|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The Astral plane has "subjective directional gravity"
So, objects and non-sentient creatures will float inertly as if weightless. But a sentient creature, if they find a solid surface, can "imagine" gravity and walk normally. If you are floating, you can imagine a "down" directly to "fly" (more like falling with style) in that direction at falling speed (and take appropriate falling damage if you hit anything). So inhabitants of the Astral aren't just "floating aimlessly" in zero-gravity; they are all skydiving constantly, usually cruising at about 34 mph, with self-determined "down" directions that can be changed with a DC 16 Wisdom check that gets +6 easier each time you fail.
1) You need to adjust all handedness factors when you size stepup. This doesn't just apply to the default manner to wield the weapon, but "virtual" manners to wield it, such as wielding a Large Bastard Sword; if you have EWP, you may wield it as a 1-h weapon which steps up to 2-h if Large. But if you lack EWP, you must treat it as a "virtual" 2-h weapon which also steps up to "unwieldable" if Large. Likewise, a Heavy Crossbow is 2-h which steps up to "unwieldable" if Large and if it may be wielded one-handed at a -4 penalty, that steps up to two-handed if Large. Wielding a Large Heavy Crossbow in two-handed would be equivalent to wielding a Medium Heavy Crossbow one-handed; you can't say, "Oh, well, I'm wielding it in two hands so there's no penalty" any more than you can wield a Large Bastard Sword without EWP and say, "Oh, well, I'm wielding it in two hands so I'm fine". However...
2) "With one hand" and "one-handed" are two very different and distinct rules elements. To wield a weapon "one-handed" means it follows all the rules for one-handed weapons, including size step-up, rules for TWF, Power Attack and Str to Damage bonuses, etc. But wielding a normally two-handed weapon "with one hand", "in one hand", or anything of the like only excuses you from devoting two hands to the effort; it still counts as a 2-h weapon for all other purposes (see Lance FAQ). A Heavy Crossbow isn't, actually, wielded "one-handed" at a -4 penalty; it's wielded "with one hand" at a -4 penalty which takes it out of the scope of the "two-handed weapons one-handed" FAQ and into the scope of the "lance in one hand" FAQ. In other words, it isn't a virtual handedness category as with the Bastard Sword so it's still a two-handed weapon, one step up which places it firmly in the realm of "unwieldable".
3) There is no distinction between "wield" and "attack with" in Pathfinder; in fact, the two are intimately intertwined. To "wield" a weapon means actively using it to make attacks. So you can't justify anything with, "it doesn't say attack with, it says wield" because, in this system, the two are synonymous.
I had brought up in one of the original threads discussing the Haste issue regarding Spell Combat, after the FAQ was revised to allow Haste to work with Spell Combat, whether that was changing the rules on Haste and similar effects, or if it was changing the rules on Spell Combat, making it either "count as" a full-attack or, at least, contain a full-attack component. The reply I got from the devs basically boiled down to, "We're not sure, we'll get back to you on that" but they never have, to my knowledge, addressed the disparity.
Basically, it comes down to this: Haste (and other similar effects) state that they grant a bonus attack on a full-attack action (a distinct kind of Full-Round action; for the sake of clarity, Full-Round action will be in bold while full attack and other specific actions are in ooc). The original version of the FAQ stated that, since Spell Combat is a Full-Round Use Special Ability action and not a Full-Round Full Attack action, Haste (and, consequently, other rules elements that apply to full attacks) do not apply. But they reversed that decision because they felt it was overly pedantic and that, basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a full attack action for all practical purposes so Haste "should" work on such a situation where you're getting "all your iterative attacks". So, does Haste et. al. now grant an extra attack "in all cases where you may make all your iterative attacks", which would mean that Spell Combat still isn't a full-attack? Or, is Spell Combat now entirely equivalent to a full-attack and can be used, say, with Pounce as part of a charge? Or is Spell Combat still a Full-Round Use Special Ability action which "contains" a full attack which means, while it isn't eligible to be part of a Pounce Charge, it is eligible for other rules elements such as fighting defensively? I never got a clear answer to this question.
