Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Kazaan's page

5,374 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 5,374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If feinting is not allowed, any form of dodging is also not allowed because your body language is making your opponent think they will hit you when, actually, you intend to move out of the way once they have committed to the attack. The "bluffing" in the line isn't referring specifically to the Bluff skill (if it were, it would say so explicitly) but referring to "bluffing" in general. A Monk with a Vow of Truth would have a hard time playing poker. What that whole line of "yes, even that" is supposed to accomplish is to prevent someone with the vow from "Aes Sedai-ing" and being technically honest but making the truth dance on its head and letting others deceive themselves. The Vow of Truth doesn't allow for that. The communication part refers to active communication in a way that is a bit subtle, but easy to understand. So, lets say some guy is running away from bandits. He asks which direction he should run at the fork and you tell him to go right, but he goes down the left road instead. The bandits catch up and demand the Monk tell them which way the man went.

Not allowed:
- Saying, "he took the right fork." (outright lie)
- I don't know where he is right now. (technically true, but that's not what they asked)
- Point up the right fork (explicit communication to deceive)
- "I don't know, I wasn't watching." (outright lie)
- "I told him to go right." (half-truth)
- "He went left, but he was really hauling. I doubt you'll catch up to him." (technically true, but exaggerating how fast he was).
- "He went left, but looked confident. He probably has allies waiting to ambush you. (bluff; making the man's situation seem stronger than it really is)

- Remaining silent.
- "He took the left path"
- Point to the left path.

Generally speaking, racial weapon familiarity will treat exotic racial weapons as if they were martial and have a selection of already martial weapons for which they automatically gain proficiency. For instance, Elven weapon familiarity says to treat Longbows, Longswords, Rapiers, and Shortbows as automatically proficient and (separately) treat any Elven weapons (eg. Elven Curved Blade, Elven Branch Spear, etc.) as if they were martial. All "racial" weapons (weapons with the name of a race in them) are exotic by default. So an Elven Wizard would be automatically proficient with Longswords, Longbows, Rapiers, and Shortbows, in addition to the normal Wizard weapon proficiencies and, additionally, would count ECBs and EBSs as if they were martial. This means that they only need take MWP to gain proficiency with these weapons, that a level in a "martial" class (one that grants proficiency with all martial weapons) will grant proficiency, and rules elements that apply to martial weapons (eg. heirloom weapon, crafting DC, etc) will apply to these weapons. So an Elf, for example, can craft an ECB with a craft DC of 15 for martial rather than 18 for an exotic weapon.

If you're not going to actually use TWF to get extra attacks, but just use your iteratives, then the effort class doesn't matter. For example, if you're holding a Longsword in one hand and a Whip in the other, and your BAB is +11, you get 3 iterative attacks, can assign either weapon to those three attacks, and none of it is TWF so you suffer no penalties and both weapons get full Str/Power Attack. You won't be able to threaten right away with the whip until you pursue the Whip Mastery chain, but once you do, you're golden. Get yourself a weapon storing glove, and you can quickly "put away" the whip for situations where you want to two-hand the longsword. What kind of base class are you going to use before entering HKs?

If you want a huge weapon that's still "big", go for a huge Sunblade. A sunblade is wielded as if it were a shortsword (a light weapon) while still doing the damage of a bastard sword. So you can wield a huge Sunblade as a virtual 2-h weapon dealing 3d8 damage. If you get Enlarge Person on you, that goes up to 4d8 damage. Granted, a Huge Sunblade is about as long as the wingspan of a Cessna so your GM might impose a circumstantial penalty to swinging it around in a small space.

Alright, a few things to note.

1) You don't have to worry about TWF feats because you aren't actually using TWF rules elements to gain extra attacks; you're just wielding two weapons and using your normal iteratives so you're fine there. You won't actually take any attack penalties from TWF; just those from Jotungrip.

2) Two-Handed Fighter isn't going to work because, when you use Jotungrip to wield a two-handed weapon one-handed, it now counts as a one-handed weapon for other rules elements. So the class abilities and feats that benefit or rely on two-handed weaponry are out the window.

3) You're going to end up being a little bit MAD as you'll need to get some Int for Combat Expertise in order to get Whirlwind Attack. So you'll need Str for damage, 13 Dex minimum, Con for survivability, 13 Int minimum, can't dump Wis or you'll tank your will save, that leaves Cha as your dump stat.

4) I second the idea to go Phalanx/Ranger for TWF and use sword and polearm instead. Punt them away with the shield and then have at it with reach.

Derklord wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:
It's the most standard way of dealing melee damage, and is generally considered to be mandatory for any melee damage build.

It's really not. For two-weapon fighting, the 1:1 ration for the offhand means PA ist normally not worth it. For one-handed weapons, it depends on accuracy and the damage bonus. For two-handed weapons, the 3:1 ration ensures that PA is almost always good.

Chained unarmed monk is generally struggling with accuracy. -2 from flurry. No increases from class features (no rage, weapon training or similar ability). Lower weapon enhancement because AoMF costs much more.

Keep in mind that, for a Monk, off-hand unarmed attacks count as main-hand attacks so they get full Str and Power Attack bonus. So a Monk using Unarmed Strikes gets 2:1 Power Attack on all their attacks as well as built-in Double Slice.

