|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Z. Zedduces wrote:
Yeah, I think so. Not sure how a Dire Rat falls into a Celestial Archtype, but ok.
Dire just means big, aggressive, and dangerous; not inherently evil. Dire Rats are big, aggressive, and dangerous; you're just summoning one that lives in Elyssium rather than on the Material plane. A Celestial Dire Rat is no more or less viable than a Fiendish Dire Rat or even just a mundane Dire Rat from the Material Plane.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I think that's the way to think about it, except that spellcasters without Spellstrike don't have enough control over their magic (and their fists) to deliver a spell effectively with an actual unarmed strike.
Actually, they do. Anyone, not just those using Spellstrike, can deliver a touch spell using an Unarmed Strike or Natural Weapon.
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Feat: Genre Savvy
You need to understand that "hitting" in the PF system (as well as HP, for that matter) is an abstracted concept that doesn't just encompass contact. A "hit" in this system means your attack had a meaningful effect upon the target. A "miss" means that it didn't. You might "miss" because your aim was bad and you hit empty air, or because you would have hit but the target juked it, or because your attack glanced off their armor. It's that part that really sets the pace; you might actually "hit" your target without scoring a "hit" as far as the system is concerned. The d20 check is boolean in nature so far as hit or miss is concerned. You don't really know if you "missed" because of bad aim on your part, good dodging on their part, or because of a bad angle against their armor. And a hit doesn't really indicate whether you scored a solid, dead-on hit or you barely nicked them. You might rock an attack roll of 55 against their AC of 15, but still roll low on your damage. Likewise, you could beat their AC by just 1 point, but get a max damage x4 crit. Moreover, with HP also being an abstraction for your vigor and "fighting mojo", even if the armor did absorb the hit, it's still fatiguing to get hit even while wearing armor. Even attacks that never contact flesh can bring a target down by pummeling their armor enough.
Ultimately, it's a matter of give-and-take; they abstracted the system to reduce bookkeeping. If you want to make it more realistic, that inherently means more bookkeeping. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Moreover, once you start introducing the concept of armor "taking the damage for you", you start getting into the realm of "how much damage can the armor absorb before the armor, itself, suffers damage? For that, you need a way to determine whether the "miss" was due to you not getting hit, or the attack going *ping* off the armor.
That having been said, personally, I think the armor should give both AC and some DR. If you really want to get down to it, the attack roll should roll 2x d20 rolls. The higher of the two rolls targets AC as normal and the lower of the two targets touch AC. If you score a hit for both, then you deal full damage, no DR applies. If you hit against normal but miss against touch, you deal damage but the armor's DR applies to the damage. If you miss against normal but hit against touch, their armor absorbed the attack and might suffer damage itself. If you miss against both, then it's a total miss; you never touched them.
Well, given that we have half-construct and half-undead subtypes, why not design one for half-aberration? Give some benefits of aberrations, but in a lesser form. Say, they get a +2 bonus to saves against effects that target Humanoids and a +4 bonus to AC against critical confirmation rolls? And they can qualify for rules elements as if they were aberrations; you can give them racial traits that require Aberration, but they are also vulnerable to Favored Enemy, Bane, etc.
I guess it really depends on what you envision as the details for your race. When you say "created magically", do you mean something along the line of growing living tissue and then animating it to life? Or do you mean something more along the lines of conjuring a living being directly out of magical energies? Or maybe something like combining Stone to Flesh with some kind of animating magic?
Half-Construct is also a possibility; a being with a construct endo-skeletal frame but living organs and other tissues, for instance. But, regarding the Aberration type, it is defined as applying to creatures with 1) Bizarre Anatomy, 2) Strange Abilities, 3) Alien Mindset, or 4) some combination of those factors. If you create a creature that pays respect to all normal biological factors, doesn't have any "strange abilities" that living creatures normally wouldn't possess, and has a mindset comparable to other sentient beings, then it wouldn't qualify as an Aberration.
So, here are your best options:
1) 3-D printed: Use Humanoid(Half-Construct). A constructed skeletal frame but with living organs and other tissues grown over top of it and vitalized by magic.
2) Formed from stone: Sculpt the form of the creature from stone then combine Stone to Flesh with Wish to make make it "a real boy". If it is generally Humanoid in shape, use Humanoid or Monstrous Humanoid the type as appropriate. If it is "weird", use Aberration instead.
3) Adult Birthed: Get your Genesis on and combine transmutation, conjuration, and maybe Wish to form a ready-to-go body out of the dust and dirt, transmute it into a fully-functional living body, pull Positive energy into it, and infuse it with a soul. Again, Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, or Aberration as appropriate.
"Most prevalent" doesn't necessarily mean greatest quantity.
Prevalent can mean "superior in force or power" and comes from the same Latin root from which we get the word "prevail". In a more archaic usage, it can mean "effectual or efficacious". When attacking with a spear, the strength of the tip prevails because it is the effectual end; the "business end" of the weapon, if you will. But when attacking a spear, the strength of the shaft prevails; or doesn't if you deal enough damage.