Based on what I see of the style, I'd have to say 'yes'. It isn't being treated as an improvised weapon; it's being treated as a straight up mace. The rule of thumb is that you can use pretty much any weapon in an "improvised" manner, such as hitting someone adjacent with the butt of your spear, but it isn't a spear when you do so so you gain no enhancement bonus, no weapon training bonus, no nothing bonus (except stuff specifically directed towards improvised weapon). But if a feat or special ability is saying you can use the weapon in a particular manner, presume that it also benefits from any relevant bonuses unless the ability explicitly states otherwise.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Which is odd, considering that in real-world esoteric practices, water is considered to be a prime medium for metaphysical phenomenon (ie. water memory). One thing to consider is that the myelin sheathes around neurons are fat based which causes there to be a high concentration of fatty material in the brain, particularly in the white matter that composes the large bulk of the brain core (so calling someone a fat-head would actually be a compliment). But, then, bloatmages keep extra magical power in their blood which would be water-based. So maybe not hydrophobic, but it "burns off" more slowly from the fatty parts of the body and more quickly in the watery parts.
That's an interesting notion. It might be possible that, after consuming all the soft materials of the body, the skeleton is left behind when the WtW is spawned. It does say, specifically, that it's feeding on the body fats that confers the magical abilities.
It all boils down to this; unarmed attack =/= unarmed strike. So, if you make an unarmed strike and are wearing spiked gauntlets, the spiked gauntlets will allow your unarmed strike to deal lethal piercing damage, but offers no other change; enhancement bonus on the gauntlet doesn't carry over and it doesn't change the fact that unarmed strikes provoke AoO. If you attack with the gauntlet itself as its own weapon, it will deal lethal piercing damage and enhancement bonus on the gauntlet will work, but effects that apply to Unarmed Strikes will not apply.
The same could be said of any other spell. Charm Person lasts 1 hour/level. Lets say 1 hour for the purposes of the example. It expires after 1 hour has passed. I cast Break Enchantment. Is Charm Person still active? Well, has 1 hour passed? No. So Charm Person is still active. But that violates the principal of the Break Enchantment spell and, effectively, makes it non-functional which is an unacceptable situation. Break Enchantment does exactly what it says on the tin; it cancels any magical effect under its purview. It's not canceling the effect "of feeblemind", as Heal, Limited Wish, Miracle, or Wish would; it's canceling the effect "of magic" and that bypasses the list altogether. The list only concerns itself with rules elements that remove detrimental status; you can't use any other means to remove detrimental status to remove the effect of Feeblemind and the effect is forward acting so if the afflicted gets an Intelligence/Charisma boost sometime down the line (ie. they put on a magical item), that bonus has no net effect since the total intelligence would instantly be brought back down to 1. That's what it means by the subject remaining in that state; that even if bonuses would come into play later, they automatically get rolled into the effect of Feebleminded, even though the spell has already been cast and done with. But Break Enchantment doesn't care about that because it, explicitly, reverses any enchantment, transmutation, or curse effect under specific parameters which Feeblemind falls under.
It's about the size of a battleaxe but with the added spear tip. It doesn't strictly fall into any single pathfinder weapon, so I'd say make it an exotic weapon that works as a battleaxe/spear combo. Alternatively, just say the spear tip is not really made for stabbing but just a pointed cap on the weapon and just call it a regular battleaxe.
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level sorcerer/wizard 5
Target creature's Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1. The affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently. Still, it knows who its friends are and can follow them and even protect them. The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind. A creature that can cast arcane spells, such as a sorcerer or a wizard, takes a –4 penalty on its saving throw.
So Break Enchantment says it will remove any enchantment of 5th level or lower, which Feeblemind is. However, Feeblemind states it can only be removed by a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish.
Specific trumps General, so this seems to state that Break Enchantment will not remove Feeblemind. Is this correct?
Where do you see 'only' in Feeblemind's block? It doesn't say "The subject remains in this state until only a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind." To say that these spells do cancel the effect doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that another spell inherently does not cancel the effect if the rules for that spell would grant it the ability to do so. Now, if Feeblemind's block specifically stated, "Break Enchantment cannot cancel the effect of Feeblemind" that would be an example of 'specific trumps general'; Break Enchantment generally works on any spell that falls under its purview, but a spell can specifically omit itself from that purview. But being excluded from a list of spells that do work is not a specific omission unless the list is explicitly exhaustive (as with the inclusion of "only" or equivalent). To boil it down, the listed spells (heal, (limited) wish, miracle) undo the detrimental status imposed by Feeblemind while Break Enchantment undoes Feeblemind itself.
Hamper (v) :to hold back; hinder; impede. Grease hampers your movement, thus your movement is hampered. If your movement is hampered, moving into a square costs twice the normal amount. It doesn't matter if the hampering effect is within the square you move to or the square you move from; your movement is hampered.
"When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares..." It doesn't specify that the square you move into must be what hampers your movement, only that if your movement "is hampered", moving into a square counts as two squares. If you are standing in an area of grease, your movement "is hampered". Therefore, moving into another square, even if that square is not difficult terrain, takes 10' of movement.
