|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
? How is that not a direct contradiction of what Massive Weapons says?
Well, simply put. It pays to read the ability instead of going off memory. I use memory for everything, and well. I'm not perfect.
So the penalties would be -4 for a large two handed.
Still doesn't fix the Bow issue, as there are not rules for inappropriate sized bows.
James has a rather perverse definition of "RAW"
Irrelevant really. What I think the RAW means doesn't matter.
What the GM of a particular game thinks the RAW means is all that matters.
Generally, I'm the one saying "Ask your GM" since he is in charge of RAW in any game you are playing.
If your GM isn't swayed by a bunch of forum posts saying "yep" and some or no "nopes" to your version of RAW, there isn't much you can do. When this happens, it's often when something could be a future FAQ target.
Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:
The question of whether or not it works RAW is determined by your GM's interpretation of the rules. Looking at past answers to FAQ where there were some on the boards saying "It works RAW" gives you an indication if this were to be answered, the answer would be it doesn't work.
So ask your GM if it works.
As for whether or not it works as a Large weapon. As a Large you can only use the weapon as a two handed weapon.
@Bigby, you will run into heavy table variance on using an Earth Breaker in one hand without the other hand using a Klar. Some view that feat (Thunder and Fang) as allowing it without a Klar. Others (like me) view that is a required combat style.
In either case, if you use it one-handed. You are using a one-handed weapon, with one-handed power attack, and one-handed TWF penalties, and in no way two-handed.
Schrödinger's Dragon wrote:
Considering that, can your provide a source for that clarification about "able to cast 3rd level spells"
In a 1 minute search, I didn't find a direct one, but I found a long winded description of the basic understanding under all the rules.
In short, a lot of the interpretations of lines of rules that some players use ignore much if not all of these basic understandings.
So a multi classed Magus that has a lot of spells with the same name as spells on the Magus list doesn't get a benefit for casting those spells.
Using the same kind of understanding, while you can cast spells that are mechanically 3rd level using your "heighten" trick. You are not doing something that qualifies as "ability to cast 3rd level spells".
Dave Justus wrote:
If 'for all purposes' means a second level spell counts as a third level spell for qualify for eldritch knight, then logically it must also count as a third level spell in terms of what slot it requires to cast it.
I didn't think about that, but you are right. It would require a slot higher. That could also probably mean that it is something you apply when memorizing and not when casting.
Drake Brimstone wrote:
provided an appropriate source such as an official Dev post (as far as I know this does not exist atm) that RAW a Human with Racial Heritage Kitsune can take Magical Tail and grow a tail and gain SLAs and you say "not at my table" I would report you to the VO in a heartbeat.
Funny thing. You won't get anywhere with the VO.
PFS is RAW.
Also, you can find dev posts saying this doesn't work. So the probability of finding a dev saying it does, just not going to happen. At least in my view of probabilities.
Whip isn't a light weapon so you don't get -2/-2 with TWF using a Whip.
You keep forgetting the TWF penalties. I don't know why. And it's been explained several times, yet you say nothing explained answers your questions.
You ask the penalties of a Hoof after TWF a set of manufactured one handed and light weapon. With Multiattack and TWF the answer is:
STR+4 + BAB+1 - 2 TWF - 2 Multiattack = 4+1-2-2 = +1 NOT+3 as you keep asking and keep being told that is wrong.
Also attack are made in the order of their bonus from highest to lowest. So including all the penalties, you make the attacks in the order of the highest bonus to lowest bonus. Because of the -2 Multiattack penalties, that often makes them happen after the primary weapon attacks (and maybe the off-hand if the penalties are the same.)
Casual Viking wrote:
"3rd. level spells" has been clarified to mean "one or more 3rd. level spells"
All the clarifications I've ever seen (and I've seen several) have clarified that as 3rd level spell slots. Not some specific number of spells. Since you could be a Sorcerer with only one 3rd level spell and some number of spell slots per day, you still have the ability to cast 3rd level spells. But you don't no matter what if you don't have 3rd level spell slots. Despite being able to cast a "3rd level spell" using your 2nd level spell slots.
In any event, it seems we have differing opinions on the RAW. So the OP can expect table variance. If the OP asks their GM how they want to handle it, then the matter will be resolved.