It still uses the same language, establishing a difference between a "touch attack" and "resolve as touch attacks". Something like Scorching Ray is an "actual" Touch attack and is treated, in all ways, as a "touch attack". Early and Advanced Firearms are not Touch attacks, and are treated in all ways not as Touch attacks, with the singular exception that within a certain number of range increments, they resolve against Touch AC, despite not being touch attacks nor counting as such for other purposes. It is a specific and narrow exception. In the case of technological firearms, their "resolve against Touch AC" clause is always in effect, not limited by range increments, but otherwise is the same kind of specific and narrow exception, only applying AC factors, but not affecting other rules elements such as Deadly Aim.
Xaimum Mafire wrote:
It's absolutely no different than casting a quickened touch spell in the middle of a normal full-attack. In fact, barring the increased slot from using metamagic, a quickened spell is better because you don't even get the -2 penalty from Spell Combat. You could Full-Attack at +6 BAB and get +6/+6/+1 by using a quickened Shocking Grasp. It's only the actual process of casting the spell that uses your off-hand attack economy in Spell Combat, the attack to deliver the touch spell is completely divorced from any kind of attack economy and should not even be considered as either an off-hand or a main-hand attack; thus having already used your main-hand weapon for your attacks is a moot point.
If I'm preparing a recipe that calls for 12 apples, it wouldn't matter much what kind of apples I use. But if it specifically calls for 12 Granny Smith apples, it does. Likewise, Caster Level doesn't stack between spellcasting classes unless provided with an explicit exception. If you want to rationalize it, a Fighter and a Brawler are using fighting systems that are different enough that they don't cross-train with one another; you can take Weapon Specialization with 4 levels of Fighter experience, or you can substitute 4 levels of Brawler experience for those 4 levels of Fighter experience, but you can't use 2 levels of each. By the same reasoning, if an ability lets you use your levels in Bluff in place of your levels in Diplomacy for a feat prerequisite, you wouldn't say that, automatically, you get to combine both, would you? Now, if it said outright that they stack, sure. But the point is that it needs to say that they stack. If they wanted Brawler levels to stack with Fighter levels, they need to write that in. You might presume intent, but that doesn't count for much unless the written rules match that intent.
Ultimate Magic/Magus wrote:
Fighter Training (Ex): Starting at 10th level, a magus counts 1/2 his total magus level as his fighter level for the purpose of qualifying for feats. If he has levels in fighter, these levels stack.
Martial Training (Ex): At 1st level, a brawler counts her total brawler levels as both fighter levels and monk levels for the purpose of qualifying for feats. She also counts as both a fighter and a monk for feats and magic items that have different effects based on whether the character has levels in those classes (such as Stunning Fist or a monk's robe). This ability does not automatically grant feats normally granted to fighters and monks based on class level, such as Stunning Fist.
Note the significant difference between the two. Magus's Fighter Training explicitly specifies that, if you have levels in Fighter, the fighter-equivalent levels you gain from Fighter Training will stack with actual Fighter levels. By contrast, Brawler's Martial Training has no such specification. Therefore, a character with levels in both Brawler and Fighter uses either their Brawler level or their Fighter level, whichever is higher, for the purpose of feat prerequisites as well as feats that function differently based on class.
There are certain distinctions. For instance, if interplanar travel were blocked, Conjuration to call up Fire energy from the Fire plane would not function while Evocation to generate fire on the spot would have no problem. It also opens up possibilities for creatures with elemental or alignment subtypes to draw upon their own personal energies to fuel their magic, such as refreshing an expended usage of a spell/SLA of the appropriate type using their own HP.
Another argument is that manipulation of energy should fall under Evocation instead of Conjuration (and there shouldn't be spells like 3.5 acid/cold/fire/lightning orb as moving things from Evocation purview to Conjuration).
Well, to be fair, Evocation deals with using magic energy to create objects or effects while Conjuration deals with moving fundamental energy, as well as other things, between or through the planes. So if you are using magical energy to increase the temperature of the air until it sparks a fire, that's Evocation. Whereas, if you open up a small conduit to the Elemental Fire plane and bring Fire energy (note the capitalization), that's Conjuration. Handling Negative and Positive energy, by and large, should be matters of Conjuration because there is no physical parity for these energies as there are for the four elemental forces. Fire energy from the Fire plane shares a certain parity with physical forces that generate fire. In Norse Runes, there are three that represent fire. Fehu which is "Raw Fire" or "Primal Fire"; the fire of Muspelheim representing motion and expansion which, in conjunction with the primal fire of Nifelheim, created the multiverse of Norse mythology. Then, you have Kenaz, the Torch Fire, which represents fire under control by humans; fire used to bring light, to cook food, to warm yourself, or to cremate the dead all fall under the scope of Kenaz. Lastly, you have Naudhiz, sometimes translated as "need-fire", or as "friction". It represents the despair we experience in life, but also how that despair leads us to great accomplishments. In other words, "no pain, no gain". If you apply this kind of thinking to uses of fire in Pathfinder, you could say that the Fire energy, nascent to the Elemental Plane of Fire, and which composes the bodies of Outsiders with the Fire subtype, is like the Primal Fire of Fehu. Magically generated fire made through Evocation, rather than called by Conjuration, could be equated to Naudhiz; spawned by magically generated friction. Lastly, mundane fire, the kind you spark using flint and steel, can fall under Kenaz. If you expand this concept to encompass Positive/Negative energy, we have the Primal energy types, nascent to their home planes, called forth to power living and undead bodies. Then, we'd have magically generated life; I can't really think of a pertinent example, but this would be life (or unlife) sparked through "magical friction" without drawing on the energy planes and, like evoked fire, shares physical parity with the principals of our normal understanding of biological principals. Lastly, is mundane healing not involving magic.
