Hrothgar Rannúlfr's page

Thank you.

I'm glad that's the answer.

OK. Thanks.

That helps.

I was just looking over the character sheet for the Valeros and noticed the section that says "What you can do on your turn."

I noticed that you can do one standard action (attack, move, or use a magic item), one move action (move...), and one free action.

So, if a character can move as a standard action... Can a character attack as a move action? If not, why not?

Thanks.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Rather than trying to explain what I first thought this might mean... Let's just say that I'm glad it's what it is...

And, I really like Pathfinder.

OK... I think I figured it out.

Basically, it's +1 circumstance bonus on crit confirmation rolls per two levels that this option is selected as the favored class benefit.

Took me a bit to figure that out. Still new to Pathfinder and just began dabbling with the Advanced Race Guide.

Advanced Race Guide Hobgoblin

Under Favored Class Options, for fighter... The ARG says that:

Fighter: Add a +1/2 circumstance bonus on critical hit confirmation rolls with a weapon of the fighter's choice (maximum bonus +4). This bonus does not stack with Critical Focus.

This might seem like a really dumb question, but...

What circumstance bonus is this talking about??? One half of what???

Thanks.

Since we've converted to Pathfinder, we've been using 20 point buys because that was what the PF Society Guide used. It was causing me some questions, though.

Glad to read that 15 point buy is the default and that 20 point buys don't hurt things.

The incentive figure is GARGANTUAN!

I would love to see a gargantuan green dragon!

1. What amount of character points do you allow at creation for abilities? [10, 15, 20, 25]
I'm a fairly recent Pathfinder convert. One of my players and I played in a Pathfinder Society scenario and thought the 20-point buy worked well. So, that's what we're using. I'd like to try 15 or even 10 points, but I don't know that I'd be able to talk our group into going that low. I think that would have a grittier feel that I might like even more. But, 20-points is plenty, for me.

2. What rate of experience do you use? [Slow, Medium, Fast]
Slow. I like to savour the story over levelling up. In our world, high level characters are really rare.

3. What supplements do you usually allow?
We stick to primarily the CRB and some stuff from Paizo's PRD. No third-party stuff other than some conversions of some WotC or Malhavoc Press items that we like (mostly base classes and/or feats). If it's been rewritten for the PFRPG by Paizo (and we know about it), we use the PFRPG rules.

Thank you, Paraxis.

That is definitely easier than rebuilding a monster, too.

If a monster were given a higher than normal point-buy, how would it affect its CR?

"Creatures with class levels receive +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, and –2 adjustments to their ability scores, assigned in a manner that enhances their class abilities. Creatures with NPC class levels do not receive adjustments to their ability scores."

As best as I can figure, getting the +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, and –2 adjustments to its ability scores is included in getting a PC class level and part of that CR adjustment.

By my calculations, that gives the monster an increase from a 3-point buy to a 15-point buy. Would giving the monster a 20-point buy increase their CR in any way? What about a 25-point buy?

Thank you.

Hrothgar and Lakeside appear to have changed their minds insofar as RAW is concerned (think Lakeside still prefers to houserule it the other way).

I still might houserule it, but not right away.

I'm actually leaning away from houseruling to allow a move after the first shot of rapid shot (or two-weapon fighting or flurrying or whatever the other casesmight be, too). Or, houseruling that Vital Strike can be used with the first attack of a full-attack.

To tell the truth, were it not for the first post in this thread, I don't think I'd've ever questioned that Manyshot required a full attack.

When making a full-attack, I'm taking my iteratives!

Thank you, both.

That's what I expected. But, wanted to double check.

Does this only function with a range of touch? Or, can the wand wielder be some distance from a wounded character?

"To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole."

How far away can the wand wielder be if the range isn't touch?

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

In order to take your position out of the absurd you have had to modify it so that you 'may' choose before the attack. I also chose my rebuttal to your view to take into account this modified position.

I'm really trying to represent your camp's views fairly. I simply illustrated that it evolved from a simple statement (which leads to absurd consequences) to one which involves an option to choose before the first attack.

Now THAT is a fair criticism! I'm assuming that this 'modified' view, not the original statement, is the view you guys hold, and is the view that I'm criticising.

Hi, Malachi.

The part about being a feat allowing an exception to the rule was important to me. The basic rule is that you normally choose whether or not to make a full attack after your first attack. However, the feat requires an exception to that rule because you can only fire two arrows with your first shot when making a full-attack. So, you're already full-attacking. Not decision is necessary after the first attack. And, movement (other than possibly a 5' step) is impossible, because you cannot move during a full-attack (except, possibly, a 5' step).