Cats are animals. Dogs are animals. Therefore, cats are dogs. That is a syllogistic fallacy. A weapon's Damage Type is a type of damage. A spell can deal fire as a type of damage. Therefore, fire can be a weapon's Damage Type. This is, likewise, a syllogistic fallacy; more specifically the "fallacy of the undistributed middle".
"Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing."
Argument: Weapons have a damage type, either slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning.
The rules state what damage type is for a weapon; that doesn't mean that lacking a type means it isn't damage. Energy can deal damage, but that isn't a weapon damage type. Resorting to fallacies to "win" arguments is not only unbecoming, but also against the rules of the forum. People are coming here looking, in earnest, for honest, logical interpretations of the rules and deliberately presenting an incorrect interpretation, despite all evidence to the contrary, for the purpose of misleading readers violates the "don't be a jerk" rule and, more importantly, compromises the integrity of the community. So, if you are doing this deliberately, I call to put a stop to it now; I've already reported the pertinent offenders. If you have unintentionally gotten drawn into someone else's argument on account of the "bandwagon" effect, I suggest you fully analyze the facts at hand and come to a more reasonable conclusion. I'll re-present them here for the benefit of anyone interested in the truth.
Weapons have a damage type which is defined by the quality of the damage of the weapon as being either slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning. This can also be considered "physical" damage as it is referred to in the rules. This can be found under the Equipment section of the CRB. Most weapons deal physical damage and any weapon that deals physical damage has a damage type. A marginal number of weapons deal no physical damage but, instead, deal energy-based damage. One example is the Battle Poi. It deals its stated weapon damage not as physical damage but, rather, as energy damage of the energy type "fire". It does not deal physical damage and has no damage type (deals energy damage and has an energy type instead). It still deals damage, but has no damage type. The feat Weapon Versatility allows you to change the damage type of a weapon. It states that, instead of the normal damage type, you may deal your choice of slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing damage. You cannot substitute something you do not have, so, if the weapon in question has no damage type, as defined in CRB\Equipment, there is nothing for which you may deal a selected damage type "instead of". Rays are considered weapons, but this doesn't inherently give them a damage type. Rays are, almost exclusively, energy-based attacks and energy attacks typically have energy types (fire, cold, acid, electricity, positive, negative, sound, force). A Ray that has no damage type, as defined in CRB\Equipment, has nothing to substitute for slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage via the Weapon Versatility feat. This is all right there in the rules for anyone who can bother to actually read them. Those are the facts, nothing more and nothing less.
If you really want to break it down, you're moving from roughly the center of one square to the center of another. It's still 5 feet, but 2.5 feet is within the first square and 2.5 feet is within the next. If grease slows you to half speed, it takes 5 feet worth of movement to cross the 2.5 feet between the middle of your current square and the edge of your current square, thus 7.5 feet worth of movement based on the Pathfinder abstraction of the grid. If it takes more than 5' of movement to cross the space, you cannot 5' step and it eats 5' worth of movement to "leave" your current square so your total move distance is reduced by 5' (eg. a 30 speed character can move 25 feet from their starting spot with no further speed hampering).
And I'd certainly say that the effect of grease is difficult terrain. Terrain doesn't hamper movement because it is difficult, it is difficult because it hampers movement. So if the terrain hampers movement, it is considered difficult. "Difficult terrain" is simply a label that the system uses to indicate whether or not the terrain of the square hampers movement.
There is one rule that dictates a specific order. But there is another series of rules that states how off-hand attacks are ordered.
GM: "The bridge is rickety, it looks like the second person to cross would cause it to collapse."
That's what your stance on how off-hand attacks are ordered has amounted to.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Bonus attacks of that sort aren't additional actions; they add additional attacks to your full-attack. So they can, very well, come at the beginning, middle, or end of the full-attack completely at the option of the player.
And, at least for core monk FoB, you cannot down-step it to a standard + move because you have already gained a benefit of having used Flurry on the very first attack (increased BAB). Just as with Multi-shot, you've gained a benefit and are, thus, locked into the full-round action.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Missing the point
I've provided all the rules information in my posts. At this point, I can only presume that you're being deliberately misleading on the matter. Therefore, your posts really amount to nothing since they are nothing but strawman fallacies.