I guess this revolves around the more fundamental question of, "is the damage caused by an object created by a spell considered damage from the spell itself?" If you had a hypothetical metamagic that caused spells with the Fire descriptor to cause burning damage over time, would that extend to the damage caused by a Flame Blade? What about the damage caused by Produce Flame? If you use Summon Monster to summon an Ice Elemental, then Summon Monster gains the cold descriptor; could you summon an Ice Elemental with a Rimed Summon Monster and then have the attacks of the Ice Elemental carry the Rime effect?
Another weird interaction:
Conjuration magic involves interplanar and intraplanar transport of objects, creatures, and energies. Conjuring fire involves pulling Fire energy from the Fire plane, for instance. Healing fits well as a sub-category of Conjuration because you are pulling Positive energy from the PEP. But spells that involve pulling Negative energy from the NEP, which should be a sub-category of Conjuration magic, are instead given their own whole school of magic (Necromancy). Realistically, shouldn't Necromancy be a sub-category of Conjuration magic, alongside Healing?
If you weren't arguing against the Magus being able to perform this ability, then why did your player even come to the forums asking for clarification in the first place? You even stated, above, that the source of misunderstanding this set of rules stems from your misunderstanding of other rules elements (specifically, TWF rules). Exactly how far does this go? There is a greater burden of responsibility on a GM to understand the game mechanics, compared to someone playing a single character because the GM is the arbiter and referee for the game. So it isn't misplaced criticism to call such qualifications into question with the evidence of repeated, layered rules misunderstanding. But here are the facts of the case: 1) The player came to you with a legal use of his class abilities. 2) You (incorrectly) claimed that his use was not allowed. 3) The player came to the forums seeking support and we explained to him exactly why he was correct and how to adequately explain the rules to you. 4) You still rejected his explanation and demanded proof in the form of a FAQ or other official response to prove that the rules work the way they are written (Paizo staff do not issue official responses or FAQs for this purpose). 5) You had to come to the forum yourself and, instead of looking at this thread, seeing our explanations, and accepting that a) you were incorrect, and b) you really need to step up your GM game, you start your own thread as a counter-point to this one. How, exactly, do you think that looks to the rest of us? You rejected our council when presented by proxy, you didn't even bother to look at this thread which the player started, your player "somehow" got the impression from you that you wouldn't accept anything short of an official response from Paizo, and you can't handle the very real and accurate constructive criticism that points out your insufficient system mastery, instead, resting on the laurels of quantity of GM experience rather than quality and corroboration from other players with GM experience who also got it wrong. But no, instead of accepting that is is clear and straight-forward and that the misunderstanding was due to your deficit in understanding, you try to assert the claim that your understanding was adequate and the rules in question were too difficult and convoluted and that those calling you out for your deficit are over-reaching. That is the point that is being made here.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Basically Herolab asked our Licensing Coordinator who asked me, so I asked Jason, and he said that gauntlets are basically just a way to do lethal damage with your unarmed strikes, not an actual weapon (basically an inexpensive modifier for unarmed strikes that's in the unarmed strike category) and can't be enhanced on its own, whereas all those other weapons are listed separately as weapons, including spiked gauntlet.
So, is this a new change because last I heard, Jason and SKR determined that Gauntlets were not Unarmed Strikes and SKR further clarified in one of the blogs (which I can't seem to find now) that there are no "Unarmed Strike" type weapons in Pathfinder except for actual Unarmed Strikes.
The way I've understood it is that Gauntlets can be used in two ways. First, they can be used normally as a Gauntlet weapon, interacting with Weapon Focus(Gauntlet), relying on its own enhancement bonus(es), and not interacting with Unarmed Strike rules elements. Second, they can be used to grant the lethal damage property to Unarmed Strikes; and only lethal damage, not enhancement bonus or negating provocation or the like. From all the information on the table right now, first Gauntlets were Unarmed Strike weapons, then they weren't, and now they are again. Are you and Jason absolutely sure about it this time, or did he just forget what he and SKR decided? Granted, it has been several years and he may very well have forgotten, but I just want to make sure that this is a deliberate and informed change and not just forgetfulness before we all take it as gospel.
SKR stated, way back in the day, that there are not "unarmed strike" weapons. I think it was in one of the store blogs. He also stated in this post the issues concerning treating gauntlets and other "like unarmed strike" weapons as unarmed strikes. Apparently, this is also a change to a previous answer that went the other way. So has the answer changed yet again? And, if so, why?