If you haven't committed to the full-attack, your first shot only fires one arrow.

I like this guy. He reads the rules without bias even if it does cause him to change sides. :)

Thanks! I'm more interested in learning the rules than in wanting to win an argument.

Good thread!

In order to take your position out of the absurd you have had to modify it so that you 'may' choose before the attack. I also chose my rebuttal to your view to take into account this modified position.

I'm really trying to represent your camp's views fairly. I simply illustrated that it evolved from a simple statement (which leads to absurd consequences) to one which involves an option to choose before the first attack.

Now THAT is a fair criticism! I'm assuming that this 'modified' view, not the original statement, is the view you guys hold, and is the view that I'm criticising.

Hi, Malachi.

The part about being a feat allowing an exception to the rule was important to me. The basic rule is that you normally choose whether or not to make a full attack after your first attack. However, the feat requires an exception to that rule because you can only fire two arrows with your first shot when making a full-attack. So, you're already full-attacking. Not decision is necessary after the first attack. And, movement (other than possibly a 5' step) is impossible, because you cannot move during a full-attack (except, possibly, a 5' step).

If you haven't committed to the full-attack, your first shot only fires one arrow.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

I like PF's version, better.

Ah then the change needs to be for Full Attack to ranged attack.

When making a ranged attack with a bow, your first attack in a round fires two arrows.

This would let you move and then attack.

Exactly. But, I'd still allow an archer to fire only one arrow, if he chose to.

I actually think rapid shot should allow the bonus arrow shot before a move, too. But, that's a house-rules topic. Same for two-weapon fighting (an off-hand attack before move) and flurry (would need to look at how I'd want that to work, as I don't play monks).

Quote:

Notice it says it cannot be "coupled with" rather than cannot be made up of. That's a difference. A full-round action can be composed of a standard and a move action, but not "coupled with" either or both.

Actually each action is its own action type with its own rules. A charge as an example is not a move action+an attack action. It is just a full round action. That is why each is a game defined term. If the rules intend for you to add action 1 to action to so you can make action 3 they would say so. You can not find any verbage that makes that claim however.

Yeah, charge is a special case. Technically, it's (usually) composed of a double-move plus an attack (which is a standard action, technically). But, that's rulebreaking, except when such an exception is allowed.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

I don't see it as game breaking.

It is not about how game breaking it is or isn't. It is just about whether or not it is the rules.

I agree. But, I'd still like to see examples so I can have a better idea of why this shouldn't be house-ruled.

There are quiet a few ways to abuse the rules without breaking them. IIRC you can get a +10 to your caster level, and call monsters that can win the game for you. Actually you can do it with monsters +5 above you CL.

Gotta confess ignorance about how to do those. I've only every really played up to level 7 in 3.5, and then not in a very min-maxed or overly optimized party. Most powerful spell I've actually seen in combat is scorching ray.

(And, that should be sufficient to say we haven't majored on spellcasters...)

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

So, when you make your first attack, if you haven't moved or taken a 5'ft. step, you're starting a full-attack (a type of full-round action, so you get your iteratives and now have them to use). However, you aren't locked in to a full-attack. That's because you can stop attacking after the first attack and make a move, instead. Thus, making a standard action and a move.

This seems like a strange inversion of reasoning. I'm not saying it's wrong just weird.

Well, that wouldn't be the first time my logic has been called weird.

Quote:

I think that if you want to rule that way you should change Manyshot to a standard action.

since Pathfinder is compatible with 3.5 use the old feat.

** spoiler omitted **

I like PF's version, better.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

However, I haven't figured out how allowing a move after the first shot of manyshot is any more powerful than allowing a move after the first attack of a rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, of flurry (or such like). I don't see it as game breaking.

I think that if you want to rule that way you should change Manyshot to a standard action.

That wouldn't work for me, either, because I want to keep the option of using iteratives with manyshot, instead of a move action. Basically, I don't want to remove the choice of move or iteratives from manyshot (rapid shot, two-weapon, or flurry, etc...).

As I understand it, you don't normally get iteratives if you use a standard action.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

I'm fine with either side's interpretation, as long as it's consistent for other attacks (like rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, flurry).

If no move is allowed after the first attack of manyshot, no move after the first attack of the others (such as those listed above).

I think it does apply to those according to RAW. They don't according to RAI.

Probably. I'd guess opinions vary.

The difference between Manyshot and the other full-attack options discussed is that Manyshot only has a benefit; namely, two arrows with the first attack. The other options (rapid shot, flurry, etc.) all carry a penalty to the first attack. I think that's why many GMs will allow a player to drop out of a full attack after those; the player hasn't gained any benefit at all from beginning the flurry or rapid shot that he or she wouldn't have gained from a standard attack.