Yes, FoB is a full-attack so Hammer the Gap works with it.

The Mighty Khan wrote:
Just take some levels in alchemist and grow extra arms. You can't make "extra" attacks with them, but you can use them for two-handedness and still have a free hand.

This is, again, a case of the conflation of terms with "hand" being used for both a grasping appendage as well as a pool of attack economy. What vestigial arms means when it says it grants no extra attacks is that it only grants you grasping appendages but no additional attack economy. In my explanation above, I describe how making a 2-h weapon attack "eats" your off-hand attack economy. You still only have one main-hand/iterative pool and one off-hand pool even with vestigial arms. By contrast, creatures that "naturally" have additional arms gain both additional grasping appendages and additional off-hand pools. Additionally, losing or lacking arms doesn't reduce your potential pools of attack. If you lose an arm, that only limits your grasping appendages, not your off-hand pools. A human that loses an arm can still wield a one-handed weapon and a non-handed weapon to TWF. Even a creature that naturally has no arms can TWF with unarmed strikes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snakers wrote:
I wonder why yellowheart wood is apparently fatal to werebats.

Ok, I significant digging and there are a few things I found.

1) Yellowheart (aka Pau Amarello) is a Brazilian tree of the Rutaceae family (citrus family) and can serve as roosting for certain kinds of bats.

2) In Esotericism, Yellowheart is considered a protective (like silver), but chaotic, material.

3) Yellowheart is also tangentially associated with the Solar Plexus chakra which represents personal power and control over one's experiences.

4) Werebats, in Pathfinder, are described as much more controlled by their lycanthropy compared to other types. They also have a big "might-makes-right" mentality for their social structure.

So, putting it all together, Yellowheart is a tree where bats would roost. It is a protective material, similar to silver, but with an unpredictable nature that is similar to the unpredictable and uncontrolled nature of the Pathfinder werebats. It is also associated with the chakra that represents our ability to control our lives and exert strength over others, which is what werebat society is based on. So, by a lot of little tangential associations, Yellowheart weapons are reasoned to count as silver to overcome DR specifically for this one type of lycanthrope.

A better way to explain it is in terms of attack economy. Just as you have an action economy that restricts how many and what kinds of actions you can take in a round, you have an attack economy that is implied by the rules and the general design principals of the game; though, there is some conflation of terms because "hand" is used to refer to both a grasping appendage as well as the distinct pools of attack economy. For the sake of clarity, I will use "hand" to refer to grasping appendage (which applies to holding objects and rules elements that require a "free hand") and "attack economy" to refer to the number of attacks you are allowed among various pools (main-hand/iterative, off-hand, additional attacks).

Making an attack with a two-handed weapon uses your iterative attacks and also subsumes your potential off-hand attack economy. Even if you let go of the weapon to free your hand and benefit from rules elements that call for a free hand (eg. deflect/catch arrows), this does not free up already spent or subsumed attack economy. That off-hand attack you "spent" to wield your weapon two-handed is gone for that round. In reverse, if you spend off-hand attack economy to make an off-hand attack, you have an attack economy "debt", so to speak, which obligates you to make further attacks with your main-hand weapon with without the use of a second pool of attack economy. What this means is that, while making 2-h attacks doesn't "require" you to have available off-hand attacks, they singularly preclude the "double-dipping" of off-hand attack economy. The purpose of "non-hand" weapons (eg. unarmed strike not using the hand, armor spikes, boot blades, etc.) is to free up your hand(s) for other purposes (eg. holding a shield, guiding your mount by the reins, climbing, grappling, etc). There are specific weapons which provide explicit exceptions (eg. Barbazu beard, Sea knife), but they are the exception that proves the rule. They also tend to have significant restrictions and liabilities to their use (barbazu beard provokes AoO, sea knife precludes walking, etc.).

Now, what you could do is use your Bastard Sword two-handed when you want to deal more "concentrated" damage or against an opponent for which you can't spare the TWF attack penalty, and then switch to one-handed wielding for opponents where getting more attacks is beneficial and you still have a good chance to hit despite the penalties. However, in this case, a double weapon is usually the superior choice since you don't have to split up weapon-specific feats and abilities or enhance two separate weapons.

I don't really see anything specific to Pathfinder, but Yellowheart is a real type of wood. Maybe it was just indicating an item made of that particular type of wood with no special qualities? Also, double-check the spelling. Is it actually "yellowheart" or is it something like "yellowhart" or similar?

thaX wrote:

This is a good point.

I keep thinking about how one is getting more of a penalty with one handed weapons when the rules explain it in a different manner. Though it is the light weapon that reduces the penalty, using Two Handed weapons would still be more difficult than using one handed weapons (Indeed, it would be nigh impossible for a normal two armed character). The progression is still there, but it would instead just give an additional -2 to dual wield Two Handed Weapons.

According to that logic, wielding a 2-h weapon when not using TWF rules should also impose a penalty over wielding a 1-h weapon. I just don't see the validity of an argument that says wielding a 2-h weapon in two hands is harder than wielding a 1-h weapon in one hand, but only when using TWF.