Just because some people don't understand something doesn't automatically mean it isn't clear, nor that it is difficult to understand. All it means is that some people aren't trying hard enough. Moreover, very often I find that misunderstanding rules isn't due to lack of clarity or understanding but, rather, feigned ignorance. So a significant portion of positions against clarity exist only in an attempt to garner undue benefit for oneself. Thus, the length of a thread discussing the so-called "difficulty" of these particular rules is not a very rigorous test of how difficult they actually are to understand.
And, the most salient point to be made is that, when the explanation is plain as day, but the counter-point is based on a personal bias (in this case, you not wanting it to work because of how you think TWF restrictions should apply), it very realistically calls into question the competence, reliability, and trustworthiness of a GM. No one wants to have their legitimate character sabotaged, neither deliberately nor inadvertently, due to a GM overturning legitimate rules due to personal bias or misunderstanding. If several people with GM experience all equally misunderstand the rules that others very clearly and objectively understand, that is the exact opposite of a good thing. It doesn't make you correct in your position that it is hard to understand; it just gives you company in being wrong. The correct response isn't to sit there and criticize others for having put forth the time and mental discipline to read, understand, and sort out any potential tangles; the correct response is to use a measure of time and mental discipline to acquire an understanding and dismiss personal biases on the matter.
Another thing I almost forgot; in Occult Adventures, ki is explicitly explained as being derived from Positive Energy. How would that, then, interact with Undead; especially undead that possess a ki pool feature?
There are a few things to consider here.
1) Positive and Negative energy are fundamental energies originating from specific planes. In that regard, they have similarities to the other fundamental energies; Fire, Cold, Electricity, Acid, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos.
2) Outsiders are, essentially, energy made physically manifest. Whereas non-outsiders have body/soul duality, for outsiders, body and soul are the same unit and they are made of energies from their home plane. Fire Elementals are made out of the fundamental Fire energy from the Fire elemental plane, for instance. But a Fire elemental, despite being "made of" fire, doesn't heal from fire damage; they are just immune to it.
3) There are feats for clerics that let them use elemental or alignment energies in place of channeling positive or negative energy. With Elemental Channel, a cleric could, for instance, channel the raw Fire energy of the Fire plane, either into creatures with the Fire subtype in order to heal them, or out of such creatures in order to harm them, even though other uses of Fire energy, such as Scorching Ray, will merely have no effect. The same applies to using Alignment Channel with alignment subtype outsiders. But living (or undead) beings aren't proper sources from which to "channel energy from". You couldn't, for instance, use your ability to channel positive energy to channel the positive energy out of a living being in order to harm them; you can only channel positive energy into them to heal, or channel it into an undead, in which case, the negative energy already in the undead is "canceled out" by the incoming positive energy.
4) The Undead creature type states that they can be healed by negative energy effects (listing inflict spells as an example), but that doesn't mean that all negative energy effects will heal them. However, it doesn't state that positive energy harms them. No where in the description of the Undead creature type does it mention positive energy. Hence, it is up to each positive energy effect to state that it either doesn't work on non-living creatures, or that it specifically harms undead.
5) Some effects reliant on negative energy explicitly state that they don't heal Undead. Others have odd interactions; for instance, Chill Touch uses negative energy to harm living creatures, but does not heal undead; instead, they flee as if panicked.
6) Overexposure to positive energy on the PEP can kill living beings because, when you get high on life, you run the risk of getting totally wasted on life.
All this put together demonstrates that it's only very specific applications of positive and negative energies, which must be explicitly stated in the associated rules elements, which cause healing effects. Negative energy might not necessarily heal Undead and, by the same token, Positive energy might not necessarily heal the living. Just as Outsider(Fire) creatures aren't necessarily healed by exposure to Fire energy, nor are they harmed by exposure to Cold energy which is not used to deal damage, Positive and Negative energy should be treated similarly.
Ok... since this is oh so complicated and hard to understand, lets break it down to absurd simplicity.
1) When you cast a spell with a range of touch, you get to make a touch as a free attack in the same round you cast. You don't need to make this free touch attack immediately; you could, for instance, cast Shocking Grasp as a standard action, use a move action to move into position, then use a free action to deliver the spell.
2) If you are holding a charge for a touch attack, you may deliver the charge as either a melee touch attempt, or by an unarmed strike or natural attack. The charge isn't "attached" to any body part, so, whether you kick or tap with your foot, punch of grasp with your hand, headbutt or kiss, the charge will deliver all the same.
3) Spellstrike grants two pertinent allowances. 1) you may deliver a melee touch spell with a weapon attack in additional to all other possibilities. 2) you may use a free weapon attack in lieu of a free touch attempt in the round you cast a melee touch spell. It doesn't matter what weapon you use; you could cast the spell with your left hand and deliver with a sword in your right hand, quick draw a weapon to your left hand to deliver, deliver with a boot blade, whatever.