I understand that, but the logic is the same. If you can't gain the benefit of manyshot on the first attack and then move... You can't accept the penalty on the first attack of the others and then move. Whether it's a benefit or penalty has no bearing on whether any of them is a full-attack.

If you allow it on either, you're in house-rules territory.

My own thread seems to have un-dotted itself.

.

I've been noticing dots disappearing from time to time. Then, they re-appear. Don't know why.

So did Hrothgar Mitt Romney on us ;)

I don't have enough ranks in acrobatics!

I'm just examining the issue further.

I'm fine with either side's interpretation, as long as it's consistent for other attacks (like rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, flurry).

If no move is allowed after the first attack of manyshot, no move after the first attack of the others (such as those listed above).

However, I haven't figured out how allowing a move after the first shot of manyshot is any more powerful than allowing a move after the first attack of a rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, of flurry (or such like). I don't see it as game breaking.

RAW says that you only get your iterative attacks if you are using a full-round action ("you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks").

It also says that "A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step."

Notice it says it cannot be "coupled with" rather than cannot be made up of. That's a difference. A full-round action can be composed of a standard and a move action, but not "coupled with" either or both.

So, when you make your first attack, if you haven't moved or taken a 5'ft. step, you're starting a full-attack (a type of full-round action, so you get your iteratives and now have them to use). However, you aren't locked in to a full-attack. That's because you can stop attacking after the first attack and make a move, instead. Thus, making a standard action and a move.

Problem is that Manyshot says "When making a full-attack action..." I think RAI and RAW are that you declare you're making a full-attack before your first shot (same as rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, flurry, etc...). By doing so, you give up the option to decide after your first attack.

But, now the hard part... (and the crux of the whole thread, as I see it...) Deciding between an attack or a full-attack...

With manyshot and it's like, the decision is made before the first attack. Manyshot (and such like) are exceptions to the rule that you normally decide whether or not to full-attack after your first attack. You can no more nock two arrows for a manyshot than you can apply the modifiers to two-weapon fight or flurry or rapid shot without having already made the decision to full-attack.

You pick up the iteratives as a resource to use when you decide to attack before moving. When you decide to full-attack before making your first shot, you give up the option to change your mind after the first attack.

But, as James Jacobs (and others have noted), many GMs do not enforce this for things like two-weapon, rapidshot, or flurry. And, to be consistent, I don't think they should enforce it with manyshot, either (if they're not gonna enforce it with the other attack options). But, to each his own.

Personally, I prefer a manyshot that allows a move after the first attack (as well as allowing a move after the first attack of the other full-attacks that rule-out trading in iteratives for a move).

I am glad that my posts, last night got this thread heated up again. It is, after all, just like a dwarf to instigate a fight in the tavern so he can get all the ale he wants while the others are fighting!!!

I was actually leaning back toward my original position, last night, but now... Manyshot works when taking a full-round action with a bow. Once you nock two arrows, you're committed to the full-attack. At that point, you've given up the option to move.

Should it work that way? Probably not. But, this is a game and there are rules to this game. Thankfully, houseruling is allowed by the rules (for home games, anyway).

You have to use a full-round action to get you're additional attacks.

So, by default, you're already using a full-attack on you're first attack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to take a move action, instead of your remaining attacks. You wouldn't have any attacks remaining if you weren't using a full-round action.

How do you have remaining attacks, if you aren't making a full-attack?

True or Fase?
When making a full-attack, you may take a move action after seeing how your first attack turns out (provided you haven't yet moved)?

You're right.

I scanned the section of the PRD and just missed it. Now, looking at the CRB pdf, I see it and have also located it in the PRD.

Just trying to read too fast, I guess. I have a perception penalty, in real life.

Thank you.
:)

In 3.5, a rogue that beat the DC of a trap by 10 or more could bypass a trap without disabling it.

Is this still possible in Pathfinder? Or, does the trap have to have a bypass mechanism in order for a rogue to do this?

Thank you.

In 3.5, if a rogue beat the DC of a trap by 10 or more, he could bypass it without disarming it.

Was this removed from Pathfinder? I see that some traps have bypass mechanisms, but not finding the same general idea from 3.5.

Thank you.

Since this question of Overhand Chop has been brought up, please check my stats.

This character is a 6th-level Two-Handed Fighter with a 17 Strength.

Do these two attack routines look right?