Again, the rules define what a damage type is; it's the quality of damage of a weapon either as slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing. That is, definitively, the damage type of a weapon. Energy is not listed there. Fire is not a damage type according to the definition of damage type; it is an energy type and, again, energy is not a damage type. The battle poi even explicitly states that it is not heavy enough to deal physical damage, but it deals fire damage instead. So the Battle Poi has no damage type. You could not use Weapon Versatility to wield a Battle Poi in such a way that it stops dealing energy(fire) damage and deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage instead. You cannot fire a Scorching Ray in such a way that it stops dealing energy(fire) damage and deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage instead. You cannot fire a positive energy Channel Ray in such a way that it stops dealing energy(positive) damage and deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage instead. You cannot, while using Flaming Crow Strike, make your Unarmed Strikes stop dealing energy(fire/negative) and deal bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage instead. But you could fire a Crystal Shard ray from Psionics Unleashed in such a way that it stops dealing piercing damage and deals bludgeoning or slashing damage instead. You could fire a gun in such a way that it stops dealing P/B and deals Slashing damage instead. You could fire a blunt arrow in such a way that it stops dealing bludgeoning damage and deals slashing or piercing damage instead. You could wield a bowling ball as an improvised weapon in such a way that it stops dealing bludgeoning damage and deals slashing or piercing damage instead. How you imagine it in action, or rationalize against it, is irrelevant; that's how it works and how it doesn't work. Period.
Incorrect. Here's the feat again since you missed it before:
Weapon Versatility: When wielding a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you can shift your grip as a swift action so that your weapon deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage instead of the damage type normally dealt by that weapon. You may switch back to the weapon's normal damage type or another damage type as a swift action.
It does, indeed, specify that the resulting damage type is instead of the damage type normally dealt. Since there is no damage type normally dealt, there is nothing to be replaced. If an ability stated that, instead of dealing sneak attack damage, you may cause blindness, you wouldn't argue that you can cause blindness on an attack that wouldn't normally deal sneak attack damage, would you? I should hope not, since that would be unreasonable. Likewise, if the feat says you may deal deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage instead of the damage type normally dealt, you cannot deal your choice of bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing with a weapon that has no damage type. And, again, what is a damage type for a weapon? Bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing. Does a Ray deal one of these damage types? That's a case-by-case basis, but no Ray I've found, save for a third-party example from Psionics Unleashed, fits the bill.
Slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing are for physical weapons. Rays, obviously are not physical weapons, but they work that way for these feats. Specific over general.
Specific over general has a logical limit. Rays count as weapons, but does that mean that they can suffer the broken condition like weapons can? No. Does that mean that they can be bought and sold in a shop like weapons can? No. Does that mean they can be made masterwork like weapons can? No. They may count as weapons for the purpose of feats which require you to select a weapon type, but they don't have damage types as weapons do so a feat which changes the damage type of your weapon would have no effect on a ray which has no damage type to change. It might have an energy type, but that isn't a damage type. Now, if your Ray already dealt piercing damage, either on its own or by virtue of some other rules element, then Weapon Versatility (Ray) would allow you to deal Bludgeoning or Slashing damage with said Ray. For the sake of cinematic, say you have a hypothetical Ray which launches a shard of ice as a Ray and deals half Piercing, half Cold damage. The This means that half the damage is dealt as physical damage of Piercing damage type and the other half is dealt as energy damage of Cold energy type. If you have Weapon Versatility (Ray), you might fire it aimed in such a way that it grazes the enemy and leaves a slash mark on their cheek. Or you might fire it sideways so that it smacks into the target bluntly rather than with the piercing tip. But a spell like Scorching Ray deals energy damage and has an energy type, not a damage type. Furthermore, it would be ridiculous that a Scorching Ray could be changed by Weapon Versatility such that it no longer deals Fire damage; it is a scorching ray comprised of magical fire but deals physical slashing damage instead of energetic fire damage? No.
Aabbabba the Arcanista wrote:
First, even if the question is similar, note the dates. This thread is two years old so it would be better to begin a new thread rather than necro an old one. Yes, I know, dates are easy to miss since search defaults to "relevance" (ironic since relevance seems to be irrelevant to that search order).
On to your question: the variant heritage Aasimar options come from the Blood of Angels book and isn't listed in the PRD since it isn't part of the "main" series, but, rather, in a splat book. You can find the relevant information in the SRD, a third-party site which consolidates the information from both the core series as well as the various splat books (eg. it lists all archetypes from all sources for a class, all racial options under that race, etc). Peri-blooded gives +2 Int and Cha as its options, listed under the Aasimar page in the SRD.