4) Spell Combat acts like TWF, except that, instead of gaining extra attacks with an off-hand weapon, you get to cast a spell using your off-hand attack economy. Many spells don't require any sort of attack roll, either because they use saves or they are beneficial or non-targeted spells. Other spells require an attack roll, either ranged or melee. These attack rolls are granted separate from your off-hand attack economy. Whether it is to deliver a scorching ray or a shocking grasp, the delivery had nothing to do with off-hand attacks; it was just the casting of the spell that subsumed your off-hand attack economy. Delivering the spell is completely and entirely separate and, in no way, reliant or dependent on off-hand attack limitations. So, if you deliver Shocking Grasp with the same Longsword you used for your iterative attacks during Spell Combat, it doesn't matter that you normally can't TWF with the same weapon as both main-hand and off-hand because the attack to deliver the Shocking Grasp is not an off-hand attack. It was the casting of Shocking Grasp that was your off-hand attack and the delivery is not bound by off-hand limitations. You suffer a -2 penalty to the attack roll only because Spellstrike says you do; you don't treat the attack as an off-hand in any manner, so you get full Power Attack and Str bonus to the attack, but it doesn't count for rules elements that require you to strike with an off-hand attack. It would be no different than making an attack action as a standard action, then casting a quickened Shocking Grasp and delivering with the same weapon; you wouldn't claim that this isn't allowed because you can't get multiple attacks without using a full-attack because the delivery attack for the Shocking Grasp is outside of the normal standard attack action/full-round full-attack action mechanics. Same thing is you cast a quickened Shocking Grasp during a normal TWF full-attack; the weapon you use to deliver the Shocking Grasp is completely divorced from TWF considerations.
There are three ways to look at this issue.
1) One definition of "Capsize" is "to knock over; to upset". If you focus on the "to upset" portion of the definition, it means that you upset the vessel and the effect of this upset is determined by the context. In water, a vessel that has been capsized (upset) will turn over and sink. In space, a vessel upset would be knocked around and suffer some kinds of penalties; if close to a strong gravity source, it could get pulled in. Otherwise, you might treat the ship as if it were staggered.
2) The process of capsizing a boat turns its deck (the top) towards the medium on which it travels (the water). If you translate this process to the context of a spaceship, it is turning the deck (the inside) towards the medium of travel (space). So capsizing involves opening the inside of the ship to the vacuum of space.
3) Just as you can't trip a creature with no legs, you can't meaningfully capsize a spaceship anymore than you could do so to a submarine.
After reading through the Ectoplasmic Armor ability, I believe it does count as actual armor. It says "tendrils of ectoplasmic material envelop her body", which implies to me that there is a physical manifestation of armor, rather than just a magical force. In my opinion, it shouldn't stack with your monk armor bonus. In the end, its up to your GM though. Good luck.
In order for it to count as armor for interacting with monk abilities and the like, it must explicitly state as such. Implications don't count in this regard. So, it would need to say, "This counts as wearing (light/medium/heavy) armor for the purpose of class abilities and feats that are restricted to certain categories of armor". Lacking that, it does not count as wearing armor and does not adversely affect any abilities reliant on not wearing armor (and, conversely, does not permit abilities reliant on wearing armor).
One pertinent example to note here is the Snakeskin Tunic, a chest slot wondrous item which grants, among other things, a +1 armor bonus to AC. It is not armor since it doesn't go in the armor slot and it has no rules element that counts it as if it were armor, hence, it doesn't hinder Monks. However, the bonus to AC it grants is an armor type bonus, so other sources of armor type bonuses (eg. actual armor, bracers of armor, etc) would not stack. However, Monk's AC bonus is untyped and, as such, stacks with any other applicable armor bonuses. Ectoplasmic Armor provides an armor type bonus, but is not armor. A Monk can use it without preventing use of his Monk abilities, and his Monk armor bonus also contributes, but he wouldn't benefit from Bracers of Armor, Snakeskin Tunic's armor bonus, or similar rules elements.
To the OP, show your DM the linked post from Jason, see if that changes his mind. Try to cut him a little slack. If You've never seen a magus played how they work exactly is NOT obvious from the write up.
It may not be broken down into baby terms and handed on a silver platter, but it's still pretty easy to understand. To claim that Spellstrike + Spell Combat is complicated and not obvious is straying into "Magnets, how do they work" territory. This is high school reading comprehension at play here and, if the GM, who is responsible for full comprehension of an entire AP, isn't even able to muster up the reading comprehension to understand two paragraphs... what is he doing pretending to be a competent GM?
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yeah, if your GM lacks the basic reading comprehension to understand this, he lacks the qualifications to be a GM; he'll screw up everything else, too.
Ok, some things seem to be tangled up here, so first, lets straighten out the facts.
1) A Brawler counts his Brawler levels as if they were both Fighter and Monk levels for the purpose of feat prerequisites as well as magic item usage. So, for a single-class Brawler 8, he can change usage of the Monk's Robes to "as if he were a monk 5 levels higher" to "as if he were a brawler 5 levels higher" and, consequently, count as a Brawler 13 for certain rules elements. He could also change a prerequisite from "Fighter lvl 6" to "Brawler lvl 6" to qualify for a feat.