I'm pretty sure it's commutative like addition; you can order them as you see fit. When I get a chance, I'll do a bit more looking to be sure, but that's my guess for now.

@CBD: Are you even reading what I write? I never said anything about combining the 1.5x with 0.5x when wielding a 2-h weapon for iterative attacks or as a main-hand of a four-armed creature wielding a pair of 2-h weapons. I'm talking about wielding a 2-h weapon as the off-hand weapon. If a four-armed creature wanted to TWF with a Greatsword and a Greataxe, he'd need to apply the 0.5x Str factor to his off-hand attack somehow. So his main-hand attack would get 1.5x Str as it would if he weren't using TWF rules, and the off-hand would get 1x Str. If you want to make a counter-point, try making one to the point I'm actually making. Srlsy.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Actually, any weapon wielded in the off-hand gets 0.5x Str to damage.

There is a difference between 'being wielded in the off-hand' and 'being wielded in two off-hands'.

And, since Pathfinder adds effective percentages of base value, the final result would be that a 2-h wielded as an off-hand would get 1x Str to damage [1.5 + (0.5-1)].

Say what now? Where is this 'effective percentages of base value' rule for Str damage bonuses?

This is also consistent with the design principals where your mainhand contributes 1x Str and your off-hand contributes 0.5x Str whether you're using them both on the same weapon or both on separate weapons.

That is a reasonable theoretical basis for constructing different rules for how off hands two-handed weapons could work. However, it is not how the actual existing rules work.

The actual rules say only;

"Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon."

Use two hands, apply 1.5x Str to damage. No exception listed for the the two hands used being 'off-hands'.

An example following this rule for a two-handed weapon in two off hands can be seen here.

You wouldn't wield a 2-h weapon "in two off-hands"; but use of a 2-h weapon subsumes additional attack economy. Just as making normal iteratives with a 2-h weapon normally subsumes one's single pool of off-hand attack economy, a creature with additional pools due to more limbs would use a single off-hand pool to wield a 2-h weapon, but subsumes another pool in addition. And, regarding percentages, that's a basic rule of the game, right in the Getting Started section:

PRD/Getting Started wrote:
Multiplying: When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

Multipliers apply to the base value only, not the composite value. Wielding a 2-h weapon applies a multiplier of 1.5x to your Str bonus to damage. Wielding an off-hand weapon applies a multiplier of 0.5x. If you add 50% of the base value, and then subtract 50% of the base value, you end up right back at the base value.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Again, this would contradict the written rules and all example stat blocks.

Two-handed melee weapon attacks do 1.5x strength bonus damage. One handed weapons do 1x strength bonus damage if made with the main hand or 0.5x strength bonus damage if made with an off-hand.

All of that is clearly spelled out in the rules and consistently corroborated by published stat blocks.

Actually, any weapon wielded in the off-hand gets 0.5x Str to damage. And, since Pathfinder adds effective percentages of base value, the final result would be that a 2-h wielded as an off-hand would get 1x Str to damage [1.5 + (0.5-1)]. This is also consistent with the design principals where your mainhand contributes 1x Str and your off-hand contributes 0.5x Str whether you're using them both on the same weapon or both on separate weapons. If you're using two off-hands to wield a 2-h weapon, 0.5x Str times 2 nets 1x Str; the idea is that you should contribute the same amount of Str to damage whether using TWF or 2-H weapon(s).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I'd like to know is this: what was the design purpose behind flipping from the original text of "alternate classes are archetypes" to "alternate classes are similar to archetypes"? What problem did it solve that couldn't have been solved in a better and more consistent manner? Was it that they didn't want people to use two separate alternate classes? A better solution would have been to simply add in a line saying that using an alternate class precludes any other alternate class for that particular class. If the goal was to preclude other rules elements, they don't seem to be listed so we can't know how an alternate class is "like" an archetype and how it is different. And, though the errata and the second printing of the ACG seem to use the new terminology, the PRD still displays the old one stating that an alternate class is an archetype, but one with enough changes that they present the entire class (both what has been "traded out" and what remains the same as the base class) for convenience.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Devs: Does Spear Dancing [feat] allow one to treat a weapon as finessible(spelling?) for the purpose of qualifying for feats that require such, as with Slashing Grace?

The consensus on that is no because of how it's written. Spear Dancing doesn't make the weapon finessable; it says you gain the benefit of Weapon Finesse while wielding it. It's a fine distinction, but similar to the difference between Monk flurry giving you extra attacks "as if" using TWF feats and Brawler flurry actually giving you the TWF feats.

MKtheDM wrote:

In my opinion, I believe it's probably from the LG, LN, NG spectrum of deities or subdeities. At 4th level, paladins receive spells; which are divine spells. Those spells (such as Bless) require a DF, usually requiring one to believe in the deity to function. It wouldn't make sense for a DF to work if you didn't have faith in the deity. Same with the Anti-paladins.

Otherwise...I'm going with Kenderkin on this one. The Sun is big and bright.

One use of a divine focus is to connect with your deity, but that isn't the only function. It can also serve as a totem of more abstract concepts like a particular force of nature. Druids, for instance, are also divine casters but need not cater to any individual or group of deities; they get their mojo just from "Nature". They tend to use nature-based foci such as plant sprigs, claws, teeth, etc.