Ordinal numbers refer to Degree, Quality, or Position in a series. Second level spells are ordinal in Degree. Your second off-hand attack is ordinal in Position. This is all middle-school level English, does it really need to be parsed out for people? BAB ordering applies, strictly, to your iterative attacks; those attacks that come from having a high enough BAB. This ordering does not apply to additional attacks from any other source; not from haste, spending ki, off-hand attacks, etc. But off-hand attacks, themselves, have their own unique ordering based on ordinal position and executed independently of iterative ordering. Your first off-hand can go anywhere in your sequence, first, between any other two attacks, or last. Your second can also go anywhere, provided it is second in position to the first. Your standard off-hand attack is made, then a second attack may be made at BAB-5 if you have ITWF; it isn't second because it follows BAB ordering because it isn't granted just by having high enough BAB, but by having the ITWF feat. It is second because ITWF says it is second and the context shows that second refers to position. It would be impossible to be second in Quality because that would mean that, depending on whether the scale goes from best to worst or worst to best, the second off-hand attack either cannot do more damage than the first or the first cannot do more damage than the second, which is not indicated in any manner in the rules. It might be understandable to confuse it as being second in Degree, as Jason Bulmahn might have done, but even he quickly corrected himself when it was pointed out and re-asserted that each pool of attacks, main-hand and off-hand, must independently follow their own proper ordering sequence. So, unless someone is willing to argue, with a straight face, that the attack by ITWF is second in Quality or Degree rather than Position, and suffer all due embarrassment in the process, lets consider that matter concluded, shall we? Class dismissed.
Ok, I broke this down in another thread, so let me repeat it here.
Unarmed Strike normally does non-lethal damage and provokes AoO unless you have IUS. If you have a Gauntlet, you have two options. 1) You can make your Unarmed Strike do lethal damage. That is the only modification. It's still an Unarmed Strike, still provokes if you lack IUS, still can be used in FoB, and still benefits from rules elements that affect Unarmed Strikes (AoMF, Weapon Focus:US, etc), but does not benefit from rules elements that affect Gauntlets (Weapon Focus:Gauntlet, enchantments upon the Gauntlet, etc). 2) You can attack with the Gauntlet. It is a Gauntlet weapon, does not provoke, deals lethal damage as is the default for weapons, and benefits from any rules elements that affect Gauntlets (Weapon Focus: Gauntlet, enchantments upon the Gauntlet, etc), but it is neither a Monk weapon nor an Unarmed Strike and cannot be used in FoB, nor does it benefit from rules elements that benefit Unarmed Strikes (ie. AoMF, Weapon Focus: US, etc).
So, the Gauntlet is a weapon of its own and is used as any other weapon (eg. Longsword), but has a special property that it can make your Unarmed Strikes lethal (and nothing else) if you so choose.
Weapon Versatility:When wielding a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you can shift your grip as a swift action so that your weapon deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage instead of the damage type normally dealt by that weapon. You may switch back to the weapon's normal damage type or another damage type as a swift action.
The weapon needs to have a damage type to be changed by the feat. So, what is a damage type?
A Channel Ray (or just about any other kind of Ray) has no damage type to alter, so, while you could, technically, take Weapon Versatility (Ray), it would only function for Rays that deal Slashing, Bludgeoning, or Piercing damage. There might be some 3pp rays that deal physical damage, but my search didn't come up with anything from Paizo materials. Energy damage isn't a damage type for weapons and, thus, would be unaffected by Weapon Versatility.
Just because they label them with an ordinal, doesn't mean they necessarily have to be used in that order.
Actually, that is precisely the definition of ordinal number
Ordinal Number (n) 1. Also called ordinal numeral. any of the numbers that express degree, quality, or position in a series, as first, second, and third (distinguished from cardinal number ).
So, yes, if it says, second, it must come second in order and third must come third in order. The second person to cross a bridge cannot go first. Ordinal literally stems from the Latin word Ordo which means Order.
Regarding Rangers, yes, they can disregard prerequisites, but that doesn't mean they will, necessarily, be able to utilize the feat. GTWF says you can make a third off-hand attack at BAB-10. But, in order to make a third off-hand attack, you must make a second and you have no way to make a second off-hand attack without ITWF. It would be like a 2-h Ranger taking Furious Focus without having taken Power Attack; just because you can do something doesn't mean it is effective.