2) Certain classes state that they "stack" levels of one class with those of another. For instance: "Fighter Training (Ex): Starting at 10th level, a magus counts 1/2 his total magus level as his fighter level for the purpose of qualifying for feats. If he has levels in fighter, these levels stack." Magus's Fighter Training needs to explicitly state that the magus levels equivalent to fighter levels stack with actual fighter levels. The fact that this needs to be stated outright adequately demonstrates that the levels wouldn't stack otherwise. So, if it were lacking that line, a Magus/Fighter would use either half their Magus level, or their Fighter level to satisfy feat prereqs. Brawler's Martial Training lacks that line; it doesn't say, "a Brawler counts his Brawler level as Monk and Fighter levels... If he has levels in fighter or monk, these levels stack accordingly." So, you use either your Brawler level or your Monk level, whichever is better, for feats as well as determining the effect of Monk's Robes and the like.
3) Stunning Fist is probably the most challenging to understand in light of all this and misunderstandings abound. But lets break it down. Martial Training gives you the option to count either Brawler levels or Monk levels (but not both stacked together) for feats (prerequisites, effects based on level, etc). So a Brawler 8/Monk 4 could read the special line of Stunning Fist to say, "A monk may attempt a stunning attack a number of times per day equal to his monk level, plus one more time per day for every four levels he has in classes other than monk." or "A brawler may attempt a stunning attack a number of times per day equal to his brawler level, plus one more time per day for every four levels he has in classes other than brawler." If you're going to sub in Brawler levels, you need to do it everywhere. So, as a Brawler using Martial Training, you can use Stunning Fist 8 times for 8 brawler levels, plus an additional 1 time for 4 non-Brawler levels, even though those non-Brawler levels are Monk levels.
With that information, the rest should fall neatly into place.
It was a humorous way to point out a cherry picking fallacy. Point out a fallacy is not an "attack on the person". It is, very much, a refutation of their argument. It doesn't even matter if the fallacy was deliberate or inadvertent on his part.
The closest thing I've found that describes how Abaddon works is Hueco Mundo from the Bleach manga/anime. Daemons are generated from the souls of mortals who died in suffering and agony. They hunger for souls but also an end to their own suffering. As opposed to Devils and Demons who collect souls (Devils as a currency of sorts and Demons as playthings) Daemons consume and destroy souls, absorbing the energy into their own being. It's a form of survival of the fittest, similar to the Demons of the Abyss, but the Demons have fun doing it; they enjoy the brutal freedom of CE. Daemons, on the other hand, aren't doing it for the fun of it. They are paradoxical; they hunger for power to avoid being, themselves, consumed, but they also wish for a final end to their suffering. The ultimate form of that is the destruction of the entire metaverse. Think Azrael from the movie Dogma; "Have you ever been to Hell, mortal? I'd rather not exist than to go back there." Remember, Outsiders don't "die"; they are the energy of their soul so, often, those in Abaddon will have their soul energy absorbed into some more powerful Daemon; their existence will continue, but they have no control over it. Even if one dies without being consumed by another, their energy will be absorbed into the very background of the plane itself. Again, they still "exist", but they have not tangible control over themselves. The only way to break the cycle of existence and suffering is to destroy the whole thing.
So, basically, A LE person in Hell would want to climb the diabolic corporate ladder (though, they leave any semblance of their mortal life behind in the process). A CE person in the Abyss would have fun slaughtering as many as he can, completely unfettered. A NE person in Abaddon just tries to survive as best they can, overpowering when they can, escaping when they can't overpower, and being consumed when they can't escape. They don't enjoy consuming other souls, but they enjoy the prospect of being consumed even less.
First correction, Aasimar, Tieflings, and other "planetouched" native outsiders aren't halfbreeds. By default, they are born a pair of completely normal Human parents. Halfbreeds of this type are accomplished through templates like Half-Celestial or Half-Fiend. But when you have a planar ancestor, it leaves an epigenetic "marker" that sort of rides, inert, along the genome and, without warning, spontaneously activates to cause what would have otherwise been a Human child to undergo a radical genetic change resulting in a native outsider born to a pair of Humans (or other pair of Humanoids).
Secondly, he could easily just identify himself as Human if he's actively denouncing his Elven heritage in particular. Sure, the True Breed feat means he doesn't mechanically count as Human either, but his personal view, affected by his repulsion of all things Elven, might have him claiming to be Human; maybe even more than Human if he sees himself as a Human that isn't vulnerable to things that normally target Humans specifically (eg. bane, favored enemy, etc). Humans, themselves, have enough morphological variance that physical differences might be easier to pass off; maybe take Pass For Human to emphasize this quality.
To be fair, what he meant was that it isn't supported by the cherry-picked parts of the rules that agree with the position he is espousing. Didn't you know internet debates work differently?
