has been reached.
You have to be able to see where you are setting your point of origin, yes. But past that, living creatures that are out of sight but within range are affected.
For those who say that Golarion rules are intruding on the setting-neutral CRB, can you point to where it says in the rules that casting spells with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act that will change your alignment?
I know clerics can't cast spells that are opposed to their alignment, but what about other classes?
I may be pointing out the obvious, but its important to remember that the range is the max range of the effects of the spell as well as the max distance to set an originating point of the spell.
So, a 20th level caster can set the target at 75 feet, but the guy at 80 feet won't be affected, even though he is within 40 feet of the center point.
Espy Kismet wrote:
I'm not understanding your logic. The feat chain allows AoO to be made out to 15'. If an event that would normally provoke an AoO occurs when the offending creature is 20' away from you, you can't make an AoO against it with the ranged weapon because the creature is outside of your threatened range of 15'. The fact that the ranged weapon may normally be able to hit opponents at 1,000' is completely irrelevant in this situation.
I don't agree that Jason's clarification or the FAQ affects this particular issue. The FAQ/Jason clarification is directed towards "normal" characters. SKR and Jason both recognize that there are feats, abilities, etc. that break the norm. Vestigial arms is an ability that breaks the norm.
Again, the rules didn't change. There were two sides of the argument. Both sides had valid arguments, but in the end your side lost.
"Don't take this as a validation that your earlier interpretation was correct". Are you serious? The PDT issues an FAQ that mirrors what we have been arguing for the past 20 or so pages, and yet you still say we were wrong the whole time (not even going to mention that this is how we played the bastard sword since 3e, but whatever).
You're acting like a sore loser.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
The Crusader wrote:
There is nothing in the rules that prohibits a dead character from moving around or making attacks.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
And where are the rules that have you the assumption that it was allowed in the first place?
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
No matter how much you're going to be a cry baby about it, it doesn't change the fact that if you wield a 2HW you don't get to make an extra attack.
I'm not being rude. He's being willfully ignorant. He completely refuses to recognize the fact that his way of interpreting the rules was obviously not the only way to interpret them considering a large number of people had interpreted the rules correctly for a very, very long time.
It isn't difficult to understand the correct interpretation, he deliberately refuses to do so.
For those that don't understand this ruling that clarifies the rules, it might help to think of things visually.
A normal 1st level standard race character has resource points that can be used. Visualize these points as apples, balls, dollar bills, or whatever suits you best. The number of resource points available is predicated on the number of arms—for a standard race character, that is 2.
It takes two resource points to wield a 2HW. Thus, there are no more points available to make additional attacks.
It takes one resource point to wield a one-handed or light weapon. It also takes one resource point to use a shield to get the AC bonus. This means that you can either TWF or "sword and board". In either of these cases, you expend 2 resource points.
If you're a "sword and board" character, but decide to TWF (either by attacking with the shield or another weapon such as a boot blade), you lose the AC bonus from the shield because your two resource points were expended making the attacks and you have none left to get the AC from the shield.
If you stop worrying about "secret rules" and think about this from an intuative perspective, it does make sense.
Because for those who don't have the EWP, they treat the bastard sword the same way they would treat a greatsword...kind of like we have all been trying to tell you for the last 19 pages of this thread.
This doesn't mean that the bastard sword some how magically gains 5 hp just because it has an extra hand on it. It merely means that for a creature who is not proficient in using a bastard sword in one hand, they use the bastard sword in the same manner as they would a great sword.
This. Isn't. Difficult.
Quite honestly, this whole discussion is starting to border on stupid. Even AFTER the PDT has clarified that the bastard sword works the way it has always worked, you still whine about it. It is time for you to get over yourself and move on with your life. It's one thing to respectfully disagree and voice an opinion, but you're being a jerk.
Yeah, the responses from a majority of the posters in this thread is pretty unfortunate, and borders on childish and stupid. It's one thing to say "I disagree, let's have a respectful discussion about it". Nothing in this thread even remotely approaches that demeanor...it's all vitriol and nerd-rage.