Don't think of two-weapon fighting as fighting with two weapons. Two-Weapon Fighting is a specific rule-set within the Pathfinder system while "fighting with two weapons" is merely a description of what you are doing. The phrases are not synonymous. So, if you are using the TWF rules, you are designating an off-hand weapon and taking appropriate penalties (both penalty to attack as well as reduced Str to damage for off-hand) in order to gain an extra attack (or more if you have ITWF or GTWF). If you are not designating an off-hand for the purpose of gaining extra attack(s), then, regardless of how many weapons you use, you are not Two-Weapon Fighting and suffer neither the penalty to attack roll nor the reduced Str to damage on any of your weapons. For that matter, you could use more than two weapons and still suffer no penalties. You could have +16 BAB for 4 iterative attacks, Haste, and spend a ki point for an additional attack and this gives you 6 total attacks and each of these attacks can be assigned a different weapon at your disposal without using TWF rules. You could use a weapon in each hand, a boot blade on each foot, a boulder helmet, and an unarmed strike with your hip and, so long as you aren't gaining extra attacks by means of using an off-hand weapon, beyond your iteratives and the extra attacks granted by other sources, you aren't Two-Weapon Fighting and suffer no associated penalties.
Once again, combinations vs permutations. The FAQ lists combinations of attacks, not permutations. Shortsword as main-hand and Dagger as off-hand is one combination, but can be performed as five distinct permutations, and again with Dagger as main-hand and Shortsword as off-hand. But it's OK, as even JB himself got it mixed up briefly here before realizing the error and correcting himself two posts later.
The ordering for off-hand attacks is a consequence of terminology. ITWF grants you a second off-hand attack. You can't have a second of something until you have had a first so you cannot make the off-hand attack granted by ITWF until you have made your standard off-hand attack. Likewise, GTWF if a third off-hand attack and follows the same logic. Though described differently, the end result is the same; each pool of attacks, main-hand and off-hand, must, independently of one another, follow their respective orders from highest to lowest. To illustrate:
BAB +11, ITWF, Shortsword and Dagger, total melee attack bonus +17, main-hand in bold, off-hand in ooc, your permutations are as follows:
Shortsword +15/Shortsword +10/Dagger +15/Dagger +10
All the above listed permutations of attacks follow all applicable rules concerning the ordering of attacks. Additional attacks, such as from Haste, a Speed weapon, ki points, or any other source may be planted in the above permutations at any spot. But the main-hand iteratives and off-hand attacks must fit into one of the above permutations in order to be valid.
It depends on whether or not the other properties (flaming, holy, etc.) are considered "independent" or if they are attached to the enhancement bonus the weapon normally provides. In other words, is it a (+2) (flaming holy) Cestus, or is it a (+2 flaming holy) Cestus. If the Flaming and Holy property are a "part of" the +2 enhancement bonus, then if that enhancement bonus is overridden by a higher enhancement bonus, the flaming and holy are overridden as well. If they are considered separate, then only the enhancement bonus is overridden but additional enhancement-equivalent properties would stack.
A cone is a cone. Cones are 3d. A 2d cone is called a triangle, and no spells specify that.
You're apparently misunderstanding the original question. This isn't about 3-D combat involving aiming the cone from above and what shape it would make. This is about aiming the cone directly at the ground beneath you and the flames "billowing" out around you like running the sink faucet directly into a spoon.
Magic physics don't really follow normal physics. If you had a flamethrower, and aimed it at the ground, yes, it would, indeed, billow out and cover an area. But the flames from Burning Hands would merely stop short once they hit the ground or any other solid barrier, provided the flame wasn't intense enough to destroy the barrier. As another example, a Fireball isn't really an "explosion" of flame as some might imagine; it creates no shockwave from expanding air, and radiates no heat beyond the limit of its radius. It merely fills the designated radius with fire with no displacement and the fire merely "goes away" after it is done. Moreover, if you detonate the fireball at the far end of the range of the spell, the sphere will be truncated because the fire cannot exist beyond the maximum range of the spell; you'd end up with a cut-off sphere making a dome with a rounded bottom.
Now, if you were flying and aimed the cone downwards, and were high enough, yes, the cross-section would generate a wide circle of fire. But, beyond that, you're out of luck, Chuck.
Combat Expertise wouldn't be used at all because you no longer satisfy the prerequisite (unless you are able to bypass the prereq).
Keep in mind that Golarion =/= Earth. Development of technology on Earth can't really be used as a benchmark for development of technology on a completely different world because different socio-economic pressures would be present. Furthermore, keep in mind that not all geo-political regions are identical. While Europe was in the industrial revolution, Africa was still in a far less developed state. But the Zulu, wielding spears and hide shields, were still able to repel European troops wielding firearms. So it isn't as simple as saying, "Technology A exists, so technology B would be obsolete and not used."
So, given the simultaneous existence of all the weapons, armor, and other technologies in Pathfinder, we cannot equate it to any distinct time period in Earth history; it isn't "middle ages", "dark ages", or any other time period label we have at our disposal. It is what it is, and that is a period in which articulated plate armor, firearms, heavy crossbows, magic, dragons, and EXTRAPLANAR TRAVEL exist (these last three are rather important).