I think you're misreading what it means by "as if making a trip combat maneuver". It doesn't mean, "this is a trip, but not the trip combat maneuver"; it means "this attack to deal damage concurrently counts as a trip combat maneuver". The normal line states that, normally, you must actually use the rules for making a trip combat maneuver to trip a foe. You can't normally trip a foe when you're attacking to deal damage because attacking to deal damage isn't a trip combat maneuver; it's either or.
Now, regarding adding bonuses to the Tripping Strike checks, we do have precedent in the Deadly weapon property which counts damage as +4 higher for the purpose of determining the fort save DC to avoid instant death even though that +4 isn't added as actual damage. So it isn't outside the realm of possibility that you can have a roll count for two separate things and add a bonus for only one of those purposes. So, first, you must threaten a critical. Then, you must confirm that critical. Once you confirm your critical, you have the option of checking that confirmation roll (with appropriate additional trip bonuses) against the target's CMD to see if the attack also tripped the target.
Ok, what's this nonsense I see about a "trip" being different from a "trip combat maneuver"? Trip is a combat maneuver; all trips are the trip combat maneuver, just as all grapples, disarms, sunders, etc. are all combat maneuvers. There's no such thing as a combat maneuver that isn't a combat maneuver.
MAD - Multi-attribute dependency; a character that requires more than 2-3 basic attributes to function adequately.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Are you actually following any of the discussion? He is using the glaive two-handed because Shield Brace doesn't make the weapon one-handed; it lets you use the shield even while both hands are wielding the 2-h weapon. Try to keep up with the rest of us or stick to spectating.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
He doesn't need one-handed use to use the shield. That's the whole point of Shield Brace; he can still use the shield while wielding a 2-h weapon. He can't TWF with them, but he made no indication he wanted to open up TWF. If he uses a reach weapon, he can attack at reach with the weapon or adjacent with the shield. If he uses a non-reach polearm/spear (eg. a Nodachi), he leans more towards versatility of damage types (slashing and/or piercing from the weapon, bludgeoning from the shield) and also the possibility to use shield-based bullrushing. It's important to read the actual post and not just stop at the title.
Well, we already have rules elements involving changing the proficiency category of weapons, such as Elves treating elven weapons as martial. You still need martial proficiency for them, but that's easier to come by compared to EWP. Instead of granting auto-proficiency with certain martial weapons, you can step them down to simple. Commoners are only proficient with one simple weapon and certain classes are not proficient with all simple weapons so this averts the issue of all Elven commoners being trained in Longswords, Rapiers, etc. (as well as Monks, Wizards, and Druids). For the neglected category, just do the same process in reverse; neglected weapons step up in category. So, going with the original line of reasoning and using the example of Elves:
Elven Weapon Familiarity:
When it talks about shield proficiency in Weapon and Armor Proficiency blocks, it's talking about being proficient with them as armor, not as weapons. Using a shield as a weapon usually falls under Martial proficiency so any character with proficiency in all martial weapons can proficiently use a shield to attack. If you aren't proficient with shields as armor, then you take the ACP to your attack rolls as well as to Str and Dex checks. For example:
A heavy shield has a -2 ACP. If you aren't proficient with shields, you take a -2 penalty to any melee attacks you make while wearing the shield. If you are proficient with all martial weapons, you can make shield bash attacks normally (though, the -2 penalty still applies to the attack roll). If you are not proficient with martial weapons, you take -4 non-proficiency penalty to a shield bash (total -6, -4 non-prof and -2 ACP for using non-proficient armor).
Kineticist doesn't have armor proficiency for shields. But they are proficient with all simple weapons. Shield-Trained makes shield bashing count as a simple weapon, so you wouldn't take the -4 non-prof penalty, but you'd still take the -2 ACP on attack rolls unless you get armor proficiency for shields by some other means.
You can parry with or against a brilliant energy weapon for the same reason that your touch spell doesn't deliver against the ground or your clothes or when someone hits you with an unarmed strike or natural weapon. For the same reason the weapon will still damage the surface of the skin and could cause bleeding despite the fact that the epidermis is non-living material. For the same reason that a Scorching Ray or Shocking Grasp will ignore the shield bonus to AC from your tower shield and affect you even if it hits the shield... unless you plant it against the ground and use it as a wall.
Normally, use of Wings of Heaven is limited to a certain number of uses per day. The lvl 20 Celestial bloodline power, among other things, removes that limit. So you have no limit on the number of times you can use the ability per day. That isn't the same as granting you the capacity to use the ability. Another way to look at it: there is no limit to the number of times per day you can use Power Attack. Technically, every character has an unlimited number of uses for the Power Attack feat. But you need the actual feat to have the capacity to use Power Attack. So losing the power because of an archetype renders that clause in the lvl 20 power moot; it removes the limit of an ability that you lack the capacity to use anyway.
Now, if you want to create a houserule, you might say that you gain unlimited uses of whatever power Wings of Heaven was replaced by, but, personally, I think that's stepping beyond the intent since Ascension is meant to be an ultimate expression of the Celestial bloodline; but, because of the Razmiran Priest archetype, you explored other avenues rather than your bloodline so "perfection" of your bloodline for the parts you did pursue wouldn't necessarily extend to realization of powers you've ignored in favor of alternate routes of power.