There is nothing ambiguous about "for all purposes".
That doesn't work because the "Ability to cast" doesn't mean one single spell or type of spells.
You need to have the spell slots, not just the ability to cast one spell or several spells.
No early entry, because you can't actually cast spells of the higher level. It is just being treated as higher.
The pre-reqs look for spell slots of the appropriate level.
It should also be pointed out, that with odd things like this, the game rules general wisdom behind the screen is what is worse for the PC. For example, if you have a metamagic enhanced spell and you try to put it in a spell storing device, it uses the enhanced level even if the enhancement isn't Heighten. Some times the explanation used the words "think of the worse case for the PC and do that".
As for when you pick it, I'd say it is upon casting. You can't use eschew materials for the sunrod so you'd have to burn an actual sunrod.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
You wouldn't get the magical tail if you are not a Kitsune born character with a tail and change shape.
Or you use the inference, and call it RAW and reject it based on rules as written (the inference.)
I disagree that my Kitsune doesn't qualify for Magical Tail. The prerequisite is "Kitsune".
You are welcome to disagree, and have fun if your GM agrees. But if you are at a table I'm GMing then you won't gain any benefit from Magical Tail if you are not a natural Kitsune without Racial Heritage. Also if I'm just a player at a table you try this, I'll also strong disagree and I won't play at the same table if the GM sides with your version of RAW.
Drake Brimstone wrote:
Your RAW says it gives you a tail. Mine says it doesn't. If you show up at my table telling me you have a tail because you took Racial Heritage, I'll tell you it doesn't by the rules and that will be the end of the discussion if you wish to remain at my table.
Look at any feat that you can, in the unusual facts section:
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times
"kill it for everyone instead of adressing the actual problem" route.
This happens because when they address the precise issue, people squirm around still trying to assert it isn't dead yet.
Here are three from the top of my head of direct answers to one question that had that answer interpreted to continue allowing:
You can't ever directly answer a question apparently without covering every corner case. If a rules requires too many corner cases to be answered, kill it.
Drake Brimstone wrote:
idea spawned with the debates about Racial Heritage Kitsune and Magical Tail Feat
If you remember that debate, there were a number of people saying that magical tail wouldn't give you a tail either. Along with a small group of extremely vocal supporters. Pretty much the same thing happened with Tail Terror.
People took that to mean that you take the 1d6 Bite damage and you increase it by X steps that the 1d3 unarmed strike damage is increased.
They simply meant that you can apply your current Monk damage in place of your 1d6 Bite damage. So if your unarmed damage is currently 1d6 and your Bite is 1d6, it is a no op.
This was mentioned a couple times after that FAQ came out.
Since it was being actively misinterpreted, they abandoned the problematic wording.
Derek Dalton wrote:
Why not improve the damage since a Monk's flurry improve?
Because it was never intended to increase the damage, and the original FAQ didn't intend to increase the damage (people universally misinterpreted that FAQ.) They noticed it was being widespread misinterpreted and issued Errata to take out the offending line.
Chess Pwn wrote:
unless a feat says it can be taken multiple times it can only be taken once.
Only feats that describe how you can take it a second time, allow you to take it more than once.
The line the OP offered about not stacking is in cases where you get bonus feats the same as a feat you already have.
Abraham spalding wrote:
1. It has a line saying it replaces flurry of blows, but doesn't have one that states that it is or acts like or anything else, until it does it's its own separate thing.
My point is I used this logic to say it doesn't have the restrictions of Furry of Blows being used with Armor. I was wrong. FoM received errata to assert it blocked armor use.
You are just jumping on another omition, namely TWF use of off-hand.
It is far more likely that should this come down to Errata or FAQ, they would say "uses an off-hand".
Casual Viking wrote:
This is the second time in this thread I'll have to ask someone to go read Flurry of Maneuvers.
I used your logic for years playing a Maneuver Master up to 11th level in PFS. I used the logic that FoM isn't FoB and isn't restricted by FoB's Armor restrictions.
Turns out I was wrong, it is and in errata got a line about armor.
I suspect as a result, the line about "as if TWF" is another line they need to add. Or you get people wanting to combine FoM with TWF.