I have to agree that it wouldn't apply due to the writing, "you may make checks with that skill using your Wisdom modifier..." If it had been written differently, such as to state that checks with that skill must always use Wisdom modifier and it now counts as a Wisdom based skill for any and all purposes, or something to that effect, then you'd be in business.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the Katana is giving you proficiency woes, try Spear Dancing Spiral with a Nodachi. The Nodachi is a martial weapon and in the Polearms weapon group so it's valid for use with Spear Dancing Style (lets you treat it as a double weapon with its normal stats for one end and a club as the other end). Then Spear Dancing Spiral lets you Finesse with it. Go one step further and Spear Dancing Reach will let you grant Reach to the Nodachi when wielding it as a double weapon (despite the fact that it never had reach to begin with). Additionally, since Spear Dancing Spiral lets it count as a Quarterstaff for other feats/abilities, you could take Quarterstaff Master to wield it one-handed. It's also got a bigger damage dice to boot.

Imbicatus wrote:
Quen Pah wrote:
Are there any good sites that discuss the development of weapons from the Western Middle Ages?
Yes, but historically, historic accuracy has nothing to do with game mechanics.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

- Albert Einstein.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Skill checks are only when you are actually attempting success. If you aren't, there's no skill check involved. But there is certainly a bluff check. And there's even science behind it. For instance, for people with anterograde amnesia (you can't form new memories), if you show them a card, wait a certain amount of time, then show them a set of cards including the one you previously showed them and ask them which card you showed them previously, they should only get it right the statistically expected number of times (eg. if you show them a set of 3, they'd get it right 1/3 of the time). But people who fake anterograde amnesia will get it right far less than statistically expected because they do remember the correct answer, but are "trying too hard" to make it look like they don't. So, in the case of "faking" being bad at something you actually can do, if you're bad at bluffing, you'll probably over-sell it and end up looking like someone out of an infomercial (there's got to be a better way!).

As I've said before, if MWF doesn't satisfy the prereqs for ITWF or GTWF, then it also does not satisfy the prereqs for any other feat that requires TWF as a prereq, including (but not limited to):

Two-Weapon Defense
(Improved) Two-weapon Feint
(Improved) Two-weapon Rend
Weapon Trick (any TWF weapon trick)
Sword and Pistol
Double Bane
Divine Fighting Technique (Blade and Tankard)
Net and Trident
Double Slice
Shield Master
Shield Slam
Dual Enhancement
Twin Thunders (Flurry, Master)
Break Guard
Dorn Dergar Master
Spear Dancing Style (Reach, Spiral)
Bloody Sabres
Pinpoint Poisoner
Bashing Finish
Shield Snag

Since I strongly doubt that characters using MWF are meant to be excluded from all of these feats on the assumption that replacing TWF with MWF doesn't include replacing it in the "prerequisites" line of subsequent feats; I must logically conclude that the Special line, "This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms," includes replacing the TWF feat in other feat prerequisite lists with the MWF feat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goddity wrote:
If my gnomish engineer gets his patent, steam powered paladins will be the new thing.

Steam is obsolete. Nuclear Paladins are the champions of the FUTURE!

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
There's a school of thought that suggests that our life experiences aren't stored in our physical brains but, rather, the bio-electrical and bio-chemical processes in the brain act as a transceiver between the physical body and the non-physical soul. In other words, your body is like an drone and the nervous system is the antenna; the "self" is entirely non-physical in nature. By that reasoning, if a synthetic nervous system were in place that correctly reproduces this aspect of the natural nervous system, it's perfectly reasonable for a synthetic lifeform with a soul to emerge. There's even a philosophy that the "persona" (the human experience you are having right now) is just a small fragment of the entire soul. So really, what it comes down to is this; unless your friends can offer a clear, definitive explanation of precisely what the nature of a "soul" is, they really have no room to complain about a specific hypothetical interpretation in a fantasy roleplaying game.

The logical problem with that model is that the "soul" is that it's like the ether that scientists used to believe that filled outer space. It served no purpose in the model. There's also no scientific test for it.

It's partially right. I would posit that those electro-chemical processes (the proper term) are the soul itself. Think of it as the complete software package of all the various programs that run in the brain, being continuously updated and modified just as the brain continuously rewires itself.

This also means that cryogenically freezing a body or a head is literally a dead end for those looking to cheat death this way. Freezing the brain destroys the electro-chemical processes, the ongoing analog state of the brain itself. Which means that when you thaw it out, all you have left is a rotting piece of dead flesh. Now Cryogenics may be of some use in inducing a hibernation state, but it's not going to preserve you as you are to be popped out of a toaster centuries in the future.

Science doesn't create the truth, it just investigates it. Just because there isn't a scientific test for something is not a way to disprove it. Just because the most likely correct of competing theories is the one with the fewest additional assumptions doesn't mean that is surely the correct one. Science is only one of many tools we have available to us; but when people start thinking that Science is the only tool, and especially when they start to dogmatize it into the "orthodox science" that it has become today, we lose sight of the bigger picture.