Ok, here's what you do to "fix" crossbows. Keep in mind that, traditionally, crossbows were meant to be a ranged weapon that didn't require tons of training to use and could even be given to conscripted peasants so they wouldn't just stand there like a bunch of useless yokels. They were not meant to be as good as bows and, surprise, they are far inferior to bows.
First, use the composite bow mechanic of having a strength rating for crossbow damage. The harder it is to crank, the more tension you can store up and the harder it will hit. But it would need to be a bit modified due to the nature of the weapon. With a Bow, if you have lower than the strength rating, you suffer a penalty to your attack roll. In the case of a crossbow, it should be a penalty to reloading speed; reloading is increased by 1 step if you don't have the necessary strength. Treat it as a two-handed weapon such that you get 1.5x Str to damage. For example, a Heavy Crossbow with a Str rating of +4 would let you use up to a +4 Str bonus to apply +6 damage (4 * 1.5), but if you had less than a +4 Str modifier, reload time would go from full-round to 1 round (meaning it provokes at any time during the round until the start of your next turn).
Second, Crossbows that are currently martial weapons would be given the caveat that if you lack martial proficiency with them, you can treat them as simple weapons. As simple weapons, their reload time is increased by 1 and they cannot be used one-handed (except for hand crossbows). For exotic crossbows, do the same, except that they can step down to martial proficiency (again, with increased reload and no one-handing). This reflects how they could even be used adequately by untrained persons.
Third, remember that Crossbows are not meant to be a primary weapon. They are meant to be used by those who have no other means to attack. Any loser can pick up a crossbow and take a pot shot at the opponent every other round or so. Having an entire squad of conscripted peasants with crossbows can really put a damper on an approaching enemy, especially if they fire in waves (1 firing, 1 reloading, switch).
Forth, remember that for someone "specializing" in a crossbow, they are already using a sub-standard weapon. But assistance is always OK. Having a couple of them and a helper who reloads a new one for you and hands it off can do wonders for your firing speed. It will still be far slower than using a Bow, though. Crossbows are a great weapon to give to your followers if you have Leadership... not so much a weapon for your character unless you're willing to devote a lot of effort (feats) and maybe take a specialized archetype.
Sarenrae is a very pragmatic deity. She understands that redemption isn't just a "one-and-done" process. Even her Paladin code says to fight fair if it's a fair fight, but don't die in vain when you know they won't fight fair. Seems like the Cleric in question is trying to set the slaver on a path away from brutal beatings and towards some kind of redemption. The Nirvana Fallacy is arguing in favor of the status quo just because the proposed improvement isn't perfect. Better than the current situation is still better. Now, if the Cleric thinks, "Well, my work here is done, this slaver is redeemed" and leaves it at that, well, that might be another thing. But once the slaver starts seeing that brutal beatings aren't the way to go, that might, inexorably, lead towards that the notion that slavery itself is an inefficient means of establishing a work force.
This is why weapon sub-categories needs to be a thing. You could have something like:
Rules elements could apply in various ways; for instance, River Rat would apply to the Dagger as well as any sub-weapons under that category. Proficiency would need to work the other way around, though; simple proficiency would get you the dagger but you'd still need ewp for the swordbreaker dagger.
Having a Paladin fall or a Cleric lose their powers for a good reason is one thing. Having a Paladin fall or a Cleric lose their powers because the GM just wants to justify his need to be a jerk is a completely different thing. The GM is an arbiter of the rules; he is a referee. But the game belongs to all the players involved. Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand. The GM is free to adjudicate the rules as he sees fit, but is responsible for doing so fairly. The GM in question here did not. He made up a rule mid-game that wasn't discussed, didn't allow for a check, was total BS, and tried to cite it as a story event in the AP (it wasn't) to "rational lies" it. That is a problem GM who cannot handle the task at hand appropriately. In my book, he can feel free to GM a table with just himself and "most important rule" to his heart's content.
There are really only two logical choices in this kind of situation; which choice you take largely depends on the attitude of the rest of your group. If the rest of them are sane and competent, kick the GM to the curb. Tell him that he isn't welcome if he's going to make clearly incorrect and spiteful rulings. On the other hand, if the rest of the group are perfectly fine with the situation, walk away; they aren't worth your time.
The issue with Phalanx Fighter is that you wield the weapon one-handed. That means you don't get 1.5x Str and Power Attack bonuses and can't use it for abilities that require using a 2-h weapon (eg. Pushing Assault). Shield Brace, on the other hand, doesn't change the effort category of the weapon so it still functions as a 2-h weapon with all the benefits (and restrictions) that entails. I think 2-h Fighter is probably best for this, especially if you want to stick with the Breastplate.
Correct. You're no longer dealing with positive or negative energies. Regardless of your ability to channel Positive or Negative energy, you gain the option of channeling Good, Evil, Chaos, Law, Fire, Cold, Acid, or Electricity, depending on which feat and which energy choice you make and each energy type can either harm or heal outsiders with the appropriate subtype.