They cannot communicate, but they still understand who is an ally and who is an enemy. They can't use Int or Cha skills (so no intimidate or Knowledge checks, etc). Beyond that, it has no effect. There is no minimum intelligence required to use Fighter class abilities nor feats that don't have an Int prereq. There is no Int prereq to use flanking or to know to get into flanking position. The spell doesn't turn you into the mental equivalent of an animal; a Human with 1 Int is drastically different from an animal with 1 Int.
Gwen Smith wrote:
The FAQ was giving an example, not an exhaustive list. It presented combinations rather than permutations of attacks. The rule is that attacks from high BAB must be taken in order and that the attack from ITWF is your second off-hand attack and from GTWF is your third off-hand attack. You can't have a second before the first and you can't have a third before a second, thus, the off-hand attack pool ends up following the same order, but they are handled separately. Each pool of attacks, mainhand and off-hand, must be made, independently, from highest to lowest. Additional attacks are a separate animal altogether, and maybe shuffled in at your discretion.
Chancellor: Yes, we have a task we'd like you adventurers to undertake. It seems there is a giant wandering the fields outside of the city. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, but this giant happens to also be a Magus of some sort. His spells and enhanced weaponry make him a formidable foe that we haven't been able to manage thus far. The giant is approximately 12 feet tall and can be distinguished from others by a sort of hide robe made of various animal skins but fashioned as a mage's robe, a large scar down the left side of his face, ruddy red hair, and he wields a large black bastard.
Adventurer: ... um... could you, uh... repeat that las...
Chancellor: *turns page over* ... sword. He wields a large black bastard sword.
A few things to note:
Next, the stat blocks for each weapon:
The Kusarigama states that the sickle is "held in the off-hand". This doesn't mean it can only be used as an off-hand weapon because that's not how TWF works. What it means is that, when wielding the weapon, the sickle is held (not thrown or swung around) while the chain end is actually doing the swinging. This means that you don't reach with the Kama part, only with the chain (this fits real-life usage of the weapon). 1d6 matches the damage of a Kama so it fits that this is the dice applied to the Kama end, leaving 1d3 to be the damage of the weighted chain. It is a Double weapon, but this serves less for actual TWF, since you'd need one foe at reach and the other adjacent (or utilize 5' step), but more so that you can use the weapon at reach but still threaten adjacent with the Kama end. Any weapon can make a trip or disarm, but those specific properties on a weapon provide specific benefits; the trip property allows you to drop the weapon in lieu of falling prone if you botch your trip attempt, for instance. Now, arguably, both ends ought to have trip since a Kama has the trip property (easily drop it if you fumble your trip), but the weapon explicitly states that the Kama end is the one designed for tripping while the chain end is designed solely as a reach weapon. This would imply that only the Kama end counts as having trip; this doesn't mean you can't trip with the chain end at reach, only that you can't drop the weapon in lieu of falling prone if you fumble the attempt. Ultimate Equipment adds a line to the Kusarigama stating that the chain is also used as the disarming end. So the Kama end counts as having the trip property, but not disarm (matches stats for a Kama) while the chain end has reach and disarm. Altogether, it is a mess of a weapon, but still somewhat understandable.
Now, the Kyoketsu Shoge is a total mess. The Kusarigama is a mess, but you can puzzle out most of the rules elements, at least. The shoge is an absolute cluster!$*&. To start with, it doesn't even have the double weapon property. This means that you cannot use it for TWF like you can the Kusarigama or a double-chain Kama. But you can still use it as a single-handed weapon because the dagger portion of it can be used just as a plain old dagger with the rope and hoop not used. The dagger wouldn't be "swung" at reach, but the hoop can be. But you can throw the dagger, though, if you keep hold of the rope, its range would be limited to about 10'. If you let go of the rope, of course, it can travel further. Since it isn't a double weapon, all parts of it do the same 1d4 damage, with explicit exception for the hoop dealing bludgeoning damage rather than S or P. It also wouldn't be magically enchanted separately as a double weapon would be; rather it has one set of enchantments that apply to the weapon as a whole.
Honestly, until weapons like this are streamlined and more consistently codified, I'd personally avoid using any except for the double-chain Kama since that, really, is the most directly straightforward of the whole lot.