Take, for instance, the indubitable truth of "Cogito, ergo sum"; I think, therefore I exist. The act of doubting your own existence confirms absolutely and undeniably that the self exists. But this confirmation is, inherently, unscientific because it cannot be shared with anyone else. One can confirm their own existence infallibly, but cannot confirm the existence of another in the same manner nor can they transfer that infallible knowledge. But the fact remains that the self exists. It is, by definition, unscientific; but also undeniably true.

Your problem is in putting the cart before the horse in considering the scientific model of the universe. The model doesn't dictate what serves a purpose, the universe does. Hypothetically speaking, it's possible that the aether filling the universe does actually exist, but in a quantum state or some other yet unknown condition that we cannot yet detect. I have my own evidence on these matters, which I've studied for a couple of years now; but, just like "I think, therefore I exist," this evidence cannot be shared between people in any objective manner. But it is patently unscientific to claim that, just because it is nontransferable, it cannot and must not exist. Science's job is to analyse evidence and figure out what probably is true. Truth defines science, not the other way around.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder is predicated on the notion that Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are fundamental forces of reality; the same as Electromagnetism, Gravity, Strong Force, and Weak Force are for us. They are objectively real, not just subjective moral values. They aren't "sentient", but they "resonate" with certain moral values. Paladins draw their power from that "resonance" with Good and Law. They fall not by any deliberate choice on the part of these energies but, rather, because the character has lost their harmony with the energies and became discordant instead.

How about an Inquisitor of Pharasma who just refers to himself as a "Paladin". I've seen the idea done before with a LN "Paladin" of Asmodeus, using Bane to mimic the effects of Smite Evil. So your "Paladin" of Pharasma could replicate Smite using Bane(Undead) but also leverage evil or chaotic spells as needed and need not be a paragon of good and justice so much as a champion against the enemies of the natural order of life. Make the character female and she could even have Profession(midwifery).

Presuming that this is being allowing in the first place to avoid all issues of "you can't do that", handle it as follows:

Whether you're wielding four non-double weapons, a double weapon and two non-double, or two double weapons, you effectively have the same number of attacks; a number of iteratives based on BAB, and three off-hand attacks at BAB with appropriate multiweapon fighting penalties applied (the same as if you were wielding four non-double weapons). The main-hand attack would get 1x Str and the off-hands would all get 0.5x. Also, MWF absolutely would count as TWF for prereqs, but you're still limited by the wording of those feats. There's no IMWF and ITWF only states you gain "a second off-hand attack"; not a second off-hand attack with each off-hand weapon. So, for instance, with ITWF, you'd get your 3 main-hand attacks based on BAB chain, 3 off-hand attacks at full-BAB, and 1 off-hand attack at BAB-5.

How about a magic sketchbook that summons manifestations of the drawings contained within. It literally "draws" magic creatures similar to a summoner's eidolon (it might even be an old summoner's spellbook where he used drawings as the basis for his recorded spells). For bonus points, make the sketchbook an intelligent item.

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

For a moment there I was wondering what was so remarkable about this, but wow, that is actually really neat.

Wait..isn't there another feat that lets you do this, but with an attack penalty?


You're probably thinking of Weapon Trick. But none of them quite match what's being described here. There's the Choke Up trick which lets you wield a 2-h polearm in one hand (keeps the reach property) for -2 penalty, and Haft Bash which lets you treat the weapon as a club and attack adjacent for -2 penalty (doesn't let you use the pointy end). Both of these only apply to polearms, not spears.

Still, I think Spear Dancing Style is best used with the Nodachi. You can use it as a double weapon and only sacrifice Brace (since Nodachi don't have reach to begin with) and later in the feat chain, you can even grant the Nodachi reach even though it never had it to begin with. If you aren't a Ranger or Slayer and still reliant on Dex for TWF feats, you can also get Dex to attack with it.

There's a school of thought that suggests that our life experiences aren't stored in our physical brains but, rather, the bio-electrical and bio-chemical processes in the brain act as a transceiver between the physical body and the non-physical soul. In other words, your body is like an drone and the nervous system is the antenna; the "self" is entirely non-physical in nature. By that reasoning, if a synthetic nervous system were in place that correctly reproduces this aspect of the natural nervous system, it's perfectly reasonable for a synthetic lifeform with a soul to emerge. There's even a philosophy that the "persona" (the human experience you are having right now) is just a small fragment of the entire soul. So really, what it comes down to is this; unless your friends can offer a clear, definitive explanation of precisely what the nature of a "soul" is, they really have no room to complain about a specific hypothetical interpretation in a fantasy roleplaying game.

PRD wrote:

Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite.

A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.

It doesn't say you need to constantly satisfy the prerequisite, just that you have it. Remember, even though we, the players, view "leveling up" as a discrete and self-contained point, from the character's perspective, they have been training towards that level increase for a long time; possibly all their lives. It's splitting hairs start expecting that the character needs to rage right when they level up in order to have the Power Attack feat so they can take subsequent feats with Power Attack as a prereq. Instead, follow the rule from the Fly skill:

PRD wrote:
You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other special ability).