Greatsword w/Overhand Chop & Vital Strike
+11 attack; ((2d6+9)/19-20x2 +2d6); 8#; slashing
(+3 Str x2) +2 Weapon Specialization +1 Weapon Training

Greatsword w/Power Attack, Overhand Chop, & Vital Strike
+9 attack; (2d6+15)/19-20x2 +2d6; 8#; slashing
(+3 Str x2) +2 Weapon Specialization +1 Weapon Training +6 Power Attack

Thank you, Darksol.

That makes sense and is how I thought it would work, but wanted to be sure before using it in the game.

EDIT: Missed your last post, guess that was already cleared up.

Thank you, Weirdo.

Where are you coming up with double Int mod?You also get one extra language (free choice, not limited to racial list) per rank in Linguistics, not per point of Linguistics bonus.

I was thinking that it could possibly be based off of total Linguistics bonus and that the bonus languages from high intelligence could be considered separately since you don't benefit from the actual linguistics skill if you are untrained.

But, since the number of languages is based off of the actual ranks, not the final bonus, the question is resolved.

Can Vital Strike be used to increase damage during a sunder attempt?

OK. Just wanted to make sure the rules' intention concerning whether or not he get double his Int mod in number of langages when he gained the linquistics skill.

I could have seen this being ruled either way, but just wanted to make sure.

A character with a 16 Intelligence gains 3 bonus languages at character creation.

Later, the character invests 6 ranks in linguistics.

Does the character gain 9 additional languages? Or, just 6?

Thank you.

Thanks, everyone.

I've decided to leave the speed increase out of the size increase.

Ok, but...

Bestiary wrote:

Those who commonly battle with trolls know to locate and burn any pieces after a fight, for even the smallest scrap of flesh can regrow a full-size troll given enough time. Fortunately, only the largest part of a troll regrows in this way.

Good catch!

...will he grow back from the finger if you kill him and burn everything else?

By RAW, "Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally."

But, I like old-school trolls, too.

I agree, Grimmy. I don't think it'd hurt the game in the slightest to allow a move after the first attack of manyshot.

Malachi,

Believe me, I understand what you're saying and I'd like to see that addressed.

Unless we conclude that the Paizo staff does not know how to properly interpret their own rules, though, I don't see how we can ignore what James Jacobs said on the subject.

Manyshot says "When making a full-attack action with a bow..." If you decide not to take a full-attack action, you can't fire two arrows at once, even with the first shot.

To use Rapid Shot, Manyshot, etc... You have to decide before your first shot that you're using the full-attack action. This is an exception to the deciding between rule that says you can decide after the first attack. The decision has to be made before the first attack with manyshot (and other esceptional cases). Otherwise, there'd be no need for the language saying "When making a full-attack action..."

Malachi,

Here's what changed my mind... I didn't understand that James Jacobs was talking about house rules when talking about letting people decide after the first attack with a flurry, two-weapon fighting, or rapid shot. Not his fault. It was mine. I was focusing on the fact that he allowed it and thinking it ought to allow the same for manyshot (as I disagreed with his reasoning for not allowing it with manyshot, thinking only that part was the house rule).

By raw, you cannot move after taking the first shot of rapid shot. Or, taking the first attack of a flurry. Or, taking the first attack of two-weapon fighting.

You can only decide between when making a normal full attack action. All those special attack actions require a full attack.

Apparently, it's a common houserule to allow the decision to sacrifice the iteratives and move after the first attack on practically every variation of these full attack actions, except manyshot.

Personally, I'd be consistent in my houseruling and include manyshot, too. (And, I'd also allow iteratives after vital strike, for example...) But, that's all in house rules territory.

Thank you, both.

Using the standard 3.5 rules interpretation, you would add 1 to the weapon's critical hit multiplier and then base charging critical hit damage on the weapon's normal damage.

So, a warmain using a falchion...

normal base: 2d4
power charge: 4d4
normal critical (x2): 4d4
power charge critical: 6d4
or power charge critical: 8d4

I think we're dealing with damage based upon extra dice that isn't multiplied on a critical hit. Also, it sounds a lot like vital strike, which doesn't allow the extra weapon damage dice to be rolled, again, on a crit.

Thank you.

Have a character using Arcana Evolved's Power Charge feat.

The feat doubles the melee weapon's base damage (not strength, magic, etc...) on a hit when charging.

Should this increased damage be multiplied on a critical hit?

This might seem like an odd question, but do creatures automatically increase their base land speed movement rate as they increase in size?

In looking at the giants in the Bestiary, it appears that they have a +10-ft. to their base movement rate over medium humanoids.

If there is such a rule, where can I find it?

(I have a character in my party that has recently been permanently increased in size from medium to large and may, eventually, be permanently increased to huge size.)