Unarmed Attack =/= Unarmed Strike
Unarmed Strikes are a sub-set of Unarmed Attacks. Gauntlets are their own weapon; they count as Unarmed Attacks, but not as Unarmed Strikes. Wearing gauntlets lets you deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes, but attacking with an Unarmed Strike that deals lethal damage as an exception is distinct from attacking with a Gauntlet as a Gauntlet weapon. To illustrate, a Fighter who doesn't have IUS, but has a pair of gauntlets, could make an Unarmed Strike that deals lethal damage, but it would still provoke as Unarmed Strikes without IUS normally do. If this Fighter had an AoMF (or other item that enhances unarmed strikes), their Unarmed Strike would have an enhancement bonus and deal lethal damage, but would still provoke as they lack IUS. Conversely, this same Fighter could attack with the Gauntlet as its own weapon. In this case, it deals lethal damage and doesn't provoke, but it also doesn't benefit from the AoMF. Lastly, an enhancement bonus on the Gauntlet doesn't enhance Unarmed Strikes because the only benefit the Gauntlet gives to Unarmed Strikes is the non-lethal-to-lethal allowance; you are still attacking with the Unarmed Strike weapon and not with the Gauntlet weapon.
@mdt: A theory explains observed data. If you observed a player make an attack that dealt significantly more damage on a Sunder than such an attack normally would, but you didn't know what feats/abilities they had, you might develop a hypothesis that he has Power Attack and Vital Strike. You might go about testing this hypothesis and, if you cannot otherwise rule it out or find a better explanation, you rely on the Power Attack + Vital Strike theory. What you are talking about isn't a theoretical matter since it isn't explaining any observed data. This is an actual matter since all the rules and their interactions, in this context, are known. Alternatively, it might be a potential matter if, instead of talking about the rules in general, you are specifying the potential of a specific character. So, the correct statement to make would be one of the following:
... so actually, you can Power Attack a Vital Strike Sunder, if you have all the feats. General: stating an actual fact in the rules.
... so potentially, you can Power Attack a Vital Strike Sunder, if you have all the feats. Specific: stating a potential usage of the rules, dependent on the actual resources of the character in question
It isn't "time travel" but "Schrodinger's actions" at play. At the beginning of a round, everything within the round is in a state of quantum uncertainty. It has already happened for the characters, but the players are unaware of how it all played out. All turns happen in parallel because a round is 6 seconds regardless of how many people are involved. So, whoever had the highest initiative count doesn't get to "act" first, they get to "find out how they acted" first. Not time travel but quantum mechanics.
You can also Power Attack a sunder attempt, so
Fixed it for you.
Longsword is supposed to be "two-handed sword".
So, whereas in Pathfinder, the general order of size is:
...what it should be is:
So, you're willing to say it's reasonable to have a magically durable fragile weapon? I mean, like, with a straight face? Also, you don't seem to understand the difference between 'matters of fact' and 'matters of opinion'. "I like cheese" is a matter of opinion. One person can like cheese and the other person can dislike cheese and neither is wrong, despite differing. By contrast, "this is goat cheese" is a matter of fact. It either is, or it is not, goat cheese and, if two people differ on the matter, they cannot both be right. How the Fragile property is handled is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. Phrasing it as if it were a matter of opinion (which implies you cannot be wrong) is disingenuous.
Fragile, and the effects it imposes, cannot be segregated. It would be absurd to say that the weapon, despite suffering none of of the penalties associated with the Fragile weapon property, is still Fragile. Fragile means easily broken. If it isn't easily broken, it isn't Fragile. Magical weapons are not Fragile. That is the most logical conclusion that can be drawn from the rules at hand.
Even if Vital Strike were its own standard action (it isn't), you could still combine it with Sunder because Sunder replaces any melee attack. You can Sunder during your Cleave, you can Sunder as an AoO, you can Sunder using Spellstrike, etc. And the extra damage from Vital Strike isn't precision damage or, otherwise, damage to which an object would be immune, so you're good to go; vital strike their armor or weapon into oblivion.
Ooh, that's nice. I had an idea for a character who has a glass eye with Permanent Darkness cast on it and covers it with an eyepatch, so he could just remove the eyepatch if he needs handy darkness, but this is a far less expensive solution. This would do nicely, since it can be replaced easily if dispelled.
Bone is an exception, but not in the way you are thinking.
The rules for Fragile state, "Masterwork and magic fragile weapons/armor lack these flaws unless otherwise noted..." Bone's statement regarding Masterwork is the "otherwise noted" exception that masterwork does not remove Fragile for Bone equipment. By default rules, Masterwork (and Magical) would remove Fragile, but in the case of Bone, Masterwork does not remove Fragile; but it goes on that this exception does not extend to magical Bone equipment which still follows the standard rule (magical removes fragile). The flaws that the Masterwork/Magical rules element is referring to is are the flaws that make the material fragile. The weapon is fragile because the weak material suffers the stated effects, not the other way around.