So yes, transient full benefits would count towards satisfying prerequisites. However, temporary or "benefit of" doesn't count. Case in point, the Monk's FoB states you take penalties "as if using TWF". By contrast, the Brawler's Flurry states you actually gain the relevant feats while flurrying. So a Monk wouldn't count for additional feats that have TWF as prereqs while a Brawler would. If an ability says you gain the "benefit of" a particular feat or can do something "as if you had" a particular feat, you still don't have that particular feat. But if you actually gain it as a bonus feat on a reliably transient basis, then you have the feat; you can reliably call it up for training a subsequent feat in the chain.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You can free your hand (grasping appendage) as a free action. But you can't retroactively recover attack economy (off-hand attack). All the FAQs in question clarify the design principal that you have an "attack economy" (sometimes disparagingly called "metaphorical hands", "metaphysical hands", etc). Wielding a weapon usually requires both attack economy and an available grasping appendage; but both are referred to as "hands" in the rules which leads to conflation. In the following explanation, I'll use "hand" to refer to the grasping appendage aspect and "attack economy" to refer to your available iterative and off-hand attacks.

Making an attack with a 2-h weapon or a 1-h weapon wielded in two hands subsumes your potential off-hand attack economy whether or not the off-hand weapon utilizes a hand. So, whether you want to use an unarmed attack (hand-based or otherwise), a gauntlet, a cestus, a boot blade, or quickdraw a second hand-held weapon, it still uses your off-hand attack economy. So as a rule of thumb, you can't combine the two. Now, that having been said, there are some weapons that explicitly state that you can use them for off-hand attacks even while wielding a 2-h weapon. But the operative word there is explicitly. The Barbazu Beard and Sea Knife have significant limitations in use which allow them to provide specific exception to the more general rules. And note that all of this only applies to using TWF rules elements. You're perfectly free to hot-swap weapons if you're using only your iterative attacks. If your BAB is +11 (3 iterative attacks), you could make your first with a reach weapon, kill your opponent, then free one hand, quickdraw a non-reach weapon, and use it on adjacent opponents. But you can't double-dip your off-hand attack economy to both assist in wielding a 2-h weapon and make an off-hand attack using TWF rules elements.

Essentially, the fog blocks tangible projectiles but has no effect on intangible projectiles. So if it makes an arrow or glob or missile of (something) that could be considered matter (solid, liquid, or gas), the fog blocks it. But if you are launching something made of energy or magic "force" or anything that couldn't be considered a solid, liquid, or gas, the fog has no effect on it.

Offer the dragon a lot of wine and get him drunk. That's how Susano-o did it with Yamata-no-Orochi.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tiomat wrote:

How does the new FAQ work regarding Alignment Channel (and Elemental Channel)?

I've assumed (mostly based on discussions on the this forums and on other places) that a character who channels positive energy could choose to harm outsiders of the chosen subtype, but I guess it can only be used to heal now? Or is the damage from those feats not considered positive/negative energy?

It would be just like Brick channel; you aren't really channeling positive OR negative when you use Alignment or Elemental channel. If you want to visualize it better, it helps to view it as you're channeling the alignment or elemental energy itself. If you have Alignment Channel (Evil), you're channeling the raw Evil energy either into or out of an Outsider with the Evil subtype. Remember, Demons aren't just Chaotic and Evil, they are made of Chaos and Evil as fundamental energies. So you can either siphon it away from them or tap into one of those planes and siphon from there into an Outsider who can use that energy type. Same goes for the elemental energies; you can siphon the raw elemental Fire energy right out of a Fire Elemental if you want to and cause damage. Or you can tap into the Fire plane and draw the raw Fire energy from there and funnel it into the Fire Elemental to heal them. It doesn't work this way when handling Positive and Negative energies because living and undead creatures aren't strong enough sources of these energies. We "run" on these energies, but there are no Positive and Negative subtypes for creatures that make them strong enough sources to directly funnel the energy out of them to cause harm.

On the surface, it seems like a thematic idea. But the Kensai is themed around mastering a single weapon, not a group of weapons. Weapon Training is meant to emphasize how a Fighter can train in an entire class of weapons (eg. all heavy blades). A Kensai wouldn't be interested in learning to use all heavy blades; he'd be interested in mastering the Longsword only, for instance. That's why Kensai gets the Fighter's Weapon Mastery feature as their capstone; it's centered around a single weapon rather than a weapon group. You also get to count your Magus lvl -3 as Fighter levels to access Fighter-restricted feats. This is better than the Magus's normal exchange of 1/2 Magus level. So a Magus lvl 7 counts as Fighter 4, meaning he can immediately access Weapon Specialization, whereas a non-Kensai Magus wouldn't be able to get it until at least level 11 (at which point, a Kensai would count as Fighter 8 and get Greater Weapon Focus).

This is the same as the issue with the Klar. It's described as a shield that has a long blade sticking out of the bottom and describes you as attacking with the blade rather than bashing with the shield; but it also goes on to say the Klar counts as a light shield.

The way I've interpreted this kind of situation is that a shield bash with the shield is entirely separate from any other method of attack you might use. In the case of the Klar, you can either attack with the blade, using the properties and damage dice of the blade, or you can make a shield bash using the properties and damage dice of a light spiked shield. In other words, other forms of attack you can make with the shield don't automatically qualify as shield bashing. So, for the Shield Gauntlet style, your attack with the gauntlet is just an attack with a gauntlet. To illustrate, if you had some hypothetical feat that said you treat, say, a Cestus as a light shield, then attacks with the properties of a Cestus don't qualify as shield bashes and shield bashes as a light shield don't qualify as attacks with a Cestus.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Normally, you can't incorporate Natural Weapons into a flurry. That means you can't use them "in addition" like your can for a non-flurry full-attack, nor can you "replace" attacks in your flurry with natural attacks. Feral Combat Training allows you to select one (and only one) natural weapon and you can "replace" attacks in your flurry with that natural weapon. The feat doesn't allow you to take it more than once, though, so you you could pick either the beak or the claws; not both. FCT is mainly used to give you options beyond Bludgeoning for your unarmed damage type or to deliver rider effects attached to your natural weapons (eg. natural poisons, grabs, etc). If you want to rely on using a large number of natural weapons as a Monk, it might be better taking an archetype that swaps out FoB and use a normal full-attack instead.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to have to agree with the "no, it doesn't" conclusion. Just as with Dervish Dance, the feat doesn't cause the weapon to become finesse-able. It just says you gain the benefit of Weapon Finesse while using it and uses Weapon Finesse as a feat tax. Arguably, if you manage to get the style sans-prereqs, you'd gain the finesse benefit even if you didn't have the Weapon Finesse feat. So even with the style feat chain, your chosen weapon isn't even interacting with Weapon Finesse; thus, Finesse Training does not even enter the equation.

On further study, I think this might actually be a good choice for using a Nodachi. Nodachi are polearms so you could "spear dance" with it, using it as a double weapon, getting Dex to attack, and it doesn't matter that you lose reach since Nodachi don't have reach to start with. Even better, if you take Spear Dancing Reach, you can grant reach to a Nodachi as a swift action (affecting either end or both at your option). And you can still take up all the Quarterstaff feats to boot (wield the Nodachi one-handed ^-^). Probably better for a Fighter build, though, as it is feat intensive, doesn't benefit from finesse training, and you'll want Weapon Training to go along with it to make up the damage lost from investing in Dex.

It would be the ability. To simplify the problem, lets say there's a hypothetical spell that grants a +1 untyped bonus to your attack roll. If two separate casters both cast the spell on you, it would be considered the same source (the spell) and they wouldn't stack. Another example would be the bonus to damage from Power Attack. You couldn't, for instance, say, "I'll use Power Attack twice to get double the damage for double the penalty," because the bonus from the same source (the feat) wouldn't stack (though, the penalty would so, in this case, you'd get double penalty for single bonus damage).

A Longsword is also a one-handed weapon and wielding it with two hands doesn't make it a two-handed weapon. Would you say that using a second hand to wield your Longsword (or other one-handed weapon) takes up attack economy and prevents you from double-dipping to also TWF? The correct answer would be, "yes, yes I would." The same reasoning applies to the Pepperbox. It is a one-handed firearm, but using a second hand to turn the crank is "baked in" so to speak which makes it equivalent to a Longsword that you can only wield using two hands, but remains a one-handed weapon for interaction with other rules elements (eg. HP, feats/abilities that demand use of a 2-h weapon, etc). As such, using a Pepperbox requires both hands worth of attack economy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are a few points that need to be made here.

1) Alignment and behavior are reciprocal, not one-sided. Some argue that your alignment "dictates" your behavior and others argue that your behavior "determines" your alignment. But the fact of the matter is that the two co-create your character. Good alignment yields Good actions and Good actions foster Good alignment. This is part of good roleplay; acting out your character properly. A Paladin or Good Cleric doesn't do Good and refrain from doing Evil merely out of fear of falling and losing his powers. They spent their lives building themselves up to the Good characters that they are; you, the player, just didn't meet them until their starting age. If you write down LG on the character sheet and then immediately start acting CE with entirely no context, rhyme, or reason, that isn't a fault of the alignment system. You like what you're good at more, so you do it more and, the more you do it, the better you get; it's a self-feeding system. Alignment changes should be major philosophical, spiritual, and maybe even traumatic events in a character's life; not whimsical nor prompted by little more than, "I want to take this <insert rules element here>, but I need to be Good for it... so I'm Good now."

2) Pathfinder's system is predicated on the notion of objective alignment. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos aren't just philosophical abstracts in Pathfinder. They are fundamental energies as real as Gravity and Electromagnetism are to us. However, good and evil are also subjective philosophical abstracts. Two sides fighting in a war can each refer to themselves as "good" and their opponent as "evil". But behavior and mentality also "resonate", to a certain degree, with the idealized, fundamental energies of the universe. Revering and respecting the sanctity of life is a mentality that resonates harmonically with the energy called Good and discordantly with the energy called Evil. And, again, it's reciprocal. Good energies generate a propensity for Good behavior and good behavior naturally goes together with Good energy. Whichever you start with, it will naturally attract and harmonize with the other.

3) A few things an be done to improve the alignment system; it's hardly perfect, but it doesn't exactly deserve the level of vitriol that some apply to it. Alignment subtypes are good for certain classes like Clerics and especially Paladins who not only resonate with the alignment energies but, in the case of Paladins, are fueled by it directly. Characters with an alignment subtype (either by race or class feature) should have behaviors in concordance with that subtype reinforced (and, for balance, opposing behaviors should require a will save). For instance, finishing off a non-evil opponent after you've incapacitated him would go against Good alignment; someone who is truly Good wouldn't want to do this. So it should take a will save to take a life in this manner if your character is suffused with the "energy" of Good. Also, while it's understandable that they don't want to "over-define" the alignments so they aren't overly restrictive for characters, the "under-definement" that they opted for instead is just as restrictive because it leaves it too open to interpretation exactly what and who qualifies as what alignment. What qualifies as a Good action (will maintain Good alignment and pushes a non-Good character in the direction of Good)? What kinds of actions are "neutral" in that they won't affect your alignment at all and what kinds are "Neutral" in that they will pull you from either extreme towards Neutral? What happens when you are in an "alignment dilemma" where each of your available options violates one or the other axis of your alignment? What does it take to change alignments? Is it just as easy as, "Ok, I'm Evil today because I want to use this feat, but tomorrow I'll get atonement and go back to being Good." Why are negative and positive energies inexorably linked to Good and Evil (eg. which energy a Cleric channels depends on the alignment of the deity, Undead are inherently Evil, etc).

Instead of looking at the full Str damage as the baseline, look at half the damage as baseline. If you're targeting a character not heavily reliant on Str, it's more likely to get double effect, but that's less important. If you're targeting a character whom it would be potent against, they need to be particularly unlucky to get double effect. It makes it a bit more balanced. It's a system so things need to be systematized. Sometimes, that means that, to get what you want, you need to leverage that system and work backwards.

Enzo Chittock wrote:
How are you getting 2x2 from two weapon fighting?

I think he was mistakenly thinking that TWF, on its own, doubles all your normal attacks and ITWF/GTWF add extra off-hand attacks on top.

For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that the correct attack sequence, presuming +6 BAB, TWF, ITWF, Rapid Shot, and Flurry of Stars is +6/+1 main-hand as iteratives, +6 for your standard off-hand attack, +1 for your extra off-hand granted by ITWF, +6 for the extra granted by Rapid Shot, and +6/+6 for Flurry of Stars. You'd suffer a total of -6 to attack on all of these. For the sake of example, we'll say your ranged attack bonus is normally +11 (including BAB). With all these together, you'd have the following combination: 4x +5, 2x +0. It should also be noted that, while your main-hand attacks (from iterative) and off-hand attacks (standard off-hand and extra from ITWF) are obligated to follow descending BAB order (though, each hand is handled independently of the other), extra attacks from other sources (eg. Haste, Rapid Shot, Flurry of Stars, etc) are under no such obligation. So long as the +1 main-hand comes after the +6 main-hand, it doesn't matter what other attacks are before, between, or after. Same goes for the off-hand attacks.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Why does Darkness work differently than Light?

Well, to be fair, they are a little bit different, given that "radiating darkness" isn't actually a thing whereas "radiating light" is. Also, the darkness produced by Darkness is "thick darkness" because it even blocks light coming through the affected area from the other side. Normally, for instance, if I'm standing under a streetlight next to a pitch-dark alleyway, I could see someone standing under a streetlight at the other end of the alley despite the intervening darkness. But if the darkness were from a Darkness spell, I wouldn't be able to see past it. So ambient light wouldn't be able to reach that inverse shadow to illuminate what's inside of it, hence, the effect is spoiled.

Additionally, the hard thresholds of light states in Pathfinder are an abstraction of the smooth gradient they would actually be. Light doesn't just drop off abruptly after a certain distance. So, even if you create "inverse shadows" by "blocking" the path of a darkness spell, there may technically be light, but not enough to make a technical difference within the abstraction of the Pathfinder system. For instance, people cast shadows, but you can't say that you hide in the dim light created by your own shadow (unless you have some special ability that says you can). Abilities like HIPS even explicitly call this out. Furthermore, you also have to account for the equivalent of an umbra and penumbra of the inverted shadow. You have a full shadow (the umbra) and a partial shadow (the penumbra) and, unless the "source of darkness" is put right behind your back to maximize the "inverted umbra", the penumbra where everything is dimmed down is going to be significant; and, by extrapolating the rules at hand, it would probably be equivalent to a "light -1 level" which would probably be darkness anyway if you're relying on artificial light.

Now, if we really wanted to show how light worked in the game, there would be better light rules involving direct and indirect lighting, how light travels around corners, and the like. But, the sad truth is that the Pathfinder system just isn't robust enough to tackle those kinds of issues.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

If you really want to go for style, cast it on your glass eye then put on an eyepatch.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:


How the everliving f&&@ am I able to damage the Titan attacking me using a lonsgperar and the lunge feat from over 65ft away?!

You smack his weapon as he attacks and it vibrates, giving him nasty blisters on his hands.

SCKnightHero1 wrote:

Yeah a variant multiclass could work actually.

I haven't read much about the unchained action economy rules. Can you explain that a bit more please?

And for the other posters, so pretty much you can't use both smite evil and challenge at the same time under normal circumstances? Why do I say normal circumstances? Take for example, a paladin/samurai under the effects of haste, could he use both abilities? Haste has always given me difficulty when I gm.

Unchained Action Economy

1 to 50 of 5,374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.